Melania Trump vs. Kimmel: Where is the Line for Satire in Late Night?

Political violence seems to be dominating our news cycle once again. And the discussion has mainly shifted to whether a joke can be seen as inciting violence.

I think this is actually a really interesting philosophical debate.

No matter what side of the aisle you're on, I hope you agree that killing people is not the answer. But I also hope you agree that censoring people is not either.

How much responsibility does a joke hold, and is stopping joking really the right response?

This week, the conversation around these points reached a boiling point as First Lady Melania Trump publicly called on ABC to "take a stand" against Jimmy Kimmel, following what she described as "hateful and violent" rhetoric on his late-night show.

Which wound up just being jokes.

Let's dive into this minefield.

• YouTubewww.youtube.com

The Conflict: Satire or Hostility?

Okay, so a few days ago, Jimmy Kimmel used his monologue to critique the Trump family. He did so, parodying the correspondents' dinner.

Kimmel made this joke during the set: "Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow."

Now that joke was obviously about Trump's health. There is no love lost between Trump and Kimmel, whose conflict stems back decades, and we're not going to sort it out here.

This weekend, at the actual correspondents' dinner, a guy tried to rush in and shoot Trump. He was stopped in the lobby, and no lives were lost.

But retroactively, Melania released a statement saying the jokes crossed a line and were inciting violence.

So, here is the conundrum: Does a network have a moral or professional obligation to police the tone of its late-night talent in order to make sure no jokes can be retroactively seen as distasteful?

The "Public Figure" Standard vs. Network Responsibility

Look, right at the top, I am totally against censorship and think the policing of language is a bad idea. That even covers language I don't agree with.

From a legal and technical perspective, Jimmy Kimmel is largely protected by the "Public Figure" doctrine. In the U.S., the act of making fun of public figures is one of the most protected forms of speech under the First Amendment.

However, Melania Trump’s critique focuses on the responsibility of the parent company (Disney/ABC) to "take a stand," which points to their Internal Standards and Practices (S&P) to step in here and adjust a code.

Do I think that will happen? No. Not unless huge brands like Coca-Cola or Ford start getting bombarded by boycott threats from the "widow" joke.

The problem is...that's not comedy.

A Joke Is Supposed To Be Funny In The Moment

You may disagree with me, but I believe that jokes are only supposed to be funny in the moment. Comedy can stand the test of time, but it does not have to.

In order to push boundaries and to catch people off guard, comedy needs to be free to be funny to someone the second it comes out...and not after.

Think about The Hangover. That movie was humongous and hilarious. But do you think some of the jokes hold up? No, there are a few slurs in there we're not saying any more. Same with Caddyshack , which does not treat women well.

There are hundreds of examples of this across the genre.

And I think that's the right way to go. Your goal is to be funny in the moment, especially on late-night TV.

Kimmel may not be your cup of tea, but he knows his audience, and he wants to make them laugh. His job is not to police the crazies of the world; his job is to make people laugh.

Just like Jodie Foster isn't responsible for John Hinkley Junior. There are crazy, violent people in this world.

The political discourse is dangerous, and I wish it were nicer, but that's not what Kimmel's joke was about, and putting a fake spin on it doesn't change things.

Censoring him is also a very bad look, especially when you have Trump's tweets, which have threatened violence lately against people all over the world.

We can't sit and be great writers and also try to future proof your work. That is asinine and impossible. You have no control over the insane people in this world, and it's hard to predict what will be funny now and could be taken wrong or clipped out of context tomorrow.

To me, this is an overreaction that is really just another political swing to get control of the media.

It should not happen in any direction.

And I will always lift my voice to make sure it's not.

Summing It All Up

Ultimately, the friction between the First Lady and ABC serves as a reminder of the tightrope walk in comedy and TV. You're not just trying to be funny, you're also dealing with feedback from the very people who you jest about.

When those people have power, things can become sticky.

Add that to a country where it's easy to get a gun and go somewhere, and you'll see scary situations as we have in the last decade.

Everyone wants to take the temperature down, but are jokes actually what is igniting violence?

Or would the policing of them be actually much more detrimental?

Let me know what you think in the comments.