Yes, we can't legislate against opinions... or thought.
shouldn't get hold of television and demand at least to differentiat between "News" and opinion.
Its seems our legislation is more concerned with the big business of television. I don't want to legislate against television.. but to enforce accountability for inaccurate comments -
I think it is possible to demand a separation between editorial opinion and news. with fines levied against offenders -
once a fine is levied due to a determination that guidlines were violated - the offender may be vulnerable to a lawsuit from anyone that can show loss as a result..
If this happens - the media would be force to clean themselves up...
yes; we must censor opinions. anyone that doesn't agree with you should be sued or shot.
in the 70's; my college dictionary's deffinition was: "lazy and shiftless".
Then that dictionary was racist. The word nigger comes from the word negro, which is the Latin word for the color black, and was specifically applied to blacks from the times of slavery until now. If there was any other definition, it would be "slave."
although i haven't used the word; i feel the right to use it as long as it's used with regularity in society. the blacks have kept the word alive for a reason.
on the other hand; how is it a black can call me a cracker yet it's wrong for me to recipricate with a slang name for him? where is the equality in that?
You do have the right to use it. Someone might tell you you don't have the right to use it, but that person would be wrong. So, if someone calls you cracker, go ahead and call them nigger. In fact, go ahead and call them nigger preemptively. You won't be arrested. However, everyone else has the right to think of you as a racist for it - whether you consider yourself one or not.
Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.
By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist
Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.
You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.
You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.
I don't want to be hostile. I don't want to be dismal. But I don't want to rot in an apathetic existance either.
Damn. Jason Whitlock used to bug the crap out of me when he was on the Sports Reporters, but this article is bad-ass. Particularly this:
"Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred."
Well said, and well-written Jason. Thanks for posting this harrymanback.
The point is where is the FCC? They're charged with overseeing the airwaves. They were heavy handed on the Janet/Justin exposed breast issuing fines.
What if someone's kid goes to school and calls someone that phrase, only repeating what they heard on airwaves. Say a couple days later that person gets shot and dies. Sure the shooter will go to jail, and tougher guidelines will be imposed on the airwaves, and everyone will want better culture understanding, but your child will be dead.
For what, because a person hiding behind the protection of their job thought it was a fun thing to say. For what, because everyone thinks these people are too sensitive. For what, because no one was willing to stop this type of unacceptable behavior from even being allowed on the airwaves.
Blacks aren't the only target, let's look at couple of recent others--
Is it now acceptable to make fun of or even call people retarded or pathetic now that Rush has open the door by making fun of Michael Fox?
--So it would be ok call people retarded and make fun of them drooling or even question why would someone bring something like that into this world. Who cares if a person has an illness, they look and act retarded.
How about making fun of children who were raped by kidnappers, is it now acceptable to refer to these kids as fa----s or c--ts, now that O'Reilly has indicated such?
--So should society be offering apologies to all these priests, teachers, etc for giving these little fa----s, and c--ts what they wanted. These so called kids kept allowing it to happen didn't they? It's ok to call them fa---s, and c--ts, right, its not like they are victims since they liked it according to the story on the airwaves.
Imus wasn't the first and he won't be the last. Nor is this type of activity limited to white broadcasters or male only broadcasters. These individuals and stations can be fined without being censored if each fine carried with it a lost in airtime. Less airtime, less advertisers, less money, less jobs. The stations would get its people to clean up their own act.
Maybe its time for the FCC to get back the b---s they gave away to Monsanto and Murdoch.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
The point is where is the FCC? They're charged with overseeing the airwaves. They were heavy handed on the Janet/Justin exposed breast issuing fines.
What if someone's kid goes to school and calls someone that phrase, only repeating what they heard on airwaves. Say a couple days later that person gets shot and dies. Sure the shooter will go to jail, and tougher guidelines will be imposed on the airwaves, and everyone will want better culture understanding, but your child will be dead.
For what, because a person hiding behind the protection of their job thought it was a fun thing to say. For what, because everyone thinks these people are too sensitive. For what, because no one was willing to stop this type of unacceptable behavior from even being allowed on the airwaves.
Blacks aren't the only target, let's look at couple of recent others--
Is it now acceptable to make fun of or even call people retarded or pathetic now that Rush has open the door by making fun of Michael Fox?
--So it would be ok call people retarded and make fun of them drooling or even question why would someone bring something like that into this world. Who cares if a person has an illness, they look and act retarded.
How about making fun of children who were raped by kidnappers, is it now acceptable to refer to these kids as fa----s or c--ts, now that O'Reilly has indicated such?
--So should society be offering apologies to all these priests, teachers, etc for giving these little fa----s, and c--ts what they wanted. These so called kids kept allowing it to happen didn't they? It's ok to call them fa---s, and c--ts, right, its not like they are victims since they liked it according to the story on the airwaves.
Imus wasn't the first and he won't be the last. Nor is this type of activity limited to white broadcasters or male only broadcasters. These individuals and stations can be fined without being censored if each fine carried with it a lost in airtime. Less airtime, less advertisers, less money, less jobs. The stations would get its people to clean up their own act.
Maybe its time for the FCC to get back the b---s they gave away to Monsanto and Murdoch.
I'm sorry, but this is crap. You don't have the right to silence people just because you can invent some hairbrained scenario wherein someone might die. Like, what if I saw your post and got infuriated and shot the guy next to me? Can I tape your mouth shut? I mean, taping your mouth shut wouldn't be censorship right? It would just be "less airtime" for you.
It has nothing to do with your point, but that sentence is hilarious. I can only imagine Al Sharpton saying something like that
EDIT: I looked up the N word on dictionary.com, and here was one of the definitions.
"2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc."
I still don't say it...
Thanks. I thought it was kind of funny myself.
As for the Dictionary.com definition, it still doesn't change the etymology of the word. If a white man uses it against another white man in a non-ironic or non-humorous way (i.e. uses it as an insult), it can still be considered racist. Basically, he'd be saying "you're just as bad as a black person."
I'm sorry, but this is crap. You don't have the right to silence people just because you can invent some hairbrained scenario wherein someone might die. Like, what if I saw your post and got infuriated and shot the guy next to me? Can I tape your mouth shut? I mean, taping your mouth shut wouldn't be censorship right? It would just be "less airtime" for you.
I'm not trying to silence anyone, but what's wrong with put fines on these individuals and stations? What's wrong with tapping into their airtime for repeat offenses?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
What if someone's kid goes to school and calls someone that phrase, only repeating what they heard on airwaves. Say a couple days later that person gets shot and dies. Sure the shooter will go to jail, and tougher guidelines will be imposed on the airwaves, and everyone will want better culture understanding, but your child will be dead.
So we've gone from Don Imus calling a few basketball players "nappy haired ho's", to "your child will be dead"?
The point is where is the FCC? They're charged with overseeing the airwaves. They were heavy handed on the Janet/Justin exposed breast issuing fines.
you cannot even begin to compare the benign impact of racism and hatred to the serious and traumatizing damage a female breast does to the american psyche.
you cannot even begin to compare the benign impact of racism and hatred to the serious and traumatizing damage a female breast does to the american psyche.
plus it was a black breast. imagine all those young white football fans having to see that,
Then that dictionary was racist. The word nigger comes from the word negro, which is the Latin word for the color black, and was specifically applied to blacks from the times of slavery until now. If there was any other definition, it would be "slave."
You do have the right to use it. Someone might tell you you don't have the right to use it, but that person would be wrong. So, if someone calls you cracker, go ahead and call them nigger. In fact, go ahead and call them nigger preemptively. You won't be arrested. However, everyone else has the right to think of you as a racist for it - whether you consider yourself one or not.
and i also have the right to use deadly force if i'm attacked for using the word. if that is imus's opinion; so be it. he has a right to his opinion and a right to vocalize it.
my question is:
why does the opinion of one man upset the entire black community? isn't it the inferior that can't rise above a simple statement? had the statement been ignored; it would have only been heard by his listeners and long forgotten by now. because of the frenzy; it's now a catch phrase that will be around for a long time.
Bet if it was a white breast, we never would have heard anything about it.
Football fans = racist.
The redneck women walk around with nipples showing anyway, a white breast on tv would've been just another day at the park for them to see, i'm joking i'm joking!
and i also have the right to use deadly force if i'm attacked for using the word. if that is imus's opinion; so be it. he has a right to his opinion and a right to vocalize it.
my question is:
why does the opinion of one man upset the entire black community? isn't it the inferior that can't rise above a simple statement? had the statement been ignored; it would have only been heard by his listeners and long forgotten by now. because of the frenzy; it's now a catch phrase that will be around for a long time.
Its is not just one person's opinion when they are broadcasting into everyones house. For that privlege (which earns them millions) there must be accountability.
Its is not just one person's opinion when they are broadcasting into everyones house. For that privlege (which earns them millions) there must be accountability.
Why do you keep saying "accountability" as the person is question is trashed publicly, apologizes, is suspended, and is losing advertisers? I mean, where does this "accountability" you keep mentioning begin?
You tell me. I'm going to fine you $500 for this post. What's wrong with that?
You tell me. I'm going to shut you up for two hours each day. What's wrong with that?
You are willing to punish me. Why isn't your conviction that strong for these media people? Maybe I would not have thought of these examples if the door hadn't be open by them. So what is wrong with fines and tapping into airtime for repeated offenses?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
You are willing to punish me. Why isn't your conviction that strong for these media people? Maybe I would not have thought of these examples if the door hadn't be open by them. So what is wrong with fines and tapping into airtime for repeated offenses?
Because it is an infringement on Freedom of Speech. I don't agree with what Imus said but that last thing we need is more FCC regulations and their morality quad patroling the air waves.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Because it is an infringement on Freedom of Speech. I don't agree with what Imus said but that last thing we need is more FCC regulations and their morality quad patroling the air waves.
Exactly. If his employer wants to punish him and take him off the air, fine. If his listeners want to punish him by turning off the radio, fine. If his sponsors want to punish him financially, fine. But for the government to get involved is just as wrong as wrong can be.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Because it is an infringement on Freedom of Speech. I don't agree with what Imus said but that last thing we need is more FCC regulations and their morality quad patroling the air waves.
How is this an infringement on his freedom of speech? The FCC already patrols the air waves, they just do it selectively. The FCC already has the power to levy fines and restrict air time.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
and i also have the right to use deadly force if i'm attacked for using the word. if that is imus's opinion; so be it. he has a right to his opinion and a right to vocalize it.
my question is:
why does the opinion of one man upset the entire black community? isn't it the inferior that can't rise above a simple statement? had the statement been ignored; it would have only been heard by his listeners and long forgotten by now. because of the frenzy; it's now a catch phrase that will be around for a long time.
No, there's a good chance you'd be arrested if you used deadly force - particularly if the attack against you wasn't on par with your deadly response. You'd be charged with manslaughter, sent to trial, and may or may not serve time, depending on the verdict. If it can be proven that you intentionally provoked the attack in order to give yourself an excuse to kill the person, you'd likely be charged with more, and would most definitely serve time.
I don't know what Imus's opinion is. I'd barely heard of the guy before all this - so the last part of your post could be true. My original reason for posting in this thread was to address the idea that blacks are "allowed" to be racist, but whites aren't. Everyone's allowed to be racist. Just don't expect to be shielded from everyone else when your racism isn't received as jovially as other people's might be. And before anyone screams "Double Standard" remember that context is the most important factor, not skin color.
How is this an infringement on his freedom of speech? The FCC already patrols the air waves, they just do it selectively. The FCC already has the power to levy fines and restrict air time.
Powers that they shouldn't have. I don't think our federal government should have the authority to confine anyone's speech, even hate speech. Like hippimom said, it is fine if his employer wants to fire him, it's fine if his sponsors want to pull their money, and it's fine if his listeners want to change the station. I just don't like it when the federal government get's involved because it is not their place.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
See you're proving my point. Again I ask..what about the white girls on the team?
You're ASSuming it was a racial statement...ie looking to be offended.
And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of it in this country.
and your obviously a white boy....kinda goes with the line...."The haves have not a clue" But for you..the Whites have not a clue. Imus should be fired..he doesn't deserve to have a good job.
Comments
in a public poll; orielly won with 80% agreeing with him.
yes; we must censor opinions. anyone that doesn't agree with you should be sued or shot.
You do have the right to use it. Someone might tell you you don't have the right to use it, but that person would be wrong. So, if someone calls you cracker, go ahead and call them nigger. In fact, go ahead and call them nigger preemptively. You won't be arrested. However, everyone else has the right to think of you as a racist for it - whether you consider yourself one or not.
give it a read ... not too long.
To give you an idea,
Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.
By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist
Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.
You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.
You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.
It has nothing to do with your point, but that sentence is hilarious. I can only imagine Al Sharpton saying something like that
EDIT: I looked up the N word on dictionary.com, and here was one of the definitions.
"2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc."
I still don't say it...
Damn. Jason Whitlock used to bug the crap out of me when he was on the Sports Reporters, but this article is bad-ass. Particularly this:
"Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred."
Well said, and well-written Jason. Thanks for posting this harrymanback.
What if someone's kid goes to school and calls someone that phrase, only repeating what they heard on airwaves. Say a couple days later that person gets shot and dies. Sure the shooter will go to jail, and tougher guidelines will be imposed on the airwaves, and everyone will want better culture understanding, but your child will be dead.
For what, because a person hiding behind the protection of their job thought it was a fun thing to say. For what, because everyone thinks these people are too sensitive. For what, because no one was willing to stop this type of unacceptable behavior from even being allowed on the airwaves.
Blacks aren't the only target, let's look at couple of recent others--
Is it now acceptable to make fun of or even call people retarded or pathetic now that Rush has open the door by making fun of Michael Fox?
--So it would be ok call people retarded and make fun of them drooling or even question why would someone bring something like that into this world. Who cares if a person has an illness, they look and act retarded.
How about making fun of children who were raped by kidnappers, is it now acceptable to refer to these kids as fa----s or c--ts, now that O'Reilly has indicated such?
--So should society be offering apologies to all these priests, teachers, etc for giving these little fa----s, and c--ts what they wanted. These so called kids kept allowing it to happen didn't they? It's ok to call them fa---s, and c--ts, right, its not like they are victims since they liked it according to the story on the airwaves.
Imus wasn't the first and he won't be the last. Nor is this type of activity limited to white broadcasters or male only broadcasters. These individuals and stations can be fined without being censored if each fine carried with it a lost in airtime. Less airtime, less advertisers, less money, less jobs. The stations would get its people to clean up their own act.
Maybe its time for the FCC to get back the b---s they gave away to Monsanto and Murdoch.
I'm sorry, but this is crap. You don't have the right to silence people just because you can invent some hairbrained scenario wherein someone might die. Like, what if I saw your post and got infuriated and shot the guy next to me? Can I tape your mouth shut? I mean, taping your mouth shut wouldn't be censorship right? It would just be "less airtime" for you.
As for the Dictionary.com definition, it still doesn't change the etymology of the word. If a white man uses it against another white man in a non-ironic or non-humorous way (i.e. uses it as an insult), it can still be considered racist. Basically, he'd be saying "you're just as bad as a black person."
I'm not trying to silence anyone, but what's wrong with put fines on these individuals and stations? What's wrong with tapping into their airtime for repeat offenses?
You tell me. I'm going to fine you $500 for this post. What's wrong with that?
You tell me. I'm going to shut you up for two hours each day. What's wrong with that?
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
So we've gone from Don Imus calling a few basketball players "nappy haired ho's", to "your child will be dead"?
you cannot even begin to compare the benign impact of racism and hatred to the serious and traumatizing damage a female breast does to the american psyche.
Seems like a logical leap of assumption to me. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go kill thousands of simulated people on my XBOX.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
plus it was a black breast. imagine all those young white football fans having to see that,
and i also have the right to use deadly force if i'm attacked for using the word. if that is imus's opinion; so be it. he has a right to his opinion and a right to vocalize it.
my question is:
why does the opinion of one man upset the entire black community? isn't it the inferior that can't rise above a simple statement? had the statement been ignored; it would have only been heard by his listeners and long forgotten by now. because of the frenzy; it's now a catch phrase that will be around for a long time.
Bet if it was a white breast, we never would have heard anything about it.
Football fans = racist.
The redneck women walk around with nipples showing anyway, a white breast on tv would've been just another day at the park for them to see, i'm joking i'm joking!
Its is not just one person's opinion when they are broadcasting into everyones house. For that privlege (which earns them millions) there must be accountability.
Why do you keep saying "accountability" as the person is question is trashed publicly, apologizes, is suspended, and is losing advertisers? I mean, where does this "accountability" you keep mentioning begin?
You are willing to punish me. Why isn't your conviction that strong for these media people? Maybe I would not have thought of these examples if the door hadn't be open by them. So what is wrong with fines and tapping into airtime for repeated offenses?
Because it is an infringement on Freedom of Speech. I don't agree with what Imus said but that last thing we need is more FCC regulations and their morality quad patroling the air waves.
How is this an infringement on his freedom of speech? The FCC already patrols the air waves, they just do it selectively. The FCC already has the power to levy fines and restrict air time.
I don't know what Imus's opinion is. I'd barely heard of the guy before all this - so the last part of your post could be true. My original reason for posting in this thread was to address the idea that blacks are "allowed" to be racist, but whites aren't. Everyone's allowed to be racist. Just don't expect to be shielded from everyone else when your racism isn't received as jovially as other people's might be. And before anyone screams "Double Standard" remember that context is the most important factor, not skin color.
Powers that they shouldn't have. I don't think our federal government should have the authority to confine anyone's speech, even hate speech. Like hippimom said, it is fine if his employer wants to fire him, it's fine if his sponsors want to pull their money, and it's fine if his listeners want to change the station. I just don't like it when the federal government get's involved because it is not their place.
you just ruined my year's accomplishments with that remark.
mods, ban this man for life please.
no wait, wait.. he's one of us, so it's ok.
carry on!
and your obviously a white boy....kinda goes with the line...."The haves have not a clue" But for you..the Whites have not a clue. Imus should be fired..he doesn't deserve to have a good job.