"Look counselor, you can’t accuse this man of obscenity until you define the term pornography."
The lawyer replies, "I’ll come to that."
Okay, here’s my "Joke Poo" version of the obscenity trial joke:
Joke Poo: The Compost Heap
A novice gardener attending a composting workshop asks the instructor:
"Look, I can’t truly appreciate the nuances of your advanced soil amendment techniques until you clearly define the ideal ‘humus content.’"
The instructor replies, "I’ll get around to that later… once everyone else is knee deep in it!"
Alright, let’s dive into this joke!
Joke Deconstruction:
- Setup: The setup establishes a legal setting and the inherent ambiguity surrounding the term "obscenity." It highlights the tension between accusations and definitions. The judge is calling the lawyer out for putting the cart before the horse.
- Punchline: The punchline lies in the lawyer’s evasive, almost cheeky, response: "I’ll come to that." It suggests a deliberate vagueness, implying either incompetence, a planned strategy of obfuscation, or perhaps even the intention to shift the definition later for their own benefit. The humor comes from the lawyer dodging the fundamental issue.
Key Elements:
- Legal Setting: Courtroom drama, legal procedures, and the battle over definitions.
- Ambiguity: The core of the joke hinges on the subjective and shifting nature of "obscenity" and "pornography."
- Evasion/Delay: The lawyer’s response hinges on avoidance.
Comedic Enrichment:
Let’s riff on the idea of defining obscenity, drawing on historical and quirky facts:
Witty Observation/New Joke:
You know, defining pornography is like trying to nail jelly to a tree. Justice Potter Stewart famously said, "I know it when I see it," but that’s not exactly helpful if you’re trying to write a law. I heard they’re working on a new standard: if your grandmother would use it to clean the kitchen, it’s not pornography. Though, I knew one grandma who used lighter fluid to get stains out… so maybe that’s not airtight either.
Why this works:
- References: The observation connects to a real-world legal challenge and quotes a famous Supreme Court Justice’s attempt to grapple with the issue. This grounds the humor in reality.
- Juxtaposition: The light-hearted, ridiculous grandmother anecdote contrasts with the serious legal issue, creating humor.
- Plays on Ambiguity: It acknowledges the impossibility of a clear definition, enhancing the original joke’s theme.
- Extends the Joke’s Implication: The joke extends the lawyer’s evasion beyond the courtroom. What if the prosecution is simply avoiding the subject because no satisfying definition can be reached?
Alternative Joke:
Judge: "Counselor, you can’t simply accuse this man of obscenity without defining pornography!"
Lawyer: "Your Honor, I’ve been advised by my associates that I should plead the fifth. I would be glad to define cleanliness…"
Explanation:
Again, the lawyer is avoiding the issue (as in the original), but the joke hinges on inverting the subject from "obscenity" to "cleanliness." The joke implies there is an equally ambiguous problem in defining what is "clean," and perhaps if the judge were to define cleanliness, the lawyer would gladly make a case that what his client produced was squeaky clean!