Imus be an idiot . . .

[RandFan]

I apologize for intruding on your very substantive discussion.

No apology necessary. It's just that assertions and claims aren't compelling.

 

[Babbylonian]

No apology necessary. It's just that assertions and claims aren't compelling.

No. You found my assertions and claims not to be compelling. Your assertions and claims apparently occupy a loftier point on your assertion/claim scale.

 

[RandFan]

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

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

("Bannings"? if you are going to be pedantic then get the spelling right.) There is good and bad to banning. It's not my forum and I'm not interested in a debate about that. Ed forbid I should have an opinion that differs from you.

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.

Cool. Now if everyone would have that attitude rather than organize and threaten sponsors with organized boycotts to keep those who want to watch South Park from watching.

Or, perhaps I'm wrong on this one, would you keep others from watching it?

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

Have you even read my posts. Please Lonewulf. I respect you. Please pay attention to what I'm saying. I've made it as clear as I can. I will do so again.

1. If you think something is morally wrong you have the right to call for boycotts. That is free speech.
2. If you think something is morally wrong you have the right to threaten boycotts. That is free speech.
3. I think organized boycotts by the likes of Sharpton have a chilling effect on speech.
4. There was an organized boycott by the religious right against the show Stop the Church. I spoke out against that boycott. I didn't want the religious right to decide that I couldn't watch the show.
5. There was an organized boycott by the religious right against the Movie the last temptations of Christ. I spoke out against that boycott. I didn't want the religious right to decide that I couldn't watch the movie.
6. There was an organized boycott by the religious right against the Mapplethorpe exhibit. I spoke out against that boycott. I didn't want the religious right to decide that I couldn't go see the exhibit.
7. I am exercising my right to free speech to speak out against this boycott because I don't want Sharpton and a few activists to decide what I can and can't listen to.

Please tell me which number you have a problem with?

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.

Exploiting children is not the same as speech.

I don't get what your problem is.

{sigh} I have tried to make it as clear as I can. I have as much of a right to speak out against boycotts as you have to call for one. What is your problem?

People called out against this speech. People threatened boycotts. The funders backed out.

Because a minority in an emotional atmosphere threatened boycotts. It was mob rule and there was no way to know how many people this group represented. Funny thing the mob was calling for the castration of the Duke Lacrosse players for racial reasons also. Maybe it would be best to make decisions based on level headed thinking.

Big deal.

Dam straight it was.

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.

? Sorry, I've not a clue. I disagree with lot's of groups on the radio. I don't want to be forced to fund them. Who do I see?

What are you talking about?

 

[RandFan]

Babbylonian

No. You found my assertions and claims not to be compelling. Your assertions and claims apparently occupy a loftier point on your assertion/claim scale.

Where have I simply made claims and assertions? Please don't compare my arguments to your rhetoric.

 

[Lonewulf]

("Bannings"? if you are going to be pedantic then get the spelling right.)

Haha. Okay, I concede the point.

Cool. Now if everyone would have that attitude rather than organize and threaten sponsors with organized boycotts to keep those who want to watch South Park from watching.

An organized boycott isn't much different than me not buying a product. It's getting a group together, and then explaining our unwillingness to buy the product or any further products from the company. Sure, it's more vocal, and the intent is to try to change the corporation/company, but it's still just a bunch of people going out and saying, "We won't buy this product, and neither should you!" If people decide to listen, then they decide to listen. If they don't, then they don't. That's really what it comes down to.

I don't get why this is innately more wrong than what I described?

Or, perhaps I'm wrong on this one, would you keep others from watching it?

It depends.

1) How am I "keeping others from watching it"?

2) What is it that I'm keeping them from watching?

I'm perfectly fine with organizing a group of like-minded people and threatening to not pay that company. If the company wants to, it can continue on without our money. It is the company's choice.

It's all about market: I want my product a certain way. So I ask (okay, "demand") the company to make the product my way, or I do not pay them money. The company decides to either accede to my demands, or they decide to take the risk anyways.

Have you even read my posts. Please Lonewulf. I respect you. Please pay attention to what I'm saying. I've made it as clear as I can. I will do so again.

Alright, but I do notice that you've revised your list... I assume to make it more clear.

1. If you think something is morally wrong you have the right to call for boycotts. That is free speech.
2. If you think something is morally wrong you have the right to threaten boycotts. That is free speech.
3. I think organized boycotts by the likes of Sharpton have a chilling effect on speech.
4. There was an organized boycott by the religious right against the show Stop the Church. I spoke out against that boycott. I didn't want the religious right to decide that I couldn't watch the show.
5. There was an organized boycott by the religious right against the Movie the last temptations of Christ. I spoke out against that boycott. I didn't want the religious right to decide that I couldn't watch the movie.
6. There was an organized boycott by the religious right against the Mapplethorpe exhibit. I spoke out against that boycott. I didn't want the religious right to decide that I couldn't go see the exhibit.
7. I am exercising my right to free speech to speak out against this boycott because I don't want Sharpton and a few activists to decide what I can and can't listen to.

Please tell me which number you have a problem with?

Okay, let me try this list thingy:

1) Violation of Free speech means that you are being silenced by force.

2) Someone refusing to give you money or the equivalent thereof is not necessarily "force". It is their decision whether or not to grant you that pay.

3) Free speech does not guarantee you a forum to speak your speech into. However, it does guarantee that the government cannot remove your forum without due cause.

He was fired by his company because he was a liability, and thus his forum was taken away from him. For all I know, it could have easily been a contract issue as well, I don't know. However, the forum was not taken away from him by anything else other than the company and the funders.

But if you don't like the boycott, that's fine. However, you've gone up and down in other threads and the like (unless I'm mistaking you for another poster), proclaiming that this is an issue of someone's free speech being infringed. I do not agree with that, as it does not fall within my definition (and, from all I know, the legal definition) of free speech.

Exploiting children is not the same as speech.

Fair enough.

{sigh} I have tried to make it as clear as I can. I have as much of a right to speak out against boycotts as you have to call for one. What is your problem?

You seem to have misinterpreted my "What's your problem?" statement. I did not mean it in an insulting manner, I meant it in the same fashion as, "What is your problem [with this?]". It was not meant to be rude.

Because a minority in an emotional atmosphere threatened boycotts. It was mob rule and there was no way to know how many people this group represented. Funny thing the mob was calling for the castration of the Duke Lacrosse players for racial reasons also. Maybe it would be best to make decisions based on level headed thinking.

Exploiting children is not the same as speech, and castration is not the same as being fired either.

Dam straight it was.

To you, it is. To me, a company has every right to fire it's employers when they go over the line. Don Imus went over the line, and he dug his own grave.

? Sorry, I've not a clue. I disagree with lot's of groups on the radio. I don't want to be forced to fund them. Who do I see?

What are you talking about?

First of all:

1) A company should not be forced to continue to pay an employee when that employee becomes a liability.

2) Someone that funds a company (I keep forgetting the name of 'em...) should not be forced to fund a company that continues to keep employees that are a liability.

From what I understand, Imus was fired mainly because the company considered him a liability; people that funded the company were starting to back out, and the company decided to fire Imus.

Personally, I think that the funders had every right to not be forced to pay MSNBC, and MSNBC had every right to not pay Don Imus' paycheck. I have see no moral quandary there.

A group of people threatened that they were insulted enough that they were refusing to give the company money or support. The company acceded. Don Imus was fired. I see no injustice, I see the free market.

 

[RandFan]

An organized boycott isn't much different than me not buying a product. It's getting a group together, and then explaining our unwillingness to buy the product or any further products from the company. Sure, it's more vocal, and the intent is to try to change the corporation/company, but it's still just a bunch of people going out and saying, "We won't buy this product, and neither should you!" If people decide to listen, then they decide to listen. If they don't, then they don't. That's really what it comes down to.

Yes but it creates a false impression that the group represents the will of the people. The group takes on the moral authority of everyone. And hey, they have that right I just don't like it and speak out against it.

I don't get why this is innately more wrong than what I described?

Because a minority dictates what the majority can have access to.

I'm perfectly fine with organizing a group of like-minded people and threatening to not pay that company. If the company wants to, it can continue on without our money. It is the company's choice.

Let me be more clear.

You say you don't like South Park.
If you knew you could get it off of the TV would you?

It's all about market: I want my product a certain way. So I ask (okay, "demand") the company to make the product my way, or I do not pay them money.

There is a market for Imus. He is #1 in his market. As long as people will listen to him why can't they have that choice? Why should the desires of a few make the decision?

The company decides to either accede to my demands, or they decide to take the risk anyways.

Are you talking about extortion?

1) Free speech means that you are being silenced by force.

There is a problem with your syntax but that's fine.

The First Amendment guarantees that the government can't infringe on free speech.

Why is this important? The reason why the First Amendment exists, in part, is to ensure the free flow of ideas. If the free flow of ideas is suppressed then what difference does it make whether it is government of Al Sharpton and some activists?

2) Someone refusing to give you money or the equivalent thereof is not necessarily "force". It is their decision whether or not to grant you that pay.

I agree. 100%. Thank you. Yes. But let everyone make a decision and not just Al Sharpton and those who are momentarily upset.

3) Free speech does not guarantee you a forum to speak your speech into. However, it does guarantee that the government cannot remove your forum without due cause.

Not in question. I've stated this over and over.

He was fired by his company because he was a liability, and thus his forum was taken away from him.

He became a liability after Al Sharpton and others decided that Imus should be fired. Until after many like Sharpton were agitated over the words of a man who is clearly not a racist. Who endorsed and campaigned for a black man and who sponsors at his ranch many minority children who have cancer.

However, the forum was not taken away from him by anything else other than the company and the funders.

The company gave him a two week suspension. Let's keep in mind the company gave him a two week suspension. It is clear that they would have liked to have kept him. He has made millions for CBS.

But if you don't like the boycott, that's fine. However, you've gone up and down in other threads and the like (unless I'm mistaking you for another poster), proclaiming that this is an issue of someone's free speech being infringed. I do not agree with that, as it does not fall within my definition (and, from all I know, the legal definition) of free speech.

If the religious right can silence speech then what is the difference? If they keep content off of the TV or radio (and they want to) then what difference does it make in the end?

To you, it is. To me, a company has every right to fire it's employers when they go over the line.

I have stated over and over that of course they have the right. The company also has the right to give a two week suspension which they did but that was not enough for Al Sharpton.

1) A company should not be forced to continue to pay an employee when that employee becomes a liability.

No one says otherwise.

2) Someone that funds a company (I keep forgetting the name of 'em...) should not be forced to fund a company that continues to keep employees that are a liability.

No one says otherwise.

From what I understand, Imus was fired mainly because the company considered him a liability; people that funded the company were starting to back out, and the company decided to fire Imus.

Personally, I think that the funders had every right to not be forced to pay MSNBC, and MSNBC had every right to not pay Don Imus' paycheck.

?

Yes, I started a thread stating that very thing. Of course. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about Al Sharpton and the mob mentality. I'm speaking out against that and not the investors. I'm telling people that this is a poor way to regulate speech. Everyone is offended by something. Let's not go down this road.

Let the market work. It's not perfect but it is good and it's in our best interest not to screw with it.

The answer to bad speech is good speech not boycotts. Boycotts are bad speech because what you think is good can be boycotted by someone else. That's my message.

 

[Mephisto]

I think organized boycotts by the likes of Sharpton have a chilling effect on speech.

Yes, they do - they prove to companies and advertisers that racist or hurtful speech shouldn't be allowed on the airwaves. Imus can still make all the racist comments he wants, he's just no longer paid to make those comments by his ex-employer. Although I doubt that you'd use it, your freedom of speech to openly call African-American atheletes "nappy-headed hos," isn't being infringed upon and neither is Imus's.

There was an organized boycott by the religious right against the show Stop the Church. I spoke out against that boycott. I didn't want the religious right to decide that I couldn't watch the show.

There was an organized boycott by the religious right against the Movie the last temptations of Christ. I spoke out against that boycott. I didn't want the religious right to decide that I couldn't watch the movie.

There was an organized boycott by the religious right against the Mapplethorpe exhibit. I spoke out against that boycott. I didn't want the religious right to decide that I couldn't go see the exhibit.

But these are protests against ideologies and not racist. These protests are based on church doctrine and morals enforced by religion and NOT racial prejudice. What is offensive to a devout Catholic, Pentacostal, or Southern Baptist may not be offensive to you or I, but open racism SHOULD be offensive to anyone who truly believes that "all men are created equal."

I am exercising my right to free speech to speak out against this boycott because I don't want Sharpton and a few activists to decide what I can and can't listen to. Please tell me which number you have a problem with?

Sharpton and many other African-Americans aren't stifling racists, they're using their right to protest against them being given a paid platform on the airwaves to spew their trash - if you really, honestly wanted to listen to racist ranting you could easily find it here:

http://www.aryan-nations.org/

or here:

http://www.stormfront.org/default.htm

or here:

http://www.kkk.com/

You don't need Don Imus to get your fill of racist BS - free speech is alive and well in the U.S. However, it's a step forward that the public airwaves are no longer sponsoring this type of behavior or speech that is injurious to minorities of all types.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, they do - they prove to companies and advertisers that racist or hurtful speech shouldn't be allowed on the airwaves.

All hurtful speech? Wow. Is that really what you want? It's not what I want. It's not what many who have fought against censorship have fought for.

Imus can still make all the racist comments he wants, he's just no longer paid to make those comments by his ex-employer. Although I doubt that you'd use it, your freedom of speech to openly call African-American atheletes "nappy-headed hos," isn't being infringed upon and neither is Imus's.

You have completely missed my point.

But these are protests against ideologies and not racist. These protests are based on church doctrine and morals enforced by religion and NOT racial prejudice. What is offensive to a devout Catholic, Pentacostal, or Southern Baptist may not be offensive to you or I, but open racism SHOULD be offensive to anyone who truly believes that "all men are created equal."

Whoosh. That's the sound of something going completely over your head. As Larry Flynt said, protecting offensive speech is the only way to guarantee speech for everyone.

C'mon RF - if you really, honestly wanted to listen to racist ranting you could easily find it here:

You know Mephisto. This is the most impolitic and rude thing anyone has said to me.

• I've called what Imus said stupid and insensitive and not for one moment defended what he said.
• I've said that anyone has a right to speak out against Imus.
• I have defended him as an individual and I have said that the actions of Sharpton are wrong and I would hope that we could think clearly before we make these kind of visceral decisions.

You don't need Don Imus to get your fill of racist BS - free speech is alive an well in the U.S. However, it's a step forward that the public airwaves are no longer sponsoring this type of behavior or speech that is injurious to minorities of all types.

I'm really disappointed that you would stoop to this and accuse me of defending, endorsing or wanting to listen to racist bigotry.

I have listened to Imus for years. He is not a racist. He endorsed and campaigned for Harold Ford Jr. who is black. He has had many blacks on his show. He has a ranch for children with cancer that is free to those children including many minorities.

In short, you are being a real jerk and doing so without basis. I thought better of you.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes but it creates a false impression that the group represents the will of the people. The group takes on the moral authority of everyone. And hey, they have that right I just don't like it and speak out against it.

Because a minority dictates what the majority can have access to.

So a minority has strong enough power to incredibly influence a radio station, affecting the majority, through a measure that requires a majority to actually work?

A boycott requires enough people for the company to actually risk losing enough money on. The disagreement doesn't seem to be towards the boycott, but the misconception that the boycott is a much larger group of people than is otherwise.

Let me be more clear.

You say you don't like South Park.
If you knew you could get it off of the TV would you?

South Park? Nah, I wouldn't. Most of what I don't like is just simply crass humor.

There is a market for Imus. He is #1 in his market. As long as people will listen to him why can't they have that choice? Why should the desires of a few make the decision?

If he is truly #1 in his market (and I've heard claims to the contrary, as he was number 1, but his viewers have grown fewer and fewer as time has gone along), then his company should have no problem with a boycott of a few people.

If you're right, the company was gypped into making a decision because they weren't able to see the forest for the trees. This has less to do with the boycott, and more to do with the company's gullibility.

Are you talking about extortion?

A legal, moral form of "extortion", yes. My money is my own, and I can explain who I will and who I will not give that money to, and I am free to explain my reasons for it.

There is a problem with your syntax but that's fine.

I fixed it after you replied.

The First Amendment guarantees that the government can't infringe on free speech.

Exactly.

Why is this important? The reason why the First Amendment exists, in part, is to ensure the free flow of ideas.

Free flow of ideas is hardly absolutist, however. There are reservations, such as slander, libel, and defamation of character (not to mention the obscenity laws). Free speech, within context of the first amendment, is not an absolutist position.

I'd also add that there's a key difference between explaining your religious and political ideas, and calling someone you never knew a "nappy-headed ho".

If the free flow of ideas is suppressed then what difference does it make whether it is government of Al Sharpton and some activists?

There's many differences. There is a key difference between force under threat of a gun, jailtime, fines and law, and threatening to not pay someone.

I agree. 100%. Thank you. Yes. But let everyone make a decision and not just Al Sharpton and those who are momentarily upset.

The purpose of a boycott is to get like-minded people to agree to not pay. It's no different than a few people not paying anyways, through ratings.

Al Sharpton cannot launch a one-man crusade, alone, on any single issue. He needs support, especially in order to launch a successful boycott. Unless he's frikkin' Bill Gates, and is the only one funding MSNBC, of course.

Not in question. I've stated this over and over.

Then it is not a free speech issue, it's a market issue.

He became a liability after Al Sharpton and others decided that Imus should be fired. Until after many like Sharpton were agitated over the words of a man who is clearly not a racist. Who endorsed and campaigned for a black man and sponsors many minority children who have cancer at his ranch.

From what I've heard, it is not quite "clear" that he is not a racist. If there is confusion, then part of is the confusion he willfully set in place with his "comedy" style.

The company gave him a tow week suspension.

That's fine.

If the religious right can silence speech then what is the difference? If they keep content off of the TV or radio (and they want to) then what difference does it make in the end?

I find it interesting. The religious right, which is one of the largest, most powerful organizations in America, cannot influence television as much as Al Sharpton can apparently influence radio. And yet, interestingly enough, you're claiming that a minority is deciding what a majority can and cannot watch. Forgive me if my baloney detector is going off a bit here.

Out of curiosity and somewhat off that: Would you be more "okay" with the religious right deciding what all of America can and cannot watch if they were the majority? In that case, it's the majority deciding what the minority cannot watch, and personally I'm still iffy over that.

However, there are legal safeguards to keep a company from banning someone over their religious beliefs (they cannot participate in religious, ethnic, racial discrimination, etc.) So there's a difference between firing someone because he expresses a certain religious viewpoint, and firing someone because he talks about, "All those damn moronic Christians" on a radio show. There's a difference between obscenity and idea sometimes.

I have stated over and over that of course they have the right. The company also has the right to give a two week suspension which they did but that was not enough for Al Sharpton.

And in this particular case, I'd have to agree that he should not have been fired. The two week suspension, to my mind, was enough, as was the apology. Things were taken a little too far, and I admit that. But I don't dislike the boycott in the first place, I dislike how far Sharpton wanted it taken. Just like I wouldn't mind a boycott against someone for a racist comment, even if they were advocating that the person be suspended or forced to make an apology, but I think it's taken too far when they're threatening to cut his penis off.

No one says otherwise.

No one says otherwise.

So the funders were okay with refusing to fund the company, the company had every right to fire him, and I have no problem with boycotts, going with what a boycott is.

That's pretty much where I stand on the issue.

Yes, I started a thread stating that very thing. Of course. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about Al Sharpton and the mob mentality. I'm speaking out against that and not the investors. I'm telling people that this is a poor way to regulate speech. Everyone is offended by something. Let's not go down this road.

I think that boycotts are a perfectly fine way to regulate the market, which can influence speech when it comes to companies hiring and keeping on an individual.

I also think that companies should be more willing to take a stand, even in the face of massive boycotts, but that's a different issue.

Let the market work. It's not perfect but it is good and it's in our best interest not to screw with it.

Boycotts are part of the market. The market is dependant on the consumer, and the consumer has every right to refuse to buy a good, and to express how, and why, they do not buy that good, and to make that reason known to all.

The answer to bad speech is good speech not boycotts. Boycotts are bad speech because what you think is good can be boycotted by someone else. That's my message.

Markets are driven by a desire for profit. A boycott is a consumer threatening to not partake of that product, and thus they will not fund the originator of that product. That's all there is to it.

If a company gets "drawn in" and overreacts to a boycott of a small amount of people, while a much larger amount of people still partake of that product, then I'll just have to say, "Too bad." The company was the one that made the error, not the boycotters. That's my stance.

 

[Mephisto]

I have listened to Imus for years. He is not a racist. He endorsed and campaigned for Harold Ford Jr. who is black. He has had many blacks on his show. He has a ranch for children with cancer that is free to those children including many minorities.

In short, you are being a real jerk and doing so without basis. I thought better of you.

I didn't mean YOU personally - I meant that racist speech is alive and well - how is you can take my comment so personally, but some here (NOT YOU) have argued that the Rutger's basketball team took Imus's comments too personally?

As for the sound of your comment going over my head - I got what you meant, I just don't think people should be paid for being racially offensive. I really don't believe that Sharpton or Jackson has the pull you attribute to them, but I do believe that once the advertisers saw how controversial Imus's statements were they pulled out. If you have a problem with free speech being stifled, maybe you should take it up with them?

 

[RandFan]

A boycott requires enough people for the company to actually risk losing enough money on. The disagreement doesn't seem to be towards the boycott, but the misconception that the boycott is a much larger group of people than is otherwise.

I would be against a visceral boycott. I would ask people to cool off before demanding someone's head but if time had passed and enough people wanted him gone he would be gone.

If he is truly #1 in his market (and I've heard claims to the contrary, as he was number 1, but his viewers have grown fewer and fewer as time has gone along), then his company should have no problem with a boycott of a few people.

If you're right, the company was gypped into making a decision because they weren't able to see the forest for the trees. This has less to do with the boycott, and more to do with the company's gullibility.

Negative publicity can have a very serious impact on stock prices. Companies don't like such negative perceptions for many reasons but most importantly a falling stock price hurts the investors.

A legal, moral form of "extortion", yes. My money is my own, and I can explain who I will and who I will not give that money to, and I am free to explain my reasons for it.

I don't at all have a problem with how you spend your money.

Al Sharpton threatening a corporation that he will use his influence to inflame the passions of people and get them to protest is what I'm talking about.

Free flow of ideas is hardly absolutist, however. There are reservations, such as slander, libel, and defamation of character (not to mention the obscenity laws). Free speech, within context of the first amendment, is not an absolutist position.

No argument.

I'd also add that there's a key difference between explaining your religious and political ideas, and calling someone you never knew a "nappy-headed ho".

In People v Larry Flynt, Flynt admitted to slander. He lied about Jerry Falwell. The First Amendment wasn't written to protect Larry Flynt slandering Jerry Falwell. Yet SCOTUS, unanimously ruled in favor of Larry Flynt. If we as a society can tolerate offensive speech then speech is safe.

The purpose of a boycott is to get like-minded people to agree to not pay.

Sadly it can have a greater influence because of the negative publicity and stock prices than it should have.

It's no different than a few people not paying anyways, through ratings.

If true then let's all wait for the ratings to come out. Let the entire market speak.

Al Sharpton cannot launch a one-man crusade, alone, on any single issue. He needs support, especially in order to launch a successful boycott. Unless he's frikkin' Bill Gates, and is the only one funding MSNBC, of course.

It's not fair to lay it all on Al Sharpton but he was a major force and he was the one who met with CBS and threatened a boycott.

Then it is not a free speech issue, it's a market issue.

It's inflaming the passions of people for political purpose. If there had not been an Al Sharpton and others constantly calling for Imus being fired we might have found out how the market would have responded through ratings. Now we will never know.

From what I've heard, it is not quite "clear" that he is not a racist. If there is confusion, then part of is the confusion he willfully set in place with his "comedy" style.

Then Imus hates white people. He hates his wife and friends. Hell, he hates everyone. I've listened to him for years and he does not treat anyone differently. Attack his his shtick.

I find it interesting. The religious right, which is one of the largest, most powerful organizations in America, cannot influence television as much as Al Sharpton can apparently influence radio. And yet, interestingly enough, you're claiming that a minority is deciding what a majority can and cannot watch. Forgive me if my baloney detector is going off a bit here.

The fact is that the religious right used to influence the airwaves. People stood up to them and said NO. We don't want you to make our choices.

The problem is that the winds of change are moving in their direction at the moment.

Out of curiosity and somewhat off that: Would you be more "okay" with the religious right deciding what all of America can and cannot watch if they were the majority? In that case, it's the majority deciding what the minority cannot watch, and personally I'm still iffy over that.

Not through boycotts. Hell no. Never. I don't like inflamed passions to be the basis for a decision. The religious right, like Al Sharpton, like to inflame passion rather than appeal to objective and rational thought.

Now, if the majority was Christian and the ratings reflected that then I would live with it but I would have tried to change minds.

However, there are legal safeguards to keep a company from banning someone over their religious beliefs (they cannot participate in religious, ethnic, racial discrimination, etc.) So there's a difference between firing someone because he expresses a certain religious viewpoint, and firing someone because he talks about, "All those damn moronic Christians" on a radio show. There's a difference between obscenity and idea sometimes.

This would have done nothing for the cases I cited.

And in this particular case, I'd have to agree that he should not have been fired. The two week suspension, to my mind, was enough, as was the apology. Things were taken a little too far, and I admit that. But I don't dislike the boycott in the first place, I dislike how far Sharpton wanted it taken. Just like I wouldn't mind a boycott against someone for a racist comment, even if they were advocating that the person be suspended or forced to make an apology, but I think it's taken too far when they're threatening to cut his penis off.

Cool.

So the funders were okay with refusing to fund the company, the company had every right to fire him, and I think that everyone has a right to boycott, going with what a boycott is.

That's pretty much where I stand on the issue.

I think that boycotts are a perfectly fine way to regulate the market, which can influence speech when it comes to companies hiring and keeping on an individual.

I also think that companies should be more willing to take a stand, even in the face of massive boycotts, but that's a different issue.

Because boycotts often play on emotions I don't like them.

We will probably have to disagree somewhat. I think we have some common ground though.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't mean YOU personally - I meant that racist speech is alive and well - how is you can take my comment so personally, but some here (NOT YOU) have argued that the Rutger's basketball team took Imus's comments too personally?

As for the sound of your comment going over my head - I got what you meant, I just don't think people should be paid for being racially offensive. I really don't believe that Sharpton or Jackson has the pull you attribute to them, but I do believe that once the advertisers saw how controversial Imus's statements were they pulled out. If you have a problem with free speech being stifled, maybe you should take it up with them?

No, it wasn't the advertisers that inflamed the passions of the people causing a mob mentality. The advertisers simply responded to the mob and often the mob doesn't represent everyone. I don't blame the advertisers. I don't blame CBS. I blame those who would appeal to passions rather than objectivity and reason. I blame the likes of Sharpton who is very good at what he does.

I think this it is so illustrative to compare this to the Duke case. In that instance the mob group was inflamed by leaders.

If you are so sure Al Sharpton and his ilk don't have the pull then why not call for calm and wait for the ratings to come out?

I've said over and over and over. If Imus ratings had tanked and he had been pulled you would have never heard a word from me.

 

[Lonewulf]

We will probably have to disagree somewhat. I think we have some common ground though.

Agreed, though I admit you do make a compelling argument.

I will think this over.

 

[Gurdur]

.... I blame those who would appeal to passions rather than objectivity and reason.

Then better start blaming Imus for his own demise, since he deliberately appealed to passions by making his racist & sexist comments.

I've said over and over and over. If Imus ratings had tanked and he had been pulled you would have never heard a word from me.

So what you are sayin in effect is:

You would have been completely OK with Imus being "censored" by being fired if his ratings had tanked,
but you are not OK with him being "censored" for other standards.

That to me is a terrible position, and a very contradictory one.

 

[Mephisto]

If you are so sure Al Sharpton and his ilk don't have the pull then why not call for calm and wait for the ratings to come out?

I've said over and over and over. If Imus ratings had tanked and he had been pulled you would have never heard a word from me.

Sharpton and "his ilk" (or as Imus called them 'you people') are a minority who are rightly incensed over a racist remark - If every single one of Imus's listeners wanted to override the effects of Sharpton's boycott they could ban together and demand that he be given his job back. The advertisers would undoubtedly take notice and (for the money) would be happy to take race-relations in America back to the 60s.

Like it or not, we live in a consumer society where "money talks and BS walks." Who would lead a counter-protest to Sharpton and Jackson and would anyone feel comfortable associating themselves with them?

 

[hgc]

No, it wasn't the advertisers that inflamed the passions of the people causing a mob mentality. The advertisers simply responded to the mob and often the mob doesn't represent everyone. I don't blame the advertisers. I don't blame CBS. I blame those who would appeal to passions rather than objectivity and reason. I blame the likes of Sharpton who is very good at what he does.

I think this it is so illustrative to compare this to the Duke case. In that instance the mob group was inflamed by leaders.

If you are so sure Al Sharpton and his ilk don't have the pull then why not call for calm and wait for the ratings to come out?

I've said over and over and over. If Imus ratings had tanked and he had been pulled you would have never heard a word from me.

Hi Randfan, I wish you were around yesterday.

Here's my take on this argument: Imus' employability is based directly on the money advertisers provide, and only indirectly on ratings. Advertisers don't like controversy, and Imus is the one that lit this controversy. If Sharpton inflamed it, then I don't consider that my problem. I don't care for either one of them, but I certainly think that Sharpton has just as much a right to make a public stink about Imus as Imus does to do whatever it is he is doing in public to get this thing going in the first place. And when I say "every right," I don't mean just in the legal sense, which is obvious anyway, but in any political-moral sense too.

Why do I have to wait for ratings to find out who has pull? I don't care who has pull. I don't have any way to know in this case who's the "majority" or who's the "minority." What matters is that Imus' real employers, the advertisers on his shows, decided that he was bad for business. If anyone doesn't like the way that Sharpton made that happen, if indeed he did, I don't see why. Did he lie? Did he cheat? Not that I know of. He gave his opinion, and vociferously. Sure a lot of people, including myself, don't agree with that opinion in whole or in part. But his right to air it is not inferior to Imus' rights.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then better start blaming Imus for his own demise, since he deliberately appealed to passions by making his racist & sexist comments.

So what you are sayin in effect is:

You would have been completely OK with Imus being "censored" by being fired if his ratings had tanked,
but you are not OK with him being "censored" for other standards.

That to me is a terrible position, and a very contradictory one.

Are you blind or simply dumb? I've proven that what Imus said was neither racist or sexist. "Nappy" is racially ambiguous and "ho" is sexually ambiguous. I've proven this. Stop libeling Imus. You have no basis to claim what he said is 'racist'.

 

[Tailgater]

Are you blind or simply dumb? I've proven that what Imus said was neither racist or sexist. "Nappy" is racially ambiguous and "ho" is sexually ambiguous. I've proven this. Stop libeling Imus. You have no basis to claim what he said is 'racist'.

You havn't proven anything to anyone but yourself.

 

[andyandy]

Are you blind or simply dumb? I've proven that what Imus said was neither racist or sexist. "Nappy" is racially ambiguous and "ho" is sexually ambiguous. I've proven this. Stop libeling Imus. You have no basis to claim what he said is 'racist'.

you can not prove that what imus said was neither racist or sexist. This is a silly thing to say. Both "ho" and "nappy" have sexist and racist connotations respectively, and so their use in a derogatory manner inevitably has lead to some people interpreting the sentence as both a racist and sexist one. There is no absolute value for the interpretation of the implied meaning behind an ambiguous statement, to claim there is is foolish. You can make an argument for why you do not believe that the sentence was made in a racist or sexist manner - nevertheless this proof is also beyond you. Maybe when you reach your latter teenage years you'll study such things in school.

 

[Mephisto]

You havn't proven anything to anyone but yourself.

Well, that's not really true, Tailgater. He's proven that The Power of Pride often doesn't allow someone to see their mistakes OR change their course.