What is the most offensive joke ever told? What kind of impact does it have; what about this joke gives it qualities that people can both find offensive and funny? This topic has, in recent years especially, become increasingly controversial. The boundaries that define something as humorous and enjoyable rather than distasteful or offensive have almost always been debated and argued. As time progresses, perspectives seem to change in regard to specific sensitivities on joke topics like tragedies and life events. Amidst the aftermath of this past 2016 Presidential Race, the reality of how deep this divide in perspectives was discovered to be deeper than ever before. The relatively new concept of political correctness has caused strife in the world of comedy, especially live performance or stand-up comedy. This poses a question: what defines a joke as either funny or offensive and what impact does negatively received humor have on society as whole? While the answer to this question is complex in nature, the short summarization of it would be that humor is just like beauty and is all in the eye of the beholder. Negatively received humor should not be regulated for a number of reasons such as society’s nature, the inconsistency of humor over time, and the idea that presentation can dictate response.

To begin with, there are many logical arguments for the regulation of negative humor. Throughout the history of American comedy, negative jokes, especially racial jokes, have been popular. While in recent decades these jokes are told in a fun and loving spirit meant to bring people together over cultural differences, the origins of most of these jokes and the original intent of this style of comedy was to keep people separated from each other and to oppress and marginalize targeted groups in society. With these jokes having such dark beginnings, it is within good reason to find these jokes to be in poor taste and insulting today. 

A prime example of this comes from Bill Maher when he stated on his nightly talk show. In response to a guest’s joke about the landscape of Nebraska consisting mostly of fields, Maher stated, “Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house nigger!” (Complex News, 2017). The joke got mixed feelings from the audience and sparked outraged that was covered by most of the news networks. Maher later publicly apologized. The joke in it of itself was meant to poke fun at the institution of American slavery but was perceived to have created an environment that made light the use of a word that was meant to demoralize and dehumanize African Americans. Had a regulation been in place or Maher had stuck to being politically correct there would never have been offense given in the first place. 

Another reason that humor could be regulated is the power it can give people. A comedian’s platform can change the way their jokes are received. There are many limitations in having a TV show that are not experienced by stand-up comedians. Most profanity and sexually suggestive themes are restricted on basic cable television. Due to these restrictions only being on television, comedians have sought other avenues to express humor in a way that will be more received by the public. 

This is evident from a live performance done in 2011 via a committee hearing in which well-known comedian, Stephen Colbert, attempted to create a super PAC with the goal of exposing election corruption. (Paroske, 2016). While this example of someone going around the restrictions of TV does not reflect the use of offensive humor, the fact that someone can go around the current restrictions proves that new restrictions, should they be deemed necessary, will be needed. 

Staying on the note of politics, one major category of current political discussion is the topic of gun control for the prevention of gun violence across America. Regardless of which side of the argument is being presented, the idea that society is impacted by its entertainment is something that relates to the art of comedy. If comedy is having a negative impact on society, it should be regulated. This idea correlates with all kinds of jokes in that what is often mocked or made fun of becomes desensitized and left to the discretion of the audience’s opinions. 

This question of how does humor impact society as a whole and individuals in regard to their personal relationships was tested in research study that was conducted in 2010 through surveys given to both dating and married couples. The research article stated, “Perceived similarity in negative humor use positively predicts relational satisfaction for both partners, and positively predicts the importance of humor for men, regardless of how much positive humor the couple uses.” (Hall, 2010). In other words, a comedian has to perceive that the audience has a shared sense of humor. This assumption can lead to jokes getting said that are not taken as they were intended. For jokes that are misunderstood this can mean two things: a joke meant to be funny can be hurtful or a joke meant to be offensive to make a point can drive the opposition to the point to action. For example, a review of Daniel Tosh’s comedic style analyzed the effectiveness of his humor stated, “In April, the unapologetic misogynist encouraged his audience to film themselves touching women softly on their stomachs. I am not quite sure how this encroachment on personal space and ignorance of appropriate boundaries constitutes humor, but it takes all kinds.” (Gay, 2012). While this joke intended to expose sexism and disrespect for women, it instead encouraged it.

On the other hand, restrictions on comedy will prove to be ultimately unnecessary due the nature of society’s acceptance and rejection of ideas. If a joke is offensive to the point of oppressing people, society will ultimately decide to reject this type of joke. Although this usually comes with a steep consequence that marks the sins of a society, keeping jokes accessible to everyone ensures that marginalization does not go unnoticed by the history books. Keeping edgy topics covered up only keeps these topics current for the victims. By putting offensive happenings into a joke, society is forced to deal with these issues and eventually come to a resolution. A good example of this the topic of sexism which have become more popular as of late due to the current political climate. 

Going alongside with the idea of society’s perceptions is the idea of comedic values changing over time. While jokes that serve to expose work place acts of sexism and physical disrespect toward women are funny now due their purpose of exposing sexists, these jokes were not seen as funny just a few decades ago. Another example of jokes and satire that have changed for the better over time are satirical jokes promoting anti-war sentiments. Up until the 1930s, being in opposition to war in America was often viewed as distasteful and unpatriotic. (Rasmussen, 2016). 

As time progresses, humor becomes more and more inconsistent in regard to what is funny and what is not. A good illustration of this inconsistency is the change in perception on clowns in humor. Originally clowns and jesters were the only type of occupation that had a sole purpose for humor entertainment. Today, clowns have a very different connotation. More so than often, clowns are used to illicit fear and horror rather than comedy. (Keisalo-Galvan, 2011). The implementation of limits on humor would be somewhat in vain as they would only serve as long as the humor was relevant which could actually work against the point of restrictions.

A final reason that restrictions on comedy would not prove beneficial is because the overall success of a joke is dependent upon presentation and skill of the comedian. Negative topics serve a purpose for the art form when presented in a tasteful manner and positive light. Jokes told without malicious intent can still be offensive, but these jokes have meaning and serve a point in expressing a lesson or moral that the comedian is trying to create. The late Don Rickles often flirted with the boundary of funny and offensive with his use of racial jokes, but he was ultimately very successful in his career in expressing a theme of unity and love for one another in making fun of each other’s differences. (Comic Relief V MandrewTV, 2014). 

Another case in which the skill and craftiness of the presenter enable him to joke about controversial topics was in British comedian’s, Jimmy Carr’s, London tour in which he made a goal of finding a joke that his audience could would find too offensive to laugh at. In taking this approach, he was able to tell an entire series of jokes on controversial topics, including abortion and the Holocaust, and still have an audience find him hilarious. (Brown, 2011). While not everyone is his audience is guaranteed to have not be offended, he was able to escape the unwritten rules of live performance comedy by posing the jokes as a challenge to the audience which worked hand-in-hand in express his argument against the opposition to the topics. 

The idea of comedy posing a threat to the morals of society in its lack of restrictions though not illogical, is not entirely true. If comedy is performed correctly and with pure intent, the purpose of unbarred humor benefits society more. Free speech is not just about the ability to say any and everything because all actions and words have consequences. Free speech is about never prohibiting progress through fear of oppressing it. If comedy is free to its full extent in that it is subject the nature of society, allowed to change, and presented with quality, then society as a whole stands to gain morality rather than to lose.