Anything making fun of marginalized groups was the reference for what the pink dog said was unfair though, and for what should be illegal. But comedians tend to use satire quite frequently, in fact. They will find a group that is acting like an asshole towards another group, and them make a joke about it. The comedian will basically laugh at this offending group as a way to get even. But what if this offending group has frequently been marginalized? Should they now be off limits for a good society? For comedians? I think not for either case. Who should decide when it is appropriate to laugh at someone? It seems quite wasteful for my tax dollars to pay a couple of lawyers making over $150000 of public money to argue over jokes. That's why we have the first amendment. We don't have to waste time over these vagaries and we just let the people decide with the market. Sometimes people get canceled but so what? That's the power of the market deciding and if people are too offensive then they will lose out. I think the market is a better judge than a trial in this case.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
