Ann Coulter recently had a moment of rediculousness, and the ensuing controversy has provided an opportunity for philosophers to step in and clear something up. Whether or not her joke was funny is irrelevant to its morality. This is D'arms and Jacobson's version of the "moralistic fallacy." They rightly point out that the "comic moralist" is mistaken when they find a joke objectionable and infer that the joke wasn't funny.
Many of the commentators who've stepped in to say that Coulter was out of line have simply said that this kind of hateful joke isn't funny, but this is just wrong. I actually think it was a bit funny. If Bill Maher had said it about Ken Mehlman (the slightly effeminate former RNC chair) all the liberals would have loved it. But thinking that it was funny doesn't stop me from thinking that it was a highly innappropriate and obnoxious thing to say given the context and the audience.
Her defense has basically been to say that all those who've complained just don't have a sense of humor. But this is even more rediculous! Just becuase your joke is funny doesn't give you free reign to say it whenever and wherever you want. I have a sense of humor, and I even think it was funny (if just a little), and I also think she's a hateful witch who shouldn't have said it in public.
So for those who worry that philosophy has nothing to add to the affairs of laypeople, I offer this point. The moralistic fallacy is pretty common, and recognizing the problem could allow people to debate the actual issues, and not whether or not the joke was funny.