News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Home » Blogs » LyleMasaki's blog » Rowan Atkinson campaigns to water down hate speech restrictions

Rowan Atkinson campaigns to water down hate speech restrictions

by
Lyle Masaki

I have no idea what to think of this.

Rowan Atkinson, the British funnyman best known for his roles in Blackadder and Mr. Bean is speaking out against a proposed law that seeks to criminalize anti-gay hate speech, saying that the law could make humor at the expense of gays illegal.

I'm inclined to be cynical. Here in the States, free speech is an argument against laws seeking to criminalize hate speech. When put under more scrutiny, those claims usually turn out to be disingenuous strawman arguments. It doesn't help that the article comes from a Conservative-leaning paper. On the other hand, I know free speech is different in the UK than it is in the USA, so I have no idea how to judge Atkinson's worries.

This isn't the first time a conservative British paper has suggested that "politically correct legislation" will undermine the arts. Novelist Anthony Horowitz wrote an op-ed column saying that he had a hard time writing interesting villains because he didn't want to offend underrepresented groups.

Based on Atkinson's recent work, he probably doesn't have to worry so much about ... not unless sticking French fries up your nose is some coded, homophobic signal that hasn't crossed the Atlantic yet.

  • LyleMasaki's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
    • Submitted by
    Lyle Masaki
    on Thu, 2007-11-08 13:54.
    TAGS :: 
    JBE's picture

    I agree this

    Submitted by
    JBE (2647 points) (530 posts)
    on Thu, 2007-11-08 14:47.
    is a very grey area.  Sometimes I will laugh at jokes that poke fun at gays and the gay community, it really depends on who is delivering the joke.  Obviously it is better if it is a member of the GLBT community.  Some straights when they tell gay jokes come across as vicious and homophobic because they are appealing to some of the worse stereotypes, and their audience consists of people who feel better about themselves by putting more vulnerable groups down.
    Average (1 vote):
    see individual ratings
    nf0603's picture

    in all honestly,  maybe

    Submitted by
    John (320 points) (64 posts)
    on Thu, 2007-11-08 15:14.

    in all honestly,  maybe this is a good thing.     How many stand up comics make comments about African-Americans and Jewish people in 2007 and live?   People generally agree that jokes that use the N-word are outdated and only the reddest states would tolerate it, shouldn't the same apply towards comics who use the F-word?

    Much like only African-Americans are allowed to make jokes about their race, same should apply with words like "faggot".   Only gay comics and people like Margaret Cho, Kathy Griffin, Roseanne Barr and the sort who are very famously supportive of gay rights.    Why should a lame ass no-talent comic be "discriminated against" if they can't resort to the lamest anti-gay remarks to get a laugh.

    no votes
    see individual ratings
    LyleMasaki's picture

    I think my question, here,

    Submitted by
    Lyle Masaki (3516 points) (3095 posts)
    on Thu, 2007-11-08 15:54.
    I think my question, here, is if there's anything to Atkinson's claim. As I note above, when that claim is made in the States, the threat to free speech turns out to be a made-up bogeyman. However, those issues are (from what I understand) very different in Britain, so I have no clue to judge if his warning is valid or not. I mean, I'm a strong believer in free speech, so I am open to hearing this kind of argument, but is that a real danger of these laws or just a claim that makes it easier to argue against hate speech restrictions?
    Average (1 vote):
    see individual ratings
    Locksley Hall's picture

    Atkinson is consistent...

    Submitted by
    Locksley Hall (260 points) (62 posts)
    on Thu, 2007-11-08 17:00.
    My memory is that Atkinson made the same protest when a bill came up a few years ago that would limit what could be said against religious people. He obviously feels passionately about freedom of speech. I just thought I'd throw that in there in case people were starting to wonder if he just wanted to criticise gay people.
    Average (1 vote):
    see individual ratings
    Celtic Tiger's picture

    A Dangerous Precedent

    Submitted by
    Celtic Tiger (366 points) (72 posts)
    on Thu, 2007-11-08 17:15.
    While I find any sort of racial or stereotypical humor to be insulting to say the least, what I find even more distasteful is the currently proposed British law making hate-speech a crime.  This is a very slippery slope that, if brought to its final conclusion, is little more than an attempt at thought control and will set human rights back several centuries rather than furthering the causes of freedom and equality.  We are opening a Pandora's box under the misguided notions that hate can be prevented by legislation limiting vocal self-expression and that ideas can be changed by force rather than education and enlightenment.
    History has shown time and again that ideas do not die simply because those championing them die.  You can kill the messenger, but the message remains.  Once hate speech against minorities is banned, where does it go next?  Do we then ban any speech that does not agree with the thinking of those in power?  Do we imprison those who would speak out against a corrupt or oppressive government?  And if hate speech is banned, how long before it extends to its next logical level, the banning of books that may contain hateful thoughts?  We condemned the Nazis, amongst others, for their book burnings, and yet this is the very same thought process they used to justify their actions.
    Hate speech also serves at least two useful purposes.  One, it reminds us that we still have a long way to go in the struggle for equality.  Speech is the vocal extension of thought and if people truly believe we are not equal, then their actions will follow suit.  Murder is illegal in many countries, and yet the Matthew Shepards of the world continue to die.  If we rest on our laurels simply because a law has been passed, we become complacent in the notion that we no longer need to stand up for ourselves because those in charge will do it for us.  Apathy has been one of the greatest enemies of the GLBT community.  Many prefer to sit in their bars or bath houses rather than march in protest or promote understanding via social discourse.  Hate speech should be a shocking reminder for our community to get off its collective asses and work to make the change rather than sit idle and hope others do it for us.  It is the alarm bell that screams FIRE!
    The second useful purpose of hate speech is simply this.  If I am to do battle, I prefer to face my enemies at a time and place of my choosing and know who they are, rather than have them creep silently in the shadows to stab me in the back when it is least expected.  It is only when the enemy can be identified that we can plan the appropriate responses, and even then it is a tough battle.  Giving them the element of surprise is a very serious tactical advantage in their favor and only makes our struggle for equality all the more difficult.  Is it not better for our enemies to expose themselves with their words, rather than their deeds?
    Evelyn Beatrice Hall (under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre), wrote in her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  If we understand their position, we can use logic and reason to counter their arguments and be the champions of freedom of speech and self-expression at the same time, but this requires us to be able to hear their arguments in the first place.  If we want to condemn and hold accountable, we should base it on actions, rather than thought or speech. 

    "It's your will against mine and you will lose."  Clint Eastwood - Heartbreak Ridge

    Average (2 votes):
    see individual ratings
    afhickman's picture

    Where would we be without laughter?

    Submitted by
    afhickman (2300 points) (469 posts)
    on Fri, 2007-11-09 04:57.

    afhickman

    "It takes a village (to make Village People)"

    If you are looking for gay subtext in Rowan Atkinson's work, you will find it aplenty in "The Thin Blue Line," which features an obviously gay character called Constable Goody who, nonetheless, has a crush on a policewoman.  To underscore Goody's gayness, the actor who played him, James Dreyfus, recently took a turn as a sexually ambivalent Emcee in a London production of "Cabaret."  "The Thin Blue Line" is hilarious, and, like "Blackadder" and "Mr. Bean," was written by Ben Elton.  My point is to say that Atkinson should be given the benefit of the doubt here.  He's has milked humor from gay situations before, without being offensive, and he should be allowed to continue to do so.  He may be right about the law against hate speech: after all, what would Graham Norton do for laughs if he couldn't make fun of fellow gays?

    no votes
    see individual ratings

    Home » Blogs » LyleMasaki's blog » Rowan Atkinson campaigns to water down hate speech restrictions

    User login

    Recent comments
    After Elton home page on logo online