Do you think there should be limits to comedy and jokes?
Are there topics that are no-go when you are making jokes?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
35 Answers
No, not at all
”In a world where people starve, are neglected, tortured, killed by drones, I find the idea of being offended by a joke slightly decadent”
No. The very idea is retarded.
“Offence is taken, not given”
No limits, except to the audience – and the person doing the speaking has to be aware of who he/she is speaking to.
Seriously, how would you ‘enforce’ these limits? Short of a personal policeman listening to every word that everyone says, how could you have any sort of limit?
No way. Then any sheltered suburban nanny could control what is said lol.
Jimmy Carr offends only in that he’s an unfunny posh cunt with a giant head
No, not ever.
Also Jimmy Carr rules.
Awww @ucme Did Jimmy insult your mum?
He’s just not funny & his laugh makes me wanna kick him in the cock
My mum wants to sit on his face, but her arse is not that big
^ Not bad.
GA.
“Heh heh heh heeeeeeeeeeeeehhh…”
My quote, way up there ^^^ is from Frankie Boyle, now that’s a funny fucker
People are free to joke about anything they want, doesn’t mean I have to listen. When somebody starts making rape jokes I’m free to walk out of the building.
^^ Great Quote.
I was gonna ask the source.
What do you call a 6 year old without friends?
A Sandy Hook survivor.
“Bush: “I did 9/11.”
Jared Fogle: “I did 11 9 year olds.””
@SecondHandStoke He’s consistently hilarious & winds up the easily offended, that’ll do for me
Depends on what you mean by “should be limits”. It depends on the audience.
If you mean legal limits, then no.
But I think audiences should be taken into account, or else the audience may have a bad time, and think the comedian is terrible, to one degree or another. There are reasonable arguments against being subjected to upsetting language, especially when not expected.
I would have loved to have a gay dad.
Do you remember at school, there were always kids saying “My dad’s bigger than your dad, my dad will batter your dad!” “So what? My dad will shag your dad. And your dad will enjoy it.”
Sex Education at my school was just a warning about the janitor
I don’t know how long I could be a vet before I got bored & started shagging stuff
^ Hmm.
“One in four women are battered.
I prefer mine raw.”
I dig Frankie Boyle, too.
Well, what about “jokes” about abusing a woman or a child or anybody? What about sexual jokes referring to children?
That is the problem I had with the catholic church as a kid; standing, then sitting, then kneeling.
I wish the priest would just pick a position and fuck me.
@Dutchess_III – that’s the crux of the problem. Bad taste isn’t illegal. It’s bad taste. So where is the line drawn?
I personally wouldn’t make jokes about spouse or child abuse, but I’m not going tell anyone that they can’t?
The problem with trying to draw lines of ‘proper’ jokes is that the line can get awfully blurry awfully fast.
[For years Holocaust jokes (even ironical ones, that painted the Nazis in a bad way) were totally verboten. Then you got shows like The Producers and Hogans Heroes and it was OK.]
An important part of humor is the unexpected. That’s why off-color jokes work.
A local comedian, Pretty Paul, offers this one:
“What’s better than fucking a four year old boy in the arse?
—Nothing.”
Horrible? A little. Is he actually promoting the activity or hurting anyone? No. Would I repeat this joke in front of someone sensitive to that subject material? Certainly not.
The rules of decency apply.
@MollyMcGuire – please lay out the rules of decency, and tell us how you arrived at them.
The rules of decency are laid out in Miller vs California (1973), the case which limits the First Amendment with regard to decency.
Isn’t that the one that basically said “I’ll know it when I see it?”
Referring to Miller is a waste of time. It was primarily concerned with obscenity. It had nothing to do with abuse, bad taste, or anything like that.
It introduced the “local community standards” doctrine, which meant that what was good in New York might not be legal in Dubuque. In other words, no standard at all.
And, Miller has been litigated hundreds of times since 1977. The rule is 2017 is not the same as the rule was back then in 1977.
Maybe try again, @molly
Here are the basic holdings in Miller:
1) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2) whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law (the syllabus of the case mentions only sexual conduct, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion); and
3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[12]
Of course it has. I’ve cited it myself a few times. It doesn’t matter if the case was from 1855. The rule still stands. I doubt I’ll ever need your interpretation of a case, Mr. Doesn’tKnowItAll.
Obscenity is what you asked about, dear.
@elbanditoroso
Answer this question 
