What do you guys think about this?

[MonsterMark]

If Imus gets picked up by some pay service he can continue to spew his stuff there, and that's a point I'd like to make.

And the thought of you taking some personal responsibility by changing the channel probably never crosses your mind.

I'm sure the movie Demolition Man depicts the type of world you'd prefer to live in. Too bad you were born about 40 years too soon, eh. 2047 would be the prefect world you envision, with the thought police issuing a ticket for every word you utter and another ticket for every mile over the speed limit you travel. Nice, real nice.

 

[Calabrio]

There's a fine line between joke and slur. Being Jewish I've endured both. I believe Imus crossed the line.

Can you acknowledge that?

It Imus had been commenting on a cheer leading competition and made the a comment under his breath like "bleach blond sluts"- do you think we'd hear any outrage?

Was it a racial slur? Is "ho" a racial slur? Is "nappy-headed" a racial slur? Is it only a racial slur when an old guy says it? Does it cease to be a slur when a rapper makes the same claim? What about when a black comedian says it.

Do we really need to draw that line? Do we really need to continue down this path where anything remotely offensive becomes nearly criminal? Does it mean that it should destroy a man's 35 year career and reported $10 million dollar salary?

And frankly, do you want some piece of crap like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson determining specifically what can be said in public and who can say? Do you want to empower them? They've tasted blood, do you think they're going to stop there? Who's next?

Was it Nappy headed or hoe that cost him his job? Was it the mystic power of the two terms combined that did it? What other terms are off limits now? What about "Welfare mom," is that racist? If nappy-headed hoe had been used to described the swim team, would that have cost him his job?

This entire thing is ridiculous and a bit scarey. Unless there's a public backlash over this, we're going to be on the fast track towards hate-speech legislation. "I have no problem with that, hate-speech is bad" you might think to yourself. But then you need to remember, you're reasonable definition of hate-speech is entirely different than someone with a political agendas vision of that term too.

Is Rush Limbaugh hate speech? Howard Stern hate speech? Keith Oberman or Al Franken, are they hate speech? What about Michael Savage or Rosie O'Donnell?

My first bet would be that, because of the pressure resulting from white guilt and Rev. Sharpton and Jackson, we'll be unable to have any kind of honest or frank discussion about race in this country. Perpetual victim status, and zero accountability, in the black community. The next target will be anything conservative in nature, that'll be deemed "hateful" too.

How does this help anyone? If you're disgusted by Imus, and he clearly hasn't violated any law, don't listen. In this case, he hardly said anything that warranted this kind of outrage. He's not on the radio inciting violence. He's not on the air preaching hate. He was trying to be shocking and grumpy.

If Imus gets picked up by some pay service he can continue to spew his stuff there, and that's a point I'd like to make.

"Spew his stuff," you'd swear that the guy was on the air four hours a day for nearly four decades with a white robe and hood on. John Kerry was on the Imus show every other week during the 2004 election. We're not talking about some subversive Klan Radio Network here. He made a stupid joke. He was trying to be funny. If you don't like the style, tune out.

He's not being vulgar. He's not inciting violence. He's not doing anything. He takes cheap shots at everyone. Often times it is humorous, just as often it's not. In the tradition of Stern, the idea of the show is that you have regular people having a comfortable, informal conversation. Especially living in New York, it's pretty hard to not make some ethnic jokes given the absurdity of life there.

If you pay for a radio service, or see a comedian or rapper live, or rent or buy a DVD of their performance in all cases you've paid to hear what you want to hear.

Absolutley true, and that's why an increasing number of talent will be headed to satelite in coming years. Stern was way ahead of his time on this. But, how long until speech is regulated on the satellite too?

The rappers and comedians and shock jocks are bleeped on the free airwaves. To me that's appropriate.

And that's the double standard. This language WAS NOT bleeped because it wasn't against the rules. It violated no public air waves standards, it simply was "in poor taste." Not illegal. Not vulgar. This language is NOT censored in other formats.

MSNBC, a cable TV station, fired Imus first. They are not regulated by the FCC and they do not broadcast on the public airwaves..

But the FCC didn't bring these charges up, the broadcast license of CBS wasn't in jeopardy. This was made a national issue because some person was personally offended.

Imus should be held accountable for whatever he says. For 35 years, the market has spoken on this issue. Imus' close radio guest friends like John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Tim Russert, and Harold Ford, jr. for example, have been appear for years, tacetly saying "he's o.k." This entire story is unsettling and, unless things start to change, it foreshadows bad things to come.

 

[MonsterMark]

It's all about the 'Fairness Doctrine'. If a Dem gets in the White House, that is the first thing they are going to go after. They want to squelch talk radio. More specifically, conservative talk radio. And make no mistake, they will go after anything they consider to be conservative t.v., such as Fox news.

Using the race card to make a power grab. Would you expect anything less from the Dems?

I certainly don't!

 

[barry2952]

Calabrio, I really don't agree with your assessment.

I see his "firing" as a simple economic matter. The advertisers voted with their feet. Do you really think that his advertisers caved to some pressure, or were they doing what they think was responsible? Frankly, I think that they simply didn't want to be associated with him anymore.

I can actually see some good coming of this. Sharpton and Jackson have both dulled their reputation by piling-on when the system was working perfectly without them.

There has been a lot of discussion at the water cooler and the boardroom and I'm hearing that the concensus is that he shouldn't have been fired, the market should have taken care of him. I can't disagree with that.

I'm reading more and more about this being a women's issue more than a race issue. Where is the outcry from the feminists? Cautiously quiet or hypocritically avoiding the issue because of the added color issue?

Calabrio, since I've been away I've noticed a big change in your posts. You used to be like one of my teachers. Now you're much more agressive and ******-like. I've always enjoyed our exchanges but there seems to be a hostility there that wasn't there before.

 

[turborich]

I'm especially disgusted that people are going to Al Sharpton as though he's some kind of moral authority. Sharpton is a thief, a criminal, a con man, a race baiter, and he provokes riots. I grew up listening all of his exploits and Days of Outrage on the news. Some how, ignorant liberal whites have elevated this hate merchant to some kind of black spokesperson/minstrel show.

So you have one racist going to another racist for absolution.

I agree 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Calabrio]

Calabrio, I really don't agree with your assessment.

I see his "firing" as a simple economic matter. The advertisers voted with their feet. Do you really think that his advertisers caved to some pressure, or were they doing what they think was responsible? Frankly, I think that they simply didn't want to be associated with him anymore.

Imus made the comment and not a word was said about it for two days. No outrage. No backlash for two full days.

The advertisers have not abandoned the show, a few of the national advertisers, bowing to the social pressure and extortion tacts employed by Sharpton and Jackson, said they would pull advertising. However, it is virtually guaranteed that those open slots would have been immediately filled by someone else.

You have to understand, in recent years, Imus never had incredibly high ratings. But the per minute advertising price on his show was very high. No one, other than maybe Oprah, could sell more books after a personal appearance than Imus. He had a strong and affluent demographic of listeners who bought stuff.

The market has absolutely nothing to do with the decisions made in the past two days. I would even argue that Imus' ratings were HIGHER on Thursday than they were last week.

I can actually see some good coming of this. Sharpton and Jackson have both dulled their reputation by piling-on when the system was working perfectly without them.

No, there pilling on manipulated the system. The market forces were bypassed and those two clown's have been reinforced as black leaders in the media.

There has been a lot of discussion at the water cooler and the boardroom and I'm hearing that the concensus is that he shouldn't have been fired, the market should have taken care of him. I can't disagree with that.

Well, he was fired. Apparently his comment "nappy-headed hoes" was so severe, so awful, that they fired him in the middle of his annual Cancer telethon, an annual event that usually generates over $3,000,000 for cancer research over the course of just two days. MSNBC kicked him off the air the day before the telethon. CBS fired him in the middle of it.

I'm reading more and more about this being a women's issue more than a race issue. Where is the outcry from the feminists? Cautiously quiet or hypocritically avoiding the issue because of the added color issue?

I can't speak for feminists, perhaps there's just not enough media spotlight for grandstanding feminist leaders to speak out? Maybe they recognize how stupid this controversy is? Or how hypocritical it would be to mock outrage over a single stupid joke while urban radio and television broadcast misogynistic hateful music and stories 24 hours a day?

Personally, I don't think this story is honestly about race or gender. I think it's a power grab by any number of special interested done under the guise of race and gender.

Calabrio, since I've been away I've noticed a big change in your posts. You used to be like one of my teachers. Now you're much more agressive and ******-like. I've always enjoyed our exchanges but there seems to be a hostility there that wasn't there before.

I honestly don't know what you're referring to. But, if it's any consolation, I didn't think the tone of my response to you was hostile at all. In fact, I don't think I've even personalized my responses in any recent threads. If you want to, send me a PM that's a little more specific so we don't hijack the thread..

But, for the record, I find Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be disgusting and offensive individuals. I lived in New York during the rise of Al Sharpton, so I personally remember the Days of Outrage, Tawna Brawly, Freddies Fashion Mart, the Crown Height Riots. I remember hearing about the mobs he lead screaming "Kill the Jew." I remember Yankel Rosenbaum being beaten to death in the street by Sharpton's mob. So, if I seem a bit course, as a white interloper might, I may have a tendency to be a bit more vocal than most.

 

[barry2952]

It helps to understand your perspective.

 

[Calabrio]

The Imus lynch party
April 13, 2007


In the end, it was not about Imus. It was about us.

Are we really a better country because, after he was publicly whipped for 10 days as the worst kind of racist, with whom no decent person could associate, he was thrown off the air?

Cards on the table.

This writer works for MSNBC, has been on the Imus show scores of times, watches Imus every morning, and likes the show, the music and the guys: the I-Man, Bernie, Charles and Tom Bowman.

And Imus is among the best interviewers in our business. Not only does he read and follow the news closely, he listens and probes as well as any interviewer in America. Because he is a comic, people mistake how good a questioner he is.

Is "Imus in the Morning" outrageous? Over the top at times? Are things said every week, if not every day, where you say, "He's going too far"? Yeah. But outrageousness is part of the show, whether the skits are of "Teddy Kennedy," "Reverend Falwell," "Mayor Nagin" or "The Cardinal."

And when Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "tattooed ... nappy-headed hos," he went over the top. The women deserved an apology. There was no cause, no call to use those terms. As Ann Coulter said, they were not fair game.

But Imus did apologize, again and again and again.

And lest we forget, these are athletes in their prime, the same age as young women in Iraq. They are not 5-year-old girls, and they are capable of brushing off an ignorant comment by a talk-show host who does not know them, or anything about them.

Who, after all, believed the slur was true? No one.

Compare, if you will, what was done to them – a single nasty insult – to the savage slanders for weeks on end of the Duke lacrosse team and the three players accused by a lying stripper of having gang-raped her at a frat party.

Duke faculty and talking heads took that occasion to vent their venom toward all white "jocks" on college campuses. Where are the demands for apologies from the talk-show hosts, guests, Duke faculty members and smear artists, all of whom bought into the lies about those Duke kids – because the lies comported with their hateful view of America?

And hate is what this is all about.

While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.

The hypocrisy here was too thick to cut with a chainsaw.

What was the term the I-Man used? It was "hos," slang for whores, a term employed ad infinitum et ad nauseam by rap and hip-hop "artists." It is a term out of the African-American community. Yet, if any of a hundred rap singers has lost his contract or been driven from the airwaves for using it, maybe someone can tell me about it.

If the word "hos" is a filthy insult to decent black women, and it is, why are hip-hop artists and rap singers who use it incessantly not pariahs in the black community? Why would black politicians hobnob with them? Why are there no boycotts of the advertisers of the radio stations that play their degrading music?

Answer: The issue here is not the word Imus used. The issue is who Imus is – a white man, who used a term about black women only black folks are permitted to use with impunity and immunity.

Whatever Imus' sins, no one deserves to have Al Sharpton – hero of the Tawana Brawley hoax, resolute defender of the fake rape charge against half a dozen innocent guys, which ruined lives – sit in moral judgment upon them.

"It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves," says Sharpton. It says something about America that someone with Al's track record can claim the role of national censor.

Who is next? And why do we take it?

I did a bad thing, but I am not a bad person, says Imus. Indeed, whoever used his microphone to do more good for more people – be they the cancer kids of Imus Ranch, the families of Iraq war dead now more justly compensated because of the I-Man or the cause of a cure for autism?

"We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality," said Lord Macaulay. Unfortunately, Macaulay never saw the likes of the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson.

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.

-PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

 

[Frogman]

Compare, if you will, what was done to them – a single nasty insult – to the savage slanders for weeks on end of the Duke lacrosse team and the three players accused by a lying stripper of having gang-raped her at a frat party.

Duke faculty and talking heads took that occasion to vent their venom toward all white "jocks" on college campuses. Where are the demands for apologies from the talk-show hosts, guests, Duke faculty members and smear artists, all of whom bought into the lies about those Duke kids – because the lies comported with their hateful view of America?

Yeah, but the Duke players were whities. The rule don't apply to crackers:lol:

Oh snap. I'm gonna get banned for saying "whities" and "crackers".

 

[Calabrio]

Rutgers Team: We Accept Imus Apology
Apr 13, 5:49 PM (ET)
By DAVID PORTER


NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (AP) - Rutgers women's basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer said Friday the team had accepted radio host Don Imus' apology. She said he deserves a chance to move on but hopes the furor his racist and sexist insult caused will be a catalyst for change.

"We, the Rutgers University Scarlet Knight basketball team, accept - accept - Mr. Imus' apology, and we are in the process of forgiving," Stringer read from a team statement a day after the women met personally with Imus and his wife.

"We still find his statements to be unacceptable, and this is an experience that we will never forget," she said.

The team had just played for the NCAA national championship last week and lost when Imus, on his nationally syndicated radio show, called the players "nappy-headed hos." The statement outraged listeners and set off a national debate about taste and tolerance. It also led to his firing by CBS on Thursday.

(AP) Radio host Don Imus leaves his residence, Thursday, April 12, 2007, in New York. CBS fired Don...
Full Image
"These comments are indicative of greater ills in our culture," Stringer said. "It is not just Mr. Imus, and we hope that this will be and serve as a catalyst for change. Let us continue to work hard together to make this world a better place."

Imus was in the middle of a two-day radio fundraiser for children's charities when he was dropped by CBS. On Friday, his wife took over the show and also talked about the meeting with the Rutgers players.

"They gave us the opportunity to listen to what they had to say and why they're hurting and how awful this is," author Deirdre Imus said.

"He feels awful," she said of her husband. "He asked them, 'I want to know the pain I caused, and I want to know how to fix this and change this.'"

Deirdre Imus also said that the Rutgers players have been receiving hate e-mail, and she demanded that it stop. She told listeners "if you must send e-mail, send it to my husband," not the team.

(AP) Radio host Don Imus leaves his residence, Thursday, April 12, 2007, in New York. CBS fired Don Imus...
Full Image
"I have to say that these women are unbelievably courageous and beautiful women," she said.

Stringer declined to discuss the hate mail Friday. Rutgers team spokeswoman Stacey Brann said the team had received "two or three e-mails" but had also received "over 600 wonderful e-mails."

The team's goal was never to get Imus fired, Stringer said. "It's sad for anyone to lose their job," she said.

The cantankerous Imus, once named one of the 25 Most Influential People in America by Time magazine and a member of the National Broadcasters Hall of Fame, was one of radio's original shock jocks.

His career took flight in the 1970s and with a cocaine- and vodka-fueled outrageous humor. After sobering up, he settled into a mix of highbrow talk about politics and culture, with locker room humor sprinkled in.

(AP) Rev. Jesse Jackson, accompanied by representatives of various women's organizations, speaks at a...
Full Image
Critics have said his remark about the Rutgers women was just the latest in a line of objectionable statements by the ringmaster of a show that mixed high-minded talk about politics and culture with crude, locker-room humor.

Imus apologized on the air late last week and also tried to explain himself before the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio audience, appearing alternately contrite and combative. But many of his advertisers still bailed in disgust, particularly after the Rutgers women spoke publicly of their hurt.

On Wednesday, a week after the remark, MSNBC said it would no longer televise the show. CBS fired Imus Thursday from the radio show that he has hosted for nearly 30 years.

"He has flourished in a culture that permits a certain level of objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people," CBS Corp. (CBS) chief executive Leslie Moonves said in a memo to his staff.

Sharpton praised Moonves' decision Friday and said it was time to change the culture of publicly degrading other people."I think we've got to really used this to really stop this across the board," he told CBS's "The Early Show."

(AP) Rev. Jesse Jackson, accompanied by representatives of various women's organizations, speaks at a...
Full Image
Some Imus fans, however, considered the radio host's punishment too harsh.

Mike Francesa, whose WFAN sports show with partner Chris Russo is considered a possible successor to "Imus in the Morning," said he was embarrassed by the company. "I'm embarrassed by their decision. It shows, really, the worst lack of taste I've ever seen," he said.

Losing Imus will be a financial hit to CBS Radio, which also suffered when Howard Stern left for satellite radio. The program earns about $15 million in annual revenue for CBS, which owns Imus' home radio station WFAN-AM and manages Westwood One, the company that syndicates the show nationally WFAN.

The show's charity fundraiser had raised more than $1.3 million Thursday before Imus learned he had lost his job. The total had grown Friday to more than $2.3 million for Tomorrows Children's Fund, CJ Foundation for SIDS and the Imus Ranch, Deirdre Imus said. The annual event has raised more than $40 million since 1990.

Imus' troubles have also affected his wife, the founder of a medical center that studies links between cancers and environmental hazards whose book "Green This!" came out this week. Her promotional tour was called off "because of the enormous pressure that Deirdre and her family are under," said Simon & Schuster publicist Victoria Meyer.

The Deirdre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology in Hackensack, N.J., works to identify and control exposures to environmental hazards that may cause adult and childhood cancers. Imus Ranch in New Mexico invites children who have been ill to spend time on a working cattle ranch.

---

Associated Press writers Rebecca Santana, Karen Matthews, Warren Levinson, Seth Sutel, Tara Burghart, Colleen Long and Hillel Italie contributed to this report.

---

On the Net:

http://wfan.com/pages/332252.php

 

[TheDude]

Incase people have a knee-jerk reaction to Buchanan, here's a similar point of view.

Duke case shows: Hurtful stereotypes come in all colors
April 11, 2007
By Mike Freeman
CBS SportsLine.com National Columnist

They were a group of athletes, verbally brutalized, stereotyped, blasphemed, treated horribly by a sometimes insane system and arrogant, bullying media.

No, I'm not talking about the proud and wonderful women from the Rutgers University basketball team.

Life has changed forever for Reade Seligmann, David Evans and Collin Finnerty. (AP)
I'm talking about the Duke University lacrosse players.

We have seen the justifiable outrage over the wronged Rutgers players who have displayed their intellectual prowess and stiff upper lip in front of an entire nation.

But where is the outcry?

Over the white guys.

Indeed, they have demonstrated an even tougher resolve after being called rapists and racists, and when sexual assault charges were dropped Wednesday afternoon by a legal system that suddenly grew a conscience, you practically heard crickets chirping.

We often think of ourselves in this country as so advanced when it comes to issues of race. Of course we have traversed far from the days of racial restrictions, marginalization, murdered men and shattered dreams.

Yet if you want to see how far we have not come, just examine the particulars of two important stories over the past 48 hours, stories that one day will be possibly seen as almost culture-changing, and certainly, as cautionary tales.

Donald Imus spews his hurtful and hateful words, using the airwaves as a verbal noose, and an army of people mobilize.

He played on pedantic and ancient stereotypes of blacks as unkempt and unattractive.

In the Duke case, there was stereotypical stereotyping as well. Many people, including myself -- and this is a hard admission to make -- quickly assumed the Duke kids were guilty.

Many of us, almost an entire country, played on stereotypes of white men as abusers of power, flaunting their wealth and credit cards and societal advantages, and stated: Yep, those bastards did it.

They were Duke kids, rich kids, befriending strippers and partying hard. They were punks to us. Yep, those bastards must have done it.

The Rutgers women are of high moral character; I don't see them hiring strippers for a party, so the Duke players are cads in that regard.

Still, when it was revealed the Duke men were innocent of such ugly charges, their freedom coming after months of slowly twisting in the racially charged winds, there should have been worldwide apologies, an entire America wiping the mud off of their bodies and legacies, the stories of their innocence sitting Shiva on the front page of every newspaper and leading the cover of every website.

In other words, the Duke men should have gotten the Imus and Rutgers treatment. They've gotten far from that. Far from it.

The Sharptons and Jacksons and black civil leaders on and around the Duke campus should approach these men and say: We know what it is like to be falsely accused. It has happened to our people for hundreds of years. No one knows what it is like to be abused by the legal system like us. We'd like to offer our support. What can we do to help?

That should occur, but you know it never will.

Every black person who thought they were guilty as hell should now look at them and sympathize. Maybe even, in whatever way possible, apologize.

There should be a great expression of outrage from blacks who were lied to and manipulated by a both a woman who made up false tales and a prosecutor suckered by her.

These players will never get their names back. Any type of normalcy is over for them. Their only recourse will be some sort of civil remedy, but to some, they will always be the Duke rape guys, no matter who they sue or how much money they might be awarded some day.

Two stories, two entirely different reactions, a nation thinking it is more racially advanced than it truly is.

Sports is not the mythical melting pot, either. More like a boiling one.

There are subtle differences, of course, in the two cases, but if we were as racially smart as we claim to be, there would be blacks lining up to sympathize with the Duke guys and millions of white listeners refusing to ever listen to Imus or Stern or the other racial shock jerks ever again.

We're so smug when it comes to race, we're so smart. We think we know all about the topic. We think we have the riddle solved.

We're all full of crap. We're full of it because the CBS SportsLine.com message boards at the bottom of this column will be lit up with racial slurs and various stupidities. My e-mail box will overflow with letters from grand dragon wanna-be's as well as blacks accusing me of being an Uncle Tom.

We're full of crap because just how many steps have we taken since Al Campanis, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, the dope Fuzzy Zoeller, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Richards and Michael Irvin?

Round and round we go on this little racial merry-go-round like those cute little hamsters in a cage.

Two different cases, two different reactions, one still racially confused America.

And it will be that way, unfortunately, for a long time to come.

Until we all grow up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/sportsline/main10121203.shtml

 

[barry2952]

Sharpton is a clown that isn't funny.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2411

 

[Marcus]

You know, I think we're all mostly on the same page here. The reaction and subsequent punishment were blown way out of proportion. I couldn't stand Imus, but what he said is tame compared to some of the other garbage that's spewed on a daily basis on the radio waves.

On the other hand, those of you who think this is some kind of conspiracy to shut down free speech need to realize that Imus was brought down by public pressure, not legislation. Remember that the same kind of pressure was responsible for causing CBS not to air the Reagan "docudrama" a couple of years ago.

 

[mmtphoto]

Just as an aside, i have been involved in a 'discussion' on line with Craigslist 'rants and raves' and if I make a post that points out that Imus, who I do not care for, raised $3 million for charity during this and over $40 million through these radiothons since 1990. I asked how much Oprah raised while this was going on, and added that, she (Oprah) instead, pandered to her viewership by having the Rutgers team on her show the day after all of this broke. This post was repeatedly removed, and I continued to post it, and will continue to do so. So much for free speech-free speach apparently is only free until you disagree with someone else's point, then you are censored, fired, removed through what can honestly be compared to extorsion?
That, in my opinion, is about as Un-American as it gets. What he said is stupid-what Richards said is stupid-what many comedians say, rappers say, you say or I say is (sometimes) stupid-but it does not give anyone the right to be the moral police and silence you, or me, or anyone else. The best way to deal with that person is to not listen to them. The fact that it happened, then became a firestorm two days later, with clips being played over and over again for the sake of saturating the market with a passing moment of idiotcy speaks volumes-two wrongs do not make a right, they blew this out of proportion-overkill is just that, they over reacted to the entire thing.
That is wrong, too. That's what Sharpton, Jackson, Winfrey do-they over react to stupidy, but they are SELECTIVE to the point that they are racist. Me, personally, I think they made big mistake-kind of like OJ, there are events that occur afect the black and white thing, and when it does, it only polarizes the views of people-is that the objective?
Call an adult a name, and you see how much of an adult they are-I could care less about being called a name, especially if it is made by an idiot.
Grow up.

 

[Marcus]

Just as an aside, i have been involved in a 'discussion' on line with Craigslist 'rants and raves' and if I make a post that points out that Imus, who I do not care for, raised $3 million for charity during this and over $40 million through these radiothons since 1990. I asked how much Oprah raised while this was going on, and added that, she (Oprah) instead, pandered to her viewership by having the Rutgers team on her show the day after all of this broke. This post was repeatedly removed, and I continued to post it, and will continue to do so. So much for free speech-free speach apparently is only free until you disagree with someone else's point, then you are censored, fired, removed through what can honestly be compared to extorsion?
That, in my opinion, is about as Un-American as it gets. What he said is stupid-what Richards said is stupid-what many comedians say, rappers say, you say or I say is (sometimes) stupid-but it does not give anyone the right to be the moral police and silence you, or me, or anyone else. The best way to deal with that person is to not listen to them. The fact that it happened, then became a firestorm two days later, with clips being played over and over again for the sake of saturating the market with a passing moment of idiotcy speaks volumes-two wrongs do not make a right, they blew this out of proportion-overkill is just that, they over reacted to the entire thing.
That is wrong, too. That's what Sharpton, Jackson, Winfrey do-they over react to stupidy, but they are SELECTIVE to the point that they are racist. Me, personally, I think they made big mistake-kind of like OJ, there are events that occur afect the black and white thing, and when it does, it only polarizes the views of people-is that the objective?
Call an adult a name, and you see how much of an adult they are-I could care less about being called a name, especially if it is made by an idiot.
Grow up.

Well, the First Amendment doesn't apply to Craigslist. They're free to make any rules they see fit to impose, as is this site. However, the First Amendment does allow you to start your own web site and protest them in any way you see fit. So have at it.

 

[mmtphoto]

Craigslist staff would not flag a post saying negative things about Oprah, Craigslist readers (selective group of Oprah lovers) would-as in 'how dare you disparage our pandering mouthpiece'...my point is, censorship is censorship-censoring Imus for his rant is bad enough, it is, after all, just words. But to censor someone who points out that he has done good things (raising $3 million for charity, over $40 million in the past 15 years) while that paragon of racism, Oprah, just fans the flames because a minor celebrity said 3 words-that is something to be afraid of-the first ammendment is FIRST for a reason.
If someone is rude, vulgar, insulting, that is one thing. turn the dial, end of story. But to express an idea and have it expunged because of the fear it will point out a wrong, what is the point of saying free speech exists if, in reality, it doesn't?
While I think that some liberties are being tested now for good reason and purpose (i.e. Patroit's Act), I am not in favor of referring to words as 'hateful'-that comes from the tone, not the forming of the words.
When blacks refer to each other, in certain stereotypes, you can't honestly say that it is hateful in nature. But if whites say it in the same way (tone/intent) it is IMMEDIATLY not only called into question., demands are made for 'firings, 'boycotts', etc-all the while not considering the tone of the comment, this being bad comedy. That is wrong, but what Imus said (and I am not a fan), was NOT hateful in tone or intent, it was just a bad joke-told over, and over and over to the point it had the desired effect-censorship.

 

[Marcus]

Look, you can disagree with Craigslist, Oprah, Sharpton or whomever, but the First Amendament has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. It only applies to government censorship, nothing else. It doesn't mean that you're automatically entitled to come on Oprah and express your opinion. It's her show, she can choose whomever she wants to be on. So quit with the "my rights are being violated" stuff, because they're not, at least as it applies to the law.

 

[mmtphoto]

Look, you can disagree with Craigslist, Oprah, Sharpton or whomever, but the First Amendament has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. It only applies to government censorship, nothing else. It doesn't mean that you're automatically entitled to come on Oprah and express your opinion. It's her show, she can choose whomever she wants to be on. So quit with the "my rights are being violated" stuff, because they're not, at least as it applies to the law.

that is wrong, if I slander someone, that is a matter of law, but i do have a right to my opinion, which is implied in the first ammendment:

Justice William Brennan wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the First Amendment provides that "debate on public issues ... [should be] ... uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

It is not slanderous to contend (rightly so) that Oprah, who had the Rutgers Womens Basketball team on the day after this Imus fiasco broke, did so to pander to a national trend aimed at quieting certain specific 'language' with the overt implication that such language, regardless of the content, harms others. This in no way, shape or form harmed any individual-it was a joke, a stupid and descriptive joke nonetheless. For that, he lost his job, in what is obviously a heavy-handed rush to judgement by people who make it a point to be overly sensitive to any language they deem unacceptable.
I did not hear this as it happened, and I'll bet you didn't either. You, like 95%+ of America, heard it over and over again as a 'news' event, guaranteed to get as much air under it as possible. It is a calculated and targeted form of censorship, pure and simple. Many, many people, both public and private, say such things, and I am not saying that makes it right, but it is NOT illegal, and making a valid point that Imus, while making that dumb statement, was in the middle of raising millions for charity, while Oprah was, well, doing what Oprah does-fanning racist flames, for her own benifit.
My point is that the some READERS on the blog I wrote to make a concerted effort to try to quench that observation-that is censorship.

Also, you'll note, never did I say "my rights were violated'"-I said I was censored for an obvious truth. Big difference.

 

[Frogman]

One man's truth is another man's lie...

 

[mmtphoto]

Imus raised 3 million on his radiothon during this episode, and over 40 million doing these things over the years.
Oprah had the Rutgers team on her show the DAY AFTER this 'story' broke to provide yet another public forum for a three-word, stupid comment-who's 'lying'?

 

[Frogman]

Whoa, easy there Skippy. I'm not saying you're lying. I was referring to the the CL thing you posted. You may have posted truth, but to the flaggers, you're lying.

Are we tracking now?

 

[shagdrum]

Yeah, but the Duke players were whities. The rule don't apply to crackers:lol:

Oh snap. I'm gonna get banned for saying "whities" and "crackers".

It's pronounced "cracka"...cracka

 

[shagdrum]

that is wrong, if I slander someone, that is a matter of law, but i do have a right to my opinion, which is implied in the first ammendment:

Justice William Brennan wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the First Amendment provides that "debate on public issues ... [should be] ... uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

Yes and the supreme court tried many times, and succeeded many in CHANGING the meaning of the constitution. That doesn't change the fact that when the Bill of Rights was ment only to apply to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
In addition, what u r quoting there is one little blurb in a ruling (I am assuming it is a ruling and not a concurring or dissenting opinion, which by definition has no weight), the blurb is irrelevant without the context of the case. In that line he could very easily been refering to government in some form, in which case u r proving yourself wrong. We need the context of the case and the logic behind the ruling for your statement to make any sense and have any weight.

 

[mmtphoto]

ah, there's that word again-'context', conviently used when attempting to make a point, ignoring the fact that the quoted statement was made by the longest tenured Justice in Supreme Court history (that, my friend, is a valid use of 'context').
-and I'm not 'Skippy', frogman, my reply was a clarification of facts and my stated position. 2000+ posts doesn't entitle you the position of bestower of nicknames, but I do respect your right to say what you want, that is your right.
See how easy that was?

 

[StincolnLincoln]

In the famous words of a Fart Can Driver.... CANT WE AL JUST GET ALONG!!!???!!!...