This research examines the psychology behind people supporting censorship and “cancelling” of comedians for telling “offensive” jokes. We argue that people don’t cancel comedians because of bad jokes, but because of the inferred meaning behind the jokes, and what the audience thinks a joke reveals about the comedian’s mind (Gray, et al., 2012; Waytz, et al., 2010). Sometimes the way a joke is told reveals more about the person’s character than the words in the joke itself. We used a model of mind perception, the Heuristic of Sufficient Explanation (HOSE) to help unpack when jokes reveal bad character versus not (Vonasch, et al., 2024). We predicted that people will be more likely to be offended and support censorship when they are told a joke with offensive content that is not justified by context in how the joke is being told. Results from two experimental studies showed that missing context led to the audience misperceiving the intentions of the comedian, their mind, and their overall character due to greater offense taken, and thus audiences were more likely to support censorship in conditions where the context was missing. However, the extent to which they supported censorship across all contexts was minimal, supporting the hypothesis that a vocal minority of people are driving support for censorship of comedians telling offensive jokes (Mustafaraj et al., 2011). Understanding why individuals and groups may choose to censor comedy it allows us to examine the balance between protecting societal sensitivities and preserving comedy’s vital role in promoting free expression, challenging norms, and fostering democratic discourse.