7 Responses

1. pg says:

   April 30, 2007 at 9:46 pm

   Ahhhhh…Katt Williams is bravely taking a stand for the right to say “motherfucker.”Lenny Bruce, of course, got in trouble for saying “cocksucker”–but HE used the term in a bit with some social relevance. He was criticizing the police harassment of homosexuals and the laws that banned an act that (going out on a limb here) EVERY heterosexual man enjoys (…at least, when proffered upon them by the women in their lives.)The thing is…if you want the freedom of speech to say important things–things that need to be said…you’re going to have to put up with some people using that freedom of speech without any particular purpose or socially redeeming value.But, it’d be easier to champion Chris Rock’s “Black People vs. Niggas” than “Hello all you motherfuckers… God DAMN, it’s motherfucking HOT here in motherfucking Atlanta.”Or, in the words of Notorious B.I.G. from the clean edited version of his CD, “And if you don’t know, now you know…you know…”pg–Actually likes Katt Williams a lot…but comparing him to Lenny Bruce?–seattle

   Reply
2. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   April 30, 2007 at 10:21 pm

   pg said:“Ahhhhh…Katt Williams is bravely taking a stand for the right to say ‘motherfucker.’“Lenny Bruce, of course, got in trouble for saying “cocksucker”–but HE used the term in a bit with some social relevance…”Then, pg veered into a morass:<>“The thing is…if you want the freedom of speech to say important things–things that need to be said…you’re going to have to put up with some people using that freedom of speech without any particular purpose or socially redeeming value.”<>And therein lies the big problem– How, oh, how are we to determine who is saying “important things?”Who shall decide? pg, perhaps?If we are to use pg’s formula for free speech, who shall decide which comics are “socially redeeming” or who have a “particular purpose?”It certainly would be, to use pg’s construction, “easier to champion” Chris Rock’s “Black People vs. Niggas” bit than a bit by some lesser-known comic or a comic with less of a reputation for working commentary into his act. But free speech exists to protect that which is hard to champion. The easy shit takes care of itself. The stuff on the bubble is what needs a bit of protection.

   Reply
3. pg says:

   May 1, 2007 at 12:02 am

   Don’t get me wrong–I was describing the situation, not advancing a position.I’m definitely a “happy there’s an ACLU even if they end up defending the rights of Illinois Nazis”-type. I spent far too much time explaining what Imus said and making the argument that just because someone said something stupid and insulting is not a crisis deserving of wall-to-wall news coverage…or, really, anything more than an apology.And, I will vigorously support Katt Williams’ right to point out that Atlanta is hot as a motherfucker.…but I’m not going to CHAMPION Katt as a prime example of the benefits of free speech, nor am I going to let his self-comparison with Lenny Bruce to go without comment.I could advance the argument that Katt is pissing away what Lenny earned for us…that he is part of why it is going to get harder for all of us to say what we want to say…and sometime, when we really NEED that right, it’ll be gone.But I’m NEVER going to advance the argument that Katt shouldn’t be allowed to say whatever he wants to…(especially because he’s damn funny doing it.) pgPS–Of course, if there’s an actual gig of determining who is saying “important things”–I’d be up for that. Who books it?

   Reply
4. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   May 1, 2007 at 3:36 pm

   pg says:<>…but I’m not going to CHAMPION Katt as a prime example of the benefits of free speech…<>To which we reply:If you wish to continue defending free speech, you most certainly must champion Katt Williams’s speech. The defense of free speech must be values neutral– and that works upward as well as downward. If you fail to champion all speech, even that of Mr. Williams, you leave him and others “unprotected.” If you have as your criteria whether or not someone’s speech is relevant or important, you give others powerful ammunition to go after those who aren’t deemed relevant or important. Your subjectivity in this matter will enable others to concoct convincing arguments to assail practically anyone– even Chris Rock.

   Reply
5. myq says:

   May 1, 2007 at 4:29 pm

   Just wanted to point out that there is a difference between championing free speech and championing someone as its spokesperson.It’s great that Katt Williams speaking out on behalf of free speech.But it’s possible to support his message and still think that someone else could be better suited to deliver it.(Not saying either way what I think, as far as that goes, but just that it’s pretty clear everyone here supports anyone’s right to say pretty much anything, including Katt Williams and each other.)

   Reply
6. Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

   May 1, 2007 at 4:49 pm

   Michael points out:<>It’s great that Katt Williams (is) speaking out on behalf of free speech.But it’s possible to support his message and still think that someone else could be better suited to deliver it.<>To which we reply:Where <>are<> all the folks who might be “better suited” to deliver this message? Why are we not overwhelmed by the choices? The silence is deafening.As far as we’re concerned, anyone who has the ability to speak is an appropriate choice. But, apparently, that doesn’t wash.Indeed, on at least one chat board, the editors of this publication are said to “have lost their goddamn minds over this.” So, at least in the opinion of some, not even the editors of SHECKYmagazine are suited to the task of defending free speech as it relates to standup.It bears repeating that Williams said,<>“It bothers me heavily that I might have to become the next Lenny Bruce<>.”And, further, he said:<>“It’s not something that I wanted for myself, but it’s also not a responsibility that I can afford to shirk.”<>

   Reply
7. pg says:

   May 1, 2007 at 11:15 pm

   Was Lenny Bruce the first person to use blue language on stage?No. Was Lenny Bruce controversial just for using blue language on stage?No.It is unlikely that Katt Williams COULD be the next Lenny Bruce. He’s perfectly situated to be the next Redd Foxx. Nothing wrong with that…But simply exercising your free speech rights is NOT the same as being worthy of being championed for how one exercises their free speech rights. And if you say that we are not overwhelmed by choices of people who may be better suited to be championed–isn’t THAT the tragedy?I quote Gerald Nachman… <>The guardians of the flame–scholars, sycophants, friends, comedians–credit him with blazing the anything-goes comedy trail that his critics now see as an eight-lane superhighway of vulgarity cluttered with bumper-to-bumper little Lennys, renegades with the mouth and chutzpah but not the mind, the style, or the charisma. The handwriting Bruce scribbled on the wall is now mainly graffiti. Apart from Bruce’s two heirs presumptive, Richard Pryor and George Carlin, the landscape is cluttered with Lenny’s children straining for laughs with crotch jokes that make Bruce worshipers wonder, What the fuck hath Lenny wrought?<>pgPS–On that chatboard that suggested that you’ve lost your “goddamn minds over this”–the opinion of that chatter was suggesting that there’s a Chicken Little/Boy Who Cried Wolf/Making a Mountain Out of a Nappy Headed Ho quality to your reaction.And I’m fine with that. I look at Sheckymag like I look at the ACLU: Taking the severe principled stands that some might not make in order to force everyone to live up to the freedoms we credit ourselves for…And while that’s a good service to offer, the rest of us can add the benefit of perspective to choose which battles we really want to go to the mattresses on… Otherwise… <>“You’re like the boy who cried motherfucker…”<>–Mike Birbiglia

   Reply