I'm not all serious reflection around here. Last night I had occasion to reflect on the above question. The finely sharpened legal mind.
I offer this query to my readers - is creating laughter as the result of badly telling a not so funny joke (not crude, just not so funny), the functional equivalent of telling a good joke.
One could make a case that, while conceding that intentionality is a part of humor, there is room for the creation of a 'legal fiction' of intentionality because, perhaps, the hypothetical event precipitated a 'food spewing' level of hilarity.
It would be analogous to an involuntary manslaughter of a joke.
And yes, I do have some bit of pride at stake in the matter.
Comments