{"id":2109700,"date":"2025-10-23T03:03:56","date_gmt":"2025-10-23T03:03:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/?p=2109700"},"modified":"2025-10-23T03:03:56","modified_gmt":"2025-10-23T03:03:56","slug":"high-profile-comedians-paid-handsomely-to-not-offend-saudi-royals-at-riyadh-comedy-fest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/high-profile-comedians-paid-handsomely-to-not-offend-saudi-royals-at-riyadh-comedy-fest\/","title":{"rendered":"High-profile comedians paid handsomely to not offend Saudi royals at Riyadh comedy fest"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

Last year, FIRE launched the <\/em>Free Speech Dispatch<\/em><\/a>, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don\u2019t miss an update? Sign up for our <\/em>newsletter<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

Saudi government takes short break from jailing and torturing critics to host Riyadh Comedy Fest<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Comedy\u2019s greatest asset is its ability to use just laughter to take the powerful down a peg. But what took place in Saudi Arabia earlier this month wasn\u2019t so funny.<\/p>\n

Over 50 well-known comedians including Bill Burr, Kevin Hart, and Dave Chappelle all performed in recent weeks at the Riyadh Comedy Festival<\/a>, despite criticism from some fellow comics who were also invited \u2014 and offered large sums to perform \u2014 but said no. One of those comedians, Atsuko Okatsuka, shared a reason why she chose to reject the offer: It came with very<\/em> restrictive strings attached.<\/p>\n

A contract Okatsuka posted<\/a> on social media said participants couldn\u2019t make jokes that degrade, embarrass, or ridicule the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its leadership and public figures, \u201cthe Saudi royal family and legal system,\u201d and \u201cany religion\u201d or \u201creligious figure.\u201d<\/p>\n

Saudi Arabia\u2019s General Entertainment Authority certainly looks to have enforced the rules. Two comedians were dropped from the lineup after making comments about how they were still willing to accept the money despite the country\u2019s extensive human rights violations, because in doing so they acknowledged said violations. That\u2019s a no-no. Jim Jefferies was cut<\/a> after saying on a podcast, \u201cOne reporter was killed by the government \u2014 unfortunate, but not a fucking hill that I\u2019m gonna die on.\u201d Similarly, Tim Dillon, while on a podcast responding to critics of his participation, was removed<\/a> for the comment, \u201cSo what if they have slaves, they\u2019re paying me enough to look the other way.\u201d<\/p>\n

And even though Saudi Arabia has tortured and imprisoned government critics \u2014 including American citizens<\/a> \u2014 and brutally executed journalist Jamal Khashoggi just for engaging in the kind of speech that these comedians were paid handsomely to avoid, some of the performers are still singing the praises of the event. Burr said<\/a> the \u201croyals loved the show\u201d (the one at which they were contractually exempt from mockery) and \u201cto their credit,\u201d they negotiated the speech restrictions down to \u201cDon\u2019t make fun of royals [and] religion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chappelle, too, said on stage that \u201cin America, they say that if you talk about Charlie Kirk, that you\u2019ll get canceled,\u201d and that it\u2019s \u201ceasier to talk here than it is in America.\u201d Chappelle isn\u2019t wrong that comments about Kirk in the aftermath of his assassination led to a disturbing trend of firings and punishments across the country bolstered by threats and demands from lawmakers, one FIRE is working to combat. And he\u2019s right to be worried about the state of free speech in the United States. I certainly am.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

No, canceling Chappelle is not a ‘win for free speech’<\/span>
\n<\/h2>\n

\n <\/header>\n
\n
\n

\n If we don’t push back against this trend, our society may soon find itself with fewer artists willing to push boundaries and fewer outlets for authentic artistic expression.\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n Read More
\n <\/span><\/a>\n <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n

But I\u2019d encourage Chappelle, who made a significant amount of money directly from the government which he was forbidden to criticize at his show, to speak to the country\u2019s journalists<\/a>, apostates<\/a>, women\u2019s rights activists<\/a>, writers<\/a>, and teachers<\/a> about his assertion that Saudi Arabia is a freer place to speak. That might be difficult, though, since so many have been imprisoned or even executed by authorities.<\/p>\n

UK judge backs \u2018right to offend\u2019 in reversal of Quran burning conviction<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In one of the more disturbing free speech stories of this summer, I wrote<\/a> in June about a Westminster Magistrates\u2019 Court guilty finding against asylum seeker Hamit Coskun for publicly burning a Quran in London. Most alarming was the judge\u2019s justification for the religiously aggravated public order offense conviction. The \u201cdisorderly\u201d nature of Coskun\u2019s protest, he asserted, \u201cis no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people.\u201d Not great.<\/p>\n

But this month, his conviction was overturned, a much-needed win both for Coskun and for the UK\u2019s flailing speech rights. Justice Joel Nathan Bennathan said<\/a> that, though Quran burning is deeply offensive to many, free expression \u201cmust include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

In Quran burning conviction, UK judge uses violence against defendant as evidence of his guilt<\/span>
\n<\/h2>\n

\n <\/header>\n
\n
\n

\n UK judge cites violence against Quran-burning protester as proof of his guilt, Brazil sentences comedian to over eight years for telling jokes, and France targets porn.\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n Read More
\n <\/span><\/a>\n <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n

Dropped Graham Linehan case may signal UK policing shift<\/strong><\/h3>\n

And Graham Linehan \u2014 the target of a high-profile arrest<\/a> at Heathrow Airport for a series of posts on X, including one where he said if \u201ca trans-identified male is in a female-only space\u2026call the cops, and if all else fails, punch him in the balls\u201d \u2014 says he\u2019s now in the clear. Linehan, a comedy writer, wrote on X that \u201cpolice have informed my lawyers that I face no further action in respect of the arrest at Heathrow in September,\u201d but he intends to pursue legal action for wrongful arrest.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s more: In the wake of the dropped charges against Linehan, the UK\u2019s Metropolitan Police said<\/a> they \u201cwill no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents\u201d to \u201cprovide clearer direction for officers, reduce ambiguity and enable them to focus on matters that meet the threshold for criminal investigations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other speech news out of the UK hasn\u2019t been so rosy<\/strong><\/h3>\n