In Defence of Imus and Disgust for Sharpton

[Miller]

That should be perfectly legal, yes. I think the public WOULD vote with their wallets and not listen. I think they already do.

The Michael Richards thing gave me a lot of faith in people (other than Richards). They saw true vitriol, and didn't need to be told what to do. The club owners saw hate and said, even if he puts butts in the seats, it ain't worth it. They actually probably went against their wallets.

And how is this different from what happened with Don Imus again?

[Fiveyearlurker]

First of all, if you were harmed by that restaurant and weren't spreading falsehoods about your experiences (which is key), then you aren't being a jerk by warning people to stay away. If the experiences were that bad, then you would be a conscientious consumer to warn others. Haven't you ever told someone, "Hey, I wouldn't buy X if I were you"? Why is that so bad and undemocratic?



I've made my opinions on this clear. And, I understand why people don't agree with me. Hell, these are actually opinions that I've reversed in the past few years; I'd have been on the other side.

I'm not on that side because this is how I see this playing out. In the next few weeks, no more than a few months, there will be some sort of national outcry about hip hop stations. It's already happening, but there's still bits of Imus meat floating in the water. But, the talk of double standards and hate speech from rappers will get louder.

The outcry is going to swell up from two sides, too. From people pissed about the Imus thing and having some weird belief in retribution, and people who genuinely feel that there is too much hate speech of all kinds on the radio/television and this is an effective technique, but were emboldened by Imus. There will be one popular song that has a good line that they can particularly sink their teeth into.

This will happen even faster if Sharpton goes after another target, but I think he won't. If he does (as he has promised) the retribution group will get emboldened.

These stations rely on advertisers too. You will see groups of white guys threatening boycotts of advertisers on hip hop stations. Hell, they're probably the same advertisers as were in question here. It's going to work.

I'm going to feel that it's a cowardly move then too.

[monstro]

I've made my opinions on this clear. And, I understand why people don't agree with me. Hell, these are actually opinions that I've reversed in the past few years; I'd have been on the other side.

But your opinions aren't consistent. I think they would be more convincing if they were.

[Kimstu]

I'm going to feel that it's a cowardly move then too.

Ridiculous. If I threatened the CEO of an Imus sponsor (or a hip-hop station sponsor) with physical violence unless he withdrew his sponsorship, that would be cowardly. If I spread slanderous lies about such sponsors in order to sabotage their business, that would be cowardly.

But there is nothing in the least cowardly about saying straight out to a corporate sponsor: "I don't like [Show X], and if you continue to support [Show X], I will not reward you by buying your products or services."

Nobody so far has come up with even a halfway-decent argument explaining why we should consider such a position ethically wrong in any way.

Like I said: if I don't like a particular product, why should I voluntarily give my money to companies that support it? How can it possibly be unethical for free-market consumers simply to decline to patronize companies that are doing things they don't approve of?

[Fiveyearlurker]

But your opinions aren't consistent. I think they would be more convincing if they were.

So, you can't see this heading in the other direction ever?

Will your opinions be consistent when it's white guys getting car companies to pull their ads from any magazine/radio station/television station that supports some singer who used "nigga" or "ho" in a song?

Mine will be. That is not a legitimate way to get your point across.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Like I said: if I don't like a particular product, why should I voluntarily give my money to companies that support it? How can it possibly be unethical for free-market consumers simply to decline to patronize companies that are doing things they don't approve of?

Because the threat is divorced from the product. The threat wasn't saying, "I won't listen to Imus." The threat was, hey GM, who pays for advertising, we're going to boycott YOUR product so that no one can hear this guy say things that I don't like.

If you don't like GM's product, by all means, don't buy it. If you don't like MSNBC's product, don't watch it. But, if you don't like MSNBC's product and you use GM's product in order to get MSNBC's product silenced, then your boycott was dishonest. You didn't rally enough people to stop watching MSNBC's show, you rallied enough people to spook their sponsors. It's a much lower bar; GM would like to advertise on MSNBC, but it certainly isn't worth all this trouble. The boycott was divorced from the product.

[crowmanyclouds]

You're right, an actual incitement to violence would be illegal, I should have said, "He can go on the air and say, 'Fuck the niggers and kikes,'" and that should be perfectly legal. If the public doesn't like it, they can vote with their wallets. They should absolutely not, under any circumstances, try to get the government to squash speech they don't like. There is no way one can support that action and claim they support the first ammendment.
Well guess what, if he does that over the publicly owned, federally licensed, government regulated broadcast airwaves,II. STATUTORY BASIS/JUDICIAL HISTORY (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01090.html)

It is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene or indecent programming. Specifically, Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464 (18 U.S.C. § 1464), prohibits the utterance of ``any
obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication."1 Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission the responsibility for administratively enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 1464. In doing so, the Commission may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning for the broadcast of indecent material.2 See 47 U.S.C. Sections 312(a)(6) and 503(b)(1)(D). ...Bold=CMCthey can't fire him, but if what he does is bad enough the radio station disappears, and it's been that way for quite a while,The Federal Communications Commission (FCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission)) is an independent United States government agency, created, directed, and empowered by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154).

The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-Federal Government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States. It is an important factor in US telecommunication policy. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. ...of course while the FCC is more concerned about bare breasts than racist/sexist epithets the Congress can change that anytime they want to.

CMC fnord!

[Caridwen]

The players accepted his apology and they are receiving hate mail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/business/media/13cnd-imus.html?em&ex=1176609600&en=540034e67352216f&ei=5087%0A

[Kimstu]

Because the threat is divorced from the product.

Nope. The so-called "threat" is in opposition to the sponsor's sponsorship of the product as well as the product itself. I'm boycotting the product itself because I don't like it, and I'm also boycotting the sponsors because I disapprove of their support. In both cases, the "threat" is aimed directly at corporate behavior that I don't like: no divorce involved.

If you don't like GM's product, by all means, don't buy it. If you don't like MSNBC's product, don't watch it.

Right. And if I don't approve of GM's or MSNBC's activities, then I also won't buy their products, and there's nothing dishonest about that.

Similarly, if I don't approve of, say, Shell's policies in Nigeria, I won't buy Shell gasoline. If I don't approve of Ford's lobbying against emissions regulations, I won't buy Ford cars. I'm not being dishonest in any way: I'm simply refusing to use my consumer dollars to reward corporate behavior that I don't like.

[Fiveyearlurker]

The players accepted his apology and they are receiving hate mail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/business/media/13cnd-imus.html?em&ex=1176609600&en=540034e67352216f&ei=5087%0A

I swear to god that I didn't read that article before, but this part makes me speed up the timeline on my previous post:

"Ms. Stringer’s pastor, the Rev. DeForest Soaries, announced today a broader effort to improve the way people talk about one another. He said a town hall meeting would be held at Rutgers within 30 days to find specific ways to improve the level of dialogue.

He said executives of the music industry would be among those invited along with the clergy and youth groups. Rap music lyrics have been blamed for popularizing the use of terms such as “ho.”"

[stretch]

So, you can't see this heading in the other direction ever?

Will your opinions be consistent when it's white guys getting car companies to pull their ads from any magazine/radio station/television station that supports some singer who used "nigga" or "ho" in a song?

Mine will be. That is not a legitimate way to get your point across.
Well, if I don't like music that has those words, wouldn't I not listen to the music and ask my local stations to play something else?

I have written to my local talk radio station to tell them I don't listen to the station anymore because of the asshole "news" guys they have. Should I have just not mentioned that they lost a listener when I was offended by their speech? Should I have not told my friends that I no longer listen to the station because I consider them to be hate-mongers? Should I continue to visit a business that advertises on the program these two idiots host when I think these guys are dickweeds and we'd all be better off if they were no longer spouting their bullshit?

How am I supposed to let people know that these guys suck and they have driven me away from the radio station and businesses that advertise on the show?

ETA: The players accepted his apology and they are receiving hate mail.

People are assholes! I really feel for the players; they've done nothing but get shit on in this whole thing.

[Apos]

Still horseshit. The customers didn't "threaten" any companies in any improper way. They just effectively said to the producers, as I noted above, "I don't like your product, I won't buy your product, and I won't support any sponsor who funds the production and sale of your product".

Right, that's exactly whats despicable. These corporations supply outlets for people to listen to the views of other people: they supply airtime and bandwidth, and they o it based primarily on what listeners demand. Just because a corporation allows someone to have a platform to say things I don't like doesn't mean I shouldn't buy talcum powder from them or their sponsors. That's not what respect for free speech or a free market of ideas is about.

No customer is morally obligated to go on supporting a company that does things they don't like. If I'm opposed to, say, animal testing, it's only reasonable for me to refuse to buy products from companies that support animal testing. Similarly, if I don't like Don Imus's show, why should I give money to companies that support it?

Because a commitment to free speech means a commitment to open discussion. It means recognizing that speech is not like torturing animals. It means recognizing that there is a major distinction between speech and conduct.

You're the one being the crybaby here.

Sorry, but you're rubber, I'm glue doesn't work here. The people who are crybabies are the people who can't get their way in a fashion consistent with free speech as a value.

You don't like the outcome of the boycott proposal,

No, I don't like boycotts designed to shut down speech. I've never listened to Imus, and I doubt I ever would. I don't much care about him or his case. What I care about is free speech, not just as a random restriction on government, but as a social commitment.

and you can't come up with any persuasive legal, economic, or ethical argument against the actions of the boycotters.

Al ready have. It's valuing a free and open debate: a free market of ideas, where trying to pressure people to squelch shows and speech from the top is disreputable behavior.

So you resort to calling them "pussies" and "nannies" and "pathetic" and "bitter" and so forth in the hopes of distracting attention from the weakness of your reasoning.

Nah, that's just how I feel about that sort of behavior.

[stretch]

Because a commitment to free speech means a commitment to open discussion. It means recognizing that speech is not like torturing animals. It means recognizing that there is a major distinction between speech and conduct.
I see my disconnect with you in this paragraph. I don't consider a radio show such as Imus's to be an "open discussion". I think of it as a commodity--his time of free reign to spout whatever crap he wants without having to hear any dissent.

If it's a crap show, I don't think it should continue on the air...just like a bad sitcom. A show hosted by someone who is willing to call a bunch of female basketball players nappy-headed hos is pretty much my definition of a crap show. YMMV.

[Apos]

Nope. The so-called "threat" is in opposition to the sponsor's sponsorship of the product as well as the product itself. I'm boycotting the product itself because I don't like it, and I'm also boycotting the sponsors because I disapprove of their support. In both cases, the "threat" is aimed directly at corporate behavior that I don't like: no divorce involved.

The thing is that there is something different with speech, and realizing this is a core part of classical liberalism. A free and open debate means just that. It means NOT trying to suppress even the products you don't like, when it comes to speech. It means fighting speech you don't like with more speech IN ADDITION to that speech, not towards trying to get it to shut up.

That impulse, that desire to respond to speech you don't like by taking action to shut it down, instead of either lobby people not to listen or to speak out against it, is a BAD impulse.

[Apos]

I see my disconnect with you in this paragraph. I don't consider a radio show such as Imus's to be an "open discussion". I think of it as a commodity--his time of free reign to spout whatever crap he wants without having to hear any dissent.

Him being able to speak IS part of an open discussion: the open discussion is the ENTIRE SOCIETY. It's speech that like it or not, people do want to hear. I've never really paid much attention or heard much about Imus before, but in my case, O'Reilly is a pretty good parallel. I DO have impulses all the time that I wish there were some way to just shut up that lying, pompous, preening scumbag. But you know what: those impulses are pathetic and lazy. The reality is, and the reality that I as someone that thinks what he has to say is terrible, is that lots and lots of people like what he has to say and listen to him.

If it's a crap show, I don't think it should continue on the air...just like a bad sitcom.

If its really a crap show, then no one will listen, and it will go off the air. But obviously that's not what the nannies here are content to let happen. The very thing they fear the most, and what is probably the reality of the situation, is that people will continue to listen to Imus anyway, because while most listeners might find the remark to be evil, they also aren't after scalps.

A show hosted by someone who is willing to call a bunch of female basketball players nappy-headed hos is pretty much my definition of a crap show. YMMV.

Ok, so don't listen, and/or speak out against it.

[stretch]

Him being able to speak IS part of an open discussion: the open discussion is the ENTIRE SOCIETY. It's speech that like it or not, people do want to hear. I've never really paid much attention or heard much about Imus before, but in my case, O'Reilly is a pretty good parallel. I DO have impulses all the time that I wish there were some way to just shut up that lying, pompous, preening scumbag. But you know what: those impulses are pathetic and lazy. The reality is, and the reality that I as someone that thinks what he has to say is terrible, is that lots and lots of people like what he has to say and listen to him.

Lobbying other people not to listen or to speak out against it will result in it being shut down*. I speak out by telling people not to listen to local asshole news guys (LANG). I also tell the sponsors I don't care for LANG and ask them if they've consider how it looks to have their ad ran immediately after LANG says something that at least one listen found extremely offensive. If the sponsors agree that what the LANG said was bad, they will speak out against it buy pulling advertising.

Sounds like it works the way it should.

I just think that telling sponsors about these things is part of using my speech.

*not in my case, but one can dream

[Kimstu]

That's not what respect for free speech or a free market of ideas is about.

I think I see your problem: you're mixing up the civil-liberties concept of protected free speech with the commercial free market. They don't operate in the same way. Free speech is constitutionally protected in the public sphere, but the commercial market is not the same thing as the public sphere. Nothing is protected in the free market if there is sufficient consumer power to destroy it.

And that's the way it ought to be. It is not the responsibility of commercial markets to defend civil liberties or to respond to democratic ideals rather than to economic power. That's what the public sector is for. What you're advocating is a sort of protectionism, where consumers are supposed to refrain from full exercise of their consumer power in markets just because the market commodity in question happens to be speech.

Because a commitment to free speech means a commitment to open discussion.

Absolutely true, as far as constitutionally-protected uses of speech go. But it does NOT mean a commitment to providing a commercial market for any particular type of speech. The commercial market is intrinsically amoral and devoid of principle: it responds only to economic power.

The people who are crybabies are the people who can't get their way in a fashion consistent with free speech as a value. [...] What I care about is free speech, not just as a random restriction on government, but as a social commitment. [...] It's valuing a free and open debate: a free market of ideas, where trying to pressure people to squelch shows and speech from the top is disreputable behavior.

Again, the problem is that you're mixing up free speech with the free market. Markets are not ethically obligated to protect a particular commodity from commercial failure or attack just because that commodity happens to be speech.

The thing is that there is something different with speech, and realizing this is a core part of classical liberalism.

Which is why there need to be non-commercial forums for speech, where open discussion can flourish in a constitutionally protected environment.

Where you "classical liberals" trip yourselves up is in your determination to handle everything with markets. Paradoxically, you end up sabotaging the freedom of commercial behavior in markets by introducing your own moral "nannyism", scolding consumers for exercising their consumer power in ways you deem inappropriate.

We modern liberals handle the situation more consistently, IMO: we recognize that markets are intrinsically amoral and unresponsive to anything except economic power. So we carve out a separate public sphere where constitutional protections rather than markets rule. Civil liberties reign supreme in the public sector and consumer power in the private sector. This way, we don't have to require free-speech protectionism in markets or demand that markets imitate the government's role in refusing restrictions on speech.

[Huerta88]

I can never disclaim disgust for Sharpton, after what he did to Steve Pagones, and after he's successfully wormed his way back to a "leadership" position (have his black people no shame?) without ever apologizing to or paying Pagones for ruining his life.

Having said that:

(a) I've never really understood the appeal of Imus -- I just don't get it.
(b) I've never really understood the appeal of any morning radio -- four hours of chit-chat about -- what? Skits about Ross Perot? A bunch of flunkies engaging in patter with him?
(c) What the Hell was he doing talking about women's college basketball in the first place? This alone proves his irrelevancy -- I (as a former jock/sports fan) see little point in talking (ad infinitum) about sports (ad infinitum) -- but if I did, I would certainly start last with women's college basketball and its thundering 360 degree layups (cf. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27371). How lame. I'd say he deserved what he got if I didn't think the right was right in pointing out the ten-times-worse ho-bashing lyrics of mainstream hip-hop, but I won't miss him in any event.

[lissener]

Did you just read FCC and snap to a judgement about the context it was being used in? Who, Guinastasia? What are the chances?

[Huerta88]

I can never disclaim disgust for Sharpton, after what he did to Steve Pagones, and after he's successfully wormed his way back to a "leadership" position (have his black people no shame?) without ever apologizing to or paying Pagones for ruining his life.
My caveat to the Imus-bashing that followed: I do know that through his ranch and otherwise, he's done a lot of charitable stuff. Rev. Al's activities seem mostly to redound to the greater glory of Rev. Al. Perhaps I could cut Imus some sympathy break in behalf of trying to help autistic kids? Maybe. But I still don't want to listen to his show.

[lissener]

My caveat to the Imus-bashing that followed: I do know that through his ranch and otherwise, he's done a lot of charitable stuff. Rev. Al's activities seem mostly to redound to the greater glory of Rev. Al. Perhaps I could cut Imus some sympathy break in behalf of trying to help autistic kids? Maybe. But I still don't want to listen to his show.Hitler got the trains running on time.

[Huerta88]

Hitler got the trains running on time.
Dude (though from your Godwin tags I suspect a chain-yank).

I just got through saying I consider the guy un-listenable (and what is up with the Anthony-Perkins's Mom shaggy dessicated look?).

And -- you meant Mussolini.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I'm elated the way this controversy has worked itself out.

To repeat Caridwen's link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/business/media/13cnd-imus.html?em&ex=1176609600&en=540034e67352216f&ei=5087%0A)

A class act all around, providing a peaceful conclusion and allowing, at least for myself, a time of reflection.

When I heard the famous Imus exchange, I'll admit it was entertaining for me. I didn't see it as derogatory, coming from a man who walks charitably and talks edgy. My personal experience might suggest I should know better, but on the other hand the same experience provided a whole different understanding of the best way to deal with apparent hateful language.

At the age of eight, I developed two large teeth with a space in between that increased towards the bottom. They protruded at a 45 degree angle and it didn't help that the adjacent teeth were extremely small. No problem for me until somebody tagged me with the nickname "bucky". That name stuck with me for the entire time I grew up in my hometown. It affected my sense of self worth, job opportunities and made my life miserable. I could eat just fine. In fact, I could eat corn on the cob through a barbed wire fence. Later on, I elected to have my front teeth pulled and replaced with a bridge. What a relief.

Both my "enemies" and my friends used the word. It was easy enough for me to see that there were those who were deliberately being hurtful and those who just didn't know better. Rather than allow my "enemies" the satisfaction that they were hurtful to me, I did not express my feelings.

So this is where I'm at when it comes to people using words like nappy and even jigaboo. Nigger is clearly offensive and no one can make a case that it isn't intended to be. But the other words are descriptive of appearance that no one should be ashamed of. Even jigaboo, obviously in reference to the black skin, evokes voodoo , a legitimate black cultural entity. Either way, it is difficult for me to understand why people should take offence to nicknames or references to a specific normal physical appearence and in kneejerk reaction, claim the perp is hateful.

To get to my point. Up until the Imus- Rutgers meeting, I would have thought that the hulabaloo would only provide more ammunition and motivation for those who really hate blacks. It will happen in quiet confrontations that won't get any press but some lone black kid will now get called a nappy headed jigaboo and that kid will know he's being hated and the perp will know he's getting through.

Now, it appears that the hulabaloo was worth it, common sense has prevailed, there is healing, everyone's going to be a little more careful, and we may have cracked a racial barrier that will allow for a fair examination of a powerful subculture that affects fundamental attitudes towards women on the part of our youth. No matter how you look at it, I think we all just come out ahead.

And btw, the Rutgers team may have lost the final, but they've gained the respect of a whole lot of people for their action off the court.

[Guinastasia]

Who, Guinastasia? What are the chances?

Uh, dude, you're hardly one to cast stones when it comes to THAT little sin.

[monstro]

"Jigaboo" and "ho" describe appearance now, and are thus not offensive. The basketball team was right to get upset at "nappy", but not "jigaboo ho". Boy, are they hypersensitive!

Flying Dutchman, I recommend you walk up to Laila Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layla_Ali) and call her a jigaboo ho. Then report back and tell us what happened.

[Kalhoun]

"Jigaboo" and "ho" describe appearance now, and are thus not offensive. The basketball team was right to get upset at "nappy", but not "jigaboo ho". Boy, are they hypersensitive!

Flying Dutchman, I recommend you walk up to Laila Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layla_Ali) and call her a jigaboo ho. Then report back and tell us what happened.
<snort!>

[The Flying Dutchman]

"Jigaboo" and "ho" describe appearance now, and are thus not offensive. The basketball team was right to get upset at "nappy", but not "jigaboo ho". Boy, are they hypersensitive!


I never intended to suggest any such thing. You totally missed the intent of my post and I guess I only have myself to blame for not being an effective communicator. On the other hand, I may be a complete idiot for not understanding my own posting.

I also want to apologize to you for starting a new thread on your topic. I wouldn't have liked it if it happened to me and I should have been more considerate.

[monstro]

I never intended to suggest any such thing. You totally missed the intent of my post and I guess I only have myself to blame for not being an effective communicator. On the other hand, I may be a complete idiot for not understanding my own posting.

I also want to apologize to you for starting a new thread on your topic. I wouldn't have liked it if it happened to me and I should have been more considerate.

I reread your post. Excluding the whole dissection of "nappy" and "jigaboo" (which is really more offensive than "nappy", for future reference), I agree with what you wrote.

You don't have to feel sorry about creating a new thread. My thread was a rant expressing my feelings about Imus, and it hopefully helped people see the other side of the story--before all the raucus about suspensions and firings started. A discussion of Sharpton would have derailed that conversation, so starting a new thread was a good thing.

But I still appreciate the apology and the fact that you've rethought some things.

[Apos]

Lobbying other people not to listen or to speak out against it will result in it being shut down*.

Yes and no. I'd say that lobbying other people not to listen isn't really keeping with free speech either, though it's not half as bad as trying to get an entire venue of speech shut down so that people can't listen. By and large, the public already knows what it wants, and is going to listen to it, and maybe the idea that you know better than everyone else is gonna be a hard sell.

I speak out by telling people not to listen to local asshole news guys (LANG). I also tell the sponsors I don't care for LANG and ask them if they've consider how it looks to have their ad ran immediately after LANG says something that at least one listen found extremely offensive. If the sponsors agree that what the LANG said was bad, they will speak out against it buy pulling advertising.

Ok, but why is that a good thing? Isn't it better when sponsors sponsor all sorts of speech, regardless of who, or even they find it offensive? These sponsors are there to make money based on the number of listeners, not to determine what the public should or should not have access to in terms of speech. The public is already deciding that for themselves, freely.

I just think that telling sponsors about these things is part of using my speech.

It's possibly to freely speak against the value of free speech. It's possible to vote for oppression. The point is that your actions, while they are indeed an exercise of free speech, are also an act against it: threats you make to people about how they must do as you say and make the speech YOU want to vanish, vanish.

[monstro]

Ok, but why is that a good thing? Isn't it better when sponsors sponsor all sorts of speech, regardless of who, or even they find it offensive? These sponsors are there to make money based on the number of listeners, not to determine what the public should or should not have access to in terms of speech. The public is already deciding that for themselves, freely.

So you're saying a sponsor should not have a say-so in what values and commentary are being attached to their products? Even if those values and commentary go counter to the economic interests of the advertisers?

An advertiser shouldn't remove its sponsorship if a DJ goes on air and spouts hateful things about that advertiser? If I'm a DJ and I say "Proctor and Gamble SUCK!!", I can't expect Proctor and Gamble to take their business elsewhere, if they are sponsoring my show?

Really? Are you really thinking this through?

Listeners do not equate to money for an advertiser. The amount of their products those listeners purchase equates to money for an advertiser. If all this "free speech" an advertiser is sponsoring is economically disadvantegous to them, they are not morally bound to continue to support it. By advocating this, you remove the freedom from the market and hold everyone hostage to someone else's speech. This is not what the first amendment is about.

Your posts display a profound misunderstanding about how marketing works.

[descamisado]

The proper response to speech you don't like is more speech against it.

The impulse of "damn, I find that offensive, I'd better find some way to SHUT IT UP" is exactly the wrong impulse to have in a liberal democracy. It shows that you just. don't. get it.Nobody shut Imus up; the corporations that paid for his forum to speak refused to do that anymore and and his employees responded by cancelling his shows.

As far as I know, he can still speak about anything he wants to, he just doesn't have a forum that reaches millions anymore.

[Apos]

I think I see your problem: you're mixing up the civil-liberties concept of protected free speech with the commercial free market. They don't operate in the same way. Free speech is constitutionally protected in the public sphere, but the commercial market is not the same thing as the public sphere. Nothing is protected in the free market if there is sufficient consumer power to destroy it.

I already explained this several times, so I don't see how you have any excuse to not get it. I'm not talking about free speech as restriction on government. I'm talking about it as an actual VALUE (which is the reason WHY we restrict the government from acting against it, but also has broader implications).

You don't see how there is something fundamentally bad and illiberal about people trying to prevent OTHER people from buying and consuming things they want? About spending time and effort trying to control what OTHER adults listen to?

Did you just stumble into liberalism by accident or something?

And that's the way it ought to be. It is not the responsibility of commercial markets to defend civil liberties or to respond to democratic ideals rather than to economic power. That's what the public sector is for. What you're advocating is a sort of protectionism, where consumers are supposed to refrain from full exercise of their consumer power in markets just because the market commodity in question happens to be speech.

Well, I guess yes: if they respect the idea of free speech and the free exchange of ideas. If they get it. If they understand that when it comes to peoples thoughts and words, acting to censor people's access to some thoughts and words is both patronizing to those adults who can freely make up their own minds whether to listen to them or not, and also an impulse that's a throwback to antidemocratic times.

If they don't get it, then of course they are going to be pussies about it, and that's too bad. Tolerant systems, unfortunately, make it possible for intolerance.

Absolutely true, as far as constitutionally-protected uses of speech go. But it does NOT mean a commitment to providing a commercial market for any particular type of speech. The commercial market is intrinsically amoral and devoid of principle: it responds only to economic power.

Right: and the relevant power here is the power of the demand for hearing certain viewpoints. But the nannies want to come in and say "no no! You guys can't demand to hear such things, and you guys cannot provide a venue for them to hear it! Break it up! Go back to your homes and think about what you've done! We know better than thou what you should hear!"

Again, the problem is that you're mixing up free speech with the free market. Markets are not ethically obligated to protect a particular commodity from commercial failure or attack just because that commodity happens to be speech.

The market is indeed amoral (responding to demand for things and supplying them). People with values aren't though. If they value the free exchange of ideas, REALLY value it as something that makes our society vibrant and strong and not just a tyranny of the majority, then they will refrain from attacking the market for things they wish other people didn't think about or listen to.

Where you "classical liberals" trip yourselves up is in your determination to handle everything with markets. Paradoxically, you end up sabotaging the freedom of commercial behavior in markets by introducing your own moral "nannyism", scolding consumers for exercising their consumer power in ways you deem inappropriate.

I'm scolding them for not respecting free speech. I think that's appropriate, and again, this charge you are making sounds more like a rubber/glue taunt than an actual rational turnaround or paradox. I'm not advocating the sabotage of anything. Advocating that people NOT sabotage something is not the same thing as sabotaging anything. (Oh noes: he's trying to sabotage our efforts to sabotage stuff!)

We modern liberals handle the situation more consistently,

I don't know whether or not you can pat yourself on the back for consistency or not. Being consistent is not a good thing when what you do is wrong. All I'm arguing is that acting to restrict access to views you find offensive is deeply illiberal and not in keeping with ideas of liberty at all.

IMO: we recognize that markets are intrinsically amoral and unresponsive to anything except economic power. So we carve out a separate public sphere where constitutional protections rather than markets rule. Civil liberties reign supreme in the public sector and consumer power in the private sector. This way, we don't have to require free-speech protectionism in markets or demand that markets imitate the government's role in refusing restrictions on speech.

You're just not getting it. You've missed the point of living in a democracy, of liberty, or free speech.

And with your kind of thinking on the rise, the jackals are already circling. Now people from all over the political spectrum are calling for the heads of folks they don't think OTHER people should listen to. Who, I wonder, has the most "market power" that they are willing to put behind trying to destroy markets? Something tells me that it's not always going to the "modern liberals." In Afghanistan, something tells me that it's not always going to be the women.

[Apos]

So you're saying a sponsor should not have a say-so in what values and commentary are being attached to their products? Even if those values and commentary go counter to the economic interests of the advertisers?

Seriously, did you hit your head on something? What do you mean by "should not"? Sponsors can do whatever they want and is in their interest. They will respond to whatever hurts that bottom line.

An advertiser shouldn't remove its sponsorship if a DJ goes on air and spouts hateful things about that advertiser? If I'm a DJ and I say "Proctor and Gamble SUCK!!", I can't expect Proctor and Gamble to take their business elsewhere, if they are sponsoring my show?

If it hurts their bottom line, then no, they won't stay. But I'm not talking about the sponsors, because they sponsors in the end aren't really going to care much about speech. That's why David Letterman can bash his brand and his station all he wants: because people will keep listening to him because of it, and thus watching the very same station.

Really? Are you really thinking this through?

Yes.

Listeners do not equate to money for an advertiser. The amount of their products those listeners purchase equates to money for an advertiser. If all this "free speech" an advertiser is sponsoring is economically disadvantegous to them, they are not morally bound to continue to support it. By advocating this, you remove the freedom from the market and hold everyone hostage to someone else's speech. This is not what the first amendment is about.

I don't seem to recall thinking or saying that the sponsors would do anything other than respond to who is buying talcum powder. It's the people who think that lobbying those sponsors to stop sponsoring venues for speech they don't like that I can't respect, and don't think anyone who values free speech should respect.

Your posts display a profound misunderstanding about how marketing works.

Your posts display a profound misunderstanding of me and why free speech is important.

You guys are a lot like the Columbia students who got up on stage and screamed away a conference in which the MinuteMen were speaking. It's like you were born amongst the Taliban, woke up suddenly in America, and are tring to make sense of things through some warped perspective. Why, we were just exercising our free speech to! Our free speech to shout and scream and carry on until no one can hear this guy speak!

[monstro]

You don't see how there is something fundamentally bad and illiberal about people trying to prevent OTHER people from buying and consuming things they want? About spending time and effort trying to control what OTHER adults listen to?

If you think there's something wrong with people trying to compel others to avoid certain products, do you think there's something wrong with people trying to compel others to CONSUME certain products? If there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a commercial, there's nothing wrong with an anti-commercial. Both are ways of trying to control what other people do. Both are equally free speech.

And guess what? People are still free to make their own choices. If people want a product badly enough, they will ignore the negative press. Just like if a product is crappy enough, no amount of advertising can save it.

It seems like you're the one who wants a nanny state--an indulgent nanny who won't let anyone face the consequences of their actions.

[Apos]

If you think there's something wrong with people trying to compel others to avoid certain products, do you think there's something wrong with people trying to compel others to CONSUME certain products?

Come on. This isn't a matter of anyone lobbying their grandma to stop listening to Imus (though as I said, even that is pretty patronizing): it's a matter of trying to use economic boycott to shut down an entire venue that other people are using.

If there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a commercial, there's nothing wrong with an anti-commercial. Both are ways of trying to control what other people do. Both are equally free speech.

But these aren't "anti-commericals" we are talking about.

And guess what? People are still free to make their own choices.

That's still just completely dodging the point. The point is that there is a real value to free expression and allowing other people to listen to what they want to listen to: a value that, if you respect it, would prevent you from seeking ways to try and destroy particular venues, just because they aren't what YOU want to hear.

It seems like you're the one who wants a nanny state--an indulgent nanny who won't let anyone face the consequences of their actions.

Again, this is a rubber/glue turnaround that doesn't make much sense. What I want is a society that doesn't TRY to punish people for _speech_, even speech they don't like or agree with: a society in which the way you fight speech you don't like is by arguing against it. Talking about "consequences" for speech in the sense you mean it (i.e. not just naturally losing an audience, but have another bunch of people who AREN'T the audience try to shut down the entire venue to block it) is just not something I think anyone committed to democracy, capitalism, and liberal science can possibly defend.

[monstro]

Seriously, did you hit your head on something? What do you mean by "should not"? Sponsors can do whatever they want and is in their interest. They will respond to whatever hurts that bottom line.

But you said they shouldn't care about the bottom line. They should care about sponsoring free speech.

To refresh your memory, you wrote:

Isn't it better when sponsors sponsor all sorts of speech, regardless of who, or even they find it offensive?

Reduced to its elementary form, you're saying someone should buy something even if they don't want it. This is not the American way.


If it hurts their bottom line, then no, they won't stay. But I'm not talking about the sponsors, because they sponsors in the end aren't really going to care much about speech. That's why David Letterman can bash his brand and his station all he wants: because people will keep listening to him because of it, and thus watching the very same station.

You were talking about the sponsors. You may not be talking ONLY about sponsors, but you were talking about them too.

And I'd like you to find an instance of David Letterman bashing a sponsor on his show, because that would be more relevant to our discussion. There's a big difference between bashing a station, which cares about listenership, and bashing a sponsor, which cares about the consumerism of that listenership.

I don't seem to recall thinking or saying that the sponsors would do anything other than respond to who is buying talcum powder. It's the people who think that lobbying those sponsors to stop sponsoring venues for speech they don't like that I can't respect, and don't think anyone who values free speech should respect.

Why though?

If I can lobby a sponsor to support a program, why is it so awful for me to try to dissuade a sponsor to remove its support? Maybe that sponsor is unaware of the negative press surrounding that program and would appreciate the heads-up.

I think about how many people did not realize how many racist things Imus has said in the past. Maybe Proctor and Gamble were as equally clueless, and upon discovering this information (via Sharpton et al.), it decided it didn't want to support this particular "free speech" anymore. What is so undemocratic about this? Sharpton didn't exhort them. He informed them, let them know how bad they would be perceived by some (and he didn't lie) if they continued to support Imus, and then let them decide what to do.

Your posts display a profound misunderstanding of me and why free speech is important.

I fully understand free speech, thankyouverymuch. I just don't think free speech is more sacred than free market action. It is you who doesn't seem to understand free speech. You seem to put "lobbying for" in a different category than "lobbying against". They are the same thing.

You guys are a lot like the Columbia students who got up on stage and screamed away a conference in which the MinuteMen were speaking. It's like you were born amongst the Taliban, woke up suddenly in America, and are tring to make sense of things through some warped perspective. Why, we were just exercising our free speech to! Our free speech to shout and scream and carry on until no one can hear this guy speak!

Yes, that's me to a "T". While you're Fred Phelps Family, screaming "GOD HATES FAGS" at the funerals of Iraqi vets and expecting to be left alone because "free speech, man".

See how fun it is to resort to stupid, inaccurate metaphors when you've run out of things to say.


Likening your opponents to the Taliban has got to be the Godwin of the 21st Century.

[monstro]

Come on. This isn't a matter of anyone lobbying their grandma to stop listening to Imus (though as I said, even that is pretty patronizing): it's a matter of trying to use economic boycott to shut down an entire venue that other people are using.

You mean calls for economic boycotts like this (http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/rnr/310868354.html) and this (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.don-imus/browse_thread/thread/e0772da03ed19946/a8f8f76fb22697f1?lnk=raot&hl=en) and this (http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070409233704AAOceVL)?

If you feel that an "entire venue" is supporting something bad and dangerous, it is perfectly ethically to organize a boycott. People are free to ignore calls for that boycott. And people are free to ignore the effects of that boycott.

Boycotts are only useful when enough people jump on the bandwagon. All this shrill hysteria over boycotts reminds me of the time my tenth-grade English teacher yelled at me for saying "boycott" in class, as she considered it a curse word. (I wish I was making that shit up, but it really happened.)

But these aren't "anti-commericals" we are talking about.

Yes we are, Apos. A commerical would be if Sharpton got on the air and said "Let's support MSNBC, because they are good people." An anti-commercial would be if Sharpton got on the air and said "Let's not support MSNBC, because they are bad people". They are objectively the same thing. People are equally free to ignore both or listen to both. Boycotts and advertising are both ways to control people's spending habits. As a supporter of the First Amendment, you can't favor one over the other. You cannot.

That's still just completely dodging the point. The point is that there is a real value to free expression and allowing other people to listen to what they want to listen to: a value that, if you respect it, would prevent you from seeking ways to try and destroy particular venues, just because they aren't what YOU want to hear.

If I think something's immoral and contributing to the breakdown of society, I don't think it's disrespectful to the First Amendment for me to express this viewpoint. In fact, I think it affirms it, especially if my words are persuasive enough that it evokes change.

Do you really think that if Imus had said something mundane and Sharpton still had a conniption fit over it, MSNBC and CBS would have still rolled over? No, they realized a line had been crossed--a line that they themselves created--and they decided it wasn't wise for them to continue their support. You're acting like all the parties involved except for the big evil Sharp-man were poor little innocents without freewill or a backbone. No one "extorted" them with anything, and I think the powerful execs running this companies would take offense at that characterization.

If the calls for boycott linked above come to fruition, then we will see how scary a boycott threat is. If MSNBC kowtows to a bunch of angry white people (which outnumber angry black people considerably, it seems), then I may be willing to change my mind.

[Fiveyearlurker]

If the calls for boycott linked above come to fruition, then we will see how scary a boycott threat is. If MSNBC kowtows to a bunch of angry white people (which outnumber angry black people considerably, it seems), then I may be willing to change my mind.

I honestly believe this is the only difference between your opinions and mine. I think this is going to happen, and have therefore already changed my mind. Like I said, my opinion on this topic changed drastically in the past few years.

I have little doubt that the issue is about to shift from Imus to hip hop. Outraged white parents will begin boycotts, probably aided by a handful of black leaders, against advertisers on hip hop stations. It's going to be wrong then too. But it's going to work, because as you note, the angry white people outnumber the angry black people.

[you with the face]

But it's going to work, because as you note, the angry white people outnumber the angry black people.

Not necessarily. White people may not care all that much about hip hop (except to scream about double standards when Imus and Richards get in trouble) because the sexism in much of those lyrics is directed at black women. That's why the whole "problem with hip hop" issue is portrayed as a black problem, instead of a societial one. It also won't help that most purchasers of rap are white folks.

[monstro]

I honestly believe this is the only difference between your opinions and mine. I think this is going to happen, and have therefore already changed my mind. Like I said, my opinion on this topic changed drastically in the past few years.

I have little doubt that the issue is about to shift from Imus to hip hop. Outraged white parents will begin boycotts, probably aided by a handful of black leaders, against advertisers on hip hop stations. It's going to be wrong then too. But it's going to work, because as you note, the angry white people outnumber the angry black people.

I don't see this happening. Maybe I give sponsors too much credit, but I don't think anyone's stupid enough to negotiate with people who are just engaging in petty revenge. The boycotters will hit a brick wall fast and promptly give up, because they don't really care about anything but scoring points.

And you know what I'm going to say? Good for you. Good for you for exercing your First Amendment. Good for you for then diverting your energies to something else when you realize the futility of your efforts. They won't change my opinion about what's good listening and what's not, nor will they stop me from purchasing the kinds of music I like. I will see no net loss of free speech, and that's all I care about.

When it comes to music on the radio, we already have censorship in place. I don't listen to hip hop on the radio, but from the little that I do hear, the most illicit lyrics are always bleeped out. They even bleep out explicit references to drugs. On some stations, they even bleep out "nigga". It seems to me that this particular industry has been regulated as much as it can without leaving songs without their vocals. And yet, hip hop is still one of the most popular genres. If the boycotters manage to evoke change within this powerhouse of artistic form, then I will be nothing but impressed.

(Despite the rhetoric, black people like Congresswoman Maxine Waters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxine_Waters) has been advocating change in hip hop for years.)

[Fiveyearlurker]

Not necessarily. White people may not care all that much about hip hop (except to scream about double standards when Imus and Richards get in trouble) because the sexism in much of those lyrics is directed at black women. That's why the whole "problem with hip hop" issue is portrayed as a black problem, instead of a societial one. It also won't help that most purchasers of rap are white folks.

And that screaming of double standards is what is going to give them cover when they pull this off. Imus is going to be held up as the standard; Imus was indecent, you have no right to say this rap song is decent. You'll see how fast it will become a societal problem. It will be about black culture's insideous intercalation into ruining the lives of our white teenagers.

I think that I've come off as pro-Imus, and maybe that was my poor choice of words. In a bubble, I couldn't give two shits about Imus. But, I think this is headed to a bad place where we use corporations as fulcrums to silence each other.

[Fiveyearlurker]

I don't see this happening. Maybe I give sponsors too much credit, but I don't think anyone's stupid enough to negotiate with people who are just engaging in petty revenge. The boycotters will hit a brick wall fast and promptly give up, because they don't really care about anything but scoring points.



Well, I guess we're going to see. At the very least, I think you understand where I've been coming from in context (?).

[Miller]

Well guess what, if he does that over the publicly owned, federally licensed, government regulated broadcast airwaves...

Yeah, no shit. Note the use of the word "should" in my post.

[monstro]

Well, I guess we're going to see. At the very least, I think you understand where I've been coming from in context (?).

I understand that you have an irrational fear of boycotts, as if a boycott alone, regardless of the motives and the people involved, is enough to evoke change. But I don't share this view. I also think boycotts are just as necessary in a capitalist and democratic society as marketing and advertising. If it weren't for boycotts, people would still be riding in the back of the bus and South Africa might still be under aparthied. The bottomline and the vote tally can't be removed from one another in our society. And they shouldn't be.

You seem to draw a line at boycotting of speech, as if speech isn't a commodity just like everything else. But when someone's paying for it (i.e., a sponsor), it is a commodity. If people are free to consume that commodity and spread favorable word of mouth about it, they should be just as free to do the opposite.

I think it's silly for angry Imus fans to boycott over this, because I really can't see MSNBC or CBS changing its mind and stepping into even MORE of a quagmire. But I don't see their effort as being immoral and unethical. No one in this thread has really argued convincingly for why this would be the case.

[Caridwen]

You mean calls for economic boycotts like this (http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/rnr/310868354.html) and this (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.don-imus/browse_thread/thread/e0772da03ed19946/a8f8f76fb22697f1?lnk=raot&hl=en) and this (http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070409233704AAOceVL)?

Wow, hilarous! What a bunch of pin heads.

My favorite was the boycott of Sharpton and the post from the poor oppressed white guy. The women get death threats and hate mail and Imus is a hero.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Not necessarily. White people may not care all that much about hip hop (except to scream about double standards when Imus and Richards get in trouble) because the sexism in much of those lyrics is directed at black women.
I can assure you the white parents have always deplored the language and attitudes expressed in hip hop. But I think now, with my generation that is sensitive to avoiding criticism of a black subculture, not wanting to appear like our parents who resisted the black inspired rock and roll that we all love today, have allowed our concern to simmer up till this point. Given the statements of Sharpton and the Rutgers minister, and the recent media attention I'm expecting that will change. If black people are against it then we can voice our opinion as well.

I happened upon this site (http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070414/LIFE13/704140418)

Its clear that many black women have a problem with the language of hip hop. I'll bet that most white girls think there is nothing wrong with it. Why haven't we been told of this by the media.

That's why the whole "problem with hip hop" issue is portrayed as a black problem, instead of a societial one. It also won't help that most purchasers of rap are white folks.

Hip hop is a culture that is shared by a segment of the youth culture black and white. It affects all our kids. I have experienced such a dramatic change in social attitudes over the past 50 years and that change has largely been nourished by the younger generation of the time and the music played a significant part. While I believe the changes have mostly been positive any younger generation is quite susceptible to developing negative attitudes that can affect our society for decades. The equal value of the role of women in our society has not been guaranteed for ever. Legislation does not make it so. The future of women in our society depends on the attitudes of our youth.

[you with the face]

Its clear that many black women have a problem with the language of hip hop. I'll bet that most white girls think there is nothing wrong with it. Why haven't we been told of this by the media.

There's a common misconception (which is consistent with the stereotyping that plagues blacks like locusts) that just because a number of black people partakes in one particular behavior, that ALL black people approve of it. This perception is furthered when black-led efforts to combat these behaviors (like this case (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0112/p11s01-almp.html)) gets little to no media coverage, and all the public sees is the same ole bling blinging imagery of black people day in and day out. So accusations of double standards wrt Imus annoy me, because people--especially black women--have been expressing outrage over this for quite some time now.

I don't know what most white girls think about hip hop, but it doesn't matter to me. Hip hop is not just a black art form. It's an American creation. The misogyny, materialism, and violence represented in some hip hop is a reflection of American culture. We see elements of these things in our movies and television shows as well. Howard Stern comes to mind. Hip hop is an easy target because it's blatant and leaves nothing to the imagination. It's also easy to push responsibility for it onto black people, even though most of the people buying the stuff are whites.

So how effective will protests against misogynistic hip hop be? I don't know. They haven't been very effective to date, but perhaps the Imus controversy will cause the producers of this music to do some introspection and change their ways. I don't know if boycotts will be all that effective, since radio stations are heavily genre-specific. If you have a problem with the music, you're probably not tuning into those stations as it is.

[Hippy Hollow]

Well said, ywtf.

Since we're seemingly discussing misogyny in hip hop now, I'll say what I've said a million times before on this board: the vilification of African-American art is one of the great American pastimes. Whether it's blues, R&B, rock 'n roll, or jazz, African-American music forms are often targeted as negative influences, etc. Meanwhile, White American kids sneak the records in behind their parents' backs, listen and love the music, then start to produce it themselves. At best, the end result is an amazing form of music that is truly a melting pot of cultural influences. At worst, we get people who think Kenny G is a great jazz artist.

Thing is, I would argue that the forms of music that African-Americans developed are reflective of societal trends. They're not innovating or producing new ones. And guess what? Our American culture has a violent, misogynistic side. I'm amused at the furor over hip hop, because I don't remember people whingeing about Tawny Kitaen sprawled over the hood of a car in a Whitesnake video. Sure, some people thought it was a little OTT, but not so much with the gnashing of the teeth and so forth.

If you grew up in the 80s like me you saw half-naked women on MTV all the freakin' time. With White artists. Especially hair metal bands. They all had the same formula: hot chick with moussed bangs, in leather, crawling around on stage. Where was the protest and the anger then?

Listen, there is a strong element in the African-American community that disparages misogyny and violence in hip hop. There's a lot of people who don't care much one way or the other. There's a strong element that feels as I do: popular music always appeals to the lowest common denominator; when suits and corporate types get involved, they only go after the most hackneyed, exaggerated, buffoonish versions; and aspiring artists often succumb to the will of A&R types and record company corporate leaders. That's why you had MC Hammer abandon his party/gospel version of hip hop for the dreadful "Pumps and a Bump." Market forces.

If you want to decry the state of hip hop, first realize that the buffoonery exists and is being exploited, just like how there was a spate of whingeing nu-metal bands a few years back. And most people with taste thought they sucked. But because they were on the radio, and they looked and sounded "authentic," they were quite successful. (I'm looking at you, Nickelback.) I would think there are a number of bands who are different, who are feeling the pressure from labels to be the next Nickelback, just like aspiring MCs are probably being told that they should be the next Li'l Jon and the East Side Boyz. And the public will consume it, because it's there. Meantime the credible bands have to be so talented to break through, that often times they give up or change their direction to suit the tastes of the industry.

[Miller]

If you grew up in the 80s like me you saw half-naked women on MTV all the freakin' time. With White artists. Especially hair metal bands. They all had the same formula: hot chick with moussed bangs, in leather, crawling around on stage. Where was the protest and the anger then?


'80s, nothing. I'm listening to a song right now about a guy who does a mess of coke, shoots his girlfriend, then runs off to Mexico where he does more drugs, before finally getting arrested and shipped North to spend the rest of his life in prison. The whole album's like that: half the songs on it are about killing your wife or girlfriend, or glamorizing criminals on death row, or songs about drug use, or about how the cops are all corrupt. There's even a song about killing the president!

Who's the artist? Tupac? NWA? 50 Cent?

Nope. It's a Best of Johnny Cash album.

[Hippy Hollow]

'80s, nothing. I'm listening to a song right now about a guy who does a mess of coke, shoots his girlfriend, then runs off to Mexico where he does more drugs, before finally getting arrested and shipped North to spend the rest of his life in prison. The whole album's like that: half the songs on it are about killing your wife or girlfriend, or glamorizing criminals on death row, or songs about drug use, or about how the cops are all corrupt. There's even a song about killing the president!

Who's the artist? Tupac? NWA? 50 Cent?

Nope. It's a Best of Johnny Cash album.
Actually I was gonna drop a JC reference in there. I thought I'd try to incorporate the video thing. I wonder what Johnny's videos would look like if he was recording today?

[The Flying Dutchman]

Well said, ywtf.

That's funny, I'm not getting the same message from you as you with the face

Since we're seemingly discussing misogyny in hip hop now, I'll say what I've said a million times before on this board: the vilification of African-American art is one of the great American pastimes. Whether it's blues, R&B, rock 'n roll, or jazz, African-American music forms are often targeted as negative influences, etc.
All those genres of music were at one time vilfied, but its been damn near half a century and has no relevance to the current discussion other than to explain the silence of the mainstream community for their abhorence of this music as I pointed out earlier. Hip hop or whatever you call it describing hos and bitches with abandon has clearly been established as objectionable in the black community as well. That's different.

Meanwhile, White American kids sneak the records in behind their parents' backs, listen and love the music, then start to produce it themselves. At best, the end result is an amazing form of music that is truly a melting pot of cultural influences.
Amazing?

Thing is, I would argue that the forms of music that African-Americans developed are reflective of societal trends. They're not innovating or producing new ones. And guess what? Our American culture has a violent, misogynistic side. I'm amused at the furor over hip hop, because I don't remember people whingeing about Tawny Kitaen sprawled over the hood of a car in a Whitesnake video. Sure, some people thought it was a little OTT, but not so much with the gnashing of the teeth and so forth.
Well, considering the media didn't make a big stink about it and we really haven't heard much about previous objection to hip hop in the media as well, this point has little relevance

If you grew up in the 80s like me you saw half-naked women on MTV all the freakin' time. With White artists. Especially hair metal bands. They all had the same formula: hot chick with moussed bangs, in leather, crawling around on stage. Where was the protest and the anger then?
I think most of us never saw it.

Listen, there is a strong element in the African-American community that disparages misogyny and violence in hip hop. There's a lot of people who don't care much one way or the other. There's a strong element that feels as I do: popular music always appeals to the lowest common denominator; when suits and corporate types get involved, they only go after the most hackneyed, exaggerated, buffoonish versions; and aspiring artists often succumb to the will of A&R types and record company corporate leaders. That's why you had MC Hammer abandon his party/gospel version of hip hop for the dreadful "Pumps and a Bump." Market forces.
If the point of your post is to spread the blame for this "amazing" music, then I would agree with you(except for the "amazing").

[Hippy Hollow]

oops.

[Hippy Hollow]

All those genres of music were at one time vilfied, but its been damn near half a century and has no relevance to the current discussion other than to explain the silence of the mainstream community for their abhorence of this music as I pointed out earlier. Hip hop or whatever you call it describing hos and bitches with abandon has clearly been established as objectionable in the black community as well. That's different.
Actually, it's quite relevant. When a genre is clearly identifiable as Black, it's vilified. If it goes away and comes back... dare I say, whitewashed, then it's a wonderful part of cultural history. Black music, IMO, has always been forceful and critical. When the force and critique is absent, then people are happy to frolic to the beat.

Amazing?
Well, actually, I was referring to how rock 'n roll is this amazing hybrid of Black rock music, skiffle from the Brits in the 60s... but I think you think that me stating that hip hop is amazing, well I think it is. So do a lot of people in this country and around the world.

Well, considering the media didn't make a big stink about it and we really haven't heard much about previous objection to hip hop in the media as well, this point has little relevance
Wha...? In response to the first issue, that's my point. It wasn't terribly bothersome when White guys wearing eyeliner had half-naked women crawling around on their videos. Second point - please recall controversies about N.W.A. and their album Efil4zaggin, the legal mess that Luke and the 2 Live Crew got into in Florida, or Ice-T and "Cop Killer." (In fairness it was Body Count and it was thrash metal, but hey! It's a Black guy talking through a song.)

I think most of us never saw it.
Well, I'll let the collective masses respond, but if you watched MTV from 1985-1990 religiously like I did, that's all you saw. Ozzy. Billy Idol. Winger. Whitesnake. Great White. Poison. I could go on, but I won't.

If the point of your post is to spread the blame for this "amazing" music, then I would agree with you(except for the "amazing").
Well, in part. Go up to the White men who are the corporate directors of Universal, Interscope, and so forth, and ask them why they are objectifying Black women through their promotion of and encouragement of artists who engage in such behavior. They are equally, if not majoritively responsible for it.

[Miller]

All those genres of music were at one time vilfied, but its been damn near half a century and has no relevance to the current discussion other than to explain the silence of the mainstream community for their abhorence of this music as I pointed out earlier.

...

Well, considering the media didn't make a big stink about it and we really haven't heard much about previous objection to hip hop in the media as well, this point has little relevance

...

I think most of us never saw it.


Hip hop isn't mainstream, there's never been a media stink about violent rap music, and most people have never seen MTV.

Yeah, you've really got your finger on the pulse of America, Dutchman.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Hip hop isn't mainstream, there's never been a media stink about violent rap music, and most people have never seen MTV.

Yeah, you've really got your finger on the pulse of America, Dutchman.

I wouldn't have put it so convincingly, but I appreciate the endorsement of my contribution to this discussion.

[monstro]

I don't know where you live, Flying Dutchman, but I agree with Miller that you don't seem to be in tuned to American culture.

[Larry Borgia]

I have to admit I don't follow Imus and when this story broke I thought it might be a one-time gaffe. Then I read This editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301872.html?hpid=opinionsbox2) by the W. Post's Colbert King.

Don Imus's descent into the derogatory didn't start with "nappy-headed hos."

There's his putdown of an African American sports columnist at the New York Times as a "quota hire," and his reference to African American journalist Gwen Ifill as a "cleaning lady" when she covered the White House for the New York Times. What about evidence that Imus had said he had hired a staffer to do "nigger" jokes? How about his deplorable references, as my Post colleague Michael Wilbon wrote, to black athletes as apes?

In the release, Foxman said that in a December 2004 broadcast, "Mr. Imus referred to publishers of a new book called 'The Christmas Thief' as 'thieving Jews.' Later on the same program, he attempted to apologize for that remark by saying (of thieving Jews), 'I apologize, I realize that's redundant.' "

Holy flurking schnitt! Why the fuck wasn't this guy fired years ago!? How the hell can anyone defend him? And what does Sharpton or Jackson have to do with anything?

The only thing I can say about his firing is better late than never. All the ranches in the world don't make up for this garbage.

Sorry if this post contains material already covered. I haven't read the whole thread, just felt like sharing.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I don't know where you live, Flying Dutchman, but I agree with Miller that you don't seem to be in tuned to American culture.

You know, I totally agree with you.In fact, one of these days I plan to start a thread providing my perceptions on the difference between the American psyche about important westwern issues and my backwoods Canadian upper middle aged year old counterpart(other Canadians may disagree). The theme will be that the origin of liberal issues arise in the Unitred states but never quite gets resolved while here in Canada we adopt the dialogue and quickly put the issue to rest. In favour of the liberals mind you, but I strongly suspect that is the case in other western countries.

For example, we don't have shock jocks and when we have hate speech, it only attracts public attention when the offence is serious, and we deal with that promptly, through our laws, and then put it behind us. Like our elections, we get resolution quickly.
I do pay attention to the American media, Cnn, CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS in addition to CBC, Global and CTV. I don't get Fox, Limbaugh , Imus or HBO for that matter but I also see a complete other American world here at the SDMB. I suspect the media tones down the animosity and polarization that is quite evident from real Americans on this board. I honestly feel fortunate to listen in on you guys here. As far as hip hop goes, I haven't heard much about it here yet.

[Guinastasia]

Then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to tell us that we're wrong about Imus and such.

You think?

[The Flying Dutchman]

Then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to tell us that we're wrong about Imus and such.

You think?

Hey, just because as a foreigner I may not have a full understanding of your American culture doesn't mean I should shut up Is that really you?

[Guinastasia]

Hey, just because as a foreigner I may not have a full understanding of your American culture doesn't mean I should shut up Is that really you?


No, that's not what I meant. Rather, you should stop assuming you know better than those of us who actually live here. Up until recently, I believe you admitted you didn't even know all that much about Imus. Nor did you know the meaning of "ho" or "nappy-headed". And yet, you lecture us on whether or not we should find it offensive.

[The Flying Dutchman]

No, that's not what I meant. Rather, you should stop assuming you know better than those of us who actually live here. Up until recently, I believe you admitted you didn't even know all that much about Imus.
Well thankyou for the clarification. I honestly don't believe that I know better than anyone else. I do have opinions that I like to share for debate. I didn't think that was a bad thing.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I do have opinions that I like to share for debate. I didn't think that was a bad thing.'Tisn't. Arguing from ignorance is.

[Contrapuntal]

Black music, IMO, has always been forceful and critical. When the force and critique is absent, then people are happy to frolic to the beat.Can we exclude jazz from that statement? I agree that many people prefer the whitewashed version, but the Black jazz geniuses are honored, and respected, and their music played with all it's force and power.

If I went to church, it would be this one. (http://www.coltranechurch.org/) As a matter of fact, I think I'll cue up A Love Supreme right now.

[RTFirefly]

Holy flurking schnitt! Why the fuck wasn't this guy fired years ago!? How the hell can anyone defend him? And what does Sharpton or Jackson have to do with anything?
Atrios has a theory about that (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_15_atrios_archive.html#117664873612875068):
Memo to the Media

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are not the only black people in America, and more than that they do not have the ability to force themselves onto your news shows. There's a pattern here:

1) Bigot eruption somewhere
2) Lots of people condemn it
3) Al Sharpton goes on every teevee program
4) The media people turn around and use Sharpton's past as a distraction/excuse for the current bigot eruption

If Al Sharpton is an imperfect spokesperson for an issue, and you keep putting him on the teevee to be the spokesperson for that issue, then the obvious conclusion is that this is a deliberate strategy.

[you with the face]

Atrios has a theory about that (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_15_atrios_archive.html#117664873612875068):

That makes perfect sense to me. I'm actually surprised that people don't seem to put 1 and 1 together like this more often.

[Apos]

But you said they shouldn't care about the bottom line. They should care about sponsoring free speech.

To refresh your memory, you wrote:

Maybe that wasn't clear, but the implication was that we as consumers shouldn't be mad that the people we buy our talcum powder from sponsor even speech we don't like: i.e. consumers have the power. I'm sorry you read it differently.

Reduced to its elementary form, you're saying someone should buy something even if they don't want it. This is not the American way.

The only trick you guys seem to have up your sleeves is trying to attack straw men. If you want talcum powder, but the talcum powder. If the talcum powder company happens to sponsor a program you don't like, trying to sell talcum powder to people you don't like, what I'm saying is that a commitment to free speech means not getting your panties all in a bunch about it.

You were talking about the sponsors. You may not be talking ONLY about sponsors, but you were talking about them too.

Sponsors are only going to sponsor what their are listeners for that make up a market for them. Boycotts, in addition, do have the power to affect them, and I'm saying that they are a bad thing.


Why though?

If I can lobby a sponsor to support a program, why is it so awful for me to try to dissuade a sponsor to remove its support? Maybe that sponsor is unaware of the negative press surrounding that program and would appreciate the heads-up.

Because the impulse to punish speech you don't like and try to remove it from civil society is a bad one. It's illiberal. It's not consistent with a commitment to a free market of ideas.

I fully understand free speech, thankyouverymuch. I just don't think free speech is more sacred than free market action.

Again, this is a fantasy you guys seem to have cooked up. It makes no sense. I'm not saying that people don't have a free market right to lobby companies. I'm saying that they should refrain from doing so if their goal is to punish people for speech they don't like, censor venues, and restrict what OTHER people choose to listen to.

It is you who doesn't seem to understand free speech. You seem to put "lobbying for" in a different category than "lobbying against". They are the same thing.

Not if you value free speech as a real ideal, as opposed to an empty commitment that just happens to be law.

Yes, that's me to a "T". While you're Fred Phelps Family, screaming "GOD HATES FAGS" at the funerals of Iraqi vets and expecting to be left alone because "free speech, man".

See how fun it is to resort to stupid, inaccurate metaphors when you've run out of things to say.

Shrug. My metaphors are accurate, and yours are not: saying otherwise isn't the same thing as being right about it. Free speech means that we have tolerate the existence of things we don't necessarily like, and refrain from seeking out to shut them down.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Wait, so Sharpton and Jackson are actually agents (unwitting, I assume) of the Evil White American Power Structure, used as expedients in the media in order to support bigotry and keep it alive and well? Is that the theory?

That particular set of "1"s has a few unlikely dots connecting them, I think, although I can see why it's good fodder for our conspiracy theorists.

A simpler explanation is that the media give Sharpton and Jackson airtime because they are highly recognizable figures, they both make careers out of inserting themselves into racial controversies, they attract viewers (both admiring and contemptuous), and they're ready any day, any time for a photo op, interview, or press conference. I think the big media are fundamentally lazy, and when it comes time to present the "black perspective," they're going to go with the famous scion of the black community who's knocking on their door, rather than go out and scour the country for the best and brightest unknowns.

[Apos]

You mean calls for economic boycotts like this (http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/rnr/310868354.html) and this (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.don-imus/browse_thread/thread/e0772da03ed19946/a8f8f76fb22697f1?lnk=raot&hl=en) and this (http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070409233704AAOceVL)?


Exactly! Am I making progress with you then?

If you feel that an "entire venue" is supporting something bad and dangerous, it is perfectly ethically to organize a boycott. People are free to ignore calls for that boycott. And people are free to ignore the effects of that boycott.

I don't know about ethical just like I don't know about consistency. All things equal, I don't see why they couldn't be ethical and consistent, and certainly they are perfectly legal. What I've argued is if you value free speech, however, then its wrong.

Yes we are, Apos. A commerical would be if Sharpton got on the air and said "Let's support MSNBC, because they are good people." An anti-commercial would be if Sharpton got on the air and said "Let's not support MSNBC, because they are bad people". They are objectively the same thing. People are equally free to ignore both or listen to both. Boycotts and advertising are both ways to control people's spending habits. As a supporter of the First Amendment, you can't favor one over the other. You cannot.

Good grief. Are you really trying this hard to not see a distinction between trying to get messages heard and trying to prevent messages from being heard?

Your attempt here to try and argue that I'm somehow in favor of restricting free speech is ridiculous. It's like the tolerance of intolerance argument. Yes, I _support_ the idea that someone CAN try to lobby and boycott away something other people want to listen to. What I'm arguing is that it is BAD to do so if you value free speech and the free exchange of ideas. The same way that I support the free speech of someone to argue that we should put homosexuals to death, but can still argue that anyone committed to liberty shouldn't argue that they should be.

If I think something's immoral and contributing to the breakdown of society, I don't think it's disrespectful to the First Amendment for me to express this viewpoint. In fact, I think it affirms it, especially if my words are persuasive enough that it evokes change.

Sure, but what does that have to do with what I've been arguing?

I'm against actions taken to try and lobby away speech and prevent OTHER PEOPLE from listening to something you don't like via economic threats. Telling people that something is bad and evil and so forth is 100% cool. Telling them that they should cover their ears though, perhaps is not. And acting to try to take away even the opportunity to listen to something they want to listen to (perhaps because you've failed to convince them) is not. Not if you think they are adults.

But you know better than they do, right?

[monstro]

Maybe that wasn't clear, but the implication was that we as consumers shouldn't be mad that the people we buy our talcum powder from sponsor even speech we don't like: i.e. consumers have the power. I'm sorry you read it differently.

But this still is ludicrous! I wouldn't buy talcum powder from the Taliban or from the KKK or from the Fred Phelps Family. I wouldn't buy talcum powder from anyone who advocates killing gays, white women, or prairie dogs. Why would I give money to people who support things I think are immoral and evil? Or say immoral and evil things?

I wouldn't buy talcum powder from someone who says monstro is a nappy-headed whore. You're saying I'm wrong for being so discriminating?

The only trick you guys seem to have up your sleeves is trying to attack straw men.

I'm just one person, dude.

If you want talcum powder, but the talcum powder. If the talcum powder company happens to sponsor a program you don't like, trying to sell talcum powder to people you don't like, what I'm saying is that a commitment to free speech means not getting your panties all in a bunch about it.

Would you support a talcum powder company who sponsors only white-separatist, KKK and neo-Nazi organizations? If you received a pamphlet for a KKK rally which announced that it was sponsored by the Anglo-Saxon Powder Company, would you make the personal decision to buy up a heap of their products?

If you did, wouldn't it be understandable if someone decided your purchases indicated something about your sympathy towards the white-seperatist cause?

A person who organizes an ethical boycott does not physically bar anyone from buying anything. It's not like they snatch items out of people's hands at the check-out counter, or blocks access to the grocery store aisle. They raise awareness about a product or the makers of that product and then let the consumer decide what to do. That's all a friggin' boycott is.

You want to allow corporations to cram advertising down our throats, but you think it's wrong for organizations concerned with the ethics of these corporations to do the same exact thing. You favor one form of control but not the other. Don't you see how contradictory this is?

Sponsors are only going to sponsor what their are listeners for that make up a market for them. Boycotts, in addition, do have the power to affect them, and I'm saying that they are a bad thing.

Let me ask you: Do you feel this way about all boycotts? Because if you do, I have to question whether you're really an American. The country was built on the concept of boycott. If you feel like boycotts are immoral, why are you living in a country that gained independence through, in part, the power of the boycott? Go back to Britain and drink your over-taxed tea, whydon'tyou.

Because the impulse to punish speech you don't like and try to remove it from civil society is a bad one. It's illiberal. It's not consistent with a commitment to a free market of ideas.

Wah wah wah. For the eleventy-billionth time, free speech does mean "free from consequence".

Let me ask another honest question: If Tom Brokaw had called the basketball players "nappy-headed jigaboo hos", do you think he should have lost his job? What if he couldn't get through a newsreport without stammering and stuttering? What if the guy had Tourette's and screamed "NIGGER BROWN" every time a black person was featured in a story?

Would NBC have been morally bound to keep the man because "free speech, man"? Or could Tom Brokaw reasonably expect to be fired? Just like anyone of us would, if our employers decided we were embarrassing them?

Again, this is a fantasy you guys seem to have cooked up. It makes no sense. I'm not saying that people don't have a free market right to lobby companies. I'm saying that they should refrain from doing so if their goal is to punish people for speech they don't like, censor venues, and restrict what OTHER people choose to listen to.

Let's look at the Montegomery bus boycott. Are you saying the boycotters were bad guys? Did they try to punish people? No. Punishing would be setting fire to the buses and harrassing the drivers. Did they take anything way from the other riders? No. The other riders were perfectly free to continue supporting the bus system. New riders were perfectly free to contribute their support to the bus system. The bus system was perfectly free to continue its practices. And the boycotters were perfectly free to wear their shoes thin walking miles and miles.

The bus company was not entitled to their money in the first place. The boycotters didn't hurt them. The bus company hurt itself.

Just like Imus is not entitled to money from CBS, MSNBC, Proctor and Gamble, or GM. His sponsors didn't hurt him. He hurt himself.

Advocating against the boycott goes against the very concept of a free market.

[Miller]

Can we exclude jazz from that statement? I agree that many people prefer the whitewashed version, but the Black jazz geniuses are honored, and respected, and their music played with all it's force and power.


Sure, now they are. But go back and look at what white people were saying about it when it was a new artform.

[you with the face]

Sure, now they are. But go back and look at what white people were saying about it when it was a new artform.

For reals. Coltrane was the Snoop Dog of his day.

[monstro]

Good grief. Are you really trying this hard to not see a distinction between trying to get messages heard and trying to prevent messages from being heard?

If Al Sharpton was bombing MSNBC and CBS and trying to cut out Imus's tongue, then you could say he was trying to prevent messages from being heard. But he didn't do any of these things.

Imus's "voice" is not being prevented in any way. You really make your argument sound shrill and hysterical by taking this absurd position.

Your attempt here to try and argue that I'm somehow in favor of restricting free speech is ridiculous. It's like the tolerance of intolerance argument. Yes, I _support_ the idea that someone CAN try to lobby and boycott away something other people want to listen to. What I'm arguing is that it is BAD to do so if you value free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

But the public airwaves have ALWAYS has standards. They have NEVER been free. Sharpton did not invent censorship, so if you have a problem with what he's advocating, you're a little late to the party.

I don't get how Imus is an example of "free exchange of ideas". He's just one guy with a mic. He can screen who he gets to talk to, who he gets to interview. He can cut off whoever he wants. That's not free. That's a dictatorship.

I can't get my own radio show from CBS. Does that mean they don't value free speech and the free exchange of ideas?

(I love it how all of a sudden, these conservative, "libertarian" types are up in arms about the lost of free speech. Over the past couple of decades, mega-conglomerates have been turning the airwaves into a resource controlled by only a few entities--the Clear Channelization of our media. The fact that local-owned, independent radio stations are an endangered species is more worrisome to me than the firing of some fat-pocketed shock jock.)


The same way that I support the free speech of someone to argue that we should put homosexuals to death, but can still argue that anyone committed to liberty shouldn't argue that they should be.

I can support someone's right to say whatever the want without giving them money. If I discover the local homophobe is selling lemonade on his front porch, I'm not impinging on his First Amendment rights by avoiding his stand and telling others to avoid his stand. By saying that I shouldn't do that (because I'll hurt the poor thing), you're saying that his free speech is more important than mine.

I'm against actions taken to try and lobby away speech and prevent OTHER PEOPLE from listening to something you don't like via economic threats. Telling people that something is bad and evil and so forth is 100% cool. Telling them that they should cover their ears though, perhaps is not. And acting to try to take away even the opportunity to listen to something they want to listen to (perhaps because you've failed to convince them) is not. Not if you think they are adults.



Saying GOD HATES FAGS is 100% cool. Me tellling someone to avoid that person and the people supporting that person is 100% bad. Right.

I'd like you to find evidence of Sharpton taking anything away from anyone, or him punishing Imus. I don't think you can.

[Hippy Hollow]

yeah Contra, I won't back down from the statement. Every jazz great I know of prominence, from Parker to Coltrane to Davis (I am a bebop fan more than any other form) caught grief in the media for their drug use and hedonistic lifestyles. Now they're dead and buried, we can give them the thumbs up.

And I would say that jazz has lost its primarily African-American fan base. The only people I know who listen to jazz today are intellectuals. Mostly White intellectuals, which is great, because these cats know and love the music - but I think a lot of Black folks nowadays know very little about jazz's roots.

[Fiveyearlurker]

I'd like you to find evidence of Sharpton taking anything away from anyone, or him punishing Imus. I don't think you can.

Well there's this (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1995/12/09/MN74133.DTL) event of a protest and boycott gone really, really, wrong which was basically a boycott against a store owner who had the nerve to be Jewish.

Do you think that maybe when advertisers hear the word "boycott" come out of his mouth, this little episode might possibly have a little say in how they react.

[monstro]

Well there's this (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1995/12/09/MN74133.DTL) event of a protest and boycott gone really, really, wrong which was basically a boycott against a store owner who had the nerve to be Jewish.

Do you think that maybe when advertisers hear the word "boycott" come out of his mouth, this little episode might possibly have a little say in how they react.

All boycotts turn into murderous riots, and that's why MSNBC and CBS fired Imus. They were afraid for their lives, poor guys.

I'm starting to think RTFirefly's link isn't just idle speculation.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I wouldn't buy talcum powder from anyone who advocates killing gays...

Then I want to help you out monstro Do you fill up your vehicle at Exxon, or Shell ? Get your home heating oil from them? Did you know that they deal and purchase oil with the Saudi Arabian state oil company called Aramco (http://www.energyforum.gov.sa/html/facts.html)?

Here's what Wikipedia say about Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia)

Although not uncommon and hidden, all sexual activity outside of a traditional heterosexual marriage is illegal. Punishment for homosexuality, cross-dressing, or being involved with anything that hints at the existence of an organized gay community will range from imprisonment, deportation (for foreigners), lashes, and sometimes execution.

It could be though I don't know(after all, I'm not American), that every pump in the States supplies Saudi oil, but at least you should know now who are the clear culprits. Enjoy your ride :)

By the way, if a movement could be established to boycott Aramco and their partners, I'll join in. After all we have lots of oil in Canada and I don't mind paying a premium for the cause of gays and women.

[monstro]

Thanks for the heads-up, The Flying Dutchman. I'm not the most ethical person, but I do try to be conscientious in my consumerism.

[Fiveyearlurker]

All boycotts turn into murderous riots, and that's why MSNBC and CBS fired Imus. They were afraid for their lives, poor guys.



Nope. But one that was started by the particular guy who was starting this one did. You really think that no one considered this when giving in to him?

Quote from Sharpton at the time:

"We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business," Sharpton said.

[Miller]

Nope. But one that was started by the particular guy who was starting this one did. You really think that no one considered this when giving in to him?


Yeah, I'm pretty sure CBS wasn't afraid Sharpton was going to burn down their studios if they didn't fire Imus.

:rolleyes:

[Fiveyearlurker]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure CBS wasn't afraid Sharpton was going to burn down their studios if they didn't fire Imus.

:rolleyes:

I think most people tend to be a bit concerned when a guy once used a racially fueled boycott to whip people into enough of a frenzy that it ended in a multiple homicide, when they hear him uttering the word "boycott" in another racially fueled situation.

Yeah, I think most people tend to have a one strike your out policy on boycotts leading to murder.

To his credit, he did at least apologize for the "white interloper" part.

[tomndebb]

Nope. But one that was started by the particular guy who was starting this one did. You really think that no one considered this when giving in to him?Where are you getting the idea that Sharpton started this one?

There were alreeady a number of people grumbling (and several smaller sponsors jumping ship) within two days of the program. Then Imus chose to go to Sharpton. Now, Sharpton would not let Imus off the hook--whether because Imus was too weaselly in his apology or because Sharpton had his own agenda, no one has provided evidence for either claim--but Sharpton did not start the withdrawl of sponsors and Sharpton was handed a perfect opportunity to get himself quoted due to the actions of Imus.

[mhendo]

I think most people tend to be a bit concerned when a guy once used a racially fueled boycott to whip people into enough of a frenzy that it ended in a multiple homicide, when they hear him uttering the word "boycott" in another racially fueled situation.

Yeah, I think most people tend to have a one strike your out policy on boycotts leading to murder.

To his credit, he did at least apologize for the "white interloper" part.Actually, i have a "one strike you're out" policy on murder.

If Sharpton calls for a boycott, and some zealot gets it into his head that a boycott means shooting and arson resulting in the death of himself and seven other people, then the person to blame is the zealot, not Sharpton.

Your implication that Sharpton is somehow responsible for those deaths is ridiculous.

[Caridwen]

I'm not talking about Fiveyearlurker because I don't know anything about his politics, but most of the conservative boards were the first people to call for Bill Maher to be fired, and the Dixie Chicks to be boycotted. Remember the french fry/freedom fry boycott?

The only time they seem to have a problem with people calling for a boycott is when it's done by those whiny black people. :rolleyes:


Letter writing, and calls for boycotts to raise public awareness have been going on forever in this country. This is nothing new and environmental groups have been pretty successful using this strategy. When the called for boycotting tuna companies that didn't have dolphin-free tuna it raised a lot of awareness.

The Grape boycott in the 60's brought a lot of awareness to the plight of migrant workers.
http://library.thinkquest.org/26504/History.html

Check out the WWF site, it's ongoing. Why is this a bad thing?

[descamisado]

Actually, i have a "one strike you're out" policy on murder.

If Sharpton calls for a boycott, and some zealot gets it into his head that a boycott means shooting and arson resulting in the death of himself and seven other people, then the person to blame is the zealot, not Sharpton.

Your implication that Sharpton is somehow responsible for those deaths is ridiculous.I had intended not to post in this thread anymore because people seem not to be reading my posts, evidenced by non-responses to direct questions and/or reposting the exact information I had posted previously.

However, I must correct something Lurker has repeated several times.

He has conflated two separate incident involving Sharpton and I think, because they involved Sharpton, they were blown out of proportion in the first place.

1) The incident that lead to someone being murdered was in Crown Heights, when Yankel Rosenbaum was stabbed to death by Lemrick Nelson, Jr. This was in the days following the death of Gavin Cato, a nine-year-old, black child, after being struck by a hit and run driver, later proven to be Yosef Lisch.

While Sharpton was involved in the calls for justice in the days after the car accident, I want you to answer me this: where has it been conclusively proven that Sharpton explicitly called for people to violently riot and/or to kill anyone? You can't do it. But he must have because of the Tawana Brawley incident.

2) The interloper comment and incident was in Harlem and involved a store called, I believe, Fast Freddy's, and its imminent expansion. A man later died in a fire started by someone whose name was not Sharpton. Again, Sharpton got involved, due to already-existing widespread community concerns that the tenor of the Harlem community was changing, in no small part due to encroachment like this. Was the expansion of the shop wrong? I dont know. But the community had already voiced major concerns about this and Sharpton picked up on this.

Again, I ask you: where has it been conclusively proven that Sharpton explicitly called for people to violently riot and/or to kill anyone? You still can't. Ahhh, Tawana Brawley. So he must have.

And this:"We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business," Sharpton said.cannot be, in any way interpreted (whichever incident it's connected to) as a call to riot and murder.

By the way, I'm on record on the Dope as saying he did a lot of very wrong things in the Brawley case. I'm also not quite sure that, while he gets involved in many worthwhile causes, he's not in it for Sharpton, either.

All of this is on wikipedia for all of you who have, up to now, believed in its powers to prove anything and everything under the sun.

[DSeid]

I am not going to repost the same comments in multiple threads and I think that the points have been made on each side several times over, so I want to just make one little observation. Fiveyearlurker commented that maybe advertisers are afraid that this could turn into a boycott that could become violent, and that they may be more concerned about that because Sharpton has been involved in such events before. He did not say that Sharpton called for the violence. He did not say that Sharpton desired that outcome. He did say that when Sharpton got involved before it happened, that Sharpton's stylistic was partly to blame even if he did not directly call for violence or desire it, and that such might give a company pause even it is just a marker of such a risk.

Responding to that statement as if he said that "all" boycotts turn violent, or that he claimed that Sharpton was directly causative of the events is unfair. Debate what he actualy said.

[you with the face]

Fiveyearlurker commented that maybe advertisers are afraid that this could turn into a boycott that could become violent, and that they may be more concerned about that because Sharpton has been involved in such events before.

And that would be ridiculous. There's been no indication that the level of public outrage over this is anywhere close to violence.

The implication always seems to be that protesting black people = violence just waiting to happen. Really, really offensive shit. I'm getting sick of it.

[descamisado]

I am not going to repost the same comments in multiple threads and I think that the points have been made on each side several times over, so I want to just make one little observation. Fiveyearlurker commented that maybe advertisers are afraid that this could turn into a boycott that could become violent, and that they may be more concerned about that because Sharpton has been involved in such events before. He did not say that Sharpton called for the violence. He did not say that Sharpton desired that outcome. He did say that when Sharpton got involved before it happened, that Sharpton's stylistic was partly to blame even if he did not directly call for violence or desire it, and that such might give a company pause even it is just a marker of such a risk.

Responding to that statement as if he said that "all" boycotts turn violent, or that he claimed that Sharpton was directly causative of the events is unfair. Debate what Lurker actually said.I've read every post in this thread and Monstro's other thread re: Imus, and I believe he, and others, have said and implied it at every turn. Unfortunately, I'm at the library and my allotted time is running out, but tomorrow I will search for and return with direct quotes that support my belief.

However, in the meantime, if he has not said such a thing and/or I have, further, drawn the incorrect inference from the sum total of his posts, I'd like to ask him to respond. Either to these current assertions, or to the questions in the post just previous to yours.

Anyone who would like to present evidence condemning Sharpton for the specific actions I mention in that post may respond as well. If no one does, am I to assume that those who have characterized Sharpton's past thusly, are saying they have no evidence?

Excuse, now; I have to go look up some pr0n.

[DSeid]

And that would be ridiculous. There's been no indication that the level of public outrage over this is anywhere close to violence.

The implication always seems to be that protesting black people = violence just waiting to happen. Really, really offensive shit. I'm getting sick of it.Well ywtf you are entitled to be offended whenever you want to be and read whatever implication you want from what has been said whether that was implied or not. But be real. In the modern America era violent riots have fairly often involved a predominately Black crowd and there have been a few. Mind you that wasn't the case in the past. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States) For most of American history Blacks were the subject of voilent riots by Whites. But the modern era is marked by violent riots by Blacks. And Sharpton has a track record of inflaming situations whether such was his intent or not. To not have any concern that a protest could turn ugly would be to stupidly ignore the last 40 years.

Now I agree that there really was no indication that this was the kind of issue to trigger violence, it was not Rodney King and wasn't police brutality ignored, but who knows what level of risk aversion some executive may have? Maybe enough that it played a factor in the decision process? I personally don't think so, but I wouldn't find such a possibility impossible to consider.

5-4 well I haven't read them all, just the last one that's been responded to. If I missed others then I am sorry and will stand corrected. If such is the case then eviscerate away.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

The implication always seems to be that protesting black people = violence just waiting to happen. Really, really offensive shit. I'm getting sick of it. Well, but -- but -- but -- WATTS!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Damn colored folk been acting uppity ever since those civil rights outside agitators got 'em all riled up, and look where that's got us! :mad: :mad: :mad:



You must get damned sick and tired off all those brick walls people keep insisting you beat your head against, huh?

[Caridwen]

Now I agree that there really was no indication that this was the kind of issue to trigger violence, it was not Rodney King and wasn't police brutality ignored, but who knows what level of risk aversion some executive may have? Maybe enough that it played a factor in the decision process? I personally don't think so, but I wouldn't find such a possibility impossible to consider.

:eek: Ever meet a stereotype you didn't like?

[monstro]

MSNBC and CBS should be afraid of all those rioting angry white people, then. After all, whites have committed more riots than any other group in the US. And they riot even when they are happy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/798383.stm).

Plus, whites have most of the guns.

The idea that blacks would riot over Imus's comments is absolutely, positively ludicrous.

[DSeid]

:eek: Ever meet a stereotype you didn't like?I've never met a stereotype. Have you?

If you are trying to call me a name please have the backbone to do so directly. This is the Pit. You can do that. I can take it.

Monstro, I agree that it is very far fetched. But the concept that an executive might entertain a ludicrous idea and be influenced by it .. that is not so ludicrous. Unlikely maybe, but not ludicrous.

[you with the face]

Monstro, I agree that it is very far fetched. But the concept that an executive might entertain a ludicrous idea and be influenced by it .. that is not so ludicrous.

Well, we do live in a racist society, so maybe you're right.

Maybe white executives think boycott + black people = rioting in the streets. But just because they might have this opinion doesn't mean it's valid or is one that merits sympathy. It deserves to be mocked, not treated seriously.

[Contrapuntal]

yeah Contra, I won't back down from the statement. Every jazz great I know of prominence, from Parker to Coltrane to Davis (I am a bebop fan more than any other form) caught grief in the media for their drug use and hedonistic lifestyles. Now they're dead and buried, we can give them the thumbs up.

And I would say that jazz has lost its primarily African-American fan base. The only people I know who listen to jazz today are intellectuals. Mostly White intellectuals, which is great, because these cats know and love the music - but I think a lot of Black folks nowadays know very little about jazz's roots.I'm sorry if it seemed like I was asking you to back down. I merely pointed out that jazz, while whitewashed, still retains it's hardcore fans. I took your meaning to be that only after it was whitewashed would a black genre become popular.

What does catching grief in the media over drug use have to do with it? I thought you were talking about actual changes in the genre itself, rather than how people reacted to the musicians. Did I misunderstand you?

Sonny Rollins is still alive. Ornette Coleman is still alive. I really don't see it as validation just because some jazz greats are dead and buried. Even if that were the case, that is not what you said.

Thanks for calling me an intellectual. :)

[Excalibre]

Damn colored folk been acting uppity ever since those civil rights outside agitators got 'em all riled up, and look where that's got us! :mad: :mad: :mad:
I don't think anyone here would seriously argue with the fact that society fell apart when we started letting negroes ride at the front of the bus.

Incidentally, Mozilla's spell-checker doesn't have the word "negro", but interestingly it does have the word "nigger".

[tomndebb]

I don't think anyone here would seriously argue with the fact that society fell apart when we started letting negroes ride at the front of the bus.Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The Montgomery Bus Boycott ended in December, 1956, but society did not begin to fall apart until two thirds of the New York City major league baseball teams moved to California in 1958.

[Fiveyearlurker]

I'm not talking about Fiveyearlurker because I don't know anything about his politics, but most of the conservative boards were the first people to call for Bill Maher to be fired, and the Dixie Chicks to be boycotted. Remember the french fry/freedom fry boycott?



To clear that up, I'm unabashedly left-leaning.

[Hippy Hollow]

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was asking you to back down. I merely pointed out that jazz, while whitewashed, still retains it's hardcore fans. I took your meaning to be that only after it was whitewashed would a black genre become popular.

What does catching grief in the media over drug use have to do with it? I thought you were talking about actual changes in the genre itself, rather than how people reacted to the musicians. Did I misunderstand you?

Sonny Rollins is still alive. Ornette Coleman is still alive. I really don't see it as validation just because some jazz greats are dead and buried. Even if that were the case, that is not what you said.

Thanks for calling me an intellectual. :)
Heh. I think what I meant to say is that once all the radical, threatening, in-your-face artists (and the money) leave the genre, then it can indeed become accepted and appreciated. I think it has a lot to do with young Black men having money and power, and how that freaks White America out. Because of course the number of hip hop artists who can be reduced to simply foul words and misogyny is quite small. But somehow it seems they're everywhere, corrupting the minds of White kids.

If hip hop recedes in popularity, nobody's going to care what people are rapping about. When there are acceptable, middle-class White faces that represent the genre, it becomes a lot safer. There haven't been any. Not to mention the lack of commercially successful female artists. Hip hop to date has been commercially urban, young Black men. Even the exceptions (Ice Cube, for example) have had to play up their street credentials. Run-DMC, middle-class Black kids from Queens, even tried to stage a comeback as "hard" street-smart MCs.

Rollins and Coleman are up in years. I don't know much about their politics, I must admit.

[Fiveyearlurker]

If hip hop recedes in popularity, nobody's going to care what people are rapping about. When there are acceptable, middle-class White faces that represent the genre, it becomes a lot safer.

Since you seem to have knowledge, can you walk a guy through the term hip hop vs. rap. Are they the same? Is there overlap?

I feel like a jackass asking, because I'm not so old that I probably shouldn't know.

[Apos]

Hey monstro: constantly trying to confuse actions with speech and ideas is, in the context the argument I'm making, flat out dishonest of you.

So, I'm gonna hold off on responding to you until you simply stop lying about what I'm saying, ok? There's just no point in wasting time composing out a post only to get, as a response, a bunch of incoherent digressions.

You clearly don't get it. I think I've explained myself pretty clearly, but it's not getting through, and I really do think it's because at base you aren't a liberal in any meaningful sense: you're just defending your tribe (made all the more obvious by the reference to "conservative and libertarian" types, which is pretty silly considering my politics). And honestly? That sort of makes me sad.

I can't get my own radio show from CBS. Does that mean they don't value free speech and the free exchange of ideas?

No it means that no one is interested in what you have to say.

[crowmanyclouds]

... He has conflated two separate incident involving Sharpton and I think, because they involved Sharpton, they were blown out of proportion in the first place.

1) The incident that lead to someone being murdered was in Crown Heights, when Yankel Rosenbaum was stabbed to death by Lemrick Nelson, Jr. This was in the days following the death of Gavin Cato, a nine-year-old, black child, after being struck by a hit and run driver, later proven to be Yosef Lisch.

While Sharpton was involved in the calls for justice in the days after the car accident, I want you to answer me this: where has it been conclusively proven that Sharpton explicitly called for people to violently riot and/or to kill anyone? You can't do it. ...As I recall NYC was more pissed at Mayor Dinkins for not acting sooner to stop the riots than Sharpton for stirring the pot.... On Aug. 19, 1991, a 7-year-old black child, Gavin Cato, was killed (and another child severely injured) in Crown Heights after being struck by a Jewish driver speeding through a red light. Several hours later and several blocks away, then 16-year-old Lemrick Nelson joined a mob of blacks shouting "There's a Jew! Let's get the Jew! Kill the Jew!" while pursuing a 29-year-old rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum. Nelson stabbed Rosenbaum, who later died of internal bleeding in the Kings County Hospital emergency room, where doctors had failed to notice the deep wound. Before he died, Rosenbaum identified Nelson as the assailant who stabbed him. ...CITE (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20030602/4/408)Bold=CMCUnless someone can cite that the Rev started stirring said pot in the minutes following Cato's death, it's kinda hard to blame him for what happened in the hours following that death.
Moreover where's the proof that Lemrick Nelson, or the mob he joined, had heard Sharpton before he stabbed Rosenbaum?

Can you blame Sharpton for a riot that started before he showed up?

CMC fnord!

[saoirse]

If you are against talk show hosts being rude and insulting people in general, you got a long battle a head of you. Aside from the Bob and Tom Show (and they insult, just in a funny way), they all are rude and insulting.

If your schtick is pissing people off, you should expect to get fired. Frequently. All the great professional assholes had to bounce from one job to another, and work venues that they thought were beneath them.

[monstro]

Hey monstro: constantly trying to confuse actions with speech and ideas is, in the context the argument I'm making, flat out dishonest of you.

Translation: Your questions make me think, and I don't know what to say that doesn't concede the lameness of my position. Thus, I'm going to accuse you of presenting lies and distortion, trusting that the reader won't wade back through the thread to find the truth.

So, I'm gonna hold off on responding to you until you simply stop lying about what I'm saying, ok? There's just no point in wasting time composing out a post only to get, as a response, a bunch of incoherent digressions.

I've asked you questions in an attempt to get you to clarify your more ridiculous statements, but in your responses you only dig yourself deeper and deeper while dodging my arguments. How is it my fault that you can't seem to post something that is reasonable and non-contradictory? Don't blame me because you are a weak debater.

You clearly don't get it. I think I've explained myself pretty clearly, but it's not getting through, and I really do think it's because at base you aren't a liberal in any meaningful sense: you're just defending your tribe (made all the more obvious by the reference to "conservative and libertarian" types, which is pretty silly considering my politics). And honestly? That sort of makes me sad.

Boycotting is at the heart of liberalism, fella. You may not consider yourself conservative, but you sure aren't talking like a real liberal. I have little respect for an American who doesn't appreciate the usefulness of the boycott and then has the audacity to proclaim the sacredness of free speech. You're full of contradictions which for some reason you're unable to see.

If what you're saying isn't getting to me, first consider that you are an ineffective communicator. I've noticed when people are flailing in an argument, they resort to this defense. Sometimes it applies, but not here. The topic at hand is not that complicated, and your posts aren't that profound.

No it means that no one is interested in what you have to say.

So only interesting free speech should get airtime? Weren't you the one who said that sponsors should support all kinds of free speech, even if they don't like it? Doesn't that mean sponsors should support the uninteresting stuff too?



*crickets*



Oops, I'm sorry. I forgot you're not taking any more questions from me.

[DSeid]

Well the posts on this subject have lead me to lose respect for some Monstro and sadly so.

It seems that those who endorse the rightousness of calling for Imus's firing and of threatening boycotts to accomplish that goal have taken the position that anyone who disagrees must be racist or at least not a "real" liberal.

While Caridwen isn't straight-up enough to say it out and out, (s)he is certainly happy to imply that I must be a racist because I'm not signing onto the apparent correct party line.

You are wanting to dismiss any of of us who feel that boycotts to impose a point a view and used to limit the sorts of speech in the marketplace of ideas as not be "real liberals."

I endorsed your position in your first thread. And I still understand your position now even though I strongly disagree. But if being a "real liberal" in your book means giving up my ability to think that bullying others into silence is wrong, then I am happy to have you think what you will and I will be forced to think of you with somewhat less respect as well. And yes, IMHO, bullying is what this is all about. Imus's words bullied the Rutger athletes (although I still cannot believe that they are so delicate of flowers as to be completely devastated by one has-been's throw-away insult. Hell, at that age I was called "a Jew-boy Kike" and I didn't wilt, they gotta be tougher than I was, 'cause I wasn't so tough), in turn Imus was bullied into silence by the media circus, and in these threads we see attempts to bully those who disagree with the party line with insulting implications about them. Posters who usually are very good at understanding others' points of view, even if they disagree, are misrrepresenting what is said and assuming ugly intent.

The stridency being evinced in these threads, the willingness, even eagerness, to lump all of those who disagree with the tactics used and the huge outrage expressed in one bucket of ugliness, the immediate overstatement of what others are saying (reading "sometimes" or "maybe" and "perhaps" as "always" and "equals" and "stereotypes") is very disappointing. And very sad.

[monstro]

Well the posts on this subject have lead me to lose respect for some Monstro and sadly so.

I'm sorry? I don't know where exactly we disagree, especially since I haven't wavered in my position since the beginning of this thread.

It seems that those who endorse the rightousness of calling for Imus's firing and of threatening boycotts to accomplish that goal have taken the position that anyone who disagrees must be racist or at least not a "real" liberal.

Anyone who takes the stand that a boycott is bad, without qualification, is not a liberal in my eyes. Boycotting free speech is not the same thing as silencing free speech, which is what Apos would have us believe.

We live in a strange bizarro world indeed where it's perfectly fine for a person to say "BLACKS ARE NAPPY-HEADED JIBAGOOS" while the really bad guys are the ones who say "ANYONE WHO ENDORSES THIS JERK IS NO FRIEND OF MINE." Apos doesn't seem to understand that this statement is all a boycott is based on. It doesn't involve cutting of mic cords or tongues.

I have low tolerance for exaggerations and hyperbole in a somewhat serious debate.

Apos thinks there is a difference between boycotting a business based on its actions and boycotting a business based on the speech it endorses. How is it different? Does not speech reflect one's values, which are then reflected in actions? If I choose to boycott a company that uses slave labor, how is this different than choosing to boycott a company that sponsors informercials selling slaves?

I asked Apos a hypothetical question about a talcum powder company sponsoring a KKK rally. Would he judge a group of people harshly for boycotting this company? He never gave me an answer. Why is that? Why is it that when I ask a question that goes to the heart of his argument, he backs down? Is it because it's easier to pretend that I'm distorting his arguments than it is to really think about the points I'm making?

So if my questions and arguments make you lose respect for me, so be it. I'm not posting here to get respect from strangers.

It occurred to me last night that all this talk about Sharpton doing something is a strawman anyway. I watched Dateline yesterday, and the show laid out the timeline of the post-Imus fall-out at NBC headquarters. Sharpton was mentioned for about twenty seconds, and only in the context of Imus's apology. No mention was made of a boycott threat from his or Jesse's end.

You know who influenced NBC's ultimate decision? Its own employees, particularly its black staffers. It's clear to me that while NBC received external pressure from its own viewing audience, its hand was actually moved from within. As it should be in a conscientious organization.

But the whiny crybabies continue to talk about "special interest groups" and Sharpton, because that's the only script they know.

I have a job interview today. Let's hope that when I talk about where I went to school, the interviewer doesn't think about all this hoopla.

[DSeid]

Monstro I can't say about this thread, but you certainly have changed your tune since you opened up your first thread.

No one here, including Apos to the best of my ability to review this, has said that "a boycott is bad, without qualification." That is the sort of exaggeration that doesn't belong in a serious debate.

Some of us do see a difference between using a boycott to stop actions that we think should be illegal but are not (like slave labor), and to stop people from saying things that we do not like (short of actual hate speech), especially when no one is forcing the rest of us to listen.

[you with the face]

Some of us do see a difference between using a boycott to stop actions that we think should be illegal but are not (like slave labor), and to stop people from saying things that we do not like (short of actual hate speech), especially when no one is forcing the rest of us to listen.

The question of the day is why? It's not just about saying things "we do not like". It's about a specific type of behavior. It seems you're treating Imus' language as some type of protected, unimpeachable thing just because it counts as speech. I choose to see as a behavior. A behavior that has consequences just like any other behavior.

In the GD thread, I explained to you why your use of the word censorship has no place in this discussion. This is not about squelching unpopular opinions. Imus lost his job because he showed an inability to speak in a manner befitting of a radio personality that works for a reputable news network. His pissed too many people off, and that's obviously not what MSNBC is in business for.

My restaurant analogy in the GD thread was apropos. A waiter who calls customers nasty ethnic slurs may serve a niche crowd who enjoys that type of service. That doesn't mean its unethical for the other customers in the restaurant to complain to the management and annouce that they are unwilling to continue their patronage as long as that waiter is employed. It's actually a polite way of giving the management a heads-up before actually voting with their dollars and possibly sending that restaurant into the toilet. The management can now make an informed choice: keep a waiter who attracts a handful of customers who enjoys that offensive behavior and risk losing a whole lot more customers, or fire that waiter and retain most of their customers, while possibly losing the handful of others.

Do you think, in this restaurant analogy, it is ethically wrong for customers to complain about this hypothetical waiter, even if those customers have the option of either not patronizing that restaurant or requesting another server? Let's say the customers choose to not patronize the restaurant--because they are bothered that the restaurant apparently sees nothing wrong with employing an overtly racist server--and the restaurant goes bankrupt because of that. Does that mean the customers are at fault, or is it the restaurant's responsibility?

Let's say a lot of customers inform the management "Hey, look, I enjoy the food here and I like this place, but FYI, I'm not going to continue to pay money to an establishment that caters to racism", and the restaurant therefore chooses to fire the water. Is this wrong?

I guess what I'm asking is, at what point does the customers' actions go from okay to contemptible in your book. In the Imus situation, MSNBC and CBC, who are analogous to the restaurant management, received a lot of complaints from viewers. They then decided that Imus was not worth the trouble of keeping on board, especially when some heavy tippers (i.e. corporate sponsors) also decided Imus was a bad waiter. So Imus got fired.

Dealing with just this illustration, and speaking in real-world terms, please explain what is so ethically egregious about this outcome. I'm sincerely trying to understand your view, honestly, but a disconnect keeps happening somewhere in between "it's okay to be offended" and "its unethical to censor Imus".

[Fiveyearlurker]

The question of the day is why?

(Didn't want to quote your whole thread)

Anyway, thanks for your even handed post there, and I think it deserves an equally level headed response. You have some interesting questions in there that I'd like to answer, but probably shouldn't from work. I will answer your questions when I can because I feel like we've been talking past each other and aren't actually that far off, though I'm certain that we will ultimately disagree.

[descamisado]

. . . 5-4 well I haven't read them all, just the last one that's been responded to. If I missed others then I am sorry and will stand corrected. If such is the case then eviscerate away.There you go again, assuming any reaction by a Black person is one of violence, when all I was asking for was clarification from a poster about his own statements and all I was doing was refuting said statements, using recorded cites that do not support his assertions.

It's obvious you're a man responding from a position of assumed privilege, with an opinion formed in a another time and place. It is also obvious that have no realistic clue as to historical events that might have made Blacks angry enough to violently riot; if that, indeed, has been the case in the last 40 years.

Oh, by the way. Responding in threads to only one post, without being informed as to what was said before you got here, can lead to others believing you're posting from a place of ignorance. Just saying is all.

[descamisado]

Heh. I think what I meant to say is that once all the radical, threatening, in-your-face artists (and the money) leave the genre, then it can indeed become accepted and appreciated. . . . Hey! If you and Contrapuntal wanna talk jazz, just get a room already! ;)

[descamisado]

As I recall NYC was more pissed at Mayor Dinkins for not acting sooner to stop the riots than Sharpton for stirring the pot.Bold=CMCUnless someone can cite that the Rev started stirring said pot in the minutes following Cato's death, it's kinda hard to blame him for what happened in the hours following that death.
Moreover where's the proof that Lemrick Nelson, or the mob he joined, had heard Sharpton before he stabbed Rosenbaum?

Can you blame Sharpton for a riot that started before he showed up?

CMC fnord!If you're talking to me, I'm saying there's no proof Sharpton is to blame.

[Kimstu]

Because the impulse to punish speech you don't like and try to remove it from civil society is a bad one.

If this issue really involved attempts to remove certain instances of protected speech from civil society---i.e., attempts to infringe the constitutional protection of certain instances of unpopular speech---then I'd be totally on board with you on this one.

But this isn't about trying to interfere with Imus's or anybody else's constitutional rights to free speech, which is what "removing speech from civil society" would entail. It's simply about trying to remove the offensive speech from a particular commercial market using legal free-market activities.

This is not a bad impulse, and it's perfectly consistent with a healthy liberal commitment to the constitutional right to free speech.

You obviously don't agree with this perspective, because you think markets as well as civil society have a moral obligation to provide forums for free speech of all kinds irrespective of individual preference. I think you're wrong.

I really don't see anywhere this discussion can go from here except into an endless reiteration of statements from you along the lines of "you people are nanny-pussies who are betraying the right of free speech in the name of morality", and from your opponents along the lines of "you people are delusional fanatics who are unrealistically demanding to co-opt markets in the name of morality". Nothing's going to give here, on either side. There simply is not enough agreement about the premises to reach any kind of consensus opinion.

I have to wonder, though, if your ire on the subject of using commercial pressure to remove commercial outlets for controversial speech is equally hot towards producers as it is towards boycott-launching consumers. Where are the calls for companies to start sponsoring, or continue sponsoring, commercial outlets for speech that they don't like?

[DSeid]

Well YWTF in one of these threads I tried to pursue that. Censorship indeed is the subject of this conversation. Some censorship is good. Your resturaunt example was a case of reasonable censorship. We censor these boards. Hate speech is prohibited on our airwaves. I self-censor all the time. I censor what can be said in my house. And the calls to fire someone who says objectionable things on the radio is also an attempt at censorship, a desire to keep this objectionable speech off of the airwaves. The means of this censorship was by a form of mob action by way of media circus pressuring advertisers who then pressured the media outlet who then exercised their right to remove his soapbox.

Is that the kind of censorship we should celebrate or is the sort that we shold bemoan? We seem to disagree on that.

To illustrate my concern let me give a few scenerios:

Murphy Brown portrayed a single Mom as a good thing. Forces objected to that. Would a concerted effort to punish the network and show advertisers for "endorsing" a lack of "family values be commendable?

Disney pulled out of distributing Farenheit 911. If pro war forces had succeeded in keeping it out of any distribution would that be a cause for celebrating the power of the threatened boycott?

A media outlet in the 50's hires a writer who may have Communist sympathies. Under McCarthy's leadership pressure is brought to bear to fire her or else the company would face the consequences of endorsing Communism. A good thing?

Muslims are ridiculed on a conservative talk show. They do not have the numbers or purchasing power that Blacks have. They boycott and no one cares. Too bad for them. Democracy and freedom of speech in action. Only a purchasing powerful group can influence what gets said. More cause to celebrate this particular method of censorship?

If I do not believe in protecting the rights of others to say what I disagree with then I have no right to object when others try to limit those with POVs that I like.

[you with the face]

Well YWTF in one of these threads I tried to pursue that. Censorship indeed is the subject of this conversation. Some censorship is good. Your resturaunt example was a case of reasonable censorship. We censor these boards. Hate speech is prohibited on our airwaves.

You haven't addressed the specific questions I asked. Until you do that, we will never figure out where the main point of our contention lies. Talking about censorship, as I already mentioned, muddies the issue. Not only is it a loaded term, but it has nothing to do with why Imus was fired.

I self-censor all the time. I censor what can be said in my house. And the calls to fire someone who says objectionable things on the radio is also an attempt at censorship, a desire to keep this objectionable speech off of the airwaves. The means of this censorship was by a form of mob action by way of media circus pressuring advertisers who then pressured the media outlet who then exercised their right to remove his soapbox.

And why is this any different from a "mob" of customers in a restaurant complaining about my hypothetical waiter. Care to address my questions? They weren't rhetorical.

By the way, the media circus was actually actively perpetuated by Imus' employer. Chris Matthews, Olberman, Abrams, etc., all of them beseiged us with Imus-gate. MSNBC was not a victim; they were more of an agent in all of this than Sharpton and the rest of the rabble-rousers combined. Not only did they give nonstop coverage to this while they tried to make up their minds about appropriate disciplinary action, but they were the ones who decided to fire Imus. All everyone else did was exercise their 1st amendment rights by complaining.

[DSeid]

You haven't addressed the specific questions I asked. Until you do that, we will never figure out where the main point of our contention lies. Talking about censorship, as I already mentioned, muddies the issue. Not only is it a loaded term, but it has nothing to do with why Imus was fired.

And why is this any different from a "mob" of customers in a restaurant complaining about my hypothetical waiter. Care to address my questions? They weren't rhetorical.

I'll do my best to answer your questions. Then you can do mine! But part of our not understanding each other is our different belief about whether this is about censorship or not. That discussion cannot be squelched: it is the critical dividing issue. Understanding our difference here does not muddy the water, it shows where the rocks are that we getting hung up on.

Why is speech different than other behavior? Because speech is ideas and the free exchange of ideas is the strength of our pluralistic society. Even ugly ideas.

What is different about the restaurant situation? Several things, including that restaurants do not sell ideas like media outlets do, but most of all the fact that people expressing their disappointment in your example are the potential consumers of the restaurants products. They are saying that they do not enjoy the product with a rude/offensive waiter so they will not patronize the establishment. The parallel with Imus is not listening to his show. But the people complaining about Imus were not voting by turning off. They were insisting that others not have an option to turn it on even if they wanted to. They were not customers and they wanted to prevent others from being able to be customers. He was not fired because his behavior drove listeners away but because he offended non-listeners. The desire was to use media mob action to influence advertisers and thereby to limit others' choice in what they could hear. Legal yes. But in my mind wrong.

And the illustration of why I think it is wrong is in my list of situations and matching questions to you. This sort of tactic is a set-up for tyranny of the majority, or at least tyranny by those with large enough coordinated purchasing power. If the Religious Right is organized enough to use this tactic well then portrayals of gays, of single mothers, of unmarrieds living together, of all sorts of historic "devil music", can be ethically squelched because enough consumers who do not watch those shows or buy that music anyway feel offended enought that others can that they will boycott any company that sponsors that show or plays that music. It was very much a tactic used during the Communist witch hunts: hire a suspected Communist sympathizer and forget about getting any right thinking American to patronize your products. In fact the blacklisting of alleged Communists in Hollywood is defended by the same logic that you are using here: (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/blist2.htm) A free society does not use the government to punish "thought criminals." This does not, however, mean that free people had no acceptable way to express their disapproval for Stalin's apologists. One route, of course, was to take up the pen in defense of the victims of Stalinism. A second - and equally legitimate - course was to exercise one's freedom to not associate with Communists. Not to befriend them, buy their magazines, or hire them - and to urge other people to do the same. In short, to blacklist them. Far from being a violation of anyone's freedom, the blacklist is merely an exercise of the freedom of association, just as a peaceful strike is an exercise of the freedom of association.I do not accept this argument that blacklisting was not coercion. But to accept your POV is to accept the Communist blacklisting as an approriate act of "cultural self-defense." Do you? How is what happened to Imus anything other than a call to blacklist him for speech that offends your ear? And a message to others that they could be blacklisted as well.

Please go through my examples and tell me how they are different other than by which side of the fence you are on.

[crowmanyclouds]

If you're talking to me, I'm saying there's no proof Sharpton is to blame.and I was agreeing with you!

CMC fnord!

[Fiveyearlurker]

I'm sincerely trying to understand your view, honestly, but a disconnect keeps happening somewhere in between "it's okay to be offended" and "its unethical to censor Imus".

I'll give this a shot. I don't think I'll say anything I haven't said, but I'll try to put in succinctly and in one post.

First off, everything I say applies only to speech. I'm not going to talk products at all.

Second, everything I say applies to what I consider the "right thing to do". I have no contention that Sharpton or any organizers were not within their first amendment rights to do everything that they did.

So, Imus has X number of listeners every day. Let's say 1 million (from thin air. Have no idea.) The radio station, knowing that they can tell advertisers that they will reach 1 million people every day, decide to give him a platform every day. I fully recognize that this is a privilege and not a right.

Those one million are happily listening, and the ratings stay up. Advertisers are happy.

One day, Imus puts his foot in his mouth. (aside: I would like to apologize for one thing. I originally put up a post because everyone seemed to think that his show was a news show, and weren't aware that it was primarilly a comedy show. I ended up defending a position that maybe it was satire too strongly considering I hadn't heard the comments.) Leaving aside the issue of whether the comments are the most offensive things ever said, he pisses off a number of people.

The station looks at the situation. Imus has one million listeners. Sharpton is calling for him to be removed from the air. Now, I don't know what Imus' demographic is, but I'm guessing that most of them don't take their cue from Sharpton. The likelihood of more than a handful of those one million turning off the show is low. Let's say, now he only reaches 950,000 people. The listeners are voting with their wallets; they think Imus' show is still worth listening to.

In other words, I'm not sure I have such a problem with organizing boycotts against the show. I still think it's silly to try to suppress speech, and I'd prefer everyone can say what they want nomatter how controversial. But here's where I have the problem.

The decision to remove speech from the airwaves shouldn't be taken lightly. The bar should be set high. However, since 950,000 people are still listening to the show, it seems that the public would still prefer to have the show on the air. Advertisers are willing to lose the 5% of their ad audience. The show continues on because the public voted with their wallets to allow it to. Had he said something worse, perhaps 500,000 would have stopped listening. Then, the radio station would look at the economics and realize that the public doesn't want Imus' speech on the air. But, that's not what was happening.

Boycotters know this will get them nowhere. So, they threaten to boycott the advertisers.

The advertisers look at the situation and realize that the pros of staying on the air are reaching that 950,000 people. The cons are that a lot of people who used to shop at Staples, will now look elsewhere. Staples spooks, realizing that those 950,000 listeners who might possibly buy something are not as important as the people who will now look elsewhere, even if they are much fewer in number. Staples decision had nothing directly to do with what was actually said, merely the threat of a boycott of their product, which was come to by threats by a relatively small number of radio listeners, but a large number of Staples customers. The station could probably weather losing Staples, but add GM, and other companies, and obviously nomatter that the ratings say that people want to listen to the show, the show becomes unprofitable. The radio station pulls the show because it became unprofitable.

The important part is that the show didn't become unprofitable because people were going to stop watching it; then, by all means yank him. The show became unprofitable because people were going to stop buying paper clips. They were voting with their wallets, but the price was much lower than it would have been because the bar was lowered. No longer do the boycotters have to convince people that the show is offensive, now all they have to do is convince a third party company that they will lose sales. The exact same 950,000 people are still willing to listen to the show.

When the bar is lowered, it allows a relatively small number of people, who weren't listening to a certain speech anyway, to stop others who did want to listen from listening. Focus on the Family wants to stop gay groups from existing and speaking. They know that boycotting the gay groups speeches would be ineffective; they weren't going anyway. So, they've called for boycotts of Wells Fargo Bank, which apparently has donated money to gay groups, which has a much higher chance of silencing gay groups. It should be hard for a group to censor another group's speech. It certainly shouldn't be that easy.

I don't want what I'm able to easily listen to to be dictated by special interest groups' influence over corporate sponsors. Nomatter how noble that interest group.

I have no illusion that this makes sense.

[DSeid]

An interesting POV. (http://www.alternet.org/story/11622/) Indeed, the threat posed to the First Amendment right now is not so much official censorship -- that is, bans enacted by the government -- as self-censorship, a phenomenon that is far more dangerous in an age of media conglomerates than it would have been in an earlier time.

[Kimstu]

The decision to remove speech from the airwaves shouldn't be taken lightly. The bar should be set high. [...] Had he said something worse, perhaps 500,000 would have stopped listening. Then, the radio station would look at the economics and realize that the public doesn't want Imus' speech on the air. But, that's not what was happening.

In other words, your definition of "setting the bar high" for "removing speech from the airwaves" (i.e., firing a particular speaker from a radio gig) is merely the profitability of the show as measured by number of listeners?

That doesn't seem to me like a particularly lofty standard for protecting free speech in commercial venues. So, the free exchange of unpopular or controversial views is valuable in a democratic society if it attracts 950,000 listeners, but not if it only attracts 450,000 listeners? :dubious:

[Fiveyearlurker]

In other words, your definition of "setting the bar high" for "removing speech from the airwaves" (i.e., firing a particular speaker from a radio gig) is merely the profitability of the show as measured by number of listeners?

That doesn't seem to me like a particularly lofty standard for protecting free speech in commercial venues. So, the free exchange of unpopular or controversial views is valuable in a democratic society if it attracts 950,000 listeners, but not if it only attracts 450,000 listeners? :dubious:

Absolutely not! This gets to the heart of it! Everyone should have a venue.

You have to start small probably. Start a blog with your ideas or something. If your ideas are good, people will listen to them. You may screw up along the way, and lose some of your listeners. As your ideas get more relevant to a larger audience, your venue will grow. You'll get a radio station.

As your ideas get worse and worse, your audience will leave you and your venue will shrink back to a blog.

Profitability, which would ideally be determined by ratings, merely indicates how large your audience, and therefore how large your venue. When profitability is divorced from ratings is where I have a problem

[descamisado]

and I was agreeing with you!

CMC fnord!My mistake. I apologize for eviscerating you like that.

I guess I was quite bothered at the time that there are people in this thread who still have not attempted to answer my direct questions to them, questions related to the person one of them actually included in their thread title and excoriated in their OP and throughout this thread.

Now, I've realized they're conceding that they're wrong (one has posted saying so) and moved on to other straw men and off-the-mark analogies.

[you with the face]

What is different about the restaurant situation? Several things, including that restaurants do not sell ideas like media outlets do...

So what? This line that you draw in the sand is completely arbitrary, IMO. MSNBC sells information. A restaurant sells food. Neither commodity is inherently more sacred than another in a free market economy.

...but most of all the fact that people expressing their disappointment in your example are the potential consumers of the restaurants products. They are saying that they do not enjoy the product with a rude/offensive waiter so they will not patronize the establishment.

They also don't want to give their money to an establishment that hires folks who call patrons "jigaboo" and "chinky" when the walk in the door.

The parallel with Imus is not listening to his show. But the people complaining about Imus were not voting by turning off.

No, but they let MSNBC know that they were dissatisfied, with the implication that they would vote by turning off. Not just Imus, but the entire network. The complaints only served as forewarning. "FYI, I don't watch networks that support this type of programming". Which ethically is no different than a restaurant patron telling a manager "FYI, I don't go to restaurants that allow customers to be treated like shit if they are the wrong race."

They were insisting that others not have an option to turn it on even if they wanted to. They were not customers and they wanted to prevent others from being able to be customers. He was not fired because his behavior drove listeners away but because he offended non-listeners.

As I pointed in the GD thread, you're assuming facts that are not in evidence when you say that the people complaining are not viewers/listeners of Imus. In theory, anyone flipping through channels could become a part of Imus' audience. That includes any unsuspecting person who clicks onto MSNBC when Imus is airing.

The desire was to use media mob action to influence advertisers and thereby to limit others' choice in what they could hear. Legal yes. But in my mind wrong.

And I could make the same complaint about customers who "coerce" a restaurant to fire an offensive waiter. "No fair, they deprived the handful of others who like to see slurs thrown around! Those customers are tryng to censor free speech by using mob action."

So what are people supposed to do if they object to a business's practices? Should they not complain at all, lest there are other people out there complaining and thus a "mob action" occurs? The only alternative is simply not patronize that business anymore. In other words, boycott it. But oh noes! Boycotts are bad, too! Boycotts might actually have an economic impact! That's not fair either!

And the illustration of why I think it is wrong is in my list of situations and matching questions to you. This sort of tactic is a set-up for tyranny of the majority, or at least tyranny by those with large enough coordinated purchasing power.

You know what? I actually agree that this is a possible consequence of boycotts and the like. But just because that's a possibility, doesn't mean the whole concept is unethical. There are no holy grails in a free market economy. Just because Imus got paid to talk doesn't mean the world is a better place with him doing so. Unless you're saying it was ethically wrong for someone to complain to MSNBC about Imus' behavior, you can't blame what happened to Imus on anyone except two entities: Imus and his employer.

Please go through my examples and tell me how they are different other than by which side of the fence you are on.

I don't need to. Sometimes there will be boycotts that I disagree with. And then sometimes there will be boycotts that I support. Declaring that they're all wrong is not only hypocritical (if you believe in freedom of speech), but it's also foolish. Because the alternative is to take away people's freedom to choose what they buy and why they buy it. That's antithetical to just about everything this country is supposed to be about.

[Kimstu]

Absolutely not! This gets to the heart of it! Everyone should have a venue.

But obviously, everyone can't have a for-profit commercial venue, because there's simply not enough market for everyone's ideas. So if profitability isn't the determining factor for the value of free speech, why should we worry about protecting the profitability of commercial venues rather than the actual right to speech itself?


Profitability, which would ideally be determined by ratings, merely indicates how large your audience, and therefore how large your venue. When profitability is divorced from ratings is where I have a problem

In other words, you're not trying to protect free speech; you're trying to protect profitability. It's not Imus's right to free speech that's being threatened in any way here: it's the value of his product.

What you think is unfair is that a commodity with a substantial market share should lose its marketability just because lots of other consumers stop supporting the product's sponsors.

Have you ever considered that maybe you should be directing your ire instead at the structure of the media-advertising complex that makes boycotts possible? After all, if media consumers paid for all their entertainment directly instead of free-riding on the sponsorship of advertisers, it would be impossible for a show like Imus's to lose support except by turning off its listeners.

With direct-to-consumer financing, consumers would directly control the profitability of whatever they listened to, and it would be impossible to divorce profitability from ratings. And that's what you want, right?

But instead of stepping up to the plate and demanding direct media financing by media consumers in order to keep the market power in media consumers' own hands, you just bitch about how mean it is for other consumers to use their economic power to stop supporting advertisers who sponsor shows they don't like. You want to have your cake and eat it too: you want free or cheap media products whose cost is mostly borne by indirect support from advertisers, but you don't want other consumers to legally use market activity to undermine that indirect support.

It's not the right to free speech that you anti-boycott folks are concerned about here: it's the "right" to freeload off of advertisers in order to consume media products you didn't pay for in the first place. Well gee, cry me a river, you poor oppressed victims you. :dubious:

[Fiveyearlurker]

But instead of stepping up to the plate and demanding direct media financing by media consumers in order to keep the market power in media consumers' own hands, you just bitch about how mean it is for other consumers to use their economic power to stop supporting advertisers who sponsor shows they don't like.

Don't tell me what I have and have not done because you couldn't be more wrong. I've been an XM subscriber for almost four years. The listener demands determines 100% what is on the stations. I did demand exactly what you're talking about. I haven't looked back on regular radio in all that time.

I'm also an XM stockholder, though that I'm less proud of.

Since, demand on satellite is determined by listeners. Which is Imus will be on satellite pretty soon. There's, apparently still a demand there. I mean, his annual charity telethon for children with cancer apparently took in record amounts of money despite being pulled from the air a day early due to how dangerous it would be to leave him on the air for one more day.

[you with the face]

The station looks at the situation. Imus has one million listeners. Sharpton is calling for him to be removed from the air.

Sharpton in addition to NOW in addition to plenty of other people. The more you limit this to Sharpton, the more you reveal a fixation that hurts your credibility.

Now, I don't know what Imus' demographic is, but I'm guessing that most of them don't take their cue from Sharpton. The likelihood of more than a handful of those one million turning off the show is low. Let's say, now he only reaches 950,000 people. The listeners are voting with their wallets; they think Imus' show is still worth listening to.

You don't know how Imus' comments affected his ratings. They could have gone up (I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't happen) or they could have gone down. You're also assuming that his comments didn't offend any of them. I'm not sure if you can say one way or the other.

I have no illusion that this makes sense.

It only makes sense if you value some free speech over others. In practice, your philosophy means that its ethically wrong for people to do something as simple as complain to a network about programming that they find offensive, because "undue" pressure may be put on them to cancel that show. It also means that its wrong for people to ask advertisers to rethink how they spend their dollars, because again its unfairly "coercive". So the only ethical option would be for people to shut up and change the channel. But that's not right. If Imus can get on national radio and call people "hos", then people should be able to speak out in response. His speech is no more sacrosanct than anyone elses.

[pantom]

Would you support a boycott of NBC by right-wing Christian evangelists because they might air, say, a documentary sympathetic to abortion clinics? Would that change your view?
Boycotts are a blunt force tool, a bullying tactic, nothing more. They say nothing about the moral legitimacy of whatever position they're espousing.
Lost in all this is that Imus was a supremely silly target for this kind of nonsense. I used to listen to him about fifteen years ago, when I had to drive to work because there was no mass transit to the place I was working for at that time, and I used to enjoy him immensely. One of his standard lines was about Rush: that he was on some amazing number of stations, after which he would say "Name one." Meaning that he was on all these obscure channels, but none with any real clout.
A lot of his stuff was bad, but a lot of it was very good, and he was merciless with everyone. Should rednecks have done to him what is being done to him now because of this exchange, about Clinton's having named Bobby Ray Inman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Ray_Inman) to be his Defense Secretary:

Mary Matalin: Good teeth. *
Bill Bradley: It's not so much that as can you see this scene in the White House? (said with a distinct Southern drawl, imitating Clinton's voice): Hey Bobby Ray? You know where those Eye-Cee-Bee-Eyms are?

Either you have a sense of humor or you don't. There's no cure for those who don't. This unbelievably stupid incident proves that in spades. No pun intended, for the humor-impaired. I can't believe I even have to write that. What a stupid world. What a bunch of hypocritical swine inhabit it.
BTW, for the truly ignorant above, some of whom have cited his supposed anti-Semitic comments: he's a Jew. And a highly unapolegetic one at that. Which y'all would know if you ever bothered to actually listen to him. Not that any of you will ever get the opportunity anymore.
Asses.

*Reference to a bit by her future hubby, James Carville, who while appearing on Imus earlier, had given a few ways to recognize if you're a hillbilly:

1 - If, when your front porch collapses, more than three dogs die.
2 - If, when your mother-in-law gets stopped by a state trooper for speeding, she doesn't bother to take the lit Marlboro out of her mouth when she tells him to "kiss her ass".
3 - If when you go to the local bar to see your girlfriend and she smiles, you compliment her by saying "Nice tooth".

[you with the face]

Boycotts are a blunt force tool, a bullying tactic, nothing more.

When I get to heaven, I'll be sure to tell Rosa Parks and MLK this.

[pantom]

You're equating that with a campaign to shield a bunch of athletes from locker-room talk? Unbelievable.

[you with the face]

Hey, you're the one making blanket statements, chum. You left the door open on that one.

[pantom]

Blanket statement?
Boycotts are a tool. A hammer is a tool.
Neither have any moral legitimacy in and of themselves.
Kimstu was trying to make it seem like a boycott is some kind of supremely moral thing. That was my point.
Try reading for comprehension next time.

[DSeid]

YWTF,

Just to clarify.

I do not think that boycotts are "all wrong."

I am in favor of boycotts that target behavior that I would like to make illegal if I could. Child labour. Apartheid. Support for terrorism.

I am against boycotts that target "ungood" thinking, even if the thinking is "doubleplus ungood", against boycotts whose target behavior is speech that is not clearly hate speech.
MSNBC sells information. A restaurant sells food. Neither commodity is inherently more sacred than another in a free market economy.may be a true statement. But one is inherently more sacred in a free society.

Refering to my request to answer my questions and to explain how my "bad boycotts" are any different than this threatened one other than that you agree with its goalI don't need to. Sometimes there will be boycotts that I disagree with. And then sometimes there will be boycotts that I support.Okay. So a patriotic American should have supported the boycotts of suspected Communist sympathizers as an ethical action.

[Kimstu]

Don't tell me what I have and have not done because you couldn't be more wrong.

Hey, if you actually recognized all along that the root of the advertiser-boycott issue is systemic, and needs to be addressed by fundamentally changing the system of media financing rather than just by scolding consumers who participate in boycotts, you could have said so earlier, instead of waiting for me to point it out.

Since, demand on satellite is determined by listeners. Which is Imus will be on satellite pretty soon. There's, apparently still a demand there.

Then people who want to pay for Imus's product will still have access to it, just like you wanted. So why were you so upset just because a bunch of freeloaders in the no-fee radio system are getting their advertiser-subsidized Imus taken away from them?

[Kimstu]

Kimstu was trying to make it seem like a boycott is some kind of supremely moral thing.

I was? Where? I never said that there's anything "supremely moral" about a boycott. All I said is that there's nothing intrinsically immoral about a boycott, and that it's a perfectly legitimate activity in commercial markets, even in commercial markets that buy and sell speech.

Can you cite what I said that you think amounted to "trying to make it seem like a boycott is some kind of supremely moral thing"?

[pantom]

The whole freakin' post. Reread it. You only wrote the damn thing.

[you with the face]

So a patriotic American should have supported the boycotts of suspected Communist sympathizers as an ethical action.

No.

This is my position: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with boycotting.

Does that mean that I support every boycott? No.

Does that mean I support everyone's right to boycott? Yes.

I honestly don't see how you can have it any other way in a free society.

[Kimstu]

Lost in all this is that Imus was a supremely silly target for this kind of nonsense. I used to listen to him about fifteen years ago, when I had to drive to work because there was no mass transit to the place I was working for at that time, and I used to enjoy him immensely.

Did you enjoy hearing him call the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos"?

Because AFAICT, what prompted this media firestorm was not that Imus was "un-PC", or that he made fun of politicians and other celebrities, but simply that he threw an ugly personal insult at an inoffensive bunch of college athletes.

Either you have a sense of humor or you don't.

Well, I guess it's a matter of taste. Those of us who don't find it funny to hear a radio celebrity call a college women's sports team "nappy-headed hos" will just have to put up with the likes of you considering us humor-impaired.

Which y'all would know if you ever bothered to actually listen to him. Not that any of you will ever get the opportunity anymore.

According to Fiveyearlurker, sure they will, on satellite radio. The only difference will be that they'll actually have to pay for the opportunity, instead of freeloading off of sponsor advertising and then whining like kicked puppies if consumers who don't like the show decide to stop subsidizing their entertainment choices.

The whole freakin' post. Reread it. You only wrote the damn thing.

Which freakin' post? I've posted several of the damn things in this thread, and in none of them can I see even the faintest suggestion that I was "trying to make it seem like a boycott is some kind of supremely moral thing".

[DSeid]

No.

This is my position: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with boycotting.

Does that mean that I support every boycott? No.

Does that mean I support everyone's right to boycott? Yes.

I honestly don't see how you can have it any other way in a free society.Well we agree here. I too support everyone's right to boycott. And we probably should just stop there .. on a point of agreement.*







*I just think that people who exercise that right in pursuit of stifling speech or thought are being twits.

:)

[Zoe]

I take it that some of you would not have participated in the Boston Tea Party.

Boycotting is part of freedom of expression. It isn't bullying anymore that freedom of speech.

I consider what Imus said to be "hate speech." Why shouldn't I?

I was a regular listener if I stayed up that late or got up that early. His show was politically interesting and generally irreverent. The only thing that made Bernard tolerable was the Cardinal on Fridays. The rest of them didn't seem to be too bad at all. Imus was cranky. I had never heard him say anything that was bigotted. Most of the things he said against women did not seem to come from any pathological dislike, but just the kinds of digs I see right here at the Dope all the time. It was obvious that he is crazy about his wife.

There were things that were very likeable about him -- his concern for children, his interest in autism, the work he did with children with cancer on the ranch, even his boots and choice of music.

I was really disappointed when I read Monstro's post about what he had said on the air. I knew I wouldn't watch him anymore. Yes, it's a deliberate boycott. I see it as a moral issue. I felt like I was back in the 1950s and I felt very weary.

[Miller]

So a patriotic American should have supported the boycotts of suspected Communist sympathizers as an ethical action.

You support free speech. Therefore, you must consider hate speech to be ethical.

Can you spot the fallacy in what I just wrote?

[DSeid]

Zoe, well that would be a whole seperate thread: what constitutes hate speech? Probably similar to how to define pornography. All I know is that asking many times in these threads and in real life you are the only one who has responded that "nappy headed ho" is that far up the scale. And it should be clear that no one here would at all object to your decision to stop listening to him or to be disappointed. The issue was over the calls to have him fired and the threat of organized economic action by non-listeners to accomplish that goal.

Miller, no I do not.

I consider speech an ethical means of expressing a POV, whatever your POV is. I object to the hate and that alone, not the tool used.

So speech against Communism I would have had no problem with. Blacklisting those who had Communist beliefs was however coercive and toxic to the environment of a free society. This sort of toxicity is inherent to the tool itself, blacklisting for "crimethink", regardless of the tools intended use.

[you with the face]

So speech against Communism I would have had no problem with. Blacklisting those who had Communist beliefs was however coercive and toxic to the environment of a free society. This sort of toxicity is inherent to the tool itself, blacklisting for "crimethink", regardless of the tools intended use.

I was thinking about your Communist example last night.

I think we both agree that boycotting businesses simply because they might be affiliated with unpopular political views can be ethically problematic. You say that you draw a line between boycotting over "speech" and boycotting because of behaviors that you'd like to see outlawed. The latter is okay with you. You think the former is a disgrace, in so many words.

What about the examples that monstro brought up?

If it came out that Proctor & Gamble sponsors KKK rallies and gives them complimentary bleach with which to whiten their pearly robes, would you have a problem with people boycotting them? Why or why not?

If it came out that ConAgara gives thousands of dollars to anti-Israel interest groups, would an organized boycott against them be unethical to you? Why or why not?

The existence of the KKK should not be illegal. Nor should anti-Israel interest groups. But I wouldn't want to support any companies that fund these organizations. Can you blame me? Does this make me as bad as the people who boycotted the Commie pinko traitors? I don't think there's a way you can make any broad brush assertions about what makes a boycott acceptable or not.

[DSeid]

First off allow me to thank you for your trying to understand the differences between our POVs.

As always the most interesting and problematic issues deal with the edge states. Where does speech stop? Where does hate speech begin? Is there a difference between a company that provides forums and funding for many different POVs and one with a particular political agenda?

I'll take your examples in reverse order.

ConAgra hypothetically donating to anti-Israel interest groups. No question: against an organized boycott with the intent of getting them to stop that funding. I might personally not buy a product from them, but I'd be against an organized effort. (And similarly I do not personally patronize Oberwiess Ice Cream stores or milk products because I find its owners xenophobic political work and senate runs so distasteful. I do not want to be indirectly funding those ads or his political career. But I am not trying to get him to stop running them by buying at our local family run ice cream parlor instead.) OTOH if they were funding Hamas it would be different.

My reaction to your hypothetical P&G example is guided by the same criteria. Since I see the KKK as encouraging terrorism against minorities then my first impulse is that such would be a just use of a boycott. But with great trepidation. OTOH I have no trepidation with saying that I do not want to use their product myself because, again, I do not want to indirectly fund support of the KKK. Different than saying that my intent is to force them to stop funding a forum for a POV that I dislike.

I would also make a distinction between a company which makes a clear political agenda out of its sponsorship choices and one which just advertises where the eyeballs are whatever they are looking at. I wouldn't object to Starbucks placing ads in GunsNAmmo or in papers with an anti-Israel agenda (no shortage of 'em!) because I know that they would be as willing to place ads in Mother Earth and the Jersulam Post if they thought it was a good buy of likely customer eyeballs per dollar. (I don't buy Starbucks instead because I have this much better local shop that roasts their own on site.)

Still I recognize that these hypothetical cases get closer to the edge. I admit that even a tool with potentially toxic side effects has its place. But I'd very careful using it.

My questions back: is the case of those companies who advertised on Imus' show comparable to those cases? Do these companies exercise an agenda to promote racist thinking or do they advertise at least as much in venues that promote POVs that you find acceptable or even desirable? Which circumstance is the Imus dust-up more like: boycotting a company that is actively promoting the KKK or boycotting a company that hires a few Communists along with donating to the Nixon campaign? It is admittedly not exactly like either, that's always the problem with learning from history, we never know which history applies, but to me it smells more like the latter than the former.

[you with the face]

As always the most interesting and problematic issues deal with the edge states. Where does speech stop? Where does hate speech begin?

Hate speech is just as constitutionally protected as non-hate speech, so why does it matter?

ConAgra hypothetically donating to anti-Israel interest groups. No question: against an organized boycott with the intent of getting them to stop that funding.

What if the intent of the organized boycott is not to compell a specific action, but rather is as simple as a whole bunch of people making the conscious decision to steer their purchasing power away from businesses that give money to unsavory causes? I wouldn't willingly fund anti-Israel groups directly out of my own pocket, so I wouldn't give money to a company that in turns gives money to these groups. Is that wrong?

I might personally not buy a product from them, but I'd be against an organized effort.

An organized effort can be as simple as one person and a 100 of his/her closest friends all making a pact to not buy a product for the same reason. An organized effort can effectively mean a handful of people raising public awareness, so that other people can make an informed decision when shopping (much like Sharpton et. al did, BTW). Why would you be against either one of these? And would you be against them if they favored a business, instead of opposed one?

(And similarly I do not personally patronize Oberwiess Ice Cream stores or milk products because I find its owners xenophobic political work and senate runs so distasteful. I do not want to be indirectly funding those ads or his political career. But I am not trying to get him to stop running them by buying at our local family run ice cream parlor instead.)

No, but you know what you just did? You just let the world know something about Oberwiess Ice Cream that they may have not known before. So now I too want to refrain from buying their stuff. And so does a whole new crop of people. So now we're all going to boycott them. The business may suffer now as a consequence. "Free speech" has taken a hit now.

Do you see what I mean?

My reaction to your hypothetical P&G example is guided by the same criteria. Since I see the KKK as encouraging terrorism against minorities then my first impulse is that such would be a just use of a boycott. But with great trepidation. OTOH I have no trepidation with saying that I do not want to use their product myself because, again, I do not want to indirectly fund support of the KKK. Different than saying that my intent is to force them to stop funding a forum for a POV that I dislike.

I don't see why the difference in intent matters when the end result is the same. The reason why I don't want to give money to the KKK is because I don't support their kind of speech. I support their right to speech, but I don't want to help them speak. Giving money to P&G indirectly enables the KKK to share its message of prejudice and bigotry to the world. So I want no part of that.

Most if not all boycotts are based on the same principle. You can choose to see it as coercion. You also can see it as people deciding to only support businesses that help the world become a better place, not a worse one. The world is not a better place with the KKK or any hate group. We have no obligation to fund them for "just because" reasons.

I would also make a distinction between a company which makes a clear political agenda out of its sponsorship choices and one which just advertises where the eyeballs are whatever they are looking at.

A business is always concerned about its bottom line. So even businesses that fund out a clear political agenda are doing so because they believe it helps their profit margin.

My questions back: is the case of those companies who advertised on Imus' show comparable to those cases?

Not really, but then again, I don't think these companies were really concerned about boycotts. I strongly suspect that they dropped Imus in order to look good (just like MSNBC did) and attract more customers. Either that, or it was their way of helping MSNBC make the decision to cut Imus, making the whole scandal go away sooner and return things to the status quo. Most if not all of those advertisers have an international clientel. I seriously doubt that they were worried about being hurt by a boycott.

[DSeid]

We have not been talking about constitutional protections here. Hate speech is different than objectionable and offensive speech. I reserve the right to feel differently about speech at that extreme, even if it incurs some slight expense of hypocrisy. Even a pacifist would consider killing off a Hitler given a shot at him.

Oh I see what you mean and I think that your point has some validity. And I think that you see that my objection was to the calls to have him fired under threat of economic consequences beyond those incured by some not watching his show. As to the ways of what advertisers do: before it happened we all knew - they'd do what they felt would help their bottom line the most. Right wrong schmight schlong - its an economic decision. Still the desire to cleanse the airwaves of objectionable speech seems different to me than the desire to not personally fund objectionable speech.

I wouldn't have reacted the same way to a call to boycotting his show and that alone.

[saoirse]

Still the desire to cleanse the airwaves of objectionable speech seems different to me than the desire to not personally fund objectionable speech.

Who said anything about cleansing the airwaves? He's a shock-jock. There are two ways to tell. One, he called a teenage girl he'd never met a whore. Two, he's been fired. Shock-jocks get fired. You want to live on the edge, you're going to fall over sometimes.

[Omegaman]

You want to live on the edge, you're going to fall over sometimes.

For myself , It doesn't hurt my feelings when I see someone who is acting like a bigoted idiot get helped closer to the threshold just a little bit.

[pantom]

Kimstu, all I have to say is, I believe my posts have been pretty clear, and in them I have just about all but said that I think you're dumber than a bag of hammers. I haven't actually come out and said that though.
Now you can cite it, 'cause I've actually said it, in plain English. All you fuckin' want.
And if you can't figure out where you came out with this idea that boycotts are a wonderfully moral thing, well, all I can say is you're just proving why I think that. Denseness, like a lack of humor, is pretty much incurable.

[Random]

Thanks, DSeid, for your several well-reasoned and thought-provoking posts in this thread. Although I've considered the boycott issue before, I had not previously thought it through to the degree that you have shown here.