Tom Jamieson for The New York Times.
I’m not a supporter of Boris Johnson. I have no interest in him or his political ambitions. [But] I do defend people who make jokes about religion. I was part of a campaign to oppose a Parliamentary bill [the Racial and Religious Hatred Act] in 2006 because I draw a distinction between race and religion, and I think religious practices and beliefs can and should be lampooned. It’s been quite a British tradition for many hundreds of years.
But it sort of bleeds through into the challenges of free speech in the modern era, and this new definition of free speech — which is free speech is fine as long as it doesn’t offend anybody. And free speech to me is completely meaningless if you can’t offend.
(Rowan Atkinson)
(Katharine Shattuck, “For Rowan Atkinson, Comedy Isn’t Always a Laughing Matter,” NYTimes, 11-3-18)
(Cc)2018 JMN.
EthicalDative 
Out-tut-tutting the Tut-tutters
Doesn’t one write for oneself primordially? That alone will keep me powering out the posts ‘til kingdom come. If any one of them catches another eye, its ice cream on the frosting.
I often bend double laughing at my own nonsense. In a recent exchange with Eric Wayne I asked rhetorically, “How far does one go to out-tut-tut the tut-tutters?” I was referring to strident rhetoric used by irate cognoscenti to excoriate cynical poseurs in the art world. After recovering from gales of mirth at my inventiveness, I determined that I must create a blog post justifying use of the phrase for a title. Mission accomplished.
(c) 2018 JMN.