Lacunae in the Promises of Free Speech
Can We Laugh at That? is not a joke book nor even a dirty joke book. Jacques Berlinerblau has written an excellent well researched book identifying the societal and personal risks generated by contemporary comedians and a description of both the rigid and the changing standards of acceptable comedic performances.
The publisher, the University of California Press, thoughtfully provides a warning to readers about the language and topics to be covered in this book. Personally, I have never seen such a disclaimer as this which states in part: “This book contains quotes from comedians and performers that use racial, ethnic, and homophobic slurs and other offensive and derogatory terms. We acknowledge that encountering these may be disturbing or triggering for readers.” Of course, we may note that there is also the risk that this warning to sensitive individuals might also be extraordinarily appealing to some readers, also known as internet trolls.
Berlinerblau examines numerous instances in the relatively recent history of “comedic controversies” which he defines as “an ongoing public disagreement triggered by a humorist whose jokes ignite outrage in certain audiences.” Those audiences have included strong negative reactions via the media, the courts, deliberate intimidation efforts, and actual violence. What is new to these scenes is the global visibility that ensues with international television broadcasts and movies. The greatest culprit here is the internet and the active potential of instant communications of homemade and professional jokes along with comedy performances in clubs and theaters.
This very serious book should appeal to students of history, the performing arts, sociology, psychology, journalism, political science, public safety law, and constitutional law. Another very positive feature for students and researchers is the extremely extensive reference list for each of the nine chapters and the conclusion, totaling 65 pages of sources.
The author frequently mentions The Consensus by which he means “The Pre-Digital Liberal Free Speech Consensus.” That is, in America we assume our U.S. Constitution guarantees us to say and write almost anything, regardless of the degree of potential offensiveness to other people. Comedy writing and performances must be permitted by law with the few exceptions of anything that would facilitate lawbreaking or creating a dangerous situation. Examples would be public hate speech and the old cliche “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”
Berlinerblau notes that “comedy is a subset of free speech” and the irony that “comedy undermines the very Consensus that permits it to thrive.” In 1961 the American comedian Lenny Bruce was arrested for the first of multiple times for possession of narcotics and using obscene language in his shows. Bruce’s language was very tame compared to some performers today, and the relevant laws in this country have been modified significantly.
Nevertheless, Dave Chappelle has garnered considerable negative reaction to some of his most recent comedy shows in theaters. He notoriously criticized those he called the “alphabet people”, that is, those represented by the term LGBTQ+ community which got him labeled by critics as “homophobic.”
Chappelle is African-American, but does that excuse him for peppering his public and recorded routines with the word “nigga”? In his Netflix video “The Unstoppable” from his show presented to a racially mixed audience late 2025 in Washington, D. C., here is a direct quotation from that show during which Chappell also ultimately managed to offend the Jewish community:
We are a community and we will stand together. We will take care of each other and we will wait this orange nigga out. The fear that I have for myself and I need you to protect me from co-option. My voice has become more powerful than I intended it to be. And I can’t let those niggas do me like Charlie Kirk, or even worse than that.
What if these niggas trip me up somehow and co-opt me and make me say things that they want me to say? Well, we can’t have that. So, just in case, we need a code word. It’s gotta (sic) be something I can say, so that if I say it, you know that these niggas got me. And don’t listen to nothing that I say after I say those words. And don’t tell anybody what I said. You know what I mean, that I would never say. Oh, I know what the code is: “I stand with Israel.”
Thank you very much and good night. [Chappelle drops the mike and walks off stage.]
Romana Rubeo of The Palestine Chronicle wrote that he chose “I stand with Israel” as the hypothetical code word because, within the logic of the routine, it represents a position so opposed to his stated views in the special that its utterance would indicate he had been influenced or manipulated beyond his own intent.
Berlinerblau’s book discusses 12 “signal cases” including the tribulations in the performance careers of Dave Chappelle, Sarah Silverman, Kathy Griffin, Shane Gillis, Louis C. K., as well as major incidents with comedians and movie producers in North Korea, France, India, Denmark, and Zimbabwe.
Shane Gillis is one of the least well known of the American comedians discussed in this book. As a straight white man, Gillis specialized in making fun of minority groups (Asians in general, Chinese and Black people, the differently abled, and more.) In addition to his name calling and accent mocking, he would repeatedly call out “White people are the best.” He drifted into obscurity and eventually made a comeback by focusing on racist white people as comedy targets. Gillis also achieved a special notoriety for having been the only person to be hired and fired by Saturday Night Live over the course of four days. Wait, wait, there is more: he was hired to host the show five years later!
Surely even fairly sophisticated aficionados of comedy and civil rights will learn from this book’s author’s summaries, especially those of the descriptions of extreme reactions to comedic material around the world. What could happen if some community leader or government official does not appreciate your satire or other forms of humor?Negative publicity in all media and the internet, arrest, jail, exile, kidnapping, torture, and yes, even murder. Case examples are provided which should stimulate discussion on what should be the limits, if any, of free speech in comedic, satiric, and political performances and writings.
The author teaches his readers about current events threatening our own and others’ liberal democracies, which will very likely be unfamiliar to them. For example, he describes the Hasmukh Complex in which Indian comedian Vir Das created and starred in a Netflix series in which a comedian became a serial killer who could only overcome his stage fright, if he murders a villainous person before his performance. Berlinerblau suggests that this theme is similarly present in some comedians who believe they are making the world a better place by speaking and joking truth to power.
The political climate currently for comedy in Zimbabwe is worth our extra attention here because it is so extreme and seemingly so little understood by most Americans in my view. Zimbabwe is considered a “hybrid regime” because it consists of a mixture of democratic and autocratic features. Its government is highly intolerant of any expressions of dissent from comedians or satirist commentators. It offers no transparency or accountability from criticism.
Techniques typically used in Zimbabwe to stifle dissent are their insult laws, surveillance, censorship, arrest, and blatant violence of suspected offenders. The book describes the horrible attack on a popular female comedian Samantha Kurea (stage name is Gonyeti) who had been taken from her home, stripped, beaten, and forced to ingest raw sewage. Yet, she subsequently continued to perform. Her case is not that rare there and gives rise to the questions of how and why she and similar victims would do so. Is it illustrative of extraordinary courage or a suicidal impulse?
The author lists many of the calamities that have befallen the world of comedy writing and performing in other so-called democratic countries. Thankfully, he also offers some positive suggestions for coping with the increasing concerns of countries and powerful individuals who retaliate in various ways to harm the comedic perpetrators.
Suggestions from Jacques Berlinerblau
Researchers should develop a Humorlessness Scale (the H Scale) which would measure how different ideological cohorts react to humor that upsets them. His definition of The Consensus, as described above, may be the only causal variable that leads all people to accept comedy speech and jokes that they really do not like. Would liberal or conservative audiences be the more likely to be accepting of such humor without complaining? He believes the former, but no hard evidence on that question exists yet.
Another suggestion is to not attack with humor an identity that you actually do not share with that target (race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, and other obvious variables). This is not new advice but certainly remains wise.
If you have offended a group or even an individual in a social setting with your humor, apologize sincerely. This is especially true for professional comedians, whose income and future bookings along with book and video sales will not be seriously impacted. Sarah Silverman’s apologies following the mocking of Christian conservatives were perceived as sincere and repeated and thereby successful. Dave Chappelle does not appear to be ever interested in apologizing for his comments during a performance. Kathy Griffin at first refused to apologize for her distasteful stunt of sharing a picture of her carrying a replica of the bloody severed head of Donald Trump. Griffin later made efforts to apologize for the unfunny effort, but her career suffered for a long while afterwards.
Belinerblau suggests that comedians would benefit from a Guild, that is, a professional development organization of First Amendment lawyers and security specialists who could protect them from themselves. Historically the comedians have remained indomitable in the face of a variety of legal and illegal threats, such as fines, jail times, boycotts, and even death threats. It seems that it is just a simple matter of refusing to accept this fate. They are supposed to provoke, but the more they do so, the more their free speech is jeopardized.
Maybe instructional videos could be produced which would teach performers how to de-escalate high pressure situations and to give clear advice on the importance of avoiding R.I.P. jokes, and just how to verbalize a genuinely sincere apology to anyone who may have been previously offended.
What may indeed be funny might well be socially inappropriate or dangerous to someone else or the comedians themselves. Well-constructed humor has so many documented benefits to the health of the speaker and healthful laughter by the listeners. There are always attitudes that in some cases must be changed and physical and emotional pleasures to be enjoyed. The dilemma is genuinely complicated, but the possible gains are worth it.
I have only one minor quibble with this book. Admittedly I am not a linguist, but I did find the use of word blending to create two meanings into one word in the manuscript to be a bit off-putting. Examples: “politainment, omni-blur, un-cancelable, glocalized, pseudo-consensus”.
Prof. Berlinerblau’s new book Can We Laugh at That? Comedy in a Conflicted Age will be a positive step for lay citizens and possibly even thoughtful government officials to work together to reduce the current conflicts in comedy. Free speech should remain at least mostly free in America and elsewhere in the world.
