Censorship for criticising Bush

[BobG]

I think people misunderstand what we mean by freedom of speech. Essentially, the *government* cannot prohibit certain views from being aired. This amendment has little to do with the private sector.

All you have to do is think about this logically. If you walked into your boss' office and called him a lousy jerk, should he not be able to fire you? If you are working on the Kerry campaign and you stated publically that you are a Bush supporter, can they not dismiss you?

Another example: If a public school teacher tries to indoctrinate his students into a certain political view, they should be fired. (At the university level, things are a little different.)

In fact, Scharzenegger fired one of his campaign advisors because he espoused certain views on taxation that were contrary to his campaign platform.

Just think about it.

True, but what if the Pope excommunicated Kerry for his views on abortion? Or if your boss penalised you for saying (or posting) something political during office hours? I would agree that having an entertainer use the stage as a soap box isn't what most people call entertainment - especially if you don't agree with the views, as in the case of the Dixie Chicks' audience - but the penalty should fit the 'crime'. Let the audience vote with their feet.

There's a fuzzy line on these and I'm not sure either of you have it quite right.

The average person only needs to separate work from non-work.

Yes, your boss can fire you for disrupting the work environment with issues that have no relevance to your work. Actively campaigning for one of the candidates or trying to recruit members into your religion could both fall into this category.

No, your boss can't fire you for your political or religous views, even if you advocate those views publicly outside of work, UNLESS you're also making an effort to let everyone know who you work for when you air those views. You don't have the right to represent the company or use them in your views (neither positively nor negatively).

A Kerry campaigner couldn't be fired for being a Bush supporter, but he could be fired for standing in the Kerry campaign office and saying he was a Bush supporter on TV. He's actively damaging the efforts the office is trying to accomplish.

Celebrities are a different breed, since their public persona is the commodity being bought or sold.

The Linda Ronstadt situation is a slam dunk - she should have concentrated on doing what she was paid to do. (I still like her music)

Actively suspending the Dixie Chicks from radio playlists because of their political statements is a little fuzzier. The only true justification is the possibility that playing their songs might imply that the Dixie Chicks were representing the station's political views and that line of reasoning is a little thin. (But, I never listened to them, anyway)

Firing a reporter/commentator/DJ for making public political or racist statements is a little stronger case. Since the employee's public persona is the service the station is purchasing from the person, the employee's public image is a little more relevant. In other words, there's a reasonable possibility the reporter/commentator/DJ's views may be interpreted as representing the station.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Actively suspending the Dixie Chicks from radio playlists because of their political statements is a little fuzzier. The only true justification is the possibility that playing their songs might imply that the Dixie Chicks were representing the station's political views and that line of reasoning is a little thin. (But, I never listened to them, anyway)

They don't need to justify it. The radio stations are privately owned. The owners are under no obligation to play music by an artist.

When Cat Stevens made his comments about Salman Rushdie, many radio stations banned the playing of his music. That is in their right. There is nothing fuzzy about it.

 

[the number 42]

What if they repeatedly drop the N-bomb when being interviewed?

This is what you posted that I don't understand. I understand the rest of what you posted, but the above quote seems odd. Does it mean anything, or were you just being surreal?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Can someone else tell him? I don't want to be accused of anything sordid.

 

[russ_watters]

This is what you posted that I don't understand. I understand the rest of what you posted, but the above quote seems odd. Does it mean anything, or were you just being surreal?

Here's the quote:

Here's an example: Jimmy the Greek made comments about Black athletes that many felt were racist. So his network (NBC, I think) fired him. Should the network have that right? Should a tv reporter be allowed to make any statement they wish without losing employment? What if they repeatedly drop the N-bomb when being interviewed?

If you don't know what th "N-bomb" is, its a more derogatory derivative of "negro." The problem is that blacks tend to use it all the time - but if a white uses it, its racism (it usually is anyway). In short, Jimmy the Greek was fired for using language considered by many to be racist.

 

[NateTG]

They don't need to justify it. The radio stations are privately owned. The owners are under no obligation to play music by an artist.

When Cat Stevens made his comments about Salman Rushdie, many radio stations banned the playing of his music. That is in their right. There is nothing fuzzy about it.

Actually, it's not that easy. Radio stations have a government sponsored monopoly on a particular bandwidth. This would not be a real problem if there were unlimited bandwidth available, but, unfortunately, regulations only allow a fixed number of radio stations in a particular market. Consequently, if I wanted to broadcast otherwise legal material, but the radio stations refused to, I would not be legally able. Compare this to paper publishing where, if push comes to shove, I can always print my own paper.

Admittedly, it's not cut and dried that radio, or television, stations are actually government monopolies, but if you accept that the radio stations are, then the radio stations must be subject to the same requirements and scrutiny that other government monopolies are subject to, and consequently, that they must standardize the way that they make airtime available.

A second issue is that, in addition to broadcasters being a de facto government monopoly, there are legitemate freedom of the press issues about denying access to the mass media to people.

P.S.
"Banned" is probably a poor choice of words, "ceased playing" would be more appropriate, and, I think, more accurately describes your position.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Hasn't the government set up public radio to air views from the citizenry? If the Dixie Chicks asked (say) National Public Radio to air their songs to support a particular view, and NPR refused, who is doing the censorship then?

BTW, Jimmy the Greek never said the "n word." Here is an interesting sidenote:

________________



More than three days after "CBS Evening News" anchorman Dan Rather invoked an anti-black stereotype in a nationally broadcast radio interview, the network refuses to comment on complaints over the incident, in marked contrast to the way it handled a similar episode 13 years ago involving the late CBS Sports commentator Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder.

On Jan. 15, 1988, Rather himself aired video shot that afternoon at Duke Zeibert's restaurant in Washington, D.C., featuring Snyder explaining why he thought African-Americans excelled in sports.

"The black is the better athlete," The Greek said. "And he practices to be the better athlete, and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes way back to the slave period. The slave owner would breed this big black with this big black woman so he could have a big black kid. That's where it all started."

Though the film was shot by WRC-TV, the Washington affiliate of network rival NBC, and WRC reporter Ed Hotaling acknowledged that The Greek had said he was speaking off the record during the interview, Rather decided Snyder's remarks deserved national coverage.

During the "CBS Evening News" broadcast, the politically correct newsman noted his network had received hundreds of complaints about Snyder's remarks. He ended the segment with Snyder's abject apology.

"I'm truly sorry for my remarks earlier today and I offer a full, heartfelt apology to all I may have offended," Rather quoted Snyder as saying.

Despite the apology, the CBS newsman's prominent coverage of his colleague's faux pas helped seal Snyder's fate. After The Greek's off the record remarks were turned into national news, black organizations from coast-to-coast felt compelled to comment.

The Urban League called Snyder's statement "ludicrous" and suggested he shouldn't be on-the-air. The NAACP was more direct, calling on CBS to fire The Greek, saying his comments "could set race relations back 100 years or more."

The next day, Rather's network handed Jimmy the Greek his walking papers.

Thirteen years later the shoe is on the other foot.

"They got the willies, they got the Buckwheats," Rather blurted out to radioman Don Imus Thursday, while explaining why his bosses had caved to outside pressure and forced him to cover the Chandra Levy-Gary Condit story.

Minutes after NewsMax.com reported Rather's verbatim comments, e-mail began to pour in saying the anchorman had slurred African-Americans by likening his bosses' cave-in to Buckwheat, the easily-frightened black character from "The Little Rascals."

Over the weekend, the nation's most prominent conservative black minister, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), slammed the CBS anchorman for his "Buckwheat" remark, saying it was so offensive that Rather shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

As the protests pour in, will CBS brass decide to give Dan Rather the same treatment they gave Jimmy the Greek?

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/cbsfired.htm

 

[Njorl]

Hasn't the government set up public radio to air views from the citizenry? If the Dixie Chicks asked (say) National Public Radio to air their songs to support a particular view, and NPR refused, who is doing the censorship then?

BTW, Jimmy the Greek never said the "n word." Here is an interesting sidenote:

________________



More than three days after "CBS Evening News" anchorman Dan Rather invoked an anti-black stereotype in a nationally broadcast radio interview, the network refuses to comment on complaints over the incident, in marked contrast to the way it handled a similar episode 13 years ago involving the late CBS Sports commentator Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder.

On Jan. 15, 1988, Rather himself aired video shot that afternoon at Duke Zeibert's restaurant in Washington, D.C., featuring Snyder explaining why he thought African-Americans excelled in sports.

"The black is the better athlete," The Greek said. "And he practices to be the better athlete, and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes way back to the slave period. The slave owner would breed this big black with this big black woman so he could have a big black kid. That's where it all started."

Though the film was shot by WRC-TV, the Washington affiliate of network rival NBC, and WRC reporter Ed Hotaling acknowledged that The Greek had said he was speaking off the record during the interview, Rather decided Snyder's remarks deserved national coverage.

During the "CBS Evening News" broadcast, the politically correct newsman noted his network had received hundreds of complaints about Snyder's remarks. He ended the segment with Snyder's abject apology.

"I'm truly sorry for my remarks earlier today and I offer a full, heartfelt apology to all I may have offended," Rather quoted Snyder as saying.

Despite the apology, the CBS newsman's prominent coverage of his colleague's faux pas helped seal Snyder's fate. After The Greek's off the record remarks were turned into national news, black organizations from coast-to-coast felt compelled to comment.

The Urban League called Snyder's statement "ludicrous" and suggested he shouldn't be on-the-air. The NAACP was more direct, calling on CBS to fire The Greek, saying his comments "could set race relations back 100 years or more."

The next day, Rather's network handed Jimmy the Greek his walking papers.

Thirteen years later the shoe is on the other foot.

"They got the willies, they got the Buckwheats," Rather blurted out to radioman Don Imus Thursday, while explaining why his bosses had caved to outside pressure and forced him to cover the Chandra Levy-Gary Condit story.

Minutes after NewsMax.com reported Rather's verbatim comments, e-mail began to pour in saying the anchorman had slurred African-Americans by likening his bosses' cave-in to Buckwheat, the easily-frightened black character from "The Little Rascals."

Over the weekend, the nation's most prominent conservative black minister, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), slammed the CBS anchorman for his "Buckwheat" remark, saying it was so offensive that Rather shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

As the protests pour in, will CBS brass decide to give Dan Rather the same treatment they gave Jimmy the Greek?

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/cbsfired.htm

I googled <"the buckwheats" -rather> and came up with only plants. If this is a racial slur, Dan Rather is the only one who seems to have ever used it.

NewsMax.com claims links to the NAACP decrying the use of the term in other circumstances, but the links do not actually go anywhere.

I don't even think you can say for sure that he was talking about the "Little Rascals" character. I had heard the term "buckwheat", referring to literally getting the sh*t scared out of you, but never connected it to the kid in the old TV show. Sounds to me like right-wingers grasping at straws.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

I had heard the term "buckwheat", referring to literally getting the sh*t scared out of you, but never connected it to the kid in the old TV show. Sounds to me like right-wingers grasping at straws.

Njorl

So...you don't know where it came from, therefore right-wingers are grasping at straws? Hmm...

 

[JohnDubYa]

Why shucks, all ya' need to do is look up the ole' Racial Slur Database:

http://www.rsdb.org/

 

[loseyourname]

Are you serious? So they're taking after bush? (Bush has been doing that consistently for his public appearances). Damn, maybe Nader is right.

This is a ridiculous violation of the 1st Amendment.

BTW, got a link?

Do you think this is something new? The DNC did the same thing 4 years ago here in LA, forcing all the protests into Pershing Square, almost half a mile from the Staples Center.

 

[the number 42]

If you don't know what th "N-bomb" is, its a more derogatory derivative of "negro." The problem is that blacks tend to use it all the time - but if a white uses it, its racism (it usually is anyway). In short, Jimmy the Greek was fired for using language considered by many to be racist.

Given that the thread is about cencorship for criticising Bush, this is almost certainly a side issue. However, it does illustrate that when censorship (or in this case self-censorship) is enforced, confusion and misunderstanding follow.

In an open society, what we need is clear and open discussion of politics. This does not include trading insults, but should allow for people to have an equal platform to express their views in a civilised manner. In a land that champions freedom of expression, is this a tall order?

 

[the number 42]

And for the record, I had never heard the term 'N-bomb' before yesterday.

 

[Shahil]

Why are you all nit-picking around racist slurs. The bottom line is THEY SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE! end of story! If you use them, you should be reprimanded. There usage is based on simply belittling and insulting a fellow human being for no reason whatsoever. Race and skin colur is NOT a reason because, we all are human beings - nothing more, nothing less.

Political comment, though, is based on something. The present system of politics seems to be causing a problem (In this case - the whole Iraq thing) and since, in your view, this is a problem, you are speaking out to say that it is a problem and one that you would expect to be fixed.

 

[russ_watters]

Given that the thread is about cencorship for criticising Bush, this is almost certainly a side issue. However, it does illustrate that when censorship (or in this case self-censorship) is enforced, confusion and misunderstanding follow.

I tend to agree - I was just explaining the quote.

 

[the number 42]

Thanks Russ.

If there was a top ten of 'presidents who discouraged free speech', 1/ where would the current president come, and 2/ what has been the public reaction of the time? I ask because Aldous Huxley once wrote an interesting paper called 'Brave New World Revisited' in which he suggested that once we start giving up hard-won freedoms we may lose the capacity to regain them. I am shocked that you now have 'free-speech zones' (what next - free speech booths, like peep-shows?), without apparent protest. Is this the result of gradual erosion?

 

[NateTG]

Hasn't the government set up public radio to air views from the citizenry? If the Dixie Chicks asked (say) National Public Radio to air their songs to support a particular view, and NPR refused, who is doing the censorship then?

National Public Radio (NPR) is not a radio station, and does not control any radio stations. NPR produces programming (content) that radio stations buy. As such, NPR is not capable of airing anything. I'm not entirely clear about what you mean by 'public radio station' otherwise.

Regardless, inequitable treatment from a government monopoly represents a problem, according to a similar argument, for example, it's OK for the telephone company to refuse to put a line into your house because they provide public telephones, even if they provide that service to some people.

And, although I believe in the notion of corporate censorship, and I think that it may be a problem, my argument here isn't about censorship but about disenfranchisement.

Notably, getting back to the original topic of the thread, the practice of creating protest zones is almost certainly political censorship because people are cordoned into these protest zones based on the message that they're promulgating, and not because of their behavior.

PS Is the "Hasn't the government set up public radio stations..," an intentional reference to Scrooge's argument about poorhouses in A Christmas Carol?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Okay, so let's go back to my question: If a tv news reporter uses the N-bomb (now that we know what it is) in a public interview, should the network have the right to fire him?

It seems as if freedom of speech only extends to those situations that agree with a person's political beliefs.

 

[NateTG]

Okay, so let's go back to my question: If a tv news reporter uses the N-bomb (now that we know what it is) in a public interview, should the network have the right to fire him?

My position is that any employer can fire any employee for any reason, but that those reasons, and the nature of the termination is subject to any restrictions described in the contract of employment.
Depending on context, dropping N-bombs probably qualifies as unprofessional or inappropriate conduct in some situations.

 

[JohnDubYa]

And the same reasoning applies to radio station owners and their playlists. That's all I was saying.

 

[Njorl]

So...you don't know where it came from, therefore right-wingers are grasping at straws? Hmm...

No, I was unable to find a single other instance of this racial slur used like Rather is accused of using it, therefore the right wingers are probably grasping at straws.*

I have seen "The Buckwheats" refer to:

1. Diarhea - probably referring to the similarity of such to buckwheat pancake batter.

2. Being frighted to the point of 1. above.

3. A slow death by beating involving the breaking of most of the large bones in the body.

4. A type of pillow.

"A case of the buckwheats" sounds to me like number 2. (No pun intended)

*I have since found one, but it seems to be mimicking the Rather comment.

Njorl

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Heeeere's Buckwheat. Bill "Buckwheat" Thomas died in Oct 80.

 

[JohnDubYa]

No, I was unable to find a single other instance of this racial slur used like Rather is accused of using it, therefore the right wingers are probably grasping at straws.*

No one here is saying that Rather should be fired. It was just an interesting story, that's all. What I found most interesting is Dan Rather's handling of the story, which to me is pretty underhanded.

As for more on Dan, here is a link to some of his politically biased comments:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/16/214343.shtml

 

[JohnDubYa]

By the way, if the term "buckwheats" means "scared," I think we know where it comes from, and it has nothing to do with pancakes. It is still a racial slur.

 

[JohnDubYa]

No, I was unable to find a single other instance of this racial slur used like Rather is accused of using it, therefore the right wingers are probably grasping at straws.*

Haven't I already posted a link showing that it is indeed a racial slur? (And a pretty obvious one, considering the character Buckwheat on tv.)

 

[the number 42]

Can we stick to Bush & censorship please? The other topic is interesting, but for another thread.

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

 

[NateTG]

Freedom of expression yes. Freedom of publication maybe?

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

The belief of 'freedom of expression' because the US spouts massive propaganda about it, and produced most of the mass media content in the world. In many ways, I see the mainstream US culture as puritanical and repressive, which is quite ironic considering how focused we are on physical beauty.

From my experience, monied interests control almost all media dissemination methods. So, while you may be able to personally express any opinion you like, you need to get advertisers in order to publish, or broadcast it. Since there are something like 5 companies that control all of the broadcasr TV channels, something that is contrary to their interest isn't particularly likely to make it to broadcast TV. It's a bit easier to get on the radio, but even that is steadily being monopolized.

 

[BobG]

Can we stick to Bush & censorship please? The other topic is interesting, but for another thread.

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

Actually, I understand the reasoning behind it, even if I disagree with it. Its a pragmatic solution designed to reduce some of the problems protests can create with the least amount of effort.

There should be some limits. Examples:

Protestors blocking abortion clinics and harassing the people going in and out is a little extreme. While I certainly don't support abortion, it is legal and the decision to opt for abortion isn't normally an easy decision. I think harassing the folks going in and out is a little stronger violation of their rights than having telemarketers call you at any hour. Forcing protests to be a safe distance away was a good solution.

During a war protest here in Colorado Springs last year, the protest wound up spilling into the street, forcing traffic to be shut off until the protestors could be removed. The protestors exercise of their right to free speech extended to violating the rights of other inhabitants of the city.

Regardless, the idea of 'free speech zones' is kind of ominous. The better, if less efficient solution, would be to deal with the few problems as they crop up.

 

[NateTG]

Actually, I understand the reasoning behind it, even if I disagree with it. Its a pragmatic solution designed to reduce some of the problems protests can create with the least amount of effort.

The notion of a free speech zone represents prior restraint if people are assigned to the free speech zone based on the message that they endorse, which, as far as I know, happens quite frequently.

Protestors blocking abortion clinics and harassing the people going in and out is a little extreme. While I certainly don't support abortion, it is legal and the decision to opt for abortion isn't normally an easy decision. I think harassing the folks going in and out is a little stronger violation of their rights than having telemarketers call you at any hour. Forcing protests to be a safe distance away was a good solution.

Harrasment and assault are crimes. If the police wanted to do something about it, they should arrest people for those crimes, and prosecute them. One of the massive policy snafus in this country is that people want to make additional laws when enforcing existing ones would be quite adequate.

During a war protest here in Colorado Springs last year, the protest wound up spilling into the street, forcing traffic to be shut off until the protestors could be removed. The protestors exercise of their right to free speech extended to violating the rights of other inhabitants of the city.

Exactly what rights were the protestors violating?

Regardless, the idea of 'free speech zones' is kind of ominous. The better, if less efficient solution, would be to deal with the few problems as they crop up.

My understanding is that police tactics have been rather devious. It has been suggested, with some good evidence, that the police goal is to create a dangerous situation so that they can take drastic action. Consequently, the protesters are cordoned into small areas and the police are systematically noisy and intimidating, in an attempt to provoke a reaction so they can break out the tear gas and capsicum and break up the protest.

 

[BobG]

The notion of a free speech zone represents prior restraint if people are assigned to the free speech zone based on the message that they endorse, which, as far as I know, happens quite frequently.



Harrasment and assault are crimes. If the police wanted to do something about it, they should arrest people for those crimes, and prosecute them. One of the massive policy snafus in this country is that people want to make additional laws when enforcing existing ones would be quite adequate.



Exactly what rights were the protestors violating?



My understanding is that police tactics have been rather devious. It has been suggested, with some good evidence, that the police goal is to create a dangerous situation so that they can take drastic action. Consequently, the protesters are cordoned into small areas and the police are systematically noisy and intimidating, in an attempt to provoke a reaction so they can break out the tear gas and capsicum and break up the protest.

I agree with most of your post.

The protestors were violating the rights of other city inhabitants by blocking a public thoroughfare. Contrary to what some may think, a public street doesn't mean it can be used by the public for anything they please. You can't construct barricades (human or other), etc. which block traffic. This is a long tradition which even carries over to rivers - i.e. in the Eastern US (which has a longer tradition) land owners don't own navigable rivers which pass through their land and they can't do anything to block river traffic.

The professionalism of police departments varies from locale to locale, so I'm sure you could find some instances of which you speak. I'm not sure it would be as easy to support the idea that police in general are out to provoke a riot.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I agree with most of your post.

The protestors were violating the rights of other city inhabitants by blocking a public thoroughfare. Contrary to what some may think, a public street doesn't mean it can be used by the public for anything they please. You can't construct barricades (human or other), etc. which block traffic. This is a long tradition which even carries over to rivers - i.e. in the Eastern US (which has a longer tradition) land owners don't own navigable rivers which pass through their land and they can't do anything to block river traffic.

We're talking about dissenters at an already-occuring event. They are not blocking anything any more than the pro-bush attenders of his appearances are.

This is not something that normally is done. Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all. Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

 

[the number 42]

This is not something that normally is done. Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all.

Interesting. So how has the Bush administration managed to implement this with so little protest. And I don't mean mass demonstrations, I mean just general protest in the media etc. Don't tell me the media restrict your every word

Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

Hmmm... Someone's bound to call you on this one, Dan, so it may as well be me.

 

[kat]

We're talking about dissenters at an already-occuring event. They are not blocking anything any more than the pro-bush attenders of his appearances are.

This is not something that normally is done. Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all. Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

What did I miss? I thought you had posted about the "Free speach zone" outside of the Democratic convention? Employed by the DNC?

 

[JohnDubYa]

... which as caused you to change your vote to Ralph Nader. :)

 

[NateTG]

The protestors were violating the rights of other city inhabitants by blocking a public thoroughfare. Contrary to what some may think, a public street doesn't mean it can be used by the public for anything they please. You can't construct barricades (human or other), etc. which block traffic.

Isn't it a bit strange to suggest that blocking a public thoroughfare is a violation of rights when there are regular planned and sactioned events - motorcates, parades, and road construction - that block them? The arguments made to justify removing protesters from streets are typically couched in notions of safety and the greater common good rather than some nebulous right to use public thuroughfares and, in general, these arguments make sense.

However, since the establisment controls the issuance of demonstration permits as well as the ability to remove protesters from the streets, it has powers that, in combination, can be used to squelch public assembly by issuing protest permits to inapprorpate locations followed by police action based on these notions of public safety and the greater common good.