Editing Satire (section)

==Censorship and criticism==
Descriptions of satire's biting effect on its target include 'venomous', 'cutting', 'stinging',<ref name="Kinservik2002p21">Kinservik, Matthew J. (2002) ''Disciplining Satire: The Censorship of Satiric Comedy on the Eighteenth...'' [https://books.google.com/books?id=haUcp4-01DMC&pg=PA21 p.21]</ref> vitriol. Because satire often combines anger and humor, as well as the fact that it addresses and calls into question many controversial issues, it can be profoundly disturbing.{{By whom|date=October 2023}}

===Typical arguments===
Because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, satire is often misunderstood. A typical misunderstanding is to confuse the satirist with their [[persona]].<ref name="Test1991p10"/>

====Bad taste====
Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of [[Taste (sociology)|poor taste]], or that "it's just not funny" for instance) and the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people being ridiculed. For instance, at the time of its publication, many people misunderstood Swift's purpose in ''[[A Modest Proposal]]'', assuming it to be a serious recommendation of economically motivated cannibalism.{{Citation needed|date=September 2021}} Much later in history, in the weeks following [[9/11]] the American public at large found works of satire to be in bad taste and not appropriate for the social climate at the time. Some media outlets at the time, like essayist [[Roger Rosenblatt]] in an editorial for ''Time'' magazine's September 24 issue, would go so far as to claim that irony was dead.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Jones|first=William R.|date=2009|title="People Have to Watch What They Say": What Horace, Juvenal, and 9/11 Can Tell Us about Satire and History|url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/365928|journal=Helios|volume=36|issue=1|pages=27–28|doi=10.1353/hel.0.0017|bibcode=2009Helio..36...27W|s2cid=162089939|issn=1935-0228}}</ref>

====Targeting the victim====
Some critics of [[Mark Twain]] see [[Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (novel)|''Huckleberry Finn'']] as [[racist]] and offensive, missing the point that its author clearly intended it to be satire (racism being in fact only one of a number of Mark Twain's known concerns attacked in ''Huckleberry Finn'').<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Leonard | first1 = James S | first2 = Thomas A | last2 = Tenney | first3 = Thadious M | last3 = Davis | title = Satire or Evasion?: Black Perspectives on Huckleberry Finn | publisher = [[Duke University Press]] |date=December 1992 | page = 224 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=fdrBtpSSCisC&q=hemingway+%22huckleberry+finn%22+%22green+hills%22&pg=RA1-PA116 | isbn = 978-0-8223-1174-4}}</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Shelley Fisher | last = Fishin | title = Lighting out for the Territory: Reflections on Mark Twain and American Culture | place = New York | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 1997}}</ref> This same misconception was suffered by the main character of the 1960s British television comedy satire ''[[Till Death Us Do Part]]''. The character of [[Alf Garnett]] (played by [[Warren Mitchell]]) was created to poke fun at the kind of narrow-minded, racist, [[little Englander]] that Garnett represented. Instead, his character became a sort of [[anti-hero]] to people who actually agreed with his views. (The same situation occurred with [[Archie Bunker]] in American TV show ''[[All in the Family]]'', a character derived directly from Garnett.{{Citation needed|date=November 2021}})

The Australian satirical television comedy show ''[[The Chaser's War on Everything]]'' has suffered repeated attacks based on various perceived interpretations of the "target" of its attacks. The "Make a Realistic Wish Foundation" sketch (June 2009), which attacked in classical satiric fashion the heartlessness of people who are reluctant to donate to [[Charitable organization|charities]], was widely interpreted as an attack on the [[Make a Wish Foundation]], or even the terminally ill children helped by that organisation. [[Prime Minister of Australia|Prime Minister]] of the time [[Kevin Rudd]] stated that The Chaser team "should hang their heads in shame". He went on to say that "I didn't see that but it's been described to me. ...But having a go at kids with a terminal illness is really beyond the pale, absolutely beyond the pale."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-06-04/hang-your-heads-rudd-tells-chaser-boys/1703862 |title='Hang your heads' Rudd tells Chaser boys | publisher = [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]] |date=June 4, 2009|access-date=June 5, 2009}}</ref> Television station management suspended the show for two weeks and reduced the third season to eight episodes.

====Romantic prejudice====
The romantic prejudice against satire is the belief spread by the [[Romanticism|romantic movement]] that satire is something unworthy of serious attention; this prejudice has held considerable influence to this day.<ref>{{Citation | last = Sutherland | first = James | author-link = James Runcieman Sutherland | year = 1958 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=4kc4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1 | title = English Satire}}</ref> Such prejudice extends to humour and everything that arouses laughter, which are often underestimated as frivolous and unworthy of serious study.<ref>{{Citation | first = Rod A | last = Martin | year = 2007 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ieAcp2Z_zkIC&pg=PA27 | title = The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach | pages = 27–8| publisher = Elsevier | isbn = 9780080465999 }}</ref> For instance, humor is generally neglected as a topic of anthropological research and teaching.<ref>{{Citation | last = Apte | first = Mahadev L | year = 1985 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=4fuAAAAAMAAJ | title = Humor and laughter: an anthropological approach | chapter = Introduction | page = 23 | publisher = Cornell University Press | quote = The general neglect of humor as a topic of anthropological research is reflected in teaching practice. Most introductory textbooks do not even list humor as a significant characteristic of cultural systems together with kinship, social roles, behavioral patterns, religion, language, economic transactions, political institutions, values, and material culture.| isbn = 9780801493072 }}</ref>

===History of opposition toward notable satires===
Because satire criticises in an ironic, essentially indirect way, it frequently escapes [[censorship]] in a way more direct criticism might not. Periodically, however, it runs into serious opposition, and people in power who perceive themselves as attacked attempt to censor it or prosecute its practitioners. In a classic example, [[Aristophanes]] was persecuted by the [[demagogue]] [[Cleon]].

====1599 book ban====
In 1599, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] [[John Whitgift]] and the [[Bishop of London]] [[Richard Bancroft]], whose offices had the function of licensing books for publication in England, issued a decree banning verse satire. The decree, now known as the [[Bishops' Ban of 1599]], ordered the burning of certain volumes of satire by [[John Marston (playwright)|John Marston]], [[Thomas Middleton]], [[Joseph Hall (bishop)|Joseph Hall]], and others; it also required histories and plays to be specially approved by a member of the Queen's [[Privy Council]], and it prohibited the future printing of satire in verse.<ref>{{Citation | title = A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640 | volume = III | editor-first = Edward | editor-last = Arber | location = London | year = 1875–94 | page = 677 }}</ref>

The motives for the ban are obscure, particularly since some of the books banned had been licensed by the same authorities less than a year earlier. Various scholars have argued that the target was obscenity, libel, or sedition. It seems likely that lingering anxiety about the [[Martin Marprelate]] controversy, in which the bishops themselves had employed satirists, played a role; both [[Thomas Nashe]] and [[Gabriel Harvey]], two of the key figures in that controversy, suffered a complete ban on all their works. In the event, though, the ban was little enforced, even by the licensing authority itself.

====21st-century polemics====
In 2005, the [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] caused global protests by offended Muslims and violent attacks with many [[wikt:fatality|fatalities]] in the [[Near East]]. It was not the first case of [[Muslim]] protests against criticism in the form of satire, but the Western world was surprised by the hostility of the reaction: Any country's flag in which a newspaper chose to publish the parodies was being burnt in a Near East country, then embassies were attacked, killing 139 people in mainly four countries; politicians throughout Europe agreed that satire was an aspect of the [[freedom of speech]], and therefore to be a protected means of dialogue. Iran threatened to start an [[International Holocaust Cartoon Competition]], which was immediately responded to by Jews with an [[Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoons Contest]].

In 2006 British comedian [[Sacha Baron Cohen]] released ''[[Borat|Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan]]'', a "[[mockumentary]]" that satirized everyone, from high society to frat boys. The film was criticized by many. Although Baron Cohen is Jewish, some complained that it was [[antisemitism|antisemitic]], and the government of [[Kazakhstan]] boycotted the film. The film itself had been a reaction to a longer quarrel between the government and the comedian.

In 2008, popular South African cartoonist and satirist [[Jonathan Shapiro]] (who is published under the pen name Zapiro) came under fire for depicting then-president of the [[African National Congress|ANC]] [[Jacob Zuma]] in the act of undressing in preparation for the implied rape of 'Lady Justice' which is held down by Zuma loyalists.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-12-18-zuma-claims-r7m-over-zapiro-cartoon| work = Mail and Guardian | date = December 18, 2008 | location = [[South Africa|ZA]] | title= Zuma claims R7m over Zapiro cartoon}}</ref> The cartoon was drawn in response to Zuma's efforts to duck corruption charges, and the controversy was heightened by the fact that Zuma was himself acquitted of [[Jacob Zuma rape trial|rape]] in May 2006. In February 2009, the [[SABC|South African Broadcasting Corporation]], viewed by some opposition parties as the mouthpiece of the governing ANC,<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=248529&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/ | work = Mail and Guardian | title = How a lone cameraman 'dented' SABC's credibility | location = ZA |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050912184428/https://mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=248529&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/ |archive-date=September 12, 2005 }}</ref> shelved a satirical TV show created by Shapiro,<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=308632 |work=Dispatch |location=ZA |title=ZNews: Zapiro's puppet show |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120326004224/http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=308632 |archive-date=March 26, 2012 }}</ref> and in May 2009 the broadcaster pulled a documentary about political satire (featuring Shapiro among others) for the second time, hours before scheduled broadcast.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-05-26-sabc-pulls-zapiro-doccie-again| work = Mail and Guardian | date = September 26, 2009 | location = ZA | title=SABC pulls Zapiro doccie, again}}</ref>

On December 29, 2009, Samsung sued [[Michael Breen (author)|Mike Breen]], and the ''[[The Korea Times|Korea Times]]'' for $1&nbsp;million, claiming criminal defamation over a satirical column published on Christmas Day, 2009.<ref>{{cite web | url =http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/1820159367.shtml |title=Samsung Sues Satirist, Claiming Criminal Defamation, Over Satirical Column Poking Fun At Samsung |publisher=Techdirt |date=May 11, 2010 |access-date= June 9, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/asia/la-fg-korea-samsung-20100510,0,7395282,full.story | archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20171019205601/http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/10/world/la-fg-korea-samsung-20100510 | url-status=dead | archive-date=October 19, 2017 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=John M | last=Glionna | date=May 10, 2010 | title=Samsung doesn't find satirical spoof amusing}}</ref>

On April 29, 2015, the [[UK Independence Party]] (UKIP) requested [[Kent Police]] investigate the [[BBC]], claiming that comments made about Party leader [[Nigel Farage]] by a panelist on the comedy show ''[[Have I Got News For You]]'' might hinder his chances of success in the general election (which would take place a week later), and claimed the BBC breached the Representation of the People Act.<ref name="UKIP"/> Kent Police rebuffed the request to open an investigation, and the BBC released a statement, "Britain has a proud tradition of satire, and everyone knows that the contributors on ''Have I Got News for You'' regularly make jokes at the expense of politicians of all parties."<ref name="UKIP">[http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-29/ukip-asks-police-to-investigate-the-bbc-over-have-i-got-news-for-you/ "Ukip asks police to investigate the BBC over Have I Got News for You"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150826200302/http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-29/ukip-asks-police-to-investigate-the-bbc-over-have-i-got-news-for-you/ |date=August 26, 2015 }}. BBC. Retrieved June 18, 2015</ref>