They were trying to nail Simon on IDOL for rolling his eyes in which he had to make a public apology twice when he was in fact rolling his eyes at Paula!
2007-04-19 04:17:14 · 11 answers · asked by Reserved 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
i was going to say no way, they just have to nab people who mess up like imus did and until then, we're good.. but now that i hear about that, you're right. that is insane. i want to write to idol, or whoever initiated those 'apologies,' telling them that we should be able to have personalities--regardless of whether they're widely seen (like on TV) or not.
that is really, reeeeeally lame.
2007-04-19 04:35:41 · answer #1 · answered by kae 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hi,
No our freedom to speak out is preserved in spite of what the media says.
Remember, freedom of speech means you must use some judgment in what you say, e.g., you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded assembly of people when there is no fire without being arrested.
Imus got away with insulting people for years but most of the people he picked on were rich and powerful and they are legitimate targets.
He not only slammed a triple minority (women, African Americans, Athletes), but using words from gangsta rap was highly innapropriate. The young lady basketball players were respectable, intelligent and great athletes.
He lost his job which may have been too much because he does support a charity for kids at his ranch in Texas.
Simon - give me a break. We are too sensitive over insignificant things. There are much worse things to worry about than what happens on Idol - eyebrows - think about Darfur, Iraq, the declining dollar, etc.
Our freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution and even though Bush has tried to abrogate some of its tenants, he will lose in the long run because the American people will finally realize that what he is trying to do is wrong.
Democracy depends on freedom of speech. It is a messy form of government, but it's the best there is because eventually it will right itself and destroy those who would try to tear it apart.
Look what happened to Nixon.
Kindest Personal Regards,
Walt Brown
Site Build It Certified Webmaster
http://buildit.sitesell.com/waltera1.html
walter@capecod-beaches.com/
wab@theworld.com
http://www.capecod-beaches.com/
2007-04-20 05:24:55 · answer #2 · answered by wabboc 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Imus has been saying objectionable things for years. This was white versus black and a man saying crude things about black women. The hypocrisy is that Rappers have been calling women "whores and bitches" for years and nobody goes after them. I should think the black community would be up in arms over that, but no. Throw Sharpton and Jackson into the mix, they want publicity, and you have a media free for all However, follow the money, this what this is about, not free speech.
2007-04-19 12:13:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First what Imus did replaced into "hate speech" and "freedom of speech" does no longer hide "hate speech" purely like it does no longer shield yelling hearth in a crowded theater... 2nd what Simon did rolling his eyes isn't resembling the derogatory comments made by skill of Imus. I pronounced comments because of the fact this replaced into no longer the 1st time Imus has made racist or sexist comments. He is going around the workplace calling black secretaries the "n" observe understanding they'd't do something because of the fact he replaced right into a "megastar" or perhaps demanded no one look him interior the attention or refer to him till spoken to so no i do no longer think of the Imus controversy is the top of "freedom of speech", i think of its the top of "hate speech"
2016-12-10 06:14:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Capitalism is, in some ways, the perfect outgrowth of free speech. If you like a product, you pay money for it. Otherwise you don't. If enough people like a product, those who make it get enough money to keep doing so. Otherwise, the producers probably go out of business. It's all about choice.
Imus has arguably been producing a product that has sold pretty well in the past. But if at any point people decide that they don't like that product, they can stop buying it. What is the alternative? To FORCE people to buy things they don't like? That's even worse!
In radio, of course, consumers don't pay with money directly. They pay with time. And sometimes they pay by buying products associated with a show. But really it doesn't make any difference in the end. It's not much more appropriate to force people spending time hearing things they don't like than it is to force them to buy things they don't like.
None of this in any way limits anyone's freedom to produce products. Imus can CONTINUE to say whatever he likes (other than the interference of the FCC, which is definitely AGAINST freedom... but that's another subject). If he can get people to pay for it or can pay for it himself, nobody is ever going to get him of the radio. Just look at Howard Stern, who is quite objectionable to any number of people. Even if Imus is never on the radio again, he is still free to shout whatever he likes on any street corner. .
But most corporations are forced to be in the position of pleasing their consumers. As a consumer, I LIKE that. I wish they would please me a heck of a lot more than they already do. And I exercise my freedom of choice as intelligently as I can.
Up with freedom!
2007-04-19 08:28:10 · answer #5 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The anal retentive thought police have taken over the too much of society today. If it doesn't stop, can dialog and debate exist? What happens to expressing the contrary opinion, if some body is offended when the world does not agree with them? People need to understand that other people think differently than they do and enjoy the diversity, without claiming that another viewpoint is offensive,just because it creates controversy.
2007-04-19 06:53:17 · answer #6 · answered by BANANA 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The freedom of speech works two ways. As people are free to say what they want, people are free to disagree with them.
What happened to Imus was completely within the bounds of the law. He said something objectable, and the community responded with social ostracism, which caused his advertisers to drop their support for him (their right to back who they wish) and for his employers to fire him (their right to fire employees).
Never doubt the influence that social ostracism plays in a free society. You are free to say what you wish, but we are free to support or oppose what you had to say.
Now if Imus was arrested, that would have been a completely different situation. Now you get the state involved, which comes in with policemen and guns, and forces the person to comply. Al Sharpton never held Imus at gun-point, as far as I know.
So America's response to Imus is an example of freedom of speech. An example of unfree speech would be, say, Iran, where women who don't wear the proper dress are assaulted by morality thugs, or India where Elizabeth Hurley was arrested for "insulting Hindu traditions".
2007-04-19 04:32:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't particularly care for Simon or "Idol",however, I understand that this incident, according with the media, was a result of a comment made by one of the contestants, who used the VAT tragedy in an attempt to gain simpathy. I find this more reproachable than Simon's rolling of his eyes, even if he did it because of this comment. I'm tired of this "witch hunt",incredibly damaging paranoia that those stupid "washed out" , "Nappy Headed Ho" Janet Jackson and Justin Tmberwho? started.
2007-04-19 04:36:37 · answer #8 · answered by cabron o 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its been coming for the last few years, but yeah, you got it, "the end is extremely frakking near."
2007-04-19 04:28:34 · answer #9 · answered by paladin.macroberts 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who needs free speech anyway
I hate free speech and think that it should be taken away
2007-04-19 05:36:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋