How Lenny Bruce Paved the Way for Free Speech in Comedy

Police officers arrested Bruce at the Gate of Horn nightclub on December 4th, 1962, because his performance violated an Illinois state obscenity statute. Lenny Bruce was a criminal because of his potty mouth.

After his arrest in Chicago, Bruce was convicted for obscenity. He appealed his case all the way up to the Illinois Supreme Court in The People of the State of Illinois v. Lenny Bruce. In a landmark decision, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Bruce’s comedy routine was social commentary that fell under the auspices of the First Amendment––not obscenity. You may be wondering how crude jabs at homosexuals could be considered social commentary. But it is important to recall the social context that Bruce was steeped in. During Bruce’s life, many men in the public eye would engage in homosexual acts privately while hypocritically condemning homosexuality publicly, relegating particularly vulnerable gay people to a position in society, ravaged by the most pernicious forms of homophobia. A careful listener would realize that Bruce was unabashedly calling out bigots for their hypocrisy and irrationality without calling out any particular person. Through his preferred medium of joke-​telling, Lenny Bruce was able to shine a light on oft-​overlooked social ills.

Leonard Alfred Schneider, known professionally as Lenny Bruce, was a foul-​mouthed comedian of Jewish descent who rose to prominence in the United States of the 1950s. Bruce was born and raised in New York by his mother and grandmother, who supported his career and played a significant role in molding his comedic tastes. The Schneiders were crass at home, so naturally, Bruce was crass onstage. The first time he was arrested for charges related to obscenity was after a 1961 performance at the Jazz Workshop in San Francisco, where he used the word “cocksucker.” In the same set, he riffed that “‘to’ is a preposition, ‘come’ is a verb” and quipped that anyone who is bothered by his use of those words “probably can’t come.” He was promptly arrested for obscenity in Chicago. After that arrest, Bruce was again arrested in 1963 Los Angeles for using the word “schmuck” in a comedy routine. In April of 1964, Bruce, along with the owners of the nightclub at which he was performing, was arrested by undercover police officers who attended his performance at Café Au Go Go in Greenwich Village, New York. Bruce was convicted by the state of New York for violating an obscenity statute and sentenced to four months in prison. Bruce never served his time because he died of a drug overdose in 1966.

With each arrest, Bruce’s mental and physical health declined. As a nightlife performer, Bruce unsurprisingly struggled with substance abuse problems. His run-​ins with the law exacerbated these problems profoundly. Bruce’s public reputation got him blacklisted at nightclubs across the United States. He was unable to do what he loved to do most. He was constantly paranoid that authorities were after him. He became a cynical, hopeless man. The injustice of government censorship maddened Bruce, so much so that he would spend many of his performances toward the end of his career reading court transcripts from his trials to perplexed audiences. For his art and his career, Bruce paid a dear price: Sanity, security, and, eventually, his life. Bruce’s sacrifices ultimately made his life harder, but they conversely made the lives of Americans after him so much easier. Since Bruce’s obscenity conviction in New York, no comedian has yet been incarcerated for performing “obscene” material in the United States. In a way that few individuals can hope to, Lenny Bruce left the world better than he found it.

Though Bruce was no philosopher, his fight for free speech illustrates the way we ought to understand the value of free speech. There are many accounts of what makes free speech valuable. But most of these theories, on their own, fail to explain why Bruce’s speech should have been protected by the First Amendment. Consider, for example, the view that free speech is valuable because it makes the pursuit of truth possible. John Stuart Mill defended this view in his famous essay On Liberty. Comedy can sometimes clarify our judgments of what is true. However, more often, comedy is used to intentionally misrepresent the way things are in the world––through narrative and hyperbole––for the sake of entertainment. If we are confident that Bruce’s speech should not have been criminalized, then free speech must be valuable for reasons other than making the lofty pursuit of truth possible. Indeed, many forms of comedic speech hold the value they do precisely because they complicate and challenge our understanding of what is true, good, or just.

In a similar vein, the case of Lenny Bruce shows us that speech cannot be deemed to lack value simply because it offends. It may be tempting to think that some speech should be regulated to the extent that it is a source of profound psychological harm to others. Bruce showed us, however, that even speech that offends is speech that people should be permitted to engage in. There are at least two reasons for this claim. Firstly, progress cannot be made in any society without offending the sensibilities of those in control of the dominant social narrative. The speech used by abolitionists in the antebellum South offended slave owners during the time. If offense is the cost that must be paid for a better world, then offensive speech should not be regulated on the grounds that it is offensive alone. Secondly, offensive comedy should be free of state regulation because many who are offended by crass jokes can simply choose not to listen. Attending a comedy show headlined by comedians who are sure to offend you and complaining that they had the opportunity to do so is much like going to a vegan dining establishment and imploring authorities to put them out of business because they would not serve you a sirloin steak.

Philosophers like Thomas Scanlon argue that free speech is essential to leading an autonomous life––that is, a life governed by one’s own rational nature. People should be allowed to speak freely so that listeners can decide for themselves, using their rational faculties, whether they agree with the content of the speech. Sometimes, comedians can say things that people can agree or disagree with. At some point, we have all heard someone say, It’s funny because it’s true! At other times, though, comedians make jokes with no truth value whatsoever. A simple example is knock-​knock jokes. Insofar as one listens only to these jokes, it does not seem that one’s autonomy is promoted in any particularly meaningful way. And even if one’s autonomy is not promoted in any meaningful way by a certain kind of speech, it does not follow that the state then has license to regulate that speech. Many have an interest in being able to enjoy comedic speech purely because it is expressive and entertaining. Such was the case with those who, despite his negative press, would support Lenny Bruce at his shows.

In addition to showing us the insufficiencies of some existing accounts of the value of free speech, Bruce highlights the overlooked importance of certain kinds of speech. Standup comedy is a form of artistic expression. Standup comedy manages to bring diverse groups of people together under one roof to do one of the things people most love to do with one another: Laugh. Lenny Bruce’s speech may not have always aimed at the truth or at promoting autonomy, but it did always aim at making people laugh. Being able to have a good laugh with others promotes a special sort of social cohesion among members of a group. To the extent that we value the unique bonds that laughter can create between people, we have reasons to allow for the free flow of comedic speech in society. Comedic speech does not always hold the promise of making people smarter or better, but it does always hold the promise of bringing joy to those who are willing to hear it with an open mind. Thus, comedic speech has value both because it is mirthful and because it is prosocial.

Most importantly, the case of Lenny Bruce reminds us that free speech is valuable because it empowers those who speak to lead lives of their own, free from government oversight. Scanlon’s argument from autonomy tells us that free speech should be protected because it helps us lead rational lives, whereas the argument from anti-​authoritarianism tells us that free speech should be protected because it helps us lead the lives we want to lead, regardless of whether they are primarily directed by our rational natures. Speech is the means through which we externalize our thoughts, feelings, and imaginative musings, making them known to others. To restrict one’s ability to speak is to likewise prevent one’s ability to lead a life of one’s own. Obviously, speech can be regulated when it threatens to injure others in ways that can cause them material harm, because this sort of speech disempowers people from being able to lead lives of their own. Bruce’s speech, however, did not incite violence or otherwise materially harm. His speech was used to intimate to others what he found amusing, entertaining, or important. When the state attempted to prevent him from doing this, it was unduly interfering in his life, not to mention the lives of those who wanted to hear his standup routines! Above all, free speech protections are important because they provide a necessary check against tyrannical state power.

Lenny Bruce was a remarkable man. He made comedy what it is today: An art form that prides itself on encouraging anyone to say anything. Without him, there would be no Richard Pryors or George Carlins, as the price to be funny would still be insuperably high. Unfortunately, Bruce had to pay the highest price for his comedic successors to enjoy the privilege of freely performing. This price, however, was not paid in vain. We now live in a world where the state (at least, in the United States) has no authority to put people in cages for telling jokes. Of course, the present brings with it its own unique set of challenges. For example, the state no longer hunts comedians for making jokes, but many in society have developed an unwavering intolerance for tendentious jokes. So offensive comedians are safe from being put in cages, but they are now intimidated by the threat of hefty social sanctions, which might be equally problematic in different ways. Regardless of how urgent we think these modern problems are, we will only be able to offer solutions if we think critically about what free speech is good for. Luckily, the life of Lenny Bruce helps us appreciate the value of all sorts of speech, and it is time to take these values seriously.