Imus be an idiot . . .

[RandFan]

No, a minority took offense at a radio broadcaster and explained their criticism. His workplace then decided fire him.

?

A half dozen of one and six of the other. I see a distinction but no difference.

The majority of posters here, at the least, seem to agree with the girls.

Oh, well, darn, if I knew that this was all about what the majority thought then I would have taken a poll before I expressed an opinion.

What is argument ad populum?

Sure, some people are taking it way too far and making outrageous claims ("scarred for life!"), but that doesn't change the underlying principles at work here.

Which is?

The government is not getting involved, so free speech isn't being infringed in the government sense.

I've concede that. Silencing speech is the same whether it is by government or not.

Imus was popular and while popularity doesn't dictate what is true it does dictate what is appropriate to listen to. I live in a Democracy.

I would like to let the market decide what I can listen to or not.
I don't want those who are offended by the Dixie Chicks to decide whether I can listen to them or not.
I don't want those who are offended by Janet's boob to decide what I can watch.

The person involved made a pledge to those he worked with that he would not make racist remarks. The workplace seemed to call him on that very pledge after he did.

You will have to show me this pledge. I'm famaliar with a pledge that Imus made with a news caster. Is that what you are talking about?

THEN there's the fact that, while Dustin goes around claiming that he's "proven" that it was not meant in a racist way, Don Imus specifically apologized for his actions, demonstrating either guilt or pseudo-guilt for his remarks. Even he knows he did something wrong, or is acting like he did something wrong, one or the other.

I don't speak for Dustin and he doesn't speak for me.

Please to link on this pledge?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

THEN there's the fact that, while Dustin goes around claiming that he's "proven" that it was not meant in a racist way, Don Imus specifically apologized for his actions, demonstrating either guilt or pseudo-guilt for his remarks. Even he knows he did something wrong, or is acting like he did something wrong, one or the other.

He apologized because what he said was offensive, not 'racist'. Though, I've explained this a dozen times.

 

[Upchurch]

I've concede that. Silencing speech is the same whether it is by government or not.

Wait, how has Imus been silenced?

He can still say whatever he wants to whomever he wants whenever he wants. All that he lost was the forum on which he used to do it from. A forum the vast majority of us have never had in the first place.

 

[RandFan]

Wait, how has Imus been silenced?

He can still say whatever he wants to whomever he wants whenever he wants. All that he lost was the forum on which he used to do it from. A forum the vast majority of us have never had in the first place.

Oh sure. It's so simple. I noted in another thread that there were people who were offended by Will and Grace. If they had been canceled because some were offend then the show could have simply moved to cable and everyone would have been happy.

No harm, no foul.

Considering Janet's boob caused such trauma and considering that the religious right is a powerful force in American politics, let's go down that road. Let's first determine what is offensive to someone and not let anything offensive to be broadcast on the public airwaves. Hey, so long as they can go to cable then everyone should be just fine with that.

Good idea?

 

[Upchurch]

Oh sure.

{snip}

Good idea?

What's your argument, RandFan?

 

[RandFan]

What's your argument, RandFan?

I see you are confusing a question with an argument.

I'm asking you a question. I'm sorry if I was not clear. I was trying to be. I'll ask it again.

If everything that is offensive to someone was taken off of the public airwaves would that be fine with you?

Or, more specifically if that helps:

If the Christian Right, which is a substantial group in America and gaining clout at the moment could get a show like Will and Grace canceled would that be ok with you?

 

[Upchurch]

If everything that is offensive to someone was taken off of the public airwaves would that be fine with you?

No.

 

[RandFan]

No.

Cool, I wouldn't like it either.

 

[Upchurch]

Cool, I wouldn't like it either.

What of it?

 

[Lonewulf]

Man, Randfan. It must seriously annoy you when someone gets banned on this forum.

I've concede that. Silencing speech is the same whether it is by government or not.

Imus was popular and while popularity doesn't dictate what is true it does dictate what is appropriate to listen to. I live in a Democracy.

That's funny. I live in a Democratic Republic. What's the name of the country you're in?

So, do you have any evidence that the majority of people in the U.S. would decide that his insult was appropriate?

I don't speak for Dustin and he doesn't speak for me.

Neither did I claim that you did.

Don Imus apologized for his remarks. He knew that he went too far, or he's pretending to know he went too far.

Please to link on this pledge?

Ah, so it was just made to a reporter? I was under the impression that it was to those he worked with. Oh well. He broke his pledge regardless. The people that he worked for decided to let him off. It was their decision; no one "forced" their hand. Not even the minority groups. They may have had some influence, but no one forced the company to let off Don Imus.

If I ever become a boss, I would love to be able to decide whether or not to let my workers off or not. I would hate to be forced to keep people on out of some sort of special consideration.



Anyways, just because people keep decrying, "FREE SPEECH!"

Free speech guarantees that you can say what you will without threat of being attacked by the government

It does not guarantee a forum for your speech.

 

[RandFan]

What of it?

Perhaps it might be a good idea to speak out against boycotts to keep such threats from influencing what we can and can't watch.

 

[Babbylonian]

Imus was popular and while popularity doesn't dictate what is true it does dictate what is appropriate to listen to. I live in a Democracy.

You might live in a Democracy, but if you're employed in the private sector you probably don't work for one.

As for Imus' popularity, I'd take issue with that, at least in this sense: If he was popular enough to be worth CBS Radio and MSNBC keeping him on the air, he wouldn't have been fired.

No, if you listened to him over the years, his "claim to fame" was that his radio station commanded the highest commercial rates in radio (due in large part to the demographic makeup of WFAN's audience, as opposed to its mass), for which he took credit. He hasn't had the highest ratings in many, many years and didn't even get a large "Stern is Gone" bump. So, when sponsors started to jump ship, that was the end of the line. On the other hand, there were sponsors who wouldn't pay for time on Howard Stern when he was still on terrestrial radio, but his ratings were such that for every sponsor he might lose there were another ten queued up to take its place.

Again, I find the morality of his firing questionable based on other junk these companies put on the air, and what they allowed Imus to get away with for so long. But, I really don't find it a compelling free speech issue when a commercial broadcaster is let go after the commercial buyers start bowing out. Like it or lump out, the sponsors do have the power to decide who gets to stay on commercial radio (and television, for that matter). Personally, I threw the whole thing over a cliff a while back when I bought into the Sirius satellite service. Subscription fees solve the sponsor problem nicely.

 

[RandFan]

Man, Randfan. It must seriously annoy you when someone gets banned on this forum.

YES!!!!

I was, in part, the cause of the first ever suspension on this forum and it really pissed me off and I fought it like hell.

So, do you have any evidence that the majority of people in the U.S. would decide that his insult was appropriate?

It wasn't appropriate. What difference does that make?

The problem is that we will never know whether a majority would have been willing to forgive and continue to listen to him because a minority of activists decided that we didn't have that right.

Don Imus apologized for his remarks. He knew that he went too far, or he's pretending to know he went too far.

I think South Park goes too far, often. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

If I ever become a boss, I would love to be able to decide whether or not to let my workers off or not. I would hate to be forced to keep people on out of some sort of special consideration.

How would you like it if some guy came to your office and threatened with you with a boycott if you didn't do as HE TOLD YOU? That's extortion and that is what All Sharpton did to CBS.

Free speech guarantees that you can say what you will without threat of being attacked by the government

It does not guarantee a forum for your speech.

No one is arguing otherwise.

1. Calling for boycotts because of offensive speech is free speech.
2. Threating advertisers with boycotts because of offensive speech is free speech.
3. We can voluntarily give up our opportunity to hear speech by letting others dictate what is ok and what is not ok by threatening advertisers with boycotts.
4. Speaking out against such speech is also free speech.

The answer to bad speech is good speech.
What Imus said was bad speech.
The answer wasn't to silence Imus.

 

[RandFan]

You might live in a Democracy, but if you're employed in the private sector you probably don't work for one.

Not in question. Not relevant to my point.

As for Imus' popularity, I'd take issue with that, at least in this sense: If he was popular enough to be worth CBS Radio and MSNBC keeping him on the air, he wouldn't have been fired.

He was number one in his market. The threat of a few caused advertisers to pull their support.

But, I really don't find it a compelling free speech issue when a commercial broadcaster is let go after the commercial buyers start bowing out.

It sucks when a minority decides for the majority simply due to a threat.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I can see how Don Imus was "trying to be funny" and how it was all a bad joke. That said, Hemus be an idiot for in this day and age calling a group of black women "nappy-headed hos".

That's like calling a group of Jewish women "big-nosed b"tches" or a group of Asian women "yellow, squinty-eyed dragon ladies" or a group of Latin women "dumpy welfare mamasitas".

 

[Babbylonian]

Not in question. Not relevant to my point.

I think it is, especially since you mentioned it. I think it's important to keep in mind that who gets to be on the radio has nothing to do with Democracy, nor should it unless the particular station is funded by the government.

He was number one in his market. The threat of a few caused advertisers to pull their support.

Was it the threat of a few, or was it the last straw for advertisers that might have been uncomfortable with his show's "humor" for a long time now? I recall many times when, much like the Stern show, executives of Imus' station would appear on the show to discuss what they felt were inappropriate remarks on the show (yes, I enjoyed the show for a time myself - until it was all too repetitive for me, including the increasingly unfunny racial humor).

It sucks when a minority decides for the majority simply due to a threat.

So, we've gone from #1 in his market (after Stern left the air, of course, and it was an anemic #1 compared to Howard's gaudy numbers) to "the majority?" Hyperbole much?

Just as the magnitude of the racist remarks have been magnified beyond their true import (and for which I personally wouldn't have had him fired), so too are you magnifying Imus' relevance to radio and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, thanks to the power claimed by the FCC, commercial radio has nothing at all do with free speech even if sponsors were willing to pay for any show offered.

 

[RandFan]

I think it is, especially since you mentioned it.

Well, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

I think it's important to keep in mind that who gets to be on the radio has nothing to do with Democracy, nor should it unless the particular station is funded by the government.

?

Let me try that. It's important to keep in mind that who gets into public office has nothing to do with Democracy. Wow. It's just that easy. No argument. No basis for the claim. You just make it.

Thanks.

Was it the threat of a few, or was it the last straw for advertisers that might have been uncomfortable with his show's "humor" for a long time now?

It was the threat of a few. Advertisers want to make money. Period.

I recall many times when, much like the Stern show, executives of Imus' station would appear on the show to discuss what they felt were inappropriate remarks on the show (yes, I enjoyed the show for a time myself - until it was all too repetitive for me, including the increasingly unfunny racial humor).

Now you are talking about executives. Executives don't like too much controversy. Clearly they wanted some.

So, we've gone from #1 in his market (after Stern left the air, of course, and it was an anemic #1 compared to Howard's gaudy numbers) to "the majority?" Hyperbole much?

Just as the magnitude of the racist remarks have been magnified beyond their true import (and for which I personally wouldn't have had him fired), so too are you magnifying Imus' relevance to radio and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, thanks to the power claimed by the FCC, commercial radio has nothing at all do with free speech even if sponsors were willing to pay for any show offered.

You are not really advancing an argument so much as making assertions so I'll let the rest of your post go.

Thanks for weighing in. For whatever it is worth.

 

[RandFan]

I can see how Don Imus was "trying to be funny" and how it was all a bad joke. That said, Hemus be an idiot for in this day and age calling a group of black women "nappy-headed hos".

That's like calling a group of Jewish women "big-nosed b"tches" or a group of Asian women "yellow, squinty-eyed dragon ladies" or a group of Latin women "dumpy welfare mamasitas".

No question. He WAS STUPID!!!!! He was insenstive. His remarks were really dumb.

 

[Babbylonian]

You are not really advancing an argument so much as making assertions so I'll let the rest of your post go.

Thanks for weighing in. For whatever it is worth.

I apologize for intruding on your very substantive discussion.

 

[Lonewulf]

YES!!!!

I was, in part, the cause of the first ever suspension on this forum and it really pissed me off and I fought it like hell.

Well, that's fine, but I don't agree that suspensions or bannings on internet forums are a bad thing.

I like how the BAUT has strict guidelines and bannings to keep the forum nice and clean.

I think South Park goes too far, often. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Yes, and I'm boycotting South Park. I refuse to buy their movie, or pay for movie tickets, and I refuse to sit and watch them on television. And I will state openly that I do not fund it because, quite frankly, I do not like it.

How would you like it if some guy came to your office and threatened with you with a boycott if you didn't do as HE TOLD YOU? That's extortion and that is what All Sharpton did to CBS.

And if a company becomes involved in something that I consider morally wrong, I will also threaten them with a boycott. Big deal.

If a company had child labor, I would not buy from that company. I would make vocal that I am not buying from that company because they have child labor. I would encourage others to do the same. I do not consider this a wrongful act.

No one is arguing otherwise.

1. Calling for boycotts because of offensive speech is free speech.
2. Threating advertisers with boycotts because of offensive speech is free speech.
3. We can voluntarily give up our opportunity to hear speech by letting others dictate what is ok and what is not ok by threatening advertisers with boycotts.
4. Speaking out against such speech is also free speech.

The answer to bad speech is good speech.
What Imus said was bad speech.
The answer wasn't to silence Imus.

I don't get what your problem is.

Calling for boycotts is free speech. Threatening (not "threating") advertisers with boycotts because of offensive speech is free speech. We can voluntarily give up our speech. Speaking out against speech is free speech.

And?

People called out against this speech. People threatened boycotts. The funders backed out. The company fired him. Big deal.

If the company chose to, they could have kept him and even worked to defend him.

If the company did so, and their ratings went down big time, then the majority is speaking. Ratings don't usually come from the minority, unless you make it specifically for a minority group.

And -- here's the kicker -- at no point in time should people be forced to fund another person or group that they disagree with. THAT is coercion.