I feel like I should start by saying that I like comedy. I own the boxset of Peep Show, am a fan of Monty Python and have guffawed my way through Dylan Moran. My problem lies with comediens or TV personalities that attempt to rouse us into perpetual institutional bullying by making weak digs and pithy attacks on already vulnerable and at times marginalised groups and people. In fact it's the equivalent to a drunken oaf in a bar taking a clumsy and lazy lunge at a baby panda in a wheelchair.
It isn't brave to pull a ha-larious face in an attempt to imitate a kid with Downs Syndrome- sorry 'Mongs' and then post said photos on Twitter, it isn't risque to suggest that an 8 year old child is unwanted because he was born disabled- who admittedly must be fair game considering he is the child of Katie Price, it isn't tongue in cheek to suggest that train journeys should continue and further obliterate the remains of someone who has committed suicide because they had the sheer audacity to delay your journey, it isn't original to repeatedly liken a vulnerable public singer to a horse continuing the same boring, basic comparison until her death, it isn't clever to stand on national TV and tell us that all Mexicans are lazy and smelly or that TV is full of black, Muslim lesbians.
Another example, I'm not even going to bother mentioning the name of this next stud for fear of religious reprisal from Top Gear fans. Maybe it's a sign that he shares the same initials as Jesus Christ??...but I digress. My favourite 'joke', remember it's just a 'joke' is when he calls Gordon Brown a 'Scottish one-eyed idiot'. Harmless fun, poking fun at a man who at the time was sitting in JC's rightful place as Lord of this country. Hilarious. I mean, J.C could have disappointed us all by scraping the barrel and attacked his policies or made a tentative jab at his funny accent but no he decided to show true comedic genius by deciding that going blind in one eye during childhood is funny and worthy of our laughter whilst Richard 'Not a real hamster' Hammond tittered alongside him.
I've heard excuses of 'but it's tongue in cheek' or my favourite 'it's irony' from the anti-heroes themselves as well as fans. If that was really the case then surely there would be no problem whatsoever in me suggesting that people with cancer should be put out of their misery. Their corpse (which at this point smells of salsa and taco) should be thrown over a bridge. Onto some railway tracks. And then ignored...
But then I don't think poking fun of a victim of cancer would illicit the same response as a suicidal, selfish, time-waster.
In my defence, I typed this part while tongueing my own mouth ulcer which just so happens to be situated on the inside of my cheek. Therefore it's okay.
Yet, these are men that presumably have the comedic tools of satire, irony and wit at their disposable yet seem incapable of using them instead preferring to prod lazily at what they don't understand, preferring to mock the disabled, gays and Muslim women for cheap, easy laughs.
Considering my last article enraged a few people, this isn't an attack on anyone who watches Top Gear or who appreciates the fine idiosyncracies of Ricky Gervais. (really??). It is my own personal criticism of the nasty jokes that in my opinion, these nasty men tell.
Interesting post. But i would like to point out that in a world where we strive for equality, bringing these groups into attack alongside the rest of us gets rid of those distinctions - put another way, we all talk of equality yet still wear kid gloves when it comes to minorities. Even though those same minorities only want to be treated like everyone else. When we continue to single them out, 'for protection,' all that happens is we widen the chasm of distinction. South Park portrayed it very well with the episode about the nurse with the conjoined twin on her head.
ReplyDeleteComedians do overstep the mark at times, and Frankie Boyle's 'joke' about Harvey is a good example. And while i do disagree with what he said, it shouldn't be ignored that he talks shit about everyone, including people in the audience at his shows. That's just his thing, like Jimmy Carr does jokes about cancer and AIDS, so does that guy who hosted Never Mind the Buzzcocks that you went to see. The problem with these topics is that some people find them hilarious, some people find it distasteful. Part of the package of having free speech is accepting that people will say things we don't like - and hey, that's ok, because the freedom stretches to allow us to rebut the remark.
For the record - Gordon Brown firmly IS a one-eyed Scottish idiot. He has one eye. He's Scottish. And he's a fucking idiot.
To add to that point about some people finding it hilarious and some people finding it distasteful, and accepting that such things can be said in a free society, this sums it up well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg
ReplyDeleteI agree partly but would argue that comedy such as the routine in which Frankie Boyle singled out people with downs syndrome, referring to them as 'mongoids' and saying that they are destined for an early death. What kind of point is being made here? That people with downs syndrome have a shorter life expectancy? What is funny about that?
ReplyDeletePeople have the right to free speech and I'm not suggesting that they don't but by that same arguement, surely it would give us the right to stand in the street and abuse people?
but i dont even think the question is about free speech. i am questioning why these famous men who earn a lot of money would want to pick on a person in a wheelchair or someone dying of cancer. it's easy game isn't it?
I think you mean Simon Amstell- the only thing that comes to my mind in reference to AIDS is when he did a routine poking fun at himself. He got some cat piss on a cut. Went to the doctor and asked her whether he had cat aids. The doctor looked at him in a way he thought doctors weren't allowed to look at people. Simon was poking fun at himself for being so paranoid.
to go back to frankie boyle, eurgh. his criticism of people with downs syndrome isn't about breaking down barriers or challenging the system. whatever his next excuse is. it's doing the opposite. he's pulling everything inwards to an time where it was okay to call disabled people 'spastics' or 'mongs'. which i for one dont really want to return to.
and i counter your steve hughes with this...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmkHLiZMJeU&feature=related
no-one can better explain my thoughts on politically correctness than mr lee
I haven't seen Boyle's bit on Downs Syndrome. I don't defend much of what he does because he never really has a purpose other than trying to be offensive deliberately. If you watch Gervais's stand up though he does quite often explain the purpose of bringing it up, and largely it's for the reason i said before. I don't really see how that extends to abusing people in the street though?
ReplyDeleteAlso, Boyle aside perhaps, they don't pick on 'a person' - they just bring a collective group into their routine. Gervais took a lot of shit for saying 'mong', but he was totally correct that it doesn't mean what it once did, we've all said it haven't we? And we meant it in a term more akin to 'idiot', just as when we say twat we don't mean vagina. When he pulled the faces, haven't we all done that too? If anything all it does is disempower the words, the more something is spoken the less powerful it is.
I think Lee has utterly missed the point of PC gone mad though. It's nothing to do with writing racial slurs on someone's car with excrement. It's actually precisely the fact that if we mention something that offends a minority we're racist. Perfect example being the row over christmas trees and nativity plays offending muslims and so having restrictions - in a christian country too. I wouldn't call that a counter to Hughes either mind, because what Steve was saying is look, you live in a free society, you want to say what you feel you want to say, and with that right comes the fact that you will hear things you don't like.
I'm actually pretty surprised you agree with me about Boyle but have to disagree with you about Gervais. The word 'mong' still derrives from a derrogatory term for disabled people. Similarly the word 'nigger'derives from a derrogatory term for black people. If Gervais used the N word, I'm sure people would be up in oars. Because it really isn't his word to reclaim just as the word 'mong' isn't.
ReplyDeleteOn Twitter Gervais didn't just decide to use the word 'mong'. He followed it by pulling faces. Whether they were idiot faces (in which case why not just stare straight into the camera?) or faces supposed to mimic people with downs syndrome. Only Ricky knows.
Richard Herring put it well (friend of Stew's) 'Just a thought, but if you only think the term 'mong' means idiot. Than why not just use 'idiot'?
It extends to the street because what in particular Boyle, hurls into the pixels on our tv screens is pure hatrd and nastiness. We don't put up with abuse on our streets. Why should we put up with it on the telly?
I dont think Lee has missed the point though. Politically correctness is about being respectful. I fail to see what is wrong with that? No idea about the row over the Christmas trees and nativity plays. Sounds like something conjured up by the Daily Mail to me.
Well 'nigger' is slightly different, but Gervais did nothing on Twitter he hasn't done for years on his blog. He's uploaded photos pulling faces for a long time. And he made the very true statement that the meanings of words change. 'Nigger' didn't always mean black person, it certainly wasn't always the racist term it is today. Just as 'gay' has changed meaning multiple times over the years. I've said and heard various insults over the years, spaz, twat, spackhead, mong but a) i never meant it as 'oh you literally are a spastic' and b) why is 'mong' worse than 'dickhead'? Both are meant to offend, and mong isn't said to actually mean mongoloid.
ReplyDeleteHerring's comment is somewhat valid sure, but we could apply that to everything - why not say sex instead of fucking? 'Fuck' offends some people, should we ban it out of politeness?
There has to be a distinction between tv and real life. We don't put up with guns and violence on the street but we do have action films. We have porn but can't have sex in public. Comedians have a very rare ability to say things close to the bone, and unless those words end up inciting hatred i see no problem really. Freedom of speech simply has to extend to that otherwise we may as well scrap it entirely. And as Steve Hughes said, how can we make laws about subjective interpretation?
I don't think the underlying meaning ever changes. The way in which words are used change. Also why is the word 'nigger' any different? These kind of words carry connotations and show an ugly period of history in which they were widely used. To ignore that in favour of a more comfortable yet again intrinisically negative meaning is ignorent.
ReplyDeleteYou're proving my point; mong IS worse than dickhead similarly to how mong IS worse than using the word idiot. Both are meant to offend but unlike 'mong/mongoloid', 'idiot' and 'dickhead' don't carry the same weighty history behind it as a disablist term.
Again the same point can be applied to 'fuck' and 'sex'. The word 'sex' hasn't been used to discriminate against disabled people, it hasn't been warranted an entire movement nor has an entire music genre been born out of the word 'fuck'. Words which are meant to discrimate against minorities and swear words are really, really are not comparable.
I can see the distinct difference between tv and real life but these guys provide commentary to real life. If Ricky Gervais really feels the need to reclaim a word he has no right to than why not black up and take photos of himself and bring back the word golly wog.
Which leads me nicely onto duality of meaning. A gollywog isn't just a doll. Is it? If it was, it wouldn't have been banned. But then I don't think 'mong' is just a word either. If Gervais is incapable of making the distinction between a word used to marginalise people and calling someone a fool, well, then he's an idiot.
I recently came to the conclusion that as a general rule of thumb, it's best to avoid insulting people for things encoded in their genes. Yes, they could get a sex change and Michael Jackson is a prime example of changing skin colour, but they can't alter their genes. However, do people have a right to avoid offence? That's a trickier one. A country where it was illegal to offend people would probably be a lot more repressive than it is today and things held to be patently offensive in the past are not viewed as perfectly normal: for example, racial miscegenation. The reverse applies too of course, things held to be hilarious in the past (Jim Davidson, maybe), would be boo'd off the stage today most likely. I notice Steve Hughes called offended people "idiots" and not "niggers" or "faggots".
ReplyDeleteAnyway, sustained low level abuse can actually cause more health problems (stress induced sickness, there is a correlation between cortisol levels and surprising illnesses like cancer - the body diverts immune functions to producing adrenaline to help deal with whichever stressor, but the stressor remains) than a slap in the face, but the latter offence is more likely to be prosecuted.
There's another tangential issue of real satire, like Borat. A Jewish guy satirising American culture as ignorant by portraying an absurd anti-semitic stereotype of someone from a "-stan" country. Perhaps it was a valid social commentary, perhaps not.
Oh and funnily enough, my friend was flipping through the Sun in a takeaway and I noticed Frankie Boyle has a column in there... Jeremy Clarkson has (or had) a column in the Sunday Times, both owned by News International (aka Murdoch!) Coincidence? I think not.
The underlying meaning does change though. 'Nigger' is just a spin-off from negro meaning negroid, which was the black equivalent of caucasian. It was used neutrally to mean a black person before later being a derogatory term, and that's the meaning we still have.
ReplyDeleteGay meant happy once and now means homosexual. No one now says 'i'm having a gay time', but watch the Flintstones and it's in the title music.
The issue of mong is subjective, proven by the fact that when someone has called me a mong i don't think 'oh shit they are saying i have downs syndrome' - i take it as a mild insult usually said in jest. Cunt is far more offensive. And while Gervais and Frankie Boyle may have attracted most media furore, plenty others talk about these things. Lewis C K speaks about 'nigger', and he's white. But i don't see how it's about reclaiming anything - if we want to really be equal and treated as one then such silly disparities and boundaries must be shed. Surely it's racist to say it's ok for one type of ethnicity to say a word but not another group? Surely it's enabling discrimination by intentionally separating a group by removing them from being the target of a joke? Just like in school, as soon as you say 'oh you can't pick on that kid for this reason' he becomes seen as different. Children are great examples, because it's us adults with our 'morality' that create the boundaries, children just see people as people regardless of how they look, it's only with age it becomes something more sinister. Again, it's an issue beautifully covered by South Park when the kids had to redesign the town flag - it was white people gathered around a black man hanging from a noose. The kids' new design was people of different colours standing around a black man on a noose. People get upset the black man is still on the noose, but it was perfectly explained in the show that the children left that man on that rope because it hadn't even registered to them that he was of a different colour. That is much more a commentary to real life than Gervais saying 'mong' in an arena that the vast majority of the public hadn't even heard. It was only thanks to the media that we all heard about it, so shouldn't they be taking the blame? Gervais had some hundreds of followers on Twitter and a similar number in the audience at his shows. Thanks to the papers he got about half a million followers. And to hit that from another angle, the sole reason Gervais and Clarkson et al are so popular is because they say things the public at large either likes or relates to. Because they say what we all say at parties and in the pub.
(had to break this into 2 comments because it was too long)
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned irony in your post and Gervais really is all about the irony. His entire life he has been politically active, long before he was famous. He openly talks about the problems of AIDS and discrimination and bullying, but he follows it up with a cheeky gag that either makes people think or just to make them laugh. It's more real life, no? We have all pulled faces and called people names and all the rest of it, so before we start laying blame on celebrities we should really address it on a personal level. As Michael Jackson said, if you want to make the world a better place you have to look in the mirror and make that change.
As for golly wog, Gervais had that in an Extras episode. Are they banned? I bought one at the market a few years ago and still have it. And while it's all well and good us two white people discussing it, the plain fact of the matter is the black person i knew then found golly wogs funny. If we're on a mission to protect these innocent people from the harsh ways of White Braves, shouldn't it be those opinions we listen to above those of other caucasians? Because what most of them want - ethnic groups, disabled people, dwarfs etc - is just to be treated the way the rest of us are treated, and that means stepping off our patronising moral crusades about what we *think* is best for them and actually overlooking the things that separate them - and that, in all honesty, is precisely what Gervais is doing by using the word 'mong' in a term far removed from people with downs syndrome. Had he said 'oh those fucking mongs who look all funny, aren't they a waste of space?' i'd be the first to say he's crossed the line. But to use it as a general word, in replacement of 'idiot', only serves to further remove it from the link to disabled people. And that can only be a good thing.
GamerUnknown-
ReplyDeleteIt's impossible for people to avoid offence. In one way I'm grateful that people like Clarkson and Boyle bring their stupidity to the public forum. It gives me plenty to write about, shows that ignorence on this level is not just in the playground and allows for debate. I wasn't suggesting a 1984 style dictatorship nor a control of freedom of speech or thoughts. I am all for freedom of speech but it works both ways. The people I've mentioned in the initial blog post are using a public arena to spout 'jokes' and I use that term loosely to make lazy and clumsy attacks on marginalised groups of society that have heard these type of derogatory insults all before and by doing so are opening themselves up to a whole lot of criticism.
Borat is great. I think they key word you used here was 'satirical'. Like you pretty much pointed out, Borat is just a vehicle for point out other people's daily ignorence towards the foreign stereotype. The most memorable part of Borat for me was when he was in the bar and began singing 'throw the Jew down the well' and all the inhabitants of that bar joined in without a moment's hesitation. Satire and irony are used more effectively by sacha baron cohen than the likes of Gervais and Boyle could ever dream of.
When Gervais pulls inane faces on his twitter account and excitedly excretes the word 'mong' as often as he can whilst clapping like some sort of egotistical seal- that is not satire or irony. Although I hate Gervais, I find it difficult to believe that he's that thick as to not realise the connotations and history behind the word 'mong'.
When Boyle vents his frustration at 'the man' and other anti-establishment notions as he seems to want people to believe, he does not achieve this by telling the world that people with downs syndrome are going to die young.
Continuing with the same theme, when Clarkson wants to give a big fuck you to the 'politically correct brigade' he does not do this by insulting the inhabitants of Mexico,of which 44% live below the poverty line.
I liked your Murdoch point. Clarkson and Boyle have another thing in common with him; they all feed the nation recycled and unwanted garbage.
Having read the blog, I would say that by pulling 'mong faces' as Gervais calls them, he's simply setting himself up for a fall, as the press (particularly the tabloids / the devils newspaper AKA the Daily Mail) tend to sensationalise these issues.
ReplyDeleteFor me, different people find different things offensive. I don't believe in taking offence or a moral stand against something, simply because a person (or a person writing an article) says I should find a particular subject offensive.
An example of this would be the furore caused by Simon Amstell's appearance on a BBC breakfast show, & the media saying that he mocked a person who had been diagnosed with a brain tumour.
Having watched the clip on YouTube
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Dg7jm5giU)
I'd say that he was actually poking fun at the show's 'we've interviewed you, & now we're going to herd you off so that we can interview the next person' format.
Having been close to someone who passed away from a brain tumour, I feel I'm allowed a genuine opinion on this subject without making a song & dance about it.
I agree with Richard's comments about free speech, & also his South Park examples. Oddly, South Park are very good at explaining things, another SP example would be an episode entitled 'Cartman's Silly Hate Crime' which basically illustrates Richard's point about enabling discrimination by seperating a group.
Turning into a bit of a drawn out essay, so I'll end it here. I actually admire Gervais, he's a very clever comedian, but he's made a rod for his own back, in terms of the pulling faces thing (although if people crucify him, they should crucify 99% of other people in the world, because rightly or wrongly, everyone has pulled a stupid face just to get a cheap laugh)
My own take of things is that if people genuinely find something offensive, then that is their right, but I don't feel that the current bandwagon mentality of 'OMG, that man said a bad word / did something wrong' that's been going on in the media for years, is a helpful one. We're humans, not drones. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Enjoyed the blog & the debate, a good read.
Mick I understand you have a different opinion to me but it seems to be going around in circles now. I thought I had covered what I think is the difference between swearwords and words packed with derogative meanings like 'mong'.
ReplyDeleteI understand also that gay used to mean happy and now means homosexual. But is that really a negative connotation? There's a difference. Mong/mongoloid is a derogatory term for a disabled person and now you're stating that 'no, it's okay. Because it means idiot'. When people used to call a disabled person a mong it was to infer that they are somehow backward or.. I don't know.. mentally deficient. So really, it hasn't changed at all. Why call someone a name that carries such a heavy and offensive meaning to disabled people?
Again I feel like I'm going around in circles but I want to tackle your point about it being somehow racist because we can't use the N word. Why would you even want to? There is so much baggage and weight to that word in which white people used it to enslave black people. Richard Pryor makes a great point in one of his standups. I think it's on youtube. 'There are no niggers. That word is dead'. I hate the word when its used by ANYONE but yes it is more acceptable for a black person to use it because of the history and racial context behind it.
also mick- cant believe you actually quoted a MJ song.
ReplyDeleteAnd your black friend finding a gollywog 'funny' doesn't speak for the entire black community. Maybe what she found funny is seeing a doll representative of a bygone era which hopefully will never return.
Yes minorities want to be treated as equals but this doesn't usually include singling them out and then blasting them with a lot of discriminatory rhetoric from the past.
Actually she just thought the doll was funny. Thing is, I have yet to hear a back person bemoan the word, only white people. And all too often it is people not related to the minorities that get so defensive, not the people themselves.
ReplyDeleteAlso your final point hits the nail on the head - they aren't being blasted with rhetoric at all, the word is being turned into something as harmless as idiot and used against other people. And that's a hell of an important distinction that really changes the issue. Mr SFNR has it spot on. And also if you're quoting Pryor then what is most interesting is him saying the word is dead - illustrating a black man who doesn't see it as racist and also the changing definition and usage of words. Words change all the time throughout history and just because they were once offensive doesn't mean they can't be touched, if anything they SHOULD be touched and turned into something harmless.that seems more moral and humane to me. Gay has gone from happy to somewhat derogatory, should it now stay that way instead of perhaps becoming harmless again? Or put another way, why is it ok for a good word to become good but not a bad word to become good?
Mick, you're great. I love you lots and you're my friend but I honestly lost interest when you claimed that white people not being allowed to use the N word was somehow racist. If you can't understand that then I really don't see the point in this debate.
ReplyDeleteIf you'd have watched the Richard Pryor clip you'd see him say that he doesn't like the term, when white people or black people use it, it makes him uncomfortable because it was used to describe how 'wretched' black people apparently were. He wasn't saying it's a defunct word; because it's still being used in a racist and derogatory way.
I'm pretty much done here now Mick. It's clear you have your way of thinking and I have mine.
Also at what point does offence become satire? Borat could be accused of inciting racial hatred in the mentioned scene for instance, and plenty were offended by the film.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean it isn't a racist word, just that it is a type of racism for one group to be banned from something another group isn't banned from saying. Its a racial distinction and therefore racism.
ReplyDeleteBecause sacha is jewish? If you dont understand satire than look it up.
ReplyDelete“"Children are great examples, because it's us adults with our 'morality' that create the boundaries, children just see people as people regardless of how they look, it's only with age it becomes something more sinister"
ReplyDeleteI don't entirely agree. Children can be socialised into all kinds of behaviour, as demonstrated by Bandura. If one looks up Memri TV, there is an orchestrated propaganda campaign to try and indoctrinate children to hate Israel and it may be effective. Likewise, I think psychopaths are born: there are differences in amygdala functioning that are present throughout life. I consider it likely that at least one of the murderers of James Bulger was a psychopath, for example.
The effectiveness of satire and South Park tie into further points. I think when done effectively, satire accomplishes a hell of a lot, even when I don't agree with the aims of the satirists. For example, equivocating global warming with "manbearpig" was ingenious until one steps back, considers the weight of the scientific evidence, whether empiricism is more valid than other epistemologies and whether cartoonists are more likely to alight at the truth than scientists dedicated to analysis of the climate. There's actually a question of whether equivocation itself is warranted. For example, the episode featuring Dawkin's army was mildly humorous, but what's the most radical policy Dawkins would institute into law? Revoking the tax free status of religious institutions. While Rachel has linked to and perhaps written about satire being necessarily "brave", it's far easier to attack a relatively docile group than one which will apportion death threats. This is the type of satire I find amusing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg-4ATrE8n0. Notice that they didn't bother to do one for the opposition government at the same time for the sake of "balance" because it simply wasn't warranted. In terms of humour in general, I especially like Stewart Lee's defence of political correctness. Now that was challenging a populist preconception and he managed to do it in a funny way. He also raised the point that daring humour at the time would be calling the one Asian kid in the classroom "Paki" or whatever. Is that the principle we want to enshrine? Is that a good demonstration to children that we shouldn't have any taboos and that we should be egalitarian in our insults? Or does it demonstrate exactly the opposite principle, that adults are cruel and capricious, that arbitrary intergroup discrimination is warranted and that if in a sufficiently large majority, then anything is permitted? I'd like to return to my previous statement, we can be daring and funny even if we only challenge existing power structures (namely, structures that can be altered, not aspects of individuals that they cannot change about themselves).
As an aside, I don't particularly mind “fail” videos when they involve adults in precarious situations mildly injuring themselves (I accept some people would find that distasteful). But I know people that are apparently not psychopaths derive great pleasure from what amounts to snuff montages or pranks set up to injure children. There is a very wide spectrum for what people find humorous and offensive.
ReplyDeleteOh, that said, despite acknowledging the fact that offence can cause more damage to an individual than physical assault, I think there is a very good reason to support freedom of speech in extreme scenarios. The problem of the first half of assuming offence predicates restitution is that people can be offended by the very aspects people can't change about themselves. For example, I had a Muslim friend that was quite offended by the sight of naked hair and I quite pity people that are offended by the sight of people that have different skin pigmentation than them. The warrant for the latter is that Thomas Paine probably would have been executed for the books nad pamphlets he published had he remained in England several hundred years ago, which demonstrates the importance of dissent. There's no good limit that applies to every scenario that I can think of, but calling for or threatening violence with credible threat would be where I'd draw the line. I actually quite surprised an Asian census taker for a Conservative group by saying that I "strongly agree" that people should be able to express their racist views (there was no option based on whether I think any rational individual should give them a platform or pay very much attention to them), but that I "strongly disagree" that people entering the country should speak English. I think it's absurd that people are treated differently merely by the dint of the fact that they were born outside of the country. I highly doubt that most BNP voters would pass a basic literacy or citienship test, but that doesn't mean we should deport them. Anyway, here's an advocate for extreme free speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU”