OT: Imus vs. TAFKAPacman

upstater1 said:

Err, Stern has been kicked off more radio stations than Imus by a factor of 10.

Click to expand...

Stern is by far Sirius radio's number one ranked broadcast and he has never been in fire in the media like Imus has been,Howard is just as big as piece of scum as Imus or all these controversial radio personalities,Thats why I only listen to CDs or iPod music and leave all crap on the radio off..

Deus Irae said:

You might want to re-think your post here. It makes no sense at all, since I didn't extend the definition of free speech. I was, in fact, wrongly accused of limiting it by Pujo.

As for the racist language argument, it's not my fault that you can't get a handle on what 'speech' is, where the right to it is anchored and why it's a bad thing for people to wield it as a bludgeoning weapon to suppress the free speech rights of others. Seriously, if you haven't seen enough of our rights being stripped from us in your lifetime to understand how this works, I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps when they come for you:

Click to expand...

You're confused again. THEY in the poem is the jackboot thugs of the state. Not advertisers that don't want to be associated with you because you're a racist.

HUGE difference.

I'll make this point again: you are extending the definition of free speech so broadly that one could easily turn your words around on you and argue that Imus's racism is suppressing the free speech of others by normalizing racism. It's an easy game that leads us nowhere.

There's a difference between being thrown in jail and losing your platform.

Every decent lawyer in America would tell you that.

PATRIOTSFANINPA said:

Stern is by far Sirius radio's number one ranked broadcast and he has never been in fire in the media like Imus has been,Howard is just as big as piece of scum as Imus or all these controversial radio personalities,Thats why I only listen to CDs or iPod music and leave all crap on the radio off..

Click to expand...

That's the difference between satellite and broadcast. The public owns the broadcast airwaves, SIRIUS runs through private satellites. Prior to going on Sirius, he had been kicked off quite a few public stations and been run off by the FCC. He lost bigtime. Though in the end he made $$$.

I think, Deus, that you're saying things while missing their historic context. Like upstater1 said, the danger of limiting free speech comes from government limiting free speech. Private individuals, including businesses should, can, and do control what they are associated with. In my house? No free speech, you follow my rules. I'm sponsoring your show? No free speech, you follow my rules. Otherwise I stop sponsoring you. You still have your "free speech", but you're no longer entitled to my money.

As long as no one's throwing you in jail you have your free speech.

upstater1 said:

You're confused again. THEY in the poem is the jackboot thugs of the state. Not advertisers that don't want to be associated with you because you're a racist.

HUGE difference.

Click to expand...

I'm not confused at all. You jumped in on my post and clearly didn't have a clue as to what I was saying. Ever since then, you've been posting falsehoods and ignorant statements. This above statement is a perfect example. When the right is lost, it doesn't matter who takes it. It's still lost. The poem still applies.

upstater1 said:

I'll make this point again: you are extending the definition of free speech so broadly that one could easily turn your words around on you and argue that Imus's racism is suppressing the free speech of others by normalizing racism. It's an easy game that leads us nowhere.

Click to expand...

You can make this ridiculous statement 24/7/365. It will be wrong every time you make it. Again, Pujo was wrongly insisting that I was limiting speech.

upstater1 said:

There's a difference between being thrown in jail and losing your platform.

Every decent lawyer in America would tell you that.

Click to expand...

Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't. Every decent historian in the world could tell you that.

Pujo said:

I think, Deus, that you're saying things while missing their historic context. Like upstater1 said, the danger of limiting free speech comes from government limiting free speech. Private individuals, including businesses should, can, and do control what they are associated with. In my house? No free speech, you follow my rules. I'm sponsoring your show? No free speech, you follow my rules. Otherwise I stop sponsoring you. You still have your "free speech", but you're no longer entitled to my money.

As long as no one's throwing you in jail you have your free speech.

Click to expand...

And you continue to get it wrong. One person choosing to end sponsorship of his own will is not the same as a group of people pressuring a company to end sponsorship under threat of financial repercussions.

And, if you think that the danger of limiting free speech only comes from government, you really need to get out more.

Deus Irae said:

And you continue to get it wrong.

Click to expand...

We'll just have to agree to disagree. In the meantime, I won't lose any sleep about the free speech I'd be "limiting" through my theoretical boycotts.

Pujo said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree. In the meantime, I won't lose any sleep about the free speech I'd be "limiting" through my theoretical boycotts.

Click to expand...

Given your political bent, I wouldn't expect you to.

Boycotts are a function of consumer advocacy. If CBS puts out a product (Imus) that hurts the company and its reputation more than it helps, it's not only okay for them to fire him, it's what they should do. As a consumer, I have every right to voice my disgust with the shoddy product CBS is putting out and calling on CBS to cease production. If there are merits to my argument, then others will follow, if not then Imus will stay. Freedom of Speech doesn't grant radio hosts an irrevocable national platform for their views.

Deus Irae said:

I'm not confused at all. You jumped in on my post and clearly didn't have a clue as to what I was saying. Ever since then, you've been posting falsehoods and ignorant statements. This above statement is a perfect example. When the right is lost, it doesn't matter who takes it. It's still lost. The poem still applies.

The right isn't lost at all. Imus could go onto the street and shout "BLACKS ARE CRIMINALS." And he wouldn't be arrested. Come to think of it, he probably wouldn't say such a thing in public, because he'd fear some other kinds of suppressions.

Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't. Every decent historian in the world could tell you that.

Click to expand...

Name the historical incidents in which sponsors dropping a show resulted in jail time for the show host.

The point about racial taunts being a suppression a free speech is a regular argument that's often used and not at all a ridiculous analogy. It's a commonplace argument when people stretch the definition of free speech.

Never mind the fact that you're arguing something that Imus has already -- by his actions -- admitted has no place in broadcasting. Why is he running away from it if it was a proper thing to say?

upstater1 said:

Name the historical incidents in which sponsors dropping a show resulted in jail time for the show host.

The point about racial taunts being a suppression a free speech is a regular argument that's often used and not at all a ridiculous analogy. It's a commonplace argument when people stretch the definition of free speech.

Click to expand...

No, your attempt to equate what I was saying with a stretching of the definition of free speech was ludicrous. As I stated, you can make the same foolish comment 24/7/365 and it won't ever make the comment correct. Pujo, who was also assailing my point of view on the topic of free speech, was in fact, claiming that I was limiting free speech.

upstater1 said:

Never mind the fact that you're arguing something that Imus has already -- by his actions -- admitted has no place in broadcasting. Why is he running away from it if it was a proper thing to say?

Click to expand...

Because he doesn't want to lose his job as a result of a bunch of idiots with proverbial pitchforks. Not surprisingly, the howling of the idiot mob results in a restricting of speech, self-imposed or otherwise.

Hey, that's pretty much been my point, hasn't it?

Deus Irae said:

Because he doesn't want to lose his job as a result of a bunch of idiots with proverbial pitchforks. Not surprisingly, the howling of the idiot mob results in a restricting of speech, self-imposed or otherwise.

Hey, that's pretty much been my point, hasn't it?

Click to expand...

Hey, if I stopped showering and started wearing tinfoil clothes to work, it'd cost me my job too. If I got on the radio and badmouthed my company, it would cost me my job.

That type of "free speech suppression" is a good thing. Suppress away!

The intent here as well as in the Rutgers case was clearly to make a joke. That's really where the discussion should end IMO. If your intention isn't hate then there's no reason for such an uproar. Otherwise we had better shutdown 90% of the comedians out there. Disagree all you want with his choice of words, but to go demanding the guy lose his job over a FREAKIN JOKE? That's ridiculous & you set a precedent going forward so watch your back!

It's nice to see consumers reject this kind of speech.

Deus Irae said:

No, your attempt to equate what I was saying with a stretching of the definition of free speech was ludicrous. As I stated, you can make the same foolish comment 24/7/365 and it won't ever make the comment correct. Pujo, who was also assailing my point of view on the topic of free speech, was in fact, claiming that I was limiting free speech.



Because he doesn't want to lose his job as a result of a bunch of idiots with proverbial pitchforks. Not surprisingly, the howling of the idiot mob results in a restricting of speech, self-imposed or otherwise.

Hey, that's pretty much been my point, hasn't it?

Click to expand...

No, the point is, he realized he said something racist and he ran away from it. If he hadn't , then he'd be known as an unapologetic racist.

You're apparently miffed that racist views aren't aired openly on public radio.

bakes781 said:

The intent here as well as in the Rutgers case was clearly to make a joke. That's really where the discussion should end IMO. If your intention isn't hate then there's no reason for such an uproar. Otherwise we had better shutdown 90% of the comedians out there. Disagree all you want with his choice of words, but to go demanding the guy lose his job over a FREAKIN JOKE? That's ridiculous & you set a precedent going forward so watch your back!

Click to expand...

Racist jokes.

Pujo said:

Hey, if I stopped showering and started wearing tinfoil clothes to work, it'd cost me my job too. If I got on the radio and badmouthed my company, it would cost me my job.

That type of "free speech suppression" is a good thing. Suppress away!

Click to expand...

There's a difference between someone getting fired because the owner/boss thinks he should be fired and someone getting fired because a bunch of idiots pressures the company. You keep trying to gloss over it.

upstater1 said:

...

This is old ground. We've been here already. NBC backed Imus last time until all the sponsors started bailing. You have something against free speech?

Click to expand...

Nice jujitsu. You want to silence some body and I'm against Free Speech. OK

So who decides what they can air? I thought it was ABC's choice, but I'm wrong. They can't put what they feel is in their best interest on.

What's more I'm obviously not capable of listening and deciding on my own. Please, upstarter, protect us from ourselves.

"So tell me are you the great decider of what people can listen too or do you think someone else should decide for our own good?"
(Since you edited that out of my quote, I say it again.)

Deus Irae said:

- Voltaire

Freedom of speech isn't about the right to say something that's acceptable to others. It's about the right to say something that's NOT acceptable to others.

When you use your freedom of speech to attempt to suppress the freedom of speech of others, you are simply laying the groundwork for any and all speech, including your own, to be limited by the same means.

Click to expand...

Bingo! We have a Bingo!

blacks are allowed to spew racist crap in music, and scream about the race card anytime they dont like something and it is all ok. but a white person makes a comment that can be taken as he is implying a racial sterotype and people want his head. if a black person, like chris rock, makes a racial steryotpye joke it is praised. in a perfect world people would stop being racist, sexist, ect, but we will never have that....so make it fair for all races and genders....let them all say what they want and let the audience decide. imus makes insulting comments about white people just as much, including many white people in the government.