punch up, not down to an already marginalised group. That it should be
saying something beyond merely asserting one’s own, probably under-
informed, observations. In September 2018, the Herald Sun newspaper
published a cartoon of Serena Williams after she argued with the umpire
during the US Open. The BBC reported that the cartoon received a lot
of attention for relying on sexist and racist stereotypes depicting, some
argued, a dehumanisingly exaggerated Serena Williams screaming
beside a dummy and ‘white-washed’ Williams’s opponent Naomi Oskaka,
emphasising the ‘angry black woman’ stereotype. The newspaper
responded to the backlash the following day with the headline ‘Welcome
to PC world’ alongside other cartoons the newspaper suggested may
offend ‘self-appointed censors’ (BBC, 2018).
This cartoon is good example of a situation where the comment the
cartoon was making did not outweigh the offence caused: cartoonist Bob
Maron (2018) points out it did not make any clever comment or take the
story any further, and that this leaves it open to criticism. It is hard to
see how Lægaard’s (2007) argument of free speech as a great source
of dignity could be used to justify this case of intolerance. It seems
that, with this argument, one person’s dignity must come at the cost
of another’s. Contrary to Lægaard’s standpoint that you cannot see a
causal link between publication and oppression, cartoons like this are a
form of symbolic violence; they are saying ‘we don’t care what you have
to say’. O’Neill explains that free speech should never mean the ‘right to
defame, insult, let alone intimidate.’
What is ‘free’ speech?
Stewart Lee (2015: 240) also questions why in the context of comedy
lying can be censored yet not in politics. He explains that the content of
his stand-up shows is checked by lawyers to assess what will pass the
BBC’s legal checks and, although some obvious exaggeration for comic
effect is allowed, he is not allowed to actively lie. He questions why his
‘lowly stand-up comedy routines are held accountable to higher legal
standards of truth and decency than, for example, a Prime Minister’s
conference speech’. He continues, ‘Paradoxically, while the BBC can
broadcast Cameron’s lying speech in full, without any critical analysis or
disclaimers, if I had written the same comments in a stand-up comedy
routine the lawyers would tell me it could not be transmitted’. Lee’s point
highlights the vulnerable nature of the argument for freedom of speech
and tolerance by pointing out the importance held by the platform on
35