Dignity versus Freedom of Speech

[Lady Dragonfly]

The Question: Do you think everyone’s dignity should be equally protected by law? Where would you draw the line?

We’ve just witnessed a scandal: Don Imus got fired for his latest “joke” (he called women basketball team “nappy-headed ho’s).
For those who don’t know Imus, here is a bit of info:

Radio Hall of Fame - Don Imus, Talk Show Host

Don Imus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are welcome to discuss any other issues associated with the main topic.

[galraen]

It's really sad that in the week baseball celebrates the 60th anniversary of integration, this should happen. Just goes to show how much further we have to travel. Sixty years since Jacky Robinson and Larry Doby became the first black players to play in the majors, how can anyone even think of saying something as stupid as that.

[fable]

Who said that a nation walks in lockstep with its most civilized members? And Imus is far from the worst of them. There are others who have been getting away with worse for years. (Read: Ann Coulter, for one.) But they succeed because 1) they have an audience that makes their advertisers happy; 2) they invariably take aim at unpopular groups or political figures who are by law allowable targets; and 3) they have an audience that makes their advertisers happy. Oh, did I forget that their advertisers are pleased at the huge revenues brought in by their large audiences?

Could this be legislated away? Not in the US, where large, wealthy corporations fund lobbying groups and election campaigns, assuring them of a great deal of clout in Washington. If that were not an issue, would it achieve anything? I think it would, in that it would force a lowering of the rage ratio in the media.

[Siberys]

Hmm, if Imus is getting fired for calling female basketball players "Nappy Headed Ho's" then Bush should be fired for ridiculing a blind man for wearing sunglasses during a press conference.

I'm not actually sure what the "Nappy headed" part of that phrase really means, but whatever the severity of it, I don't think that he should be completely fired for it. I mean, he's a radio show host who called someone a whore once, and gets fired, yet Howard Stern can make some of the most incest, racist, sexist, and all around bigot like jokes on the radio and national television and get away with this.

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberys Hmm, if Imus is getting fired for calling female basketball players "Nappy Headed Ho's" then Bush should be fired for ridiculing a blind man for wearing sunglasses during a press conference. I'm not actually sure what the "Nappy headed" part of that phrase really means, but whatever the severity of it, I don't think that he should be completely fired for it. I mean, he's a radio show host who called someone a whore once, and gets fired, yet Howard Stern can make some of the most incest, racist, sexist, and all around bigot like jokes on the radio and national television and get away with this.

If his employers have decided he has become a liability to their station by alienating the audience or the advertisers, I don't see a reason why he shouldn't be fired. This isn't a free speech issue, as the first amendment protects speech from the government. If someone's job involves speaking and they are bad at speaking, and consequently their job, there's no reason they should remain employed.

[Xandax]

I may be out of the loop, but I fail to see how the example in the OP can be a used as an example in a debate of Free Speech, unless the radio host have been charged by the government/state for using such language?

So I'm in full agreement with Vicsun's post.
Getting fired from ones job because you can't fulfill or live up to expectations of management or the economical backers has very little (if anything) to do with free speech in my book.
He made some/a statement which sponsors/advertisers didn't approve off, they used their economical leeway and he got fired as a consequence. If anything that example could be used in a topic about how far somebody should go to please advertisers/sponsors, but I fail to see its (proper) usage in a free speech debate.


As for ones dignity, then it is difficult to say, because it is extreemly subjective and case-by-case when ones dignity gets "damaged" and the context of the damage. If exposing somebody's criminal or suspect behavior/actions - one might argue that it is damaging to dignity, however should that be lopped into the same argument as somebody simply slandering somebody else? Well, doubtful, but the two are still related.

[kathycf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberys I'm not actually sure what the "Nappy headed" part of that phrase really means, .

"nappy headed" is a racist term used to describe the kinky hair of many Black people. Many (but not all) of the players are women of color, hence the derogatory use of the term.

I fail to see any reason for Don Imus to exist, period, but that is purely a subjective and somewhat unreasonable stance on my part.

It is my limited understanding that his popularity has been slipping steadily over the last several years, and this outburst seems as good a reason as any for his employers to release him from his obligations.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathycf I fail to see any reason for Don Imus to exist, period, but that is purely a subjective and somewhat unreasonable stance on my part.

There's a lot worse than Imus on nationally syndicated radio or television in the US. I can get quotes, if you'd like.

And if anybody reading this thinks this kind of slander is a good thing, they can face west and bow to the specter of Ronald Reagan, who stacked the Federal Communications Commission that abolished the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s. Yet another thing to thank "Dr. Feelgood" Reagan about.

[kathycf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable There's a lot worse than Imus on nationally syndicated radio or television in the US. I can get quotes, if you'd like. And if anybody reading this thinks this kind of slander is a good thing, they can face west and bow to the specter of Ronald Reagan, who stacked the Federal Communications Commission that abolished the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s. Yet another thing to thank "Dr. Feelgood" Reagan about.

I'm sorry, could you clarify what "this kind of slander is a good thing" is referring to? As I am reading it, it seems to infer to me that my post is slanderous, or was Imus's comment slander?

As for the quotes, no thank you. I have indeed heard worse than Imus, but I find that type of "entertainment" incredibly NOt entertaining. I wasn't speculating on whether there were worse or better people in the world than Imus, I was merely expressing my opinion on him, as a public figure. I clearly stated my opinion is both subjective and unreasonable.

[Siberys]

It couldn't be referring to you by two different parts of the definition of slander, one being that it must be spoken not written and the other for defamation, your post lacks both, but Imus' broadcast has them.

[kathycf]

I see. I got a bit confused because I didn't see any content in any of the posts actually supporting Imus's remark, so I didn't see where anybody was saying they thought slander was a good thing.

Quote:

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathycf I'm sorry, could you clarify what "this kind of slander is a good thing" is referring to? As I am reading it, it seems to infer to me that my post is slanderous, or was Imus's comment slander?

Imus', of course! Just as Siberys pointed out. Not anything you said, Kathycf.

Quote:

As for the quotes, no thank you. I have indeed heard worse than Imus, but I find that type of "entertainment" incredibly NOt entertaining.

Me, too. That is why I find all this triumphalism about Imus's removal from radio (at the moment) misplaced and near-sighted. He is one symptom of a disease, and there are far worse ones available.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Xandax

Quote:

I may be out of the loop, but I fail to see how the example in the OP can be a used as an example in a debate of Free Speech, unless the radio host have been charged by the government/state for using such language?

First of all, I posted a question that sprouted from another thread. It is not about a particular event.

As to why I used Imus example, there are two simple answers: because it is a "breaking news" here (and it is hard to avoid hearing about it), and because I am amused how one person got punished for the crude remarks while so many others keep spewing even worse stuff without a slightest slap in the wrist.

Quote:

Getting fired from ones job because you can't fulfill or live up to expectations of management or the economical backers has very little (if anything) to do with free speech in my book. He made some/a statement which sponsors/advertisers didn't approve off, they used their economical leeway and he got fired as a consequence. If anything that example could be used in a topic about how far somebody should go to please advertisers/sponsors, but I fail to see its (proper) usage in a free speech debate.

He was not fired because of that. Not even close.

He was fired because of the political pressure exerted upon CBS by the black community. Rev. Al Sharpton was very vocal. The presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama called for Imus' firing too. CBS had no choice.

CBS radio enjoyed $15 million revenue off his show -- money which is lost now. And CBS is yet to recover financially after they lost Howard Stern (their revenue fell 7% after that).

The guy has a long history of being "politically incorrect" but many people found him clever and funny. His audience was huge, and politicians (especially Democrats) flocked to him in spite of the fact that Imus often ridiculed them.
Imus is also known for his philantropic activities.

"His last radio appearance Thursday was to raise money for three charities; over the last 18 years, the Imus-hosted Radiothon raised more than $40 million."

[kathycf]

I think the question of private censorship is more at the heart of the matter. Imus is protected in his statement by the first amendment. There is no way to take him to court and charge him with being a jacka** because his comment of "nappy headed hoes", which, however personally reprehensible we may find it, is not illegal.

Quote:

in 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio , the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce , "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today.

Thusly, one may accuse CBS of censoring (and punishing) Imus, after being pressured to do so.

The thing is, in a free society people should have the right to expression free from censorship. Just as the government may not prosecute those whose speech is unpopular, should we punish those with whom we disagree? Personally, I have always hated the type of show Imus did, as well as others of his ilk. I don't find them funny and I don't like their attitude. That is my right, just as it is the right of millions of others to enjoy that sort of thing. The fact remains is do we support free expression only for those with whom we agree?

Obviously, there are some areas where we cannot go mouthing off, for example a privately owned message board such as GameBanshee has specific rules govening what may be expressesd. CBS is also a privately owned entity however, so they may be within their rights to punish Imus. I confess, it is a murky issue to me.

Although I don't think this is technically a "freedom of speech" issue as defined by the first amendment, I still believe the following quote from the American Civil Liberties Union to be relevant to my view on censorship.

Quote:

If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Imus', of course! Just as Siberys pointed out. Not anything you said, Kathycf

Ah, sorry about that. I sometimes take things too personally.

[Xandax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly <snip> As to why I used Imus example, there are two simple answers: because it is a "breaking news" here (and it is hard to avoid hearing about it), and because I am amused how one person got punished for the crude remarks while so many others keep spewing even worse stuff without a slightest slap in the wrist. <snip>

Depending on what you consider "worse stuff" and what you want in kind of "slap on the wrist" it would be a case by case context.
However here we have a person getting fired from his job because of comments made, if other makes "worse" comments then it is up to the employers of said person to decide which actions taken. Here CBS apparently felt - for various reasons - that a cancellation of the show was the course to take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly <snip> He was fired because of the political pressure exerted upon CBS by the black community. Rev. Al Sharpton was very vocal. The presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama called for Imus' firing too. CBS had no choice. CBS radio enjoyed $15 million revenue off his show -- money which is lost now. And CBS is yet to recover financially after they lost Howard Stern (their revenue fell 7% after that). <snip>

Political pressure can not be exerted by non-political figures, so the "black community" does not exert political pressure towards a private company like this by threathning to boycott sponsors, but economical pressure; which in turn causes the sponsors to exert their pressure towards the radio station.
Lest the community threaten to elect candidates which would close the station down, but from what I have read they threaten to boycott sponsors.

The senator Obama calling for the firing might be labeled political pressure, but it hardly becomes a freedom of speech issue as it still is not the government/state which takes actions towards the person, but merely public people stating their opinion, who in turn is political.
It is not religious pressure either when Al Sharpton comments as such.

I still fail to see this being used in a discussion about freedom of speech vs. dignity (or freedom of speech completely) thread.
If anything - it could mostly be used with political correctness, and whether or not CBS "caved in" because they got to nervous.