Is anything out of bounds in comedy?

[Return of the Silver Fox]

The BBC in Japan have apologised for any offense caused following jokes on QI about a man who survived both atomic bomb attacks on the country.

Is there anything in comedy that is off limits?

Are people more easily offended nowadays or more socially aware?

 

[Cook$]

Was a complaint made or did they apologise regardless?

 

[Karlashnekov Staves]

i know Frankie Boyle got into a load of trouble for a comment he made bout Jordans son Harvey but hes a in your face comedian and is always droppin jaws when he comes to the stage but i think its the "whats he gonna say this time" that i like bout him. youd think after comics like Chubby Brown people would be happy with the odd blind child joke. i know its not funny and is pretty bad but its gotta beat constantly hearin bout cloppers and fudge packers. stand ups seem to work on reaction and say what everyone else is thinkin rather then the good old joke sketch these days. its like everythin else.. if you easily offend dont watch it.

 

[3L1TE hax]

Qi is hardly offensive and Cook$ a complaint was made.

Franky Boyle is actually overly rude in my opinion, there is a line in comedy between being genuinely funny and then being an outright **** to someone.

Obviously there are madeline mcann jokes and other politacally incorrect jokes, and i wont lie i find them ver funny but they are made funnier by being taboo and not to be taken seriously. I feel that Franky Boyle sometimes takes it a little to far, as if his comedy relies on him swearing and making harsh jokes.

 

[Robbo]

It must be coz I'm old or something but for the life of me, I cannot see how anybody would wish to take credit over something 'funny' said about Madeline Mcann or anything of that ilk .... I find it hugely offensive on oh soo many levels and completely without any form of justification ... maybe I'm out of step with modern thinking but in this case, I'm glad I am because if you can find humour in a case like that then nothing is out of bounds and once you break down all barriers as far as humour is concerned, social amorality is close behind.

 

[MainManHere]

I know someone studying Journalism at University, she says that whatever content that is published or broadcasted or communicated to an audience in anyway is subject to laws. For example Jeremy Clarkson (Top gear) is the most sued celebrity because for everytime he mocks a celebrity he can be sued for deffemation (Dunno how to spell) but it means your attempting to damage that public figures reputation. So comedians CAN be sued for their jokes, but in the celebrity world it is frowned upon as some comedians persona is very blunt and they often relate their content to the latest news.

So celebrities are highlited as attempting to destroy a comedians careers, therefore they often do not press charges.

There are more laws depending on certain criterias, but in a brief sense, yes there is boundaries in a sense and they do face real life consequences sometimes.

 

[Bambulus]

It must be coz I'm old or something but for the life of me, I cannot see how anybody would wish to take credit over something 'funny' said about Madeline Mcann or anything of that ilk .... I find it hugely offensive on oh soo many levels and completely without any form of justification ... maybe I'm out of step with modern thinking but in this case, I'm glad I am because if you can find humour in a case like that then nothing is out of bounds and once you break down all barriers as far as humour is concerned, social amorality is close behind.

Taking credit has nothing to do with it (except Frankie Boyle - that guy WILL say anything).

Anonymity is one of the main foundations of dark and vile humour, and easy access to several online outlets means that some 'jokes' can be shared and cultivated without any social, or moral, restraint.

But hell, people like Frankie Boyle don't get much incentive not to. Sure, his offensive and sometimes vile jokes may have got him removed from Mock the Week, but he's since moved on to his own TV show, sold out nationwide tours, DVD's and the lot. Living example of the 'no publicity is bad publicity' philosophy. He wasn't the first, and he definitely won't be the last.

 

[dodge-gnome]

I know someone studying Journalism at University, she says that whatever content that is published or broadcasted or communicated to an audience in anyway is subject to laws. For example Jeremy Clarkson (Top gear) is the most sued celebrity because for everytime he mocks a celebrity he can be sued for deffemation (Dunno how to spell) but it means your attempting to damage that public figures reputation. So comedians CAN be sued for their jokes, but in the celebrity world it is frowned upon as some comedians persona is very blunt and they often relate their content to the latest news.

So celebrities are highlited as attempting to destroy a comedians careers, therefore they often do not press charges.

There are more laws depending on certain criterias, but in a brief sense, yes there is boundaries in a sense and they do face real life consequences sometimes.

damn....i'm shocked ricky gervais has any money left after his golden globe openings!

 

[Missy-Q]

I think there should be no boundaries. You have to judge how close to the edge you want to roll. Some people will go too far, will not be liked, and will set a precedent for the future.
Anyway - Imagine if there were guidelines, but they were set in the 50's.... We woulddn't exactly be rolling around on the floor after hearing a couple of fart jokes (if you're lucky).
Humour changes as society changes, and as we change faster, the humor will too. You can't legislate 'sense of humor' it's way to subjective. If people offend, they will not be hired. It's natural selection at it's finest.

and gervais was funny, the ego's in that room were so ginormous he was bound to deflate a couple of them.

 

[Tony Harrison]

What is off-limits is a matter for the morality of the individual.