And so it begins, the "moral cleansing"

[03cavPA]

Yes, yes, so we see that Chinese criminals in London can break the law with impunity. I'm simply talking about what's legal, and what's not. Free speech, at least here in the US, is legal. Assault and battery is not, no matter how ignorant and offensive the victim is.

Libel, slander, etc., are civil penalties, and are brought as a result of speech or writing directed at someone in particular.

I understand what your opinion of free speech is, but that's not my point. Free speech is just that; free. Unfortunately, the speaker is under no legal obligation to be intelligent, polite, or politically sensitive.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

moving on....
Y'see, I think freedom of speech is important but I don't think it equates to having the right to
i) be offensive
ii) make ignorant/stupid statements/comments

They're the same thing. You can't have one without the other. We had this discussion in my Art History class. When you start picking and choosing then you have Nazi Germany.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Yes, yes, so we see that Chinese criminals in London can break the law with impunity.

actually, it's a little more complicated....

anyway.

it's not about the picking and choosing of what can be said; it's about the social obligations of people exercising their right to free speech.
isn't it the same with all laws?
It is illegal to kill people and yet your country has places where the death penalty still exists.
It is illegal to kill people but if it were legal, not everyone would do it out of social obligations.

If you want to talk about people's rights in the absolute sense then how's this?
you have the right to free speech.
i have the right to be offended.
I have a right to act on my being offended and ask for you to be sacked.
no?

it's not my fault you were't aware that what you say can get you fired.
How about when you put it in the context of the current environment?
In a country that is known to over-react to certain issues and still do something like this is undoubted doubly stupid.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

you have the right to free speech.
i have the right to be offended.
I have a right to act on my being offended and ask for you to be sacked.
no?

We've come full circle. Again, everybody gets offended. Which group gets the say?

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

it's not my fault you were't aware that what you say can get you fired.
How about when you put it in the context of the current environment?
In a country that is known to over-react to certain issues and still do something like this is undoubted stupid.

You mean a guy that calls New York "Hymietown" has the authority to call me a racist?

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

If you want to talk about people's rights in the absolute sense then how's this?
you have the right to free speech.
i have the right to be offended.
I have a right to act on my being offended and ask for you to be sacked.
no?

And that is the way the system presently works. The jocks are selling a product -- their show. Their customers (listeners) hear something they don't like, and they protest to the station manager(s). Or, they just stop listening and the station's market share drops.

Many times, groups have asked for apologies and they've been given. But, apologies don't seem to be good enough any more. Now people want to see harsher punishment. They want people fired, or they eventually want some legislative action, to right some perceived wrong. There are times when I think some people exercise their right to be offended far in excess of the original offense.

Soon, the legal and social landscape becomes an entirely different animal, and not necessarily a good one.

Today, they come for the shock jocks, tomorrow, they come for the rest of the entertainers, the next day, they come for you and me on an internet forum, "harmlessly" blogging about this and that.

[drunken monkey]

there's also the point of context and content.
if something is without doubt, racially offensive should it be allowed or should it fall under "obsenity"?

Also, just because someone else does it, does that mean you should do it?

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

if something is without doubt, racially offensive should it be allowed or should it fall under "obsenity"?

You mean like Chappelle's Show? Oh wait, it was a black guy and it was funny so it's ok.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Also, just because someone else does it, does that mean you should do it?

I don't do it because somebody else does it. I do it because I want to.

With that said, letting Jesse Jackson have the power to call a person racist is like letting Osama Bin Ladin punish people for making terrorist/suicide bomber jokes.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

You mean like Chappelle's Show? Oh wait, it was a black guy and it was funny so it's ok.

again, context.

Originally Posted by Muscletang

I don't do it because somebody else does it. I do it because I want to.

then the question is why?

Originally Posted by Muscletang

With that said, letting Jesse Jackson have the power to call a person racist is like letting Osama Bin Ladin punish people for making terrorist/suicide bomber jokes.

I'm trying to keep this general for the sake of discussion or else we also have to mention other people like the Phelps.
On the other hand, if someone is racist, should they not be labelled so? Hypocrisy really isn't the debate here and would further confuse the discussion.
Don't forget while intent is what makes something racist, some things are intrinsically racist. You can't call me a chink and say it isn't a racist remark.
There is a case that a non-racist can make a racist remark just like a non-racist remark can be used in offence.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

there's also the point of context and content.
if something is without doubt, racially offensive should it be allowed or should it fall under "obsenity"?

Also, just because someone else does it, does that mean you should do it?

They must have a fairly broad listener base, or the show would have been canned before this. You bring up a very good point about obscenity laws. Taranaki briefly referred to the different regs for public airwaves and subscriber based satellite radio in another thread. Does racially insensitive material fall under the definition of obscenity?

Personally I say let it stand, and let the listener base decide if it's unacceptable or not. If those guys want to make flaming fools of themselves, let them. I'm sure it's not the first time they've performed some bit of sophomoric humor.

As for your comment about doing it because others are doing it, you might need to clarify that one. I'm not sure what you mean.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

then the question is why?

I've cracked jokes about blacks, asians, Irish, Jews, Babptist, Catholics, Arabs, French, Mexicans, and almost every single group. Why? They're funny.

Why did I crack Scientology jokes with my friends a couple of weeks ago? Was it because South Park did it? No, we just wanted to.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

On the other hand, if someone is racist, should they not be labelled so?

They have been, and still have free speech. Remember the church that says, "God hates fags" and protests at soldiers funerals saying they got what they deserved?

What about the KKK and their rallies about an all white nation in New Orleans and they're protected by black police?

Do they have the right to free speech? Yes.
Is it fair? No.
What can you do? Turn around and protest at them. Exercise your right of free speech.

Now it gets bad when you go to protest at their church or house and somebody steps in and says, "wait, they're a minority and you're in the majority, that's unfair so you can't do that".

The exact same thing can be said if you just replace the above with race and religion.

[drunken monkey]

about the broad listener base; it goes back to what I say about the type of people who listen.
Let's take a hypothetical trip.

Radioshow A has a huge fanbase but occasionally has off hand remarks that are definitely below the belt. Because of this, it developes a reputation that automatically deters certain groups from listening; those groups usually being related to those below the belt comments.
Why would regular listeners of that show complain if they aren't the ones being "targeted"?

You comment about it being "sophomoric" kinda worries me because that suggests that it is almost part of your culture to make racially offensive remarks as long as it is in jest.
The problem with this is that "jest" then becomes a buy out clause if you're ever questioned about it. This makes it a tool for those who really are racist/prejudiced.

as for the last bit, i have no idea anymore.
it made sense when i typed it.
the thought has escaped me.....

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

What about the KKK and their rallies about an all white nation in New Orleans and they're protected by black police?

Do they have the right to free speech? Yes.
Is it fair? No.
What can you do? Turn around and protest at them. Exercise your right of free speech.

Now it gets bad when you go to protest at their church or house and somebody steps in and says, "wait, they're a minority and you're in the majority, that's unfair so you can't do that".

The exact same thing can be said if you just replace the above with race and religion.

that is a very good point.
I guess i'm too hung up on social obligations.

[lv_sinnerz]

Originally Posted by Gohan Ryu

"Selective" free speech isn't free speech at all. Might as well be living in the former Soviet Union if we're going to be practicing that kind of censorship and still try to call it free speech. Americans also have to freedom to choose what radio stations to listen to...don't like what you hear on one station? CHANGE THE FREAKING CHANNEL! Just because you don't like something you hear doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. Quit trying to change the US to conform to your ideal - your ideal is BORING.

The real problem here: those asians who are insulted by this can't take a joke. Granted, it is not a very funny joke - it's more like a prank a 15 year old might pull with his friends. For two "professional entertainers" to do it is kind of sad. But it is just a sad joke that got blown way out of proportion by a group of whining maggots whose feathers get ruffled by the slightest breeze.

Tell that to christian conservatives who would rather we be back in the "good ol' times" when a woman's place was in the kitchen, rather than the workforce, gays and other "unholy" groups would be segregated, and "God forbid" should someone not practice religion in their view.

As for selective free speech, it's just as wrong as censoring speech in any way, shape, or form. Do I think racial comments should be protected under the 1st amendment? Of course not. However, as someone pointed out, if you don't like it, change the channel. Though if we're going to start banning stations, certain radio celebs, and others, we might as well make a permanent law stating if you can't say something nice, don't say it all. You know what that would lead to? Pretty much EVERYONE in this country would be guilty of breaking that law at some point or another. Don't tell me no one here has ever made a comment, whether racial or not, that hurt someone. That's like proclaiming yourself to be Jesus Christ.

Here's a really good idea, GROW UP and take it like an adult. People who whine and complain about... well, anything, are throwing the adult equivalent of a temper tantrum when someone says something that they may not like personally. If you really are that easily offended, then might I suggest you KEEP YOUR ASS at home, turn off all electronic devices (errr that would include a radio, tv, and cell phone), and live like an F___ing hermit for all I care.

[drunken monkey]

not meaning to be nit picking but why did you choose to self censor?

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

not meaning to be nit picking but why did you choose to self censor?

It offends me.