Laughing Matters: The Reality of Censorship

 "Can there ever be a case for censoring racist or sexist humour? Is this a good idea, especially when such jokes allegedly do not mirror reality in any significant way?"

Traci-Lynn Timony

PHIL-1013-(40)-23W

Dr. Edward Matthews

March 5, 2023

  

            One must always begin with basics when deciding on which side of an argument to stand; I cannot think of a more basic beginning than defining the terms in the question to be considered. In the case of determining the validity of censorship in the context of ethics (as it relates to racist or sexist humor), one should begin with the meaning of censorship. Oxford Languages describes censorship as suppressing or prohibiting things considered obscene or unacceptable. The ACLU goes further, using the word “offensive," and discusses “imposing personal (emphasis mine) political or moral values on others.” The next term to define is ethics. Dictionary.com defines it this way; “moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.” Already, in defining the two main terms involved in the question, a very prominent idea is illuminated – subjectivity. I would submit that one would be hard-pressed to prove a case for censorship of people’s ideas of what is humorous. Rather, three virtues should be practiced when experiencing an offense of sensibilities: discretion, advocacy, and disassociation.

            John Cleese, a comedian who has both enamored and offended audiences with his comedy said it well, “The trouble is that people have very subjective senses of humor.” This could mean that what one finds knee-slapping hilarious, would leave another shocked and dismayed. In reference to himself during an interview regarding political correctness, he said, “I am offended every day […] but I am not going to expect someone to stop that happening. I just simply speak out about it.” At the risk of belaboring the use of definitions, I think it is also important to note that Oxford Languages defines political correctness as “…carefully avoiding forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.” Therefore, the question of humour, censorship, and ethics – especially about racism and sexism -- is intrinsically linked to the idea of political correctness. Psychiatrist Robert Skynner referenced his idea of censorship in this statement: “If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior.”

            There are many jokes that, in my opinion, anyone with a sense of decency should find offensive. I am often not amused by other people’s poor attempts at humor – and I tell them; however, they don’t always agree! As stated in our text, “people who are offended by a particular joke have a right to say so, but they also must be wary of claiming that such objectionable jokes are also not funny.” (McDonald, 2012, p. 90)

            The censorship of a subject based on subjectivity is a dangerous proposition. I counter that a better use of one’s time could be spent cultivating discretion and advocacy. It has been said that good humor acts as a social lubricant. It would make sense, then, that poor humor acts akin to like magnetic poles, it is a force of repulsion. Rather than quieting those who would act repulsively, allow it! Having the opportunity to witness what people find humorous gives one insight into who they truly are. Stifling a laugh or look of amusement is difficult, it is honesty at its purest. Discretion allows people to decide with whom they want to be associated; censorship represses this knowledge.

Referencing Ronald De Sousa, McDonald writes, “to find such jokes funny means sharing their viewpoints […] to laugh at it is to share it, at least on one level.” (2012, p. 84) If a person is repulsed by disparaging or discriminatory slurs against a marginalized or disadvantaged group, they can use this knowledge and their outrage as an opportunity to speak up and defend! Then, if all else fails, a person can make an informed decision regarding association with the offender.

            In conclusion, I would agree with the statement, “Jokes cannot be condemned concerning any single moral theory, they cannot be defended either.” (McDonald, 2012, p. 90) Humour is subjective; therefore, un-censorable. The wisest approach to dealing with distasteful or offensive humor is to use discretion, promote advocacy, then find the door.