OT: Imus vs. TAFKAPacman

[Wildo7]

NO LAW....





Actually, I've got a pretty good idea. I've read his correspondence. I've read the Federalist Papers. I've studied his presidency. Madison was a terrible choice on your part. You conflated arguments that didn't go well together. It's another example of building arguments upon assumptions. Madison was a "States' rights" president and a firm believer in individual rights.

That's great, none of that applies to public ownership of the airwaves. And I didn't conflate Madison's "tyranny of the majority" with whether the public should own the airwaves, you did.

This is just patently false, as has been proven time and again. We drive cars instead of riding horses because the public exercised its 'democratic power in the market place'. Betamax died and VHS became the videotape standard, and Blu Ray will now be the DVD standard because the public exercised its 'democratic power in the market place'. Boycotts were not necessary.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Boycotts are a vital public defense against corporate abuse in the market place. What that has to do with technological advancement is beyond me. People can chose not to buy a product because the vendor is a racist just the same as they can choose not to buy a product because a better one is available, that's a right the consumer reserves.

 

[Patjew]

This has been a fascinating debate. I've learned that:

Imus is a racist.
Imus is not a racist.
Boycotts are acceptable.
Boycotts are not acceptable.
Debating on message boards is productive.
We have legal access to anything transmitted over airwaves.
We do not have legal access to anything transmitted over airwaves.
Debating on message boards with certain persons is productive because they are only interested in "winning" the debate.
Someone has paid a mod to not move this thread even though it is screaming for it.
Madison was a President that advocated riding Betamax horses rather than VHS cars.
He also was a Felatist who enjoyed steaks, but only if you made those "Steaks Rights".

I may have one or two of those mixed up.

 

[PatsFan24]

the special interest groups hear things they dont like, or see them, and then feel the need to contact the advertisers of the show and threaten a boycott. most people do not listen to or watch shows they do not care for, but the special interest groups take it a step further, they want to ban anything they dont like. they love to hide behind children as the reason, but they do not want ANYONE to here or see anything that goes against what the think is acceptable. They want to decide for you what you can and can't watch, what you can and can't see, and what you can and can't have access to. Some of them are so insane and go to real streaches to base an argument that has never been proven. Like last summer up here we had a radio station whos billboard was seen as offensive to some womens groups because it was a sexy young woman in a swimsuit showing off her butt. The paper printed a letter written by some woman (who lived well out of town btw) who said she did not want her kids to see that and get the idea that women are sex objects. Then the special interest groups picked up on it and sent out letters to the stations sponsers about how they think the billboard is offensive, sexist, and encourages men to disrespect, abuse, and rape women, and that they would boycott their company if they did not pull the ads immediatly. You can also see the same thing at a swimming pool or a beach, or in a magazine at the supermarket. Of course nothing has ever proven that a billboard has caused a man to even disrepsect a woman, much less abuse or sexually assult her. However that is the insane logic and argument they used to protest something they did not like. It was talked about on the news for weeks and weeks. Mostly fat, ugly, angry, mini van driving, housewives who have gone past their prime and do not want men looking at younger, sexier women. That is just speculation on my part though

btw the billboards stayed up and the station put out another one simmular to that in the fall.

 

[Patjew]

Like last summer up here we had a radio station whos billboard was seen as offensive to some womens groups because it was a sexy young woman in a swimsuit showing off her butt.

Link (to pic) please.

 

[unoriginal]

I'm going to jump back in here since I'm the one that brought up Madison.

I was not attempting to bring up federal policies or strict constitutionalism, I see that as besides the point, this is about Imus, his listeners and sponsors. The issue is whether it is unfair for consumers to band together and use their purchasing power against some producer, in this case Imus.

I brought up the Founding Fathers, Madison in particular, in opposition to Voltaire because they were organizers and as such recognized popular control. They supported blockade runners, organized demonstrations, militias, armies, conventions, shadow governments, and governments; unlike Voltaire they did not just publish pamphlets in the hope this would inspire reform in government by the actors already in charge, they were the actors in addition to their own advisers.

When Madison (and Jefferson) felt the synthetic politics of the Washington administration had gone too far afield from the Constitution, they didn't move to another country and publish another book as Voltaire would have done, but organized an opposition political party and gained power through campaigning, organizing a political base in their home states.

All of this I admit is beside the point if you see withdrawal of purchasing as the negative act, and purchasing (listening to a show and its sponsors, in this case) as a neutral act. But I think purchasing is an active state, while not purchasing is neutral. Combined with the above I think it is alright for citizens to conspire together to not patronize a certain show, until their demands are met.

To Deus specifically:

1) I don't understand how you are reading the 1st Amendment. Either you can take it to mean government specifically, in which case it does not apply to Imus v. Listeners. Or you can take it on general principle, which means "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is a positive endorsement of listeners' rights to organize in opposition to something they had previously consented to, in this case Don Imus' radio show.

2) I think the Virginia Resolution's primary function was an argument against enlargement of power. But I don't see either organization or withdrawal of discretionary purchasing as any power grab by citizens, those are fundamental rights.

 

[PatsFan24]

Link (to pic) please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KRWKbillboard.jpg

 

[Patjew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KRWKbillboard.jpg

Thanks. Who knew that Madison had such a hot pooper?

 

[upstater1]

Well, better minds than mine have taken over the discussion. I completely agree with THEM. Not to mention that Imus's position implies that statements--if understood in a context different than the one he's presenting--would be racist, and presumably statements that his station would want to completely diasvow.

You heard that from the horse's mouth.

Of course, this very same horse then said Pacman Jones never did anything that would warrant arrest.

 

[upstater1]

=================================

Kinda of off topic but,,,,

Wildo as you see it, is everything that is floating around in the air belong to you and I?

I think it is ours for free. And that is why I should be able to make my own satellite box, set up a dish, and get the Sunday Ticket for free.

Agree or disagree?

How can you make your own satellite box without the encryption codes to the satellites? Coming by those encryption codes is stealing.

 

[upstater1]

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.

There's a black person on radio somewhere making racist claims against whites?

NEWSFLASH to you: there are music styles in this country that are definitely racist against blacks and misogynistic but nobody complains because they are allowed to have those viewpoints because of free speech. There are no sponsors for that kind of stuff.

I can name a dozen albums off the top of my head sung by whites with racist lines (against blacks).

If someone pays to go see Chris Rock, that's on them. If they like it, maybe they'll pay again. If they don't then don't buy another ticket. Rock isn't sponsored and using the public airwaves.

For precisely this reason the ACLU defends the KKK.

And, kids listen to rap no matter that they might not necessarily agree with the lyrics.

Just like I like the song Sweet Home Alabama even though it definitely has racist lyrics in it.

For the last several months, we've already been through the Jeremiah Wright controversy where a priest in a church was booted for his racist views and it made a national scandal. So, was your white male anger not assuaged by that?

 

[bakes781]

There's a black person on radio somewhere making racist claims against whites?

NEWSFLASH to you: there are music styles in this country that are definitely racist against blacks and misogynistic but nobody complains because they are allowed to have those viewpoints because of free speech. There are no sponsors for that kind of stuff.

I can name a dozen albums off the top of my head sung by whites with racist lines (against blacks).

If someone pays to go see Chris Rock, that's on them. If they like it, maybe they'll pay again. If they don't then don't buy another ticket. Rock isn't sponsored and using the public airwaves.

For precisely this reason the ACLU defends the KKK.

And, kids listen to rap no matter that they might not necessarily agree with the lyrics.

Just like I like the song Sweet Home Alabama even though it definitely has racist lyrics in it.

For the last several months, we've already been through the Jeremiah Wright controversy where a priest in a church was booted for his racist views and it made a national scandal. So, was your white male anger not assuaged by that?

Chris Rock/Dave Chappelle shows are aired on HBO & Comedy Central all the time. So how is that any different? Have you never heard of Carlos Mencia? Do you think Don Imus is going to be asked to host the Oscars any time soon? There's a very clear double standard & if you can't see that then you're blind.

Wright was only condemmed when it was clear that he was hurting the chances of a black man running for the highest office in the world. This isn't about white angst at least not for me. I like the Chris Rocks & the Dave Chappelles. I just think we should lighten up. Ever since Janet's boobs were exposed this country has reverted back to the days of the 1950s.

 

[upstater1]

Chris Rock/Dave Chappelle shows are aired on HBO & Comedy Central all the time. So how is that any different? Have you never heard of Carlos Mencia? Do you think Don Imus is going to be asked to host the Oscars any time soon? There's a very clear double standard & if you can't see that then you're blind.

Wright was only condemmed when it was clear that he was hurting the chances of a black man running for the highest office in the world. This isn't about white angst at least not for me. I like the Chris Rocks & the Dave Chappelles. I just think we should lighten up. Ever since Janet's boobs were exposed this country has reverted back to the days of the 1950s.

Sigh.

I really have to explain the difference to you between public television and pay-for-cable?

Do I really have to do that?

heck, HBO has gay sex on at 12 pm. Do you not realize that?

Sheesh.

Again, none of these acts you're referring to are sponsored. Imus is. No one tries to shut Rock up because people are paying to see his show.

 

[bakes781]

Sigh.

I really have to explain the difference to you between public television and pay-for-cable?

Do I really have to do that?

heck, HBO has gay sex on at 12 pm. Do you not realize that?

Sheesh.

Again, none of these acts you're referring to are sponsored. Imus is. No one tries to shut Rock up because people are paying to see his show.

Comedy Central has aired Chapelle's stand up unedited. I know because I have it on DVR. There really is no difference between network channels & cable especially with the conversion to HD next year. Obviously someone's paying to hear Imus otherwise he wouldn't be back on the air.

 

[upstater1]

Comedy Central has aired Chapelle's stand up unedited. I know because I have it on DVR. There really is no difference between network channels & cable especially with the conversion to HD next year. Obviously someone's paying to hear Imus otherwise he wouldn't be back on the air.

I've done my best already to explain it to you.

Networks and radio stations are over-the-air on the public airwaves.

Cable and pay-for-TV channels such as HBO are not.

The conversion to HD is irrelevant since HD also is over the air on public airwaves.

I don't even understand your last point about Imus. No one pays to hear his show. You can get it for free. Why would you pay?

 

[bakes781]

Right continue to talk down to me like you're some genius if it makes you feel better that's fine. EVERYone pretty much has cable tv otherwise they will have to by 2009 if they want their old tubes to work so there is no difference. I also referenced COMEDY CENTRAL(channel 61) which is part of BASIC cable. They air comics like Carlos Mencia on a daily basis.

Imus doesn't make public appearances? You're arguing semantics. Are you denying that the double standard exists? Would like to have your livelyhood in jeopardy for making an offcolor remark?

 

[JoeSixPat]

No, they didn't. They did, however, craft that pesky first amendment which theoretically protected ALL speech from Congressional interference. When you try pulling the "radio" card, you're just trying to hide the issue.

Good. We're in agreement then

The sponsors have a Constitutional Right to pull the plug on Imus' show, and that consumers have a constitutional right to boycott those sponsors.

And we're in agreement that the 1st Amendment allows Imus to say what he wants - but having the opportunity to say what he wants on commercial radio isn't a matter of the constitution - its a matter of the sponsors who are paying for it.

If there's a Supreme Court case that says we all have a right to force sponsors to give us a radio show and keep us on the air no matter what we say I'd love to know about it!

 

[bakes781]

The BIG picture here is that the world has changed over the past decade & not for the better IMO. We've reverted back to the days prior to the 1960s. You can see/hear it every where. You used to be able to say the word ass now you can't even mouth the word without being censored. It's ridiculous. The only reason we cave to this vocal minority is because they have $? How sad is that?

 

[upstater1]

Right continue to talk down to me like you're some genius if it makes you feel better that's fine. EVERYone pretty much has cable tv otherwise they will have to by 2009 if they want their old tubes to work so there is no difference. I also referenced COMEDY CENTRAL(channel 61) which is part of BASIC cable. They air comics like Carlos Mencia on a daily basis.

Imus doesn't make public appearances? You're arguing semantics. Are you denying that the double standard exists? Would like to have your livelyhood in jeopardy for making an offcolor remark?

Unreal.

No one is talking down to you, unless using logic is somehow considered talking down.

And your figures on cable usage are way off. Only 70% of the country has cable/satellite. The point is, the public owns the airwaves. They are free airwaves. I get my HD picture over the air, by the way. We're talking about radio anyway. Everyone knows there's a difference between Sirius and regular terrestrial radio. Howard Stern LOST against the FCC, so he went to satellite where the FCC can't touch him. So the difference between the two is obvious.

Regardless, this isn't even about the gov't. It's about private enterprise and free speech. If Imus didn't have sponsors then you couldn't do anything about this. But he does. Unlike Chris Rock or HBO or whoever. They get to say what they want as long as someone will have them. Heck, Imus can say what he wants as long as WABC either doesn't mind or else doesn't mind losing sponsors. Until the FCC steps in, WABC can do whatever it wants.

"Imus doesn't make public appearances?"

Huh? I have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Really. I never said anything like that. I said that the audience doesn't pay to see Imus. We pay to see HBO and we pay to see Chris Rock, but we get Imus for free.

Lastly, I would indeed suffer harsh consequences in my business if I made a racial statement like Imus. Very harsh. I would probably be fired.

Oh yeah, show me a black radio personality spewing racism on a public airwave commercial station, if you think there's a double standard. Heck, John McCain has a racist preacher himself who is getting absolutely no play for his hatred of Jews and Catholics, but Obama's Wright is blasted for his racism against whites.

 

[Pujo]

There really is no difference between network channels & cable especially with the conversion to HD next year..

There's a lot wrong with that statement. First, the FCC has statutory authority to regulate the airwaves. They do not have that authority with cable, and with subscription services like satellite TV.

Second, the "move to HD" (which isn't a move to HD at all, but a move to digital), won't change that at all. There will still be on-air TV, but people will need to have a decoder box (similar to a cable box now) to convert the signal from digital to analog. The FCC will continue to regulate the (now digital) over-the-air broadcasts, but still will not gain authority over cable & subscription services.

 

[bakes781]

There's a lot wrong with that statement. First, the FCC has statutory authority to regulate the airwaves. They do not have that authority with cable, and with subscription services like satellite TV.

Second, the "move to HD" (which isn't a move to HD at all, but a move to digital), won't change that at all. There will still be on-air TV, but people will need to have a decoder box (similar to a cable box now) to convert the signal from digital to analog. The FCC will continue to regulate the (now digital) over-the-air broadcasts, but still will not gain authority over cable & subscription services.

So you're gonna tell me that there are people out there willing to buy HD screens but not pay for cable? Does that make ANY sense?

They can regulate all they want. They're only going to lose business. Then where will the sponsors go?

I'm pretty sure I recall Michael Irvin spewing a plenty.