OT: Imus vs. TAFKAPacman

[Char2na]

I'm saying that most people understand that boycotts are wielding one's first amendment rights against another person's lawfully protected activity. Few, if any, would be so clueless as to consider it anything less than coercive, given that its entire purpose is to coerce a wanted result through the use of intimidation by numbers and economic threats. As for what percentage of people are opposed to boycotts, I don't know of any survey on the general topic.

Interesting that the reason we have that first amendment right, the American Revolution, was sparked by one of the most famous boycotts of all, the Boston Tea Party.

 

[Pujo]

Interesting that the reason we have that first amendment right, the American Revolution, was sparked by one of the most famous boycotts of all, the Boston Tea Party.

Err, the Boston Tea Party wasn't actually a boycott (where people refrain from a particular action), it was a protest.

 

[Char2na]

Err, the Boston Tea Party wasn't actually a boycott (where people refrain from a particular action), it was a protest.

Yeah I guess I got excited.

 

[upstater1]

OK, I admit right off that I wasn't up to speed in my memory of the Campanis comment. Now that you reminded me, I'm embarrassed to have included that reference in my comment. However, though it was obviously ignorant, his comment was also rather harmless.

As pre the reverse racism thing, I didn't claim or think this was actually the case, only that this was the only possible controversy. And the reverse racism would be dependent on whether any charge of racial profiling in this situation was accurate. In other words, was Imus fair to law enforcement in general when he insinuated Pacman was the victim of profiling. Personally, I think Imus was exaggerating the case. But was his comment racist? His explanation is not unreasonable, that it was a sarcastic response in which case it made sense; the question in my mind is whether this was an honest explanation. If not, then his comment was racist.

But if it was, then that led to my summary comment, that in the greater scheme of things, I think this incident has been totally overreacted to, and is the result of those who are sensitive to being reminded of this nation's grave racial legacy.

One judges the validity of the defense by how valid the claims are. If the claims are preposterous ("Pacman never did anything to warrant arrest") then that puts a big big shadow on the explanation.

If Imus meant it the way he said it, then of course this is overblown and should not even be mentioned. However, when Imus then defends his position by making preposterous claims, what am I to think? It makes me think he's overcompensating, or else he's lost his mind.

 

[Char2na]

But the Tea Act that Britain passed which ultimately led to the Boston Tea Party was a result of Han****'s Boycott of the East India Tea company.

 

[upstater1]

Honestly, who cares?

People who don't like racist comments on the airwaves.

 

[Char2na]

Haha, John Han**** got bleeped out.

 

[upstater1]

Haha, John Han**** got bleeped out.

Pure poppy****.

 

[Char2na]

All I'm saying is our founding fathers would say Boycott away children. Daddy did it all the time. Only we used to hike three miles through the snow to not buy something.

 

[Char2na]

On the other hand, we boycotted the Herald and all those people got fired.

 

[NEPatriot]

Imus's show SUCKs. He should have retired long time ago.

 

[Patslifer]

People who don't like racist comments on the airwaves.

Thats the FCC's job, and you didn't hear the comment, so why are you so excited over it

Really, it's not a big deal. People say dumb things on the radio every single day.

 

[upstater1]

Thats the FCC's job, and you didn't hear the comment, so why are you so excited over it

Really, it's not a big deal. People say dumb things on the radio every single day.

I was accuse of talking down to someone earlier. But, you know, when you have to explain basic civic principles to people, how can you not sound like you're talking down to hem?

It's not the FCC's job. The FCC overseas obscenity and vulgarity. Not free speech. Saying, "Black people are criminals," is NOT an obscenity. That should be obvious.

And I did hear Imus's words obviously. They were plastered all over the media. I heard Imus say them.

Otherwise, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it... you know how that goes.