You're conflating art and entertainment with real life. At the end of the day, this is still nothing more than the modern version of a moral panic (which almost always turn out to be false and misguided hysteria, whether the satanic panic of the 80s, PMRC of the 90s, the Jack Thompson video game violence scare of the 2000s, or the current hyper sensitivity against comedy). It makes the argument that art/entertainment = dangerous in some real life, tangible form. I strongly disagree with that, and I always will. 

This.  Start restrictions on comedians and something else will be next.  Then something after that.

Remember when full abortion bans was an overreaction from the SCOTUS ruling?  Yeah, I do to.  But here we are.  

Restrictions aren't a good idea.  I stand by my original view, I'm stunned people are so quick to give up freedom that so many fought and died for.  

And if we start restrictions on speech, whomever holds that power has a ton of power....  like Russia and North Korea...  sounds lovely.  

How do you people think propaganda works? 

By this logic, there shouldn't be a such thing as propaganda whatsoever. Yet history, psychology, etc clearly show otherwise.  

For the 400th time, I'm not personally advocating for any kind of restrictions. 

I think the free market does a good job in this particular instance. 

This is a completely different matter. 

The full abortion bans were never going to happen over night for the entire country. 

Many states are still pushing for stricter bans. It's not an imaginary issue. 

Exactly my point and a great example of why giving up freedoms is a bad idea.

Propaganda I equate far more to media - news outlets, editorials, etc. You can make the argument that there is propaganda in art and entertainment, but these fields have the burden of actually having to have some merit or value in order to succeed and be popular. They have to be compelling on some level or people won't pay them any mind and they'll wither away. If their messages are weak, stupid, shallow, or otherwise hold no water, 95% of the time they will never gain traction anyway. This is why the free market is so important. Not just a free market of business but also of ideas. And as is true in the business world, the best will rise while the weakest will fall.

Anyone who is influenced by art/entertainment to the extent that they commit a crime or even do bad in society were ALREADY screwed up on some level and were a ticking time bomb anyway. You'll never convince me that any source of art/entertainment is the cause for any real ills in society (other than reality/trash TV perhaps making people dumber lol).

Art is usually a reflection of society. Not the other way around.

What about Sam kinison and his bit about gay rape in the morgue? It makes fun of gay people and you have a soft heart you might be quite offended. But that's how comedy is, it's nuanced as gay people in the example I gave aren't really the point, it's how the unfairness of life doesn't necessarily stop when you die.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cCItAdezw6A&pp=ygUSU2FtIGtpbmlzb24gbW9yZ3Vl

Here's the bit that I was referring to. Is this punching down too much? What if your whole shtick is to be as loud and wild as possible? I guess it goes back to individual taste to ne and whether you want to buy a ticket. 

I try to understand, but I cannot. I hope you are trying the same. Because even though to you the real issue, the problem, the key here is to "get when somebody is punching down, that some people push power over others, is being condescending, etc". -in other words - people saying things that you don't like. And if enough people feel offended by something, that person (comedian) is going down. Free market.

To me, the problem is elswhere:

1) There is no free market here. It is not about democratic decision making and what most people are for is being done. It is about who screams loudest and most obnoxiously. A few tweets of some seriously sick people are enough to cost you your job. Cancel culture is real and it runs on faux social credit. 

2) There is no evidence that people are influenced by comedy shows in a way that makes them do or even believe bad things. As far as I can see, you have provided no evidence for such a claim yet (which, others have pointed out, seems a lot like the moral panic around comic books, metal music, watching tv, playing video games, etc). Yet there are now frighteningly restricting laws against speech in Scotland and Canada (to name two popular examples). People in these so called free western countries are criminally charged with thought crime, with wrong think. This is Stasi-shit.

3) Yes, hate speech actually exists. There are groups of people who hate others. And they talk about that. But I have not seen any evidence that restricting speech will make the situation better. I would presume it will not, but just make hate speech go underground where it will fester and become something much uglier. 

So I would propose that the problem is not to find out if somebody used wrong think and hate speech and condescending thought. It is that far fewer people (if any) have suffered because of comedy shows than they have because of a political climate where speech becomes a crime. Like it has in Scotland and Canada and many other places. The west lives under de facto blasphemy laws. People lose their jobs, their freedom to partake in public discourse, lose their money, lose their lives. And I am not talking about Iran or Afghanistan or North Korea. I am talking about the worlds bastions for individual freedom. And you seem to be an enabler for malicous people to take that down.

Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean I’m worked up. I’m genuinely confused on your position of conflating comedy with reality and propaganda. If you’re not in favour of banning anything, why do you repeatedly support arguments to give boundaries to comedians? How would you have that enforced if not banning? What outcome do you hope to achieve if you’re not supporting the point that comedians should have boundaries?

I’m other words, if you’re in support of the radical feminists who adapted American Psycho, why do you support the arguments of those who wanted to ban it?

If all comedy works because it’s applicable to reality, then your point isn’t relevant. When Jimmy Carr makes a bunch of pedophile jokes and then points out the warning on viagra “keep away from children” - we can point out the basis in reality, but we can also point out that it’s comedy, and normal functioning people can easily separate it from reality. 

I watched the "offensive" show Sticks&Stones and the the LGBTQ-jokes were only a small part. If that is all you know him for now, then this is because you only consume his jokes out of context from the terminally online twitter bubble.