sharkboy13
Active Member
i just heard he got taken off the air, whats evrybodys opinions?
imus taken off the air, ur opinions?
- Thread starter sharkboy13
- Start date
lovethesea
Active Member
welcome to the slippery slope of wiping out our 1st amendment right.
(not condoning what he said)
(not condoning what he said)
renogaw
Active Member
Originally Posted by lovethesea
welcome to the slippery slope of wiping out our 1st amendment right.
(not condoning what he said)
actually, our first amendment right is freedom of speech from persecution from the government. it has nothing at all to do with privately owned entities.
welcome to the slippery slope of wiping out our 1st amendment right.
(not condoning what he said)
actually, our first amendment right is freedom of speech from persecution from the government. it has nothing at all to do with privately owned entities.
reefkprz
Active Member
Imus was a schmuck but he did what he was paid to do. shock and offend. I guess he just did his job too well. (I dont know what he said and dont really care didnt like him before still dont) if he pissed off a bunch of people he did what he was supposed to do. you cant hire someone and say "be a shock jock, but dont step on anyones toes." the radio station should have had more controll over the content of his show. its their fault not his they hired him. and he's still a schmuck.
renogaw
Active Member
totally a schmuck. he was totally offensive, and yes that's what he was paid to do. he's so offensive to other races, but for this to blow up a day after (not even the same day), once the media and Sharpton/Jackson got involved, it just started going down hill. The rutgers team didnt even know he said it until 2 (TWO!!!) days later. now one of them is "scarred for life". give me a friggin break.
cowfishrule
Active Member
(desperatly trying to keep this clean)
its total bs that he got fired
msnbc and cbs have no guts.
just proves that our rights are slowly being taken away from us.
this just proved that your free speech right to hurt somebody's feelings has been taken away.
the girls did nothing to deserve any of this, and i feel for them, but its not about the kids anymore. this was a witchhunt against imus, and it also was against rush limbaugh when he worked for espn (look it up).
ok, i just threw something against the wall because i am so aggrivated.
i am walking away from this before i get myself banned from here.
its total bs that he got fired
msnbc and cbs have no guts.
just proves that our rights are slowly being taken away from us.
this just proved that your free speech right to hurt somebody's feelings has been taken away.
the girls did nothing to deserve any of this, and i feel for them, but its not about the kids anymore. this was a witchhunt against imus, and it also was against rush limbaugh when he worked for espn (look it up).
ok, i just threw something against the wall because i am so aggrivated.
i am walking away from this before i get myself banned from here.
renogaw
Active Member
this has NOTHING to do with the first amendment. if you dont know what it is, this is it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
you have no right to say something offensive about someone.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
you have no right to say something offensive about someone.
reefkprz
Active Member
its a slippery slope: we make laws to protect peoples rights but how do you protect one persons rights without infringing upon another. there is no perfect answer.
Solomon Short once said "A problem can be found for almost every solution"
and its true, no matter what rules/laws are passed some one is always stuck with the shorter straw.
Solomon Short once said "A problem can be found for almost every solution"
and its true, no matter what rules/laws are passed some one is always stuck with the shorter straw.
Originally Posted by renogaw
this has NOTHING to do with the first amendment. if you dont know what it is, this is it:
you have no right to say something offensive about someone.
You actually have every right to say something offensive. However, a business is under no obligation to keep an employee that is costing them money. With all the sponsors that dropped their advertising, this whole thing cost CBS somewhere around 15 million a year.
I still think the whole thing is a crock though. Sharpton and Jackson are so busy demanding an apology and a boycott of him, but when are they planning on apologizing for the Tawana Brawley thing and for all the accusations they leveled at the Duke lacrosse players. Such a double standard...
this has NOTHING to do with the first amendment. if you dont know what it is, this is it:
you have no right to say something offensive about someone.
You actually have every right to say something offensive. However, a business is under no obligation to keep an employee that is costing them money. With all the sponsors that dropped their advertising, this whole thing cost CBS somewhere around 15 million a year.
I still think the whole thing is a crock though. Sharpton and Jackson are so busy demanding an apology and a boycott of him, but when are they planning on apologizing for the Tawana Brawley thing and for all the accusations they leveled at the Duke lacrosse players. Such a double standard...
jessi p
Member
I think that J Jackson and A Sharpton are more racist than Imus. The man called those girls nothing worse than they are called by black rappers every day. Not saying he had the right to say what he did, but he shouldn't lose his job for saying something that other black rappers have said many times. Just where did Imus hear the expression in the first place, I wonder? And lets not forget the Imus ranch, where cancer ridden children can come to go horseback riding and forget about their cancer for a short time. Anyone who does such things for sick kids gets a nod in my book.
renogaw
Active Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
You actually have every right to say something offensive.
You do not have the right to say something offensive--where in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the Amendments does it say this?
You may have the freedom to say what ever you want, but if you offend someone else you can get sued, fired, censored, etc. if you had "the right" to say these things, you wouldn't be able to have these things done to you.
You actually have every right to say something offensive.
You do not have the right to say something offensive--where in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the Amendments does it say this?
You may have the freedom to say what ever you want, but if you offend someone else you can get sued, fired, censored, etc. if you had "the right" to say these things, you wouldn't be able to have these things done to you.
johnbob
Member
I agree that Imus' producer should have been fired and that rappers should clean thier lyrics up, but they use the word ho in a completly different context then Imus did. They might say in their lyrics they hate hos or something along those lines but I've never heard a rapper point out a select group of people and call them hos.
rylan1
Active Member
I think that there is a difference b/w rappers or any type of media that you have to buy or subscribe to. If we censor rappers and this type of music it discriminates on the basis of free speech. And since you have to purchase it, this should not be an issue. With Imus he is on a national syndicated show that is available to all on radio. This means that his speech needs to be censored like everything else that comes over the airwaves on FM/AM radio. Take for example Tim Hardaway (former NBA player) who was on the radio and said some bad remarks about gay people...He was also fired. I think this was the right move. What I don't like is the delay of MSNBC. They hestitated and didn't act until they felt it in their pockets...and I do commend the sponsors who were in the front and pulled their ads.
reefkprz
Active Member
I agree with that to a point, the rap music is still played on the radio with a few bleeps but the general derogatory nature with out the worst singular words still get through, you dont have to buy the music you hear on the radio. true the advertizers generally pick wich music type to associate with unless they pay for ads on a conglomerate like clear channel or something similar (I'm not sure about whether they pick stations or not) so basicly by association if Imus's actual bad word was bleeped the derogatory comment would be ok, (as we are using rap music as a comparison). therefore the station should be held responsible again and not Imus for beign a schmuck.
pontius
Active Member
first, CBS is not a privately owned company as mentioned by someone above, it is a publicly owned company. the board of directors, I assume, have the right to fire him. though I don't know the specifics of his contract, I know he broke no laws. I also don't believe he committed any FCC violations (ie "the 7 dirty words). therefore, he is probably going to be paid his entire salary from CBS, or he will very likely sue and win big. not only is being offensive not a crime, it's not against FCC regulations either. so really, unless there were some clause written into his contract, I don't see what grounds they had to fire him. like someone else said, he was doing exactly what he was hired to do.....shock and offend.
CBS and MSNBC fired him because of Jackson and Sharpton's racketeering. they go around to companies and threaten to yell "racist! racist!" unless they get what they want. that is how they have made their millions, and that is how Imus was fired. that is the very definition of "racketeering". if you don't believe me, look it up. how they've never been convicted shows the double standard. if you're an Italian racketeer, you get called "don" and get to spend the rest of your days in federal prison. but if you're a black racketeer, you get called "Reverend" and get to make millions.
EDIT: what I meant in the first paragraph by privately owned vs. pubicly owned.....by working for a pubicly owned company, he IS protected by the first amendment and subject to the FCC regulations, which he did not violate as far as I know. so his firing would have to come down to what is written in his contract. otherwise, I don't think publicly owned company would have grounds to fire him.
CBS and MSNBC fired him because of Jackson and Sharpton's racketeering. they go around to companies and threaten to yell "racist! racist!" unless they get what they want. that is how they have made their millions, and that is how Imus was fired. that is the very definition of "racketeering". if you don't believe me, look it up. how they've never been convicted shows the double standard. if you're an Italian racketeer, you get called "don" and get to spend the rest of your days in federal prison. but if you're a black racketeer, you get called "Reverend" and get to make millions.
EDIT: what I meant in the first paragraph by privately owned vs. pubicly owned.....by working for a pubicly owned company, he IS protected by the first amendment and subject to the FCC regulations, which he did not violate as far as I know. so his firing would have to come down to what is written in his contract. otherwise, I don't think publicly owned company would have grounds to fire him.
Originally Posted by renogaw
You do not have the right to say something offensive--where in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the Amendments does it say this?
You may have the freedom to say what ever you want, but if you offend someone else you can get sued, fired, censored, etc. if you had "the right" to say these things, you wouldn't be able to have these things done to you.
The first amendment grants you the right to say anything you want. I"m not saying that there arent consequences to saying what you want, but you do have the right to say it.
You do not have the right to say something offensive--where in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the Amendments does it say this?
You may have the freedom to say what ever you want, but if you offend someone else you can get sued, fired, censored, etc. if you had "the right" to say these things, you wouldn't be able to have these things done to you.
The first amendment grants you the right to say anything you want. I"m not saying that there arent consequences to saying what you want, but you do have the right to say it.
miaheatlvr
Active Member
Well Pontius, I dont see this thread going anywhere, so therefore im gonna close it! Oh wait IM NOT A MODERATOR! lol lol
Originally Posted by Pontius
first, CBS is not a privately owned company as mentioned by someone above, it is a publicly owned company. the board of directors, I assume, have the right to fire him. though I don't know the specifics of his contract, I know he broke no laws. I also don't believe he committed any FCC violations (ie "the 7 dirty words). therefore, he is probably going to be paid his entire salary from CBS, or he will very likely sue and win big. not only is being offensive not a crime, it's not against FCC regulations either. so really, unless there were some clause written into his contract, I don't see what grounds they had to fire him. like someone else said, he was doing exactly what he was hired to do.....shock and offend.
CBS and MSNBC fired him because of Jackson and Sharpton's racketeering. they go around to companies and threaten to yell "racist! racist!" unless they get what they want. that is how they have made their millions, and that is how Imus was fired. that is the very definition of "racketeering". if you don't believe me, look it up. how they've never been convicted shows the double standard. if you're an Italian racketeer, you get called "don" and get to spend the rest of your days in federal prison. but if you're a black racketeer, you get called "Reverend" and get to make millions.
EDIT: what I meant in the first paragraph by privately owned vs. pubicly owned.....by working for a pubicly owned company, he IS protected by the first amendment and subject to the FCC regulations, which he did not violate as far as I know. so his firing would have to come down to what is written in his contract. otherwise, I don't think publicly owned company would have grounds to fire him.
Originally Posted by Pontius
first, CBS is not a privately owned company as mentioned by someone above, it is a publicly owned company. the board of directors, I assume, have the right to fire him. though I don't know the specifics of his contract, I know he broke no laws. I also don't believe he committed any FCC violations (ie "the 7 dirty words). therefore, he is probably going to be paid his entire salary from CBS, or he will very likely sue and win big. not only is being offensive not a crime, it's not against FCC regulations either. so really, unless there were some clause written into his contract, I don't see what grounds they had to fire him. like someone else said, he was doing exactly what he was hired to do.....shock and offend.
CBS and MSNBC fired him because of Jackson and Sharpton's racketeering. they go around to companies and threaten to yell "racist! racist!" unless they get what they want. that is how they have made their millions, and that is how Imus was fired. that is the very definition of "racketeering". if you don't believe me, look it up. how they've never been convicted shows the double standard. if you're an Italian racketeer, you get called "don" and get to spend the rest of your days in federal prison. but if you're a black racketeer, you get called "Reverend" and get to make millions.
EDIT: what I meant in the first paragraph by privately owned vs. pubicly owned.....by working for a pubicly owned company, he IS protected by the first amendment and subject to the FCC regulations, which he did not violate as far as I know. so his firing would have to come down to what is written in his contract. otherwise, I don't think publicly owned company would have grounds to fire him.