🚀 go-pugleaf

        In article <CGDuy0.DEr@world.std.com>, rik@world.std.com (Rik Ahlberg)
wrote:
>If Clay were to perform that act on a streetcorner, I'd like to try to 
>get him prosecuted under the hate crimes statute. (not at all a likely 
>scenario, just one which intrigues me -- how protected _is_ public speech 
>when it advocates violence?) :>

        Ignoring the public/private/paid speech issue here, I am not sure that
Andrew "Dice" Clay's act, especially when considered as a piece of theatre,
which it is, constitutes genuine advocacy of violence or even bigotry.
Portrayal, sure; but advocacy?

        Mr. Clay has stressed (though admittedly not very elequently) in
interviews that the "Dice" character was not to be taken seriously, and that
various mannerisms of the "Dice" character (funny-looking cigarette tricks
being among these, at least according to a summer 1993 interview on the Comedy
Channel) were designed to emphasize that.  How effective of a disclaimer these
mannerisms were, I'm not really prepared to evaluate, but for as long as I've
known of his act, all of the promotional material I have seen has contained
phrases such as "Guaranteed to offend everybody" that are intended to
underscore Clay's distinction between advocacy and portrayal.

        It's a common failing among audience members to confuse advocacy with
portrayal, even when an artist explicitly points out the difference between the
two, as Clay has.  Would-be censors who interpret a controversial work of art
as advocating a "dangerous" idea, and thus desire to withold the art from an
audience, are just as irresponsible and dangerous to society as audience
members who misinterpret such portrayal as advocacy of violence, bigotry, etc.
and act upon this reinforcement.  Both of these extremisms make a scapegoat of
the artist and discourage the free exchange of ideas in the arts.

        Such screw-ups by irresponsible readers are not unknown to clearly
politically-oriented literature as well, as anyone who has read about the
brouhaha surrounding _A_Modest_Proposal_ knows: should the author have been
jailed in that situation?  I think not.

>Really, though, I like the comedy connection. I patronize them several 
>times a year and recommend them to my friends... but it's a simple moral 
>dilemma for me to support an establishment which gives a forum to such a 
>bigot. 

        I have seen no convincing evidence that Clay's performances cross the
line between comic portrayal of various human vices and genuine advocacy of
bigotry.  If he indeed has, I would appreciate being filled in.  (I'm certainly
not the world's foremost authority on Mr. Clay.)

>It it were in an .edu context with discussion and analysis, okay, I 
>can intelectuallize away the instinctive twinges of discomfort, because I 
>know his views will be challenged and evaluated. 

        Do these challenges and evaluations not occur among audience members
inside a comedy club?

>Don't shield bigots with the shroud of free speech -- that's sick...

        Even given that Mr. Clay is a violence-advocating bigot (I am not
convinced) whose performances are politically-motivated expressions of this
misanthropy (I am not convinced), I fail to see how this alone should prevent
him of being shielded "with the shroud of free speech".  The very ideas that
are unpopular, and possibly loathsome, are those that require First Amendment
protection; popular ideas typically need no such protection.

        Putting "art" aside for the moment, the free exchange of ideas,
including kooky ones, hateful ones, and impractical ones, is essential to any
democratically-based society; while I would be the last person to say that Rik
Ahlberg should be compelled to spend his time and money by patronizing an
event, such as a Andrew "Dice" Clay performance, which he does not support, nor
would I say that he doesn't have the right to protest such an event, I feel
that the words of Thomas Paine (and Voltaire, and surely many others) are right
on target in this context: "I do not agree with one word you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it."  There's enough censorship in this
society as it is.

>...my money will go elsewhere, perhaps to groups like Real Men which try to
>open discussion by fostering a little dissent.

        Regarding "try[ing] to open discussion by fostering a little dissent",
all the publicity (including this thread) about Mr. Clay and his performances
indicates to me that Mr. Clay has already done an admirable job of opening up
discussion and fostering a little dissent.  Rik Ahlberg may wish to further
encourage this by attending more Andrew "Dice" Clay performances.


-- 
+-------+ "In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will
|John   |  operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in
|Davison|  the period of boom." -- Leon Trotsky, in a critique of the draft
+-------+                          program of the Comintern in 1928