Comedians, as EVERYONE ELSE, has criminal boundaries. Including States. Including ISRAEL, recognized as an state by UN. Easy as that.

The problem are the rich people doing criminal acts and being "protected"by its money because the system is too weak or corrupted to make anything against them, even when the system have the capacity to do it. NOT COMEDIANS.

But if you are asking about the possibility to prosecute a comedian for a joke? I will only say this: Better be VERY SURE to prosecute someone for a joke, or even for an opinion, if you have a free speech constitution. Because MANY filthy and evil rich people will try to destroy your freedoms as fast as a sneeze, using it as an excuse.

And i can tell you: you will NOT LIKE SLAVERY.

I don't think it's fair to brand "liberals" as the culprit for the current sanitization or censorship of modern comedy. In fact most truly great comedy I consider more liberal at least on a fundamental level. Boundary pushing, freedom of expression, wild, edgy, critique and challenging of "the establishment", get people thinking, maybe a bit risque, etc.. Those are mostly liberal qualities at least in the traditional sense. Carlin, Pryor, South Park, Gervais, Hicks, Hedburg, Silverman, Burr, Maher, Borat, that sort of stuff..

What's described as the "left" today (at least here in America and seemingly even moreso in much of the West) is a hodgepodge of Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism, Authoritarianism, and a sort of Neo-Marxism - just with race and identity as the focus of division and power structures/hierarchies rather than class, as traditional Marxism hinges on. That's the main source (though not the only one) of the heat comedy tends to get of late. They've ironically taken on more of a Reactionary stance especially on a social/cultural level which I actually equate more with the old right.

I consider myself liberal for the most part. I recognize very few actual "liberal" qualities of today's left as a whole. 

You're using a lot of these big words which is really just obfuscating the issue.  You can't make fun of certain groups any more.  You can't make fun of disabilities, religions, ethnicities, etc etc etc.  This is designed to give a valid place for all of these groups, because if you make jokes then they don't have as much a claim to America as everyone else has.   I guess that is the assumption.  But who would care about this more?  The conservatives tend not to care as much about these groups.  The liberals have fought for them.  So, yes you can very much blame the liberals or perhaps blame the changing sentiments of our time towards some aspects of what the liberals want.  

What is allowed by the law should be the only boundary for them. Questioning perceptions and presenting uncomfortable viewpoints and truths are at the core of good comedy. It is supposed to be a pressure valve, whose roots go all the way back to court jesters, who were among the few people allowed to question rulers, under the guise of humor. It is needed more than ever now, because public discourse has been so controlled and so puritan that it has given the religious control of the middle ages a run for its money.
If it's not for you, just don't watch it. Or maybe you should.

agree 100%

Just on the cancel culture thing. After thinking about it a little... It's a double edged sword and it's not one sized fits all. Hear me out, you might agree and you might disagree...
I'm kinda high, it's my week off, so feel free to question me and I'll amend anything that doesn't make sense... unlike some posters on this community, I can hold my intoxicants 😁

On the one side of the blade, it can work in the favour of comedians who are already made, don't need a day job, and don't require a social media presence to stay relevant. That's why Jimmy Carr, Ricky Gervais, and Dave Chapelle can get cancelled every year and have it generally work in their favour. It creates a danger-line that comedians can flirt with, and even cross over, without being in any real danger. Controversy = cash. Gervais, Chapelle, and Carr are the bad boys of comedy, their controversy sells tickets.

On the other side of the blade, you have cancel culture fucking peoples lives up. Younger comedians are hobbled out of the gate, because they have to sanitize their act. If they don't, the Twitter mob will get them fired from their day job, and that's the best. Right now, the US government could fucking arrest and deport them to an El-Salvadore cartel prison, and soon that new concentration camp Trump's building in Cuba to house 50,000 people outside of the protection of American constitutional rights and the eyes of the press. You have a woman making a satirical dark comedy joke for a small group of friends, and then losing her job before her flight even hits the ground. And it's not limited to comedy, you have people whose friends and families get harassed on social media because they were an executive in some film or TV show, all because a bunch of fucking assholes* who really need a life didn't like their product.

So, on one side, you have a bunch of podcasters who whine about cancel culture, despite it not really effecting them.
But on the other side, you have people trying to say cancel culture doesn't impact anyone.
These people are all a bunch of fucking assholes*, just one side is a bunch of self-righteous cocks* who want to justify their shitty behavior, and the other side are shitty comedians trying to get on Rogan.

*If you're a cock or a self-righteous fucking asshole and take issue with me associating you with being pro-cancel culture, just know this isn't about you. It's about the 4Chan/Twitter mob types that feel entitled to harass and fuck peoples lives up like they're on some crusade to Make Anakin Great Again (yeah, the other MAGA).

I thought of a better and far more brief answer to the question:

Should comedians have boundaries?
Louis CK found his boundaries.

Did he? Seems like he still says whatever he wants. If you are talking about what he did off-stage in his private life, then thats really got nothing to with this.