Comedians defending Jerry Sadowitz

[FenlandFuckwit]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-62533592

His latest gig has been cancelled after he told racist jokes and got his dick out. Why are other comedians defending his right to do this? This behaviour is not ok, AIBU to think this is indecent and disgusting behaviour and the venue were correct in cancelling him.

Some comedians did discuss this in public and they make a compelling case for free speech as well as giving context to why JS is an important figure to comedians, and why they should defend him:

twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1558915426624610310?s=21&t=F5bUC-nSYwZ7Pl3oHVW-pA

And they're bending over backwards to say no no it MUST have been the transphobia!

But everything else is ok, it's just those pesky TRAs causing trouble that there is no mention of

@Brefugee

Yes, I remember Jaws! So therefore taking film as an art form - there would be less censorship on that particular film today than in the 70’s, yet there are cries that we are becoming ‘too woke’, we are losing our right to free speech…

Depicting a shark eating a human isn’t illegal, yet there is censorship involved. If my daughter’s primary school decided to show it to the class, I think majority opinion would be that it wouldn’t be ‘right’ but not necessarily illegal?? I don’t know enough about the law here.

So I think it’s too broad a statement to say “I don’t think art should be censored”. I guess what is allowed by law - legal/illegal - those laws exist to protect others from harm.

So I think my point is : censorship SHOULD exist if an art form causes harm. And I think that’s particularly apparent if you think of age restrictions/classifications. But that definition of ‘what is harmful’ if a very grey area. Clearly if it is unlawful - that’s wrong, but there are various moral areas perhaps not covered by law.

It was mentioned by someone earlier on, as being a reason.

That's why it was spoken about.

But there is no evidence of this at all.

So people stopped talking about it.

Apart from the people that keep moaning that people are talking about it.

It's about audience expectation. It might cause an uproar if Michael McIntyre or Eddie Izzard got their wee man out in an act because no one would have gone along to one of their shows expecting that.

Approx of nothing, I was at a performance in about 1999 where Eddie Izzard did get his wee man out. But the context was that it was a play about Lenny Bruce who died naked on a bathroom floor and Eddie was playing Lenny. And the full frontal male nudity was signposted very very clearly when purchasing tickets. Obviously if he did it in the middle of “cake or death, or “le singe et dans l'arbre” it would be a different story.

It used to be that as long as it didn't hurt animals or kids, pretty much anything goes. Particularly if it is adults only.

However, younger adults seem to have a bit of a 'you can say what you want as long as I agree' thing going on.

So in the past, if you don't like Jerry S then don't buy tickets. Now it is if you don't like Jerry S then buy tickets, complain and get him cancelled.

He's not my cup of tea in the slightest but he does warn people before hand and he is playing a character, a character this is not supposed to be liked.

Where does it all end, that we all have to have the same likes, dislikes, opinions and there is literally no comedy any more?

The suggestions I'm seeing on twitter is that it's venue staff who objected. People who were there are saying there weren't any walkouts, just one couple who left a bit early but waved at the stage, and some movement up and down to the bar and toilet. Which agrees with the JS statement.

@Tractorcrisis

So I think my point is : censorship SHOULD exist if an art form causes harm. And I think that’s particularly apparent if you think of age restrictions/classifications. But that definition of ‘what is harmful’ if a very grey area. Clearly if it is unlawful - that’s wrong, but there are various moral areas perhaps not covered by law.

That was the point i was making though - state censorship does already exist in that we have laws, and we also have certification for films (and music?) which could be adopted by all publishing and theatres i think.

We also have content warnings on some things, and it wouldn't take much to expand that into box offices/online ticket sales.

I do worry that we are all moving into echo chambers. We have the thread about unis removing some books, and taking them off reading lists, because they are too shocking now. But at the same time we have games like GTA which seem to get more extreme with every release (from what i can gather, i don't play and i don't know anyone who plays). So in the end you have people who, for eg, play GTA and people who have to be protected from reading One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest and there is nothing in between. Also personal responsibility (to stop reading, to research shows you go to etc) exists, alongside the law and content classifications (over 18, etc).

I know lots of people who grew up in countries where wongspeak could land you in jail, out of work and in re-education camps. Frankly? I'd rather a few people be shocked over a foul-mouthed comedian or a dick on stage than have that.

I read that Sadowitz made a joke about men in wigs.
Graham Lineham has long been known for defending women’s right to single-sex spaces.
In the UK at present, censorship is most often imposed on feminists or their supporters by transactivists.
Therefore I presume Sadowitz has offended the transactivists.

The staff issue is a problem. Audience can vote with their wallets or their feet, but staff can't. What is it OK to expect people to put up with watching if it's their job?

It's a whole can of worms. I dimly recall that there have been previous problems with BAME ushers at more straightforwardly racist comedy shows feeling victimised.

I guess many entertainment venues, post Covid - are struggling. So keeping audiences happy, and not showing content that might result in a financially damaging lawsuit is a priority.

I think I’m on the fence with this one! I didn’t see the act, so don’t know how the joke came across. If it was laughing at a race or reinforcing racial stereotypes than I think the decision was correct. If it was challenging prejudice - than the show should have not been cancelled.

Well there’s the Guardian for starters.

Ah, it sounds like at last we have someone who knows exactly what was said.

Could you give the details please?

Yes, it’s fine to expect staff in a comedy venue to put up with hearing offensive comedy. If anyone has serious enough issues that they actually suffer harm through hearing offensive comedy then this is not the job for them.

But he went well beyond what an experienced venue was prepared to tolerate.

It's not as simple as that. The "venue" did not make the decision. Ultimately, one individual within the organisation that runs the venue made the final call. That's how organisation's work. So all those people who had booked tickets had their plans for a night out trashed, and JS presumably lost earnings, down to the opinion of one person. You have no idea how much experience that one person has either. If we tolerate this sort of censorship then where does it end? We might as well cut to the chase and invite the Taliban to come and govern us.

It’s been mentioned by 2 separate posters a few posts above mine.

Hopefully the venue and the staff who complained will be completely understanding if there’s something of a boycott and the whole place closes down.

It’s been mentioned by 2 separate posters a few posts above mine.

Oh and one below.

The staff issue is a problem. Audience can vote with their wallets or their feet, but staff can't. What is it OK to expect people to put up with watching if it's their job?

I think this is a problem, but i think it's solvable. It is up to the venue to decide what shows they are willing to accept, and then they have to recruit staff around that.

This has made me think about comedy in general and stand-up in particular. I don't enjoy stand-up and have often wondered why, when everyone else seems to.

I just have an uneasy feeling so often - that the comedian is not a very nice person...and it can sometimes seem like a bullying, sneering scenario.

OK - Victoria Wood, lovely Harry Hill - their stuff isn't hurtful, but I do find that lots of the more edgy comedians are just too savage, brutal and downright nasty for me personally to enjoy.

Working there and having a problem with the content is like being a vegan and complaining that the restaurant that you work at serves meat.

From what I can gather, this is an Alf-Garnett-on-steroids stage persona with magic and nudity, all comprehensively advertised beforehand and for adults only.
Is this correct?

ClaudiustheGod

I read that he'd made a crude racist slur in relation to Rishi Sunak, and shown his willy to the audience (yuk...grim). Don't know whether either of these is true but if so, I think he's appalling.

@CulturePigeon he's been getting said willy out for over thirty years and the audience, which is 18+, are warned. There are plenty of other stage performances that feature nudity.
And he plays a character, and that character is meant to be hugely appalling.

If staff are going to be offended by edgy comedy then that is not the workplace for them. And the "feeling unsafe" is actually really offensive to anyone doing a genuinely risky job.

It's a bit more complicated than that as I understand it. Alf Garnett or the Pub Landlord are obviously fictional characters from whom the bien pensant performer is completely distanced in a totally straightforward way.

The lines between "Jerry Sadowitz" and Jerry Sadowitz are much more blurred.