I can't quite believe I'm actually posting this, many moons after the fact. But tonight's Q & A suggests that some people still have no sense of empathy when it comes to other people's sense of humour. I would have thought that people would have gotten over this sort of thing after the BEST COMEDIC MOVIE EVER MADE, 'The Life of Brian'.

But it seems it still doesn't register with the slower members of the community: what offends some tickles other.

I am a hard-core South Park addict. It is a brilliant show and sometimes it pushes the boundaries of comedy beyond my limits of good taste, but mostly it's just very smegging funny. I also like Frankie Boyle and Jim Jeffries, two comedians (Scottish and Australian and respectively) who both do an excellent line in blue, black, and generally offensive humour.

Humour doesn't have to be offensive or shocking to be effective. My favourite comdey show of all time is our very own 'Micallef P(r)ogram(me)', one of Shaun Micallef's earlier works, but my second favourite is the time-honoured classic 'Monty Python's Flying Circus'

My mother's parents forbade her from watching it, on the grounds that it was too rude. The Flying Circus? Offensive? I can see how people would object The Life of Brian, but the Flying Circus? Really?

The more things change the more they stay the same: Socrates whinged about the impoliteness of Athenian youth - if more Greek texts had survived I'm sure we'd have a record of him complaining about the rudeness of Athenian comedies.

Cheers,

Tony

As Australian blood is getting thinned more by ever increasing outside influence the sense of humour has changed also. From the outright crass & jealous sarcasm of the 80's it is now at a good stage. Micallef is cleverly funny but I believe he's not of australian background which proves my earlier observation. Mrs Brown's boys is typically silly funny irish.
Housos is funny by making truth humorous & hopefully gets a few morons thinking, if that's possible. I just find it very sad how we're not allowed to enjoy ourselves anymore at the drop of a hat. We used to sit on the beach with a few beers, a bonfire courtesy of Chep & all was good until the Goss ALP Govt put a stop to enjoying ourselves. And that wasn't funny at all.

The ABC is notorious for offensive language and poor taste and is a
result of staffing the place with teenagers.
The ABC really has a group of immature so called adults running the place.
Unfortunately the rot has spread all the way to the top of the organisation.
Programs like Rake while it would be funny without the F word every
10 to 15 seconds, loses its humour because of the language. It is just
over the top and explains why teenagers in the street are surprised to
be charged with offence.

Like the ABC management they know no better.

Which words are offensive, that is the question and to who. All words are a part of free speech, and you will not reverse that. It's a matter of what generation you are from. It's not confined to ABC or any other organisation, it's a shift in world speech.

579,
Words in themselves are not offensive. It's the insinuation & perception which are the problem. If you want to feel offended then you can at any given moment, in fact feigning indignation is the most abused factors in modern society.
Australia has a whole indignation industry & it's thriving. Of course stupidity is the required ingirdient.

What?

"...a brilliant show and sometimes it pushes the boundaries of comedy..."

and no mention of A Bit of Fry and Laurie, That Mitchell and Webb (both the Show and Sound varieties) as well as the underappreciated god that is Chris Morris he of On the Hour, Brass Eye and The Day Today as well as the amazing Blue Jam, currently getting a first repeat since its premiere in 1997...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wxwn9

And, Tony Lavis, I can't believe you didn't mention_

We are simply witnessing another round of the Murdoch bid to close down the ABC, to make more room for his commercial entities.

In this instance, he is using The Australian as a proxy, and finding any and every opportunity to slag it. Not a day goes past without his local organ firing off a couple of shots - all in the interests, of course, of "fairness" and "balance".

The sad thing is, the ABC is so often its own worst enemy, and tries to fight against the mindless Borg of commercial interests by brandishing a bunch of limp wet lettuce.

There is of course much to be said for taking this form of bullying aggression head-on. But lining up eight lawyers to plead your case is a sign of not only weakness, but of appalling managerial judgment.

When money finally talks, as it undoubtedly will, we will find out the hard way that a diet of constant self-serving propaganda is not necessarily any better than an organization that - nominally, at least - is there to serve the public rather than shareholders.

Yes I agree that this sketch situation has gotten way out of hand.
I didn't think it was particularly funny, but neither would I take offence to it.

"The Life Of Brian" was an absolute scream :)
As a good little Catholic teenager starting to question the validity of all that rubbish the nuns drummed into me, I was delighted to see that movie.

I still laugh when I think of that scene with all the Romans trying not to laugh when talking about Biggus Dickus and his wife Incontinentia!

Pericles,

"We are simply witnessing another round of the Murdoch bid to close down the ABC, to make more room for his commercial entities."

Well, yes indeedy.

Was mildly amused yesterday to read on the ABC News website an article on Ric Santorum praising Tony Abbott...straight from Fox News

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-10/us-republican-praises-tony-abbott/5309338

The ABC trying to appear "fair and balanced" seems to have developed a stagger to the right...under the circumstances.

"...disgusting, just how low can you get?"

"About, a Pomeranian."

But seriously folks... Judicial relief being sought left and right, but what is really upsetting is that at the end of the process no-one cares for the feelings of the dog which was so maligned in the sketch and is muzzled with no right of free speech.

Dr Chris Brown should see if William Shatner is available to reprise Denny Crane for a spin-off series... Bondi Legal.

Suzieonline;
Would you have taken offense if your face had been put on the dog ?

The OP didn't link to the subject Q&A program and it was silent on the unanimity (Tony Jones) of panel members, expressed by Marcia Langton, professor of indigenous studies, that the ABC should apologise unreservedly and not waste public money on the defence. Another panel member noted that the ABC had nine lawyers at its court hearing. The ABC must have money to burn.

It is about defamation law. Trying to draw a false comparison with The Life of Brian is only a diversion.

Justice Beech-Jones said that the Chaser's attack was 'grossly disproportionate' and it could cause people to conclude Kenny was a 'low, contemptible and disgusting person'.

It is a very great pity that the money being wasted by the ABC -in lieu of a simple apology at the start- isn't being made available to fix any of the one lane bridges on Australia's national highway that regularly claim lives.

It might be 'your' ABC, but surely it can find better ways to spend that cool $Billion p.a. it sucks from the public teat.

Bazz"Would you have taken offense if your face had been put on the dog ?

No. I would have probably laughed at myself.
I did say I didn't find the skit funny, so why the question amyway?
Some people need to lighten up...

Suseonline, "Some people need to lighten up..."

Not a remark you would apply to 'your' ABC though with those nine lawyers and money to burn.

While I am also a fan of South Park and its pushing of social boundaries, there is a difference between simply causing offense and defamation. The moment you target an individual, you had better be sure that what you saying is correct.

When you get it wrong then as Malcolm Turnbull said, apologise immediately, and print or read out a correction to mitigate the damage. The ABCs refusal to admit its mistakes is costing it millions, mostly in legal fees when it loses. The other news channels admit their mistakes, print retractions and as a result very seldom have to shell out compensation. Is this because it is shareholder's money and not just from the deep pockets of the tax payer?

sick deranged minds laugh at sick deranged 'comedy'. If a normal person looks at nude kids its child porn if the left look at it they call it art. They are only 'pure 'in their own dirty minds.

>>It is about defamation law.<<

I agree. Spurious and irrelevant chatter about the value of a public broadcaster and condition of our roads are simply a diversion. Let's try to stay on topic for a change, eh OTB?

>>there is a difference between simply causing offense and defamation.<<

A difference which is well recognised under defamation law. Insults that are not intended to be taken literally or believed, or are likely to cause real damage to a person's reputation can be defended as mere vulgar abuse.

When South Park portray Barbra Streisand as a giant, cybernetic, Godzilla-like monster hell-bent on world domination that is obviously non-defamatory because although it insults her it cannot be taken literally or believed and can't cause real damage to her reputation. When South Park portray Tom Cruise as unwilling to come out of the closet, that might be taken as defamatory because it is believable and might damage his reputation - although in that case, the truth might be an adequate defense against defamation.

Hands up if the Chaser sketch actually made you think that Chris Kenney roots dogs? Wow, I see a distinct absence of hands. Now hands up if you thought they were just having a got at him and engaging in some mere vulgar abuse? I see a lot more hands.

I am amazed that the prosecution would waste their money and the courts' time over such a trifling matter instead of just growing a pair and not being such a thin-skinned cissy. Chris Kenney appears to have such an over-inflated sense of entitlement that he thinks he has a right to financial compensation for an insult most people would ignore. He might not root dogs but his actions after that being called a dog-rooter paint him as a rather pitiful and contemptible man.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony,

Having not actually seen the sketch, nor being an expert on defamation law, I cannot comment on its humour, its legal status, or on Chris Kenney's (CK) feelings. However, Kenney does not have the reputation for frivolous litigation, and has brushed off many scathing and insulting attacks from the left whingers before. This time Kenney has clearly decided that the ABC has gone too far, and being a careful man must reasonably sure legally to proceed with a case that could bankrupt him. I am also sure both that the barristers involved have gone far beyond your simplistic analysis and that the judge in the case has considered all the facets before ruling that there is a clear case for defamation and that the ABC is paying the legal costs.

The point that I was making is that the millions that the ABC is paying to contest these cases and losing is a stupid and unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money when there is a professional and far less costly method of dealing with mistakes.

Your next argument that CK is just a cissy and should take it like a man is childish and wildy hypocritical considering the extreme actions taken by the left to defend Juliar against comments by Alan Jones etc, or the ABC firing Piers Akerman for mentioning that there had been rumours in the Canberra press gallery about Tim Matheson's sexuality.

Even apart from all of Shadow Minister's argument, as a matter of principle should the decision-maker/s who permitted it to go to air and later refused to apologise be allowed to hide behind nine lawyers and the almost unlimited resources available to the ABC?

That is how large organisations, particularly public agencies, get away with poor management practices and unfair decisions. Internal dispute resolution procedures are a joke against anyone foolish enough to pursue them and the final option, of appeal externally, is frustrated by managers and lawyers who know how to play the game.

'Your' ABC is not acting like a respectable, principled corporate citizen. If it was a private company the same people who are here defending the ABC would be calling for a boycott of its services and products. Why the double standard?

>>there is a professional and far less costly method of dealing with mistakes.<<

Mistakes? What the hell are talking about? A mistake is a unintentional gaffe, like calling Chris a dog-rooter but showing a graphic with him rooting a pig. I'm quite sure that then Chris was called a dog-rooter the script-writers did so quite intentionally, and on the assumption that Chris had never been convicted of bestiality with a domestic canine. In short, they were inventing obvious fictions for entertainment value. Claiming Hitler had one testicle when you don't know any better is a mistake; claiming he had sixteen the size of grapefruit is an obvious fiction. Both are factually incorrect. See the difference?

But maybe people should apologise for making up obvious fictions (or maybe not). That it would be less costly I don't dispute; professional perhaps. But I don't like the idea that people should just roll over and apologise when humour causes offence. I sets a bad precedent - humour has an important role to ridicule society and public figures. It's been that way since some bloke had the idea of tying bells to his hat and an inflated pig's bladder to the end of a stick, and I think this a tradition that society would be wise to hold on to (with some obvious modification: where the hell can you get a pig's bladder these days?).

>>If it was a private company the same people who are here defending the ABC would be calling for a boycott of its services and products.<<

Really? AU$1,00 says that you're talking nonsense. I'm happy to wager one hundred shiny dollars that if this was the one of the commercial networks defending this case I would be equally happy to encourage them in a vigorous defence of the value of ridicule against one man's 'right' not to be offended. The principles involved are irrelevant of who is defending them, and the principles involved are that a comedian's right - and responsibility - to ridicule are more important than Chris "Dog-Rooter" Kenney's over-inflated sense of his own self-importance.

Cheers,

Tony