I misspoke. I’m in favor of anyone lobbying whatever lawmakers that they want to change the laws. That’s absolutely their right. I would in all likelihood disagree with actually passing such legislation, but absolutley had Sharpton said, “We will demand that Congress pass legislation…”, hell that’s the way Democracy works.
I really don’t think we’re going to agree on this. But, I find it imossible to believe that the threatened boycott is not what worked here.
Okay, this makes absolutely no sense whatsofuckingever.
You don’t support censorship, but you support people’s right to try to censor things. And despite the fact that such a law would be illegal (first ammendment, and all) you see that as a reasonable exercise of someone right to vote, whereas someone saying, “I don’t want to buy products associated with that Person X, and I want to convince other people not to buy them, either,” is an unreasonable imposition on Person X’s right to free speech.
Seriously. What the fuck?
Impossible? You mean there’s no way at all that a corporation could ever not care about a boycott? Any major corporation faced with a boycott - or even the possibility of a boycott - will always fold?
Okay, honestly here. You really hadn’t thought this subject through before you started posting, and you’re just to stubborn to back down now. That’s what’s happening here, right? Because I can’t figure out any other way to explain what you’re saying in this thread. I’m genuinely not trying to insult you here, but this is just fucking bizarre.
He’s posting in character.
As I said, I don’t think it should be illegal to lobby corporations to drop speech you don’t like, but I don’t see why it is in any way respectable. It’s pure nannying: you want to listen to someone, that’s one thing. But these boycotts are about preventing other people who would want to listen from listening. In other words, it’s basically asserting that your desire to not have other people listen is more important than other people’s desire to listen.
It’s pathetic. It’s lame. It’s not respectable in a democracy where free speech is a value.
I support the right that people have to go through legal channels (the legislature) to get things censored. Absolutely. I support the right people have to try to get legislature passed to have dogs eligible for the presidency.
That doesn’t mean that I will support the actual legislation.
I’m confused as to how this is even controversial. What exactly determines, in your mind, what things should not even be spoken of in terms of lawmaking?
If the law passed is unconstitutional, that will be worked out by the courts. If enough of a groundswell to censor speech is established, then we can amend the Consitution (at which point, I’m admittedly out of here).
What I don’t support is circumventing the legislature. If you want something censored, have the balls to see if it’s what the public wants by putting into law.
In my Indian restaurant analogy, I would have every right to petition my neighborhood legislature to curb malodorous restaurants, rather than my extortionist tactics.
I’m trying to say what Apos is saying, but using too many words to do it.
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.
Do you support the right for companies to fire whoever the hell they want to?
No.
Why do I feel like this is a trap and there was no right answer?
The Constitution determines what things are legitimate subjects for lawmaking. If a law violates the Constitution, then people should not try to pass that law, if for no other reason than it will be a waste of time and money getting it struck down. Of course, people are free to try to ammend the Constitution. And if they ever ammend the Consitution to remove the First Ammendment, then I am no longer an American.
Why not? If you support the rights to people getting laws passed to censor speech, why not support the right to remove the one legal obstacle that makes such laws impossible?
It’s not an area that should be legislated at all! That’s the entire point of the First Ammendment! People should be free to say what ever the fuck they want. Don Imus should be legally allowed to get on the radio and say, “Hang all the niggers and shoot all the kikes,” and the government should have absolutely nothing to say on the matter. It’s up to the rest of society, as responsible citizens exercising their own rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association, to respond to Imus with either accolades or condemnation.
Else, we are no longer living in a free society.
By the way, that’s NOT what I wrote, and what’s worse is that you KNOW that’s not what I wrote. There’s no way you could have misread what I wrote to twist it into that either. Unless you were thrown off by my typo on “impossible”.
I said that it was impossible for me to believe that the boycotts are not what worked “HERE”. Meaning in this case. This particular case.
Like I also wrote earlier, I think boycotts are going to have a harder time working when the fruit is higher up in the tree.
So, obviously I NEVER said that a corporation will always fold. If I start to boycott SDMB tomorrow, The Chicago Reader won’t notice. If I manage to get a high profile champion and front page on every news station, it won’t matter what my grudge is anymore.
In this situation. Yes. The threats were what ended this. No doubt about it. Threats to both the stations as well as the advertisers.
Regardless of whether it will work or not, it is a cowardly way to exert your opinion on others.
We can discuss both of our opinions, but I haven’t misrepresented yours.
And that’s different from a boycott how, exactly?
**Fiveyearlurker **, how did you feel when Bill Maher was fired?
So? How is that anything but the free market in action? Why should you be automatically entitled to listen to something that’s not profitable enough to sustain its market share?
If the reason it’s not sustaining its market share is that I’m doing a better job of expressing my opposition to it than you are of expressing your support for it, then good for me. My opinion of the controversial product is more popular and/or better marketed than yours is, so I get what I want and you don’t. Suck it up, loser.
Seriously, how is this essentially different from other forms of competition in the marketplace? None of the marketing execs at Pepsi feel guilty when they score an exclusive marketing contract that prevents customers who want to drink Coke from drinking Coke.
Don Imus’s constitutional right to use expressions like “nappy-headed ho’s” in the hearing of anybody who wants to listen to him is absolutely unimpaired by these events. The only thing that’s been impaired is the commercial viability of his efforts to broadcast such expressions in exchange for money. Well, if you’re going to sell your free speech in the marketplace, that’s a risk you’ve got to take.
Horseshit. As a liberty-loving citizen of a democracy, I will defend to the death Don Imus’s free-speech right to use expressions like “nappy-headed ho’s” in whatever constitutionally-protected way he chooses.
But I don’t give a steaming crap about his non-existent “right” to continue selling his free speech for money when he’s no longer profitable to his employers, because he opened his trash-talking yap once too often and made too many customers and potential customers despise his clueless ass.
Fine. Let them waste their time. They’re allowed to do that. I don’t think we’re disagreeing here.
You’re being dishonest here again. You know that’s not what I said. In fact, I said the opposite. I’m NOT in favor of supporting the rights to censor speech. I’m in favor of people discussing it. Any other opinion would be AGAINST freedom of speech.
Third dishonesty. You know DAMN well that’s not what I said. That speech is illegal. Period. The government already has a say in that matter. There is no need for additional legislation.
Argue honestly.
Why wouldn’t you support CBS’ decision to fire Imus if they thought he wasn’t performing his job well, or even because they just don’t think they can afford to pay him as much as they do if he’s going to cost them advertisers?
First I heard of it. Sorry.
What makes this situation so different, then, that’s there’s no way their action could have been based on anything but fear of a boycott that never materialized? We’re not just talking about one company, here, but something like half a dozen different corporations with wildly different products. All of them folded like a deck chair at the threat of a boycott? Giant, multinational corporations, with billions and billions of dollars, and not one of them thought, “Let’s hang on and see if this boycott even gets off the ground,” before they threw in the towel?
I don’t know what you mean by this.
I’ve responded strictly to what I read. If I read it wrong, I apologize, but I don’t appreciate the accusations of deliberate dishonesty.
They are legally allowed to do so. I’m sure there are contractural issues that allow them an out. That doesn’t make it right.
Again, if what happened here honestly was CBS saying, “Imus was wrong. We can’t have such things on our airwaves!”, then fine. That’s an honest and upright decision.
But, that’s obviously not what happened here. They announced a suspension. That didn’t quiet the threats of boycotts, and they announced a firing. It was 100% economic.
It’s not being a dickhole, that’s how.