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.