Thread by @SecDetective

My childhood would make it difficult for anyone to tell a joke about alcoholism that I would laugh at. Such a joke might even offend me.

But what kind of authoritarian narcissist would I have be to dictate to you that you couldn’t tell it to anyone?

Offence, like humour, is inherently subjective. There are as many ideas and jokes out there to be offensive as there are people to be offended by them.

It is nothing but ridiculous, therefore, to impose objective rules about comedy and offence based upon such a premise.

Christmas cracker jokes are infrequently funny for the reason that they are so utterly benign.

To wish to outlaw offensive jokes, “grossly” or otherwise, is to wish to live in a society where only cracker jokes could be told.

Who could honestly wish to live in such a world?

I for one, would rather live my life taking the risk each day of being offended, for the sake of being amused and preserving the right of everyone to tell whatever jokes they wished, however offensive.

The tears are a worthy price for the freedom.

There can be no freedom to be protected by the state from offence.

If we insist, we must protect ourselves from such sources. We can ignore speech and jokes which we find offensive by not attending the shows or watching the videos. But we cannot insist that others do it for us.

We are even free to engage with the sources of our offence, and tell them that we find the joke offensive. We may even ask them to change the joke.

But we must respect free speech as a principle, and recognise that when it is eroded for one, it is eroded for all.

In my profession, a dark sense of humour is all but necessary.

Confronted with the consequences of humanity at its most depraved, when the actions of individuals infringe the actual rights of others so appallingly, humour is a useful mechanism for distancing oneself.

I have told and laughed at jokes and ironic observations that many people (a majority perhaps) would find highly offensive.

But I say it is no business of the state to involve itself here, as the arbiter of what is acceptable to laugh at.

A joke infringes the right of nobody.

Humour is one of our most basic instincts. And opportunities for levity, especially in difficult circumstances, ought to be cherished and appreciated.

I find it entirely unacceptable (“offensive” doesn’t do it justice) that anyone should tell me what I may find worthy of mirth.

There is enough in this world to find fault with, and cause for anger or legitimate state intervention.

Jokes do not fall here. We must realise what we find funny, and accept that others may not share our opinions or senses of humour.

But most importantly, we must see that there may be sinister and unforeseen consequences to the rules that we impose so flippantly on humour.

We must lift our vision and see these impingements on our freedoms for what they are: myopic steps towards tyranny.

We have to wake up.