A question for the anti-offenderati,

The BBQ Pit
201

[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
I know there’s a lot of will to destroy hip hop and make it responsible for all of the ills of society, but we’ve seen this film before. Little Richard dropping sexual innuendo in his ditties. Elvis and his gyrating hips. The Beatles advocating drug use. The Stones encouraging kids to jump in the sack before they got married. Judas Priest making kids blow their heads off. Ice-T encouraging thugs to shoot cops, etc. I don’t think the profligate use of racist or misogynistic words in any music is something we shouldn’t discuss and analyze, but a) it isn’t new, and b) the effect on society is somewhat overblown. Artists tend to reflect trends in the social milieu rather than create them, IMO.

[/QUOTE]

I agree that edgy musical expression isn’t the “cause” of society’s acceptance of racial and misogynistic epithets, but it DOES encourage people to condone it. Someone earlier in this thread (or maybe another thread) said that it isn’t a freedom of speech issue. I feel that it IS, though not entirely. That’s what makes it so complicated. Imus has made his living pushing the envelope based on free speech and social line crossing. Social missteps happen within the bounds of free speech so as a nation, we cannot stop him from being the puckered asshole that he is. However, we, as a society CAN say that we don’t want to listen to it anymore if we find it without value or socially damaging.

I think the final call will be made by the almighty dollar, which seems to be all that matters in America anymore. :frowning: In our free-yet-fucked-up society, we have to protest with our wallets.

I turned Imus off a couple years ago because he and his crew of assholes have a mean streak that I don’t find even remotely funny. Ditto on Howard Stern. I’m watching his meltdown because it’s been a long time coming and I’m deriving a certain level of joy from it.

202

[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]

I know there’s a lot of will to destroy hip hop and make it responsible for all of the ills of society, but we’ve seen this film before.
[/QUOTE]

So, if I get your arguments, which I’m not sure that I disagree with, you think that while the government should not come in and ban offensive speach, the offended should organize and demand that such speach be banned. Generally by boycotting both the station and the sponsors.

But, if your above quote is accurate, there is a lot of will to destroy hip hop. I agree with that. Is it all right for that will to come together in the form of demands that hip hop stations be pulled? I think we would both agree that it should be legal to organize such boycotts, but I just don’t think that it’s the right move.

I think that Imus should have the right to hurl out whatever he wants, within FCC rules, which weren’t an issue here. I think Sharpton should have the right to spew whatever he wants. I think hip hop artists should have the right to say whatever they want.

I would rather people’s opinions be out there without being hidden. If they are truly vitriolic and hateful, they will implode. When group A starts organizing boycotts because they were offended by a member of group B, it will inevitably lead to resentment when someone finds a member of group A who is insulting group B and getting away with it. Better we let both groups have their say, nomatter how hateful, and let the people decide who to listen to based on open dialogue.

Again, I’m not saying Sharpton doesn’t have the right to organize a boycott, merely that the consequences of that are not going to be all good.