Seeing the Censorship in Comedy Clearer

Determining which comedy topics shall be allowed on mainstream media networks is decided by entertainment industry executives. Court rulings also influence what is allowed, although  gray areas exist. Because of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, free speech theoretically exists.  Moral standards are not a major factor, when deciding what can be said in stand-up comedy. Free speech and the First Amendment have more influence that moral standards, from a legal perspective. Comedians walk a fine line of testing how far they can push the limits of free speech.   

The legal aspects of Free Speech are not immediate, but eventually have far-reaching impact. In the book, Not in Front of the Children: ‘Indecency,’ Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth, by Marjorie Heins, she explains how, “The high-or low-point in this judicial history came in the 1978 case of Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica when, relying on the purported need to shield the ears of youth, the Court upheld the FCC’s ban on radio or television broadcast of “indecent” or vulgar words.  Justice William Brennan, who had been the architect of the “obscenity exception” to the First Amendment … accused his fellow justices of forcing their personal standards of taste, morality, and child rearing on the diverse American public.” Today, the reverse is true, because children are exposed to much more than George Carlin’s ‘seven banned words.’ Children are allowed to make their own sexual decisions, as they pertain to gender identification and same sex dating options.

The Federal Communications Commission uses Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464  to make it clear that, “Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 769; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)  What is the definition of obscene?  What about hate speech?  The question is, are the terms hate and censorship interchangeably applied? The book,  HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship, by Nadine Strossen explains the differences between these words. Strossen stated that, “Despite the varying definitions that have been adopted and proposed in “hate speech” laws, they all share two fundamental First Amendment flaws: they violate the cardinal viewpoint neutrality and emergency principles by permitting government to suppress speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or feared, and not because it directly causes imminent serious harm.”  Stand-up comedy is discourse-like, and sometimes similar to a monologue-like debate. Questions are sometimes asked, both in monologue style, or in the form of a rhetorical discussion. In U.S. society, the comedian is able to invoke discourse by using humor, and allowing ideas to be logically considered out loud.

Agendas that are designed to quell criticism use accusatory words like “hate speech” or “hate crime” to stifle any dialogue that fosters opposing viewpoints. What is the cardinal viewpoint neutrality principle? Strossen explains that, “Consistent with the cardinal viewpoint neutrality principle, however, government may not punish “hate speech” (or speech conveying ‘any’ particular point of view) merely because some of us-even the vast majority of us-consider its views or ideas objectionable or even abhorrent.” We must also ask, what is the emergency test?  Strossen explains how the emergency test refers to something specific: “These terms refer to criminal acts, such as assaults or vandalism, when the perpetrators deliberately select the victimized persons or property for discriminatory reasons.” The specifics that define ‘hate speech’ are intangible, yet the term ‘hate’ is being applied without considering the context.  In many cases, entertainment industry executives do not want to cause controversy.  They will advise a comic to steer clear of controversy, even when constitutional protections exist.  Court costs and negative  publicity cut into the profit margins that fuel the entertainment business.

Censorship discussions reached their height in the 1960s and 1970s, focusing on government, culture, and society as a whole. The book, A Carlin Home Companion: Growing Up with George, by Kelly Carlin, provides insight into aspects of the late George Carlin’s life that few people know.  Stand-up comedy is not defined by the comedians that earned the most money. Comedy is defined by one’s who strengthen the art form and have an impact on societal dialogue. 

The uncompromising comic   is a ‘comedian’s comedian, due to their purist approach. Stand-up comedy is an art form, yet it must also be acknowledged as a business. Somewhere in his own stratosphere existed Lenny Bruce. He championed both free-speech and free thought, and pushed the envelope on what could be done in stand-up comedy during the 1950s and 1960s. Kelly Carlin wrote that, “During those lean years, Dad paid his dues but also got lucky. One night Lenny Bruce caught his act in Chicago, loved what he saw, and introduced him to his manager, Murry Becker. This was huge. My dad worshiped Lenny.”  George Carlin is an example of an iconic stand-up comedy purist. He would have been more accessible to mainstream audiences if he was not as honest in his comedy. Carlin didn’t play to corporate politics. He was honest, even when it was uncomfortable to hear.

Censorship aggressively regulates comedy.  In talking about Lenny Bruce, Kelly Carlin explains how, “Taking every opportunity to soak up Lenny’s presence, my mom and dad would often drive from New York to the Gate of Horn Club in Chicago, just to see him perform. One night when there Lenny got arrested halfway through his set. This had become the norm. That night the cops did not like his use of the word “cocksucker.” Looking to hassle the club, the cops began to ask everyone for their IDs. When they got to my dad, he defiantly told them, “I don’t believe in ‘identification,” and the cops promptly threw him into the back of the paddy wagon with Lenny.”  Stand-up comedy stands on the pinnacle of artistic freedom, because it invites discourse in ways that few professions ever would. 

Lenny Bruce was charged with obscenity various times, from 1961 through 1964.  George Carlin was arrested before, but was infamously arrested and charged with obscenity in 1972. The thing is, George Carlin never tried to commercially exploit his connection to Lenny Bruce. After Lenny’s passing in 1966, George Carlin could have name-dropped Lenny’s name for the next thirty years in a way that propelled him to another level of fortune and fame.  Also, Carlin did not depend on exploiting the fact that one of his comedy routines was part of a case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court (Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978). If you knew who George was, you knew that he was the involuntarily-nominated ambassador of free speech. One can mention Mark Twain. Walt Whitman. Henry David Thoreau. Those are the literary figures that Carlin can be mentioned alongside with in the same conversation; it would be a stretch because of the difference in eras, but in an academic discussion,  it logical to mention them all together.  Quietly, Carlin simply kept writing and performing. When speaking about censorship, Carlin must be mentioned in any conversation where censorship or comedy are discussed.

Does censorship mute what we say, and does it attempt to slightly  alter the way stand-up comics deliver their material?  That answer is an extensive one.  We must see censorship as an attempt to stifle the exchange of ideas.