Media figures continue to describe Imus firing as "lynching"
Discussing the firing of syndicated radio host Don Imus on the April 15 edition of the syndicated program The McLaughlin Group, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan asserted: "Imus said a stupid thing, he and [former executive producer Bernard McGuirk] did, two words for about three, four seconds in the morning. They apologized and apologized and apologized and asked for forgiveness, and two Christian ministers, [Revs. Al] Sharpton and [Jesse] Jackson, acted like lynch-mob leaders." In reference to Imus' calling the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos," Buchanan later claimed: "Imus was lynched because he was a white male who said it."
As Media Matters for America documented, Buchanan wrote in his April 13 syndicated column: "Imus threw himself on the mercy of the court of elite opinion -- and that court, pandering to the mob, lynched him. Yet, for all his sins, he was a better man than the lot of them rejoicing at the foot of the cottonwood tree."
Buchanan was not the only media figure to describe Imus' firing as a "lynching." Discussing Imus' handling of the controversy in his April 15 New York Times column, Frank Rich wrote: "And perhaps even Don Imus himself, who, while talking way too much about black people he has known and ill children he has helped, took full responsibility for his own catastrophic remarks and didn't try to blame the ensuing media lynching on the press, bloggers or YouTube."
Also, talk-radio host Michael Smerconish wrote in his weekly column: "Ah, but the floodgates are now open. The cyber-lynching by faceless, nameless bloggers of talk-show hosts like me has begun."
In his column, Smerconish also defended comments he made while guest-hosting the November 23, 2005, broadcast on Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly. On that program, Smerconish complained about the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority's decision to provide a designated prayer area at Giants Stadium, a decision made after five Muslim men were observed praying near the stadium's main air duct during a New York Giants football game. Smerconish claimed: "I just think that's [the men's public praying] wrong. I just think they're playing a game of, you know, mind blank with the audience. And that they should know better four years removed from September 11."
Defending his claim, Smerconish wrote in his April 15 column: "When five Muslim men in attendance at the Meadowlands in September 2005 for a Giants-Saints game that was also a Hurricane Katrina fund-raiser, with George H.W. Bush in attendance, saw fit to pray in an area near food preparation and air duct work, I think it was a case of mind blank. That's a form of terrorism in itself."
From the April 15 edition of the syndicated program The McLaughlin Group:
JOHN McLAUGHLIN (host): Question: Who bears the responsibility for the ordeal these college students went through? Pat Buchanan.
BUCHANAN: First and foremost, Mr. [Mike] Nifong, the district attorney who went after them [the Duke University lacrosse players] and prosecuted them when mounting evidence showed that the charge was not only false but absurd.
But secondarily, these young men were really tried and convicted and lynched in a narrow court of public opinion down there in Raleigh, on their campus, by some professors, by some racial hustlers and others. And on cable TV, John, by a rush to judgment that they were guilty of a horrible crime when it turned out to be another Tawana Brawley situation.
[...]
BUCHANAN: Let me say this. Imus said a stupid thing, he and Bernie did, two words for about three, four seconds in the morning. They apologized and apologized and apologized and asked for forgiveness, and two Christian ministers, Sharpton and Jackson, acted like lynch-mob leaders. This was an example of real hate, John, real hate in America, but the hate was not from Imus, it was directed at him. There was no forgiveness. It was un-Christian -- it was un-Christian and un-American.
[crosstalk]
CLARENCE PAGE (Chicago Tribune columnist): Pat, if this was the first time forgiveness would be appropriate -- forgiveness would be appropriate if this was the first time, but it wasn't the first time.
BUCHANAN: Did he deserve to be lynched, then?
PAGE: He was fired back in the '70s and went back to Cleveland and worked his way back up the food chain.
[crosstalk]
BUCHANAN: OK, he made mistakes --
[crosstalk]
ELEANOR CLIFT (Newsweek contributing editor): Excuse me, he was not lynched. He was a victim of the modern America, where if the advertisers don't think you're selling and you're not marketable, they pull the advertising. It happens every day to lots of people.
[...]
BUCHANAN: Let me tell you something. This term "nappy-headed hos" comes out of the ghetto, it's slang, it's ugly stuff, it's terrible to women. It is constant on African-American radio. Imus was lynched because he was a white male who said it. That's why.
PAGE: He applied those words to the Rutgers women's basketball team --
BUCHANAN: They accepted --
PAGE: -- they were -- that was a cheap shot ---
BUCHANAN: They didn't ask for his head.
[crosstalk]
PAGE: That's why the country was outraged.
[...]
McLAUGHLIN: If a national plebiscite were held today, would it say that Imus should go or Imus should stay?
BUCHANAN: I think a couple days ago they would have said maybe he should go, but I think there's a tremendous backlash. There's the feeling that the guy asked for forgiveness and they hung him.
McLAUGHLIN: And he's good at what he does?
BUCHANAN: He's great at what he does. He's one of the best in the business.
McLAUGHLIN: And he can get anybody to talk -- has he contributed to the public policy?
BUCHANAN: He's not only contributed to the public policy, his show is the best morning show on the air.
From Frank Rich's April 15 New York Times column:
It's possible that the only people in this whole sorry story who are not hypocrites are the Rutgers teammates and their coach, C. Vivian Stringer. And perhaps even Don Imus himself, who, while talking way too much about black people he has known and ill children he has helped, took full responsibility for his own catastrophic remarks and didn't try to blame the ensuing media lynching on the press, bloggers or YouTube. Unlike Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and Isaiah Washington, to take just three entertainers who have recently delivered loud religious, racial or sexual slurs, Imus didn't hire a P.R. crisis manager and ostentatiously enter rehab or undergo psychiatric counseling. "I dished it out for a long time," he said on his show last week, "and now it's my time to take it."
From Michael Smerconish's April 15 syndicated column:
Only Imus knows for sure what was on his self-admittedly drug-damaged mind when he said those things. His apology sounded sincere. I myself do not believe he said something racist per se. It was a reach for a cheap laugh, not something said to be injurious to the Rutgers women.
Ah, but the floodgates are now open. The cyber-lynching by faceless, nameless bloggers of talk-show hosts like me has begun.
Individuals who hide behind the anonymity afforded by the Internet are seeking to squelch the First Amendment right of people whose identities are readily known and who, unlike their cowardly critics, put their names and credibility on the line each and every day on matters of public concern. Left unconfronted, it is a dangerous practice in the making.
The very day Imus was fired at CBS, I was alerted to a posting on Media Matters for America, a sophisticated Web site instrumental in stoking the flames for Imus' departure. The posting, titled "It's not just Imus," identified me as one of seven talk-show hosts in America who bear observation:
". . . [A]s Media Matters for America has extensively documented, bigotry and hate speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity continue to permeate the airwaves through personalities such as Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson."
Lynching
To even use that term , is a slap in the face to all African Americans who were hurt by that type of racial hate that happened in America.Shame on all the people who are using it to defend Imus. Imus was doing this type of racial, homphobic and religious bigotry for years, it was not a "lynching".
Yep... if anything, it's the awakening of the public's distaste (finally!) for bigoted, racist, sexist jerks saying bad things... I hope...
Next thing you know, expect the racist/white-supremacist crowd to use Imus as a "poster child" of the crudest sort for their pathetic excesses of "racial honour" being "undermined" by "Political Correctness Gone Haywire."
Replete with the inevitable exercises in "patriotic" anti-Semitism as are staples of white-supremacist "winning of hearts and minds" propaganda--as in "winning of hearts and minds" among the poor, undereducated and easily-influenced.
The same ones, it just so happens, who are rather fond of the old Bransoner Muzikschaukultur as The Acme and Perfection of America's Morally-Superior Realkultur, howbeit warped to the point of being almost a reincarnation of The Cherry Sisters @ their hilarious worst.
No so much a lynching as a slap in the face wake up call for other hate mongers to watch their Ps and Qs.Whether this is a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion. I think it's good to give the putrid opinions of backward-ass throwbacks a pulpit, a fine sunny location for public scrutiny, for public derision and public scorn.Imus was unabashed in his manner of speech, so he got bash off the air by a couple million stone of public opinion.I don't mourn for him. He's a dope.Yet I hope he gets another gig, so he can do it all over again. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat.Above all, give the bigots a chance to speak. Ignorance and prejudice thrive in the dark.That's why they wear the white sheets.
Randy
PAT!! I'm only going to say these couple of words for a few seconds- please forgive me in advance...Thanks!! YOU ARE A SQUISHY FACE, EVIL *CHRISTIAN* *MAN* By the way, that is ONLY bad because I'm NOT a squishy face, evil *christian* *man*... you dolt...
Well, if they're going to describe it as a lynching, why not a Holocaust? Why not the Apocalypse?
Why not just say, "Firing Imus is ten times more terrible than having Satan as your proctologist?"
Or for the fellas here, "Firing Imus is ten times more terrible than having Jeffrey Dahmer as your urologist!"
Truly, I'm pining for the old days when men didn't clutch their pearls and take the vapors when a racist was fired.
Can MMFA please list all the words that you want to ban.
I think that would help.
Here's the list so far: (Please feel free to add)
1) Lynching
2) Feminazi
3) Dirtbag - if used to describe a woman with children.
4) Ho - if used to describe a non-political figure or women in general.
5) Vermin - if used to describe a liberal.
6) Bitch - if used to describe Hillary Clinton
7) Illegal Immigrant - if used to describe an Illegal Immigrant
8) Clean - if used to define a black person
9) Articulate - if used to define a black person
10) "You people"
add.. 'Some are saying' if you work for Fox Snooze and 'gay homosexual mafia' if you are... wait, nevermind- I LOVE that term by Salvage...
BTW: Bill Maher called MMFA, "A bunch of Sissies." - Friday on Real Time.
Is that okay because he is a Liberal?? I'm not sure, please explain the rules to me.
Schmerconish was blasted for saying the same thing. Please explain.
Maher and Schmerconish are both dirtbags for calling this great site that stupid name.
At least they didn't call us a bundle of sticks.
But, why hasn't MMFA posed Bill Maher's comments?? You'd think if Rush Limbaugh called MMFA a bunch of sissies, it would be posted before he finished his sentence.
Let me answer the question for you. MMFA is a wing of the Democratic party. Bill Maher, eventhough he claims that he is not a Democrat, he is a very big leader for liberal.
So, he is immune from the same stupid criticism of MMFA.
Correct. Your point?
My point is the MMFA does not want to prevent "Hate Speech."
It only cares about removing conservative speech. So if a Conservative says something offensive, let's go ban him/her.
If a liberal does the same, don't say anything, b/c you want liberal to be able to say whatever they want.
According to the troglodytes, Imus is a "liberal".
You are a troglodyte. Therefore you shot your own point down.
According to you he's a conservative b/c he hates the Clintons.
The point isn't Imus' political affiliation, it's MMFA's supposed double standard which, in actuality, doesn't spare a so-called "liberal" such as him.
Ive been waiting for an comment like that, FINALLY!! Thats what Ive been saying all along. Alot of Conservatives claim Imus as a moderate liberal leaning (if not just liberal) "shock jock". Ok Cool. They also claim that liberals are hypocrites for NOT exposing hate speech on the liberal side. To maintain logic, one of the two assertions above has to be false. I know which one it is, do you??
Let me clarify for those of you who don't understand the argument.
Conservatives don't want anyone to be fired. Yes, Conservatives have openly criticized people like Rosie, Rap artists, media figures in general.
When Conservatives bring up Al Sharpton, JJ, they are simply saying that anyone who wants to ban someone from speaking should be aware of a slippery slope.
Conservatives are not asking that Al Sharpton should be off his show, or that Rap Artists not get radio play, they are merely saying to stop pushing the fairness doctrine (which will prevent all talk radio), or asking for people to be banned.
Now we know that Bill "boycott" O'Reilly isn't a conservative, just like he's been saying.
Conservatives didn't "really" call for Dan Rather's firing, right? It just sorta happened. So we can pretend the Imus firing just sorta happened.
Imus didn't have the right to his job. If he did, I'm going to court because my comments are only heard by a few people and his were heard by millions. Clearly my "rights" are being trampled.
"Conservatives don't want anyone to be fired." -ldoren
Really? Are you serious?
Tell that to Rosie O'Donnell. I am fairly sure at least one of the 70,000 petitioners on "stoprosie.com" or posters on "firerosie.com" is a conservative.
Bernie Goldberg and Michelle Malkin have also publicly called for Rosie to be "fired", "stopped" or "replaced".
Tell it to Ward Churchill, too. Newt Gingrich wanted him fired as well.
Heck, here are two cases: here and here where conservative business owners did not like the liberal political bumper stickers their employees had on their vehicles and apparently fired them for it.
"Conservatives are not asking that Al Sharpton should be off his show" --ldoren
Google says differently.
It is wrong when both sides do this. Let's not pretend that Republicans/conservatives don't stink at all on this issue when that is obviously a false belief.
You can't use "slippery slope" anymore, either. That word is the main word in liberal anti-PBA programs. Since eliminating one would ultimately eliminate all, they will not allow elimination of PBA because of the "slippery slope". So, to be 'liberal-PC' correct eliminating freedom of speach is not a slippery slope because they only want to eliminate half of it....the conservative/republican half. And since liberals are free to speak as they wish without worry of retribution then there isn't a slippery slope. See, no hypocrisy, they simply want to eliminate republican/convervative free speach...all others are free to speak what ever they want.
There is no free speech issue here. There never will be no matter how often you simplemindedly repeat it. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy by definition, feel free to call those who use it whenever they do. That is if you can reign in your compulsive need to repeat already debunked talking points in the vain hope they will magically become true if you just say them often enough. Whenever one of the objects of your idolotry gets arrested for saying whatever he wants in the park get back to us. Until then YOU. HAVE. NO. POINT.
Do you have that statement on "speed dial"? You seem to use it over and over.
How could this NOT be about freedom of speach. Are rappers allowed to use "ho" in their music that is played freely over YOUR airwaves? Are they allowed to use the word "nappy-headed" in their music that is played freely over YOUR airwaves? Then, if they are allowed that freedom, why is Imus not allowed that freedom? Are you now running a pick-and-choose freedom? Some are allowed the freedom to call people ho's, but others are not allowed that freedom?
You can work on getting him removed from the air because you don't like his politics, but when you go after him because of common words used every day by others over the same medium or is simply pushing misinformation, then you have crossed the line and are now into denying him his constitutional right to free speach. You may not LIKE it, but misinformation is not against the law. Mmfa knows that from first hand experience. If they are allowed to do it, then so is anyone else.
If you grow some cojones and actually want to debate the subject instead of attacking the messenger, somehow I doubt you will. Savage is so right in your case....liberalism IS a mental disorder.
Maher's opinion
Opinion: 1 a belief based not on certainty but on what seems true or probable 2 an evaluation estimation, etc.
GET IT?
11) "Ldoren1626"
LDoren, why, you're a pearl clutcher. The fainting couch is right behind you.
That he is, holly. We usually just direct him to isle 4, where they have the adult diapers.
What sea is isle 4 found in?
What sea is isle 4 found in?
The Sea of Conceptual Delusion.
I didnt see MMFA advocate banning ANY words. Rather they point out when they are used in an inflamatory manner like calling the firing of someone for using a racist slur on his radio program a lynching. As if actually holding someone accountable for what THEY did is the same thing as murdering someone for the color of their skin. I know you would so much prefer if the screechmonkeys you adore so were NEVER held accountable for their hatred, and bigotry. It just burns you up so that MMFA actually exposes them. The world would be so much better if no one held them accountable for their actions in fact its WRONG to expect them to be held to ANY standards whatsoever on Planet Wingnut. Standards and accountability are only for liberals and us lesser mortals not the objects of your idolotry.
That is exactly right... A common deflection by right-wingers who frequent this site is to say "Great! Why don't you ban this or that... or limit my free speech!"
We all know that's malarky. All anyone here (me included) is for these jokers to (once and for all) take responsibility for the heinous things that come out of their mouths, their keyboards or pens... For the part of so-called 'responsibility'... they take none. LDOREN misses the point. Again.
That is "party of so-called responsibility" - no preview function on the MAC.
I had the preview function working in Safari at one time. Then all of a sudden it disappeared. Firefox, Seamonkey etc. allow you to use the preview function on the Mac.
As George Carlin said - It's unfair to punish people who don't know the bad words.
I think we should start a list...if one idea is not okay to say, or they should be taken off the air, I think it's only fair that we know which words/ statements to ban.
Lastly, it is dishonest to say you don't want to ban them.
You call for the removal of people from the air who engage in "Conservative hate-speech," which according to you include saying you don't believe in entitlements at one end, to the other end where Imus said, "Nappy Headed Ho."
If you remove them from the air if they say those things, you are banning speech - don't kid yourself.
Please say 'hello' to Bizarro for me in your black and white opposite world... thanks!
Okay Ldoren,
I'll play along.
Who called for anyone to be banned? I believe many people were outraged by Mr.Imus using hateful, racist terms to describe a group of young women. I believe many people, including Mr. Imus agreed he should be punished for using that language. I also believe that Mr. Imus being fired has nothing to do with him being banned, he was fired because his sponsors pulled their advertising decreasing his employers earning potential.
Now, are you okay with hatespeach? Is it okay in your mind to denigrate people with racist comments? That could be the only reason you would be against punishing Mr. Imus for comments that he admitted were wrong and hurtful.
Are you therefor racist and that is why you would defend him?
Well, Al Sharpton said, "He should be fired." MMFA had a campaign to get Glen beck off the air.
I don't believe there is any such thing as hate-speech; I disagree with the premise.
Liberals define wanting to prohibit illegal immigration "hate speech." That's a bunch of bologna.
Liberals define "hate speech" as anything that offends them.
Moreover, Liberals on Air America, NPR, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, HBO, say things that offend me everyday.
I don't call for their ban. I just laugh when they lose ratings, and wonder why.
so of course you were against what happened to the dixie chicks, linda ronstadt, those liberal reporters who called bush a coward and lost their jobs, etc. etc. etc. right? Cause you are fair and apply the rules fairly right? You still buy dixie chicks albums cause you are more interested in their talent than you are in their political views, right?
chirp, chirp...
I never boycotted the Dixie Chicks b/c I never listened to them in the first place.
The Basketball players never listened to IMUS either. They never knew who he was before he said what he said.
that doesn't mean you thought it was wrong. I don't get that sense from you. I think you were quiet on the subject I mentioned. Gave it your tacit approval by not saying anything, unlike now where you are "outraged". Correct?
Find the one Conservative in the Media who said their record label should drop them.
avoiding the subject again. You didn't raise your voice in disagreement when all the liberals I mentioned were silenced by conservatives, did you? Quiet as a mouse, weren't you? Silently approved, didn't you? Well?
I love Bill Maher. I didn't want him to get kicked off. So what am I supposed to say??
How about the truth? You appear to be a knight fighting for free speech, I just want to know how far your fight goes? Does free speech have consequences? You asked that one yourself. What are your limits? Mine are respect. I will give it until someone purposely crosses the line and then all bets are off. What is your line? Let's start with a basic definition of what pisses us off. How about that? Game?
there were a lot of radio stations that would not play the dixie chicks.
How about the largest media outlet for music in the nation, Clear Channel Communications. They refused to allow The Dixie Chicks music to be played on any of their stations.
by the way, in addition to Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, etc. etc. etc. would you like a list of all the reich wing CHURCHES that led the charge? Like Dobson's focus on the family, for instance?
Back to Imus (enough Dixie Hix for now), I knew his days were numbered because of all of his hateful, hateful attacks on evangelicals and Christian doctrine over 40 years.
Hatespeech really angers the Left, and it was just inevitable that the Left would jump on Imus for that kind of hate.
sure, but I saw ann coulter jump on that bandwagon as well. covering her butt?
Haven't heard what Coulter thinks about this.
I just know it was a close call for Imus, knowing how the Left goes after haters.
Lemoc, here ya go....
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/12/164431.shtml?s=ic
1. Snoopy, I never said that the Fairness Doctrine forces people to listen to liberal talk radio. I said that it will put talk radio out of business due to lack of ratings.
2. Your "study" about Fox News viewers being ignorant is a farce, since the same study lists O'Reilly viewers as being kept current. O'Reilly is on Fox. BTW, I don't watch Fox. I get all of my news from Michael Savage. That study should have mentioned Michael Savage.
3. You didn't debunk any of my claims about the media having a liberal bias. Now it's back to the Savage boards for me.
OK, fair enough. What you didn't do was show how it would end talk radio.
I try to make my position clear. I am a HUGE proponent of two tenants of the fairness doctrine - the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule. Neither rule would end talk radio as you know it. It would allow for equal air to the victim of any accusation regardless of side. That is not the government dictating what is right. That is the perceived victim getting a fair chance to defend himself and giving him a method to escalate if he does not feel he got a fair shake in the deal. Gov't RESPONDS in this method, not dictates.
So what drives you to not want to give the opposite side a chance to defend themselves? This idea is fairly innoculous, it does not care who the offender is. Denegrate liberals? They get a chance to defend themselves. Denegrate conservatives? They get a chance to defend themselves. Denegrate ANYBODY? Equal air time. The key is you say something about anyone, that person has an avenue to seek a chance to tell his version. I personally would be willing to put a caveat that if you aren't paying attention, you loose your chance if you wait too long. I suspect that anyone who wants to be someone has the staff to ensure that doesn't happen though. Fair?
"I don't believe there is any such thing as hate-speech; I disagree with the premise."
So in your mind it's simply not possible to have derogatory, dehumanizing or imflammatory language at all? You can argue that the definition goes too far at times, fine. To argue that there's no such thing is pure lunacy.
Right-wingers like you should be rounded up and shot, you are traitors and you are destroying the country, and it would be an act of national self-preservation ;-)
"Right-wingers like you should be rounded up and shot, you are traitors and you are destroying the country, and it would be an act of national self-preservation ;-)."
It finally happend, you Communists are showing your true colors. You want to ban conservative speech, and kill those who disagree with you.
Maybe you should go worship Pol Pot.
Oh my god my sides hurt from laughing. Could I have possibly made it more obvious? That was hate speech! I even put a smiley face winking after it so it would be clear I was kidding (which you copied and pasted, even!), and you erupted in rage anyway. You don't believe in the premise of hate speech, yet your reaction proves its existence!
That was almost too easy.
Did I flag your comment??
Did I say you shouldn't allowed to say that??
Did I say it was "hate-speech."
Oh, I suppose referencing Pol Pot doesn't suggest any sort of disapproval of what I said? Calling me a homocidal communist doesn't imply that I shouldn't have said it? Give me a damn break.
You don't have to call it hate-speech explicitly. If you don't think that words have an effect on people, then your reaction to my words (even when I made it obvious I was joking) was a lie. Were you lying? Or were you showing that derogatory, dehumanizing and inflammatory comments really do exist?
No, the thing is that MMFA, Al Sharpton and JJ are happy at what they accomplished. It has nothing to do with disagreeing w/ what someone says.
How on earth was that relevant to the discussion at hand?
Why shouldn't they be happy at furthering a just cause?
It used to be liberals who said, "I disagree with what you say, but I'd defend to the death your right to say it."
There are no more liberals in America, only communists.
Imus was an employee. He answers to people in management and advertising. If you tell your boss he's a flaming a******, you may have the right to say that but you're going to get fired. Crying "free speech" as they throw you out isn't going to sway too many people.
I find it sort of hard to believe that Voltaire would think that someone can make racist and sexist comments through a public megaphone without any accountability. I thought he was smarter than that, somehow.
...actually Voltaire never said this. Although the quote is frequently attributed to him it cannot be found anywhere in his published writings or letters.
http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm
Thanks to brabantio for fielding that response, and to Blueneck for shedding some light on a misattribution I myself have been guilty of.
I know, but from my understanding it's a reflection of his views. That's why I said what he would think, not specifically saying that he said it.
I believe you are correct in this assumption (that the quote may reflect Voltaire's views) and I did not mean to take you to task for the possible misattribution. However what bothers me is the misuse of the authority of Voltaire by this limpbrained charlatan to justify hate speech. And, as if this were not enough, he recites one of his favorite right-wing mantras--that liberals are Communists. This, to me, is thoroughly reprehensible, in light of the totalitarian tendencies emanating from the current NeoCon crime syndicate that fancies itself a goverment. Jeremy Waldron, a professor at New York University Law School has a rather interesting essay on the subject of Voltaire and hate speech (click the link). Why should hate ridden speech be seen for what it is? There are many arguments to be made; but one of the most interesting is that,the costs of hate speech, such as they are, are not spread evenly across the community that is supposed to tolerate them. In any event Waldron's essay is wotrh a read for anyone interested in the topic.
"I did not mean to take you to task for the possible misattribution."
No problem at all, I realized when I posted it that it was a bit vague. It's not something everyone knows about, so the explanation is most welcome.
Geeze dude, you need to take a break. You are getting positivly shrill here.
Take a deep breath... count to 10. And remind yourself that these are only peoples' opinions (your too). Nothing more.
Ciao,
Rick
You are SUCH a moron. I simply can not believe how stupid you are. I WILL defend Imus right to be as much of a jerk as he wants to be ON A STREETCORNER. He has no inherent RIGHT to OUR airwaves anymore than I have a RIGHT to put up a billboard in YOUR front yard
OFF BUTTON.
And when I put up a billboard in YOUR yard you can just look away. They belong to us. WE can have an opinion about how they are used. YOU can use the off button. I will decide how I respond to the use of airwaves that belong to ME as much as anyone else
"There are no more liberals in America, only communists." - ldoren1626
I hate to break it to you, but what happened to Imus was a result of free market capitalism. His employers and advertisers felt the heat and withdrew support. That's it. Period.
Imus has every right to say whatever he wants. He can start podcasting and shouting about how unfairly he's been treated on YouTube if he likes. His right to free speech is safe and sound. If you want to blame an economic-political ideology for his firing, then by all means, take aim at neoliberal capitalism.
Glass Houses, Comrade.
Every time you call liberals "communists" I feel compelled to bring up the time that you were pasting a link to a British anti-global warming "documentary" called "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which turned out to be a communist propaganda film. Here is a description from a website that seems to approve:
"[Martin] Durkin and a number of others involved in the film had in fact been closely connected to the Revolutionary Communist Party.
'They felt passionately that the Green Movement was a deeply reactionary form of Western imperialism, which put improvement through science and industry of the welfare of people in Africa and the Asian subcontinent below its own decadent obsessions with biodiversity and so-called "sustainable development".
A similar theme pervades The Great Global Warming Swindle. We are taken to those vast tracts of Africa where there is no electricity, and see families huddled round a fire in their mud hut. Then we are told that "five million children under five die every year as a result of respiratory diseases from indoor smoke". Remember that, the next time you read about the ecological purity of heating derived from "biomass". Next we are taken to some godforsaken health centre in the Kenyan hinterland, struggling to get by with electricity from a dilapidated but undeniably politically correct solar panel. It just about manages to keep alive the fridge with the medicine inside.'
Ironically, you are the only person on this site I have ever seen posting communist propaganda.
That was the funniest example of not being in on the joke since the poster arguing with "Soros" yesterday.
LDOREN you should read some Grover Nordquist I think MR.B was mimicing him comenting on Liberals. One I may remember was the hope that we would be so reduced he'd be able to enjoy hunting us with dogs. Mind he's had a few negative coments direted at shrub in recent history.
As George Carlin said - It's unfair to punish people who don't know the bad words. - I guess Pat Buchanan is too old and senile to know what "lynching" means. I dunno what your excuse for "prayer = terrorism" Smerconish is, though.
I think we should start a list...if one idea is not okay to say, or they should be taken off the air, I think it's only fair that we know which words/ statements to ban. - It's not that they used the word "lynch" or "lynching". I don't believe in some kind of superstitious list of Bad Words. It's that they used a horrible act of murder to describe some jerk who got fired for being a jerk. Maybe when someone bumps into you on the street you call it a 'rape' but I believe the media has a responsibility to keep things in perspective.
Lastly, it is dishonest to say you don't want to ban them. - No, it would be dishonest to say I don't think you are a moron. Saying I think that media personalities should be fired for this sort of thing, and not arrested, is true.
You call for the removal of people from the air who engage in "Conservative hate-speech," which according to you include saying you don't believe in entitlements at one end, to the other end where Imus said, "Nappy Headed Ho." - Now you're just rambling. Is there no such thing as responsibility for the media in your world?
If you remove them from the air if they say those things, you are banning speech - don't kid yourself. - Nobody has the right to be a media personality. Do you think I should have my own show on CNN? No? Then why are you banning my speech from the airwaves? Is it because I disagree with you? You conservatives are so alike, blah blah blah...
It seems like if you're not "banning speech", then you allow anyone to say anything at all. Funny, but I recall when Kerry made his botched joke, conservatives were up in arms. Malkin is calling for Rosie O'Donnell to be fired. Bill Maher was fired for saying that terrorists who sacrifice their own lives are not "cowards", as OpenMind pointed out a couple of days ago. Aren't all of those efforts to "ban speech"? And if there's some mitigating factor as to why that speech should have consequences, then you automatically open the door for Imus's comments to be subjected to the same sort of thing.
Right?
Only to the congenitally stupid. When they get ARRESTED for saying these things THEN you can talk about banning speech. Until then your argument has been swatted away a dozen times. Its ludicrous on the face of it. No one has a RIGHT to their job OR to a national audience. I dont have a national audience. You keep beating this horse but its not breathing and it smells funny.
LDOREN,
Must we go through this again?
Why do you insist on posting that you think that MMFA or anyone else for that matter is in any way attempting to "ban" any word or thought or opinion or concept made by those of the right-wing smear machine?
Simply because they are showing people such as yourself that a certain way of speaking is bad or wrong or ignorant by pointing this obvious fact out by the likes of Imus, Rush, Ann, Sean, et el is in no way attempting to "ban" them....... but to show their collective ignorance or hypocrisy or double-standard ways.
It is to show the world just how worthless they are to our society!
Please, do yourself a favor and attempt to grow your own brain on this one.... the right-wingers are claiming that this is a suppression of Imus' and by proxy the right-wingers 1st amendent rights to make complete ass' of themselves.......
NO! It is not! It was and is and always will be a financial choice made by a company using the same type of thinking if you or I were to have stolen or done something that underminded our respective jobs and being fired for it! PERIOD!
You really do make a fool of yourself everytime I see your comments in here and I encourage you to keep it up as some of us in here find it amusing while others might need the constant reminder just how delicious that Kool-aid must be and that we must stay away for it might rot out our brains!
"please list all the words that you want to ban"
We all know where you're going with this (again, yawn).
You're desperately trying to make this into a free speech issue. You're accusing MMFA of being an evil organization hellbent on infringment on 1st Amendment rights, and as before, you couldn't be more incorrect. I'll explain why as clearly as I can so I don't lose you:
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it obligate any media organization to provide a platform for hate. The Constitution does, however, provide protection for these organizations against Congress passing laws that would abridge that hate speech. Therefore, it's up to the citizens to reject it and pressure the media organizations to change. Accordingly, MMFA scrutinizes those organizations and the individuals they hire that deliver hate on a nationwide scale.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand, but it's really not that complicated.
Eloquent explanation, but unfortunately wasted on Ldoren. In Ldorens world view having a good understanding of Consitution matters means you are a communist.
Imus has some goodness in his heart. I’m not happy to see him fired. However, regarding the lack of civility and ugly style existing on our media outlets today, I'm begging for an improvement. The benefits to our country outweighs the harmful effects of their lies, hateful rhetoric and ugly comments against women, minorities and others.
O’Really, Limpbrain, Beck, Coulter, Savage, Hannity and others are more hateful than Imus. I hope the same public pressure on media advertisers that ended the Imus abuse will result in a marketplace correction. A correction that will get the hateful, abusive, liars off of the public media outlets.
I am very hopeful. For a really good discussion of this historic event please point your browser to the NBC WebSite to view the "Meet The Press" Show that was broadcast on Sunday. Especially noteworthy are the comments of Gwen Ifel.
Thanks, Sam I Am
LDoren, go away!!
Please
How many liberal media figures were lynched by the right wing shortly after 9-11 for reporting that bush was hiding in a bunker while Rudy was acting like a leader? I didn't hear anyone on the right complain about free speech then. They were clearly absent when the Dixie Chicks spoke. They walked out of Linda Ronstadts concert, demanded their money back, and pushed and pushed until her concert series was cancelled, not a word. But now that the pendulum is starting to swing right y'all are in full shouting mode. Call the left hypocrites all ya want, you have clearly proven yourselves to be just as bad or worse than what you call the left.
Did anyone else notice how familiar Pat is with the details of lynchings?
Personally, I'm waiting for him to mention the comparative birth rates of white people. I seem to remember him being very concerned about that during a Lewis Black segment on The Daily Show some years back.
Anyone see the V.Tech shootings story? It is out of control...
Tragic, to be sure. Of course, it will replace the Imus story as what they talk about instead of the corruption of the Bush administration.
I can't wait to see how the 'T-Warrior' uses it to blame progressives for everything again.
This whole thing was a political lynching. It's a good thing people in the media are standing up for Don Imus. Whether you like him or not, the race card should not have been used to remove him. To overuse the race card under-values it's importance when it's "really" needed.
Aaaaaahhh, YES!! Thank GOD this WASN'T a time when the 'race card' needed to be used... people should wait until a black person calls a whitey 'the DEVIL'!! Then it's all barrells a'blastin'!!
ZAMFIR... I'm going to assume you are a white, female college-educated athlete, ok? Now, I'm going to call you a 'cracker-*ss', no-texture hair-havin', prostitute', ok? ON NATIONAL AIRWAVES!! Ok? Now, don't go and try to get me flagged by MMFA because you REALLY should wait until you get called something worse, and you really need to have my words as ammo for your lynching of me... You better not infringe on my free speech, honey...
By the same token, using racist humor when it's not funny or clear from the context doesn't work out so well either. Imus is the one who played the card so stupidly, and he paid for it. Get over it.
Gee, maybe you should tell Glenn Beck that he shouldn't have used the race card when denigrating black people who were victims of Hurricane Katrina. Maybe the race card shouldn't have been used by the cops that gunned down the groom at his bachelor party. Maybe the race card shouldn't be used to jail mostly black people of drug crimes when white people have lawyers to get them off for their drug crimes (think Rush Limbaugh). Maybe redneck white guys in the earlier part of the century shouldn't have used the race card when selecting blacks to be hung on trees and then got off because the jury of white people played the race card. Seems to me that white people have overvalued the race card.
ZAMFIR,
I will explain this to you too as I did for LDOREN.......
Imus was not fired for being racist, sexist, ugly, smelly, or to smart for his own good.......
He was fired because advertisers decided that the historical behavior of Imus reached a cresendo, that cresendo was created by Imus over time, perhaps it was peaked because of Sharpton or Jesse Jackson using the race card but that makes no difference in this particular story.
If a client for the company you work for decided to leave because they felt that their product might be tainted by your company because of something you did (whether right or wrong matters not as it is happenening none the less in Imus' case) you would be fired! Regardless of what you said or did, it would be the right of that client to leave and your boss to fire you for it!
It wouldn't matter one iota whether you were or weren not a racist, sexist, thief, junkie, punk, or the employee of the month six months running!
The race card is a side show to this story and by you bringing it up only plays it more.
You claim that it should be used when needed.... I absolutely agree!
If I were you I'd call Fox Noise and all the right-wingers and tell them to stop using it then!
And unless you are black or of any type of minority you have no real say in whether Sharpton or Jackson claiming race in this issue is good or bad, but only an uneducated opinion!
Well, the Christofascists got CBS fined half a million for allowing Janet Jackson's breast to be "exposed". Where were these "guardians of free speech" then? Where were they when the Dixie Chicks were getting death threats?
They were way busy fighting the "War on Christmas"
Making sure EVERYONE says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" is extremely time consuming.
White misrepresentations of black sexuality were inherently tied to almost all actual lynchings.
So, Imus randomly attacks a bunch of relatively powerless black women with a slur that works upon deep negative sexual stereotypes of black people, that they are hyper sexual, either "ho's" or "bucks" intent on rape. The general concept was that black sexuality, male or female, was more intense and uncontrollable than whites (just ask Strom).
In the worldview that Imus's comment reinforces- Emmet Till was mutilated because he thought the white woman he allegedly whistled at was - like all black women, a "Ho".
The Rutgers women are scholars as well as atheletes, they are the shining example of what our society has called for to alleviate enduring poverty among african americans.
But to Imus and his privileged demagogic ilk these women's privacy, safety and dignity are a way for him to fill 10 minutes of airtime and add another $4000 to his pile of millions. And he is the victim?
Even if he did not realize it, if anyone carried a conceptual noose into this situation it was Imus.
Remember that old Strom said "the pecker knows no bigotry"? Off topic, I know.
Your post could have been copied and pasted from a "Women's studies" class.
Every woman/ Minority is powerless. Every woman/ Minority is a victim.
You should be careful, if you keep it up people are likely to assume that all of us white men/majorities are asses.
Right because saying the Rutgers women were scholars, atheletes, and shining examples means they are powerless and victims. I guess what you mean is if people complain they dont like being abused THAT means they are playing making themselves powerless victims.
Tell me do you have some rightwing version of the magic 8 ball, which you just shake up and post whatever inane argument floats into view?
inane. well solon you have spoken some REAL COMMON SENSE by using a commonly defined word as SILLY AND INSIPID. this well defines the WHOLE ISSUE OF IMUS AND HIS COMMENT OF NAPPY HEADED HOS. these women, the offended, are eons past this INANE issue. the media is making $$$$$$$ from it as we type. is that a good thing? let us move on to the more important issues of being invaded by unwanted immigrants and all the advantages they enjoy over the american poverty stricken citizens, the police action in iraq where our children are being killed on a daily basis, our open door policy that allows an immigrant to kill 31 students at va. polytech. institute in blacksburg, va., and THIS IS ONLY TODAYS NEWS. get the grip that you think you have hold of.
Feckless--Let me make one small but important correction
So, BLACK RAP ARTISTS randomly attacks a bunch of relatively powerless black women with a slur that works upon deep negative sexual stereotypes of black people, that they are hyper sexual, either "ho's" or "bucks" intent on rape. The general concept was that black sexuality, male or female, was more intense and uncontrollable than whites (just ask Strom).
Aren't you liberals always looking for root causes to problems?
Look no further. You reap what you sow.
50+ years ago It was Elvis, 40 years The Beatles with acid rock on the side, Disco (ugh),today Rap. Don't much care for it myself. There is a similarity to all complaints about popular music being the root cause of some despirate problem or other. The good work in many cases of each of these types of music comes from looking at the world and responding to it. A handy clue to separate the good for the bad here is to see what lasts. You could always study it enough to give a thoughtful critique. Somehow I must confess I don't see you doing this
your comment is LOST on deaf ears. you may have the ability to lead a horse to water BUT you can't make the horse drink. good luck.
are you stealing my lines? Clarification should be next on your list. Banning words is pretty serious. Would you care to unpack your line of reasoning about this?
OMG! How old are some of you cry babies? I am so capable of tuning in or tuning out the things I watch or listen to! That is my Freedom and I cherish it everyday of my life. Green is the real color here, period!
Well, at least there's one of you.
Great. Now if we could only get EVERYONE to exercise their freedom to ignore the GOP-bots on the airwaves...
So tell me how STUPID are you and why are you subjecting us to YOUR whining? The airwaves BELONG to us. We have every right to do more than change the dial we have a right to SAY the airwaves belong to us and we think OUR resource is being ill used. If you dont LIKE us using this first amendment right CHANGE THE WEBSITE.
Is it not possible that the American public is just finally becoming nauseated by the nature of commentary being fed us by the media. As much as I would personally like to blast all the right-wing pundits and commentators who constantly make over the top and insulting references I have to admit the lefties are equally as guilty. It is time for the country to takes it pulse and to re-evaluate what meaningful commentary and discourse is all about.
I have always believed that we should be able to learn and broaden our knowledge by reading and listening to commentary and discussion in the media. But more and more over the past couple of decades we have begun sliding into a circus act of screaming, shouting, insulting and denigrating those with whom we disagree with no real attempt to teach or inform.
You want root causes?
stereotypes of black folks regarding violence and sexuality predate rap music, and have their roots in Minstrelsy, America's first original form of popular entertainment.
Minstrel Shows, like rap music, were and are primarily consumed by white people.
How's that for a root cause?
Over and over you wingnuts keep trying to bring rap into the argument and blame it for Imus' racist comment as if he has no brain of his own.
Lets see if their argument can hold up too logic.
(1) Premise:
b: "Rap/Hip-hop music/lyrics are not censored"
(2) View of the Don Imus debacle:
"Ohh yeah, and those gangsterrrs in rap music do it too, so lets censor all the rap/hip-hop artists to be consistent."
- Let’s start from the premise,
(1) Rap/hip-hop music/lyrics are not censored.
If we assume that argument (2) is true, then premise (1) must be true to maintain logic. “See!! :), our logic is sound, so what’s your point you neo-facist liberal?” Ahhhh, but that’s not the entire story now is it?? In fact, the premise is flat-out wrong. For those of you just joining planet earth, ALL music (rock/metal music too!) containing anything remotely offensive IS censored; on public airwaves that is… even some of the privately funded ones! That includes BET (there is a difference between UNCUT and UNCENSORED for those of you who wanted to go that route), MTV, most of the other cable channels (except those you have to pay extra for like HBO/Showtime, or certain late nights on comedy central), all FREE OFFICIAL AM/FM radio stations, and any news organization that chooses too air it. Are we forgetting about Parental Advisory labels, remember those?? In other words, the only way you’re gonna hear or see the “real” lyrics (words like ho, n*gga, etc..) and/or content is if you purchase a CD/DVD or whatever medium they chose to distribute it under. Hell, the music industry (that includes rap-artists) has gone the extra mile by creating watered-down versions of the songs for play on radio and public airwaves. UNLIKE a certain live radio show (read- Imus in the morning) that only has a 7 second delay to catch profanity (but not ill-disguised racism parading as shock jockism). Imus reaped what he sowed, and it all went to hell and hand basket while he served at the pleasure of the corporate sponsors. Good Riddance, Fellow Liberal. Rap music has its problems but I can *choose* to NOT buy the music that offends me(although it doesn't, and actually I download them for free!! HA!)
Pat Buchanan has a long history of expressing bigoted & racist opinions, so little wonder why his response to Imus' firing was so shrill & hysterical. He quickly resorted to the traditional & obnoxious right wing tactic of appropriating the arguments of the left, twisting them to an extreme, & shamelessly using them in defense of the indefensible. Like many right wingers, he is enamored with the tactics of Lenin.
Lynching are & always will be a stain on America's history. It was, simply put, the use of mass terrorism by the white majority against the black minority, done in order to retain a strong working semblance of slavery long after that 'peculiar institution' had been outlawed. Its intention was not merely to torture & murder a single individual, but rather to intimidate & degrade ALL African Americans into accepting an inferior status & not exercising their rights. To call the firing of Imus, a white man with a loooong history of making racist remarks on the public airwaves, a lynching is simply a lie. It again dishonors those true victims of this barbaric practice. It is a twisting of the word until it has lost all meaning. It is little better than saying that Adolph Eichmann & Herman Goering were a victims of the Holocaust.
Pat Buchanan is simply a lying putz & a racist propagandist.
F*ck him!
F*ck him where he breathes!
BUCHANAN SAYS: Let me tell you something. This term "nappy-headed hos" comes out of the ghetto!
Let me tell you something Buchanan! The "Good-Old-Boy" power network of enablement on the Imus show that attracted the most powerful men in this country is over. Hillary and many others were not welcome. After all these years of abuse he finally got caught.
Furthermore, in the years previous to HIP HOP trash talk, Imus would just use whatever trash talk he thought was cool at that time in his long history of racist and female attacks. These racist are not sorry for saying what they say. They are sorry for being caught doing it and recieving the correct punishment. None of his guest ever objected to his hateful ugly style because they were being enabled by just being on his show.
I know these truths because I grew up with racist and used to be one myself. I really liked what Mrs. Imus said about the hate mail the college basketball girls are recieving. She said "That hate mail should be sent to my Husband."
I support:
Socialized medicine
Impeaching George Bush
An energy tax
Exiting Iraq
Stem-cell research on all lines
A woman's unrestrictive right to reproductive control
and, among other things
Don Imus
According to the some of the posters here, if I said I supported Don Imus without all the positions preceeding it, I'd be labeled a right-winger. According to some posters here, even if I supported all the other things, I'd still be a right-winger.
Call me a warmed over, aging 60s radical but I still believe in Letting it All Hang Out!
THAT is fine. Your credentials really dont mean anything one way or another. IF you were repeatedly making an already dispatched and refuted rightwing talking point of an argument about how Imus first amendment rights were being violated we would have REASON to think you were a rightwinger. You like Imus fine. I didnt really like him and wanted him punished but would have been fine had he not been fired.
Solon wrote: "IF you were repeatedly making an already dispatched and refuted rightwing talking point of an argument about how Imus first amendment rights were being violated we would have REASON to think you were a rightwinger."
Gee, since when is supporting first amendment rights a rightwing talking point? Do you really want to be saying this? Rightwingers as far as I can tell are more likely to want to suppres speach.
And you conclude that arguing that Imus's rights may have been violated, is REASON to believe I'm a rightwinger. This is illogical REASONING.
I didnt say I thought you were a rightwinger even though you are buying into a nonsense rightwing talking point. I said I dont care one way or another.
There is no first amendment issue here. There never was. This has been pointed out a few dozen times. You are accepting a FALSE PREMISE for your argument. I in NO WAY said Imus rights were violated because they obviously were not. I said he got more punishment than I would have given him had it been up to me. It wasnt. I dont know how much simpler this can be put. Imus has NO first amendment right to a radio show or any other job. When he is ARRESTED for what he says he will have a first amendment argument. Until then WE have the only first amendment argument. The RIGHT to complain about how OUR airwaves are being used.
"Gee, since when is supporting first amendment rights a rightwing talking point?" --latichever
Can you demonstrate where such a charge is appropriate in the case of Imus? Is my own First Amendment Right to Free Speech necessarily threatened because I do not have a radio show that is simulcast on cable TV?
I think people wrongly equate a libertarian idealistic view of "freedom of speech" with the First Amendment right to Free Speech as it appears you are doing now.
That said, I do find it troubling that in the libertarian sense of "freedom of speech" that someone lost his job because he crossed some subjective line of taste.
I need to start with a confession. I’m a 66-year-old white man and I listened to Don Imus and will miss his show. I will miss it for the entertaining and sometimes valuable insights he provided, for his iconoclasm and analysis of current events, and also for the times I reacted with disgust and anger at his insults and idiocy and turned him off. As bad as his worst has been, I at least felt that overall his show was interesting and informative, and his heart most often seemed to be in the right place. What also gets me is the fact that self righteous MSNBC didn't broadcast the children's telethon -- instead they broadcast hours of talking heads --- talking about Imus. What were they afraid of if Imus stayed on TV those last two days with his telethon for sick children --that Imus would be able to regain some good standing and they couldn't get rid of him? They (whom ever they are -- from this paranoids view a bunch of puppet masters pulling all of our strings) obviously didn't want him to have that chance. And what about this group "media matters"? It's frightening to know that they are out there lobbying against freedom of expression and mobilizing their troops whenever something they decide is wrong occurs on the air. Let's face it, as much as all express concern about the Rutgers team, and rightly so, who really cared about them? Not Imus who probably didn't have a clue as to who they were. Not media matters whose frightening barrage of emails put the Rutgers team under the microscope along with Imus. Not the good Reverends whom I have minimal respect for --- for obvious reasons (hymie town and Tawana). Why did it really matter to all the Imus critics that the team was so articulate and impressive and why was everyone so seemingly surprised. What if the team members were more like some of the less articulate basketball players (of all colors and genders) that are sometimes interviewed on the airways -- that could have been a PR disaster but if they were barely C students, that would not excuse in any way what Imus said. In any case Imus lit the fire but his lynch party and the feeding frenzy also ruined the joy of the Rutgers team. And there is little doubt in my mind that the iconoclastic and generally astute Imus would have turned this around and battled many of the things he has been accused of fostering and is guilty of. In a cynical view, it would be for the $$, but I think he would have really believed in it, just as he believes in better treatment of veterans, easing the lives of children with cancer, finding the sources of autism, talking about his former addictions, etc etc. Minimally, MSNBC should have donated a couple of million $$ to the Imus children's fund given all the $$ they have made from the evil Imus over the years. Anyhow, this is what this 66-year-old white man thinks – and it looks like a new stereotype has been defined and I guess I am one of them.
Another couple of thoughts. Just because someone is lynched doesn't mean they are innocent, and also doesn't make lynching correct. Imus had a chance to face the Rutgers team that he had wronged. Did he also have a chance to meet with the MSNBC and CBS folks who felt wronged. Also, if what Imus was doing was so bad for so long, shouldn't other corporate heads be chopped off for allowing this? On the other hand if it just became wrong last week, shouldn't he have a chance to show his repentance after a suitable punishment? There is always more to these things then meet the eye. As much as folks seem to state that Imus' attacks on politicos were acceptable, in the end that isprobably what has done him in. His political enemies were probably waiting for this sort of an excuse to silence him. Did you see 60 minutes and the look on Bill and Hillary's faces when Imus took it to bill for his sexual activities? That is vintage Imus and probably only an Imus would have the guts to do that.
Rleemith183030, You seem, and notice I say seem to find that Imus's charity work should give him some type of advantage when judging his comments about the Rutgers basketball team. You also keep repeating the Hymie-Jackson tread that many other posters use also.
I am not a fan of Jackson but I have to ask were you singing the Hymie tread when in 1999 Rev. Jackson brought home 3 US Soldiers who were held captive in Yugoslavia? If you want to have Imus judged by more than his STUPID (his words) comments, STOP WITH THE HYMIE. It's hard to take you fevered love for all that Imus has done when you resort with the Hymie business. Keep in mind that Mike Wallace interviewed Don Imus and he said and I quote "I hired Brenard McGurik to do the ni**er jokes" If I were to use your measure to judge Imus he would be a bigot, racists old white man. But I too can acknowledge that Imus has done good things. So when you find your self saying that Imus said a bad thing and he really really didn't mean it, you might want to stop at that (no Hymie required).
I personally find it really really hard to believe that the comment about the Rutgers basketball team was SIMIPLY stupid. It's a part of Imus's everyday language and he got caught. No free speech involved, he his free to continue to speech in the same manner that he always has, just not on the airwaves, thank GOD!!.
"Just because someone is lynch doesn't mean they are innocent"
Your sure about that?
Lynch: to murder (an accused person) by mob action and without lawful trial, as by hanging
Pat and the rest of you really need a lesson in US History. Black people were lynched!!!
Clarence Thomas and Don Imus are alive and still breathing and in no way were lynched. THEY BOTH SHOULD BE ASHAMED TO TRY TO COMPARE ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED TO THEM AS A LYNCHING!!!
But now, we are encouraged to self-censor any words that might be perceived as inflammatory.................. Well, you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and bloodstained underwear, can take that noise and shove it. We will be snowed no more.
Do you think the person who spoke these words would lynch the person it was directed to if he could get away with it? I believe the speaker is speaking out against censoring opinions. What do you think?
"Do you think the person who spoke these words would lynch the person it was directed to if he could get away with it?" --doughpro
No. No I don't. I don't speculate as to who will possibly commit murder and who won't. It is a pretty unfair enterprise to begin with.
Regarding censoring then. Do either of you actually read any of the news items on this site? I'd call it uncensoring. Main stream media follows along with the Adminstrations taking points time and again. For a well sourced description of what is left out, distorted, and out right lies this is the place. We have differing opinions on what happens after the information is ingested. Some poster said there's around 400 regulars on this site. It might not be quite 400 differant opinions. If it was this would be no cause for distress. At least for me, and I'll go out on a limb and say I wouldn't be alone. This is not the belly of the beast. It is information read it disagree with it, but at least be aware of it when you accuse mmfa of being a great Evill.
Yeah, Imus got lynched. And he deserved it. Lynch them all.
I wish I could edit my posts so I could add things. :)
"Anyhow, this is what this 66-year-old white man thinks – and it looks like a new stereotype has been defined and I guess I am one of them. "
You're entitled to your opinion. The elites are at war with older people as well.
Btw, I watched Real Time last week. Bill Maher seemed to me to be ignorant about the site more than anything. He was just agreeing with Smerconish since he feels that everyone is making a big deal about this. He wasn't attacking MM per se.
To use the term "lynching" to describe what happened to Imus is a slur in the worst sense, being that his comments were directed at African-Americans.
If Imus is a victim of anything it is not having any friends who were willing to step up to him and tell him that he needed to aim higher in his humor. They sound like the parents of a kid with a gun in a police standoff who gets shot by police.
The police don't know the kid, all they know is he has a gun and they are more interested in protecting the public than protecting the kid.
I listened to Gwen Ifill and Eugene Robinson Sunday on Meet The Press. Both Eugene Robinson and Gwen Ifill admitted they were racist yet not using those words. Eugene Robinson said, "The black inequities would continue to exist until black economic issues and jobs are addressed." Gwen asked the rhetorical question, "When are the black athletes going to be recognized?" Gwen also said, "Our target is different and our standards have shifted." Why is it necessary to perpetuate segregation when there are laws against it?
It is my firm conviction if an American, regardless of ethnic origin, is asking for a privilege not given to all, there will never be unification and racism will flourish. There never has been, nor will there ever be, separate but equal.
Now that the youth of our nation, by all appearances, have a more color blind culture we learn from black leaders there is no acceptance unless you give us your job or give us something extraordinary? Jesse Jackson told us the day Imus was fired, that there needs to be diversification. Press on that issue he then asked for more blacks on MSNBC between the hours of 3PM and 8PM Monday through Friday as an anchor.
If everyone is forced to count numbers as the preferred black leaders are suggesting , we see two white women and eight black women on the Rutgers team, with a black coach. If America is forced to count these numbers as the black leaders are asking for, all things being equal, why would there not be eight white and two black members? Which six would Gwen Ifill and Eugene Robinson choose to leave behind? Please ask in my name of Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson which white coach would they prefer to replace Ms. Vivian Stringer with because we are now over our 12% quota. Why is it that so few educated individuals understand when we work together to eliminate poverty and educate our youth, all benefit from their collective efforts.
One thing that seems to have gotten lost in all of this is the totally unfair criticism in the media of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I am a fan of neither of these gentlemen but they do have a history of opposing, even to the point of boycotting, rap music. There just isn't any inconsistency in their behavior in this case despite what is in the media.
http://www.quazen.com/News/Current-Events/Racism--Is-Black-Vs-White-the-Only-Issue.21961
You may be interested in this article...Do you agree or disagree?
Why wasn't his producer fired as well? If you listen to / read the transcript - he was the one who first called the girls "hos" - I believe he said, "Hardcore hos".
Imus then said his infamous 3-word comment.
So why was the producer left out of this whole mess and all the blame place on Imus?
Also - with all the talk of what shocked these young ladies - I would love for someone - somewhere - sometime - to publish the songs and lyrics on the Ipods the girls own.
I think it would be very very interesting to hear how many racial and sexual slurs they hear regularly - of their own choice.
Thank god that Media Matters is out there keeping an eye on what I watch and listen to! Because I guess I just don't have the time or the intellect to do it for myself! Did you ever think of just calling yourselves "Big Brother"? And if you guys say it's hate speech and bigtory, gosh darn it, it must be so! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
MMFA watches these morons to put a spotlight on their remarks whether you find them ignorant or useful. I don't know why anyone would object to that unless they simply don't want to be held accountable for what they say.
MMFA has caught many people denying they said what they said and had the evidence to back up their assertions. If you disagree with that, then you are only serving to enable liars.
And the "bigBrother" comment is quite funny. "BigBrother" refers to government intrusion and monitoring of our private lives, which the rightwing has tended to embrace lately. The private sector is free to monitor as they please. Always have, always will.
What do you think sites like mrc.org, aim.org and newsbusters.org do? Why this sudden selective outrage at MMFA for what conservatives have been doing for a much longer period of time? Have you registered or do you plan to register your supposed outrage with them?
words are just that. words. when anyone speaks or writes a word or phrase that is offensive should the offense be exagerated or quelled depending on what sub culture, different religion, different color the offender is from? does this mean that only those fluent in ebonics AND of black heritage is permitted to speak the ebonics language. i would like to know how many people REALLY FROM the continent of AFRICA would want to learn to speak ebonics. i think few would since proper english is their language. mongrelizing a language does not validate it. like words, its just that. words.
sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. this is a common sense saying that builds confident attitudes in people and thats a good thing. what imus said was offensive however the offended party rose above their own sub cultural masses and forgave the offender. was forgiving imus a constructive or destructive action? forgiveness helps to cleanse the offended more than the offender. nevermind the why msnbc and cbs got rid of him. they must deal with the financial and eventual replacement drawbacks of that action.
THIS THREAD IS FULL OF racists. I ADMIT I AM BUT these people CANNOT. they want to banter on and on about how their ancestors were taken from their homes and enslaved by unknown white OTHERS. OMG who's fault WAS that? it's history and nobody, BLACK, WHITE, ORANGE, YELLOW, GREEN, PURPLE, PINK, OR if you prefer RED can CHANGE history. BUT, our young peoples FUTURE is COMPLETELY TAKEN FROM THEM by making sure that our young ALWAYS REMEMBER what great great great great grandma endured. it is impossible to have a vision of WHAT that was. get over it and teach our young to become the best. if you continue to BANTER ON ABOUT INANE historical facts then you WILL YOKE OUR CHILDREN WITH THE SAME YOKE YOU ENDURE.