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.
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?
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.
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!”
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes.
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 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!
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.
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.
But these aren’t “anti-commericals” we are talking about.
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.
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.
But you said they shouldn’t care about the bottom line. They should care about sponsoring free speech.
To refresh your memory, you wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You mean calls for economic boycotts like this and this and this?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 has been advocating change in hip hop for years.)
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.
Well, I guess we’re going to see. At the very least, I think you understand where I’ve been coming from in context (?).
Yeah, no shit. Note the use of the word “should” in my post.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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) 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.
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.
'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?