PeterDavid.net

I like what Bill Maher said to Imus: "your punishment will be that you'll lose some black listeners...and you should." And in a perfect world, he'd have been right.

As much as I think that Imus' opinions were odious (and given his behavior over the years, I think that he is a racist), I think that his employers overreacted by firing him.

Still, nobody has a right to a nationally-syndicated radio show, and at the end of the day, Imus didn't own his own microphone... the studio did. They can hire or fire anyone they want.

I have no doubt that Imus will find employment once this dies down. He still has name recognition and a loyal following.

It hasn't been a level playing field for years, and anyon who thinks that it is should probably take a good look at their industry.

If the netweork felt Imyus should go because he is too much of a liabiility, that's OK. But they shouldn't be acting because of pressure by a pressure group. And black spokesmen shouldn't have been calling for him to be fired. They should have attacked his opinions severly and even said that they hope he looses listeners, but not asked for his head.

True 'Dat, PAD, True 'Dat...

Except that, as I've pointed out before and will point out again as many times as it takes, this is _not_ a free speech issue. Don Imus is not in jail. He has not been deprived of liberty or property by the government for his speech. I will now underline those words, "by the government", because that's what the First Amendment is there for, to prevent _the government_ from depriving people of their liberty or property for speaking their mind.

Don Imus can continue to call anyone he wishes a "nappy-headed ho". Nobody is going to stop him (although he might want to be careful about his audience. Assault and battery is illegal, but many people practice it anyway.) Don Imus can go ahead and self-publish a book, or start up a podcast, and can even call it 'Don Imus' Nappy-Headed Ho Show' if he wants. He might even be able to convince someone other than CBS and MSNBC to pay him for it. Stranger things have happened.

But he does not have a constitutional right to his own radio show. Plain and simple. He wasn't pulling in the guests, he wasn't pulling in the sponsors, so CBS fired him. They get to do that.

Imus leaving was not due to a "pressure group" if you watch and read between the lines of what has finally come out from NBC. On Meet the Press Gwen Ifiel (And I probably misspelled her name) mad e David Brooks look foolish, had Russert stammering and really spoke to the heart of the matter. She made more sense than anyone else. Go watch it online, I believe NBC places it on-line now.

Inside NBC the employees were upset. Some of the African American staff really let their feelings be known, but it sounded like the other races did as well. NBC on Dateline Sunday is another reveal that Imus and company did not get it and the executives listened and understood how bad this was. One statement was that at the end of the day NBC had too decide how they as a News division wanted to be known. I interpreted that as not wanting to be known as turning into "FOX" and the reliance on hateful tactics to be successful. It has really been years in coming.

At the end of the day it was the African Americans in positions to make a difference spoke up. Vice Presidents, and the like. Ifiel said it best, ten years ago when she had stuff said about her, there was no one to speak up.

Imus is a little fish caught in this net. He will likely be on sattelite radio, and that's fine. Let those that like his bitter comedy pay for it, but NBC and later CBS did right. This is not a matter of Free Speech, but the way we use public airwaves. What really needs to happen is when these Political radio guys like Beck, Bortz, Savage, Limbaugh, etc. start doing the same, the spotlight gets shined on them.

Let's face it, Imus was poor at apologizing and in the end came off as not really being genuine. The Rutgers Ladies Basket Ball team did not deserve the 10 to 15 minute slur on their character by Imus and his co-host. You use the public airwaves, you have to be ready to lose that privilage when you cross the line.

I figure most will disagree with me, but that is ok. Thing is that this is a topic that needed to be discussed in our nation.

It seems all these people want us to live in a communist society with no freedoms. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I personally do not like Imus, but am first in line to say he has a right to speak and not have to worry about being staked to a cross for it. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon if a white guy says something offensive, but would step off if another race said something of a slur. In the eighties when hate groups were all over talk shows, everyone in the audience would stand up and speak out against the KKK if they appeared. But when a black hate group appeared they felt they were justified in their hate. Hate is hate also. Let's see Sharpton ever go against someone of color in his crusades...

"But he does not have a constitutional right to his own radio show. Plain and simple. He wasn't pulling in the guests, he wasn't pulling in the sponsors, so CBS fired him. They get to do that."

And if you can find anywhere where I said he *did* have a constitutional right to his own radio show, then everything you said would be relevant.

What I *did* say was that a group of journalists should be the foremost defenders of combating words with words, not shutting down a forum altogether.

PAD

"And if you can find anywhere where I said he *did* have a constitutional right to his own radio show, then everything you said would be relevant."

You are the one turning this into a freedom of speech issue. Your entire post is implying that the NABJ is helping violate Imus' freedom of speech instead of protecting it. You are the one that is framing this as a Constitutional issue.

It also seems that you, like so many others, do not seem to understand that the first amendment only deals with what the government can and can not do to you in regards to free speech. Now maybe I'm wrong, and the NABJ called for the government to crack down on Imus (as Sharpton did with his ridiculous call for the FCC to investigate). If they did, and if you have a link that you could give us to prove that, then yes, you're right. Otherwise you are wrong.

Y'know, I'm a pretty liberal guy. But I simply cannot find it in me to defend a guy who uses his national sopabox to hurl crude personal insults against at a bunch of 20-year-old girls who have never done anything worse than lose a basketball game.

Every journalist that worked in the news divisions of these companies did have a right to speak out and say we do not want to be confused as journalist with someone who is not. When Imus used actual journalist to give credence to his "comedy" a professional journalist had every right to say he was not right and this hurts us all that work here.

This is not about free speech, but about what speech we as a society will accept. For years politicians and others who enter the public forum have been fair game, even when raicist, sexist, hateful, hurtful , and down right mean remarks have been made. Imus was one of MANY who made a living on such tactics to be successful. What cannot be overlooked is that he said these things about a group of young women who had played their best and been a Cinderella team. They were students who did not deserve to be spoken about like that. Those of you that have kids, would you overlook the remrks made about child?

Again with the Dateline "half" report, The executive that was working directly with Imus stated three things that made it worse. He said Imus went on Sharpton's Show knowing it would be a public flogging, but 1)Had no answer to the changes he was making to not do this again. 2)Kept saying "you people" and argued instead of being contrite and listening. 3)He no idea of what punishment he could come up with for himself.

I think in the end, Imus got it, but it too little to late.

"It also seems that you, like so many others, do not seem to understand that the first amendment only deals with what the government can and can not do to you in regards to free speech."

And it seems that you, like so many others, cannot read simple statements.

I never said it was a First Amendment issue. I said that as journalists they should be defending "the spirit of" the First Amendment. Because I'm not...y'know...stupid, and because I actually *do*...y'know...read things as they're written, I'm aware that the First Amendment refers to governmental action. "Congress shall make no law" was the tip-off.

I'm saying that the *spirit* of the First Amendment stretches beyond those words, however. That the paramount consideration of the exchange of words should be what Hopkins said in "1776"--"In all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about."

And I'm saying that the fact that the journalists do NOT see it as a free speech issue is limiting and wrong, because that is exactly and precisely what it SHOULD be. Since their livelihood depends upon the specific wording of the First Amendment, then they should be the first to defend its spirit.

Because you know what happens when people find excuses to close down sources of speech they don't support? It provides just that more of a toehold for the eventual closing down of sources of speech they do support.

And reporters should understand that. The fact that they don't speaks volumes.

PAD

"Y'know, I'm a pretty liberal guy. But I simply cannot find it in me to defend a guy who uses his national sopabox to hurl crude personal insults against at a bunch of 20-year-old girls who have never done anything worse than lose a basketball game."

What's most impressive is that you're not a 20 year old girl. Yet interestingly I, a Jew who lost relatives in the Holocaust, can find it within me to defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie. Different strokes, huh.

PAD

In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."

But they didn't. They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down.

In saying they wanted Imus shut down, the NABJ simply exercised their own free speech. It's not like they were elected Chancelor of Germany -- they're the NABJ. If the NABJ releases a periodical, they are very casual in extending its influence commercially. Their outcry seems no more a betrayal of free speech than your right to raise doubt to their legitimacy.

I don't think it's the NABJ who has earned your ire -- I think it's the ACLU. If you're going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.

And -- as demonstrated by coverage of missing women extending only to whites, like Jessica Lynch (more of a sleeping beauty than the Ellen Ripley she was portrayed as), Elizabeth Smart, and the runaway bride -- the need for a National Association of White Journalists seems one of indulgence and fortifying existing privileges.

"Except that, as I've pointed out before and will point out again as many times as it takes, this is _not_ a free speech issue."

I've noticed that whenever someone advocates the curtailing of free speech, it's always because it's "NOT a free speech issue." It's an interesting consistency in the discussion, right up there with (1) people saying, "I'm in favor of free speech BUT" and then proceed to put the lie to the first half of the sentence, and (2) people misquoting Oliver Wendell Holmes about fire in crowded theaters.

PAD

PAD:

What is the issue with the Holmes quote again? I ask as someone previously chastised for using it who knows he shouldn't but can't remember why. (If there's a link to a place that explains it so that you don't have to go to the trouble of typing out an explanation, that'd be great, too.)

Thanks,

Eric

"I don't think it's the NABJ who has earned your ire -- I think it's the ACLU."

Well, I *would* think that if I were ignorant of the ACLU's mandate and scope. But since I happen to know that the ACLU is designed to defend incursions on the Constitution, and since this wasn't an incursion on the Constitution, then obviously...

PAD

Sorry PAD, but it's not only *not* a free speech issue, it's *not* a spirit of free speech issue, either.

Free Speech is something that Imus's employers have, too. He represents them. In effect, they are saying everything he is saying, whether they put up disclaimers to the effect or not.

Thus, they have every right to fire him if they want to. Should they have fired him in this case? That's a whole issue in itself. But it has nothing to do with the spirit of free speech.

This is like saying that you can't close a nasty thread your message board because it would violate the spirit of free speech. It doesn't. Your board, your responsibility, your rules.

If I may interject myself into the debate between PAD and Scott Bland:

I think the crux of the issue is the difference betwen what is legal and what is morally right. What the NaBJ did was legal. They used their right of freedom of speech to express their disapproval of what Imus said and said that CBS and MSNBC should both fire Imus for it.

On the other hand, the question is, was it morally right for them to use the bully pulpit to pressure the two networks to fire him? On this point, I have to agree with PAD is always better to counter hate speech with more speech rather than trying to silence it.

And that is what they have done. Now, you can argue that Don Imus can start his own blog or stand on a street corner and talk about "nappy-headed hos" all he wants. And, from a strictly Constitutional reading you would be right. But, the other side of the coining is, if one pressure group can claim a victory by forcing Don Imus off the air, what's to stop another group from doing the same? Next, an extremist religious group could try to force the Discovery Channel to cancel a program because it doesn't say that dinosaurs were killed in the Great Flood. Or kill a health program because it isn't "abstinance only". Or a muslim group could force Fox to cancel 24 because it portrayed some muslims as terrorists.

No, Don Imus does not have a Constitutional right to keep his show. If his show loses money for whatever reason, the networks have the right to take away the microphone that they were paying for.

But, as I said before, if people from outside CBS or MSNBC force Imus off the air for being an ass, due the rest of us truly have freedom of speech? Or do we just have the freedom to say only things that do not offend certain groups? Becuase, now that Sharpton and Jackson had Imus' head for their wall, you can believe that other groups who find things on TV and the radio that they don't like are taking notes.

"What is the issue with the Holmes quote again? I ask as someone previously chastised for using it who knows he shouldn't but can't remember why. (If there's a link to a place that explains it so that you don't have to go to the trouble of typing out an explanation, that'd be great, too.)"

Yeah, y'know what? Let's pre-empt it to save time.

Sooner or later some yutz always says, "Well, you know, free speech isn't absolute, because the first amendment doesn't give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater." First of all, yes it does...if there's a fire. Holmes stated that the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to FALSELY shout fire in a crowded theater, thus causing a panic. Furthermore, the statement was made in connection to a case called "Schenck vs. the United States," in which the government fined and jailed a man who advocated the notion that the draft was unconstitutional and that potential draftees should lobby their representatives in congress for change. He did not falsely shout fire, did not cause a panic...in fact, his efforts didn't stop a single draftee from reporting for duty. Nevertheless the court upheld his being punished for advocating notions that are far more mild than much of what currently passes for normal discourse on the internet. In other words, people hold up a decision from one of the most egregious curtailings of free speech in the history of the SC and act as if it excuses curtailing free speech now.

PAD

"Thus, they have every right to fire him if they want to."

Christ on a crutch, what does it take to actually stick to a topic? I mean, I understand thread drift, but what IS is about free speech that causes discussions to derail THAT fast?

Please, I'm begging you: Show me where I said his employers did not have "the right" to fire him.

PAD

...since this wasn't an incursion on the Constitution...

Ok, you only dismissed the constitutional issue a few minutes prior. No need to post your "obviously"s at me.

"But, as I said before, if people from outside CBS or MSNBC force Imus off the air for being an ass, due the rest of us truly have freedom of speech? Or do we just have the freedom to say only things that do not offend certain groups? Becuase, now that Sharpton and Jackson had Imus' head for their wall, you can believe that other groups who find things on TV and the radio that they don't like are taking notes."

You get a cookie.

PAD

When words and ideas are banned, we all lose. Jackson and Sharpton are racist hate mongers IMO. When was the last time either called attention to an injustice suffered by a non-black?

"Ok, you only dismissed the constitutional issue a few minutes prior. No need to post your "obviously"s at me."

Since I in fact never said it was a constitutional issue in the first place, then obviously I do.

PAD

Peter, I'm ashamed of you. This is not a free speech issue. No one from the government stepped in to force the hands of CBS or NBC. The people at the NABJ and regular people like me did that and the companies decided. Free speech wasn't violated. In a way free speech triumphed because by Imus was silenced by the screams of others crying out for a better society.

Please excuse the sloppy arrival of a point as much as you can:

And I'm saying that the fact that the journalists do NOT see it as a free speech issue is limiting and wrong, because that is exactly and precisely what it SHOULD be....

Sooner or later some yutz always says, "Well, you know, free speech isn't absolute, because the first amendment doesn't give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater." First of all, yes it does...if there's a fire. Holmes stated that the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to FALSELY shout fire in a crowded theater, thus causing a panic.

As far as the Rutgers womens basketball team did not accept money for sex, Imus was the guy shouting fire where there was no fire, and the free speech inconsistency you cite does not apply to the NABJ.

Since I in fact never said it was a constitutional issue in the first place, then obviously I do.

If I were the only one you had to make this clear to, I couldn't disagree.

"Please, I'm begging you: Show me where I said his employers did not have "the right" to fire him."

It was in the 6th paragraph of your initial post. "They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down." You said that asking the station to fire Imus is violating the fundamentals of free speech.

So they have an opinion about whether or not the station should continue with Imus, and you call that a problem with the spirit of free speech. PAD, if you're willing to call what was said "thread drift" after saying that, then you're not being honest with yourself about this subject.

Peter, I believe you're read most of my postings here and over at Newsarama pertaining to the Gordon Lee case. I'm a pretty staunch advocate not only of the First Amendement but of the broader concept of free speech. And I understand the distinction you are making between the First Amendment and the spirit of the First Amendment.

Just wanted to get that out of the way.

I find myself somewhat conflicted on this issue. My natural instinct is to bristle at Imus's firing, because you are correct: give censors an inch, they take a mile. Bad ideas are best fought with good ideas.

Yet one of the duties of a journalist is to act as a "filter" or a "gatekeeper." You go with this story because it's newsworthy, you reject that one because it's not. You print this letter to the editor because you judge it is worthwhile, and throw that one away because it isn't.

I guess what I'm struggling with is the question of whether or the NABJ's stand violates the spirit of freedom of speech. One could argue that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. And while Imus may no longer have access to as wide of an audience, he has by no means been silenced. Hell, if he wants he can set up a cheap Web site and offer his bile via streaming audio.

I was surer of myself before hearing Gwen Ifill's impassioned talk on Meet the Press yesterday. I'm even less sure what to think after reading your impassioned words. Personally, I need some time to reflect on this before I arrive at an opinion. And I think it is important as a citizen that I DO form an opinion and act on it.

I'd welcome any further thoughts you'd care to share regarding the above, Peter.

"Peter, I'm ashamed of you. This is not a free speech issue. No one from the government stepped in to force the hands of CBS or NBC."

God almighty.

PAD

"Please, I'm begging you: Show me where I said his employers did not have "the right" to fire him."

It was in the 6th paragraph of your initial post. "They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down." You said that asking the station to fire Imus is violating the fundamentals of free speech."

Yeah? So? I still never said that Imus's bosses didn't have "the right" to fire him. I said that the *journalists* betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by *demanding* for him *to* be fired.

Journalists are the defenders of the free speech. Radio executives are the defenders of the financial bottom line. I think it reasonable to hold the former group to a higher standard of moral obigation.

None of which, yet again, relates to CBS's "Right" to fire Imus.

PAD

"I find myself somewhat conflicted on this issue. My natural instinct is to bristle at Imus's firing, because you are correct: give censors an inch, they take a mile. Bad ideas are best fought with good ideas."

Ironically, I think one of the best forums for the bad ideas and good ideas on this issue to be hashed out would have been Imus's show. The fact that that forum has been crushed is where the tragedy lies.

PAD

Peter, I was going to ask just how likely it was that such a conversation would've taken place. Then it occurred to me: those who were putting pressure on CBS and NBC to axe Imus could've instead applied pressure to force Imus to let them on his show. They could've used their influence to widen the public dialog rather than to restrict it.

I am still grappling with the issue but you have given me food for thought and perhaps helped me take one step closer to gaining clarity on the issue. Thanks.

Why are so many people here not able to read what PAD actually said. OF COURSE the NABJ has the right to say anything they want. OF COURSE NBC has the right to fire Imus. OF COURSE any of us have the right to misinterpret anything PAD says here and post comments that make us look dense.

The question is should we? To me the answer is no for any number of reasons. Journalists, as PAD pints out, have a vested interest in being able to speak freely, without fear of being fired. They are setting very dangerous precedent for themselves and I am willing to bet that more than a few of them may live to regret it. Even as we speak, partisans on the left and right are literally pouring over every transcript they can find of off the cuff statements they will try to use to get people they don't like off the air.

It's already having an effect. Rosie O'Donnel is, in my opinion, a poorly informed windbag who has flirted dangerouly close to being a full time nut. Nevertheless, I would not support any movement to get her fired from THE VIEW. She has just announced that she will no longer call for Bush's impeachment on the show. Presumably she will also refrain from her 9/11 conspiracy nuttiness as well. The fact that she is doing this out of fear should make us all worry, even those who are glad that she won't be espousing opinions we don't share.

I don't actually have any problem with a group that calls itself the National Association of Black Journalists. It's just that I had assumed they would have put a greater importance on the "journalists" and not the "black". That does not seem to be the case.

If you're going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.

Nonsense. Being for free speech does not mean absolute support for libel, slander, fraud, communication of threats, obscene phone calls, or any of a number of crimes. It's like saying the NRA must support people who use a gun to commit a crime if they are to be consistant.

I also didn't see where PAD said "absolute".

>Why are so many people here not able to read what PAD actually said.

Hey Bill, no reason to call everyone here an idiot. ;)

"If you're going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.

Nonsense. Being for free speech does not mean absolute support for libel, slander, fraud, communication of threats, obscene phone calls, or any of a number of crimes."

Not to mention that there's nothing unconstitutional about firing a reporter for fabricating a story--which was the case in all of the above--so it's a loopy comparison no matter how you slice it.

PAD

Maybe the problem is that in some instances Free Speech is being painted with braod strokes in terms of the Ideal, and painted by more narrow means in terms of the appropriateness of good people standing up and saying, enough is enough.

I urge you to try and hear Ifill's remarks on Meet The Press. She is the real voice of sense on the issue. Taking Sharpton and then Jackson, who was way off base this time around, out of the lead in statements might help.

You know, you evoked your cultural standing. Why? To make a point or as a status? I realized that eventually and hoped you would bring this up. You see, on a small scale, I can take offense to the terms "Christ on a Crutch" and even "God Almighty" as terms that as a Christian offend me. But, I don't. You have free speech to say that. Now if you were to take my Real name and compare me to James Dobson or Pat Roberson, That would be a personal attack as you are insulting me and making me be seen as that type of Christian. Everybody has something that can be considered offensive.

I believe in free speech. I understand these hatemongers in the KKK and Skin head groups have the right to say and spew their hate. Had it been a derogatory remarks against Jewish people, I would agree with the same outcome for Imus. I can see free speech, but I also have the right to say I do not agree nor want to prop up the ignorance that had been tolorated for years by both NBC and CBS.

I do want to say thank you for sticking to the debate and not losing control. I hear the passion in your voice. What I read as lost is that it was not just the outside forces that pressured the companies. Their employees said ENOUGH!

Got to let this go, but I am sure there will be much more round and rounds on this. In the end, I bet most are closer to beleifs than apart.

"Peter, I was going to ask just how likely it was that such a conversation would've taken place. Then it occurred to me: those who were putting pressure on CBS and NBC to axe Imus could've instead applied pressure to force Imus to let them on his show. They could've used their influence to widen the public dialog rather than to restrict it."

I'm betting it wouldn't have taken any pressure at all. Imagine the different scenario if the NABJ had put forward the following statement: "We are utterly appalled at the substance of what Don Imus said. That said, we defend his right to say it, and think that he should offer a representative of our organization a chance to come on his show and discuss the particulars." I don't doubt for a moment that Imus wouldn't have welcomed it, and it could have spurred genuine discussion rather than accomplishing what it did: Squelch it.

PAD

"I believe in free speech. I understand these hatemongers in the KKK and Skin head groups have the right to say and spew their hate. Had it been a derogatory remarks against Jewish people, I would agree with the same outcome for Imus."

I say I believe in free speech, and you say you believe in free speech.

Except Imus HAS made derogatory remarks against Jewish people, including the heads of Simon & Schuster, for whom I've worked. Yet if he had been fired for those remarks, I would be protesting just as aggressively as I am now.

It's not enough simply to believe in free speech in the abstract. You have to believe in it in practice, or else all you really believe in is lip service TO free speech.

PAD

Peter, when Michael Savage told a caller he should "Get AIDS and die.' and was then fired from MSNBC, was this the wrong response from the Network?

I am not baiting you here. I'm seeking to understand your stance.

I know this is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but I keep thinking about the guy who got blasted a few years ago for using the word 'niggardly.' I kept waiting for the people who were trying to get him fired for being exposed as a bunch of poorly-informed vocabulary-deficient pinheads for not knowing the word was not related to what they thought it was, but it never happened.

I'm sorry I just can't accept this as a free speech issue. Nobody, not one person, is preventing Don Imus from saying what he pleases, no matter how stupid or racist it might be. He was fired from his job for saying something that was patently out of line -- that's life. Don Imus is not being prevented from saying what he likes because he could start a blog tomorrow and the site would most likely be one of the most visited on the web. Don Imus' free speech is not being curtailed because he will find a sponsor for his garbage and be as big as ever. Just because our country has free speech does not mean that speech can't have consequences. And Imus' consequences were to lose his sponsors and his job; again, no one is preventing him from saying what he likes. He's not being censored. No one is editing what he says. He's not a dissident put in jail for daring to speak his mind. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. This is a man who said something stupid and disgusting and deservedly lost his job. And he didn't lose his job because of what he said; he lost his job because sponsors did not want to be associated with him. That's the marketplace folks.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 16, 2007 10:09 AM

Why are so many people here not able to read what PAD actually said?

Because a lot of people believe that the right to do this or that also entitles you to a "criticism-free zone." If you accept that premise, much of the criticism of PAD is justified.

Problem is, that premise is a pile of crap. I remember arguing with a friend of mine who owns a comic-book store about the practice of putting a one-week old comic-book in the back-issue bin and jacking up the price. He asked me, "Don't I have the right to run my store as I please?"

I replied, "Sure you do. Hell, if you wanted to operate your store wearing nothing but a tank top and cotton briefs, you could. You'd be in compliance with laws against indecent exposure. I suspect store traffic would decline, though."

See what I mean? Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it's a wise thing to do. And I can question the wisdom of something without questioning your right to do it.

Any questions?

Three points:

1) I completely understand that Imus's employers have a right to fire him, and that they should probably have done it earlier to disassociate themselves from racist speech. I certainly can understand African-Americans feeling better that such speech is no longer sanctioned by the network.
But, I'm looking at it from the point of view of African-Americans. And it seems to me that even the impression that Imus lost his job as a result of political pressure groups twisting the arm of the network is bad for Africa-Americans and the issue they are fighting for. It creates the false impression that African-Americans are stronger than they really are, and that they are using their power with a heavy hand. It makes Imus look like a victim, and distracts from his original outragous statements. It also makes it seem as if African-Americans are not committed to the spirit of free speech, instead of them being the ones using free speech to its fullest in order to label Imus as what he really is.

Nowe, it's possible that this was simply tthe last straw for the network, who anyway should have and actually was planning to say goodbye to Imus. But then from a PR standpoint it lookes even worse that it seems as if Imus lost his job because of politically powerful African-American spokesmen and organization instead of because he was a longtime racist.

2) Socialism. Not a very popluar word in the US. But one of the good things about socialism (without ignoring its bad aspects), what it added to the achievement of documents like the US constitution was in showing that private companies, private organizations, economic forces, can become as much of a threat to freedom as the government. The constituton was worried about the government, but the danger that private companies or organizations can somehow silence people is also troubling.

Certainly an organization of journalists should be concerned about that as well as the threat of the government curtailing the constitutional right of freedom of speech.

3) I have no problem with the idea of a National Association of Black Journalists. Sub-groups in society sometimes feel the need to create organizations in order to protect and promote the interests of their group in the public arena, so as not to be poerless in the face of the power of the majority. There's nothing wrong with that. It's empowerment. But if such organizations use their rightfully gained power in a heavy handed way, or even if they are just perceived as doing it, it causes more harm than good to the very same group whose interests they are trying to protect.

"Peter, when Michael Savage told a caller he should "Get AIDS and die.' and was then fired from MSNBC, was this the wrong response from the Network?

I am not baiting you here. I'm seeking to understand your stance."

It's a fair question, and the answer is no, he shouldn't have been. Or if they felt compelled to do so, they should have also fired the exec who hired him in the first place. Otherwise they're just being mealy-mouthed. They knew what they were getting when they hired him. He'd made no secret of his ultra-conservative leanings. He wrote books about the subject, for heaven's sake. No one compelled them to hire him and, for that matter, no one compelled liberals or gays to listen to him. To hire someone whose entire gig is being offensive and then firing him for being offensive...I just don't get that kind of thinking.

PAD

I don't get how people can let their agendas blind them into being so short sighted. If the NABJ doesn't defend Imus' free speech, how can they expect anyone else to step in to support their member's free speech? It's as if they don't think their free speech will *ever* need defending.

"In a way free speech triumphed because by Imus was silenced by the screams of others crying out for a better society."

How is that a better society?

A better society would be shrugging off one man's viewpoints if you don't agree with them. An even better society would be an open discourse amongst both parties. An ideal society would not have racism as an issue at all.

For myself, I have but one question: isn't Imus considered a "radio shock jock"?? If so, why is everyone so surprised that he said something SHOCKING, on the RADIO, about JOCKS?? (ok, 2 questions)

Let me put forward the following scenario:

A revival of "HAIR" is mounted. It's well-directed, well-acted, criticially acclaimed for how much its anti-war stance relates to modern day, and ticket sales are strong.

NABJ gets together and declares that the songs "Colored Spade" and "Three-Five Zero Zero" which includes the line "Prisoners in Niggertown, it's a dirty little war" should be cut from the show. The producers refuse to do so. The Revs Sharpton and Jackson pile on and lobby the theater, and the theater owners--not wanting the grief--pull the plug. No other theater on Broadway will touch it. Show's over.

But of course the argument is that it's not REALLY censorship because "no one is stopping" other theaters around the country from mounting productions...without the offending songs, of course.

You guys okay with that?

PAD

On this point, I have to agree with PAD is always better to counter hate speech with more speech rather than trying to silence it.

On the other hand, in the marketplace of ideas, there are both postive and negative responses to stimulus. I'm not so sure that eliminating all negative responses is the best way to make sure that the marketplace works.

And another thing..if Imus was working in a journalistic capacity, he was doing a pretty poor job of it, violating principles press people generally hold dear. Being a bully and throwing unfounded accusations is just not something a journalist does--and it's not something out of line for a journalist to condemn.

I'm paraprhasing several ideas here, and probably doing a bad job of conveying any of them...but the mark of a good man is in what he does in the face of bad things. From the meek that rise up to be heroes in the face of the worst evils, to regular men that step to defend beaviour that they find legal, but reprehensible.

What we have here with Imus is an example of people behaving badly because they can get away with it. It's the proverbial "would you commit murder if you knew, 100%, that you would never be caught or found out." Imus' has made a career on being a jerk. He's a jerk to everyone, pretty much. His fans consist of people he hasn't attacked lately, or those that have thick enough hides that they can laugh at themselves when they are the target of Imus jokes.

So, outside his fans, he's got very few friends.

No surprise, then, when that long list of people that'd consider themselves to be Imus' enemy is presented with a perfectly acceptable and legal means of committing career murder, they take it. It's leterally mob mentality, only there's no illegal act taking place.

Granted, I think everyone on some level understands the problem with the actions. Maybe not behind the actual firing from MSNBC, if the network is being truthful. And any sentence with "network" and "truth" in it should make us all suspect at this point. But perhaps the execs at MSNBC really did have a bout of conscience, and decide they didn't want such trash associated with their network any longer.

Then again, NBC's current lineup of shows includes...The Apprentice, where the contestants are rarely models of our best citizenry...The Miss USA contest, highly controversial of late for it s objectification of women...Saturday Night Live, which essentially makes comedey at the expense of someone or some group...their wesite features Triumph, the Comic Dog/Hand Puppet, no exactly a model of PC sensitivity...and the Office, which belittles and satirizes a predominatly white office environment. NBC isn't exactly a paragon of sensitivity and positive programming.

So the claims that NBC acted because it's employees were upset, and that it was somehow trying to do the right thing, seem empty to me. Maybe if NBC's lineup and programming overall change over the next few seasons, I'll change my opinion on that. But for now, it seems like NBC was just caught up in the swell to get away with career murder.

For this is a free speech issue. Any time a group decides to boycott something because of an expressed opinion, it involves free speech. Not an impermissable attack on free speech, but an attack on free speech all the same. As some have tried to point out, the Consitution only prohibits the government from trying to infringe on free speech. Absolutely correct.

But why do so many people assume that only the government needs to be concerned with curtailing free speech? The ideals of free speech are the the exchange of ideas...even bad ones...is more valuable than having a society where unfavorable expressions are stifled. The response to an idea you don't like should never be to try and silence that opinion by taking away his voice...it should be to counter it with ideas of your own. This exchange over Imus demonstrates is that certain groups can bring enough public and potential consumer pressure to bear on corporations to influence programming. Almost secondary is the discussion over the actual topic of racially and sexually insensitive statements. Also glossed over is Imus reaction...and almost immediate apology, a willingness to meet those expressing offense to DISCUSS the issue, and also to meet the subjects of his words to personally offer his apology and, once again, DISCUSS the matter.

Isn't that the true purpose of free speech? To generate debate, discussion? To have ideas lead to the creation of even more ideas? If our reaction of an idea we don't like is to cut off the income of the person expressing the idea, our entire basis of free speech is jeapordized?

Don't believe me? Why is the Rutgers team getting death threats? Because some...maybe Imus fans, maybe just bigots...blame them for the consequences (which, personally, is highly ignorant, because the team and players, so far as I know, haven't called for Imus' termination...ever). And then there's the potential backlash of Imus fans', and other groups that find such attacks against the ideals of free speech distasteful while also misunderstanding the concept, for retailiating against the networks and sponsors that abandoned Imus. Because that's what happens when you boycott because of speech...there's going to be someone out there, like you, that doesn't agree with your speech, and decide to try and punish you by taking away their support of your commercial product.

Is that legal? Totally. Does it violate the ideals of free speech? Absolutely.

Peter, when Michael Savage told a caller he should "Get AIDS and die.' and was then fired from MSNBC, was this the wrong response from the Network?

In my opinion, it was the right response from MSNBC from their perspective, as was firing Imus in this case. As I said before, as long as MSNBC and its sponsors are paying for the microphone, they have the right to take that support away if the person in question uses it in a manner which causes them to conclude that it is in their best interest to no longer be associated with Savage or Imus.

What I believe PAD is trying to say, and I agree with, is that it is morally wrong for a group like the NABJ or individuals like Sharpton to Jackson to force the network to make that decision and then still claim that they are for freedom of speech.

Now, again, this is defining freedom of speech, not just limited to the legal/constitutional limits on what the government can do, but as a more abstract ideal for society. This is about more than just Imus getting fired for embarrassing his employer, it's about who gets to to make the decision to fire him. Should it be the market or should it be a select group of aribiters who have decided what is and is not acceptable to be heard?

And Jimmy, as I said before, just because Imus can start a blog or go on satellite (still willing to bet that any terrestrial or satellite radio station that signs him will face the same threats from Sharpton and Jackson), doesn't mean that his firing won't have a chilling effect on what is acceptable to discuss on the radio or on TV.

"Because a lot of people believe that the right to do this or that also entitles you to a "criticism-free zone." If you accept that premise, much of the criticism of PAD is justified.

Problem is, that premise is a pile of crap."

There's a problem with you application here. I agree, free speech doesn't mean you should be in a criticism free zone. But that's not the case here. Imus wasn't just criticized...he was terminated. Using the comic-shop analogy, it's not enough that business would drop...to make the analogy parallel, you'd have to say some parent comes into the shop, sees the way the clerk is dressed, and then petitions the city council to shut the place down. Not because of bad sales, but because she doesn't agree with the way the shop is run.

That's not the ideals of free speech, that's the ideals of oppression and stifling expression and freedom because you find something distasteful.

If she'd just expressed her distaste to the owner, and told him she's never shopping there again, and then maybe tried to get others to likewise stop shopping there, that'd be different. Maybe only slightly, but at least it puts the idea into circulation, and gives others a chance to discuss the topic and make their own decision.

The Imus parallel would be to see what happens with his ratings. If his ratings continued, or even went up, that'd be proof that, for all the public outcry, it's still good business. If his rating go down, Imus and his networks could decide if they wanted to alter the format of the show, or choose termiation alltogether. But by going directly to termination, before that, you eliminate any benefit gained from the exchange of ideas, and all you do is stifle it in related areas.

I don't see that this is about the First Amendment since no one has said Imus can't continue to make racist and sexist comments.This is about facing the consequences of those comments. He exercised his rights, and now he's being forced to accept the consequences of doing so in the manner he did. It appears it been decided that those consequences will be to lose the privilege of his own radio and television show. As such, he's just lost the means to exercise his first amendment right to such a large audience as he previously enjoyed.

In all the rhetoric I've heard surrounding this incident, I've never yet heard anyone bring up the fact all rights also have attendant responsibilities, whether you like them or not.

Whether these consequences are over the top, I don't feel it's my place to to say. After all, I'm a white man. That means I'm neither black, nor a woman, and certainly not both, nor am I affiliated with the Rutgers team in any way. I have no experience with what it's like to be the targets of language like that, and I have no idea of the impact it had on those women, or anyone in those segments of our society. How can anyone who has not felt the full impact of those remarks truly understand it.

All I can say about it is that, regardless of what you feel about them, Imus is now facing the consequences for saying what he said. That's something we all have a responsibility to do when we say something. That is what I see all this as being about, and that is most people seem to be missing.

It's a fair question, and the answer is no, he shouldn't have been. Or if they felt compelled to do so, they should have also fired the exec who hired him in the first place. Otherwise they're just being mealy-mouthed. They knew what they were getting when they hired him. He'd made no secret of his ultra-conservative leanings. He wrote books about the subject, for heaven's sake. No one compelled them to hire him and, for that matter, no one compelled liberals or gays to listen to him. To hire someone whose entire gig is being offensive and then firing him for being offensive...I just don't get that kind of thinking.

That's a good point. I had the same reaction when Pepsi pulled their sponsorship of Madonna (whome I despise as a performer) because she made a sexually explicit video with imagery offensive to Catholic. Um, did they not see her previous work?

On the other hand, I can see the POV of these companies. They hire celebrities to promote their products or produce entertainment content that will attract sponsors. If the celebrity does something that causes them to lose sales or sponsors, then, since that was the opposite of their stated goal, they are within their rights to pull the plug.

Savage was hired by MSNBC because he was a provocative firebrand. IIRC, he was actually hired to replace Mr. Sensitivity Phil Donahue, whose show was tanking. So yeah, they hired Savage precisely because they knew what they getting and were hoping that his freak show would attract viewers, much for the same reasons that Viacom kept Howard Stern on the air. Should the executives at MSNBC have realized that it was inevitable that Savage would go "too far" and end up costing them sponsors? Sure, it was stupid of them not to expect it, but I think that's a separate issue as to whether or not they were right to can him when his statements started to cost them sponsorhsip.

I don't see that this is about the First Amendment since no one has said Imus can't continue to make racist and sexist comments.This is about facing the consequences of those comments.

And I see this particular discussion here as being about who gets to decide what those consequences should be: His employers or NABJ/Al Sharptaon/Jesse Jackson? Remember that both MSNBC and CBS decided that a two-week suspension and sensitivity training was sufficient punishment for his offensive remark. It was only after continued pressure from the above that they switch it to termination.

In all the rhetoric I've heard surrounding this incident, I've never yet heard anyone bring up the fact all rights also have attendant responsibilities, whether you like them or not.

Then I don't think you've been reading my comments, because I've been very clear that Imus had a responisiblity for his speech, but his responsibilities were to his employers, not the NABJ.

Bobb Alfred, either you missed my point or I did a poor job of making it. My illustration was offered in support of what you and PAD are asserting, not in opposition to it.

I wonder if 90% of these comments would have been eliminated if PAD had written "spirit of free speech" instead of "spirit of the first amendment." That seems to be where a lot of people have hangups.

Yogzilla touched on the point I was going to raise. Imus is/was a shock jock. He isn't, in fact, a journalist. But the fact that his radio show was simulcast on MSNBC seemed, in some people's minds, to elevate him to journalist status. Now, if an actual professional journalist had said something like this during their news program or in a news article, I could almost see calling for his/her/it's head. But the NABJ getting involved in this, doesn't that break one of the rules of journalism, ie, don't make yourself part of the story?

So much for tolerance.

Sean, at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, it sort of depends on how you define a journalist. Imus was an interviewer. Numerous national politicians had appeared on his show, even despite his reputation for being a shock jock. He had a big audience and many political figures wanted to reach that audience. On of the current presidential candidates (I forget which, Mitt Romney maybe) even announced his candidacy on the show.

Does that make him a journalist? Maybe, but then I guess that makes Bill O'Reilly one, too. And I don't want to got there.

"NABJ gets together and declares that the songs "Colored Spade" and "Three-Five Zero Zero" which includes the line "Prisoners in Niggertown, it's a dirty little war" should be cut from the show. The producers refuse to do so. The Revs Sharpton and Jackson pile on and lobby the theater, and the theater owners--not wanting the grief--pull the plug. No other theater on Broadway will touch it. Show's over.

But of course the argument is that it's not REALLY censorship because "no one is stopping" other theaters around the country from mounting productions...without the offending songs, of course."

Well, seeing as the owners of the theater had a choice about whether to cave to pressure, I don't have a problem with the scenario. In addition, nothing, except an unwillingness to risk the wrath of those who shut the first show down, is stopping other theaters from putting that show on with the offending songs intact. As far as I know, there's nothing stopping the director from finding his own venue for performing the show, one where he doesn't have to worry about the theater owners.

In addition, NABJ, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, and anyone else who may wish to, has every right to put pressure on those theater owners as long as they don't break to law to do so.

It's a matter of who's standing up for what they believe in, and people making a decision about what is more important. Is it more important to to make a stand, even if it loses money, preventing you from continuing with getting your message out? Is it more important to try to find another way of getting your message across? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, the people making the decision see that maybe the people putting pressure on them are making a point they agree with?

If you have a message or a goal, and it's getting lost in the noise of a scandal, you have to decide for yourself whether it's worth the fight, or whether the issue you're fighting over isn't what's important. If you do decide to fight, or you're employing the the people responsible for the fight, you have to make a decision about what's important.

As for you never saying it was a First Amendment issue, you're right. I misread what you said. The point that it's not a free speech issue still stands, though. It doesn't matter whether it's Don Imus or your theater production, they still have to face the consequences of what they say and how they express themselves.

"Bobb Alfred, either you missed my point or I did a poor job of making it. My illustration was offered in support of what you and PAD are asserting, not in opposition to it."

Bill, y'know, I had to read your post three times before I could decide which way you were trying to come out. In the comic shop, were you trying to tell your friend that he shouldn't put jacked up week old comics in the bin, or that he should? It seemed like you were telling him he shouldn't...essentially, that he shouldn't do something in his profession that might piss off his customers, because his business might suffer for it.

I took that to be an implication of Imus, in that he needed to be careful what he said. I take it you meant instead for it to implicate MSNBC and CBS, for acting too quickly to silence him. That such moves are totally legal, but might themselves not be the best way to run their business.

Which, no surprise, in that case I'm in total agreement with you. Anyone can react to negative pub. The true test of morality is to refuse to act before the consequences arrive. MSNBC and CBS made the choice...sometimes for decades...to air Imus. It's not like Imus woke up that fateful day and said "I'm going to try something new, something I've never done in my decades of broadcasting...I'm going to make a joke in poor taste directed at someone that might not deserve it." He's made a career on that, and MSNBC and CBS have both made probably billions of dollars selling add time on it. Pepsi and Staples and a slew of other advertizers have made countless connections with customers because of it. When the public outcry against him was small, did those entities have a problem investing in Imus, in giving him air time, in supporting him with his show? No. Not at all.

And, so far, who's the only one to pay the commerical price of his actions...which, at least according to my brief exposure to his show, had little to distinguish it from any other day his show was on? Imus himself. The countless programmers and marketing executives that supported his show for decades, they don't even get a second glance.

That's where the hypocrisy of this whole thing comes from.

I'm going to try to address Mr. David's post, unlike a lot of the people here. If some of you will go back and read it, he was wondering why an organization of black journalists would want to shut down Imus's show as a free speech issue.

Y'see, I don't think the organization was criticizing him on simply a matter of race. They were criticizing him because he was a fellow journalist who had gone too far.

Yes, Imus is a journalist, because the line between journalism and entertainment has just about been obliterated. There are people who are getting their news from Colbert and Stewart, and finding it more incisive than what's on the network. You may recall that Stewart tore into Tucker Carlson for this when invited on Crossfire as a guest (which some say cost Carlson his job).

That's fine for the liberal minded. Others see Rush Limbaugh as the ideal replacement for Walter Cronkite's anchor chair (which nobody at CBS has adequately filled). The recent screaming match between O'Reilly and Rivera (some think it was as honest a feud as a steel cage chainsaw match in the WWE) was Meet the Press for this age.

So, Don Imus is a journalist. Is it not right for an organization of journalists to establish a code of conduct for journalists? And if Imus wasn't a black journalist, why was a substantial portion of his daily news describing blacks and black behavior? I say that both Imus and Mo'Nique are black journalists. Wanna bet they aren't?

"And I see this particular discussion here as being about who gets to decide what those consequences should be: His employers or NABJ/Al Sharptaon/Jesse Jackson? Remember that both MSNBC and CBS decided that a two-week suspension and sensitivity training was sufficient punishment for his offensive remark. It was only after continued pressure from the above that they switch it to termination."

NABJ and Revs. Jackson and Sharpton are closer to being part of the verbally targeted segment of our society than I am. They have every right to put pressure on the sponsors, on the broadcasters, and on Imus himself. They are more likely to have a better understanding of the true impact those words had than many of the people in charge of making the final decision would ever be. Regardless of the pressure, only the executives at MSNBC and CBS were in a position to make the final decision. They had to consider the reputations of their companies, the feeling of their employees, possibly the stockholders, and their ability to make money instead of losing it, and not necessarily in that order.

"Then I don't think you've been reading my comments, because I've been very clear that Imus had a responisiblity for his speech, but his responsibilities were to his employers, not the NABJ."

You're right, I hadn't read all the remarks. I only recently found this page and I haven't had time to read all the remarks.

Bobb Alfred: "I take it you meant instead for it to implicate MSNBC and CBS, for acting too quickly to silence him. That such moves are totally legal, but might themselves not be the best way to run their business."

You got it.

Moreover, I was trying to point out that criticizing my friend's business practices is NOT tantamount to questioning his right to engage in such practices. By the same token, PAD's criticism of the NABJ's pressure tactics is NOT tantamount to questioning their right to engage in such tactics.

Whenever someone says, "Gee, I don't think this was the best thing to do," people have this odd habit of asking, "What, you don't think so-and-so has the right to do that?" It's a complete non-sequitur.

Don Imus has said many things that I find offensive and stupid (which aren't necessarily the same thing). So have Savage, Limbaugh, Medved, Stern, and a local neocon radio personality named John Carlson.

I have a very simple reaction to all of the above. I don't listen to any of them. They're perfectly free to continue their ignorant spewing all over the airwaves, just as I am perfectly free to decline to hear any of it. If enough people elect to not listen, pretty soon they dry up and blow away - no sponsor is ever going to back a show with no audience.

If, instead, you pressure their employers into firing them, all you've demonstrated is that you can be a bigger bully. Imus never pressured Rutgers to get rid of the women's basketball team; Savage never pressured his caller's employer to fire him; Carlson hasn't even pressured his station to take away his show "partner", the liberal Ken Schramm. Who has done this thing? Who has thrown a chill over the entire idea of the "marketplace of ideas"? Why, that would be the National Association of Black Journalists.

As PAD pointed out, the irony is staggering, if not the least bit amusing.

(Oh, PAD - I also think you're soon going to find yourself shrouding this Mike character. He has a tendency to ignore anything that contradicts his own beliefs, and seems to think that shouting louder constitutes some sort of effective counterargument. I gave up on him back during his first exchange with one of the Bills, some time back...)

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at April 16, 2007 11:54 AM

I gave up on him back during his first exchange with one of the Bills, some time back...

Speaking as one of the Bills, I only wish it had not taken me so long to do the same.

FlameStrike: Again, no one is disputing that NABJ/Sharpton/Jackson have the right to express their disapproval of Imus' statements, nor has there been any attempt to minimize the emotional impact of Imus' racist/sexist comments. As I said before, just because they can organize people and put pressure on a station to fire Imus, doesn't mean it was morally right for them to do so.

I can't stand Imus. I never listened to his show. I also can't stand Bill O'Reilly (in case you hadn't noticed), but I wouldn't organize a campaign to get him ousted either.

Let me put this way: both MSNBC and CBS decided that a two week suspension was an appropriate punishment for Imus. Why should anyone from outside those organizations be able to force them to impose a harsher penalty?

Remember this: Imus did not get fired by CBS and/or MSNBC. He was fired by the sponsors that paid $50 million per year for the show. Once they left, CBS and MSNBC could not keep that show on the air.

My problem is that Imus was right on one thing: Why didn't Al Sharpton (and by extension, Jesse Jackson) apologize to the Duke students accused of rape? Their words were much harsher, and nearly ruined the lives of three students, two of which weren't even in the house when the dancer accused them of raping her. Read the Newsweek article on the incident, and you'll see just how disgusting that whole thing turned out to be.

FlameStrike, I think you're missing some information...chiefly, that PAD never said those ogranizations don't have the right to act as they did. But as Bill Myers suggests, and in the words of Goldbloom channeling Crichton, just because they could, doesn't mean that they should.

As representatives and members of a minority that has been oppressed, persecuted, enslaved, murdered (and to some degree continues to suffer from the effects of those atrocities), the leaders of those communities and organizations should understand, more than anyone, the impact of censure. Slaves didn't just not have free speech rights...they could be killed for speaking out. That's a kind of censure that thankfully doesn't exist at large in the US today.

But as the victims of such control, you'd think they'd be the first to understand the negative implications of such control, and refrain from using tactics that silence offensive words. Clearly, a white slave owner shooting a slave for speaking up is of a different caliber than Sharpton and Jackson bringing public pressure on MSNBC and CBS to get them to terminate Imus for speaking out. But while the scope and impact are terribly different, the base actions themselves are not. Both are an attempt to control the expression of an idea that's considered offensive to one party.

I'm just curious. Since Imus said this on a nationally broadcast format, wouldn't it be appropriate for the young women who comprise the Rutgers team to sue him for libel or slander (I'm not sure which is correct), since they are not, in fact, "nappy-headed" (two of them have exceptionally straight hair, not chemically induced, iirc) or "hos"? That way, Mr. Imus is punished, because any future funds he makes will pay for those words in a literal sense.

"Savage was hired by MSNBC because he was a provocative firebrand. IIRC, he was actually hired to replace Mr. Sensitivity Phil Donahue, whose show was tanking. So yeah, they hired Savage precisely because they knew what they getting and were hoping that his freak show would attract viewers, much for the same reasons that Viacom kept Howard Stern on the air. Should the executives at MSNBC have realized that it was inevitable that Savage would go "too far" and end up costing them sponsors? Sure, it was stupid of them not to expect it, but I think that's a separate issue as to whether or not they were right to can him when his statements started to cost them sponsorhsip."

In fact, Donahue had the highest rated show on the network, much higher than Savage ever had. Only Keith Oberman has beaten his ratings on MSNBC. No, his liberal anti-war, anti-Bush stance, at a time when the media was acting like the propaganda wing of the White House, was too much for his bosses.

Remember this: Imus did not get fired by CBS and/or MSNBC. He was fired by the sponsors that paid $50 million per year for the show. Once they left, CBS and MSNBC could not keep that show on the air.

But the question is, why did the sponsors pull out of the show now, and not after any of other thousands of other offensive racist/sexist comments said on Imus's show? The answer is because this one, for whatever reason, this one happened to get the attention of NABJ, Sharpton, and Jackson.

My problem is that Imus was right on one thing: Why didn't Al Sharpton (and by extension, Jesse Jackson) apologize to the Duke students accused of rape? Their words were much harsher, and nearly ruined the lives of three students, two of which weren't even in the house when the dancer accused them of raping her.

Well, I would first say that Nifong did far more to ruin th elives of these students than Sharpton or Jackson did, but yes, they do still owe them an apology for their rush to judgment.

"In all the rhetoric I've heard surrounding this incident, I've never yet heard anyone bring up the fact all rights also have attendant responsibilities, whether you like them or not."

That's true.

Imus exercised his free speech in a needlessly hurtful way, apologized repeatedly for his actions, and tried every way he could to make amends to the ones he'd hurt. He acted responsibly.

The NABJ has a right to free expression guaranteed them by the First Amendment. It's what their profession hinges on. Therefore it is their responsibility to act vigilently and thwart attempts to curb free expression...not initiate such curtailing themselves. They acted irresponsibly.

PAD

Should an organization of journalists recommend a media personality be fired for what they say?

No.

CAN THEY? Sure. But their JOB is to cover EVERYONE ELSE screaming over putting Imus' head on a platter, not to officially join in the chorus themselves.

Well, here's a bit of a diversion along the same lines as the current talk about Imus:

Steve Spurrier, head football coach at the University of South Carolina, commented that he wishes they could get rid of "that damn Confederate flag", and that it was "embarrassing".

"Steve Spurrier, head football coach at the University of South Carolina, commented that he wishes they could get rid of "that damn Confederate flag", and that it was "embarrassing"."

Along those lines, Superbowl Champ Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy doesn't think gay marraige should be allowed. Steve Nash thinks the war in Iraq is wrong. Should these people be fired because their comments are insensitive to some group, offensive, or unpopular?

And before someone else comes along and says "ah-ha! But these people weren't PAID to give their opinions, and thus their opinions don't reflect on their ogranizations. It's not as bad when they say it..."

In what way does this make sense? It suggests that someone that is paid to give their opinion over the airwaves for money can get fired for....doing their job. While people that aren't paid to give such opinions over the airwaves, but do, are safe because that's not their job?

"NABJ gets together and declares that the songs "Colored Spade" and "Three-Five Zero Zero" which includes the line "Prisoners in Niggertown, it's a dirty little war" should be cut from the show. The producers refuse to do so. The Revs Sharpton and Jackson pile on and lobby the theater, and the theater owners--not wanting the grief--pull the plug. No other theater on Broadway will touch it. Show's over.

But of course the argument is that it's not REALLY censorship because "no one is stopping" other theaters around the country from mounting productions...without the offending songs, of course."

You're mixing apples and bicycles, though (unless the production company had to lease the theater from the public, in the same way radio stations have to lease the airwaves.) Not that I'm excusing the reprehensible (yet clearly free speech) actions of the nappy-headed hosts who kept the furor going. In the Imus case, the direct revenue stream was from the advertisers, who were (albeit under pressure) came forward and said they were not going to spend their money for the show. Similarly, if a theater producer put on "Hair" and the general public determined they weren't going to pay for tickets for the show... well, yeah, it would fold. At least in that market.

Oddly enough, I heard a lady on the radio this morning who went to see "Chicago" playing in St. Louis, who was registering offense at hearing the word "honky". See how silly we've all gotten now that we're "tuned in for offense"?

You're mixing apples and bicycles, though (unless the production company had to lease the theater from the public, in the same way radio stations have to lease the airwaves.)

Not relevant. The FCC did not force the networks to fire Imus. The entire fracas involved private individuals and organizations.

As far as I know, the FCC did not even fine any of the radio stations that carried Imus's program. Apparently, "nappy-headed hos" doesn't violate the FCC's standards of decency. At least, not this week. The FCC's broadcast standards are about as permanent as a Hollywood marriage.

Oh, and why should we even care what a football coach thinks about the confederate flag, gay marriage, or the Iraq war? That makes about as much sense as caring what the Dixie Chicks think about Bush.

Den: "Oh, and why should we even care what a football coach thinks about the confederate flag, gay marriage, or the Iraq war?"

For the same reason that we should care about your opinions on these issues: because we all have a stake in them.

CBS and MSNBC were idiots.

They should have just replaced the stupid coward sponsors and then when Imus' suspension was up, take two weeks to look at the ratings. If they couldn't replace the sponsors because Imus' ratings plummet, THEN fire him, but not because of American Terrorists waging a war of words against words.

(Yes, I see people like Sharpton and his ilk as little better than terrorists, threatening boycotts if they don't get their way, a.k.a. economic terrorism.)

Ladies and gentleman, on a somewhat side note, but also related, whatever agency it is that regulates radio (i somewhat recall it being called the NAB...but ive seen that mentioned here as well, so that could be wrong) has been seeking legislation to regulate satelite radio.

Mostly due in part to Howard Stern, and probably a lesser extent Opie and Anthony...but the point is...this is no longer a free venue they are trying to regulate. Now why? Why is it that a service I pay for, because I want to hear uncensored views...why do certain people want that regulated? Are these people buying the service and not liking what they hear? Then why would they buy it? Why do they care if I listen to things that are indecent? I LIKE indecent things. Is that wrong? Apparently so.

The answer is simple. The politician who brought it up said that indecency should not be allowed to be aired ANYWHERE. (And the broadcastin society, for whatever hidden reasons, agreed and latched on to this.)

This is something that goes far beyond Imus...because it seems everywhere, that other people just want to make certain that other's views cannot be broadcast. It really doesnt matter if Imus said it on the radio or not...because its getting to a point where the ONLY places you can express any view that is somewhat outside the mainstream is in the privacy of your own brain, or anyonmously on the internet.

Den - "Oh, and why should we even care what a football coach thinks about the confederate flag, gay marriage, or the Iraq war? That makes about as much sense as caring what the Dixie Chicks think about Bush."

You don't have to care about their opinions, that's the beauty of freedom of speech. Just because someone can say something doesn't force anyone else to listen or take seriously or to heart those words.

But unless you are a hypocrite that doesn't actually car about Free Speech, then you should care that they are allowed to EXPRESS those opinions.

Where terrorist tactics; whether they be threats of violence, or threats to a person's ability to earn a living; are allowed to succeed, then we ALL lose.

It may be your freedom they target next...

"You're mixing apples and bicycles, though (unless the production company had to lease the theater from the public, in the same way radio stations have to lease the airwaves.)"

No, I'm really not. A comparison doesn't have to be completely one to one to be relevant. The fundamental notion remains the same: The free market showing an interest in something that is squelched into non-existence by individual groups who focus on one small part of the total production and turn it into a cause celebre. Substitute "advertisers/network" for "theater" and it's exact.

Here's the real tragedy of the thing: If the emphasis had been on education...on exploring how such language makes people feel...then Imus could really have done some good. The people who listen to his radio show might possibly--through discussion of it on the air--been prompted to consider just how hurtful certain words and expressions can be. Because they listened to Imus and were influenced by him, then maybe--just maybe--they might have been influenced in a positive way.

Instead that opportunity is gone, and Imus's faithful listeners are left with a very different lesson entirely: Black People Are The Enemy. Specifically, the Black People Who Were Responsible For Imus Being Fired Are the Enemy. And if you don't believe me, then I refer you to the hateful e-mail directed to the basketball players and the death threats directed to Al Sharpton.

This is why--again--the answer to free speech is more free speech. When you smash the speaker into oblivion, you don't generate good will. You simply generate more anger amongst the speaker's audience.

PAD

In fact, Donahue had the highest rated show on the network, much higher than Savage ever had. Only Keith Oberman has beaten his ratings on MSNBC. No, his liberal anti-war, anti-Bush stance, at a time when the media was acting like the propaganda wing of the White House, was too much for his bosses.

Maybe, but Keith Olberman doesn't agree:

http://www.tvguide.com/news-views/columnists/the-biz/default.aspx?posting={2911903E-35C2-4F37-B067-320CF68F3AAE}

TVGuide.com: One of your predecessors, Phil Donahue, was an early critic of the war and was canceled when he had the highest ratings on MSNBC.

Olbermann: He was the highest-rated show on the network. But there were two things people leave out of the equation. I would be the first person to scream about bias against a liberal point of view anytime — or a bias against a conservative point of view. When the show started in Secaucus, New Jersey, nobody watched. When they put him in New York with a studio audience, the ratings increased; unfortunately, the cost doubled. The staff was twice the size as mine. It was very expensive to produce for a "we don't want to put a lot of cash into it" branch of the industry. That memo about him being too liberal at a time of war — it really was a straw on a very laden camel's back. There was a consideration there, but it was marginal.

Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist.

PAD, this statement implies that the NABJ is limited to blacks only - nothing in the NABJ application states any kind of race requirement.

Most people don't seem to realize that organizations like HBCU's, NABJ, and NSBE are not 'blacks-only' clubs -they are organizations that were formed to support blacks in specific industries and occupations.

If you're white/Asian/whatever, and you genuinely want to support their causes (and you meet all the necessary requirements), you are free to join.

But unless you are a hypocrite that doesn't actually car about Free Speech, then you should care that they are allowed to EXPRESS those opinions.

Um, Bladestar, was that the first one of my posts in this forum that you have ever read?

I believe that I have been very consistant in that I strongly believe that everyone should have the right to express their opinions. My point is, that there is not reason why we should freak out if a football coach or entertainer's opinion on something that is irrelevant to their job differs from our own. If you liked the Dixie Chicks' music before one of them said she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas, that should change your opinion of their music, nor should whether or not you agree with Steve Spurrier about the confederate flag should dictate whether or not you're a USC fan.

So in short, everyone must have the right to express their opinion, but what the opinion is, should not carry any additional weight just because that person is a celebrity.

Bill Mulligan, that sort of cost analysis goes on all the time in the TV industry. I remember when Star Trek: TNG was cancelled at the seventh season even though the ratings were as strong as they ever were. Paramount was pretty up front about why it was cancelled: The show had simply gotten too expensive to produce. The contracts for the cast members were up for renewal and everyone was expecting a raise. After crunching the numbers, the studio decided the show wouldn't be profitable any more.

Den, your quote was used for convenience, the line you quoted wasn't aimed at you specifically.

It was aimed at the "Why should we care what other people say, even if they are celbrities" mind set expressed in the quote, my statements had nothing to do with the weight of the statement based on "celebrity". I really don't see where I implied that.

I really don't see where I implied that.

I didn't think you did. I was merely expanding on my original thought which was about this tendency in society to give credibility to the opinions of celebrities simply because they are celebrities*. Looks like we both took general statements and thought they were aimed at us specifically.

*See Tom Cruise trying to pass himself off as an expert on psychiatry.

But, but....Tom Cruise has studied the history of psychiatry. He said so...that makes it so, no?

Hi there, PAD and friends,

As a regular reader of your site, I know that you're a good liberal soul, so I hope it's okay that I post this message. My brother attends Virginia Tech. Fortunately, he was not on campus today. However, the fact that he could have been, and would most likely have been in Norris Hall... fills me with dread and outrage. Today is a tragic day, and I feel the need to do something, even if it is a small thing. If you feel similarly, my wife and I are encouraging people to go to the Brady Campaign website, which has a petition calling for making access to firearms more difficult, to which you can add your name:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/ (the petition link is on the right side of the page)

There really is no such thing as "gun control" in Virginia. I fear that what happened today will only motivate politicians to finger-point and the NRA to claim that more metal detectors are the solution. American society needs to take a hard look at itself. How many tragedies do we have to tolerate before we wake up?

I hope that everyone reading this is happy and healthy,
Jonathan

In case anyone's not seen this...here's what CNN quotes Snoop Dog's reaction to claims that hip hop and rap say worse things than Imus..

"The superstar rapper Snoop Dogg also denied any connection to Imus. "(Rappers) are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports," he told MTV.com. "We're talking about hos that's in the 'hood that ain't doing ---- that's trying to get a n---- for his money.""

The big difference I see? Imus was joking...if you've heard the clip, you can can hear him laughing about it. Whereas Snoop seems to be saying that he's talking about actual people.

So, what's worse? Making a joke about people, or using terms to describe your true thoughts about someone?

I've heard about that Snoop Dogg quote.

Here's the problem:

Once a concept is introduced into the language, it immediately expands to cover aspects far beyond its intent.

Take, for instance, sexual harrassment. It used to be something very specific: A boss or someone in a superior working position forces unwanted advances upon a subordinate and makes clear to her that her job is forfeit if she's not accommodating to him. Sex as weapon.

So where are we now? If a guy tells an off-color joke in the break room and a woman doesn't like it, she can level charges of sexual harrassment and suddenly everyone's taking sensitivity classes.

As much as Snoop Dogg wants to claim that he was referring to a certain type of woman, even if he wants to claim that such descriptions were warranted--and I don't say I agree with the idea--but it's very typical for a term to spread far beyond its original intent. Claiming now that the use it's being put to isn't what was meant, when I hear teens nowadays routinely referring to girls as a "ho" or a "skanky ho," and these girls are hardly ghetto girls...well, he's just kidding himself if he thinks that he is somehow absolved of responsibility.

PAD

"Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist."

When Caucasians face widespread institutional racism after centuries of being kept as chattel slaves, this will be a somewhat relevant argument. That's not the case, though, so, no.

"The NABJ should have been the first, foremost defenders of the spirit of the First Amendment. To the notion that, if someone is shouting at the top of their lungs things that you find disagreeable, then the proper response is to shout back at the top of yours. In a free society, you go for the words of your opposition, not the throat."

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It does not guarantee anyone the right to have a radio show, or to have that radio show simulcast on cable news. This fact should be blindingly apparent to anyone who thinks about it for longer than half a second or so.

"In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it.""

Imus' right to say whatever he wants is completely and utterly separate from the question of whether he should have a radio show.

"But they didn't. They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down. Popeye-like, they decided that this was all they could stands cause they couldn't stands no more. Their belief, apparently, was that they shouldn't have to tolerate Imus's racist opinions anymore."

No. Their belief was that Imus' racist opinions should not be given hours of radio airtime five days a week.

"Except they were wrong."

Actually, you're wrong.

"Because that's the price you pay for living in a free society."

The price of living in a free society is that a racist creep gets to broadcast his racism on the radio every morning? Where did you buy your copy of the constitution, sir?

"One's business should always be with what your opponent says, not with your opponent himself, and people calling themselves journalists should have understood that."

Someone who calls himself a writer should understand that the right to say whatever you want does not equal a right to use whatever platform you want -- particularly when that platform is the public airwaves, and when your ability to access those airwaves is only possible thanks to your employer's broadcasting license and equipment and studio.

"The answer to free speech is always more free speech...not the shutting down of that speech."

Imus' speech has not been shut down. He can still say whatever he wants to say. And -- this is the part you never want to acknowledge -- other people can say whatever they want in response to Imus' speech, including telling Imus' sponsors that they won't buy the products of a company that sponsors racist filth, and telling Imus' broadcasters that they're not going to listen to a station that airs racist filth. This is a simple concept and one that you seem physically incapable of understanding.

Was your right to free speech violated when you were fired from the Hulk? Was your right to free speech violated when DC canceled Fallen Angel? The answers to both questions is obviously no. And just as your free speech rights were not violated in those cases, telling the folks responsible for putting Imus on the airways that they should stop supporting his racist filth does not, in any way, shape, or form, violate Imus' right to free speech.

I'm surprised I have to explain this.

"The NABJ has a right to free expression guaranteed them by the First Amendment. It's what their profession hinges on. Therefore it is their responsibility to act vigilently and thwart attempts to curb free expression...not initiate such curtailing themselves. They acted irresponsibly."

As I believe I saw someone else here pointing out, the perception does exist that Imus was a journalist. Given that such a perception exists, I don't find it irresponsible for a group of journalists to try to hold another journalist, even if he's only a journalist by perception, responsible for what he said, or to hold him to a higher standard.

In any case, no one has curtailed Imus freedom of speech. No one is preventing him from continuing to say what he wants, no matter how offensive. The only thing he's lost is the privilege of his own show with such a large audience. I've never heard of anyone having the right to their own radio show, much less having the right to have it funded by someone else.

So, I don't see that the NABJ has done what you see them as doing. Maybe, like Imus being a journalist or not, it's another matter of perception.

"The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It does not guarantee anyone the right to have a radio show, or to have that radio show simulcast on cable news. This fact should be blindingly apparent to anyone who thinks about it for longer than half a second or so."

Just as it's blindingly apparent that you're spouting an awful lot of arrogance for someone who clearly hasn't bothered to read any of the previous posts where many replies to the by-now-tired irrelevancies you've brought up have already been posted.

PAD

"In any case, no one has curtailed Imus freedom of speech. No one is preventing him from continuing to say what he wants, no matter how offensive. The only thing he's lost is the privilege of his own show with such a large audience."

And right there--RIGHT THERE--is where you just shot yourself in the foot.

"With such a large audience."

There was, and is, a large audience for Don Imus. That should be what determines whether or not his show goes off the air; not pressure groups who owe their living to the concept of free speech; not judgmental assholes with their own axes to grind and potential benefits (how convenient that Jackson and Sharpton, both with radio shows, have knocked off a competitor while getting publicity for their own shows.)

If the audience deplores what he says and deserts him, THEN it makes sense to cancel his show. But they didn't. And judging by the backlash we're seeing against the poor basketball players and against Sharpton, I'm thinking they're making it very clear that they object to the plug being pulled.

Claiming that "no one has curtailed" his freedom of speech when there was a concerted effort to accomplish just that...frankly, you're kidding yourself.

PAD

I think if Imus had just called them ugly hos, he'd still have a job. If he had just called them ugly, there would have been no national coverage.

"When Caucasians face widespread institutional racism after centuries of being kept as chattel slaves, this will be a somewhat relevant argument. That's not the case, though, so, no."

How many black people living today were American slaves??? NOT A GODDAMN ONE! Quit lying and spouting this ignorant bullshit! (and don't forget it wa often their fellow black man that sold them to the white man)

Where did you get YOUR copy of the constitution? Radio, TV, and oh, by the way, RACIAL SLANG isn't mentioned in it ANYWHERE, nor is "Protection of your feelings". If you don't like what any TV or radio personality has to say, geuss what Junior? You can turn it off or change the station, You do NOT have the right to take it away from everyone else however.

As long as this double-standard continues I don't see any chance if the racism people complain about getting any better.

Time for white people to quit apologizing for being white and walking on egg shells and for blacks to realize that just because they say they can use words and whites can't doesn't make it so.

The injustices of the past can't be dumped on the sons and daughters of the perpetrators. Our system doesn't work that way, and no rational system can. So quit with the "Oh, you owe us for slavery and the racism of the past." crap.

Grow up and look to the future and think about how everytime you use a word or phrase but tell us when we use it it's an insult, that just makes you look so weak and inferior.

Frankly I think the silent majority of the black people in this country needs to open it's collective mouth and tell the Sharptons and Jacksons and Snoop Doggs to "Shut up, you don't represent us all. And we're tired of you referring to our daughters and each other as "Niggers/Niggas" while claiming that the word is such a horrible and total insult to black people."

(left out the "as hos" part of "referring to our daughters")

Y'know, I really wasn't going to have anything more to say on this. I really wasn't. Then I read Chris's post. Chris may not be aware that my people, that is, the Irish, were also used as slaves, notably under Elizabeth I. Don't even get me started on "Irish Need Not Apply."

Chris's post further illustrates the problems that I, and some others, have with this. A relatively small but increasing-in-volume group was calling for Imus's head on a platter after his Rutgers statements. That's their right. What I want to know is why they weren't making the calls for Imus to be off BEFORE this? His insults have pretty much always been equal-opportunity. Where was the outcry before this?

Now for a simple concept that Chris doesn't seem capable of understanding. One of the prices of living in a free society is that others can (GASP!) disagree with you. You might not like it that someone is racist. Fine. I'm not crazy about it myself. However, not only does living in a free society mean that racists, evangelists, weathermen and car dealers can have air time, living in a free market culture means that also. If there's an audience to be advertised to, they will be there. An apparently large segment of the population listened to Imus's show. Lots of people to advertise to. It's not as much a free speech issue as a free market issue.

Last thing--Chris, don't know what your profession is. Don't care, either. But I'm sure whatever it is, it someone questioned your abilities because of an opinion, as you did with PAD, I imagine you'd be at least slightly miffed. PAD is in FACT a writer, he doesn't just call himself one, and my ability reach behind me and pull a dozen or so titles written by him proves that fact. Throw in that I don't know that PAD or pretty much anyone else here said that Imus has a right to use whatever platform he wants, and your arguement loses most of whatever credibility it might have had.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

When Caucasians face widespread institutional racism after centuries of being kept as chattel slaves, this will be a somewhat relevant argument. That's not the case, though, so, no.

Affirmative action programs are a form of institutionalized discrimination against whites, and are widespread. Slavery was abolished over a century ago.

I find the idea that blacks cannot be held to the same standard as whites to be repugnant. It implies black inferiority, and as history has shown no race is inherently inferior to any other.

By the way, Peter is Jewish. It's a good bet that he knows a thing or two about discrimination.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It does not guarantee anyone the right to have a radio show, or to have that radio show simulcast on cable news. This fact should be blindingly apparent to anyone who thinks about it for longer than half a second or so.

It was also blindingly apparent from the get-go that Peter David never said anyone's First Amendment rights were violated. He deliberately referred to the spirit of the First Amendment. Free speech encompasses more than just the idea of preventing government censorship.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

Imus' right to say whatever he wants is completely and utterly separate from the question of whether he should have a radio show.

We've already covered this: no one said Imus has a right to have a radio show. But firing him limits the public discourse and encourages censors to keep pushing inward. That's not just bad for Imus, it's bad for everyone.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

No. Their belief was that Imus' racist opinions should not be given hours of radio airtime five days a week.

And rather than engaging the now-conciliatory Imus on his show, where they had a chance of changing some minds, they squelched the show and blew an opportunity to widen the national dialog about race.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

Actually, you're wrong.

Is he? You certainly haven't said anything very persuasive.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

The price of living in a free society is that a racist creep gets to broadcast his racism on the radio every morning? Where did you buy your copy of the constitution, sir?

Actually, that's kind of how it is. Even if no radio station would ever take him ever again, he could set up a Web site and offer streaming audio.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

Someone who calls himself a writer should understand that the right to say whatever you want does not equal a right to use whatever platform you want -- particularly when that platform is the public airwaves, and when your ability to access those airwaves is only possible thanks to your employer's broadcasting license and equipment and studio.

But Peter has already demonstrated he understands that. His point is that the best way to combat bad ideas is not with censorship but with good ideas.

When corporations limit the national discourse, it may not be illegal but the effects are still negative.

By the way, Peter doesn't merely call himself a writer. He writes for a living. He is therefore by definition a writer.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

Imus' speech has not been shut down. He can still say whatever he wants to say. And -- this is the part you never want to acknowledge -- other people can say whatever they want in response to Imus' speech, including telling Imus' sponsors that they won't buy the products of a company that sponsors racist filth, and telling Imus' broadcasters that they're not going to listen to a station that airs racist filth. This is a simple concept and one that you seem physically incapable of understanding.

But firing Imus has limited his audience and polarized many of them. The benefit to that is... what?

By the way, your angry, mean-spirited tone very much reminds me of Imus' rhetoric. Racism isn't the only form of reprehensible behavior, as you are demonstrating.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

Was your right to free speech violated when you were fired from the Hulk? Was your right to free speech violated when DC canceled Fallen Angel? The answers to both questions is obviously no. And just as your free speech rights were not violated in those cases, telling the folks responsible for putting Imus on the airways that they should stop supporting his racist filth does not, in any way, shape, or form, violate Imus' right to free speech.

I'm surprised I have to explain this.

Yes, well, that's because you're accusing someone else of failing to comprehend, when in fact the lack of comprehension is your own.

I don't know why this makes you so angry. Are you black? Do you feel that this is a dialog between a bunch of whites who just don't get it? Because as I've said, it's no secret that Peter is Jewish and is probably no stranger to discrimination.

Michael T said:
"Ladies and gentleman, on a somewhat side note, but also related, whatever agency it is that regulates radio (i somewhat recall it being called the NAB...but ive seen that mentioned here as well, so that could be wrong) has been seeking legislation to regulate satelite radio.

Mostly due in part to Howard Stern, and probably a lesser extent Opie and Anthony...but the point is...this is no longer a free venue they are trying to regulate. Now why? Why is it that a service I pay for, because I want to hear uncensored views...why do certain people want that regulated? Are these people buying the service and not liking what they hear? Then why would they buy it? Why do they care if I listen to things that are indecent? I LIKE indecent things. Is that wrong? Apparently so. "
-----
These are the same people who are trying to further restrict cable television AND also trying to restrict free access to the internet.

Chris: ""Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist."

When Caucasians face widespread institutional racism after centuries of being kept as chattel slaves, this will be a somewhat relevant argument. That's not the case, though, so, no."

Doesn't enter into it. If you say that it is a-ok to exclude all people from your group other then just one type of person, then you can't say that others cannot do the same. If you say that you can have a black, Asian, Native-American, Hispanic or women's only organization then you have to allow a white or men's only organization of the same kind. To sanction or promote the one while denying the other is discriminatory.

Now, on to groups like NABJ, Imus and his firing.

I'm not entirely sure that they're failing the spirit of the First Amendment here. Plus, there are a several additional factors in this that do add to the overall discussion.

Imus has had more then a few racial comment snafus of late and he has promised to not do it again each time he has been called on it. This may have just been the final straw after having Imus break his word so many times prior to this.

Besides, I'm not sure that criticizing how someone chooses to say something is quite the same as criticizing someone actually saying something. Some of this may be over tact and style as much as it was over content. Imus and his crew were talking about how the team looked a bit rough with their tattoos and whatnot. There are a million different ways to say something like that without putting racial references or insults into it and would never have brought this firestorm down on his head.

It would be like commentating on an outbreak of gang related violence in a predominantly black inner city area caused by a conflict with a rival Hispanic gang trying to move into that area. A commentator could say almost exactly what I just said to describe it and not raise an eyebrow. Now, if the commentator were to say on a live TV or radio broadcast that a bunch of "violent n*****s" and "gang banger w******s" were shooting each other downtown.... Well, I think the commentator would find himself unemployed.

Same thing with Imus. I think that groups like NABJ can criticize the way he said something rather then what he was saying without running counter to the First Admendment. You can say just about anything and be fairly safe in job like that, it's just how you chose to say it that can put your butt in a sling. Imus chose to say something in a poor way on the public airwaves and he got spanked for it.

Bladestar said:
"Time for white people to quit apologizing for being white and walking on egg shells..."
-----
Wow. This sounds..., well, it sounds weird.

I've heard variations of this at work, usually from lesser educated, angry, white men. From reading previous postings by Bladestar, I know he is not one of the "lesser educated", so I have to ask what makes Bladestar so angry?