Were you linking to , from somewhere? I ask because your link in the post is not working.

Trying again: link!

Hmmm....

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/04/13/the_imus_lynch_party

I just got done posting the same cartoon. Great minds think alike!!

Of course, Dee! :)


Will fix the link when I get back from Baltimore, Word.

I agree that Imus didn't deserve the firing, but there is no issue of free speech, here. For better or worse, Imus was the victim of the free market, who didn't want to be associated with the scandal. Once the advertisers were scared off, the show was done for. Imus had been doing the same show, insulting damned near everyone, for more than 30 years. I'm amazed that anyone, from his listeners to his employers to his advertisers, could claim to be shocked at finding out he said nasty things on the air. It wasn't like that was anything new.

I was never offended by Imus, but I could see where others could be. And once enough folks were suitably outraged, the market--not political correctness--took over. Buchanan may have a point, but the cartoon is misstating the facts.

As to whether it'll spread, well, there are folks on the air who have offended me, and I'm going to renew my efforts to be sure their advertisers & employers are aware of it, just as every citizen should.

A free market, that you yourself have claimed has known for years about his shock-jock value? You can't have it both ways, repsac. Can 'market forces' now be directed to remove Rosie, as shocking and revolting as Imus, off the air? Will you be renewing your efforts to make the advertisers and employers aware of it?, I wonder.

I'm not asking to have it both ways. I'm sure that if Rosie offends enough people, she will have to go, just like Imus & others before him. As I said above, I don't think Imus deserved the punishment he got, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to speak up when I believe someone is being offensive. I hope that everyone does. I'm far less concerned with comedians who offhandedly say something stupid, than media opinioneers who claim to mean every word they say. If someone else believes Rosie is the biggest threat to civil discourse, more power to 'em, but like Imus, she doesn't offend me.

My point was, the Imus situation has nothing to do with free speech. The government had no role in removing him from any airwaves. Imus is free to get up on any soapbox he can find, and say anything his heart desires. Unless he's using someone else's soapbox, no one's going to stop him. His right to free speech remains as intact as the day he spoke his first word. He never had a right to remain employed.

Your right to publicly speak your opinion has not been taken away, yet. Imus will most likely find another radio station and continue his brand of shock radio. Only oppressive regimes link the right of free speech to the 'right' of employment/ and or life.

"As to whether it'll spread, well, there are folks on the air who have offended me, and I'm going to renew my efforts to be sure their advertisers & employers are aware of it, just as every citizen should."

Using economic forces as a weapon to supress the freedom of speech was a tactic employeed by the German Socialist Workers Party back in the day. I'm relived that so far we have not created a government so inclined. We are close, too close to repeating this brutal mistake which apparently has the full blessing of US liberals.

I do not understand why you're linking the right of free speech with anything that happened to Don Imus. One might have a case for calling it political correctness--there is a line between "offended" and "thin-skinned," and I suppose there may be folks who believe the Rutgers girls and the rest who didn't approve of hearing 'em called "NHH's" were just being overly sensitive--but I don't see where anyone's right to anything plays into the story.

Take a different example. A few years back, one of the broadcast networks tried to air a docudrama about Reagan that wasn't factually accurate. Just like with Imus, media personalities got involved & ginned up letter-writing & phone campaigns aimed at the station & the sponsors of the program. In the end, the Reagan docudrama was pulled from the broadcast network & aired on their cable affiliate, instead. Assuming Imus finds another job, I don't see how this situation is all that different--in fact, some might argue that Imus's offense was worse, & thus his removal from commercial broadcast airwaves more justified--and see no violation of any rights in either story. The people (some small, some more powerful) spoke, and the advertisers & stations listened, yielding largely to economic forces. If you believe economic forces were used as a weapon to suppress freedom of speech in either case, you'll have to explain further, because I don't see it. (I might also question why you even mention liberals, as though good-hearted Cons were not similarly offended by Imus... or the Reagan drama, for that matter.)

NHH? You are referring to Nappy Headed Ho's? So what, I'm sure they have been called worse in their brief lives.

Not sure if you would be open to learning about the role of economic sanctions and free speech. One cannot teach the willfully ignorant.

"It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves," says Sharpton. It says something about America that someone with Al's track record can claim the role of national censor.

Who is next? And why do we take it? Note that Sharpton is a staunch supporter of the DNC.

Fascism 101 otherwise known as the DNC playbook - What you disagree with, must be removed from public consumption. Fascism 101: Take the case of the NJ Democratic councilwomen who proposed a ban on the sale of Anne Coulter best-seller Godless. A democratic government official attempting to limit free speech.

As you stated the Reagan mocumentary was still aired, one can't say the same for Imus or for the intentions of the NJ Democratic councilwomen.

Economic blackmail as well as political pull are the tools used quite often by liberals to stifle free speech.

Re NHH: I'll put you in the group that says it was all about thin skin, then. That's ok... It's a valid position. (I disagree, but see no reason to argue about it...)

Your argument about the Reagan doc is at odds with your argument about Sharpton & Imus.

Your Reagan Doc theory says it's all about the ends: Reagan aired, even if it was off broadcast tv, whereas Imus didn't continue to air, at all.

Your Sharpton theory on the other hand, claims it's all about the means: Sharpton's wanted Imus gone, & spoke out to make it happen. (That was censorship, or otherwise somehow bad.) Hannity wanted the Reagan doc gone, & spoke out to make it happen. (Wouldn't that be censorship & bad, as well?) Sharpton got what he wanted, & Hannity did not, but they both did the same thing by trying to end the airing of their targets, didn't they?)

And doesn't your "Reagan Doc" theory fall apart if Imus is hired by XM radio or anywhere else? I mean, if they both end up on the air, what's the difference between 'em, right? I'd have to look, but I'm pretty sure the Reagan doc aired on cable later than it would've on the broadcast network, since there wasn't an open spot in the cable station's lineup. It really wouldn't be all that different, at all... ...assuming Imus gets hired elsewhere, I mean...

I agree wholeheartedly about the NJ councilwoman & the Coulter book. She (the councilwoman) was wrong the minute she tried to make it a government issue. Speaking out against it without proposing anything would've been fine. Proposing that NJ council folks vote on it wasn't.

Warning: (I'm too pooped this eve, but I plan to google for any similar acts by Republicans. And if (when) I find any, it'll only prove that there are censorship loving asses in both major parties. It WON'T prove that either or both parties are Fascist censors.) You'll need at least a simple majority of a party acting that way, to meet that burdon of proof.

As promised, similar acts by Republicans:

“Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.”

“Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple" has lesbian characters.

Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/eveningnews/main691106.shtml

---------------------------
“The latest assault on cable TV’s creative freedom comes from octogenarian Republican Senator Ted Stevens, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Stevens and his committee are considering a censorious House-passed “indecency” bill regulating radio and TV broadcasters — legislation cooked up in the wake of the furor over Janet Jackson’s boob flash during the Super Bowl. And now, the weighty senator wants to extend its provisions — including a draconian new government-imposed ratings system. With an ironclad Republican Senate majority, Stevens usually gets what he wants.”

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/censor-alert/806/

------------------------
Republican: Scripts need reviewing

“Citing the controversy surrounding the Dakota Fanning film Hounddog, the leader of the state Senate Republicans says he wants the government to review scripts before cameras start rolling in North Carolina.

That system, said state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, would apply only to films seeking the state's lucrative filmmaker incentive, which refunds as much as 15 percent of what productions spend in North Carolina from the state treasury.

"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" said Berger, who is having proposed legislation drafted.”

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWS/701260363

----------------------------------

As with the Democrat you mentioned above, I blame the individual lawmakers, & not the party.

You DID blame the party, when the censor was a Democrat. Will you do the same regarding the Republicans?

Another question.

Ms. Coulter's book remained on sale in NJ.
If the Reagan doc "censorship" was inconsequential because the doc still aired, wouldn't the councilwoman's censorship be inconsequential too, because the book remained on sale?

Just looking for a consistant & intellectually honest position, here...

Perhaps you just enjoy the sound of your own bloviations?

There is nothing intellectual or honest in your response, except to cherry pick and manipulate stories to suit your argument. Did you graduate from the Moore school of debating?

Interesting choices you have chosen to highlight. The Dakota Fanning film, Houndog, where Fanning plays a child who is raped and repeatedly appears in scenes naked or clad in underwear. Is this art or pedophilia? I know a democrat Senator from West VA that would LOVE this movie. Why are taxdollars being spent on movie sets? I have no issue with the state making objections to a film that they are financing - executive producers are well known to demand the same review as the lawmakers of South Carolina. That is just the nature of the business.

State Senator Allen's bill: apparently there was no time left to debate the bill and it died the death. At least this Senator is not a Klan member, like Senator Bob 'Sheets' Byrd.

Actually, it was TWO NJ Councilwomyn who demanded Coulter's book to be banned in NJ.

As for the means of censorship: Sharpton used his well-honed shakedown tactics to have Imus permanently removed from the airwaves; a similar, but unsuccessful tactic was employed by lawyers representing Bill Clinton in his objection to ABC/Disney documentary 'The Path To 9/11.'

" We've obtained a copy of the letter, and it reads in part: "As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. `The Path to 9/11' not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/09/in_new_letter_clintons_lawyer_demands_abc_yank_film

But wait, there is more: Liberal groups and a democratic New York State assemblymen lobbied for the censorship of 'The Passion of Christ. Liberals who defended the right to exhibit Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ," which deeply offended orthodox Christians, demanded censorship of "The Passion of Christ."

It is ALL about censorship for liberals, using either shakedown tactics or political influence to reach the end goal of silencing your ideological opponent. I've given you ample examples of both tactics which one encounters within a liberal democrat population. Online arguments typically have the left leaning opponent screeching how the conservatives are suppressing free speech. Censorship and the means to achieve it are fully owned by democrats and liberals.

Turns out I made an error... Unlike my Republican examples, your two NJ Democrats never did try to pass a resolution in the NJ Assembly. All they did was issue a press release:
---------
"No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter's book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves."
---------

That's using your voice, not your political office. I disapprove of their using the word "ban" in the original press release (which they changed to "boycott, pretty quickly), but that isn't censorship. They didn't make anything illegal, or even try to pass a resolution. All they did was speak out against something that offended them. (Which was Ann’s characterization of grieving widows from their state of NJ, & not Ann's politics... ...though they probably found her politics offensive, as well.)

"There is nothing intellectual or honest in your response, except to cherry pick and manipulate stories to suit your argument."

I did cherry pick stories that showed Republicans using their office to censor books and movies they did not approve of. But I don't see how that's any different from your cherry picked Democratic examples of legislators, and you fail to explain why it is, either. (& At least I admit that the Democrats--along with the Republicans--are doing something wrong in censoring these things.) Please explain how I manipulated the stories, though...

"State Senator Allen's bill: apparently there was no time left to debate the bill and it died the death. At least this Senator is not a Klan member, like Senator Bob 'Sheets' Byrd."

We're back to this again...

Is it censorship if you *try* to pass a law against certain books & movies, or only if you *successfully* pass a law against them? I say its censorship from the moment you propose the bill... (I've no idea why you brought up Sen. Byrd or the Klan. They don't have anything to do with the issue we're talking about.)

"Sharpton used his well-honed shakedown tactics to have Imus permanently removed from the airwaves"

Yeah... He talked about it a lot... He asked others to write letters & make calls. He met with the people who had the power to do what he wanted done. Hannity did almost all of the same things as regards the Reagan doc. (He probably didn't have the pull to get the meetings.)
--

I have no problem with the lawyers for Clinton asking that the Path to 9/11 be pulled. That's not censorship, which is GOVERNMENT removal of works of art (books, movies, paintings,) they did not have the force of the state behind them. They were speaking out against something that offended them, which is an absolute right (& I would argue, a duty). Lawyers for the Reagan's talked to CBS about offenses in that movie, as well...

You bring up a very good juxtaposition between the two movies purporting to tell stories of Christ. Both were picketed & denounced, and in both cases, religious people were offended. While Christians lauded the Passion, Jews were offended by it. Perhaps a little Shakespeare would be appropriate here:
------------------
Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

Merchant of Venice, Act III, scene I
----------------

Why you care so much about how the Christians were offended by Temptation, but fail to have the same care for Jews offended by Passion, I do not know... I suspect partisanship, and not anti-Semitism, but just the same, I'd consider that before making similar claims in future. Some might not be as understanding of your willingness to say anything that'll put Liberals in a bad light, even things that may sound a little insensitive...

I don't think you've proved your point one whit. No one tried to silence anyone for ideological motives, not even in the Republican examples I provided. In every case it was about offensiveness; racial, sexual, & religious offensiveness. Some tried to stop those things that offended them by proposing law, statute, or resolution; that was censorship. Others simply used their voices and asked for the changes they wanted. I have no issue with that -- not even in those cases where I did not agree with the decision, like Imus or the Reagan doc -- and wonder why you would...

I know you'll probably keep making these same claims, regardless. But as long as you cry censorship when liberals speak out to stop offensive speech, and overlook conservatives trying to pass laws to stop offensive speech, you're missing the boat on censorship & being blinded by partisanship.

Anyone, Republican or Democrat, who's passing laws to restrict or eliminate speech is being a censor; anyone, Republican or Democrat, speaking out to persuade folks to boycott or rally against offensive speech is just being a good citizen.

I think it'd be unfair not to give you an opportunity to respond.

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Free Speech, Imus, & the Free Market

http://batnutz.blogspot.com/2007/04/free-speech-imus-free-market.html

You're a time waster repsac.

You have yet to make a direct response to anyone's statement that didn't involve more wiffling and waffling than Aunt Jemima at pancake breakfast.

But here goes ONE MORE TIME:
I posted this in response:

I often forget that not everyone has had the benefit of an education in political philosophy as I have.

So when I read statements like "How is asking for a certain level of behavior an offense to free speech" I need to keep that in mind.

First of all, only political speech is protected by the Constitution. As far as the rest, anything goes.

If people want to boycott or change the channel it's their right.

But that's not the problem here. The problem is that a select group of persons has now decided what speech is permissible and what is not.

That is what Skye means with the comparison to facism.

Who decides what is right or wrong? Do you? And if you do, are you permitted to impose your values on me?

I'm sure you'll just wiffle and waffle all over that one rather than face up to the heart of the issue. A tactic which I find very annoying so henceforth it is banned.

P.S. While we're at it, shouldn't conservatives have the same access to the Public Broadcasting System as Bill Moyers or do you admit that only liberals should have free speech rights subsidized by the taxpayer?

You have yet to provide an example of that waffling...

How elitist, letting me know of your special education. (and congratulations on being so darn smart.)

One of us is arguing the wrong side... It's my position that the whole Imus situation ISN'T a free speech issue. That's why I posted here & on your blog in the first place. I came here wondering why Skye has that cartoon up top, there (which to me shows FREE SPEECH being dictated by political correctness), and why you said "The lovers of FREE SPEECH, diversity and tolerance are at it again!" as regards the MediaMatters list of other people who've said similarly offensive things.
I don't think either has anything to do with free speech. If you don't either, we don't have much to talk about. (But then, you might want to reconsider the FREE SPEECH line you posted.)

I don't understand... Is it only ok to boycott if you do it on your own, & not ok if it's a coordinated effort? (People were threatening to boycott Imus' sponsors. The sponsors pulled out. Without the sponsors, the stations had no choice but to let Imus go...)

A select group of people make decisions like this frequently. Congress. The FCC. Film critics. Neilson families. All of 'em have some measure of control over what you see & hear, and you don't get nearly the imput on the subject that they do. In this case, it was a whole bunch of offended people. The only reason you (& I, for that matter) weren't in that select group, is you weren't offended, or offended enough to act.

We decide what's right & wrong. If it's just you who's offended by something, it's likely nothing'll happen... But if it's you and a few thousand others, your voice will carry more weight, and something (reprimand, suspension, firing) will happen to appease those voices. As sad as it is, most of our writers, speakers, commentators, and performers are not much different from dish soap. If people don't buy it (whatever the reason), it's replaced with a new (& hopefully better) version. The folks that bring you those writers... know that, and respond to the wishes & wants of their consumer base.

Yes, conservatives should have the same access to PBS as Bill Moyers. But don't tell me... Tell PBS... I'll be writing letters telling them how happy I am happy with Mr. Moyers, and that I want more programing like him. (The Wall Street Journal editors had a show on PBS, didn't they? What happened to it?)

Not that long ago, things were looking good for Cons, PBS-wise...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8067-2005Apr21.html

What happened?
Oh yeah... Tomlinson was doing unethical things to push his agenda as head of the Corp. for Public Broadcasting board.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302235.html

I would think if you stood by your principles you would write PBS and tell them to put Rush Limbaugh on for every hour that Bill Moyers gets.

And at the same rate of pay (which would be a huge pay cut for Limbaugh).

Now, where's the maple syrup?

P.S. I can see why you might think Tomlinson's efforts to prove liberal bias at PBS were "unethical."

I'm sure you think that all conservatives are unethical and shouldn't have the same rights to free speech as libs.

Mike sez: "I would think if you stood by your principles you would write PBS and tell them to put Rush Limbaugh on for every hour that Bill Moyers gets. And at the same rate of pay (which would be a huge pay cut for Limbaugh)."
----------------

First off, why are you changing the subject from Imus & any free speech implications, to political or ideological balance in the media?

What makes you think I'm the arbiter of balance in the media? What principle did I express here or anywhere else that leads you to this conclusion?

Why should I be?

Why would you trust my opinion about what "balance" is anyway, when you don't seem to trust me to know what I think is and isn't "offensive" or "right & wrong," and tell stations about that?

Why didn't you address any of my other points from the previous post?

These and other questions answered nex... ...well no, they'll probably never be answered...
-----

Then he sez: "P.S. I can see why you might think Tomlinson's efforts to prove liberal bias at PBS were "unethical."
I'm sure you think that all conservatives are unethical and shouldn't have the same rights to free speech as libs."

Did you read the article, Mike? It isn't me saying Tomlinson acted unethically. It's the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's inspector general. I pasted an excerpt, below.

Again, what was it I've said here or anywhere else that causes you to "be sure I think all conservatives are unethical and shouldn't have the same rights to free speech as libs?" I really don't think you have a basis by which to think that of me. (Now, this is where our buddy FN would ask me to prove I don't think that, as though I can prove this or any other negative statement. The onus is on you to prove your statement's true, not on me to prove it's false. Same with his anti-war = anti-American charge. He won't prove he's right, but wants me to prove he's wrong)
---------------------------

"The CPB's inspector general has been investigating Tomlinson's practice of using agency money to hire consultants and lobbyists without notifying the agency's board. Tomlinson last year hired a little-known Indiana consultant to study the political leanings of guests on such programs as "Now With Bill Moyers" and "The Diane Rehm Show" on National Public Radio. He also hired lobbyists to defeat legislation that would have changed how CPB's board is structured."

"The inspector, Kenneth Konz, also had been looking into whether Tomlinson violated agency procedures in his recruiting of former Republican National Committee co-chairman Patricia de Stacy Harrison to be CPB's chief executive, and into possible White House influence in the hiring of two in-house ombudsmen to critique news programs on NPR and PBS."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302235.html
-------------------------

Well Batnutz,

Liberalism is unethical, it is in their nature as defined by the 25 planks of the Socialist party of Germany.

Looks as though Imus is having the last word, will he get the 40 million owed to him, I wonder?

Yeah ancoraimparo, we were discussing that crazy "Liberals are Nazis" theory of yours once upon a time, weren't we? What ever happened to that?

I hope Imus wins the lawsuit. He deserves every penny. The guy was shafted by CBS radio. He wasn't robbed of his free speech, though.