Of far more importance than the expressed "hurt feelings" of the team members, and the pomposity of the two Reverends (who have arrogantly thrown the first stone many times previous to this), is the punishment of an American Citizen who has a right to free speech fair, and within the boundries of the Constitution? Imus has been an equal opportunity insulter and debaser for years...sometimes he is funny, sometimes he is not. We all have the right and the opportunity to disagree with his remarks. However, do we have the right to close him down?...to fire him?...to punish him?...to treat him like a criminal when no law has been broken?...to make him the scapegoat for something he said that we personally dislike?
The distruction of our Bill of Rights would be a less messy way of defeating our country for those who would destroy it. Is that what has truly happened? Perhaps Sharpton, Jackson and Roker, along with the sponsors and the networks involved should be charged with treason.
2007-04-17 02:04:14 · 27 answers · asked by Bittersweet 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This isn't a free speech issue. He was at work when he did this. If he was sitting at his house and he got arrested for saying what he said, than it would be a free speech issue. Why don't people realize this?
He got fired b/c this would cost the company money. It was an economic decision.
2007-04-17 02:07:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
As a Christian, I have some serious concerns about the issue in the way it is worded in this question. I hope that at some point, people will realize that sexual identity and the choice of engaging in sexual intercourse with another person are truly two separate issues. It seems that so many people want to consider both issues one and the same. That if a person says anything against sexual activity, that they are a hateful person? What saddens me the most are people who decry any type morals standards being made by the Christians, outside of the church We're also being told by activist groups that to set moral standards is wrong. That if we don't say live and let live, we are hateful? Yet, it's appropriate for others to talk about moral standards? How is this not a double standard to try to put restrictions on what is said inside of a church building? So, if we bypass the constitution to say that a group can censor what is said inside the church walls, are we not setting a double standard in terms of free speech? There are many groups that are constitutionally protected that most people would feel are extremely offensive. However, I don't see a movement restricting those groups, that may wear hoods and burn crosses, However, most of us would say that they do have the right to freedom of speech, even though their group is unacceptable to most people. So, why is there a movement suddenly to violate the constitution on two of our rights: the right to free speech, and the right to freedom of religion. Is it simply because some people don't like the idea of a group saying something about sexual activity? .
2016-04-01 05:37:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Free speech doesn't give anybody the right to use language that is hurtful when it is used about their race, creed and religion. Also, not to be used as a demeaning sense of calling somebody a harsh, unacceptable character as a 'nappy ho'r.' This type of language can come under verbal assault and charges could have been filed. I think charges weren't filed, because this type of language is used by the rap artists, as well.
I don't support Imus' remarks at all. There has to be a line drawn somewhere to protect people from this type of verbal assault.
Free speech is protected when it is not used in a demographic, hurtful sense.
I am prepared to take a bashing on this. But before it is done, please read on what free speech protects. It does not protect language that can be used as a 'weapon' to make its presence known.
2007-04-17 02:19:53 · answer #3 · answered by Yafooey! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People have a freedom of speech but that doesn't meen that the company he works for has to let him say it on their airwaves. It was weak of the station to let him go but it was their right. Imus could start a new radio station called WNHH and only talk about what he wants and also be liable to those he offends. Which is the other side of freedoms, which is responsibility. If you do something you need to take whatever consequence that comes from it. this part of freedom seems to have been lost in modern America.
2007-04-17 02:10:59 · answer #4 · answered by dv4unme 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Don't be silly. The government threatened freedom of speech more when a couple of barney Fifes jailed the old man with the antiwar tshirt than CBS did by firing Imus.
What shock jocks like Imus really represent is a debasement of the level of public discourse and a coarsening of public demeanor and behavior. Think about it: A society where every last man woman and child acts like trailer trash is no goal, nothing to be proud of and nothing to fall on the sword defending.
2007-04-17 02:07:26 · answer #5 · answered by Winston Smith 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Honestly, I think it matters who said what and where they are coming from. Imus dresses like a redneck in an old drugstore cowboy hat. I bet that guy never seen a cow or stepped on cow dung in his life. If he were to dress up like an african american and talk like an african american I don't think that remark he made would generate such an issue. He called the girls hos which means whores.
As far as our freedom of speech I am sad there are classic books like Huckleberry Finn that suffer as a result of this but not Imus.
2007-04-17 02:13:28 · answer #6 · answered by Saint Lucipher 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even though i do not agree with what he said. He is known to be an insulter. So firing him for doing the same job he does everyday might would be kind of stupid.
We do have freedom of speach . Just consider the show south park (that's insulting,yet hilarious).
The klu clux clan still has public meetings.........so why would they treat this imus thing any different I don't know~_~.
I can understand why some sponsors would pull out...but the firing thing is a bit rash maybe?
2007-04-17 02:13:05 · answer #7 · answered by taniaess 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a violation of freedom of speech. This is not the first time that Imus called that team hoes. I have heard it before. My question is, why all of the sudden is it a crime!? There is something amiss in all of this!!!!! Anyone who dares speak their mind had better watch their back! (I am not particularly an Imus fan, I usually leave the volume on my tv down, I read the news ticker, but I occasionally listen as well, he has ALWAYS hated the Rutger girls team and has voiced again and again what he thinks of them, using other words as well as the one he is being crucified for!)
2007-04-17 02:16:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The American people have the right to condemn anyone they want to. If sponsors pull out advertising from his show then his network has every right to fire him because he is not making the money that he once did.
The freedom of speech is something that protects him from criminal prosecution but not from the public. Imus is not the first celebrity to go down for comments made about another individual.
Is it right? I guess that depends on which side of the coin you are on.
2007-04-17 02:11:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree that it is damaging to our freedom of speech. However, even though the government guarantees this freedom. Businesses and corporations that we work for do not. NBC and CBS were perfectly in their right to fire him. As an advocate for free speech I personally think that the punishment was a little excessive.
2007-04-17 02:15:13 · answer #10 · answered by the_end_of_the_cons 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋