OT: Imus vs. TAFKAPacman

[Pujo]

Wow, how is this thread still here?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Let's be specific. We're talking radio here. Not about the constitution. No one takes away anyone's rights to say anything racist. You can say racist things to your hearts desire.

This isn't a free speech issue. It's about radio. HUGE HUGE DIFFERENCE.

If someone says something you don't like, you have every right to react to it. That's free speech too.

No, there's no difference. Those who would act in the manner you hope for are just book burners taking another avenue. You pointed to Lenny Bruce but, sadly, you didn't learn the lesson that Lenny Bruce (and George Carlin later) should have taught you.

There's a big difference between freedom of speech and freedom of having a radio program. The latter isn't a product of the Constitution. It's the product of sponsors who have the right to decide whether they want to support Imus.

I would disagree with those who say that anything that offends anyone is by definition offensive and should be prohibited - but when it comes to paid sponsors and commercial radio, they've got every right to decide who gets on the airwaves.

I think Imus, should he so choose, could have his own cable access show - so long as he doesn't violate FCC rules - but beyond that the Constitution's not going to do much for him in this case.

But let's stop being silly - there's no Constitutional Right to have a radio program.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Jones told the Dallas Morning News he was offended by Imus' most recent remarks when a reporter brought them to his attention Monday night.

"I'm truly upset about the comments," Jones said. "Obviously, Mr. Imus has problems with African-Americans. I'm upset, and I hope the station he works for handles it accordingly. I will pray for him."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/24/Imus_explains_controversial_remark/UPI-73921214343394/

You know things are bad when the convict formerlly known as Pacman is praying for YOU!

 

[blackglass3]

Wow, how is this thread still here?

I would just delete it if I could. I never intended it to get like this.

 

[Deus Irae]

There's a big difference between freedom of speech and freedom of having a radio program. The latter isn't a product of the Constitution. It's the product of sponsors who have the right to decide whether they want to support Imus.

I would disagree with those who say that anything that offends anyone is by definition offensive and should be prohibited - but when it comes to paid sponsors and commercial radio, they've got every right to decide who gets on the airwaves.

I think Imus, should he so choose, could have his own cable access show - so long as he doesn't violate FCC rules - but beyond that the Constitution's not going to do much for him in this case.

But let's stop being silly - there's no Constitutional Right to have a radio program.

The right to say whatever you want on the radio IS a Constitutional right, albeit yet another of our rights that have been significantly abridged with no legitimate justification. You're confusing the right of access with the right of speech, as well as confusing the interference of the government with the interference of private individuals.

Furthermore, you missed the entire point of what I've written, which had to do with a call for a boycott, not some expressed hope that the sponsors would make a decision on their own.

 

[Pujo]

Furthermore, you missed the entire point of what I've written, which had to do with a call for a boycott, not some expressed hope that the sponsors would make a decision on their own.

So if a sponsor taking action of their own volition is OK (whatever 'OK' means under the circumstances: legal, moral, whatever), then how is it not OK for others to encourage them? Any move a sponsor makes is going to be based on what they think will appease their customers, why should the customers not tell them what they want? There is simply no precedent for what you're saying: that people are right when they do something, but wrong when they communicate about it. You're entitled to feel strongly about it, but you're living in la-la land, neither our laws nor our western morals are based on that line of thought.

 

[Deus Irae]

So if a sponsor taking action of their own volition is OK (whatever 'OK' means under the circumstances: legal, moral, whatever), then how is it not OK for others to encourage them? Any move a sponsor makes is going to be based on what they think will appease their customers, why should the customers not tell them what they want? There is simply no precedent for what you're saying: that people are right when they do something, but wrong when they communicate about it. You're entitled to feel strongly about it, but you're living in la-la land, neither our laws nor our western morals are based on that line of thought.

Sponsors have made decisions to fire people without public clamor for about as long as there have been sponsors, and our laws AND western morals are based precisely upon my line of thought. Where you are getting the notion that they aren't I can only imagine, since speech and property rights are among the pillars of our nations laws and morals.

 

[unoriginal]

Sponsors have made decisions to fire people without public clamor for about as long as there have been sponsors, and our laws AND western morals are based precisely upon my line of thought. Where you are getting the notion that they aren't I can only imagine, since speech and property rights are among the pillars of our nations laws and morals.

The Federalists and the more "popular" Enlightenment philosophers would disagree with you. Voltaire is considered something of an outrider in that he did not like the idea of democracy, or mass "idiotic" rule, and instead was more a Platonian. He thought the best government was an enlightened autocrat supported by knowledgeable philosophers like himself, and he spent a lot of his life courting influential aristocracy who he could teach his philosophies to. In so far as you are continuing his line of thinking you are right, mass action like boycotts threatens the ability of the few to decide the issue on words alone. But I don't like Voltaire's positive philosophies very much, nor Plato's. I think it obscures the execution of philosophy, like what you are criticizing when you call boycotts "mob rule."

Madison's quip to this line of thinking was that if men were angels, government would not be necessary, and if government were staffed by angels, popular control would not be necessary. That's either from the Fed 51 or 76, I forget which.

I also note that the quote "I may not agree with what you say, but..." is not Voltaire, but was coined by an biographer to simulate what Voltaire might have said. It's still an accurate summation of his attitude, I think, so I'm not criticizing it.

EDIT: I wasn't too clear. Voltaire WOULD see boycotts as rabble rousing. The people who created this government, who did a lot of organizing and rabble rousing themselves, would see an appropriate check.

 

[Pujo]

Sponsors have made decisions to fire people without public clamor for about as long as there have been sponsors, and our laws AND western morals are based precisely upon my line of thought. Where you are getting the notion that they aren't I can only imagine, since speech and property rights are among the pillars of our nations laws and morals.

Yes, speech and property rights are among the pillars of our nation's laws, and nowhere in our forefathers' writings nor in common law would you find anything remotely against the preogative of a person or group of people ("mob" if you will) to peacefully communicate & petition.

 

[Wildo7]

This is getting deep

 

[Patjew]

This is so OT it's almost back on T. Actually it's not, it's really OOT.

OTOH, not all OT is B.

 

[otis p. driftwood]

Reading the last couple of pages, I'm shocked this hasn't been closed or moved to the PoFo.

 

[blackglass3]

IMHO, PJ, U R 2

 

[Patjew]

IMHO, PJ, U R 2

2 4 SKULE.

 

[Pujo]

Who says a jazz band can't play dance music?
Who says a rock band can't play funky?
Who says a funk band can't play rock & roll? Yeah!
Watch them dance, watch them dance!

 

[Deus Irae]

The Federalists and the more "popular" Enlightenment philosophers would disagree with you. Voltaire is considered something of an outrider in that he did not like the idea of democracy, or mass "idiotic" rule, and instead was more a Platonian. He thought the best government was an enlightened autocrat supported by knowledgeable philosophers like himself, and he spent a lot of his life courting influential aristocracy who he could teach his philosophies to. In so far as you are continuing his line of thinking you are right, mass action like boycotts threatens the ability of the few to decide the issue on words alone. But I don't like Voltaire's positive philosophies very much, nor Plato's. I think it obscures the execution of philosophy, like what you are criticizing when you call boycotts "mob rule."

Madison's quip to this line of thinking was that if men were angels, government would not be necessary, and if government were staffed by angels, popular control would not be necessary. That's either from the Fed 51 or 76, I forget which.

I also note that the quote "I may not agree with what you say, but..." is not Voltaire, but was coined by an biographer to simulate what Voltaire might have said. It's still an accurate summation of his attitude, I think, so I'm not criticizing it.

EDIT: I wasn't too clear. Voltaire WOULD see boycotts as rabble rousing. The people who created this government, who did a lot of organizing and rabble rousing themselves, would see an appropriate check.

I don't cotton to Voltaire, or most of the other French Philosophes, for that matter. However, the quote, which is generally attributed to Voltaire whether he actually said it or not (see "play it again, Sam" for reference) is one thing that 'he' got right.

I'd assert to you that Madison's/The U.S.'s phrasing of the free speech clause would run along lines similar to the quote, and the reactions of Madison and Jefferson (as well as the voter reaction) to the Alien and Sedition acts seemingly reinforce my opinion.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, speech and property rights are among the pillars of our nation's laws, and nowhere in our forefathers' writings nor in common law would you find anything remotely against the preogative of a person or group of people ("mob" if you will) to peacefully communicate & petition.

You can't possibly be this clueless because I've stated that it's a matter or wielding one's right as a bludgeon against another's, so I'll simply assume that you either aren't bothering to read the posts or are simply being a contrarian. Either way, further discussion with you is useless. Have a nice evening.

 

[JoeSixPat]

The right to say whatever you want on the radio IS a Constitutional right, albeit yet another of our rights that have been significantly abridged with no legitimate justification. You're confusing the right of access with the right of speech, as well as confusing the interference of the government with the interference of private individuals.

Furthermore, you missed the entire point of what I've written, which had to do with a call for a boycott, not some expressed hope that the sponsors would make a decision on their own.

Strangely, the founding fathers never once mentioned commercial radio in crafting the Constitution.

Imus or anyone might have a "right" to say what the want, in public or once they are on the radio (within decency guidelines) but there's no constitutional right that I or anyone else has to a syndicated radio show. I believe under FCC rules radio and TV stations give anyone an opportunity to a small portion of airtime to offer an editorial view - but that's a lot different from a Constitutional right to have sponsors maintain their support of the Imus show - or the Deus Irae Show for that matter.

The context of your comment about boycotters was somewhat unclear to me - though I infer you caution against one group flexing their collective consumer muscle to silence someone else.

I'd say they most certainly DO have a constitutional right to excercise their consumer muscle however they see fit - though I'd also agree its awful short sighted and shallow at best to resort to that sort of "blackmail" for lack of a better word.

Your point about there being an inherent "danger" to that is well taken - though ironically its a case in point of the need to protect the rights of the minority in a system that is generally a rule by the majority.

In this case it may be a vocal minority that is asserting itself to silence Imus - yet they have that right to use their consumer power as they see fit and to call on others to do the same.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Strangely, the founding fathers never once mentioned commercial radio in crafting the Constitution.

Yo, shows what fools those white European males be!

 

[Wildo7]

Public airwaves are rented to corporations who are expected to give back to the public in the form of a service. The corporations do not own the airwaves, the public does. If the airwaves are being used against the public's interest then the public has the right not only as consumers but as citizens to revoke the privilege. As Madison would most likely say, the use of taxpayer-owned airwaves to suppress a discreet and insular minority would constitute tyranny of the majority. That's why it's not only ok to speak out against Imus' use of public airwaves for hate speech, it's morally and constitutionally supported. Terrestrial radio has a finite frequency spectrum that the public owns and doles out as it sees fit. And boycotting is a democratic function of the free market.