'Such humour depends, of course, on a shared knowledge and rapport, and on the presence of the disabled person as outsider. The comic stereotype of the disabled fool or clown is part of a pattern of cultural representation which always maintains physically different people as other, as alien, as the object of curiosity or hostility or pity, rather than as part of the group. “We” are always laughing at “them” or “him/her” or even “it”. There is a continuity, then, between disability humour and racist or xenophobic humour: our differences are suppressed, and their difference is exaggerated, in order to be humiliated.'

'Joking A Part'(Body& Society magazine). A thesis from a disabled comedian.

Recently there have been many blogs around the issue of offense on FUMBBL. I am no innocent bystander here, i have my views and feel free to express them. My main occupation is acting, but to earn a living i design and run Interactive Diversity training courses, dealing with workplace rights and offensive behaviour, dignity, equality and inclusion. Clearly I am from one wing of this debate.

For these reasons I do not see myself as a good arbiter of what is the right line for the FUMBBL administration and moderation teams to take, likely my sensibilities are more heightened than the average. i have never sought admin or mod status and never would. My line tends to be set from my work in terms of workplace offense and behaviour and that may well not be appropriate in a social gaming context.

But i am always interested in the subject.

At the core of the debate, to me, are two rights people feel they have and which are often weighted very differently. Both are supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Freedom of Speech
The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression." Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations. According to the Freedom Forum NGO, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.

The Right To Dignity
The first sentance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is 'Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world'. Dignity can be both explicit and implicit treatment and the concept is central to the right to equality, freedom from fear and ultimately the right to life.


Both these ideas and ideals share the problem that while both probably should be inalienable, in practice neither are or can be. Even in the USA where the first amendment has perhaps made freedom of speech more central to the national psyche than is true elsewhere there are restrictions placed. The Westboro baptists for example. Even in Europe where I would contend the right to dignity is more prevalent main stream comedians are making jokes, on television, in print and live, far beyond the areas currently causing the debate on FUMBBL.

Everyone draws a very personal line on both. No one thinks you should always be able to say anything ever. No one thinks everything should be prohibited or dressed up in Policitical Correctness. I do feel their are national/cultural norms at play within this debate that complicate the matter enormously. While everyone clearly has a self defined moral code, they cannot help to be influenced by, and a proiduct of, the enviroment the individual has grown up in (it is easy to accept, for example, that i may well be less in favour of a socialised health care system were i from a country that doest have one, and hence wasnt raised expecting one).

So i accept the line is hard to draw, and clearly needs to be as inclusive of possible, to people from both ends of the lspectrum on these issues if it going to be drawn at all.

But i feel it is currently being drawn in the wrong place. My personal view is that issues around Race, Disability, Religion, Culture, Sexuality and Gender should certainly be looked at for offensiveness.

I also feel a simple 'look i was trying to be funny, i am sorry if it caused offense, that wasnt my intention' is well overdue from certain individuals. If it wasnt the intention to cause offense, and yet clearly that has happened, isnt that the natural and reasonable response?