Our Gotcha Society

My goodness TC, I never thought I'd see the day you agreed with Ann Coulter! Her latest column makes the same points about restraining free speech when it might offend someone.

Where we differ is the source of the drive for censorship in service of political correctness. The Imus affair will be used by the Left to promote repression of conservative media under the fairness doctrine. Fairness doctrine, what a classic bit of doublespeak, right up there with campaign reform and public media.  

Look...

the government did not come after Don Imus.  The government is not going to press charges, lock him up, torture him, or evict him from American society in any way.  In fact, Don Imus has ever right and privilage he had before his little slip of the tounge.  We can defend his right to say what he wants, but we also have the right to protest against what he said.  These two actions are not the same thing.  Don Imus (and anyone else who uses the public forum to degrade another) is reaping the consequenses of his own acts.  That is all.

There is a difference between dissent, debate, and discussion (yes even heated discussion) about things.  In fact, in order to keep a democratic society such as the one in America, I personally think it is demanded and obligitory when something is not in the interest of the common good of all of us.  This is the kinds of expression that are protected constitutionally in the US.  However, racially charged words, "hate speech" is not dissent, not debate, and not discussion because of the very nature of it.  It is designed to humiliate, degrade, destroy and dehumanize another.  To me, it is only used by people who are afraid, or feel the need to make themselves feel superior over another.  It is also used as a way to deflect the conversation away from the real issues (as the neocon mantra shows us)

This is not a case of censorship, or a limiting of free speech.  This is a case where a man forgot that he has a self imposed responsibility for the right he already had.  In other words, he chose to abuse the right.  You might say that the public reaction got him fired.  Yes, that is true.  Perhaps the public got tired of him doing this over and over again, and this was his last chance.

We should not hold up this kind of speech as an example of what we should defend.  We must also recognize that if you have the freedom to express yourself any way you want, you also have the obligation to consider what your words will reap.   Understand that if you have a degrading comment toward another...be ready to reap the consequenses of your words.  On the playground or the workplace, it might mean an ass kicking...on a network (except faux news) it means you are fired.

Mr. Imus (or any other person who uses speech to degrade another) are not victims.  They should not be exempt from the consequenses of their acts, and it should be a lesson to us all to cherish our freedoms and not to abuse them.

When we realise that it is the responsibility of the owner of the tounge to choose carefully his words and phrases, and that no matter how much freedom of expression is granted, we will not be having this conflict over what someone said.  We will understand that he reaps what he sows.

Assalmu' alaykum

Zanubiyah

In no way am I promoting, nor will I support ANYONE, or organization to monitor speech.  And yes, I am in agreement with you in your saying that "free speech is afforded to those who can handle it's result".  Just note that Mr. Imus is reaping the result of his words. He used the freedom he had to a point that made our society uncomfortable, and yes, the corporations (you know, his employers) felt that Mr. Imus went beyond his bounds and he was fired.  He (and all of us) need to understand the responsibility we own in having the ability to express ourselves freely in this society. And specificly to Mr. Imus, (and other media pundits)  the power of reaching a broad audience at the same time. 

It is not the fault of Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton or the public outcry that Mr. Imus was fired.  It was not  General Motors, Proctor and Gamble, or any of the other sponsers that he was fired.  The source of this outrage came from his own mouth knowingly, freely and willingly.  I am sure that Mr Imus knew the rules before his little mis speak.  His disreguard for the boundries was his own undoing. And, I understand that he did this more than one time before.  I am sure that he is not a bad person, and hope this is not be a reflection of his real beliefs.  However, there was no reason under God's creation to say what he did, other than to demean those women and or their accomplishment.  This is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. 

If you can justify any reason to use racially charged words and phrases, to call people out of their names, to negatively stereotype people because of their political affiliation, their religion, gender, or their skin tone, then let's discuss it.  School me, cuz what I was taught MUST be wrong !!  In my opinion, like I posted before, the only reason someone would use this hate speech is to demean, degrade, humiliate vilify and or dehumanise that person or group because they fear them, have the need to be superior to them or foster public opinion against them to make it easier to destroy them.  We see it all over this damned world right now.

The FACT is, the public, the media, nor the corporations (his sponsers) created, nor forced him to say what he did.  He chose it, and it was the wrong choice.  And now, tomorrow (Monday morning) he will be unemployed...you know, like any other worker who does not perform to his employer's wishes.  He is no different than any one of us.

Damn it, it is time to stop taking your freedom for granted...own it, take responsibility for what you say and do.  We will be alot better in this world if we did so.

Tom Carter...it does no good, but to inflame those who support the President's policies to call Mr. Bush a "Nazi".  It diverts from the real issue.  In fact, it is their favorite weapon against dealing with the real issues.  It does not change one thing, bring one soldier home from Iraq, save one tax dollar, or stop one terrorist from his evil mission.  So, why do it?  I think that it is demeaning to the intellignece of those who use these kinds of words myself.

Just a thought...

What if tomorrow, Mr. Savage, Mr. Limbaugh, and Mr. O'Reilly suddenly were to be honest, look at issues objectivly instead of through the "talking points memos"?  What if they were to let all opinions flow freely, even if they were against what they have been promoting?  What if they were to judge President Bush's policies by their results, rather than a sheepish lock step support propaganda they promote?

How long before their employers fire them?  How long do you think their listeners will tune into Faux News?  Will the sponcers stay with Faux, even if there were no viewers just to keep the freedom of speech alive?  I doubt it very seriously.

Just goes to show you, it is not about the constitutional right of free expression here.  It is about what society will tolarate.  The Faux News society will not tolerate free exchange of ideas, and yet, I will defend their right to stay on the air if it is opposed by someone who wants to limit what they say by law.  Well...then too, I have the right to change the station.