Okay. We’ve been inundated by emails. Folks have been alerting us to the story that’s crackling across the wires about the comedian who is making mother-in-law jokes, who gets sued by her mother-in-law.

The article raises far more questions than it answers. The basics are this:

1. A comic makes jokes about her mother-in-law

2. Everything is hunky dory until…

3. The comic posts “information on her Web site that, according to her in-laws, allowed pretty much anyone to figure out the identities of her in-laws.”

4. The in-laws file suit and “seeks unspecified damages and demands that Croonquist remove any offensive statements from her Web site, routines and recordings.”

Okay.

We predict that the suit will go nowhere. It’s on the docket for Sept. 9. The comic’s husband is an attorney and his law firm is representing the comic.

First:

Attorney Gary L. Bostwick, an expert in First Amendment law who isn’t involved in the case, said suing a comedian is often difficult because courts tend to rule that it should be obvious they are joking.

He added that “there is a very strong defense: It’s very difficult to prove that it was not just a joke.” Nice to see that some things are rock solid and logical. (This suit will not change that.)

Second: If Ruth Zafrin, her daughter, Shelley Edelman, and Shelley’s husband, Neil would have kept their yaps shut, no one would have given a rat’s ass what the their daughter-in-law was saying about them at the Improv on Melrose. Now, they’re out there, in the open, for all to identify. (And really, who reads a comic’s website? Does this really connect the dots for most people? Are Ruth Zafrin and her daughter and son-in-law any more subject to public ridicule now that the chaleria daughter-n-law of hers has gone and identified them on her facacta website?! Probably not.

Third: The attorneys who took Zafrin’s case know this.

Fourth: The comic’s husband is an attorney and his firm is representing the comic. They know that the case is a steaming turd.

Fifth: Why is this happening? Aren’t attorneys hesitant to file these kinds of suits for fear of incurring the wrath of judges and bars and professional associations?

One slight hitch: In the video that’s up on the internet, the comic prefaces one of the bits about the mother-in-law, “These are not mother-in-law jokes. You can’t make this up. This is a crazy family I’m involved in.”

But comics say this kind of thing all the time. It is a cliché that comics often preface an obvious joke with, “True story…” In fact, that very phrase was the title of Bill Maher‘s fictional tale of comics coming up through the clubs of NYC. That’s just the kind of arcane, esoteric factoid that judges consider when rendering a verdict.

Of course, if by some miracle Zafrin wins, we’re all fucked. Especially alternative comics. Why alternative comics? Because they’ve spent the last 10 years telling anyone with functioning cochlea that everything they say onstage is TRUE!

The Male Half plays it safe: He’s telling mother jokes (but leaving out the part that the Male Half’s mother has been dead for 15 months)… you can’t slander a dead person!

But, seriously folks (another standup convention!), what kind of moron comic doesn’t change the name of the people he/she talks about onstage? Why keep the real names? Out of some misguided effort at attaining authenticity? Trust us, if you changed the name from “Ruthie” to “Rosie” no one would storm out of the club muttering about verisimilitude. If for no other reason, you switch out names because it might be considered rude to do otherwise. Your loved ones don’t need you blabbing onstage about them, referring to them by their real names.

We find it rather humorous that the first comic ever sued for a mother-in-law joke is a female. For so long, the mother-in-law joke was thought to be the exclusive province of male comics (Henny Youngman being the most prolific and most closely identified with such gags).

We also find it wince-inducing that the comic found it necessary to provide the press with so many examples of the offending material. When a comic finds him/herself under assault for a joke or a series of jokes, we always advise that comic to refrain from citing the joke. It never helps the cause. Jokes, no matter how good, no matter what kind of raucous response they regularly get, always fall flat in print. It is best to let the jokes speak for themselves, either in a live performance or on YouTube. Just ask Lenny Bruce about that. Besides, when the jokes are cited, the commentariat tends to focus on the joke itself and not the overriding issues! (Just check out the comments on the article for evidence of that– they focus on the relative funniness of the gags rather than on whether what was said is actionable. The jokes always serve as a distraction. They rarely bolster the comic’s case. Remember that.)

Stay tuned.