April 26, 2007
Protesting "Free" Speech
CBS' Meyer Sort Of Applauds Efforts To Clean Up Pop Culture In Wake Of Imus Farce And Va. Tech Tragedy
-
Photo
(AP)
-
Interactive
Virginia Tech Tragedy
Deadly shooting rampage on Virginia Tech campus leaves 33 dead.
-
Interactive
Guns In America
State-by-state gun laws and death rates, maps of recent school and workplace shootings and facts on who's at risk.
To what degree can intentional collective action influence the content of popular entertainment? To what degree should it?
These debating points have moved from op-ed pages and classrooms to board rooms and even the chambers of Congress following two very different news events: the farce of Don Imus and the tragedy of Virginia Tech. The arguments that have started about free speech versus hate speech versus dangerous speech are interesting and, I think, very important for us both purveyors and consumers of pop culture, even if they are unlikely to influence the "real world" much.
The Imus Issue has been framed this way: if a white radio performer can't say "ho," how come black rappers and other "artists" can? I don't find this particular double standard especially interesting or productive to argue about. What I do find interesting is the effort like that of the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network to actually influence, or regulate if you prefer, the language that music stars use.
Russell Simmons, one of the biggest of rap moguls, put out a statement of behalf of the HSAN. I'll quote it exactly, despite its use of the offending words:
... there should not be any government regulation or public policy that should ever violate the First Amendment. With freedom of expression, however, comes responsibility. With that said, HSAN is concerned about the growing public outrage concerning the use of the words "bitch," "ho," and "nigger." We recommend that the recording and broadcast industries voluntarily remove/bleep/delete the misogynistic words "bitch" and "ho" and the racially offensive word "nigger.”Tipper Gore, circa 1985, would be proud. She should be.
Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission reportedly is about to issue a report that recommends Congress pass laws that essentially would regulate or at least influence violent content on television, despite he First Amendment. After the media-age atrocity perpetrated by Cho Seung-Hui, the FCC report and the need to “act” are especially pressing. That sense of urgency will inexorably dissipate.
The FCC has apparently surveyed the research and found connections between violent entertainment and media imagery and violent behavior and imagination. I don’t know if Russell Simmons and the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network have surveyed the research and discovered that woman-hating, violent and racially degrading music foster, um, anti-social behaviors.
Certainly the idea that eliminating these three specific words from rap lyrics would have any real world effects is ludicrous. Certainly the idea that a new law, enforced by the FCC, regulating what times it is appropriate to air chain-saw massacres and slasher movies on cable would diminish the production of future Dylan Klebolds and Cho Seung-Huis is farcical.
But I applaud both these efforts.
How else can "society" – the collective "we" – fight back against an entertainment culture that is perverted? Put it another way: I applaud almost any attempt to protest and mock this piggish, warped media machine, no matter how ineffective, illiberal, anti-First Amendment, prudish or uncool it may be.
Regulating so-called violent content on television would clearly violate the First Amendment. On the other hand, arguing that some glorified snuff movie financed by multinational corporations and "private equity" is a form of free speech that must be protected strikes me as imbecilic. Please, if you are very into riding high horses, gallop on ... but you know exactly what I mean.
My own position on this is lame: I am a Burkean Tory who believes traditional moral and aesthetic standards must be enforced if a society isn't to lose its bearings; I am a classical liberal disposed to see any government coercion of speech and expression as an infringement of the most crucial liberty. And I am a pragmatist who thinks that there is no worse enforcer of standards than governments. That's lame, as I said.
But I do think it is important to support just about any form of protest about cultural violence, misogyny and racism that you encounter – philosophic consistency be damned. It's therapeutic, it's honest and perhaps, in some mysterious collective "hidden-hand" way, it may steer the market and the culture. If not, you tried.
TV Watchers of the World, Unite!
Dick Meyer is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.
If you prefer e-mail to public comments, complaints or arguments, send them along to Against the Grain. We may occasionally publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PARTNERS
     |
- Latest in Opinion: Against The Grain
- Do Democrats Fear Winning?
- Independents Win! Bloomberg Pulls Out
- The Decline of Blogs And Gaffes
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 93 CommentsI find no mention, in his ridiculous diatribe, of the fact that violence has always been a part of the American culture, nor how much poverty affects violence, nor the fact that people just do not have to buy or listen to what they do not like.
Give me Mencken any day of the week and may Meyers join Rooney, riding into the sunset of senility.
Posted by Antillo99 at 08:23 AM : Apr 26, 2007
nappy headed hoe's------------this has what to do with sexual assult ??? and what to do with slaves???? a hoe is just another name for a woman, sometimes it refers to them being ***. and the nappy headed part refers to nasty hair(usually of the black sort but in general just nasty hair)
How about have them ban parts of the constitution?
You will have to fight to get your right's back as each of them are taken away.
Soon we will no longer be the free country this great country was fonded upon.
But shaped and changed to what corporations, lobbiest groups and the religious right want us to be.
With my first amendment still intact, here is where I excersice that right and tell you to take this communist idea and get the heck out of the country. When you no longer have the right to say what you want, you are under the control of someone else. A puppet.
Lastly, a piece of advise, if you don't like what you hear, don't listen.
It's that simple.
Rights should come with responsibilities.
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.
...
I think if we ever become entirely gender and race equal all these perceived double-standards will go away. As a white male, I do not find myself being jealous of being excluded from Black and/or women award shows, nor would I feel greater honor in receiving an award limited to white males. Also, as far as I'm concern blacks and women can call each other anything they want,
I'll keep calling my white male friends anything I want, they don't mind.
as right as the way black men treat their women
or as as stupid as how some blacks treat their children
or as insane as how many blacks are killed by other blacks over drugs
or as sick as why blacks drag down each other down by saying they acting wite
Protected by the law means protected by lawyers and judges who are the biggest threat to the freedoms those of US born in this country used to have... thanks to our governments SELLOUT!!!
Ever watch Dog The Bounty deal with folks wanted
for jumping bail? He is what truth is. His past made him a smarter man.
Life happens unless you be dead,
Lord hep US. Please
I agree entirely with your point. Sometimes I think our pocket books and our votes are the only voices heard anymore by America's media and government. Unfortunately we treat media products like car accidents, most can't help but look, if only to verify our views.
Ever watch PBS? the History Channel? a News Channel? or are all your views based on "Dog the Bounty" or "Cops". Please do me a favor, never start a sentence with "We White People..." As a white man, I don't want to be a part of how you end that sentence. By-the-way, is "white" missing an "h" intentionally? or is illiteracy another of your accomplishments.
For those 7 words and more, just miss spell them.
Illiterates have free reign here.
Today, there is no longer an American "We, the People" paradoxically because we strive towards an inclusive diversity. There is no "society" in the US, but rather a collection of groups with their own culture, language, and social norms. Some diffused mixture of these norms, catered to the lowest common denominator, is presented as the views of the "public."
Thus, we really have no social values whatsoever, we simply have laws defining illegality. The legal system is our social arbitrator, and it is woefully inadequate at this task.
However, such an arrangement is not sustainable, as the public psyche cannot endure such schizophrenic strains. Unless we are able to overcome the social tribalization that is manifest in this country, we are headed down the same path as we now see in Iraq.
What we have going for us is communication and public discourse. This only works if tribes are successful in getting others to listen to them and understand their perspectives. Judging from the vast discrepency between the black and white experience in America, it appears we still have a lot of listening ahead of us. We need less shouters and more listeners.
Lol.
I miss Imus. And, yes, I think it's a huge double standard to hold a white guy to this standard when others are not held to it.
Even if the law says you have to give him the gun along 1000 rounds of ammo, should you ? Hell no.
But, we do anyway.
Interesting.
I will not be surprised if someone takes issue on whether the term "Tribe" is PC, go figure.
Also, the only way to change a person's feelings and way of speaking is to change the person, not those externals around the person. You can mute TV and radio as long as you want. But as long as that person has hate in his heart for someone, he/she will continue to talk and berate the other person.
The only way to truly overcome all the racial barriers and language we face today, is by chaning the person's thinking and belief system. That can be done but will take time. Perhaps a few sessions with Dr. Phil may help.
This is the exact same argument many people use to justify gun control.
. . . the right of the government to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
So while the first amendment does say:
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech
The amendment does not state who has this freedom in the first place. Perhaps, like with the second amendment, the first amendment only applies to the government. Maybe the first amendment really means:
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the governments freedom of speech
See how easy it is to control speech? Its all in deciding who actually has rights, and clamping down on everybody else.
I don't like the words either and if the recording industry wants to bleep the words fine, but as soon as the gov't gets involved it is all over.
There are more important fish to fry folks then a bunch or words that where kids can escape from the reality of poverty for a while.
We need to be thinking about this war and how we were lied into it so it never happens again. We need to hold this Administration/cabal accountable for their actions. Spandau Prison I believe is still available for this cabal.
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.
...
Works for me.
some of the things people say might not me politically correct, but we all have the right to say want we want to say.
some of the things people say might not me politically correct, but we all have the right to say want we want to say.
Posted by jones115
So it would be perfectly OK for you to be walking down the street with your 8 year old son and he says "Dad there's a *** over there".
Yeah, that's what freedom of speech is all about.
Freedom of speech has a great responsibility attached to it. There has to be some boundries as to what is acceptable. I'm not to sure about the government setting the boundries. But someone has to.
As for the furor over rap, I have a simple way to avoid being offended by it: I don't listen to it any more. I've listened to enough to learn that the only valid question to ask about rap is whether it should be spelled with a capital or a small "c".
As a musician myself, I know that melody, harmony and rhythm makeup music. Since virtually all of rap lacks at least one and usually two of those elements, it isn't music.
Yeah, that's what freedom of speech is all about."
That's what parenting is about. Of course that's not fine. Anyone who has ever been around a kid knows they will at some point spout out profanity. It's the parent's job to instruct them on what is appropriate and what is good manners.
The "someone" who has to set the boundaries is the parent or peer. Therefore, I think it's quite appropriate for Simmons to suggest that people in hip-hop censor themselves (although hypocritical, as he has become rich off that same language). For the government to regulate that, however, is not appropriate in a free society.
To paraphrase Voltaire, I may think you are a semi-literate thug who belongs in jail, and be unable to even understand 90% of what you say, let alone agree with it, but I will defend to the death your right to rap it. Just don't force me to listen.
This is very thin ice and once any restrictions are made [by the government] then the right to make those restrictions has been granted and our dear government never knows when to stop.
It is too bad that in the name of the almighty dollar certain people don't care what they say and feel they have a right to promote violence, which is most conspicuously against their own kind.
I am most offended by:
a.) The use of gutter speech describing women, especially black women, who are the most victimized of any segment of American society.
b.) The over sensitivity of many segments of society to anything said, printed or at this point, even inferred.
We live in a strange world.
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.
...
Posted by processor2 at 12:39 PM : Apr 26, 2007
+ report abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, we can call them "assault words" and then ban them. It worked for guns!
Posted by GunOwnerDan at 12:32 PM : Apr 26, 2007
report abuse"
Uh oh. I agree with/find humor in both of those posts.
What's up?!! Don't tell me we are finding a middle ground of agreement here?? ;-)
I don't think there's any problem unless the government is involved with prohibiting the speech.
Anderson Cooper with the 60 Minutes piece and the follow up on 360 last night was great at holding Al Sharpton accountable for following through on his rhetoric about changing rap music. It was like pulling teeth trying to get Sharpton to follow through, but Anderson was finally able to get confirmation that Sharpton would start protesting a record company too . . . it's a start . . .
There are lots of words I find offensive, but I do not have to listen to rap music. Likewise, there are lots of TV shows and movies I find too violent or too trite, I also do not have to watch any of these. So, no thank-you, I do not need the government to help me decide what needs censoring out of hearshot or view.
As for the children. That is my responsibility. That is why I am called the parent and they are called the children. I decide what they listen to, what they watch and when, and what games they play. I do not need help from the government or some other so called "do-gooder" in the name of keeping me and mine safe.
When my children become adults, then they can decide these things for themselves. Hopefully I will have instilled the proper values and they will be productive, law-abiding citizens.
To my mind, the connection is that the reason Cho Seung-Hui was still at the school at all is because no one wanted to 'offend' him by kicking him out, regardless of how he acted.
This is a prevalent argument. It is the contractor escape clause. I, the government, cannot torture you, but I can hire a contractor to torture you. I cannot stop your free speech, but I can set up a flunky corporate system that can destroy your job and your life if you attempt free speech. This is the out clause for the whole constitution - we didn't do it, corporations we support and create and protect did it on our behalf.
The fact is the government as such now includes entities like CBS, who have protected rights to public airwaves, and use the court system and direct intervention of the government to prevent competition. Where does the line draw between the government and a big insurance company, or the government and the credit bureaus that spy on all Americans?
Hitler's government never did a thing on the "night of the long knives" it was independent "non-government" brownshirts, supposedly, that did the killing. That's how fascism works. So these ideas aren't new, just very tired and old.
What got Imus fired was freedom of speech - a bunch of ordinary people telling his employer that they wanted him gone. Our freedom of speech matters too - and freedom to chose who we buy from, who we boycott.
Imus got fired because he offended too many people and they fought back. If the Rutgers BB team had rolled over on this, it would have gone away. Some sponsors would have temporarily bailed....carefully watched ratings and then re-upped with Imus if it made sense for them.
The fact is, the Rutgers BB team stood up for themselves and exercised their free speech and it was entirely less objectionable than Don's, so bye bye Don.
Free speech worked just fine. Don't let the government in it.
While I do find some words are better not said. Children too young have no idea that a word,action etc is not said at home,in public,their parents do. It is not cute. I feel the govt should not be in the busness of telling parents how to bring up John/Jane Doe. They should let parents do that.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 93 Comments