Still in both cases, the public institution would have the final say in whether or not what was said should not be said.
Edit: I was healthily corrected on this point. Not libel, but slander was what I was asserting as a possibility -- in the case we were discussing I was totally incorrect.
This is simply false, and a bad understanding of United States libel laws. Firstly, these were verbal statements which would make them slander and not libel.
Secondly, these were _not_ false statements of fact (which is the only thing that constitutes libel or slander in the United States). Joking that the child was ugly is an opinion, which is protected by the first amendment. Joking that the child was not dead, and "wouldn't die" also isn't a statement of fact.
It's simply not factually true that the comedian would be exposed to any civil liabilities for those jokes were they made in the United States.
All that said, I agree with the vast majority of the people that those jokes were in extremely poor taste. I would encourage people not to support or listen to a comedian that mocks people in that way.
https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-comedian-was-ordere...
Basically, a comedian made a comment in reference to a kid who'd sought donations because he was dying. His quip was:
"But five years later, he wasn't dead, he's not dying," he quipped on stage. "The little bastard, he's just not dying."
For that, the courts are making him pay some $42,000.
That would not happen in the United States. You may, or may not, agree with the court's findings - but it's a difference between the two countries and their liberties to express themselves.