an analysis of the sharpton attackers/Imus defenders out today

[Lerkfish]

I think the Sharpton attackers and Imus defenders are LESS upset about Sharpton and MORE upset that Imus is not free to make racist remarks without consequences.

I think Sharpton is frankly a smokescreen for the lament that white racists aren't "free" enough to spount hate speech.

Since Sharpton was not attacked until yesterday, it was not a priorty for them.

see?

Let's just be honest, here. People are upset that there are direct consequences for racist language and hatespeech.

In other words, If Imus had no consequences, we would not be having these posts about Sharpton.

Now, one has to ask WHY people are upset that there are consequences?

[Raven]

1. Well, my personal theory is that the people defending Imus

listen to Imus and somehow have to justify that fact.

[central scrutinizer]

2. logical fallacies aside,

I love when white, male, heterosexual, non-disabled pundits hector and bloviate, especially when they are blinded by their own privilege and unable to see their hypocrisy and arrogance.

[Neshanic]

11. Generalized blanket stereotypes...try to be more correct.

[BoneDaddy]

24. LOL

Can you imagine if I said "I love when black, female, lesbians with MS hector and bloviate". LOL. Talk about being blind.

[Crazy Dave]

3. I wonder if the ACLU will help Imus...

...the way they helped the reverend, "God hates fags!" Phelps?

[jobycom]

4. Don't they only get involved in legal and government issues?

I don't see why they'd do anything over this case. There's no free speech or civil liberties issue. If the FCC were punishing him, that would be a different story.

[Crazy Dave]

10. I heard the FCC was considering it or was being pressured too

So I guess it was a little bit of premature speculation. My hopes are that people and the media ignore the asshole as I think he's really enjoying the shit he's stirred up and the attention it's getting and then maybe he'll get "Dan Rather'ed" and just disappear.

[DemReadingDU]

5. When are RW Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity

When are they going to be fired?

[Lerkfish]

8. its not up to me to answer that.

however, my opinion would be "free speech" has consequences.
(although many people misunderstand how free speech works)

sponsors dropping MSNBC was a consequence.

If enough people want that result, and sponsors are dropped, they will probably face the same consequences.

[H2O Man]

6. I respectfully disagree.

I think that there are plenty of good and sincere people who do not have any respect for Al Sharpton. And plenty of them do not like Don Imus. It is not an "either/or" issue.

I like Sharpton, and think that he does good work most of the time. But I do understand why other people raise questions about him.

[Lerkfish]

9. yes, but the timing seems convenient.

otherwise you make a valid point.

[H2O Man]

16. I understand

your comment on timing, and agree with you on that. I've been reading through the threads on DU:GD with some interest. I think that there are people saying some outrageous things on both sides. In some cases, it may be emotions; in others, I suspect other motives.

Years ago, I did a couple of presentations to the staff at the mental health clinic where I was employed, concerning issues relating to racism, and am considering posting an essay or two myself. I think that our goal, be it on DU or in our community, should be to find common ground. That includes recognizing and respecting that different people experience and view society differently. No matter if a person watched the Imus show, or supported his charities, that "common ground" should include being clear that what he and Bernard said about the ladies' basketball team from Rutgers was extremely offensive.

[Neshanic]

14. Sorry. Imus was unPC. There is no middle ground. Apologies denied.

You have to be tough on these guys...I know, as I was one.

[NormanYorkstein]

23. agreed

I don't like Al Sharpton, never have never will. I don't like Don Imus either, so

[bryant69]

7. I think NBC did the right thing

But I'm uncomfortable with it at the same time.

Freedom of speech inevitably and inexorably is the freedom to say asshole, bullshit, things. That's what freedom of speech means. Forget about Voltaire or Shakespeare or Jefferson; think about Coulter or Phelps or Hannity. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with beautiful speech and everything to do with ugly hateful speech.

If you only want to protect speech you agree with, than you aren't really in favor of freedom of speech.

Again I think NBC did the right thing; largely for business reasons. But it's a near thing for me, and I can understand someone being on the other side of the fence.

That said, a few of the posts are clearly motivated by what you suggest; particularly the one that called Sharpton a "ho."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lerkfish]

12. Many people misunderstand the purpose of "free speech"

Many people misinterpret and misunderstand it, and the framers themselves
could not have anticipated future usage, but, in a practical nutshell, here it is
in laymen's terms, the right of "free speech"....

You have, within limitations, the right to free speech.

That doesn't mean you have the right to say anything you wish on someone else's board, or network or radio station.
but rather you have the right to speak freely on your *own* board, as that is
owned by you, and as publisher, you can publish as you wish.

However, be prepared to defend yourself in a court of law if necessary, if anything you
say can be considered defamatory, slanderous, libelous or inciting to violence.

Further, your right to free speech cannot occlude another's right...
as an extreme example, you cannot come onto a Jewish antidefamation League
message board or newspaper and spout Aryan brotherhood hate messages against Jews,
or place ads with such. You cannot
force them to carry such messages on their board or paper to "protect" your free speech.
You can, however, start your own Aryan brotherhood board, but even
then, the above limitations apply.

The misperception many have is that an internet message board or the airwaves is "free" for open discussion,
but in fact, whatever remains is there at the largesse of the owner of said board or media outlet.
They have the ultimate right to delete or ban or hire or fire whatever or whoever they wish.
For example, at a newspaper, just because an advertiser has the money,
and wishes to advertise a local nudie bar, the publisher can still refuse to
run the ad if it so desires, or require that photos of nude dancers cannot be depicted.
That is the publisher's right to do so.

Where the first amendment comes in, in theory, is to protect the press from
being strongarmed by government to not publish certain truths or be induced
to publish what it knows not to be true under governmental pressure.

Therefore, it IS a first amendment question if you want to start a porn site,
and you are protected, within limits. However, if you come onto someone else's board or television station
and feel you must post profanity, and they decide they DON"T want that, they are perfectly within their rights
to do so, and you actually have NO rights to expect your message to remain.

[bryant69]

15. Very lengthy explanation of a relatively simple point.

Of course the factual nature of what you say is right. The constitution only protects you from the government; it does not protect you from your fellowman or from your employer or from anybody else.

I suppose the question is whether or not you believe people have rights that should be in inalienable. Does the government give you the right to freedom of speech, or is it something inborn, something that every human should have? I favor the later explanation, which means I'm not just against the Government infringing on freedom of speech. I'm opposed to anybody infringing on free speech. You aren't the government, and yet I would be opposed to you infringing on someones ability to speak their mind. Microsoft isn't the government, and yet I would be opposed to it infringing on someone's ability to speak their mind. The League of Woman Voters isn't the Government and yet I would be opposed to it infringing on someone's ability to speak their mind.

That's my opinion; I can understand if you have a more limited view, but I don't agree with it.

Again in this case I think NBC did the right thing, largely from a business perspective.

Bryant

[VelmaD]

13. I've said this before...

but I always think it bears repeating...freedom of speech means you have the right to say any asshole thing you want...but it also means I have the right to call you on it. (I'm using the general "you"...not you personally) When people like Coulter or Phelps or Hannity talk about free speech...they really only mean their right to be an asshole. They don't really believe in my right to call them on it. Because they don't believe in consequences...at least not for themselves. I'm a believer that actions have consequences. That's one of the things you're supposed to learn on the way to adulthood. But apparently many people don't learn that and have to be taught the hard way.

I love free speech. But I understand there are some unspoken responsibilities that come with it...that come with being a citizen. What infuriates me is people who want the rights...but don't want to have any responsibilities.

[bryant69]

17. I agree with you, up to the point that you would attempt to use

coercion or intimidation to silence speech you don't like (i.e. a boycott). But of course the antidote to hateful free speech is more free speech; I've dedicated my blog to reading Conservative pundits and ripping them for being morons; I could hardly have any other opinion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LostinVA]

21. Good post n/t

[H2O Man]

18. It's not a "free speech" issue.

I don't think anyone is saying that Imus does not have the right to say whatever he pleases. However, the corporations that are involved in the show have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to consider what messages they are promoting.

[Bluebear]

22. Freedom of speech, though, does not enter into this

Imus was in essence an employee of MSNBC. If I work for Qantas, and when someone checks in I say "I wouldn't take this flight, we are bound to have a crash any day now. Try Air New Zealand"...could I be fired? After all, free speech! But no, my speech has turned business away. This is what Imus did, and for that he is suffering the consequences.

[Oilwellian]

25. I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue

I think it's a human decency issue and what society as a whole will tolerate on our public airwaves. No one is saying Imus COUDLN'T say what he did, but the majority agree he SHOULDN'T have said what he did. Big difference.

[bryant69]

26. Yeah , but society is also punishing him for what he said

Everybody who isn't wearing a gag can literally say whatever they want in any society; the offense against free speech comes afterwards when they are punished for what they said. And then again when they keep silent because they are afraid of being punished.

Bryant

[tjwash]

19. Last I heard...

...Imus was not thrown in jail for his comments. His studio was not stormed by the feds and he was not dragged off to a gulag for what he said. He said something stupid, and he lost one of his gigs because of it. The same would happen to any of us if we said something to our boss, or a co-worker that was proportionately as stupid as what Imus said.

I think that people are confusing "freedom of speech" with "I can say whatever the hell I want no matter how vulgar and hateful, and people just have to stand there and take it." It's not the same thing.

[LostinVA]

20. I think this is a very perceptive post

[frustrated_lefty]

27. That's one interpetation.

For myself, I think Imus is an obnoxious jackass and Sharpton is a loudmouthed hypocrite. They're both senile old farts who should just stfu.