Why won’t Andrew Lawrence’s critics just admit that they’re offended?

Pretending that a comedian is not telling jokes is the most infantile form of criticism.

Debates about the so-called ‘red lines’ in comedy are, in one sense, futile. We return to the same discussions endlessly, each one usually sparked by a comedian’s joke that has caused grave offence. But the ‘limits’ of comedy are inherently subjective, which means that the only red lines that can ever be enforced are the ones that comedians draw for themselves.

Andrew Lawrence is an example of a comedian whose personal red lines are seemingly non-existent. Such comics have always existed, and it’s a sign of a healthy society that they are tolerated. When King Lear threatens to whip his fool, we know that his descent into madness is imminent. By this point in the play, Lear has lost his power, but when rulers turn on their clowns you know that we are not far from tyranny.

Those who don’t follow live stand-up will nonetheless be aware of Lawrence, because every few years he appears in the press for posting a joke online that causes conniptions among the Twitterati. His latest was about Paul Doyle, the man accused of driving his car into crowds in Liverpool on Monday. Lawrence posted on X: ‘To be fair, if I was in Liverpool, I’d drive through crowds of people to get the fuck out of there as well’.

The response has been a mixture of the usual vitriol and threats of violence that often bubble to the surface in the crucible of social media. The Hot Water Comedy Club in Liverpool has issued a statement to the effect that Lawrence is ‘not welcome at any of our events or venues. His name will never appear on a bill associated with us. His brand of cruelty has no place in the kind of comedy we stand for’. The Comedy Store in London has said that it will ‘stand beside’ this blacklisting. Lawrence was quick to respond: ‘Given that I haven’t taken a gig from either of these gutless wonders for the best part of a decade, I’m quite sure they know what they can do with their ban’.

This is where I will lose a number of my readers. Some will find the joke badly timed, indefensible, or simply unfunny. All of these reactions are entirely subjective and completely legitimate. But they are also irrelevant. When comedy clubs are banning acts because of the offence that their jokes might cause, they are failing in one of their most basic functions; the promotion and protection of artistic freedom. As private businesses they are free to ban whoever they like, but they should expect criticism for their cravenness. I have grown weary of repeating the obvious point to ears that are permanently stuffed with wax, but I shall do so again here. If you don’t like a comedian, don’t buy a ticket to his or her shows. Thereby, the problem is solved.

As usual, I have made the mistake of engaging with people on X who are angry about Lawrence’s joke. One of the most remarkable aspects of these debates is that I have yet to see anyone admit that they are offended. Instead, they make palpably nonsensical declarations such as ‘it wasn’t a joke’. This is objectively false. Lawrence’s tweet was, as comedian Simon Evans has pointed out, ‘a variation on one of the oldest tropes in British comedy – namely, that a particular city is a bit of a shithole’. Can Lawrence’s critics genuinely believe that his post was a literal expression of his views? This is a brand of stupidity that one would have assumed was confined to the vegetable kingdom.

To justify this tenuous position, we continually hear a variation of this syllogistic fallacy: ‘jokes are meant to be funny’, ‘this wasn’t funny’, ergo, ‘this wasn’t a joke’. This strikes me as very similar to the trans rights activist logic of: ‘a woman is a feeling’, ‘I feel like a woman’, ergo, ‘I am a woman’. Reality does not shapeshift around individual perceptions. A joke does not magically cease to be a joke simply because some people do not laugh. In the case of Lawrence, there are hundreds of comments online from his fans stating that they did, in fact, find it funny. Imagine the level of narcissism it must take to assume that one’s personal sense of humour should be the benchmark for all humankind.

The other major criticism of Lawrence is that there is nothing remotely humorous about innocent people being injured. This is to fall into the trap outlined so succinctly by Ricky Gervais: ‘People confuse the subject of the joke with the target of the joke, and they’re very rarely the same’. It simply isn’t the case that joking about human tragedy is a form of twisted celebration, or that such topics are off-limits for humour. When Mel Brooks wrote his song ‘Springtime for Hitler’ for The Producers, few would claim that he was revelling in the deaths of six million Jews. Most adults are not that literal-minded.

Lawrence is a comedian with a dissident nature. His brand of humour has always veered into the darkest territory, and it is this quality that his fans most admire. That is to say, there is nothing remotely unexpected in his latest jokes. He is from the tradition of Lenny Bruce and Sam Kinison, lords of misrule who smash through taboos as a matter of instinct. Just because most comedians would not broach this kind of subject matter does not mean that he should follow suit. As I say, each individual comedian has his or her own red lines, and I am glad that there are some who have none at all.

It’s also refreshing to see Lawrence refuse to apologise to the mob and instead to double-down with glee. Since the online storm, he has published a video response entitled ‘Scouse meltdown’, which is replete with pointedly offensive jokes that will doubtless be taken as literally as the one that caused all the fuss. This is the whole point; the best reaction to hysteria is mock the hysteria. Those who are bombarding Lawrence will threats and insults are simply feeding his comedy.

I would have far more respect for Lawrence’s critics if they simply stated the truth; that they found the joke offensive. Why is this such a difficult admission to make? I suppose it comes down to a perception that being offended is a sign of weakness, when in truth it’s a human experience that is impossible to avoid. Those who declare that ‘it wasn’t a joke’ are seemingly trying to wriggle out of admitting their own sense of disgust or distaste, and the feeling of shame that accompanies it. But there are no human interactions that do not carry the potential to cause offence. The only way to insulate ourselves from the sensation is to withdraw from society altogether.

Those who are offended or upset by Lawrence’s joke have an easy solution; don’t read his tweets or attend his shows. The last time he caused a media storm he lost his agent and had his tour cancelled. Those who support these kinds of consequences are essentially authoritarian, because instead of simply deciding what kind of comedy they would like to watch, they are depriving others of making the choice for themselves.

There is nothing to be ashamed of if you found Lawrence’s joke upsetting. The subject matter is raw, and emotions are running high. By all means criticise the joke, but don’t pretend that it was a literal statement of opinion, or that your individual sensibilities should be universally applied. And stop cancelling comics when they inevitably cross those ever-shifting red lines.

---

My new book The End of Woke is out now! You can order a copy here.

---