The Jews are coming

Is portraying Joseph as a homosexual attracted to Potiphar satire? What is it?!

Why not? You may like it or not, but that's their purpose there. They don't teach the Bible.

They are laughing at the name mentioned in one of the episodes, we must set the limit as a public and not let anyone trample us.
Imagine if they laughed at the Holocaust like that, the media would scream, and for example if they humiliated the LGBTQ+ community the same thing.
We must set the limit where there is none.
And in addition, the generation that grew up on this sees all the great, righteous, and blameless leaders of the nation as perverts whose only goal is to satisfy their sexual urges.

In addition, you saw the recent media storm about the law against conversion therapy, why are we not able to fight for our values? We must stop being the child of the state. Humility should be in its place and here we must use courage (it is written in the clear Mishnah about heretics).
And because of humility, Jerusalem was destroyed, because they did not decide whether to sacrifice in its place or not.

They didn't like Joseph.

Satire or clowning - it was the same. And there's no need to elaborate on what the scriptures say about clowning. It doesn't matter to me, I'm an outsider to the situation.

I don't know the person in question, but I think there needs to be a uniform line.

Or it's permissible to laugh at everything, and then it's also permissible to mock the symbols of the state (the flag, the menorah) and its greats (Herzl).

Or there are red lines, and then the sacred cows of all sectors must be protected.

Rabbi Michael Avraham: Is it also possible to denigrate and humiliate a person on the basis of a family homosexuality or to make a satire of Rabin dancing with Hitler, Arafat, and kissing them and having homosexual sex with them, and of leftists as dogs and pigs? Is this also freedom of expression because there is no difference between this and what is done in Israel, the satire of religious traditionalists, ultra-Orthodox, and more on public broadcast?

igal rabin

Why didn't you suggest a relationship between Yigal Amir and Yitzhak Rabin?

Why is Meah Shearim doing a satire on Haman with an IDF uniform? Isn't it legitimate?
What hurts me here is that it's not particularly successful and everyone has to fund it. It's just a hallucination

Rabbi, can you elaborate on when in your opinion criticism and satire cross the line?
(For example, to criticize obesity, we would depict fat people in a derogatory manner. This is an unlikely act (although it could be done as ”innocent satire”).)

I understand that you are talking about the legal limit, because it is about taste and smell...
I also do not have a clear line on the legal aspect. A decision on such a ban consists of three main aspects: 1. The intensity of the harm (which is a subjective matter that is difficult to measure, and therefore it is of course possible to manipulate it in order to shut up). 2. Who is the victim. 3. Does he have the right not to be harmed (or does the perpetrator have the right to do what he does).
You can bring up extreme cases of any kind. A person will come to you and say that a TV show in which people wear pink clothes offends him, because he has a deep sentiment for the color pink. Do you think this should be banned? Also because I probably do not believe him that he is really harmed, but also because it is my right to walk the way I want and you have to deal with the harm. And what about walking in Haredi clothes on the street? Holocaust survivors who are angry at God do not want to be seen there. Should a ban be imposed?
It should be remembered that this is not about insulting concrete people who live among us (some would say: people who never lived). It is about harming people who are symbols for others. I don't see a problem with insulting symbols, including state symbols. It always sounds like silencing and gagging to me. Like Muslims, if you say something about Muhammad, they will murder you. I have the right to say what I want about Muhammad and the state.
None of this says anything about the quality of the program and its good taste (I've seen two or three segments in the past, and they were really weak). I'm only talking about the legal aspect: Should it be prohibited by law?
By the way, everyone here is talking with absolute confidence about examples of insulting LGBTQ people or leftists or the Holocaust. There are insults about all of these (including the Holocaust and Memorial Day). Usually people insult the other, and when the satirists belong to one side of the map, you will find insults mainly on the other side. When there is good right-wing satire, it will attack leftists and LGBT people. There will be protests, just as there are protests now, and everything will be fine. With alternative days of remembrance, including Palestinian bereaved families and the like. There are protests and the convoy passes, and that's a good thing.
Attacks on fat people or LGBT people that present them personally in an offensive way are more problematic. Here, there are concrete people who live among us who are harmed themselves (and not through symbols that are dear to their hearts). But here too, for this to be prohibited by law, if at all, something very unambiguous is needed.
Beyond that, although Tz'el is sure that everything has already been resolved and we are under LGBT rule, and although I have also written my opinion more than once about the terror they perpetrate, it cannot be denied that many LGBT people (certainly religious, but not only them) are in dire straits, and therefore there needs to be greater sensitivity towards them. And also fat people. As far as I know, religious people in Israel are not in distress, as there is reasonable freedom of worship and thought here. I don't buy their cries of distress. So such freedom also comes to those who oppose them or just want to attack them. Religious people are not supposed to use terrorism parallel to the "Lehtev" terror and silence anyone who writes something they don't like. Especially since this country has had religious coercion for many years (and unfortunately in recent years it has led to a response of secular coercion), and now the coercion also wants to prohibit anyone from harming it. Were we talking about Iran? Were we talking about Gomorrah?
And beyond that, there is a difference between the public domain and a television program. Not only because the context is satire and as such there is greater freedom in it, but also because those who don't want to don't have to watch. It is addressed to those who want to watch. This is in contrast to an action that is done on a street where everyone is passing by and there is no advance notice that the person who is harmed will not pass by (and also has the right to pass by).
Should food shows that cook up carrion and carrion also be banned? I'm sure there are people who are really hurt by this, and I'm also sure that if you just open the door to closing shows, there will be even more who will be "hurt". Then we will really become Iran.
And in the end, there is common sense. I don't see a shred of problematicness here that even comes close to debating whether to ban such things by law. We are as far from that as the East is from the West. The very fact that there is a discussion on this subject here means that we have lost our sanity and frustration and the desire to shut up talking instead of reason and logic.

And I haven't said anything about the content itself. Presenting a historical figure as gay is not offensive. Certainly not in the atmosphere that exists today where it is legitimate (they are already in power, according to Dashchel). Even presenting a concrete person living today as gay is not necessarily offensive, unless you think gay is a derogatory term. Certainly not among the guys who come from the Jews. That is of course a lie, and that is a different discussion. Here I am talking about the offensive aspect.
In short, I did not deal here at all with the "offensive" content, which should also be discussed.

Rabbi, and if this program causes a lot of controversy, as everyone who talks to teenagers knows, will your opinion change?

Should we tear them apart when they insult the Holy Name?
And is there a difference between whether it is insulting the Holy Name in satire or seriously?

There is no vision,
Absolutely not. The state is not an arm of the Jewish religion and should not worry about the reservations against incitement. In short, if you are afraid of incitement, fight.

Dvir,
I don't think so. Beyond satire, if you were to tear up about all the desecration of the name that you hear today, you wouldn't have many clothes left.

I don't hear the name pronounced often, especially not in such a disgrace, so if this is a settled rule, I will accept it without worrying about the number of shirts I have (I can trick you by borrowing a shirt, etc.).
My question is, what does this rule apply to that one who hears the blessing of the Lord must tear it (Rambam, Avolot 9:2)?

I think that today this Halacha is irrelevant. It is relevant to a religious society that operates in the accepted way. There, if there is such a blatant deviation, it should be torn up. Certainly in satire, it is irrelevant.

The smell of reformism rises from your answer above, Honorable Rabbi.
What does the meaning of irrelevant mean? Why is tefillin relevant and circumcision in general sound anachronistic?!

Don't forget to bless the mini perfume (so it is written in the Orthodox Shulchan Arutz Sheva).
Don't the Orthodox know the difference between something that tastes unclear and something that tastes clear and irrelevant (or less relevant)? And what about the difference between an act that serves a purpose and an act that is commanded by the Torah for its own sake?
If the Orthodox are the ones who focus on the sense of smell instead of thinking, then I am Reform.

The slaughter of the dead is nullified by a decapitated cart, and there is room to apply the same procedure to all other propaganda commandments.

A beautiful example.

You don't have to watch.

Your Honor, where is the line between thinking and reform?
After all, almost every mitzvah or every prohibition can be explained in a nutshell as reasons that are not relevant to today?

And I ask you, what is considered a propaganda commandment? To disparage the name of a being is in line with a propaganda commandment? Why is a covenant not a propaganda commandment? Where did you get that from?

Tam.
What I understand from the rabbi is that in fact we should have torn our clothes many more times, not only for hearing the name of a being but also for hearing the name of God and more. But because of our sins, the world is not afraid of this and does not tear its clothes. What is left for the rabbi is to do what previous poskim did – give a reason why we are not afraid of explicit halakha and trample it on our heels.

Is this to his taste? From the lines, it seems to me not, but what is left for him is only bitter irony.

Indeed, His name is blessed beyond measure, but here is the prohibition against saying God, the thousandth is in our eyes, and even if you say and interpret it differently, there are laughs and there is a Khalas, not like a taxi driver, every third word of which he swears to you by God and his mother, to people who, with a lot of thought, make fun of His name and existence. Any intelligent person understands that we have entered the stage of the Khalas!
As Rabbi Michi already wrote, these Jews are not particularly funny, but they certainly do not act in good faith. It is simple and clear that such a level of contempt that would have come from the Admor's tirade about the State of Israel would not have been funny, especially not to anyone.

Tam, first explain to me what was unique about the severed cart that was canceled (the cancellation of the water from the springs was learned from the prophet). I suggest that a severed cart and a protest against humiliation are not duties for something bad that was done but for the general strengthening of awareness, etc. And when the entire village is on fire, regulations are not amended to strengthen the fence posts near the neighborhood grocery store. As for the program itself, although I haven't seen a trace of it, I don't intend to, and personally I'm pretty indifferent to any kind of symbolism (at least on my conscious level), I myself think that such things should be blocked (and if necessary, the creators should also be boycotted). Public funding for mockery of an issue that is very important to a significant group of normal citizens should only be done for the purpose of reasonable benefit.

In the same Torah that was written about the issue of decapitated calves, the issue of obedience to the sages was also written, and therefore they and they alone can give interpretation to the Torah and remove something from the Torah when necessary. If an individual were to calculate whether it is better to turn on the air conditioner on Shabbat in order to enjoy Shabbat, even though this seems quite logical and the act of turning on the air conditioner is not a hassle at all, you understand for yourself that there would be nothing left of the Torah. Everyone would interpret for themselves what is relevant and what is not, and this is exactly what the Reformers do.

In principle, this is no different from any other halachic explanation that is handed down to the jurists of the generation (or to the Bar Hi, etc.). If a jurist reaches a conclusion about a condition, then he will come and consider it. The slippery slope argument, its honor is in its place, but it is a second-order discussion as is well known and will be discussed when we reach the bridge (meaning that the first-order discussion is over). What about the lowering and no raising of the predicted?

When

Taking an exceptional case of lowering rather than raising and building on it is not recommended. You need to see the whole picture and not be caught out by exceptions, because it is likely that there is something missing that you don't know about.

By the way, even in places where there is a great need, for example in an agunah whose husband has died, and the Sages even permitted the testimony of a witness, they annulled the marriage retroactively from the law of the entire Temple, according to the rabbis, and did not uproot anything from the Torah, even though there is a great need for it and also a great logic of transmitting information about a person who has died, a second matter is acceptable in any court.
See this in Yazmoth 2: Gitin 33. Bava Batra 44: Only for this reason do we accept the testimony of a witness from the mouth of a witness. Etc. See this in Gamma Shabbat Kama: Barashii D.H. for the testimony of a woman, (Today's Daily Daf).