The land of the free and the home of the brave. Who ever is interested in witnessing, first-hand, how a supposed free society censors dissent and limits the expression of opinion, one can only watch the most recent events concerning a radio shock-jock Imus. The system allows the “free” expression of ideas just as long as they do not exceed a certain unacceptable point after which the infraction is chastised and punished with communal quarantine or expulsion. The system is interested in maintaining cohesion and harmony and so all must be made to feel accepted and worthy of respect. Anything or anybody that makes this cohesion and harmony less likely or that exposes the underlying bullshit and hypocrisy behind all the culturally enforced respect and “civility” will be and is made to feel the heat. Here we see the effects produced by the loss of self-censoring and when self-repression fails to contain inner feelings and opinions which are culturally and socially “unacceptable” – of course what is morally and intellectually “unacceptable” changes with every age and in every generation making political-correctness a periodic symptom of cultural disease. The system, in the more sophisticated west, doesn’t utilize overt force or censoring but uses more subtle means of mind-control, hanging in-effigy any trespasser as an example to anyone that dares to speak an honest word that does not adhere to the norm. The same can be said for any scientific insight – as science has replaced, in most minds, the comforting, inebriating necessity of religion. The separation of Church and State is still an incomplete ideal yet nobody even considers the separation of State and Science as a way of ensuring unbiased insights into human nature and the human condition. As a bedfellow of institutional power – which it hypothetically is supposed to provide a check and critical balance for – the media, especially in the U.S.A., shows itself to be nothing more than an extension of whatever powers exist. Their pretense as ‘free-press’ and their hypocritical objectivity is exposed in instances, like these, or in more glaring events like the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The lack of reaction in the populations that are kept docile and stupid enough to not care or to be ignorant of all the issues at hand, is evidence of the system’s success in controlling opinions and in shaping mental dispositions. John Kenneth Galbraith provides an interesting perspective into how desires and needs are socially constructed and into how a nation, such as the U.S.A. retains credibility and relevance despite its glaring contradictions and arrogant duplicity. It is an insight into how minds are controlled in this our modern-age.
i'm sorry to hear that you find it offensive that the FCC won't allow words like god damn, mother fucker, bastard, nigger, and queer to pollute our airwaves.
Can I freely express myself by hitting Satyr over the head with a baseball bat? No? Why not? Can I ask someone else to do it for me? C'mon, they are just words! The mistake that the writers of the Constitution made was to think that future generations would possess their wisdom, and not take these rights to such outrageous ends. It is amusing to me that the people who wave the constitution with the most fervor are the anarchists on one side, and the lovers of theocracy on the other. Go figure. Edit: I misspelled the word "on". :bawl:
Well, I don't know how to view that issue. It's always so complex. Imus was, in fact, free to make the comments he did ...and he made them. But weren't the others also free to make the comments about Imus' comments as well? And since there were more of them, including some pretty powerful figures, whose free speech "won" the battle of the free speech? The Rutgers supporters were using their own free speech to protest Imus' comments. There were enough of them to prompt the producers of the Imus Show to chastise Imus for the comments ...using their own free speech in order to do it. It seems that people are free to make their comments, but once those comments have been made, don't others have the rights of free speech to chastise the other for using his free speech to say things that they don't like. As I said, perhaps it's like "The Battle of Free Speeches"? They fight it out to see who wins? Baron Max
sometime back, about 10 years or so, someone tried to say it was "freedom of speech" that he shot his roommate for snoring too loud and keeping him awake at night. swivel, permission granted, need my uzi?
Is anyone going do anything about your offensive language? I’m appalled. Of course, because then I can tear your face off. See how it works? Even a lion exhibits restrain even without the F.C.C. Are you answering your own questions now, and calling it debate? Living with the consequences of one’s own actions isn’t a human invention nor does it demand a moral and constitutional amendment. Who says you could “hit me over the head with a baseball bat”? Define “outrageous” and then explain from where your sense of the “outrageous” comes from. Baron Max Survival of the glibbest. leopold99 I was never aware that shooting someone in the head and speaking were the same thing. Huh. I don’t know what type of fantasies you have or how you would use your freedom but I know is that if you are cold enough to kill someone for snoring then the roommate is stupid enough not to see it.
Hmm, maybe anything that falls outside the "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"? No, it's more like it's always been ...the more people you have on your side, the more likely it is that you'll "win". But most people can't see that the issue/the ideal of "free speech" is exactly what Imus used in order to make his comments. Those who are upset and up in arms about his comments are, maybe without even knowing it, trying to limit the ideal of free speech. Was anyone actually harmed in any way? Baron Max
Hum.. Baron & Satyr... together... I never thought it would ever happen in the same post.. who do I believe in more?! I usually like Satyr's long comments and reasoning, Baron makes me feel calmer and more composed... ummm I'm not sure.
You know, "Freedom of EXPRESSION". It covers things like burning flags. Like public nudity. Like displaying paintings of aborted fetuses. Where have you been the past 50 years? You really think "Freedom of Speech" has anything to do with speech? Maybe somebody got to you with a Louisville Slugger before I could. Hilarious that a person who goes by Satyr can't detect irony! The problem with the Imus case is simple: people are trying to shut Imus up. That is wrong. Just as it would be wrong to shut up the people trying to shut Imus up. As Baron said, both sides should be able to say what they want, the DIFFERENCE is that Imus isn't trying to tell the fascists that they can't criticize him. He welcomes their arguments (of course, he publicly cowers to save his job). It is always the fascist LEFT that is trying to restrict free speech, and they do it in the name of free speech. It boggles the mind. For instance, the Dixie Chicks made political statements a few years ago. All's fair so far. Then, some radio stations decided to not play the Dixie Chicks in their own form of protest. Again, we are still fair. BUT, then the fascist left tried to use the force of government law to coerce those radio stations into playing something they didn't want to play. And they said that the Dixie Chick's right to free speech was being violated. How backwards! The radio stations weren't following the Dixie Chicks around and stopping them from saying anything, they were just expressing their displeasure (and their listener's displeasure) by not playing their music. It was the Left that was coercing, or abridging free speech. And in the Imus case, it is again the Left which is robbing someone of their free speech, just as the Right worked to shut down that other NY shock-jock. You know, the one with the moppish hair and big nose? That guy. People only want free speech if you agree with their ideology. Hypocrites. For the record, I hate Imus with a passion. He is not funny, has a grating voice, and is hideously ugly. I do not listen to any talk radio. Period. That is my way of not being offended. I also do not listen to country music. None. And I think that free speech was intended to keep the government from forcing compliance on the people, the way the British Crown was fond of doing. Our current interpretation is bullshit.
When did we win the freedom to insult entire groups of people for $$$? It's a college basketball team. Why should a dried out puke like Imus be allowed to say such nasty things about young college women? For money? Should we encourage it? Is this a pretext to making all hatespeech and unearned insults everyday acceptable language? I know the racists want nothing more than to have the 'freedom' to spit epithets at whomever they wish but where is the freedom to not have to be assaulted with such nastiness? These aren't politicians or rowdy stars that Imus targeted, but young college women. Imus is sleaze and will always have an audience of cheerleaders in this country. Just shows how backward and ignorant Americans want to be.
I think it's written in the Constitution of the United States of America ...so that was about 1778, I think. You should read it sometime, you'd enjoy it. You can find even nastier things being said about President Bush right here at sciforums. In fact, I think you've said some pretty nasty things about him, haven't you? I'm still, seriously, trying to figure out who was harmed by Imus' comments? And if just a few nasty comments can harm someone, what does that say about them and their own self-worth? Tell me who was actually harmed, then maybe we can talk about it. Baron Max
This reminds me of something I read recently Satyr (can't remember where). There was a backlash in the West 'in favor of free expression' when Muhammed was depicted in that cartoon. And in good ol' America, you have this indignation and revulsion at Imus (and Kramer, though he was just plain stupid). I make no effort to gauge whether his comments should be censored or not; I merely note the consistency. Ah. Now I remember. It was that Europeans censor and jail Holocaust deniers and yet demand the right to ridicule a 'global' religious figure. There's something rotten..
Oh, it's fu**in Satyr. I'm glad he's just exposed himself for the idiot he is. I'll tell you what. Give me your real name, the location where you work and/or look for work, a popular radio station in your area, and the freedom to say on air that you like to suck your own cock and eat your own shit, in order to quench your thirst and satisfy your hunger, respectively.
I just had to peek at BM's postPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You think criticizing a wildly unpopular, arrogant and obstinate President is equal to what Imus said about the Rutgers girls?!:bugeye: Bush is a politician. Look it up. Politician. In an arena where political battles and criticism are the norm. Lives are at stake at times when countering a President and his reckless policies. A rightist nutjob on the air referring to college women athletes as he did is in no way comparable. They lost a game. Not a war. These young college women should be on the same level as Bush in the critique, insult department? Your wiring is even more primitive than I thought.
God—the more I "look into" [their] reasoning, the more I'm repelled and disgusted. In this case, it wasn't "free speech" that was denied of the Right's "freedom of expression" in reaction to the Dixie Chicks' stint in London, but their questionable ethics of contempt, revenge, and excommunication. Their freedom of expression was born out of malicious intent—they did not so much express an opinion of rebuttal, but were determined to destroy the Chicks' career. Yawn. But Satyr at times tends to pick the off-colored example and paints much too often with a wide brush from too on high. No wonder the little people have such a hard time reading him. Here's an example that hits closer to home: Hear the one about the Northwest Airlines' pilot who was removed from his plane and flown home pending further investigation for having a fucking argument on his cell phone?? So he was pissed off—as we often are these days in all quarters of society, since there's so much to get pissed off on, right? And he used strong language to freely express himself—and when do we not use strong language when we're pissed off?? Isn't that when strong language is most bloody effective?? So passengers were boarding the plane while he was obviously oblivious to their presence—as is usually the case when we're completely absorbed into something else: duh. And passengers were... miffed?? insulted?? Prudes! I mean, come on! He was having a private conversation and in this day and age self-consciousness on the cell phone in public is practically non-existent. But the flight was cancelled? the plane grounded?? Absurd. Totally ridiculous. Do you realize how much it costs an airline to park at a terminal? And passengers were uprooted, rounded up, and redistributed on other flights and given meals and hotel accommodations—and then were apologized to?? What? Blue-blooded Americans? So the pilot's career is now possibly... destroyed?? Only in America, sweetheart.
I hear ya, man ... oh, what an outrage! Some guy on the radio refered to members of a basketball team as "ho's"! What is this world coming to? Surely we are in the last days! Oh, the horror of it all! Poor, poor Mr. Imus. All around him in 21st century America he hears the cacophony of contemporary "music" bleating sentiments equating womenfolk with "hos." Seeking refuge from the braying banalities of pop "music," poor, poor Mr. Imus turns on the idiot box only to be subjugated to a ceaseless stream of "music" videos inundating poor, poor Mr. Imus with more nursery rhymes analogizing females and "hos." How does he manage to endure such tribulation? Poor, poor Mr. Imus - a product of his environment. He utters a statement regurgitating what he has had drilled into his head repeatedly throughout his waking hours and now he is being crucified afresh while the purveyors and facilitators of the "music" which indoctrinated poor, poor Mr. Imus smugly go about ejaculating their ceaseless gospel of "ho"dom. This is what qualifies as "news" these days? How many individuals are participating in this media circle-jerk, fanning the flames of their own misperceived self-importance and "contributions" to the "important issues of the day"? Have they researched the issue? Have they assiduously investigated how many members of the basketball team in fact are or are not "hos"? Or are their flying fists too busy stroking their own misshapen egos and pipe dreams of their next performance in the media spotlight? "Crucify him! Crucify him!" "We have no king but vanity!" Poor, poor Mr. Imus - a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.
Nutter, the difference is that Imus is white. If you are black, you can say these things. You see... this crowd that cries "racism" at the drop of a hat care what color your skin is. They make a discernment based on the hue of your epidermis. Ironic, isn't it? I don't know if there is a bigger racist, or evil scum-bag on the planet than Jesse Jackson. Isn't this the guy that wore a bloody shirt for days to capitalize on the death of King? And lied about King's last words to him? And people still let him disgrace the memory of King? Ridiculous. He is a hate-monger and you guys let him win every time. White people have got to stop being shamed for things they haven't done. They are letting the blacks control the race debate, which is what these power-seeking racists want.
Genji---you should listen to more rap albums. They've been doing it for years. If Imus had to apologize to Al Sharpton, Al Sharpton should have to (publicly) apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players that he defamed, against whom all allegations of rape have now been dropped...confirming, in fact, that the black stripper they hired was actually a nappy headed ho.
I think that many here do not understand the concept of freedom of speech. Our constitution protects us from restriction of free speech by the government. If Imus were banned by the FCC, it would be a violation of his right of free speech. Imus was chastized and fired by his employers because they decided that he had hurt thier business as indicated by the protests made by prviate citizens and various nongovernmental organizations. I have the right to criticise the government, but I do not expect a raio or TV station to grant me free time to exprees my opinion. If I were interviewed by a TV producer as a potential candidate for appearing on some talk show, He could tell me to keep my political opinions to myself or not appear. He could also require me to refrain from disparaging remarks about his sponsers' prioducts. There is a similar misunderstanding about innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It applies to our justice system, but not in other contexts. Suppose a bank teller is tried for embezzlement and is found not guilty due to an improper search warrant. He is leggaly judgd to be innocent and will not go to jail, but the bank is not required to allow him to return to work as a teller. Executives of other banks who read about the case are allowed to judge him to be guilty and not hire him. Suppose a policeman is known to have brutalized various people while arresting them, including some who were arrested due to mistaken identity. It is possible that he might not be found guilty in court or might not even be indicted. The police commissioner has the right (usually not exercised) to decide that the policeman should be fired. Unfortunately, police who could be convicted are protected by their pers and their superiors, but you get the idea.
