Poll: Frankie Boyle challenged over Down's Syndrome joke

[Mrsoupcup]

Freedom of speech For The Win here, for both of them.

He's allowed to say whatever the hell he wants, he makes his living out of telling nasty, spitefull (and occasionally very funny) jokes.
She doesn't like that particular strand of it, with good reason.

They can both voice their opinions about it.

I actually have a disabled brother, look if I can laugh at racist and sexist jokes then what gives me the right to censor a joke I just don't like? After all its a joke, if you can't make fun of everyone, then you can't laugh at anyone.

 

[Cody211282]

Well it's not like the people with down syndrome care

[sub]because they cant understand it[/sub]

 

[Chechosaurus]

As long as the man doesn't genuinely have anything against people with Down Syndrome then I don't think it's an issue. I think this is another situation of PC gone mad. If there is no hate then it is just a joke. By very definition, a joke is something that is not intended to be serious.

 

[DefunctTheory]

But should somebody popular and infulential, like a comedian, be allowed to make jokes that could perpetuate a negative view of a certain group of people? Would you support a comedian making racist or anti-semetic jokes?

Ditto to this.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should - and Frankie Boyle really shouldn't have been ripping into folks with Downs syndrome like this. Still, it is only Frankie Boyle, a rather pathetic comedian who can't make people laugh with actual humour, so relies on being a beligerant, bullying asshole. Compare him to Michael McIntyre, who manages to bring the house down laughing every time without being nasty to anyone - not even politicians.

I am rather more concerned at the results of the poll and at the people defending Boyle in this thread.


Defend that as free speech. If not, explain the difference, other than the fact that people affected with Downs Syndrome are considerably less capable of defending themselves.

I don't have much to add, other than free speech, no matter how disgusting, has to be protected, as long as the intent is not to cause mental distress on a particular person (Note, INTENT).

Also, godhatestheworld.com is HILARIOUS (The guy mentions is at the end of the clip. I agree with nothing on the site, I just find the audacity and idiocy of the site funny).

 

[lacktheknack]

You should be allowed to make these jokes, but the victim should be allowed to denounce the joke or slap the comedian.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

I look after a child with down's syndrome. I don't give a fuck.

If it's a funny comedians should be allowed to insult anybody.

 

[Broady Brio]

If it's directed specifically at them then it's unacceptable.

Then again, I don't like Frankie Boyle anyway in the 1st place.

 

[NeoAC]

And Frankie thought he was being censored on Mock the Week.....

No, this is bull. Humor is one of those coping mechanisms that humans have come up with to help understand different things. IF you're going to say "Oh no, you can't make fun of (lets say for the sake of example) fish," then of course now fish are going to be viewed a different way by society. People are going to grow ignorant of fish, and will be even less tolerant of any problems with fish. Fish will eventually be hated by society and the oceans will repopulate.

Now that's an extreme scenario, but the point is, by keeping certain topics out of discussion (and jokes can lead to discussion), you only breed further resentment and ignorance on the topic. There have been instances where I've heard someone make a joke, and I'll go "hmmmmm, I wonder what he meant by that," then I'll wiki it, and I'll learn something new about a topic I never would have thought of. If you completely censor a topic, how is anyone going to be piqued to try and better themselves by learning about it?

Plus, Frankie Boyle is funny as shit. He is on my all time comedy Mount Rushmore (with George Carlin, Rodney Dangerfield and the tag team of Parker and Stone)

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Well, it's not like people have been making fun of disabilities for centuries now...

Personally, I think it's a good thing if done properly because the first true sign of acceptance into society is the ability to be self-depreciating about one's self.

And this fine lady

has been doing it for some time. Josh Blue and Laurence Clark also does it with cerebal palsy. Doug Bady was suffering from muscular dystrophy but still had a razor sharp wit. As is Alan Shain or Liz Carr. And they all rip into both the able-bodied and themselves with equal vigour.

The real problem is that maybe her daughter actually finds Frankie Boyle funny.

On Boyle himself, yeah, he should be allowed to make those jokes; but like everyone else, he has to be prepared for the backlash from those the joke offends. That DOESN'T mean that everyone can mock him, especially if they themselves use the word "retard", "lunatic" or "just plain crazy".

 

[SecondmateFlint]

Defend that as free speech. If not, explain the difference, other than the fact that people affected with Downs Syndrome are considerably less capable of defending themselves.

I shouldn't have watched that. I felt my blood boiling when he first opened his god damned mouth. I hate that man so much and I'm not even Australian.

OT: I think you're right. I personally believe there is a line that people shouldn't cross. However the point can be made that protecting and keeping people separate only serves to segregate them more.

I don't know Frank Boyle, but he seems pretty desperate for laughs. However reading the article I have to side with the woman. I felt like she handled it well. Maybe the text is biased but that's how I interpreted it. However Frankie felt bad so maybe he'll cut back a little bit.

 

[sokka14]

Well, if Frankie Boyle can't make a joke about disabled people, he sure as hell can't make jokes about almost anything. The point of his humour is that its offensive, therefore you show the awareness that by laughing at it, you RECOGNISE it's offensive.

This woman clearly doesn't understand this vein of humour.

On a side note, Frankie Boyle was a very weak stand-up comedian when I saw him, though I must admit I've stopped watching mock the week now he no longer features.

 

[SmartIdiot]

Well he must've been able to see this coming from the moment he got into the business. You cannot be a comedian like Frankie Boyle without eventually really upsetting someone. Part of the reason he's famous is because his humour is so vicious and he doesn't give a fuck who he offends... until now...

Likewise, if someone puts themselves in that position (i.e. letting his humour into their life) they need to be relaxed, ok with laughing at everything (because let's face it, it's all fair game for Frankie) and not take themselves too seriously. Otherwise they'll just end up being pissed off at every other joke he tells.

Still, lady did a good job calling him out. Who else would have the guts to do that?

 

[Bat Vader]

He does have the right to freedom of speech but at the same time he should know what jokes are going to get him in the most trouble. I respect the comedians that can actually make people laugh without making fun of touchy subjects. In my opinion making fun of someone just because they have a disability is just plain mean.

 

[Timotei]

If you're going to make a joke, be sure to have your dukes up in case someone want to pick a fight over it.

Just because I stated the above doesn't mean I don't support Frankie 100% though.

 

[Kevvers]

Its not so much an issue as to whether he should be allowed to say it or not, more depressing is that people are actually willing to pay to see it. Where exactly is this public appetite for this coming from? Is it the audience's own sublimated desires for brutal cruelty experienced vicariously through the comedian in a socially acceptable setting? Or is it in fact an indication of something more sinister, such as a broad rejection of the notion of polite society in general?

If it is expected that Frankie Boyle makes jokes about disabled people, what does that say about people who go to see him? Do they have a desire (secret or otherwise) to see disabled people ridiculed?

 

[ramboondiea]

frankie is one of the most risqué comedians out there, but its he is a satirical comedian, if your in the limelight, you are open to this, i personally dont think jorden price has any rights here with the crap she does and say. atleast with frankie its his job, but i dont think he has a right to free speech (mainly because under English law it doesnt strictly exist). and yeah some jokes can take it too far, its the "tax of comedy" argument really, but i believe there is a line andfrankie makes a career of molesting this line

 

[Free Thinker]

It's the principle of the matter. If someone even gets slightly offended by something and cries bloody murder of their feelings, then no one can say such things anymore. That is the nightmare world without Freedom of Speech. If I want to tell a raunchy and offensive joke, by God I will!

 

[370999]

But should somebody popular and infulential, like a comedian, be allowed to make jokes that could perpetuate a negative view of a certain group of people? Would you support a comedian making racist or anti-semetic jokes?

Support his right to? I would, without any questions. Go to his show if those were the type of jokes he made? Not sure.

 

[templeg]

Not having heard the exact joke, I can't say, but I'm really on both sides here. It doesn't sound to me like it was in the best taste, but there's an incredibly thin line between 'OK' and 'not OK' and I don't claim to know where that is. To everyone who is criticising the woman, though, I think she behaved pretty well. It says that she was aware of the possible jokes about disability but decided to try and ignore them- if she has a disabled daughter, good on her. At least she tried. And it wasn't as if she deliberately kicked up a fuss- her husband asked her if she wanted to leave, Boyle asked why they were talking, and she only told him why after trying not to make a thing of it. I think it was open-minded of her to go in the first place, and she was admirably restrained and, as far as I can tell, polite when confronted. Then there's her explanation of why she was offended- not the material, but the way it was approached and its 'ignorance'. That's where I think the line is- not the subject but the way it's dealt with.