People seem to be confused regarding the concept of free speech. As an American one has the right to speak their mind, free of GOVERNMENT interference. This does not mean that the utterer is free from sanction. Individuals and organizations are free to exercise their right to choose their associates.
A new dimension has been added. In the past an offensive remark generally had a limited audience and shelf life. Only those within ear shot were privy to the comment. Chances are the only person who remembered and took offense was the target. A letter had an even more limited audience.
Now, remarks, pictures, videos can be posted on the Internet where they can be seen by anybody. Memories may fade but the Internet does not. The original context may be lost but the remarks are preserved forever.
I am a past master at gallows humor. It’s a cop thing. Gallows humor is most effective when the audience has a basis in shared experience. Generally, gallows humor works when it is spontaneous or at least tied to the time and place of the incident. Some aspects may cross over, cops, doctors, nurses and paramedics may share some commonality. Even within that group the message may be lost where shared experience diverges. A companion to gallows humor is the old saw,” I guess you had to be there.”
Henny Youngman exclaiming, “Take my wife… please.” may be universally funny.
The cop or medico that points out, “A sucking chest wound is nature’s way of telling you to slow down!” may find a more limited audience.
Up until the civil war, insults and “boorish” behavior, could lead one into a duel. Under the rules of dueling, the offender was given the opportunity to retract his remarks or apologize. Refusal to do so could result in injury or death. The job of the “second” was to put the offensive action into a context that would allow both principals to walk away with their honor intact.
In that era, the offensive remark and the degree of offense was expected to be backed up with blood. This was not necessarily a bad thing. It imposed a certain degree of circumspection in one’s pronouncements. The offended party was just as liable to chalk up an offensive remark as a misunderstanding rather than a mortal insult.
Things changed with mass communication. Suddenly the comment was available to a wider audience. This audience may not be aware of the context of the remark, so there was no shared understanding. There are no seconds to mitigate the offensive action.
People are able to be as offensive as their little heart desires. They can send their remarks out into the Internet with a couple of key strokes. They are mistaken in their belief that there are no comebacks. The Internet removes the ability of the offended to punch the offender in the nose, had the remark been made face to face.
In the current example, I agree that the jokes were tasteless. Had they been limited to participants in the clean up efforts, I would dismiss the whole incident. The workers have a right to free speech. As Rush Limbaugh says, “they don’t have a right to be heard.” By expanding the forum for their remarks they lost control.
I don’t find the remarks particularly troubling. What bothers me is the lack of judgment after the remarks were made. Capturing then rebroadcasting remarks, videos or photographs seems to smack of one ups-man-ship and comes off as contrived.
These guys are in the soup for reasons other than their tasteless humor. Chances are, if their attempts at humor went no further than their bosses, the bosses would have joined the laughter. These guys are subject to discipline because they put their bosses in an uncomfortable position. The moral of the story, don’t make your bosses life miserable.