Crosswords2 mins ago
The Mail - Unjustified Hysteria Over British Comedy?
45 Answers
I was browsing the Mail website after reading another thread on AB, when I came across this:
http://
Essentially, the author seems to be arguing that TBFQOTY was an offensive, shocking and distasteful display which should never have been broadcast. They hate it so much, in fact, that they reprint 'the worst parts' all over their article. Did any of you who watched the quiz find it offensive? Does anyone reading the Mail's cherry-picked quotes find them offensive?
This isn't the only time the Mail has published sensationalised nonsense about the state of modern comedy - e.g. Jan Moir's baseless tirade against 'a cabal of foul-mouthed Left Wing comedians' who were alleged to 'hate' Michael McIntyre. (you can see Stewart Lee's response here: http://
Should we listen to these concerns about modern comedy, or are they overblown? And aren't these the same people who on another day will claim that the 'PC Brigade' is censoring all public discourse to stop offending people?
http://
Essentially, the author seems to be arguing that TBFQOTY was an offensive, shocking and distasteful display which should never have been broadcast. They hate it so much, in fact, that they reprint 'the worst parts' all over their article. Did any of you who watched the quiz find it offensive? Does anyone reading the Mail's cherry-picked quotes find them offensive?
This isn't the only time the Mail has published sensationalised nonsense about the state of modern comedy - e.g. Jan Moir's baseless tirade against 'a cabal of foul-mouthed Left Wing comedians' who were alleged to 'hate' Michael McIntyre. (you can see Stewart Lee's response here: http://
Should we listen to these concerns about modern comedy, or are they overblown? And aren't these the same people who on another day will claim that the 'PC Brigade' is censoring all public discourse to stop offending people?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm being hypothetical, but not rhetorical - as I said, I have no "right" answers to the questions I posed.
To put it as straightforwardly as I can: you're commissioning a satire show. Some of the guests propose insulting the Prophet. Experience suggests this may result in danger to people's lives and property (illegal and bullying, certainly, but real). Do you tell them to go ahead?
If you do, have you concluded that freedom of speech is more than important than a risk to people's lives?
If you don't, have you concluded that potential risks to public order take precedence over freedom of speech?
I repeat that I don't have a right answer; but I suspect the second answer is the one most governments would take, as they do when provocative marches are planned. It's probably the one I would take too, but without being sure I was "right".
To put it as straightforwardly as I can: you're commissioning a satire show. Some of the guests propose insulting the Prophet. Experience suggests this may result in danger to people's lives and property (illegal and bullying, certainly, but real). Do you tell them to go ahead?
If you do, have you concluded that freedom of speech is more than important than a risk to people's lives?
If you don't, have you concluded that potential risks to public order take precedence over freedom of speech?
I repeat that I don't have a right answer; but I suspect the second answer is the one most governments would take, as they do when provocative marches are planned. It's probably the one I would take too, but without being sure I was "right".
"read some of the comments down the page"
The worst insult I can find on that page is someone on the internet calling him a "posh southern Yabbie."
Not a sentiment I'd side with, but I'm really not sure it's the kind of persecution/nastiness he or his fans have been complaining about... It just means there's a moron with a keyboard somewhere who doesn't like him (who is presumably Northern unless he's a self-hating East Anglian or something).
The worst insult I can find on that page is someone on the internet calling him a "posh southern Yabbie."
Not a sentiment I'd side with, but I'm really not sure it's the kind of persecution/nastiness he or his fans have been complaining about... It just means there's a moron with a keyboard somewhere who doesn't like him (who is presumably Northern unless he's a self-hating East Anglian or something).
"I repeat that I don't have a right answer; but I suspect the second answer is the one most governments would take, as they do when provocative marches are planned. "
Yes, you're probably right. If I were an executive, I'd like to think I'd choose the first option - because I don't think it's fair or reasonable to hold anyone except those that commit violence responsible for that violence. But I don't know for sure, because I'm not an executive.
Regardless, though, even if my choice were the second one - I don't think anyone would describe this as a desirable state of affairs. Notice the backlashes against Islamic attempts to censor entertainment - the International Draw Muhammed campaigns launched online by people who can't easily be targeted by fanatics. Just because some exectives are threatened into submission by theocratic bullies, this does not mean censorship is OK.
In fact, I think it proves the opposite - the only instance where it might be acceptable to avoid offending people is when they're threatening to harm you or your family if you don't. I don't see why that kind of moral protection should surround the Royals - or anything in the public domain, if I'm honest.
Yes, you're probably right. If I were an executive, I'd like to think I'd choose the first option - because I don't think it's fair or reasonable to hold anyone except those that commit violence responsible for that violence. But I don't know for sure, because I'm not an executive.
Regardless, though, even if my choice were the second one - I don't think anyone would describe this as a desirable state of affairs. Notice the backlashes against Islamic attempts to censor entertainment - the International Draw Muhammed campaigns launched online by people who can't easily be targeted by fanatics. Just because some exectives are threatened into submission by theocratic bullies, this does not mean censorship is OK.
In fact, I think it proves the opposite - the only instance where it might be acceptable to avoid offending people is when they're threatening to harm you or your family if you don't. I don't see why that kind of moral protection should surround the Royals - or anything in the public domain, if I'm honest.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.