journalists going on meet the press have no guts

[240 is Back]

They criticize Imus but won't publicly say that Ludacris should stop using the N-word because they don't want to interfere with his "art".  They don't want to interrupt his "carnival atmosphere". 


IMO, if you're willing to outright say a man should lose tens of millions of dollars and his platform to make life better for kids with cancer, then you should have the balls to say Ludacris shouldn't say worse things.

[240 is Back]

Also they won't criticize Borat for demeaning women (and if you remember the scene in teh beginning where he goes to a womens empowerment session, that was way worse than the word 'ho')

[Decker]

They criticize Imus but won't publicly say that Ludacris should stop using the N-word because they don't want to interfere with his "art".  They don't want to interrupt his "carnival atmosphere". 


IMO, if you're willing to outright say a man should lose tens of millions of dollars and his platform to make life better for kids with cancer, then you should have the balls to say Ludacris shouldn't say worse things.

For some reason, we are being told by the millionaire pundits that this is not a free speech issue.

Yes it is. 

If one does not want to hear a shock jock say, "nappy head hoe" or "black" or any other slur, then by all means, change the radio/tv station.  In the principle of freedom, we do not head-off language at the pass.  We do not censor unpopular ideas/language. 

Language can be unpleasant.  People can be demeaning.  That's all part of a free society.

Wow.  I just saw preview of my message and the software is censoring the word "black".

Let's see: shit, piss, fuck, girl, guy, guy, tits.

Wow.  I had no idea of the level of censorship here.

[Straw Man]

This is not a "free speech" issue.

Imus can go out on the street in front of the CBS studios and say whatever he wants.

He can also go into a studio and record whatever he wants and try to sell it in the open market

Once he goes on the air he no longer has free speech.  He now has to say things that please his employers or at the very least don't upset his employers.  His employers make money by selling advertising during his show.  If his show is popular they can charge more for adverstising.  If he upsets the advertisers then his employers have a right to censor his speech or even fire him.   He can then go back out on the street corner and say whatever he wants.

Just imagine if Rush Limbaugh woke up one morning and decided to go on the air and excoriate the Republican party.  How long do you think it would take for his advertisers to protest and if he kept doing it how long before he was fired. 

[youandme]

Once he goes on the air he no longer has free speech. 

Not true, he runs a certain type of radio show that was setup to shock and awe people, targeted a whole different set of people like Stern, just because your being broadcasted over radio waves does not mean you can't say what you want.

Someone needs to start a white racial group and listen to all black broadcasters, and nail their asses to the cross if the words whitey, cracker, white slip out.

[militarymuscle69]

They criticize Imus but won't publicly say that Ludacris should stop using the N-word because they don't want to interfere with his "art".  They don't want to interrupt his "carnival atmosphere". 


IMO, if you're willing to outright say a man should lose tens of millions of dollars and his platform to make life better for kids with cancer, then you should have the balls to say Ludacris shouldn't say worse things.

being a disc jockey isn't an art? We all can admit that in America blacks are the "protected" group right? If he had called them big nose having Jews would we even of heard about it? Seriously

[militarymuscle69]

This is not a "free speech" issue.

Imus can go out on the street in front of the CBS studios and say whatever he wants.

He can also go into a studio and record whatever he wants and try to sell it in the open market

Once he goes on the air he no longer has free speech.  He now has to say things that please his employers or at the very least don't upset his employers.  His employers make money by selling advertising during his show.  If his show is popular they can charge more for adverstising.  If he upsets the advertisers then his employers have a right to censor his speech or even fire him.   He can then go back out on the street corner and say whatever he wants.

Just imagine if Rush Limbaugh woke up one morning and decided to go on the air and excoriate the Republican party.  How long do you think it would take for his advertisers to protest and if he kept doing it how long before he was fired. 

In your heart of hearts, do you think that Imus would have been fired by CBS if this had never been brought into the limelight. I mean if Moonves ws sitting in his office, listening to Imus and heard what he said but that was as far as it went...was Moonves offended enough personally to have fired him?

[Straw Man]

Not true, he runs a certain type of radio show that was setup to shock and awe people, targeted a whole different set of people like Stern, just because your being broadcasted over radio waves does not mean you can't say what you want.

Someone needs to start a white racial group and listen to all black broadcasters, and nail their asses to the cross if the words whitey, cracker, white slip out.

OK - let's clarify a bit.  Imus (or you or I) are free to say whatever we want but if we're doing it at work then our employers have the right to fire us.   Even if I just worked in an office and went around making racist and sexist remarks I could also be fired.   So yes you have free speech in the sense that no one is requiring you to wear a muzzle but context does matter.   The classic example of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater applies here.

[militarymuscle69]

OK - let's clarify a bit.  Imus (or you or I) are free to say whatever we want but if we're doing it at work then our employers have the right to fire us.   Even if I just worked in an office and went around making racist and sexist remarks I could also be fired.   So yes you have free speech in the sense that no one is requiring you to wear a muzzle but context does matter.   The classic example of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater applies here.

no one here argues that CBS had no choice once Sharpton and team got involved, I just don't like how CBS got FORCED into it. Sharpton knew that CBS would cave, just like the German Army will. Notice he left South Park alone...

[Straw Man]

In your heart of hearts, do you think that Imus would have been fired by CBS if this had never been brought into the limelight. I mean if Moonves ws sitting in his office, listening to Imus and heard what he said but that was as far as it went...was Moonves offended enough personally to have fired him?

Let's say his boss heard it and wasn't offended.  Let's also assume the girls on the basketball team weren't offended.  

The millions of listeners to his show still have the right to be offended and they have the right to express their own free speech and raise a protest with his employers and advertisers.  His employers and sponsors have the right to ignore these people if they choose to do so.    Let's even go one step further and say that someone doesn't even listen to his show but they still heard about it and were offended.  Since these are public airwaves any person has the right to protest what's on them.  

[youandme]

OK - let's clarify a bit.  Imus (or you or I) are free to say whatever we want but if we're doing it at work then our employers have the right to fire us.   Even if I just worked in an office and went around making racist and sexist remarks I could also be fired.   So yes you have free speech in the sense that no one is requiring you to wear a muzzle but context does matter.   The classic example of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater applies here.

Damn, you have free speech but you have to answer to someone. Government controls the airwaves. BS. But all the above scenarios make for a funny day.

[Straw Man]

being a disc jockey isn't an art? We all can admit that in America blacks are the "protected" group right? If he had called them big nose having Jews would we even of heard about it? Seriously

I'm willing to clarify being a disc jockey as art.  

Who  buys his art - I mean really - who pays for it.

His sponsors pay for it.

Imus is still free to say whatever he wants - put it on a cd and try to sell it in the open market

I think if Imus called a bunch of girls on a basketbell team big nose jew or big nose jewish ho that there would have most likely been a similar reaction, perhaps not quite as severe.

The reality is that race is still a big issue in this country

[militarymuscle69]

I'm willing to clarify being a disc jockey as art.  

Who  buys his art - I mean really - who pays for it.

His sponsors pay for it.

Imus is still free to say whatever he wants - put it on a cd and try to sell it in the open market

I think if Imus called a bunch of girls on a basketbell team big nose jew or big nose jewish ho that there would have most likely been a similar reaction, perhaps not quite as severe.

The reality is that race is still a big issue in this country

Straw I'm not disagreeing with you. CBS had to fire him and was well within their right as a company to do so...but if it was never brought up in the public, then the sponsors wouldn't have left etc....

[Decker]

OK - let's clarify a bit.  Imus (or you or I) are free to say whatever we want but if we're doing it at work then our employers have the right to fire us.   Even if I just worked in an office and went around making racist and sexist remarks I could also be fired.   So yes you have free speech in the sense that no one is requiring you to wear a muzzle but context does matter.   The classic example of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater applies here.

Yes it is a free speech issue.  It may not be a first amendment case.

Just b/c that speech is broadcast over a certain medium doesn't diminish the fact that he was fired for the content of that speech.

He was fired for what he had said.  Now his employment contract will govern this situation b/c I seriously doubt that Imus was an "at will" employee.

[Straw Man]

Straw I'm not disagreeing with you. CBS had to fire him and was well within their right as a company to do so...but if it was never brought up in the public, then the sponsors wouldn't have left etc....

how they found out about it is irrelevent.

If I kill someone and no one finds out does it make any difference? (granted not a perfect analogy)

Like I said before - it doesn't matter whether the sponsor or protestors heard about it at the time or not.

When they found out about it they have the right to make a judgement about it.  

[militarymuscle69]

how they found out about it is irrelevent.

If I kill someone and no one finds out does it make any difference? (granted not a perfect analogy)

Like I said before - it doesn't matter whether the sponsor or protestors heard about it at the time or not.

When they found out about it they have the right to make a judgement about it.  

wow...sigh...I know this straw, that is why I am not mad that they fired him...but if sharpton hadn't have made his push no one would have cared and he woudl still be working....

[Straw Man]

Yes it is a free speech issue.  It may not be a first amendment case.

Just b/c that speech is broadcast over a certain medium doesn't diminish the fact that he was fired for the content of that speech.

He was fired for what he had said.  Now his employment contract will govern this situation b/c I seriously doubt that Imus was an "at will" employee.

Granted, Imus (or anyone) is free to say whatever they want but there is a difference if you're saying it on a street corner (although if that street corner is in Harlem you might have a problem) as opposed to the public airwaves where someone is paying for you to be there.

[Straw Man]

wow...sigh...I know this straw, that is why I am not mad that they fired him...but if sharpton hadn't have made his push no one would have cared and he woudl still be working....

[/b]
yeah, but he did (actually I think he might have been third or fourth to get on board) and that's his right.   CBS/MSNBC and their various sponsors could  have chosen to ignore it if they wanted. 

BTW - I'm no fan of Sharpton.  He seems to me to be an opportunist and has made his own outrageous comments in the past.

[Dos Equis]

This is not a "free speech" issue.

Imus can go out on the street in front of the CBS studios and say whatever he wants.

He can also go into a studio and record whatever he wants and try to sell it in the open market

Once he goes on the air he no longer has free speech.  He now has to say things that please his employers or at the very least don't upset his employers.  His employers make money by selling advertising during his show.  If his show is popular they can charge more for adverstising.  If he upsets the advertisers then his employers have a right to censor his speech or even fire him.   He can then go back out on the street corner and say whatever he wants.

Just imagine if Rush Limbaugh woke up one morning and decided to go on the air and excoriate the Republican party.  How long do you think it would take for his advertisers to protest and if he kept doing it how long before he was fired. 

I agree with this.

[ieffinhatecardio]

I wonder how long we're going to be trapped in this endless cycle of American Blacks being victims. In another decade will we still be getting browbeaten by this Politically Correct agenda that employs no common sense?

You know, the more the black community justifies their own victim status the more they hurt their own cause. All it does is create resentment and give them an excuse (that they readily use) to fail. The pure idiocy of the whole situation drives me crazy.

[240 is Back]

newsweek as well as Harold Ford Jr, both frequent imus guests, were conveniently *unreachable* for an entire week.  Then, when he was fired, both criticized his words to anyone with a camera who would listen.

[Dos Equis]

Yes it is a free speech issue.  It may not be a first amendment case.

Just b/c that speech is broadcast over a certain medium doesn't diminish the fact that he was fired for the content of that speech.

He was fired for what he had said.  Now his employment contract will govern this situation b/c I seriously doubt that Imus was an "at will" employee.

I doubt he was at will, but his comments absolutely gave his employers cause to fire him.  It's not a free speech or First Amendment issue at all.  These are private employers.  You adhere to the standards your employer sets, or you find another job.

[militarymuscle69]

I wonder how long we're going to be trapped in this endless cycle of American Blacks being victims. In another decade will we still be getting browbeaten by this Politically Correct agenda that employs no common sense?

You know, the more the black community justifies their own victim status the more they hurt their own cause. All it does is create resentment and give them an excuse (that they readily use) to fail. The pure idiocy of the whole situation drives me crazy.

I am a fraid it won't go away in our lifetime. Everytime someone does something (superbowl coach etc) they all talk about being "the first black this, the first black that" I think it diminishes their achievement in the US as a whole. Sure it is celebrated in black community, but other races are tired of hearing it. It needs to be dropped, they need to stop doing homicide studies based on race, they need to stop having everything based on it. Like in the NFL, they said there weren't enough representation of blacks in the head coaching ranks. Yet if you take the percentage of coaches that are black, and compare it to the percentage of the population that is black, there were twice as many coaches. All they do is diminsh the next black coach that is hired because people will chalk it up to affirmative action right from the start. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Spike Lee etc..make way to much money off of rasicm to ever let it drop. What would those 3 do if there was no racism?

[240 is Back]

news is cyclical.


every 2-3 years there is a huge news cycle about race.
every 6 months there is a kidnapping craze.
every 12 months there's an anti-gun angle.
every 5 months like clockwork there is another "foiled terror attack" for Bush to brag about in which 8 hapless retarded dishwashers are foiled at the last minute before they can blow up the world with the help of their FBI snitch who fed them the plan.

It's the political news - it's primetime sitcoms with ugly people.

[militarymuscle69]

news is cyclical.


every 2-3 years there is a huge news cycle about race.
every 6 months there is a kidnapping craze.
every 12 months there's an anti-gun angle.
every 5 months like clockwork there is another "foiled terror attack" for Bush to brag about in which 8 hapless retarded dishwashers are foiled at the last minute before they can blow up the world with the help of their FBI snitch who fed them the plan.

It's the political news - it's primetime sitcoms with ugly people.

do you think this cycle coincides with the Jackie Robinson celebrations?