A joke is a story or a question punctuated or answered by a surprise or an exaggeration. That’s all it is. In the recent case of the Daniel Tosh rape joke controversy, it’s important to keep that in perspective.
I’m always eager to rise up in the defense of free speech. You cannot purport to defend free speech if you want to silence everybody who says something you don’t like. I’ve defended people I loathed in the past (Rush Limbaugh), people I’m ambivalent toward (Don Imus), and now I get to defend someone who has made me laugh. And it’s important to do, because the PC media is all over Tosh for his joke about rape.
While it’s easy to admire the media pundit-sphere’s courageous stand against rape, they’re missing the point entirely. You don’t have to think rape is funny in order to find a joke about rape funny. Remember George Carlin? He did an entire bit on rape. First he made fun of the “She was asking for it” mentality amongst men. Then he said, “Imagine Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd.”
“Hey, he was asking for it. Elmer was coming onto Porky. Porky got a hard-on, couldn’t control himself.”
Tosh’s offending comment came not in the midst of a cartoonish routine, but as a response to being heckled over a routine about rape. The offended woman’s version of the story is being reported now without sourcing as if they were the actual words, as in this article by Elissa Bassist. It’s too bad that she, as she wrote, “felt that sitting there and saying nothing, or leaving quietly, would have been against my values as a person and as a woman.” This is not anyone's place. You don’t go to a music concert and shout down the band. If you paid to get into a club and don’t like the act, tough luck. It’s still their stage. Write a bad review of it, but don’t interfere with it.
There are a few cold, hard facts society has to accept. Rape is a brutal crime. And there is no way to stop it. You can kick away the assailant or call the police, but like terrorism, it’s an idea that floats in the ether. You can’t wage a war on it; it’s never going away completely.
So what’s the next best thing? To, as Bassist wrote, “mark these verbal assaults to manage them”? Frightening to note a woman with such a callous attitude toward curtailing speech is editor of a Funny Women column.
There is no reason to pick on her over the others writing about the incident on the Internet. They’re all missing the point. Comedians have a built-in defense mechanism against heckling that is needed to survive. To take Tosh's words as an actual incitement for the raping of a woman is ludicrous. Would it have been better if Tosh said he wants the woman to be murdered on her way out? Might that have been sufficiently exaggerated that people understood it wasn’t to be taken seriously?
Stand-up comedy is the last holdout for free speech in this country. It doesn't exist in print anymore. While Tosh is far from the most cerebral or groundbreaking of comedians, he is frequently funny. I’m much more interested in defending his right to defend his show from hecklers than in joining a witch hunt against him. And in any case, the story’s over - the woman wrote her article and Tosh apologized. What more is there? Legislation? A code of censorship over comedians?
No one has a right not to be offended. This country is a monumental offense of gross overconsumption in and of itself. I assure you, petitioning for Tosh to be taken off the air or writing extensively about how tasteless he is are going to do nothing constructive for anybody anywhere, and certainly won’t have the vaguest trace of an impact on rape. Any argument against him boils down to, “We want to control people who say things we don’t like.” And I’ll stand against that ridiculous declaration any day.


Salon.com
Comments
Well said.
I, in fact was raped in high school - and still think this Tosh backlash is insane.
Huge Carlin fan, as well.
Rated.
We're all allowed to have different opinions. I happen to believe that this situation plays into a larger discourse, one that is very important. That's why I've been discussing it. And gotten a lot of flack for doing so.
It's important to state when you feel something is wrong. It's not censorship to call someone an asshole. It's not even censorship to tell them to shut up. It's only censorship if you use the government to force them to do so or if the media does it in particular cases.
I really feel like this argument has been used extensively by the conservative right to excuse various asshole-ish behavior. Sarah Palin comes to mind. I really don't like to see what appears to be a misinterpretation of freedom of speech.
I don't support taking him off the air, but even then, it's not really censorship, as he's not being carted off to jail, and via the publicity, would likely land on his feet and appear in other outlets. To be fair, as well, media censorship is a slippery sucker. It might not be considered censorship to fire someone for doing something objectionable that affects their employer. For example, although I hate this very much, people who blog about work can get fired for it. And it's not technically illegal.
Government censorship has really specific meanings. Writing about how tasteless he is actually is free speech. If you advocate for one person, then you must advocate for all in this regard. Your argument falls apart there, certainly. Self-censorship has a different meaning as well. Media censorship, another. I don't support media censorship, but someone getting fired for doing something inappropriate is within the bounds of the network's rights.
Nor do I support the idea that I can't call an asshat an asshat. Do you see what I mean? This argument doesn't hold at the center. Look, forget the general rape joke argument for a second. Look at it differently. This guy stood on a stage, in front of an audience, and discussed how hilarious it would be for one particular women to be gang-raped. Whether she heckled him or not, it was over the top and not really very funny. And the reactions from those supporting him are worrisome. When I first heard about it, I thought, "Well, that wasn't a good thing. I'm glad he at least kind of apologized."I expected to hear, "Not a good idea to single out a female audience member with that, even a heckler" from a lot of people. Instead, I heard a lot of male comedians, and a few women, say he shouldn't have apologized and that it was okay.
That's what's really not okay. Is there any way to make you understand this? The thread on Salon has devolved into crap, and I lost my temper several times, but no one has yet made a reasonable point in this guy's defense. They all sound like the same old thing, the same excuses. "Boys will be boys," after all.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Censorship means making speech ILLEGAL. Nobody -- not anybody, in any outlet I've seen -- is saying that Daniel Tosh should not be allowed, legally, to say what he said.
Criticizing an ass for being an ass, and even calling for him to lose his job, is not censorship by any stretch of the imagination. And casting your argument in those terms only diminishes whatever force it might have.
Better said and way shorter than I was. Thanks.
Tough call. A lot of the issue has to do with regulating common sense, which few seem to have anymore, or civil behavior, which is a lost cause in this nation. Speech does have consequences. If someone's free speech incites others to extreme reactions, who is responsible? If this comic (who I am not familiar with) had been beaten up after the show by a husband or friend of the insulted woman, would that have been justified? What if she had been a rape victim?
I think comics are advised to be sure they know what their audience is prepared to tolerate if they want the freedom to say whatever pops into their heads. The lowering of our standards (which are already lower than at any previous time in my own life) for acceptable public discourse is not to be encouraged. A lot of subjects are inherently un-funny to a lot of people. Your right to be funny does not nullify my right to walk out, shun you, or throw a shoe in your direction.
Actually, in the interest of free speech, we are all absolutely entitled to be offended and to use our right to free speech to demand his ouster. He is absolutely free to say whatever he wants, but that also means he gets to man up and take the consequences. That's what society does- it polices its members and sets standards for people who want to be members to follow.
So Tosh can, indeed, speak his mind in whatever manner he chooses. And we have that same freedom.
http://jezebel.com/5925186/how-to-make-a-rape-joke
I still don't like rape jokes, and I really don't like what Tosh did, but this person does a better job of explaining it.
Not a single thing about this "joke" or the reaction or response to it comes anywhere close to being censorship, or even particularly related to the concept of free speech.
Free speech, and by association censorship, are strictly legal terms. Free speech allows Daniel Tosh to call for a young woman to be raped and talk about how funny that would be without fear of legal ramifications. What free speech does NOT grant ANYBODY is protection from SOCIAL ramifications.
Tosh deserves to be called out on this shit. Everybody does. Even Carlin. The idea that the act of rape could even remotely be considered ACCEPTABLE, let alone funny, is part of what gives rapists the social green light to rape, and the justice system to let them off easy. This is something that is absolutely deplorable and it needs to be challenged, often and loudly, no matter where it is coming from (be they politicians, pundits, teachers, or yes, even stand-up comedians.)
It is not only a right, but I would argue a responsibility of any individual who cares about actually ending rape to publicly shame Tosh and others who do exactly the same thing, on a regular basis. Free speech gives Tosh and everyone else in this country the legal right to speak. It does NOT guarantee Tosh or anybody else the right to be HEARD, or agreed with, or not to be heavily criticized.
I did that once and the stand up comedian made a snarky comment about me leaving. I paused, looked at him, and said that I had chronic diarrhea due to a bowel disorder, and that I had the choice to either sit there and shit my pants, or, I could go to the men’s room. In consideration of his fine entertainment, I made the choice to go to the men’s room. He did not have a come back for that. The audience applauded my comment.
Seriously, I would never joke about rape or child molestation. People need to remember there are male rape victims too. (For example, the recent horrifying details of the Jerry Sandusky matter.) Unwanted sexual activity is rape, and nothing less.
If a comedian believes he or she must joke about rape, that is a very bad comedy act.
If something is on TV and I find it in bad taste, I change the station. It’s as simple as that.
And were Carlin alive, he would have made just that point.
Tosh Zero, as his show title calls him, is nowhere near Carlin.
And there's a word missing from this entire discussion, a word that is rarely heard in America these days - wisdom. A person with wisdom would have simply disdained Tosh Zero as a comedian with no sophistication or understanding of his craft. A person with wisdom would have walked out, saying nothing.
'freedom of speech' is useless. what is important is freedom of hearing. you only get it when you let people open their mouths.
Fuck Tosh and the fucktards who think his skit on rape is funny.
Rated!!
Andrea
Well, I suppose it wouldn't be funny if something horrific happened to Tosh but it it seems it would be funny if it became the subject of jokes. If he lost his legs and got called stumpy I guess that would be okay for all kinds of comedy.
Do you know any funny jokes about journalists taken hostage or being killed in war zones? I need a good laugh.
Free speech goes both ways. The woman and Tosh were compelled to say something that went against the grain. And we have the collective right to call Tosh an asshole, sling abuse at him online and petition for him to be taken off the air. Is it warranted? Debatable. But please, stop pretending that this entire hullabaloo poses any danger whatsoever to free speech. To rampant assholery, maybe. But why would that be a bad thing?