I've been trying to figure out how best to approach the subject of Tracy Morgan, the comments he made during a recent show, and the angry reaction to them. I'll try to tread carefully since it's safe to say that every facet of this ugly miasma has a certain amount of importance and therefore deserves as much thoughtful consideration as possible.
Obviously, what Morgan said was pretty vicious and I see how it could be interpreted as cruelly homophobic to the point of earning him a rebuke, or at the very least a conversation that begins with the words, "Dude, did you really mean that stuff?"
Where the angry hordes who've chosen to take up Morgan's statements as a cause lose me, though, is when they demand something more than simply the apology that they've already gotten. I get that forcing someone to say that he's sorry should immediately make the sincerity of that apology suspect, which is why I've never understood why people instinctively make such demands in the first place. But if you receive a very public mea culpa, doesn't that accomplish the goal you're supposedly aiming for, namely to show the world that the offense had a far-reaching negative impact even if there wasn't one intended?
Tracy Morgan made a comment within the context of his stand-up routine and in front of an audience which paid to see him that at least one guy in the crowd was appalled by; my position remains that Morgan is a crazy person and that everyone in the crowd should have understood going into it what they were in for, but this guy decided to take the joke far beyond the confines of the comedy setting for which it was specifically intended. He was offended, and so he told the world about it -- and a bunch of other people who were never supposed to be exposed to the joke in the first place suddenly got to not only hear it but to react indignantly to it, as if Tracy Morgan had come to each of their homes and insulted them personally.
And so now you have groups like PFLAG, very concerned celebrities like Nia Vardalos, and average armchair pundits chiming in to demand that Tracy Morgan be made an example of as an object lesson to the rest of society. Because that's really what this is all about: It's not about forcing Morgan to understand that what he said was hurtful and crossed some line in the sand; it's about teaching everyone else that crossing that very subjective line will not be tolerated and will be met with the severest possible punishment short of having you arrested. You say something we deem unacceptable, even in the context of a joke, and we'll take away your livelihood and make you the cultural pariah you deserve to be. Because intolerance will not be tolerated. The desired outcome is nothing less than a chilling effect on what you say and how you say it.
Sorry, but that shouldn't stand.
Tracy Morgan wasn't attacking an audience member, a la Michael Richards, and he wasn't speaking as a representative of NBC or as his character on 30 Rock, so running to his "parents" and commanding them to discipline him -- demanding that NBC fire him outright -- is an abusive overreaction and a slightly underhanded move. As ridiculous as it was that Don Imus was fired by MSNBC for making an ineffectual and hilariously archaic comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team, at least that comment was made while he was on the air at MSNBC so it was within the network's purview to take action. Morgan was doing a comedy bit during his personal stand-up act; his role as an actor on an NBC show, working for a Broadway Video production, had no bearing whatsoever on it and should remain a separate matter. It's, quite frankly, not the network's business what Tracy Morgan does or doesn't do during his gigs. Likewise, there's an argument to be made that it's not really anyone's business who didn't buy a ticket to that show that night what Morgan said or didn't say.
One last thing: My history here at the Huffington Post and at my own blog shows that I tend to defend comedians pretty fiercely. There's a reason for this: They're the vanguard of our right to free speech, the canaries in the coal mine; they're the ones we count on to be able to push the envelope, challenge our sensibilities, even offend us occasionally because it's necessary for us as a culture. More than that, the interpretation of what they do is entirely subjective, and it simply isn't your right to tell me what is or isn't funny -- just like it isn't my right to tell you or anyone else what's funny. The world would be a much more tedious place without comics willing to truly put themselves out there and take risks -- to make fun of the sacrosanct and vilify the revered when necessary -- and their ability to do that should be protected at all costs. Making them grovel before the altar of political correctness, in the end, damages all of us.
Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza
Aaron Anson: Are Gays Too Sensitive to Jokes?
Can't You Take A Joke?: On Tracy Morgan and Free Speech vs. Hate Speech
www.morgansjoke.blogspot.com
Entertainment rarely offends me simply because I change the channel or spend my dollars elsewhere. My community sees no value in exercising the same prerogative.
Instead, we prefer hysterical outrage and public statements. We willingly connect homophobic violence to the pariah du jour, regardless of evidence or context. We'll call for censorship, boycotts and demand the offender be removed.
Ironically, our opposition employs the same approach by confidently limiting my rights based on lines they've drawn and connections they've made. Ideology makes marriage unavailable to me, not evidence or fact.
When GLAAD, PFLAG and my peers in the gay community routinely seize opportunities to exercise this same kind of intolerance, it does considerably more harm than good.
We strive for equality so long as it wears our brand. Selective outrage, as in the Morgan example, is not about examining controversial, socially charged or offensive material in entertainment and its possible impact on communal attitudes. Nah, we're only concerned with the parts we didn't like.
When we irresponsibly claim damages and demand that our objections take precedence over all others; we polarize issues, dilute our agenda and break from allies striving towards similar goals.
Like you, I have no interest in defending art or debating its value. I also have no interest in suggesting potentially offensive material harms me more than it harms you and by that distinction, demands special consideration.
Special consideration is not equality and I wish we'd stop arming it as if it were.
The attitudes I'd most like to change are the one's in my own community however that's incredibly difficult when we are busy spreading misinformation and hate.
In fact, we are committed to it.
Since Morgan's apology, count the number of comments we've made doubting his motives, mocking his words or ridiculously suggesting that somehow, we know the real truth. Count the number of times we said Morgan was probably gay himself.
Insensitive remarks? Hate speech? Really? Whose, Morgan's or ours?
Advocates of our community asked us to open our hearts, forgive and consider that Morgan's bit was not reflective of his attitudes. Still, we pretend to know better and we're comfortable saying so without evidence.
Do you think that presents us in a positive light? Do you think our behavior inspired acceptance? Do you think we've solicited additional support for equality?
Read through the threads. You'll find many examples of the ideology and weaponry that our opposition uses against us. We are petulant children and I would prefer we demonstrated civility and tolerance by using these moments to rise above them and treat others better than we're often treated.
Consider the possibility that comedy offends everyone sooner or later. Our outrage accomplished nothing but proving how un-equal we consider ourselves -- which I imagine, creates far more hostility for that kid in school than 100 Morgans ever would.
What special consideration? To not be bashed for who we are? If no one stands up to inappropriate speech - of any type - then it is considered accepted. History has shown this repeatedly.
The larger gay community is incredibly accepting of comedy that mocks and ribs us - I regularly take pot shots at how accurate so many gay stereotypes are true and how ridiculous those are. We have a number of comedians - both gay and straight - that say 'wrong' things but are accepted as those comedians have routines and the credentials in the gay community to say them.
Tracy Morgan and the more recent example from the other comedian are not part of an act - and they were not comments that are limited to a particular show. They were off the cuff, inappropriate comments that validated homophobia and hateful speech. They were not delivered - nor were they accepted - as congenial comedy to or by the people that were on the end of the joke. That isn't comedy.
The constitutional guarantee applies only to the legitimate government. But the first amendment isn't just an arbitrary whim of the founders. It's part of a vision of how society ought to be. As such, the principle of freedom of speech applies to everyone with the power to compel silence.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Darn tootin'. Intolerance of intolerance should not be tolerated.
"it simply isn't your right to tell me what is or isn't funny -- just like it isn't my right to tell you or anyone else what's funny"
Of course it's my right to tell you what is or isn't funny, same as it's your right to ignore my opinion.
The vast majority of knock-knock jokes just aren't funny. Your line "that shouldn't stand" was funny. This statement is very slightly funny, but only in a certain frame of mind. Normally it's just tedious.
Neener neener, I told you. See? No harm done.
--
A stand-up comic should have much greater license to speak without social repercussions than one has in ordinary polite company. But a stand-up comic does not have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, which is what 'it's not anyone's business who didn't buy a ticket' would entail if taken seriously. This isn't lawyer-client privilege we're talking about. It's not troop movements in wartime. It's not even trade secrets under a non-disclosure agreement. It's a person standing on a stage, talking to an audience of anyone who buys a ticket. That's a public forum. It's a special type of public forum, where freedom of speech is especially important, but it's still a public forum.
Morgan has the right to say what he wants. Decent people who care about those kids have the right to protest and boycott as well.
To protest, yes: that's trying to *convince* him (and others) not to say it. To boycott, no: that's trying to *coerce* him (and others) not to say it. We can't have it both ways. If he has the right to say it, that means no one has the right to forcibly silence him, even if the force is "only" economic (the most pervasively powerful kind).
I don't care what he says, or what Michael Richard says, or what Mel Gibson says. They're not politicans they're entertainers, they can shoot their mouths off about whatever the hell they want.
The only people who care about such things are PC nazis. And if you have a problem with that reference, call someone who cares.