[Topic 2: Can you define offensive comedy?]
Here we go again. Another comic wades into territory marked "taboo", comes out having offended somebody and a tumult ensues. This week's comic is Frankie Boyle, who has taken an online pasting from Sharon Smith, a Hampshire woman who says she endured an extended series of observations on children with Down's Syndrome, their fashion styles and haircuts, during Boyle's gig at the Reading Hexagon. Smith has a five-year-old with Down's and didn't appreciate the humour. In fact, she found it embarrassing and offensive.
For Boyle, you could substitute Jimmy Carr or Jim Jeffries, or Russell Brand or Brendan Burns, or other comics who have become the focus of debate (and censure) over the material they choose to make laughter from.
Each time, similar responses come up. They range from "some subjects should be left alone" to "everything should be up for grabs", taking in "it's the taboo subjects that need addressing most" along the way. Of course, what constitutes a taboo is itself up for debate, as is what makes up "funny". If I had a bruise for every time someone has said "It's either funny or it's not", I'd be in A&E by now.
An interesting question does remain for me, however, and that's the following: is it possible to actually define offensive humour? To draw a line between when something is challenging our preconceptions and when it's time to fire off an email to the BBC Trust?
Let's first of all put aside the notion that something can't be offensive if it makes you laugh. While laughing is the very heartbeat of comedy, it's highly subjective and easily manufactured. If you don't believe me, look at a baby; they laugh at anything.
So I wonder if a line can be drawn, and to start the ball rolling, here are a couple of suggestions as to what might make something fall on the right side.
For me, the starting point of any good offensive or transgressive comedy has to take power into account. I think the powerful and rich should be subjected to greater mockery than the poor and underprivileged. They've got the advantages, and mocking them is a solace for the rest of us.
Choice. If someone makes themselves the butt of a joke as a result of making a choice, then they're a legitimate target. If they haven't made that choice, not so much. In that sense, I don't think it's legitimate to mock somebody's skin colour or accent. Their habits, however, are a different matter. (I appreciate that when it comes to choice, fat people are in something of a grey area.)
Originality. To me, a taboo is like a nose. Once you've broken it, it's never the same again. Not without expensive reconstructive surgery, anyway. When a subject has been broached, the probability of it being discussed gratuitously rises exponentially.
-wade: walk through water or another liquid or soft substance.
-pasting: If something or someone takes a pasting, they are severely criticized.
-gig: a live performance by someone such as a musician or a comedian.
-up for grabs: available; obtainable.
-A&E: accident and emergency department of a hospital
-preconception: a preconceived idea or prejudice.
-transgressive: involving a violation of accepted or imposed boundaries
-solace: comfort or consolation in a time of distress or sadness.
-legitimate: conforming to the law or to rules.
-broach: raise (a sensitive or difficult subject) for discussion.
-gratuitous: uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.
-exponential: becoming more and more rapid.
Questions
(1) What type of jokes are offensive to you?
(2) When you heard an offensive joke, how did you react?
(3) Can you tell if you are too sensitive to a joke or not?
(4) Do you agree with the starting point of a good offensive comedy in this article?
(5) Have you ever made an offensive joke mistakenly or intentionally?
(6) Did you do anything to cope with it?