Locking people up for their words is really silly. And such a slippery slope in the long run. The government should not be deciding what is allowed and isn't allowed to be vocalized.

Cancel culture is just absurd.

If you can't give actual examples of these jokes, including the names of comedians saying this, you literally have no grounds to stand on for this stance so how can anyone take it seriously. For all we know, you may be taking these jokes out of context, missing the sarcasm, or don't have a good sense of humor. 

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.

Another problem is defining marginalized groups. Maga supporters and their douche leader think they are marginalized....  

Yes, and break them knowingly.

Comedy is about balance. If something is offensive, it needs to also be either making a point or absurd to the point nobody would take it seriously. If you're just punching down (Using 'comedy' as an excuse to perpetuate racial, ethnic, or other stereotypes, or to shit on marginalized groups), then that's not comedy. That's mean spirited and harmful.

George Carlin and Bo Burnham are two great examples of comedians who say horrendously offensive things, and both are funny as fuck because their audience understands that what they're saying is self depreciative, absurd, or actually making a point about something.

Dave Chapelle is just shitting on trans people. Most conservative comedians are just using comedy as an excuse to justify their bigotry or normalize it.

You need to find that line. Comedy is pushing boundaries, not leaping over them and firmly planting yourself on the wrong side of history.

And for people saying 'don't like it, don't listen'...look, do I have to invoke Godwin's Law here? (Eventually, all arguments online lead to hitler). You can't just ignore the normalization of bigotry, even if it's masquerading as comedy. That's just step on on the 12-step program to a holocaust. That's why so many 'libs' are so quick to jump on this shit and nip it in the bud. We've seen where this shit leads, we know what is going on. We're not snowflakes, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and cutting this shit off when it's still presented as innocuous 'comedy' is halting it from escalating to actual hate crimes. And don't even pretend that's not what happens. Anyone with two eyes and at least two brain cells to rub together can absolutely see it happening in modern culture.

So no, Comedians don't need 'boundaries', but they do need to understand the difference between boundary-pushing comedy and bigotry masquerading as comedy. THAT is where the difference lies. Anyone saying otherwise is wrong, ignorant, blind, or just outright amoral.

Independently of your opinion, be wise enough to know when a "comedian" is attempting to spread their nocive beliefs desguising them as jokes. "Nocive is subjective", I mean nocive in the sense of ideas that go against human rights and harm the social fabric. The Civil War film is out there in theaters to show what happens when groups in society is induced to hate other groups. You gotta question yourself who induce and how they induce.
>> My opinion << is that a healthy society is more important than a mere laughter, that you as a comedian can achieve from your audience by doing other types of jokes. We live strange times nowadays

I'm not interested in the jokes themselves in this conversation, leave them for the judges to analyze. My point is that the boundary must be the law as for anything in society. If I threat you somehow, you must have legal tools to deal with me and prevent me to continuing doing that. The same way goes if I threat you but desguised as a joke, understand? Regarding the threat itself, you want me to give an example of joke so that you can analyze it and see yourself if it is an actual threat or something like that. I don't have a real life example of one that can be categorized as the example I brought (the joky threat). But I defend that you have legal tools to deal with them

The threat would be a call to a harmful action, not words themselves. Words alone that aren't indicative of action are not threats. 

For example, "I think you're ugly" isn't a threat even if it's offensive. "I want to stab you with a knife" is a call to action and threatening. That's the difference. 

Yeah, I know that