Command Performances

A few weeks ago, comedian Dave Chappelle was attacked by a spectator while he performed at the Hollywood Bowl. 23 year old Isaiah Lee ran onto the stage and "tussled" with Chappelle, and was eventually taken into custody. Lee currently sits in jail, awaiting disposition not only of the four misdemeanor charges related to the Chappelle attack, but also for allegedly stabbing his roommate a year ago.

Why did Lee feel so incensed that he decided to attack?

I identify as bisexual … and I wanted him to know what he said was triggering.

I wanted him to know that next time, he should consider first running his material by people it could affect.

In short, Lee found some of Chappelle's material offensive. That Chappelle was doing transgender jokes should not have come as any surprise to Lee, given last year's hullaballoo over Chappelle's Netflix special that included all sorts of "not funny" types scolding him, and at least a few Netflix employees protesting the platform's continued carrying of the content.

Lee is apparently unrepentant about his attack, suggesting he has served some larger purpose.

Indeed, he has.

He has abetted the normalization of a violent heckler's veto over creative content. He has also advanced the false premise that specific audience members have a right to dictate performers' content, the balance of the audience's desires notwithstanding.

Used to be, if you objected to something about an artist, you opted out of consuming that artist's product. You didn't go to the shows, you didn't buy the recordings, you skipped over the telecasts or streaming content. If you felt strongly, you wrote letters, or in more recent times, posted on social media. Market forces decided the rest. A "seller" (that's what everyone who performs for money is) that turned off enough potential customers suffered economically, and either adjusted or lived with the smaller market share.

Now, however, people feel they have the right to manage creators' content on behalf of everyone else.

In times of yore, royalty would call for "command performances." In more recent times, comics engage in the equivalent for corporate retreats and other "closed" venues. In such, the old adage "he who pays the piper calls the tune" applies, and it's quite common for such purchasers to place limits on content (often, that comedians work "clean," and perhaps restrictions on certain topics).

In a public venue, however, where John or Jane Doe choose to attend, neither John nor Jane get to decide what the comic gets to say, or must not say. If John or Jane are sensitive to certain "triggers," whether they be words or topics, it's on them to assess their risk. The performer has no* obligation to alter material to cater to John or Jane. It's a one-way street - the comic tells jokes, the attendee listens, and either laughs or doesn't. If offense rises to intolerable levels, the attendee has one option: walk out.

It ends there.

Or, rather, it's supposed to.

Will Smith infamously slapped Chris Rock during the recent Oscars award show, and set off a social media firestorm. Replete, sadly, with defenders of Smith's violence. Other comics are reporting similar aggressions.

This is absolutely intolerable. Freedom of artistic expression is a cornerstone of a liberal society. What we are witnessing is the continued drift of the Left away from liberalism and toward an authoritarian-thug model that parallels the totalitarian regimes of last century. The only difference? There, the government brooked no criticism, and gulag'ed you for transgressions (real, imagined, or fabricated). Now, it's a bunch of self-appointed crusaders who are deciding what you and I must not be allowed to hear, and who feel that violence is an acceptable means of enforcing their demands. The commonality? Violence as a response to free expression.

The illiberal Left, much like kings and queens of olden times, is commanding performances. They want jokes about their preferred topics, lampooning limited to public figures they dislike, and offense focused solely on the "oppressor" identity groups. They aren’t hiring the comics, oh no… they instead feel the right to dictate the terms of others’ economic transactions. It’s always about OPM, of course.

Those kings and queens of yore kept court jesters and fools close at hand, because those comedians spoke truths that others dared not vocalize. In modern times, especially in the half century or so since Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, Dick Gregory and other social critics broke comedy free of Vaudeville schtick, much social "truth" has been presented by comedians, and we're all better off for it.

If an omnipotent monarch could stand personal affront by a joke-teller, there's no excuse for any of us to be so infuriated by a comic's barbs that we resort to violence.

Don't like the comic? Don't go to his shows.

How hard is that?

In closing, a broadcast to all the self-appointed arbiters of funny: Piss off. I didn’t ask you to manage what I hear, and I reject your attempting to do so. You don’t get to decide what I find funny.

---

If you enjoy The Roots of Liberty, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), and  please recommend the blog to your friends! While I share it as much as I can on social media, subscribing ensures you won't miss a post.

If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon.

Thank you for your support!

Yours in liberty,

Peter.