Comments on: Protesting "Free" Speech

CBS' Meyer Sort Of Applauds Efforts To Clean Up Pop Culture In Wake Of Imus Farce And Va. Tech Tragedy

[diverinnl]

I've seen a lot of intelligent discussion on both sides of this issue today. To me, it comes down to personal responsability. Those in the public spotlight who offend others seem to pass the blame on to others; i.e. Imus blaming blacks for his disgusting little joke. As long as the federal government feels we can't control ourselves with our liberties, they will attempt to control us to appease the squeekiest wheels that complain.

If you say it, own it. If what you say is inherently offensive, just keep your mouth shut and say it in the proper forum.

[ucellis]

I disagree taking away everyone's right to do something when a small % of people do something wrong. Why should I suffer for a few idiots actions?

[processor2]

"I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it"
is the very bedrock of the concept of free speech.

Free speech is to protect speech that is politically INcorrect.

I don't support what Don Imus said, but I do support his right to say whatever.

It's called freedom of speech.

...

[ryindy]

" They are people who think they know better than you and I, know what we should think, what we should do, and I say, screw them.
Posted by prnssvespa"

I can understand that. However, the 1st Amendment was included as a result of oppression under King George. It was and is a political ploy to allow everyone the right to disagree with the newly formed government and open intellegent discussion over a direction of the country.

I don't think that Jefferson or the Second Continental Congress ever intended it to be used as topic in a demeaning or degrading manner.

While not much can be done to re-educate some adult aged people. As a society We must educate children how to treat each other. And yes I do believe that education sometimes requires physical discipline.

Until we do, we will continue to have these debates.

[swift2--2008]

What an empty debate. People were mad at Imus because he validated bigotry and small-mindedness, and the media and political elites sucked up to him for one reason: he helped their ratings or their book sales. Imus had a history of slandering people and making racist and sexist comments. This may have seemed cute to teenagers in the '70s, but it wasn't so cute for a man with no liquid left in his body at the age of 104 or whatever Skeletor Imus is.

It is not a "free speech" issue; Imus could stream his program from a website and say whatever he wants without any interference from anyone. The problem was that our corporate media were validating a guy who thought bigotry was fun. No, I don't think he's a serious bigot, but he played one on the radio. And he made millions at it.

He was brilliant, though, to try and deflect the issue to rap. Blame it on the blacks again. They made him say it.

There's a big difference between broadcast and other media. We tolerate censorship in broadcast, but very few want to censor the phrase "Janet Jackson's nipple" in print.

The direction things should have taken is this: what other broadcast personalities say repulsive things and have advertisers pay them bundles? That's how to expand the clean-up of broadcasting. Censor rap music on the radio? Isn't it always? On records, it's more problematic.

[samthetvcat]

PS I guess if people believe there was some sort of loss caused by the profit-driven corporate decision to fire Don Imus, then I guess I would argue that perhaps since the profit decision in this instance took into account the decisions' effect on society as a whole (since society as a whole are their viewers), then if CBS/NBC was in better shape overall for having fired Don Imus then aren't we all too probably in better shape?

(Like it maximized their long-term profits to get rid of Don Imus (when you factor in all the intangibles like brand image) and their profits are based on viewership, so if their viewership is maximized by firing Don Imus then aren't we happier in the end that he's gone (on some big picture level))?

[samthetvcat]

I guess this issue is really 2-pronged. The first issue is what content ought to be regulated and to what extent. The second issue exists only if one agrees that certain content ought to be regulated - then the issue becomes who ought to be responsible for enacting/enforcing the regulations and how.

People don't seem to agree when it comes to the Don Imus issue, but what if the price we pay as a society for allowing Don Imus to say what he did is that rappers like Cam'ron then get to let children who may not have a father available to counterbalance his influence urge them not to trust police? Has society really lost a great voice of influence now that Don Imus no longer has a show or will society be better off if this firing can be used as leverage to pressure record companies to clean up their act? The FCC wasn't involved in this debate, so I guess the issue is whether economics caused some sort of loss of ideas.

As far as the VT shooting, isn't everybody pretty unanimous in the view that the media shouldn't have aired the video the shooter sent to NBC? Or that they only should have showed it like once or something - and that Cho's picture shouldn't have been the focus (the danger being that copycats wanting notoriety might emerge). So clearly people support limits on violence. I guess the issue here is whether the FCC ought to regulate media in this area, or is public pressure enough?

[prnssvespa-2009]

I don't agree with a lot of people, and I don't like a lot of TV shows, radio talk shows, books, and music. You see, because of the Bill of Rights, I have the right to change the channel, not read a certain book, or listen to certain kinds of music. I might not agree with Imus, but I don't have to listen to him. If someone wants to call me, a stringy-haired cracker, I honestly don't care, I've been called worse. They are allowed to say whatever they like, and I don't have to listen. Its a sad day when we aren't intelligent enough to not listen to or read items we find offensive, and someone else has to tell us when we are offended. They also have to tell us how to raise our children, first we're not allowed to spank, now we are not allowed to decide if our child is old enough or mature enough to handle the programs on TV we allow them to watch. Maybe if we were allowed to discipline our children properly, and didn't blind ourselves with their perfection, then maybe just maybe, Paris Hilton wouldn't be famous, and VT might not of happened. Don't blame TV, don't blame shock jocks, don't blame anyone else but ourselves for the horrible things that happen. Stop following and start leading. Simmons, Jackson, Sharpton, have nothing to say for me, they don't represent me, my thoughts, who I am, or who I want my children to be. They are people who think they know better than you and I, know what we should think, what we should do, and I say, screw them.

[sparks224]

The %u201CLiberal Elite like streisand%u201D are not the owners of the Media and do not determine the contents of what you see on the %u201Cnews%u201D. The American Elite or corporate Elite are the owners of the Media and do determine what is %u201Cnews%u201D.

[xzavierbrown]

does that mean the Liberal Elite like streisand really works for the "american elite" aka republicans?

[sparks224]

katg21,

"THE AMERICAN ELITE" are the people who own the corporations, like the oil companies for example.

These people are represented by the Republican party. You could say the Republican party is nothing more than the public relations department for these corporations.

The same corporations that own the Media.

That is why the idea of a liberal media is laughable.

[fascistusa]

Who controls the Media??

THE AMERICAN ELITE AND AIPAC/ISRAEL.

"Liberal Bias" is a LIE. Say a LIE enough times, it somehow becomes "Truth".

Freedom of Speech is a Myth.

Politically Correct is Brainwashing.

We live in a FASCIST COUNTRY. The Elite use the Media to CONTROL us.

[susanhelit]

That myth again. Reporters are liberal - although not all that strongly - socially liberal, fiscally conservative. However Editors are conservative - strongly. Media owners likewise. That's what that study showed, and it's been misused to claim a liberal bias to the media. Who do you think controls what is printed - the reporter doing his job, or the editor or managers who hire and fire him, and choose which stories get printed?

[i-tack]

The media may not consider itself liberal, but it historically and solidly Democratic. Whether they consider themselves liberal is more of a relative discussion, but in the overall picture they would not be a centrist.

As for their Corporate ownership; there is some truth to that. Corporations however, are not loyal to anything that can cause them financial pain hence the pro-war talk then and the pro-walk talk now.

It is up to the people to not be so impressionable by believing every sound bite.

[taylpatr]

I don't think Imus should have been fired. He shouldn't have been on the air in the first place. There was a time in this country, even when segregation was still the norm, that the media used a thing called "tact". Some would refer to it as manners, a quality that Mr. Imus seems to lack.But I can't fault Imus for making a living. He wouldn't be able to spew his garbage if someone wasn't buying it. The same with the rap lyrics.I don't understand people paying good money to someone to degrade them.

[katg21]

Liberalism is clearly NOT in their financial interest.
Conservatism clearly IS

Posted by sparks224 at 07:43 PM : Apr 26, 2007


Now that's funny!!!

[sharona13]

If the media hadn't made such an issue, no one would have cared and the Rutgers Women's Basketball team wouldn't be remembered only as "Nappy Headed H-s". First of all by acknowleding the comments, they became victims. If they felt the need to comment, they should have gone on Imus's show and proved they were neither nappy headed or hos! My Godmother called me nappy head when I was little and I didn't thing anything of it and still don't. In fact I took it to be a term of endearment. Sharpton and Jackson should practice forgiveness and let whoever Imus's god is judge him. If they were true Christians, as they profess to be, they would not have judged him so harshly. Hope Imus is watching when they trip and I bet he will not be so judgemental and demand that they be fired. Oh wait, Jesse Jackson has a job?

[sparks224]

xzavierbrown,

"Liberal media"
That's pretty funny.

Would that be the same Media that is owned by corporate America?

Liberalism is clearly NOT in their financial interest.
Conservatism clearly IS

[bigdadpatrio]

hypnotoad72, I hope that you don't say anything at work that might be politically incorrect because, according to you, you should then be fired also. We'll have to disagree on this issue! I (he, you) have the right to say anything that I (he,you) want to, as long as it's not "fire!" in a crowded theatre, or if it would incite dangerous actions/activities. At least that's how the constitution has been interpreted up until now..... AND, YES McCain IS a liberal (much closer than to a conservative!)

[hypnotoad72]

xzavierbrown - I'm sorry you feel the need to blame it all on liberals... Look up some of John McCain's comments. Is he a liberal? Um, no. How about Ann Coulter. Is she a liberal? Given the quantity of comments she spits out, perhaps she is she the deity Liberals pray to?! Nope, wrong again! She too is a 'conservative'. One that does the party she claims to adhere to a tremendous disservice, but that's her problem.

There are a lot of people who are anything BUT liberal and have said some fairly vile things. The issue is not one-sided, I'm sorry to incorporate some reality into this discussion thread.