When Free Speech Becomes a Contract: What the Saudi Comedy Controversy Reveals About Our Morals

A recent controversy involving Western comics performing in Saudi Arabia says more about the state of our collective ethics than about censorship or culture. These comics, long celebrated for defending free speech, signed 15-page contracts dictating what they could and couldn’t say. Yet they agreed.

Critics called it hypocrisy and perhaps it is. These same voices rail against “cancel culture” at home but quietly submit to censorship abroad for a lucrative gig. The outrage, though, misses a deeper truth that most people don’t actually operate from morality, they operate from stance. Morality is absolute; stance is conditional.

Morality vs. Stance

A moral principle, by definition, is something you don’t trad even at cost. It’s the line you’re willing to hold when everything else collapses.

But what most of us hold are not morals, they’re stances, positions we take until the price changes. The difference is not philosophical; it’s practical.

·      Morality says, “I won’t lie.”

·      Stance says, “I won’t lie — unless my job depends on it.”

·      Morality says, “I believe in free speech.”

·      Stance says, “I believe in free speech — unless the contract forbids it.”

When values are for sale, they stop being values and become tools — adjustable, convenient, and situational.

The “Lesser Evil” Mindset

In one of his Pivot podcast episodes, Prof. Scott Galloway argued that performers and even nations have the right to engage with Saudi Arabia. His argument was pragmatic in a sense that engagement breeds influence, while isolation pushes authoritarian regimes toward rival powers.

That’s a fair and logical position. But it’s not a moral one, it’s a strategic stance.It acknowledges that the world rarely offers clean choices, only trade-offs between imperfect options. When we frame decisions this way, we stop pretending we’re choosing “right versus wrong” and start acknowledging that we’re managing “better versus worse.”

That’s realism, not moral decay. But it should be called what it is “a strategy”, not virtue.

The Path to Morality vs. the Price of Morality

We often mistake compromise for moral weakness. But not every compromise erodes morality. In fact some preserve it. The difference lies in why the compromise is made.

When a person or nation accepts an imperfect step toward a moral goal say, 50% sustainability instead of 100% the moral principle hasn’t changed. The path has. That’s not moral surrender; it’s moral pragmatism. It’s the recognition that progress rarely happens in clean, perfect increments. The arc of morality, as Lincoln understood, bends forward in fits and starts, pulled by those who hold firm to the principle but flexible on the path.

Lincoln’s story illustrates this better than any modern debate. His motive was clear. It was  to end slavery yet his methods were shaped by political constraints, public opinion, and the messy realities of war. He took what he could achieve rather than waiting for the ideal. His morality remained intact; his strategy evolved. To judge him by modern standards of instant purity is to misunderstand how real progress works.

Contrast that with those who compromise not to advance a moral goal but to advance themselves. Once personal gain enters the equation, money, access, applause,  morality shifts from compass to convenience. That’s when it stops being moral pragmatism and becomes a stance.

True morality can live with imperfection on the path but not with corruption in the motive.

The Hypocrisy Problem

Hypocrisy is what breaks trust, not compromise itself. If a comedian says, “I’m taking this gig because it pays well,” few would protest. But to publicly posture as a free-speech absolutist while privately accepting restrictions is hollow. It’s not the deal that offends, it’s the dishonesty about what the deal represents.

Credibility isn’t lost when people compromise; it’s lost when they disguise compromise as conviction.

Nations Play the Same Game

Countries operate no differently, they simply have more polished language for it.“We defend democracy” often means “We protect our supply chains.”“We uphold human rights” often means “We secure energy access.”

These are not moral statements. They are stances, justified by necessity and reframed as ideals. Every government trades in moral language to sell pragmatic choices and voters, like audiences, tend to prefer the illusion of principle to the reality of positioning.

The Real Lesson

If something is priced, it isn’t morality, it’s management. And that’s fine, as long as we admit it. The problem isn’t that people have flexible stances; it’s that they confuse them with immutable morals.

True morality demands sacrifice. Most people, if honest, are not ready for that and that’s why moral grandstanding so often rings hollow.

So yes, let the comics perform. Let nations engage. But let’s stop calling it morality. It’s just negotiation. And negotiation is fine, provided we stop pretending it’s something higher.