Jerry Sadowitz

This article seems to have been pulled already. Any recall of what it said?

The point is actually not about how good he is as a comic @Revolution808 I suspect he is not for me.

The point is that he gets to make the joke and we get to judge him on it- laugh or not. And Josie gets to have her opinion about it too.

I have this conversation with kids at school (mainly boys) all the time. Yes, kid you have every right to say that crass/sexist/racist/ homophobic thing that you said. But then I also have the right to find it offensive, give you a detention for rudeness and talk you through exactly why what you said was stupid/offensive. And then calling your parents to tell them what you said.

Because sunlight is the best disinfectant for bigoted views. This thing about ‘you have free speech but not freedom from consequences’ is absolutely true. But is it really proportional to try to get someone fired, ruin their reputation or hound then out of somewhere for saying something that offends you? What do we then do with someone who actual commits crimes with more than an emotional impact?

The consequence of tasteless comedy should surely be word of mouth that it is crass and bad reviews and people calling him out on his jokes. Not, as I have seen reported this morning, The Pleasance ringing round his venues to get his tour cancelled.

Telling that, as many professional comedians see the wider implications of this and are speaking out, Josie Long would say that.

Interesting tweet from Josie Long about how a staff member described his show to her in 2019

Also I remember in 2019 my extra show followed his- the room was like a morgue and the tech told me his show was just unironic racism and islamophobia and that that venue would never book him again.

Knowing the fringe as well I do and knowing how it all works I'm 99% convinced it was student staff at the venue getting collectively worked up and threatening to walk out which would have screwed the venue big time. Hence the weasel words. Fuck the venue - which isn't even the best one (IMHO Summerhall is much better but not really comedy). A lot of the venues within the Pleasance are uncomfortable and very hot with a mental queueing system and make big bucks for the University to whom the building belongs which is why my partner and I nicknamed the Unpleasance.

Times 2012

Jerry Sadowitz wears a lot of hats in his new stand-up show. There’s the Nazi peaked cap he dons as he gets stuck into an anti-Semitic rant. There’s the blond wig he wears as he impersonates, badly, Jimmy Savile, whose sexual proclivities were providing material for Sadowitz about 25 years ago. There’s his top hat, which he slips on after a few foul-mouthed card tricks. And there’s the Santa hat that droops on to his curls for most of the set as he vents his spleen at women, Americans, Asians, the Scots, homosexuals, the handicapped, Michael McIntyre, Nigerians, racists, atheists, believers, white men, the English. Among others.
Whatever you think of Sadowitz — I think he’s amazing, but there’s no question he goes too far: his whole act is going too far — you can’t say the man who named one of his shows Equal Opportunities Offender doesn’t know what he’s up to. This American-born, Jewish Glaswegian lets us know from the off that there is nowhere his bile will not take him. He hates the world, he hates himself. But he will not give us the calming wink we crave. There’s no irony here, he insists (ironically).
If there’s not something in here that doesn’t make you gasp you’re not really listening. But if you can’t cut him the slack he needs then you’re missing out on one of the purest, most powerful comedians of the past 30 years. Sadowitz is a phenomenal performer who delivers each line with fire and fluency. And those lines, however rancid, are carefully crafted to surprise and amuse. His dismissive routine about empiricism and the scientific process, say, or about chocolate and self-loathing, have a breathtakingly offhand intelligence. Does he tell it like it is? Not exactly. He tells it like it feels — to him, to all of us, now and then. The feelings aren’t pretty or acceptable; that’s why we have the safe space of comedy to defuse them. Sadowitz is a bumpy ride. And a great comedian.

Also in the Times, this is Alex Massie's take:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abbd5776-1ca9-11ed-add4-d333562d46fb?shareToken=8b243bbd390ff6666aebec0b4ee263a0

Sarah Ditum's column in The Times. In case people haven't spotted there are some posters working this and the AIBU thread. I have put this there too:

Policing comedy is no way to fix society.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b5290db8-1ccd-11ed-add4-d333562d46fb?shareToken=32cf6c91696c5d428857b590df56af4dd_

I'm famous in my family for not liking comedy shows, comedians, alternative comedy, end-of-the pier humour, carry on films, Mrs Brown's Boys, The Office, comedy panel shows etc etc. But I absolutely understand that all this should be allowed to exist and banning it on the grounds of offence is wrong.

And if anyone tried to ban Tom & Jerry I'd be out there protesting.

Freedom of speech is actually written into the human rights act.

First, "freedom of speech" is a legal principal that exists to ensure freedom from government persecution. "Without interference by public authority" - that's a direct quote. It solely and exclusively refers to people having the right to not be persecuted or oppressed (eg imprisoned or arrested) by the government or other authorities due to what they've said.

"Freedom of speech" has nothing whatsoever to do with forcing people to give you a platform for your views. There is NO right or law that compels a commercial venue to give someone a platform. We can argue that a commercial venue made a bad decision to cancel the show but they are 100% within their legal rights.

Freedom of speech laws would only apply as JS had been arrested or imprisoned due to what he said. He hasn't, so the Human Rights act is completely irrelevant in this specific case.

Second, the Human Rights Act contains numerous exceptions where it's very explicitly spelled out "you do not have freedom of speech under these circumstances." The Human Rights Act explicitly states that governments can overrule freedom of speech, and that people do NOT have the right to freedom of speech, if that speech would endanger national security, harm someone else's reputation or endanger someone else's rights, breach confidentiality, incite crime, or incite hatred.

This is a direct quote from the Human Rights Act:

"2. The exercise of [freedom of speech] may be subject to such restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

The Human Rights Act explicitly says that freedom of speech is not absolute, and that freedom of speech does not apply to certain things. Using racial slurs could be considered to be a breach of hate crime legislation, and hate crimes by definition are excluded from freedom of speech in the human rights act.

From Jonathan pie on Twitter

Going to see Jerry Sadowitz and then complaining he was offensive, is like going to a nudist beach and complaining there were too many turkey skin crotch nuggets on display.

Well said .

The people pleasers won .
I watched JS years ago- his controversy is because he says what he thinks others are thinking. It's not necessarily what he is thinking.
Freedom of speech is actually written into the human rights act .
If you don't want to be offended, if you don't like his style or his content - don't book a ticket .
Do t dictate to the rest of the population that they can't make up their own minds .

I actually think he's a decent bloke , he's of the same vein as bill hicks. (God rest his soul )

Some people like to be offended.
If you do t want to be - and you do t find it funny - don't go buy a ticket . Jerry is hardly unknown for his act . It is what it is . I stand by freedom of speech anyday .

I’m honestly not sure if I’d go to see the show, not because of the penis but because I don’t know if I want someone dismantling and scrambling all my preconceptions of what’s decent and acceptable while simultaneously making me laugh when I don’t want to, and bewitching me with magic. It sounds like an absolute head fuck.

But you know what, I’d like to make that decision myself thank you, not the Pleasance, not some committee, not you. I’m an adult and it’s my call.

Edinburgh resident here. Worth pointing out it's very likely most of the audience knew fine well what his schtick is beforehand (and that's even without the warnings). We paid near £25 each for tickets, Fringe-goers generally won't shell out this amount if they haven't heard of the comedian and just want to take a punt on a show. You don't accidentally find yourself at a show for 25 quid when there's plenty folk shoving flyers in your face for shows of a fiver or less.

The behaviour of the Pleasance stinks. A good rule of thumb at the Fringe - if you don't like what you see (or are "offended") then just leave and get on with your day and let others enjoy it.

That's one question.

The other question is, even if someone (the Pleasance, the audience, the public, the media, the police, the law?) decides he has crossed whatever the line is, what, if anything, should be done about it?

Should any artist or writer or performer be stripped of their livelihood because some people are upset by their art?

I think the question really is, who decides the line?

Ah, I see Vera above has quoted the relevant bit of the Twitter thread.

Interesting to hear others on here who've also seen him perform supporting him and saying his comedy falls the right side of the line between genius and offence.

Sorry, Jemima, you're hardly the only poster here who's been to the Ed Fringe. The first time I went, I was with my parents. I was 16, and can assure you that the very last thing they wanted to do was take me to see any racy shows involving nudity. They still did though. Because contrary to what you say, it ISN'T generally flagged in advance. The vast majority of plays or comedy with nudity do NOT flag it on the blurb, any more than they flag the plotline or a comedian the punchlines. Sure, if all characters are completely nude for extended periods of time. But a bit of light nudity? No.

It's also blatantly complete nonsense to even begin to suggest the Pleasance didn't know what they were booking given he'd performed there for the previous 30-odd years or the staff didn't know him by reputation either. It's a famous comedy venue and he's an incredibly well-known comedian - I'm no comedy buff but I'd certainly been familiar with the name for years. Anyone who chose to work at the Pleasance - and the jobs must be competitive - would be a comedy fan.

And google exists - hardly as though it was impossible to find out he was beyond outrageous and his show involved nudity. The adverts for the show on YouTube - because of course no-one who goes to see a comedy show these days thinks of looking at a clip of the performer first, do they? - here explicitly say 'he gets his dick out'. I don't know how much more blatantly clear he can make it?

You also make some - as far as I can see - entirely unsubstantiated claims the nudity was aimed at a particular woman who was distressed. Do you have a link to this? And that a woman was distressed by being made the personal butt of jokes by him. Again - do you have any proof, because I haven't read anything anywhere else suggesting he either did this on this occasion or has done this previously.

I haven't seen his comedy and it's not possible to view any of his material other than the Jimmy Savile reference online, so can't comment on how it comes across. From someone who clearly has seen him, though, I thought this Twitter thread was interesting. twitter.com/ExcelPope/status/1558942459853422594

It points out how hard it is to tell from a reference to a single word out of context who the joke is on.

And it's not clear to me that a line was crossed here, when apparently it's not been crossed in the last 30 years (and his only previous 'cancellation' was for outing Jimmy Savile).

Maybe he is guilty. But it feels quite weird, tbh that the Pleasance, or a supposedly distressed audience member, aren't making it a little bit clearer exactly what it is he is supposed to be guilty of. If it's actually as clear-cut as you claim.

I've got lots of opinions on this but it's late. But I want to point out that the venue have not cited the nudity as a reason in either statement. It's conspicuous in its absence given that he is known for getting his todger out, but that clearly wasn't the cause of the cancellation. The nudity, and how it was advertised, is a red herring imo.
The statements are about opinions/words, not actions.

The pleasance have helped no one by being so vague about exactly what he said that overstepped their line. If he did direct things at an individual they should say this. I've no reason to think that's the case at the mo. If the pleasance who have hosted him before have taken such a serious step as to actually cancel his show because of the material, and surely that's a huge thing for a comedy venue to decide, then they should be clear about what the line was. The long statement talks about recism & sexism etc but no detail. This lack of clarity is as damaging as the cancellation from a freedom of expression point of view.

He's been performing there years. Management should be able to broach the subject, whether it's a request to remove the relevant part of his routine for night 2, or to tell him why the next night's booking is off.

Jonathan Pie
@JonathanPieNews
So the The Pleasance at the Edinburgh fringe just cancelled Jerry Sadowitz’s show.
The fringe is over. That’s it. Done. No point.
And the next fucking comedian with a guardian column who tells us this isn’t a problem can go fuck themselves

Here is Jerry’s statement. It does sound like the management at The Pleasence have not spoken to him directly and the accusations are now snowballing.

If we are talking about people leveraging power then I find it horrible that someone who manages a huge venue is essentially trying to make an act unbookable.

Jerry’s statement

You wouldn't find Stewart Lee defending a Bernard Manning or Jim Davidson.

I suspect the comedian Stewart Lee might 😀in much the same way he did an entire segment of a show aimed at Islam and Muslims. The reason that got fuck all controversy is (as he explained) because it needed a knowledge of Islam that knuckle draggers wouldn't possess ("We didn't mean like that, Stew. Where you have to know anything. We meant make fun of their hats .....")

None of it makes any sense.

Sadowitz claims not to know why they cancelled the booking at short notice. So they haven't said to him, "you didn't even fill in the form properly to specify nudity in the first place, and we've had complaints. Even if you had notified everyone as you're supposed to, you got far too close to individual audience members when you got your cock out".

Why not? I bet I could say the whole thing without taking a breath, and it can't be the most awkward conversation the management have ever had.

And I have seen the grotesque rape jokes other famous comedians make to female audience members. So even if a member of Sadowitz's audience was genuinely upset by his cock on stage, I can't believe that the staff would take her emotions seriously and walk out over it.

P.S I can say that whole explanation I suggested without pausing for breath!

Does no one else find it ironic that MN are deleting posts "not in the spirit of the site" on a thread that purports to be about free speech ?

Are they? I find it depressing. But also unsurprising.

He's Jewish and far better than Jimmy Carr's so-called holocaust joke which had no nuance or context. It's genius. Led the audience by the nose into a trap. His tour will now sell out and probably have new dates if Jerry can do it but he is very fragile and has pulled out of gigs before because he just can't do it. Saw him in the 80s and 90s and on TV way back. He is unique and in a class of his own and respected by all the greats without question. You wouldn't find Stewart Lee defending a Bernard Manning or Jim Davidson.

It will be the student volunteers that will have ganged up to cancel him after frothing with indignation at the surface and not understanding the context or heritage and probably threatening a walkout so they folded. I go to the Fringe every year for the last 15 indeed am going this Friday and Jerry is a legend, a comedian's comedian - if you don't like it don't go or walk out. It's that simple.