A fair question about Lisa Lampanelli's theoretical awards show gig

RECENT	POSTS:	» Discriminación! » New ad: One of America's most hostile anti-gay groups asks BSA Delegates to make horrible mistake » Boy Scouts president cuts through the noise: 'Let in gay boys' » Video: GOP Congressman from Oklahoma attacks 'intolerance' of supporting gay boys in khaki » Equal #BoyScout opponents don't want to hear how anti-gay their allies are » Maggie doesn't want us treated cruelly, just as less 'normative' than heterosexuals » GLAAD: Opponents of Equality in #BoysScouts Project Adult Baggage Onto Supportive Future » Freedom to Work files suit against oil company I drive miles out of way to avoid » Gee, I wonder if Disney is okay with French coalition using Darth Vader for its anti-gay poster » Video: Equal Scouting pioneer ponders blazed trails, brighter paths

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

11/09/2011

by Jeremy Hooper

In light of recent events, I have to wonder: If Lisa Lampanelli was tapped to host the Academy Awards, would this cost her her job?

Because just this summer, GLAAD was feting Lisa at an event. Yet now, this same organization is instrumental in yanking Ratner from his Academy Awards gig primarily because of one "f word" bomb. I think it's fair to ask: Where is the line, exactly?

Is it because Lisa is a professional comedian that she gets the pass? Is it because she admirably shows up for LGBT rights in other ways? Is it because she purports to be addressing the LGBT community directly, in an "in on the joke" way? It is because she's an across the board offender? And perhaps the biggest question: Are any of these exceptions consistent, if "words matter" is the stated belief?

*Note: None of this is to say that Lampanelli should be reeled back or that Ratner shouldn't have been -- I'm just wondering where the lines are drawn, why, and whether we are being intellectually consistent.

space