I believe that you are correct, and Carr was not actually fined or otherwise legally penalized for his remarks.

However, it *was* a possibility that he would be, according to the first line in the article I linked to in my first post in this thread:
"Jimmy Carr could face sanctions for making a joke about dwarves during an appearance on BBC1’s The One Show."

I believe that I read other news articles that suggested that was a possibility at the time it happened, but I can't find anything with a real quick search now.

Going outside of the scope of that single incident, I definitely have seen quite a few reports of things that I would consider to be fairly trivial incidents like this being looked at by the UK government as "hate speech" and therefore potentially subject to "fines, imprisonment, or both" (according to that wikipedia article).

Samples from a quick search include a politician being arrested for quoting a passage about Islam from a book by Winston Churchill, a young man who was jailed for 12 weeks because of "some offensive Facebook posts making derogatory comments about a missing child" (it doesn't say what the posts were exactly; I am not saying I would defend his posts but I don't think anyone should go to jail for being an idiot and running their mouth on the internet), and another young man who was fined for saying that "all soldiers should die and go to hell". Plenty more incidents beyond those as well, it seems.

So while Jimmy Carr didn't end up actually facing any legal repercussions for his joke, I think it is not far fetched at all to suggest that he might have (and there seems to be some evidence that legal repercussions enacted by the government were being considered in that particular incident).

That is what seems crazy / wrong to me. That is NOT freedom of speech; it is freedom of benign speech, with an increasingly narrow view of what speech is benign.

I'm 100% OK with their being "consequences" for Jimmy Carr for his joke. But the government shouldn't be involved in that (and again, to be fair they DID end up staying out of it in that case). The consequences that I think are fine include:

* Ofcom or the BBC passing on some/all of any fines that the government levels against them on to Carr (ie., IF they get fined for breaking broadcast decency standards, make Carr foot the some or all of the bill for that).

* Ofcom or the BBC electing not to invite Carr to appear on any more programs if they are concerned about preventing fines / protecting their image / whatever. They are a business, they gotta look out for themselves.

* Individual people who were offended by Carr's joke boycotting programs that he appears on, refusing to pay to attend his live performances, etc. Obviously. If you don't like what he has to say, you are are of course not obliged to continue to listen to him.

Anything beyond those consequences is going too far in a society that claims it is democratic and free, in my opinion.

I'm not sure if this can qualify as a live performance as < 50% of the audience was recording it with cell phones.

The first thing I thought after watching this was, where can I listen to music that hasn't been altered?

I think Later with Jools Holland is a good start. Just been watching Paloma Faith - great stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA7JxUgqRUk


With the expectations set now for mainstream pop stars to sound perfect during live performances, is there a chance of going back? In reality, do everyday pop star fans want to hear Madonna and Britney's imperfections?

I guess that is maybe the difference between 50 years ago and today. Yes The Monkees were not a band that came together organically...the members were chosen just as they would cast members of a TV show. BUT they were all musicians and singers and they were embarrassed that people thought they were fake and could not even play their instruments. While true they did not play on the first couple of albums (not because they weren't capable but because the studio didn't want them to) they DID play at their live performances and they fought the studio that hired them so that they eventually could also play on their albums.

It was important to them that the fans knew when they came to see a LIVE show that they would actually see and hear them singing and performing the songs live.

That doesn't seem to be of concern to today's pop stars.

I'm sure he'll be all right should he ever read my casual observations.

I will yield the point that the internet ruins jokes for comedians.
Someone records a live performance, puts it online, everyone online hears the joke, then that joke is already 'old' in any subsequent live performance (even if that venue has never experienced that joke first hand).

No one can be expected to have a 100% new act every time they perform. In all fairness, my second critical point in my OP (heard the joke too many times) was not necessary.

-scheherazade

Great choreography. Check out Sia's live performances on the Jimmy Kimmel show.

Usually I fast forward through live performances [I have to be there] ... this one sucked me in. You have good taste in my book

Chalk this up to Steve Albini.

His engineering and producing for Nirvana was strictly about capturing the live performance. You can read a letter he wrote to them here:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/danmartin/this-letter-steve-albini-wrote-to-nirvana-is-just-incredible

Not the same vid but a live performance in 77

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJR4ixBvqK4&list=RDzJR4ixBvqK4

I never really understood the pre-recorded fakes. It's one thing to realize you lack the ability to do a live show. For those poor frauds, it sucks, but it is somewhat understandable. But Heart was definitely not one of those groups. They gave fantastic actual live performances at their concerts, so why cheat at the TV appearances.

So, can we get a live performance at the next Emmys?

YES, thats the one. It's brilliant on so many levels, but its pretty dark. I dont want to spoil anything, but its worth whatever you want to pay for the bundle

BTW it's pronounced in "live" as in "go, live your life!", (as opposed to live in "Live performance"

A 4 minute live performance played back in 4 minutes is not timeshift, this was more like an hour of recording crammed into 4 minutes or so, and even if you don't count the loops I would consider that the the rather obvious and deliberate stuttering jump cuts count as altered time perception too, by design.

I'm not going to be the one to put it back into the channel though.

Typical Dane Cook hatred for no reason. There are plenty of unfunny comedians and, yet, why pick on Dane Cook? Because it's the thing to do. It's "in," "hip," and "cool" to join in. I wish I could say that I'm just defending him unbiased, but the fact of the matter is I think he's pretty funny. I'm not a typical college girl that thinks he's so handsome and I want him to fuck my brains out so I go to his shows and scream at the top of my lungs. I'm actually a lover of stand-up comedy. Seen many live performances as well as ones on TV. Sure, maybe Dane's stardom seemed unequal to his talents, but I don't see somebody's popularity through hard work, networking, and charisma as a reason to chastise them.

PS: Bill Burr's Monday Morning podcast, will definitely be for you if you liked this

No problem sir, that's a great embed, terrific live performance.