The possible return of Charlie McCarthyism
From the free legal encyclopedia Jrank.com, is this paragraph, from their summary of Lenny Bruce’s Café au Go Go obscenity prosecution (“the most controversial obscenity trial in American history”):
Herbert S. Rune, an inspector with the NYC Department of Licenses, was the final witness called to testify. He had watched Bruce perform, jotting down surreptitious notes. Over defense objections, he read out an edited version of Bruce’s act that highlighted the language used and virtually ignored the context. Worst of all was Rune’s assertion, bitterly denied by the defense, that Bruce had fondled the microphone in an obvious and suggestive manner.
These days, we don’t worry about such things as licensing inspectors or cops with brush cuts and shiny shoes sitting in the darkness at the back of the room. No, these days, we’re enlightened. Lenny Bruce’s world had angry and disgusted judges who gladly heard obscenity or drug cases, eager D.A.’s who sought to make their reputations by hounding high-profile comics and musicians, vindictive bureaucrats who granted or withheld cabaret licenses.
We’re so glad that’s not going on any more.
What we have nowadays is perhaps worse, in some ways. Take the case of Jo Koy.
Huffingtonpost.com is gleefully reporting on the latest comedian who has been forced to issue an apology for something he said onstage, during the course of a June 15 comedy performance– Jo Koy. During a recent performance in Chicago, Koy called someone in the audience a “fucking faggot.”
Someone else in the audience dutifully reported the incident to the Windy City times– which subsequently reported that Koy let loose with an “an anti-gay rant.” The show was at the Vic Theatre and was part of the Just For Laughs Festival. So we figure it was JFL who squeezed Koy’s testicles to produce the lightning-fast mea culpa.
Instead of an intricate chain of D.A.’s and judges and cops and inspectors conspiring to wipe out obscenity while burnishing their credentials or solidifying their re-election or fulfilling their duties as good little bureaucrats, we have citizen crusaders who take the airtight case directly to the court of public opinion.
Instead of cops wearing wiretaps or a former CIA agent in attendance or an awkward cop in the back of the house scribbling notes– which are then read back in open court, void of all context– we have eager busybodies with cellphones and Facebook blogs and Twitter accounts who dutifully report the egregious offenses of this comedian or that.
In this case, the comedian doesn’t even have the benefit of a trial or witnesses or an arraignment or a plea. In the court of public opinion, the comedian is guilty until proven guilty. The apology follows quickly and the “jury” decides exactly what the punishment will be.
Koy no doubt thought he had a pass by virtue of his frequent appearances on gay-friendly Chelsea Handler‘s late-night talk show. Turns out obtaining this pass is trickier than anyone can imagine.
We’ve been warning folks about such persecution for quite some time now. For years. Way back when, we told folks that they had better not throw Larry the Cable Guy under the bus. Initially, it might be white males with southern accents who are sacrificed to the PC gods, but we cautioned that they were just getting warmed up. (“They” being any group who feels aggrieved and who has the juice and the knowhow to whip the MSM into a righteous, anti-comedian frenzy. It might be a group that insists on spelling “womyn” with a “y,” or it might be the League of United Latin American Citizens or it might be GLAAD.)
Eventually, they got around to Sarah Silverman, then they set their sights on other trophies. When will it stop? It won’t.
And all along, fellow comedians insist on taking the side of the prosecution, perhaps hoping that such a show will immunize them against any future actions. It won’t.
Perhaps comedians should print out a formal apology, laminate it, keep it in a jacket pocket or in the wallet and whip it out when something is said onstage that might anger any professional grievance mongers. Reading it immediately after any possibly offensive statement might short-circuit the cyber kangaroo court and nip the whole “controversy” in the bud.
We might also suggest purchasing a digital recorder that slips easily into a pocket– the VN-7000 goes for $40 at Staples. Maybe a Flip camera, too. Paranoia? Not at all. The best offense is a good defense. If nothing else, the beleaguered comic can provide the context that never seems to survive these witch hunts.
5 Responses
Reply to: The possible return of Charlie McCarthyism
With apologies to CBS, read more about it: Where are all the gay comics in Chicago? was a posting we put up in January 2009. The comments are particularly spirited. We and our readers make several great points which are germane to the current discussion. Enjoy!
Hey, Shecky folks.
A couple things.
1) I believe it’s “Jo Koy,” not “JOE Koy.”
2) Isn’t it way better now that it’s individual citizens causing trouble (via having opinions, which they are and should be allowed to do) and not the government, who used to throw people in jail for saying words (which they should not be)?
When you mention Sarah Silverman, what are you referring to? And what are the negative results that she lives with now? She’s still a highly respected comedian who gets plenty of work, does she not? She put out a book that was great last year, and while a lot of people might not like what she says, a lot of people do. Did the court of public opinion or MSM make everyone hate her forever? I don’t think so.
But overall, don’t you feel that regarding the modern-day “punishment” of people legally disliking you and being “forced” to apologize, isn’t that all nothing compared to illegal government harassment and jailtime?
3) In this case, do you really thing it’s horrible for someone to apologize for calling an audience member a faggot? Given the context?
Regading the issue of people being pressured to apologize in general, how is that new? If you work for or with people or companies, in nearly any industry, you’ll be held to certain standards. If you want to not work at that festival, or on that TV show, or with that group, or whatever the case, you can choose to not apologize, and as a standup, just keep doing your thing. Maybe you’ll be known as the person who says whatever kind of thing you said, and that might get you less work, but also the people who don’t care (or care the other way) might give you more work.
Many of our readers preface their comments with “everyone has a right to his opinion.” Of course everyone does. But many folks seem to be confusing an accusation with an opinion.
Comedy club patrons have always had an opinion. And they express it with a laugh. Or they express it by withholding laughter. Or they walk out. Or they sit in silence, wait until the end of the performance and never return. Or they scrawl something on a comment card.
What we’re seeing a lot of lately aren’t so much opinions as they are opinions, augmented by attorneys and identity politics and media hype and organizations. We go from opinion to accusation to condemnation. The content of the comedian’s heart is determined to be black and vile. The comedian has no recourse. Denials are pointless. Those sympathetic to the accused are dismissed (or worse, condemned along with the accused).
We can all stand opinions. It’s this form of hyper-opinion that’s troublesome.
Sarah Silverman “gets plenty of work” and “put out a book.” So, externally at least, there seems to have been little or no damage done. But is her output suffering any? Is she “gun-shy,” perhaps? Might there be a tendency on the part of Silverman (or other, lower-profile comedians who might identify with her) to not broach controversial subject matter or avoid certain words or methods for fear of incurring the wrath of this group or that?
We’re concerned with the violence done to the creative process. Part of what makes comedians so dynamic and so beloved is their outrageousness, their willingness to say what normal people wouldn’t say.
Well, we guess that’s out the window. As long as comedians get “plenty of work”– and their material is well within certain proscribed guidelines– we need not worry. Everything will be okay.
Actually you miss the point. it isnt better now, it is the same. The bottom line is that the finks are different but in the end it is the establishment who, through legal and civil justices systems brings the hammer down.
On the “plenty of work” thing, rent the movie “Mephisto” sometime.
Just sayin.