I am. Yes I believe Imus (and prod) exhibited a unacceptable level of ignorance. But if people don't like it they shouldn't listen. I don't think he should have been canned. Maybe suspended and some fines, but not fired. To me, it's unjust censorship.
I'm not deffending Imus, just the first amendment.
There is no more personel accountability.....just excuses.
but there are reasons why these things go down, acknowledging them doesn't mean you're an apologist.
What you guys are doing is not "acknowledging the reasons why these things go down"--it's aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong.
i assume by 'you guys' you mean fakeass, and not myself or homie jroot who are both attempting to understand fakeass' point (which is quite valid when you read jroot's redux, although not necessarily pertinent to the imus discussion.)
imus is racist for a reason (meaning he most likely didn't up and decide to be racist, it most likely originated in his mindset somewhere down the line)
Yes, there is a reason. His parents were racists, his extended family probably includes plenty of racists. And he probably socializes with racists on a regular basis.
looks like we're in agreement here. but again, fakeass seemed to be applying his theory to the overarching problem of racism, as well as imus' remarks.
probably would've been better to address the 2 beasts separately.
I am. Yes I believe Imus (and prod) exhibited a unacceptable level of ignorance. But if people don't like it they shouldn't listen. I don't think he should have been canned. Maybe suspended and some fines, but not fired. To me, it's unjust censorship.
I'm not deffending Imus, just the first amendment.
No, you are not.
The First Amendment does not afford anybody the inalienable right to a syndicated talk show.
It addresses the government's ability to abridge the freedom of speech. It does not apply to private actors.
It is honestly terrifying to me how little some people know about the Constitution. The less you know about your legal rights, the more easily they can be stripped from you.
I am. Yes I believe Imus (and prod) exhibited a unacceptable level of ignorance. But if people don't like it they shouldn't listen. I don't think he should have been canned. Maybe suspended and some fines, but not fired. To me, it's unjust censorship.
I'm not deffending Imus, just the first amendment.
No, you are not.
The First Amendment does not afford anybody the inalienable right to a syndicated talk show.
It addresses the government's ability to abridge the freedom of speech. It does not apply to private actors.
It is honestly terrifying to me how little some people know about the Constitution. The less you know about your legal rights, the more easily they can be stripped from you.
OK. I still don't think he should have been censored.
There is no more personel accountability.....just excuses.
but there are reasons why these things go down, acknowledging them doesn't mean you're an apologist.
What you guys are doing is not "acknowledging the reasons why these things go down"--it's aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong.
i assume by 'you guys' you mean fakeass, and not myself or homie jroot who are both attempting to understand fakeass' point (which is quite valid when you read jroot's redux, although not necessarily pertinent to the imus discussion.)
No, I include you. I do not include JRoot, because his analysis was considerably more precise. And do you even know what "redux" means?
I am. Yes I believe Imus (and prod) exhibited a unacceptable level of ignorance. But if people don't like it they shouldn't listen. I don't think he should have been canned. Maybe suspended and some fines, but not fired. To me, it's unjust censorship.
I'm not deffending Imus, just the first amendment.
No, you are not.
The First Amendment does not afford anybody the inalienable right to a syndicated talk show.
It addresses the government's ability to abridge the freedom of speech. It does not apply to private actors.
It is honestly terrifying to me how little some people know about the Constitution. The less you know about your legal rights, the more easily they can be stripped from you.
OK. I still don't think he should have been censored.
There is no more personel accountability.....just excuses.
but there are reasons why these things go down, acknowledging them doesn't mean you're an apologist.
What you guys are doing is not "acknowledging the reasons why these things go down"--it's aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong.
i assume by 'you guys' you mean fakeass, and not myself or homie jroot who are both attempting to understand fakeass' point (which is quite valid when you read jroot's redux, although not necessarily pertinent to the imus discussion.)
No, I include you. I do not include JRoot, because his analysis was considerably more precise. And do you even know what "redux" means?
o'rly? ok faux show me where i was "aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong." if anything, i've been trying to cut fakeass some slack and not belittle his opinion because it differs from mine..
sidenote: i'm sure 'precise' lawyerspeak is how you like to hear arguments, but this is a 'record collectors' forum. if you can't lower your standards, at least try to be less robotic in your replies.
sidenote: i'm sure 'precise' lawyerspeak is how you like to hear arguments, but this is a 'record collectors' forum. if you can't raise[/b] your standards, at least try to be less robotic in your replies.
There is no more personel accountability.....just excuses.
but there are reasons why these things go down, acknowledging them doesn't mean you're an apologist.
What you guys are doing is not "acknowledging the reasons why these things go down"--it's aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong.
i assume by 'you guys' you mean fakeass, and not myself or homie jroot who are both attempting to understand fakeass' point (which is quite valid when you read jroot's redux, although not necessarily pertinent to the imus discussion.)
No, I include you. I do not include JRoot, because his analysis was considerably more precise. And do you even know what "redux" means?
o'rly? ok faux show me where i was "aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong." if anything, i've been trying to cut fakeass some slack and not belittle his opinion because it differs from mine..
sidenote: i'm sure 'precise' lawyerspeak is how you like to hear arguments, but this is a 'record collectors' forum. if you can't lower your standards, at least try to be less robotic in your replies.
TREW, if you want people to respect your contributions as those of an adult, then you're going to need to start behaving like one. If you are so hostile to the idea of precision, then don't get ass-hurt when people dismiss whatever you're trying--but failing--to say out of hand.
Now, do you have a substantive rebuttal to anything I said? And, no, "I was just trying to cut dude some slack!" and "don't belittle me!" are not substantive.
If the FCC bannned his ass it would be censorship.
The company he worked for fired him, which was just good business.
So if it isn't done by goverment it's not censorship
The definitions I looked up didn't say anything about that.
There is more than one definition, but it doesn't really matter.
If you want to embrace the broader view of "censorship"--the one that includes private actors--then you also have to abandon the idea that it is inherently bad.
If the FCC bannned his ass it would be censorship.
The company he worked for fired him, which was just good business.
So if it isn't done by goverment it's not censorship
The definitions I looked up didn't say anything about that.
There is more than one definition, but it doesn't really matter.
If you want to embrace the broader view of "censorship"--the one that includes private actors--then you also have to abandon the idea that it is inherently bad.
OK. I still think canning him was a bit much. BTW did that producer get fired too?
There is no more personel accountability.....just excuses.
but there are reasons why these things go down, acknowledging them doesn't mean you're an apologist.
What you guys are doing is not "acknowledging the reasons why these things go down"--it's aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong.
i assume by 'you guys' you mean fakeass, and not myself or homie jroot who are both attempting to understand fakeass' point (which is quite valid when you read jroot's redux, although not necessarily pertinent to the imus discussion.)
No, I include you. I do not include JRoot, because his analysis was considerably more precise. And do you even know what "redux" means?
o'rly? ok faux show me where i was "aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong." if anything, i've been trying to cut fakeass some slack and not belittle his opinion because it differs from mine..
sidenote: i'm sure 'precise' lawyerspeak is how you like to hear arguments, but this is a 'record collectors' forum. if you can't lower your standards, at least try to be less robotic in your replies.
TREW, if you want people to respect your contributions as those of an adult, then you're going to need to start behaving like one. If you are so hostile to the idea of precision, then don't get ass-hurt when people dismiss whatever you're trying--but failing--to say out of hand.
Now, do you have a substantive rebuttal to anything I said? And, no, "I was just trying to cut dude some slack!" and "don't belittle me!" are not substantive.
faux, question my adult status if you like, but first back up your remark about how i was "aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong." you can't run from your claims against me.. prove me wrong, i'm sure you've got it in you.
2ndly, me ass-hurt? never that. it seems like you've got fakeass' posts and my attempts read b/w the lines of his posts confused. dismiss me all day if you feel the need.
as for my sidenote, i'm not at all hostile to your precision, it's your strong point. but it seems to me that unless someone (myself and most others who you argue with) is meeting your standards with their replies (and this applies to 98% of arguments you have here,) you're quick to write them off however valid their arguements. i get that this is how your profession rolls, but again, not everyone here is a lawyer, or argues like one.
ps. "don't belittle me"? laugh out fucking loud.. who said that?
Comments
I am. Yes I believe Imus (and prod) exhibited a unacceptable level of ignorance. But if people don't like it they shouldn't listen. I don't think he should have been canned. Maybe suspended and some fines, but not fired. To me, it's unjust censorship.
I'm not deffending Imus, just the first amendment.
i assume by 'you guys' you mean fakeass, and not myself or homie jroot who are both attempting to understand fakeass' point (which is quite valid when you read jroot's redux, although not necessarily pertinent to the imus discussion.)
looks like we're in agreement here. but again, fakeass seemed to be applying his theory to the overarching problem of racism, as well as imus' remarks.
probably would've been better to address the 2 beasts separately.
so how did this thread start again?
No, you are not.
The First Amendment does not afford anybody the inalienable right to a syndicated talk show.
It addresses the government's ability to abridge the freedom of speech. It does not apply to private actors.
It is honestly terrifying to me how little some people know about the Constitution. The less you know about your legal rights, the more easily they can be stripped from you.
I hope Snoop has money in the bank .
"Sumbody gots ta pay fa massuh losin his job"
OK. I still don't think he should have been censored.
No, I include you. I do not include JRoot, because his analysis was considerably more precise. And do you even know what "redux" means?
He wasn't censored. He was fired.
dude
dude.
How is that not censorship. Can someone explain?
If the FCC bannned his ass it would be censorship.
The company he worked for fired him, which was just good business.
Rock said it. He cost his employer millions of dollars through sheer stupidity and ignorance.
He wasn't arrested, or stopped from speaking his mind. He was fired. Canned. Given the pink slip. Walking papers. Do you understand the difference?
o'rly? ok faux show me where i was "aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong." if anything, i've been trying to cut fakeass some slack and not belittle his opinion because it differs from mine..
sidenote: i'm sure 'precise' lawyerspeak is how you like to hear arguments, but this is a 'record collectors' forum. if you can't lower your standards, at least try to be less robotic in your replies.
So if it isn't done by goverment it's not censorship
The definitions I looked up didn't say anything about that.
He can(and will) be back on the air when a company who doesn't mind the controversy will hire him.
If it was censorship he wouldn't be allowed back on the air...that's not the case.
TREW, if you want people to respect your contributions as those of an adult, then you're going to need to start behaving like one. If you are so hostile to the idea of precision, then don't get ass-hurt when people dismiss whatever you're trying--but failing--to say out of hand.
Now, do you have a substantive rebuttal to anything I said? And, no, "I was just trying to cut dude some slack!" and "don't belittle me!" are not substantive.
There is more than one definition, but it doesn't really matter.
If you want to embrace the broader view of "censorship"--the one that includes private actors--then you also have to abandon the idea that it is inherently bad.
He'll be on satellite radio within a month.
dude.
BTW did that producer get fired too?
Nah ...he's done .....Sponsers wont support him on free radio .....Howard is at Sirius.....Too many black people at XM.
faux, question my adult status if you like, but first back up your remark about how i was "aggressively attempting to pin responsibility where it doesn't belong." you can't run from your claims against me.. prove me wrong, i'm sure you've got it in you.
2ndly, me ass-hurt? never that. it seems like you've got fakeass' posts and my attempts read b/w the lines of his posts confused. dismiss me all day if you feel the need.
as for my sidenote, i'm not at all hostile to your precision, it's your strong point. but it seems to me that unless someone (myself and most others who you argue with) is meeting your standards with their replies (and this applies to 98% of arguments you have here,) you're quick to write them off however valid their arguements. i get that this is how your profession rolls, but again, not everyone here is a lawyer, or argues like one.
ps. "don't belittle me"? laugh out fucking loud.. who said that?
Why, Casper ?
Team him up with Miss Kitty.....radio gold!!
I don't think they needed to fire him. But it's not my company so I guess it doesn't really matter.
He lost them millions of dollars
He pissed off millions of people
Sounds to me like he needed to get fired
Why not Casper ?
And yes.... your opinion does matter.