 |
| Not pictured: A shield for lazy comedians Photo Credit: HumanRights.org |
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.--The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the first article in the Bill of Rights
There it is, the entire text of the First Amendment, the one that guarantees our free speech. The way it reads literally means that the government cannot throw a person into jail or pursue any means of redress against someone for what they say as long as it's not perjerous or akin to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room. It doesn't that you can say whatever you want without fear of being criticized for it.
There's a debate going on between comedians and their critics that has been raging on for a long, long time. It has taken a lot of forms. Most recently, it's over rape jokes (a genre of joke I didn't even know existed until recently), but it feels like it's taken over several different kinds of humor over time immemorial. The less-refined defenders/fans of risque humor will say those who complain are violating their First Amendment rights. There are so many things wrong with that line of thinking that it makes my head spin.
Firstly, the only entity that can violate the First Amendment is the government. I'd say they do a good job of that by using the Federal Communications Commission to police four-letter words, or on a more local level by having "obscenity" laws. You don't have the right not to be offended, especially by words that are quite silly to be offended by. But in the same token, you absolutely have the right to be offended. And you have the right to voice that offense. Free speech works both ways.
So when a woman, or really anyone as rape affects men too, comes forward and says that rape jokes for the most part are reprehensible, that's a valid viewpoint and is absolutely protected speech. Comics who can't fathom the fact that someone might not want to have something as traumatic and underprosecuted as rape the fodder of jokes need to realize that they can't hide behind the Constitution, because it doesn't grant them the kind of recourse to make their critics shut up, nor should it.
So, there is a legitimate debate of whether rape jokes, or any kind of edgy humor, is needed or tolerable. To me, I could do without rape jokes. Other kinds of edgy jokes have different arguments for or against. My shorthand rule is that if humor elevates the downtrodden and pokes at the establishment, its a-okay. But regardless of my feelings on it, let's stop trying to derail criticism over humor by screaming "FIRST AMENDMENT" like old time religious types yell "FNORD" whenever progress threatens their grip on the status quo, okay? If you want to die on the cross of a joke that makes light of scarring sexual assault, then you best come with something better to defend yourself than an incorrectly-applied dismissal.
