« Tucker Carlson's new game show | Main | Ezra Klein gives Fox News a bum rap »

April 16, 2007

Comments

We've been talking about how Jackson and Sharpton have now been getting death threats over Imus on the Highbrid Nation website and it got me thinking. Sharpton and Jackson may need to stop tryin to speak on behalf on all black people. I'm starting to feel like that are very out of touch with the average black person. Especially Sharpton who I feel is a joke.

You're absolutely right that the First Amendment relates only to action by the federal government and, by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment, action by state and local governments and their instrumentalities, such as public schools and public universities.

Having watched the talking heads speaking this weekend about the Imus firing, I'm bemused that some of the same people who thought the firing of Imus was just good old market forces at work were outraged when good old market forces were punishing the Dixie Chicks for what they'd said. I know that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but is it too much to expect that our pundits would have a little splainin' to do when they do a 180?

Brendan, I believe that "Free Speech" as principle is different from "Free Speech" as (the codified right written in) law.

I do not believe that all these commentators and writers called into question the unconstitutionality of Imus' firing, but rather saying that amongst their circles- this type of speech is acceptable. Personally, I would even find this latter defense even more deplorable.

Yet if in fact you are right, and they are utilizing the rhetoric of constitutionality, then they are not only morally repugnant for defending Imus' language, but also cheap in their sophistic tactics.

I can't help but remind myself of Chomsky's defense of Faurisson. Except defending Faurisson was a defense of his LEGAL rights, rather it sounds that these individuals believe that "nappy-headed-hos" is not outside of the limits of our acceptable political discourse.

Just another interpretation.

(And may our thoughts be with the Virgina Tech Campus)

Imus has always been foul and personally I never listen to him. This is not a 1st Amendment issue, it is an issue of who advertisers will choose to keep on the air. The 1st Amendment was never intended to provide a free pulpit; Imus was yammering on the dime that paid his salary and miscalculated so badly that his employers got nervous about their bottom line and decided to get a new yammer-boy. So what? This is not Peter Zenger we are talking about here; it is a vile little bottom feeder carefully chosen to appeal to the lowest commom denominator of humanity.

(In case you did not know it Peter Zenger is the reason we HAVE a 1st Amendment.)

The amount of energy being expended on Imus just goes to show how schlocky those in the mainstream media really are. But since so many, for instance, John Fund, are there to distract attention from real issues, that is not surprising.

Hi Brendan:

Yes, people have a tendncy to confuse FREE-speech and FEE-speech, like the kind afforded to shock jocks.

Best--
Lou

The comments to this entry are closed.