Posted on 04/12/2007 11:27:21 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
I've been getting slammed by my more libertarian friends since I suggested major media corporations like NBC and CBS should have the good sense and decency to fire Don Imus' old, flabby, white posterior.
"We'll have to appoint you minister of culture for the Clinton presidency," writes Conrad Carter. "Last time I checked, we had freedom of speech, and I presume you have the sense to turn the dial."
Ahhh, but notice I didn't suggest Imus should be arrested. Notice I didn't suggest he should be gagged and bound. Notice I didn't suggest the Federal Communication Commission should dispatch speech police to shut him down.
Somewhere along the line, Americans have begun confusing freedom with the right – maybe even the duty – to be irresponsible. I will chalk this up for the moment to the government schools.
Here's the thing. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is protected behavior. Just because something is legal doesn't mean an employer should tolerate it.
Why is it that so few Americans can distinguish between the free-speech protections afforded in the First Amendment and the promotion, the broadcasting, the profiting from irresponsible hate speech like what Imus uttered regarding the Rutgers basketball team?
I hear other radio talk-show hosts suggesting we should just let the free market take care of this. That's all well and good. I hope it does. But, my dear conservative friends, understand this: The free market has no morality. Capitalism has no morality. Free enterprise is the best economic system on Earth, but it will only work – like our ingenious political system – within the context of a moral society with standards.
I'm not sure we have that any more – thanks to people like Don Imus and Howard Stern and their corporate bosses who only care about the bottom line.
Our culture is being coarsened beyond recognition on a daily basis by mindless and soulless slugs like Imus and Stern.
Turning the dial is not a solution.
My next door neighbor may be listening. He may take seriously some of the things these morons say and do. He may also be viewing violent child pornography that could lead him to victimize some near him. His kids may listen to Imus and share his disgusting comments with my children. While I may police what goes on in my house, my inability to control the filth and degradation in my neighbor's house puts me and my children at risk.
In fact, it puts all of our children at risk.
If we can't look at what has become of our degraded culture today and recognize this crisis, I fear we never will.
Now, will firing Imus solve the problem?
Of course not. Imus may be the least of our problems when one thinks about what inspired his racist and sexually demeaning diatribe.
But here's the point: If Imus is allowed to continue on the airwaves after spewing this venom, two major media corporations have, in effect, excused it. What I am suggesting is that it is incumbent upon powerful people in corporate boardrooms to exercise responsibility. It is time for them to make decisions based on something more than the bottom line.
While I hear corporate executives congratulate themselves all the time on how they protect the environment, I never see them give a second thought to their conscious efforts to pollute our moral eco-system.
Like carcinogenic chemicals in our drinking water, this toxic moral pollution is eating away at the soul of our society. It is perverting our culture. It is rendering us incapable of discerning right from wrong.
Understand I am not laying this all at the hapless feet of multimillionaire radio personality Don Imus. He is simply one of the countless grotesque and essentially talentless figures who has profited immensely from the notion that "pushing the envelope" makes for good entertainment that will generate big bucks.
It is objectively wrong to demean people because of their race. It is objectively wrong to demean women as sex objects. That's what Imus did. I don't care what race hucksters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say about it. I can think for myself. What Imus did was indefensible. And I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people who should know better attempting to defend it under the guise of the Constitution.
The First Amendment doesn't require NBC and CBS to broadcast Imus' rantings. All it protects is his right to say it without prosecution by the government. It's time to pull the plug on Imus. It's time to pull the plug on the urban rappers who inspired his name-calling. It's time for broadcasters and media barons to stop serving as high-priced pimps for this kind of prostitution of the entertainment industry.
zero about free speech. This is staged production to show sheeple that the socialists are back, and old, white baby-boomers better toe the line, or else!!!
Close but no cigar. Farah comes way too close to Hillarism’s main claim “it’s for the CHILLLDREN”. Turning the dial might be good enough, actually. Farah is concerned about what is being played in the house next door. Isn’t that their business.
Imus' remarks might have been excusable against a public figure -- after all, if you're well known, you can just call a press conference and attack Don Imus. But 18 year old college girls can't easily do that. That's bullying, and that's why he should be fired.
Freedom of speech is not relevant to the case.
If a corporation wishes to fire an offensive employee, that is their right.
Nobody has a “right” to make millions of dollars a year talking to millions of people every day.
Why? Do you have a habit of making crude remarks in public about the race and gender and supposed sexual practices of random 18 year old college students? I'm getting on in years, but I've never found myself doing that.
Awwwww thats Ludacris.
You can’t even criticize the rappers. If you do, you are either a racist of a “wannabee” white.
I posted this in another thread, but am reposting them here :
This is just an observation and isn’t meant to pass any moral judgment.
I observe that in today’s PC climate, there are certain “rules” you have to follow :
1) It is OK to racially disparage people of your own “race” but not people NOT of your race. Hence using the word -— “Nigga” is fine, BUT ONLY IF YOU’RE BLACK, BUT NOT IF YOU’RE WHITE.
2) If you are to call people Ho’s, don’t BE SPECIFIC about it. Make it “general” as in -— “women I date are ho’s”, “women who come on to me are ho’s”. Imus’ PC problem was this — HE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED IDENTIFIABLE WOMEN. That’s a no-no. Worse, he targeted women who did NOTHING wrong ( on the contrary, they were honorable athletes ).
Hence the observed rule -— Being general/generic, tolerable, being specific, NOT ACCEPTABLE.
But then again the question goes -— would it be acceptable to call Anna Nicole Smith a “HO” ? ( Ann Coulter asked that question ). Maybe not, that would be speaking ill of the dead.
3) Minorities get more leeway in using racially insensitive terms than those in the majorities. I don’t need to even explain why.
4) When you hide behind the word — PARODY -— somehow, using racial ephithets or insulting words, become OK. Hence, rappers like Ludacris or EminEm can get away with it because they can always say that it’s ART and PARODY and we shouldn’t take them too seriously ( just as they themselves don’t take it seriously).
Understanding this unspoken “rules” of society goes a long way towards explaining why Imus got crucified while rappers and even Al Sharpton get away with their remarks.
i have been around alot of black people and they have said worse to their friends and people they don’t know. However being white I am not afforded that same use of the n word.
Lets Email Fox and request that IMUS get a TV Show....If they can rehabilitate Geraldo after what NBC did to him, they can do the same for IMUS...I can’t wait!~
I hope Imus makes millions on this, and I don’t even like him.
Farah lost me with this paragraph. Equating "hate" speech with child abuse is a bit of a stretch, IMO--if I am reading this correctly.
Imus was merely complimenting the team in their own language -- Ebonics. If the team had been mostly French, would it have been insulting to say "tres bien"? Certainly not. In the language of Ebonics "nappy headed hoes" is one of the highest compliments one can give a group of overachieving young ladies. It's right up there with mensch or hombre sincero.
We are told that Ebonics is a rich language on a par with classic Latin or Greek. As such, it is taught in the finest colleges and universities, including Rutgers. See, for example:
http://72.14.205.104/u/rutgerz?q=cache:0QxR5C0JQaEJ:anthro.rutgers.edu/courses/312Ahearn2007.pdf+ebonics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
So, if Ebonics is such a rich language, worthy of study in taxpayer-subsidized institutions, why is it racist to use it?
When Joseph describes Imus as old, flabby, white, mindless, soulless, slugs, morons, disgusting, spewing venom, grotesque, talentless, he is a hypocrite.
Good point.
Very similar to the "liberal" thought process - arguments opposed to my viewpoint aren't even worthy of discussion.
Your assertion may be the way the PC police have forced things to be, but it's not "right" in the sense of right vs wrong.
Rappers can make racist comments because they are just representing their community against whitey because whitey is an oppressor and capitalist.
(Heard it directly from a rapper on Neil Cavuto’s show.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.