Don Imus got fired / thought police on a rampage

[paintballfiend]

Since the courts are not involved (yet) it was not an issue about free speech.

[Mind'sEye]

There's certainly nothing wrong with boycotts. They amount to votes in the public forum. The Imus affair DID NOT involve a boycott. There was no consideration given to the court of public opinion. His firing was based on threats by certain groups and fear on the part of sponsors. A society which makes hasty decisions based on fear does not have a healthy set of checks and balances. I was not an Imus listener. I never cared for his cranky demeanor. His departure is no loss to me, but there's more to this than mass public outrage. Make no mistake. This was a succesful power play. Now we can sit back and see who or what is next...........

[SCpoloRicker]

Aggravated Assault and wjr, this is not a free speech issue. Seriously. Serious Cat serious.

/I work for the first amendment, so I'm really....

[going_home]

Stern said....

Guys the first amendment protects you from government impingement on speech. It's not a blanket protection, and in particular does not protect your speech as an employee.

I agree that JJ and AS are both hypocritical, racist morans. Here a link to an article by Jason Whitlock calling out these two. And yes, he's black.

I hate to agree with Howard Stern on anything.
But he said Imus should have said : "F" off, it was just a joke.

I agree with Ricker, he should have just had a press release apology and refused to talk to the press about it, and it would have died in a week or two.
His running around the country apologizing for the sins of the world just made it far worse than it would have been had he done what Howard said.

[SCpoloRicker]

I agree with Ricker,

Oh lord, I think we may have triggered the apocalypse. :)

[wjr]

Aggravated Assault and wjr, this is not a free speech issue. Seriously. Serious Cat serious.

/I work for the first amendment, so I'm really....

I was being facetious guys.

Here are some belated smilies that should have been in that post.

[SCpoloRicker]

I was being facetious guys.

My internets sarcasm meter is off, apologies :)

[Lohman446]

In consideration...

If a group of young college African-American men had been falsely accused of raping a white stripper, had been treated the same as the Duke players by the DA, media, and public, and ended the same way how much outrage would we hear from Sharpton and JJ?

Yes, these two people who speak of the ungodliness (reverand.. .) of racially motivated hate should reconsider the fundamental lessons of New Testament that our actions should be motivated out of love, compassion, and understanding of our fellow man. Surely there coalitions about every race, have room to show compassion to everyone, regardless of race.

[Aggravated Assault]

Aggravated Assault and wjr, this is not a free speech issue. Seriously. Serious Cat serious.

/I work for the first amendment, so I'm really....

I think wjr was being sarcastic.
(*edit* sorry, I see you realized you had your meter off. )

Umm, no, This, in itself, is not a free seech issue. Yet. But the potential is there.

Here is what I'm getting at. I personally dont care $.02 about imus. He's a hack. As said before, free speech lets you say it, but dosen't protect your job. Thats fine. Never could find where I said the constitution guaranteed Imus a job or protected against stupidity.

Lohman, you missed the point too, but got real close to what I was leading to. The Scary thing to me is how america decides how it vents it's "outrage", and how we "choose" what to be outraged about. what's next...Regulation? Are we now going to have monitors just listening to every station, all of the time, waiting to be offended? Who decides when someone is offended? Al Sharpton? Anybody hear his "victory" speech? He said in no uncertain terms this is only the begining.


Al Sharpton as Americas moral compass anyone?

[Lohman446]

The first time JJ or Al Sharpton are called on there threat of boycott I expect them to have a problem. I do not think that the people they claim to "represent" are behind them enough to successfully boycott a product. Not knowing who actually listens to them (I know for a fact it is not the entire African American population) and has the will to mount an effective longterm boycott I highly question how effective they could be.

Hypothetical example

Company A markets a product aimed at people who make 100K + a year

Protest leader X is offended and threatens to boycott company A over some sponsorship

Protest leader X "followers" comprise a demographic where 90% make less than 100K a year. Out of the remaining 10% only 1% are even willing to consider to give up my product over protest leaders X recommendation.

Protest leader X has effectively no useful threat.

I think JJ and Al Sharpton are in for a problem when companies realize that there threat is near meaningless considering the short memory of the American public as a whole. Remember when France refused to support our actions. There was going to be a great boycott of French products. How's that going? How much effect did it ever have? Or the great Baptist boycott of Disney? I can't recall the last actually effective boycott of a product. Is it possible that it goes all the way back to New Coke (which was not really a boycott for a goal, people did not like the taste).

The point is simple. Americans are not *generally* willing to give up consumer luxuries to effectively enact politcal change. Not JJ followers, not Limbaugh followers... just not.

[Miscue]

Stupid thing to say, sure... but I think the resulting furor is stupid too. My other issue with this is... take a guess where the terminology originated - and it was used with the same context. Hmm.

[Aggravated Assault]

The first time JJ or Al Sharpton are called on there threat of boycott I expect them to have a problem. I do not think that the people they claim to "represent" are behind them enough to successfully boycott a product. Not knowing who actually listens to them (I know for a fact it is not the entire African American population) and has the will to mount an effective longterm boycott I highly question how effective they could be.

Apparently pretty effective. Who needs a long term boycott?

I think JJ and Al Sharpton are in for a problem when companies realize that there threat is near meaningless considering the short memory of the American public as a whole. Remember when France refused to support our actions. There was going to be a great boycott of French products. How's that going? How much effect did it ever have? Or the great Baptist boycott of Disney? I can't recall the last actually effective boycott of a product. Is it possible that it goes all the way back to New Coke (which was not really a boycott for a goal, people did not like the taste).

Well, I don't know well these examples prove your point, except one worked, Who really knows about Disney (I sure dont do their books), and (I thought) the French so-called "boycott" bordered on the absurd.

Anyway, I just don't know if guys like JJ or AL need a real threat. America might have a short memory, but it has developed a knee-jerk overreaction to quite a bit of stuff. Controversial political speak/Political corectness/social commentary falls in there nicely. These people are calling for "cleaning up the airwaves", suggesting more FCC or government oversight, or regulation, of speech and music. I heard stuff like that all over the media, and not just from Jessie and Al.

Imus provided the reason or excuse. That's not the free speech issue. It's if this whole mess dosent blow over quickly and we really do have the "thought police" lobbying for tighter government oversight of the airwaves, etc.

[omegaman]

Freedom of speech

Not everyone is an Imus fan. He has been known to say controversial things since the late 70's. The issue about his firing is actually a slipery slope that we had just gone down...and the wrong way. Imus saying something controversial or even derogatory against a defenseless target is not grounds for being fired. Yes, what he said was not appropriate. But, have we not forgiven his critics for worse. Jesse Jackson called NY - HymieTown. Al Sharpton...don't get me started about his words. Anyhow, due to the controversy surrounding the issue and the fact that NO FCC Guidelines were violated - I think the two week suspension was an appropriate action. If the publis did not feel that so and that his apology was insensere then it is the PUBLIC's responsibility to put preasure on the sponsors of Imus' program to withdraw their support and Imus would be forced into the night.

No amount of preasure should have been allowed to dictate policy by a radio station when the content is simply offensive to a segment (albeit a large one) of the listening audience. What was said was inappropriate, to be certain. Offensive, perhaps. I have not heard the segment and will therefore make no judgements on what was said. Was Imus sincere in his apology - Again, I have not heard. Upon hearing of the suspension...I thought it an appropriate response. Hearing of the firing...I thought we have now moved into dangerous territory.

I won't miss Imus. I actually haven't listened to him since the late 80's. But I will remember why I no longer CAN listen to him more than I will ever remember what he said.

[hitech]

I can't recall the last actually effective boycott of a product.

Tuna. It worked, but it took a long time. It's the only boycott I ever participated in. I still don't eat tuna...

So, yes, you are correct. Boycotts almost never work. The Tuna one was how many years ago? Before most people on this forum were born.

And the firing was based solely on money. Period.

[SCpoloRicker]

I assume everyone is aware that major companies pulled their ads from MSNBC and that is the real reason Imus lost his show.