Comedians Want Free Speech?

Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, and a host of other ‘comedians’ believe they should be given special privileges to offend, malign, and slander. But of course, those privileges should not extend to anyone else. Why? Because they are elitist. They are ‘special’.   Because they ‘deserve’ to be immune. Kathy Griffin came out publically after berating the President, maligning him, and then implying she was ISIS beheading him, and cried because Trump was a bully…

So how would this notion of entitlement play out?

I imagine we would suddenly have a plethora of people claiming they are comedians when charged with lible and slander in court. “It was a joke…” Much like the ‘Twinkie Defense”. The Twinkie made me do it.   Now it would be “Can’t you take a joke?” Everyone jokes a bit, does that mean everyone is really a comedian?

According to various sources, the definition of comedian is: “A person who makes people laugh by telling jokes and acting foolish for an audience.” Charlie Chaplin was an amazing comedian. Then there was Abbott and Costello, Sid Caesar, Dom DeLuise, and thousands more. What made them funny was not how they maligned and slandered other people, but how they made their own character the brunt of comedy.

Comedy was about making fun of one self.

I’m not sure when it became a gun show with everyone else the target, but too often that comes across as simply arrogant and petty.   I have walked out on a few supposed comedians because they were all about pointing a finger, all about look at that stupid person, instead of poking fun at their own errs in life.

It is actually the same in church. When a Preacher starts by pointing a finger and railing on about how sinful the congregation is, people start to shift, lose focus, and their thoughts will typically go to – “Well you are too…”   By contrast, when a Preacher creates his sermon around his own perils and hiccups, people are more likely to relate and take a deeper look into themselves.  It is reflective instead of accusatory.

This bizarre entitlement of speech is highlighted in many liberal newspapers as well. The Washington Post and New York Times went so far as to create tag lines claiming they were the Truth, they were the only source for real Truth. And yet, their Headlines are riddled with defaming our President. That’s not Truth, that is defamatory.  Finding an article that is positive, or unbiased, – ever – is like “Where’s Waldo”. There might be one, but it takes a lot of detailed eyes to find it within the plethora of look-alikes.

Another notable advocate of free speech is Reza Aslan who was recently fired from CNN for his Twitter tirades in which he liberally defamed and cussed various politicians and Trump.

While The Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional right, there are limitations that seem to be ignored, including :

“Libel,  slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security and perjury.”

Fighting Words? The legal definition has morphed since it was first introduced making cuss words permissible. Incitement? I imagine holding a decapitated head of our President is most definitely a form of incitement… I imagine demanding someone be ‘raped’ or ‘shot’ is most definitely a form of incitement and clearly crosses the line of legality – but also ethics and morality.

Bottom line. Many in society seem to have lost the concept of integrity, defined as having strong moral values and honesty. Everyone believes they are honest, but moral values are bit more subjective. So I thought I’d see how the New York Times might see this.

According to an article published in 2015 by The New York Times, morality is subject to relativism and cultural differences. Which basically means that it is completely up for grabs and there are little, or few, absolutes.

In essence, society has broken down into an ‘anything goes’ without boundaries of ethics, moralities or even legal absolutes. And in that mantra, entitlement abounds.  And so we are left with a bizarre concept that comedians be given special rights to malign, slander and incite hatred…, newspapers be allowed to malign and incite hatred, and boundaries are simply a puritan ideology of the past.

Trump Tax Returns… Yawn

This whole tax return fiasco is rather mundane and would be considered a yawn except that Hollywooders feel obligated to contribute, fund and voice their witty opinions with regard to Trump’s tax returns.  

I don’t know, why don’t we just demand that every Hollywood elitist making over a million release their tax returns, and offshore account status? Maybe we should require all tax haven countries to release said data? Because, we’re paying their salaries, so we should have a right to know all their private data – right?

There is NO law that mandates any presidential candidate release their tax return. And it is a fairly nouveau concept that was initiated by of all people – Nixon, but it wasn’t voluntary, it came about as a result of the Watergate debacle as well as Agnew’s mess of bribery and fraud.

Reagan released one year and claimed it was an invasion of privacy. Gerald Ford didn’t release anything. And Bush and Cheney released partial pieces and synopses, although Bush’s showed heavy charitable contributions – upwards of 62%. The Clinton’s were vague, given they had numerous safe havens, the tax returns were not investigated.

However, what has been consistent with the Obama’s and Clinton’s is the vast wealth accumulated just prior, during and after their elections that eludes to the possibility of hidden or havened or manipulated reports of true income and assets. Lest we forget the bemoaning of Hillarygate as she claimed they were broke leaving the White House only to magically buy multi-million dollar properties and lavish in the bourgoise comfort of a sudden massive accumulation of wealth. Of course, we now know much was at the sweet bequest of the Saudi regime.

The major difference is that Trump is coming into the White House with massive wealth and thus his greed factor is considerably less motivated – for him, it is all about ‘legacy’.   Not the monetary legacy that is so prevalent among the mindset of Liberals, but the legacy of change and actually making things ‘better’. The historical legacy. And in that – privacy.

Hollywood should take note and comply with the law.   If they want to change the law, then we can discuss that option, but at this point they are whistling Dixie.   As I recall, Obama was asked to release his transcripts from college, which he adamantly refused to do despite the consensus that he had falsified his admissions, his source of ‘scholarship funding’, and his prowess as a student.

Alas, the Debra’s of the world don’t seem to think that is important. It is important to acknowledge that after Mz. Debra’s fame in the Will and Grace series, she has been ordained within a number of failed campaigns before her current role of sitting on the sidelines.

Bottom line, Messing is allowed her ‘opinion’, but so is everyone else that may or may not agree with her. The difference is that conservatives don’t tend to claim their opinion is the only one – and everyone else is an idiot or deplorable or uneducated or just stupid per the er, Amy Schumer intellectuals.

So while the whole tax return issue is interesting, privacy does prevail. Still, it would be interesting if we had access to all of the Hollywooder’s tax returns so that we could know if they are paying their fair share while we support their livelihood…and if they actually support charity to any extent, and if they are hiding income in offshore accounts because well, they don’t want to actually ‘pay taxes’ they just want to talk about – everyone else.