Ban (sorry, I meant Fire) 'em all, I say!

[mnaz]

Are we going to have free speech or not in this country?

For all of Whimsicaldeb's typhoon-like Imus tirade (hateful, at times), I've yet to hear her completely address this issue (perhaps a passing reference to the "fairness document"-- I'll check into that). Yes, yes, I know-- we're all partly responsible, you know, taking up so much endless time to point out Deb's own possible hypocrisy on the subject. But I agree with Deb that it's time to "move on". But..... move on to where exactly? About 200+ posts ago I (foolishly) tried to expand the discussion by citing other contemporary "shock" entertainers who routinely use offensive words, phrases and ideas as part of their shtick. Should all of these people be banned (sorry, I mean fired) as well? Or maybe they're a little more clever with the material than Imus, and even.....***gasp*** funny sometimes in their ironic or mocking treatment of offensive material and thus should be pardoned... Or not. But if you answer "not", how do you justify that position in regard to the 1st Amendment? Curious, as always.

[Doreen Peri]

I think you mean "Fire 'em all!," right?

Good point, mnaz. If we listed these "shock" entertainers to see how many would get fired if we fired them all, I'll bet it would be a very long list!

How far back should we go? Should Lenny Bruce have been fired? They tried to shut him up but it didn't work very well. How about George Carlin? Should he have been stopped from performing in public because some of his material offended some people? What about Don Rickles? He was very popular in mainstream America. Personally, I didn't find him funny at all but his schtick was similar to Imus' schtick in that he made fun of various races, religions, groups of people, etc.

Flash forward to the present. Who are today's popular comedians who use racial slurs in their routines? Chris Rock? Dave Chappelle?

Once society says this phrasing or that word or this remark is unacceptable, where does it stop? Who becomes the judge and jury?

Here's a list of radio shock jocks here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_jock

USA list

Danny Bonaduce
Chris Booker
Bubba the Love Sponge
Kidd Chris
Steve Dahl
Don and Mike
Morton Downey, Jr.
Greaseman
Don Imus "The I-Man"
Luis Jimenez (Spanish)
Lex and Terry
Tom Leykis
Russ Martin
Moonshadow (Spanish)
Opie and Anthony
Regular Guys Larry and Eric
Ron and Fez
Michael Savage
Elliot Segal
Star & Buc Wild
Howard Stern
Toucher and Rich
Wendy Williams
Liz Wilde

[mnaz]

Thanks Doreen. As you reminded us this morning, this should be a major consideration in our discussion... perhaps the major one. I don't have all the answers. At this point I'll try to ask at least as many questions as I answer. Seems only fair.

[eyelidlessness]

I have a question for people who advocate "free speech". I feel dirty even asking the question, as an anti-capitalist, but it's germane, so I'll ask. My question is this:

Don Imus was fired by a private institution for violating that private institution's expectations of his conduct on the clock. There is nothing preventing Imus from coming on here and airing his bigoted bullshit, or from standing on the corner with "nappy headed ho's" on a sign. With that in mind, what the hell does this have to do with free speech?

Or put another way, what part of the "first amendment" says that any person or institution is obligated to finance speech?

* * *

Other points…

Flash forward to the present. Who are today's popular comedians who use racial slurs in their routines? Chris Rock? Dave Chappelle?

Once society says this phrasing or that word or this remark is unacceptable, where does it stop? Who becomes the judge and jury?

I think it's insidious when people say (or imply) that since "they" can say it, "we" should be able to, too—that if a black person says "nigger" (or "nigga"), they must accept white people saying it as well (or the more absurd: because one black person says it or even accepts white people saying it, all black people need to accept it as well).

The word "nigger" isn't just a word, and this highlights the fact that racism isn't about words and feelings, it's about oppression. The word represents these centuries of oppression. It represents the fact that black people were treated by white people in this society as subhumans, and subjected to forced labor and inhuman conditions even to this day.

That's right, to this day. I recommend anyone who hasn't read the Constitution lately revisit Amendment 13:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. (emphasis mine)

This is the first mention of slavery in the Constitution, and it explicitly legalizes it. This hasn't been reversed, either.

Being that people of color are disproportionately imprisoned, this means that the institution of slavery in the US not only still exists, but is still a racist institution.

In the context of this ongoing oppression, it's important to see the use of the word which represents said oppression by those in the group primarily subject to said oppression as "reclaiming" it. The meaning as used by black people (excepting Uncle Ruckus) is different from the meaning as used by white people.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that white people can't or shouldn't use racist slurs. What I'm saying is that the idea that a black person saying "nigger" excuses a white person saying "nigger" is completely absurd. But while I'll defend free speech (so far as it is speech, and not something more insidious, such as neonazi organizing masquerading as "speech"), I would never defend the idea that "free speech" means speech free of consequences.

In other words, if you say something stupid, you can expect ridicule. In fact, you don't even have to say something stupid. One of the consequences I face on a daily basis is that I need to be very careful in expressing my views, however correct I think they are, for fear they'll be either misunderstood or used as an excuse to make me a black sheep. In a mentally sick society, sane views are seen as dangerous.

* * *

I have one more thing to add about this, which is that there are white comedians who not only get away with using racial slurs, but also appeal to people of color.

Anyone here who hasn't seen Sarah Silverman's Jesus is Magic ought to see it at their next opportunity. It is a great example, I think, of the appropriateness of racial humor, if used appropriately. But Jesus is Magic is as much a social commentary as it is a shock comedy. Silverman uses ironic, over-the-top racial humor to demonstrate the absurdity of racism, not to desensitize viewers to it.

Anyway, this has turned into a long rant, go figure! And I have work to do, so I'll end it here.

[Doreen Peri]

eyelidlessOne...

When I mentioned Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, it was only because those were the first two comics I thought of who routinely use racial humor, not because they are black comics. I'm not too hip on all the comics performing today. I don't know who they are, for the most part. But I'm sure there are white comics who also use racial humor. I also mentioned Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and Don Rickles.

I agree that the word "nigger" means something different when said by a black person than when said by a white person.

I would never defend the idea that "free speech" means speech free of consequences.

Good point! Me neither. Of course not! Which is what our previous seemingly-endless thread dealt with (but you weren't involved in that one, so maybe you didn't read it).

Thanks for the reference to the Sarah Silverman's piece. I'm not familiar with it. I'll look it up. Maybe I can find some of it on Youtube?

And yeah, Imus' dismissal was private industry firing him probably because a sponsor or two threatened to pull their financial support. That's been his schtick for years so I doubt his racial slurs are against their policies or anything.. it has to do with money.

The point of mnaz' post (I think), is to say that once people start getting censored by whoever... it doesn't matter who the "they" are... then, where does it go from there? Who's to say who gets censored next?

[mnaz]

Don Imus was fired by a private institution for violating that private institution's expectations of his conduct on the clock.

Not according to his upcoming lawsuit. I'd have to review his contract I suppose to see if he "violated that private institution's expectations", whatever that means.

I think it's insidious when people say (or imply) that since "they" can say it, "we" should be able to, too—that if a black person says "nigger" (or "nigga"), they must accept white people saying it as well (or the more absurd: because one black person says it or even accepts white people saying it, all black people need to accept it as well).

I'm just asking. I don't disagree with this. Perhaps it's more about direct interpersonal relationship. I.e., if you know someone, regardless of race, then this type of "sketchy" communication might be understood and okay. But then it seems this alone doesn't necessarily explain why it's okay for the likes of Chappelle and Carlos Mencia to broadcast their heavily race-based comedy/satire/commentary laced with (former?) racial slurs to millions of anonymous multiracial viewers.

In the context of this ongoing oppression, it's important to see the use of the word which represents said oppression by those in the group primarily subject to said oppression as "reclaiming" it.

I agree. I think I even said something close to that approximately 200+ posts ago, as I may have hinted at.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that white people can't or shouldn't use racist slurs. What I'm saying is that the idea that a black person saying "nigger" excuses a white person saying "nigger" is completely absurd.

Out of context, I agree.

But while I'll defend free speech (so far as it is speech, and not something more insidious, such as neonazi organizing masquerading as "speech"), I would never defend the idea that "free speech" means speech free of consequences.

That's why I started this thread. To gain more incremental understanding.
We're all a work in progress.

In a mentally sick society, sane views are seen as dangerous.

Yes.

I have one more thing to add about this, which is that there are white comedians who not only get away with using racial slurs, but also appeal to people of color.

Anyone here who hasn't seen Sarah Silverman's Jesus is Magic ought to see it at their next opportunity. It is a great example, I think, of the appropriateness of racial humor, if used appropriately. But Jesus is Magic is as much a social commentary as it is a shock comedy. Silverman uses ironic, over-the-top racial humor to demonstrate the absurdity of racism, not to desensitize viewers to it.

"the appropriateness of racial humor, if used appropriately".

Hmmm...

[eyelidlessness]

Not according to his upcoming lawsuit. I'd have to review his contract I suppose to see if he "violated that private institution's expectations", whatever that means.

It'd be stupid for any broadcaster not to include in their contracts that the contract could be terminated by the broadcaster if unforeseen offenses should arise.

if you know someone, regardless of race, then this type of "sketchy" communication might be understood and okay.

Well, if the boundaries we're drawing are basically that any person that's the subject of racist oppression can determine whether or not it's appropriate to call that person racial slurs representing said oppression, sure, on a personal level their comfort zone is the end of the discussion.

But then it seems this alone doesn't necessarily explain why it's okay for the likes of Chappelle and Carlos Mencia to broadcast their heavily race-based comedy/satire/commentary laced with (former?) racial slurs to millions of anonymous multiracial viewers.

I think I addressed that directly in the next chunk of text you quoted from me.

I agree. I think I even said something close to that approximately 200+ posts ago, as I may have hinted at.

You'll have to forgive me for not having followed the previous thread.

Out of context, I agree.

The implication of this response being that in this context, you disagree? Why?

That's why I started this thread. To gain more incremental understanding.
We're all a work in progress.

Er... and that's why I responded. So?

"the appropriateness of racial humor, if used appropriately".

Hmmm...

The point being, using racial humor to perpetuate racism is different from using racial humor to challenge or ridicule racism. I'm working on the assumption that we all agree that racism itself is inappropriate. Based on that assumption, the appropriate use of racial humor is what determines said humor's appropriateness generally, not whether or not it contains racial slurs, stereotypes or other related phrasing or subject matter.

[mnaz]

It'd be stupid for any broadcaster not to include in their contracts that the contract could be terminated by the broadcaster if unforeseen offenses should arise.

Agreed. but then I haven't seen the actual contract either.

Well, if the boundaries we're drawing are basically that any person that's the subject of racist oppression can determine whether or not it's appropriate to call that person racial slurs representing said oppression, sure, on a personal level their comfort zone is the end of the discussion.

That's what I thought.
Thank you.

The point being, using racial humor to perpetuate racism is different from using racial humor to challenge or ridicule racism.

I'm pretty sure this is somewhere near the dead-center heart of it.

[mtmynd]

I've heard (not that it necessarily is true, mind you...) that Imus is suing over the fact that both radio and TV have the three second lapse on every live broadcast to prevent deliberate or accidental use of broadcaster's list of prohibited words (fuck, shit, cunt for example).

Seems as tho the I-Man is suing because he was not blipped if the three words, "nappy-headed ho'" was deemed not suitable for broadcasting over public airways... even though there seems to be some argument about MSNBC being a paid for cable newscast. But the argument may be why MSNBC and CBS radio did not bleep those words.

The FCC has tucked away somewhere the prohibited words that I doubt include "nappy-headed ho.'" but it may be due to the public outcry over how many were offended by those words as to bring the amendment up in court (again!) and how free is our speech - it may be okay to speak freely on a street corner but not in a paid situation, i.e., cable networks, comedy clubs where the speaker is being paid, etc... Who knows where this will lead, but it ain't cool in my books solely because we have a right wing Justice Dept, including the Supreme Court. That could lead to more limitations as to what "freedom of speech" really means... gag orders may rule.

Of course, assuming the JD and SC set down limitations, that could backfire for the "true believers" as any slur toward anyone not on their side (Dems, other than 'born agains', liberals... the list could be longer that they wanted), could be construed as free speech for a select few...

Another interesting thing about the FCC singling out some words forbidden to use on the airways (btw: Sirius and the likes are immune to this, even tho these satellite radio networks have to go to the FCC to get their licensing... watch out Howard!), is our growing Hispanic population. It apparently is alright for any of us to use Spanish words (including slang) that reference the same things that the forbidden English words do. Expand on that premise, and we're a country that represents every country in the entire world, countries that certainly have their 'no-no' words in their own culture, but are unknown in our own... these people have every right to start up tv and radio stations and speak in their native tongues. Would the FCC know if they were using offensive language? I think not.

It is our country's extreme behavior over children that I think is the basic reason that we feel we must ban certain words. We don't want our children to hear them. But as we all know the children do hear them. But the battle goes on to somehow curtail our very human of actions, (sex and the words that describe it), for some unknown or misunderstood idea that what we do and what we say is not what children should know or hear. Doesn't this make us collectively a neurotic and hypocritical mass of people?

Judging by the outcry over three words uttered by Don Imus, it seems that this is proof of our neuroses that we, as a nation, have taken great care to survive for over 230 years. The Victorian Era is our collective devil that our founding fathers tried to cast off by offering the people freedom, including speech, assembly, religion and to bear arms to defend ourselves from those that fear freedom and all that it implies. Unfortunately those very people demand to control the government and not serve the freedom lovers.

Freedom of speech means what it says and says what it means. But every generation must redefine what it means to them only because they themselves are confused by what that freedom really means. Will we ever be free to be without limitations and fear?

[eyelidlessness]

It is our country's extreme behavior over children that I think is the basic reason that we feel we must ban certain words.

Wait. We're talking about two different things. Using curse words and using racial slurs are two different things. And at any rate, I disagree on both counts.

If you examine the history of English curse words, there's much more at work than trying to protect some bullshit innocence, and it's a great deal more insidious. The words we consider "bad words" are mostly derived from the Germanic languages of England and Scotland, and weren't "bad words" until the Norman invasion. The effort to silence native language was a method of imperialism, not of protecting innocence. It was an attempt to dehumanize the natives in order to control them.

And regarding racial slurs, the concerns are multifaceted, some wrongheaded and some very, very important. On the one hand, we've got liberal "political correctness" (which usually isn't even correct) which we can mostly just dismiss as a distraction from real issues that count. And then on the other hand, as I mentioned in a post above, certain words (in certain contexts) represent the perpetuation of racist oppression. In the context that for centuries, black people in America have been (at best) second-class citizens, have been and continue to be subjected to slavery, apartheid and quite a lot of unprovoked violence, racial slurs used by white people (who benefit from this arrangement) about black people are used to dehumanize them (and thus to reinforce this arrangement).

In point of fact, the intentions behind both are more or less opposite.

Judging by the outcry over three words uttered by Don Imus, it seems that this is proof of our neuroses that we, as a nation, have taken great care to survive for over 230 years.

Or it's the outpouring of anxiety and upset over countless other, related, more pressing issues that never seem to be on the agenda. In other words, Don Imus is a not-totally-undeserving scapegoat for very real, mostly hidden problems of racism.

our founding fathers tried to cast off by offering the people freedom, including speech, assembly, religion and to bear arms to defend ourselves from those that fear freedom and all that it implies.

Except they didn't offer any of those things, as history shows. What "our founding fathers" actually did was kill or imprison dissenters, persecute people of minority religions, confiscate private arms and generally guard against any real kind of freedom (like say, the freedom to resist slavery or genocide).

Will we ever be free to be without limitations and fear?

Freedom doesn't mean absence of limitations. This attitude is really at the root of most of the problems in the world today. Freedom doesn't mean you can engage in sex with a person who doesn't consent. It doesn't mean you can reap the rewards of another person's labor. It doesn't mean you can build your subdivision (or your cattle farm) in another people's rainforest.

Your freedom has limits, and its limits are exactly at the limit's of another's freedoms. If those limits aren't more or less equal and the product of mutual consent, it isn't freedom, it's oppression.

And if you don't consent to not dehumanize others, you're not the victim.

[bohonato]

I started re-reading one of my favourite novels a couple days ago, and ran across this passage. In view of recent discussions, I thought it was somewhat relevant:

"You murdered him," said Dunbar.
"I heard you kill him," said Yossarian
"You killed him because he was a nigger," Dunbar said.
"You fellas are crazy," the Texan cried. "They don't allow niggers in here. They got a special place for niggers."
"The sergeant smuggled him in," Dunbar said.
"The Communist sergeant," said Yossarian.
"And you knew it."
- Joseph Heller, Catch-22

About Imus, no, I don't think he should have been fired. But I think its perfectly reasonable that people should be upset by what he said. Just like the Ku Klux Klan. They always insist on having a annual rally in Lansing, and there's more often than not a riot. Big fucking surprise. They have a right to spew out their racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit, but it doesn't mean other people have to respect it or not react to it. And in general, 'nigger', or even 'nappy-headed ho' is going to offend people just like 'fuck' or 'cunt'. So corporate censorship? If you offend people, you lose customers. That logic may be slightly different for shock jocks, but if sponsers are going to withdraw financial support, oh well. Obscenity is not protected free speech UNLESS it serves a higher social purpose. So, legally Dave Chappelle saying nigger could be protected free speech, because one could argue that it is social satire. I would have to say that one would have a hard time forwarding the same defence for Imus' comment. The difference between the KKK's crap and Imus' borderline comment, the KKK do it in their spare time, and Imus was at his job.

I firmly believe that when the subject of censorship is broached, it should be handled with extreme care, regardless of how offensive you find it. In a slightly related matter, I was sorely disappointed in Bush (as if I needed anything more to confirm my doubts) when he condemned the Danish comics that depicted the Prophet Mohammed (hooray for restricting freedom in order to 'bring' freedom to the rest of the world). Did it offend an entire region of the world? Yes, it did. Should it be banned? No. Society can do its own cleansing, and in this I mean eventually words like 'nigger' will become extinct. In fifty years (quite a short period in relation to human existence), its followed a downward spiral to oblivion. I mean, just look at the uproar caused by 'nappy headed ho'.

I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

Cliché, I know. But exactly how I feel. Sorry if I rambled, I was busy making love to a bottle of Beringer.

[eyelidlessness]

And in general, 'nigger', or even 'nappy-headed ho' is going to offend people just like 'fuck' or 'cunt'.

it's going to offend white liberals just like 'fuck' or 'cunt'. But saying "nigger" to black people, a quarter of whom are under "criminal justice supervision" in the US (in other words, subject to either slavery or the threat of slavery), is like saying "you are subhuman". It's not "offensive", it's dehumanizing, and it perpetuates the oppression I mentioned earlier. It's just not the same thing as swearing.

They have a right to spew out their racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit, but it doesn't mean other people have to respect it or not react to it.

Right. Including their employer.

So corporate censorship?

... and this is the issue over which the "free speech" crowd gets upset? Corporate censorship is redundant, like government corruption. Getting upset over "corporate censorship" of Don Imus is like getting upset over "government corruption" when some clerk at the social security office gets an extra paycheck.

I firmly believe that when the subject of censorship is broached, it should be handled with extreme care, regardless of how offensive you find it.

But this isn't a case of censorship. As I said earlier, regardless of how I might feel about corporations, a business is not obligated to finance your speech. Extreme care doesn't mean walking on eggshells, it means being very specific and precise.

If you want to talk about "corporate censorship", there are a lot of really serious problems in that area, with truly chilling effects. None of these effects include the slight decrease in corporate-subsidized racism, which should be applauded. One we might discuss is the corporate blackout on East Timor during the Indonesian invasion (I bring this up because it's been pretty well exposed, Noam Chomsky has written extensively about it). This was a US-financed genocide that got virtually no press. Genocide. Another we might discuss is the increasing popularity of the Taleban and similar groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, under US oversight, or the crimes of the House of Saud, or the crimes of Islom Karimov. These are things that result in death and misery for thousands and thousands of people.

Until "free speech" advocates start paying as much attention to why these stories get censored as they do to Don Imus, I can only conclude that "free speech" is code for "racism".

I was sorely disappointed in Bush (as if I needed anything more to confirm my doubts) when he condemned the Danish comics that depicted the Prophet Mohammed (hooray for restricting freedom in order to 'bring' freedom to the rest of the world).

Uh. Not to defend Bush, but how the hell is US condemnation of a Danish comic "restricting freedom"? He just "reacted" (as you put it).

Should it be banned? No.

But taking it back to the actual subject matter... was Don Imus (or his speech) banned? No. This is not a free speech issue.

If you folks think the racist content being taken from the airwaves is a detriment to our society, then talk about that (so we can laugh at you), but that isn't what's being talked about. "Free speech", here, is a red herring. Not one aspect of the "first amendment" has been violated, and no institution is obligated to finance racist (or any kind of) speech. Nor should they be, whether they're big evil corporations or not.

[mnaz]

... It's just not the same thing as swearing.

No it isn't.

They have a right to spew out their racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit, but it doesn't mean other people have to respect it or not react to it. Right. Including their employer.

Of course not. Except maybe if their employer had a contractual understanding to the opposite.

so corporate censorship?... and this is the issue over which the "free speech" crowd gets upset?

Who's upset? I'm just asking questions.

Getting upset over "corporate censorship" of Don Imus is like getting upset over "government corruption" when some clerk at the social security office gets an extra paycheck.

I don't follow that analogy. Not really.

As I said earlier, regardless of how I might feel about corporations, a business is not obligated to finance your speech.

Yeah. Unless that speech has been making money for decades and also written up in the latest money making contract, perhaps.

[eyelidlessness]

Except maybe if their employer had a contractual understanding to the opposite.

If they do, prove it. I'm assuming they don't because they'd be stupid if they did. Corporate contract writers are a lot of things, but stupid isn't really one of them. But if you want to make the claim, I'd like to be proved wrong.

Who's upset? I'm just asking questions.

I wasn't replying to you. And a lot of folks are upset.

I don't follow that analogy. Not really.

It wasn't meant as analogy, it was meant to demonstrate the level of importance of "corporate censorship" of Don Imus.

Yeah. Unless that speech has been making money for decades and also written up in the latest money making contract, perhaps.

I'm one hundred percent sure the contract doesn't say that his broadcasters were obligated to broadcast anything Imus wanted to say without exception. That would be illegal. So the contract likely lists exceptions. Do we know what they are?

And really, who cares? Even if they fired him in violation of contract... are you going to lose sleep over it? I'm not. For once corporate corruption got someone who deserved it.

[bohonato]

It's not "offensive", it's dehumanizing, and it perpetuates the oppression I mentioned earlier. It's just not the same thing as swearing.

I didn't say it did, or at least, that wasn't my intention. I was trying to say that you can expect the same adverse reaction, regardless of your intent in saying it, whether it be humour or otherwise.

of-fend' - v.t. cause resentment in; displease. -- v.i. 1, sin. 2, cause indignation, dislike, or resentment.

I don't care what race you are, it will offend, but of course not for the same reasons. And really, you don't need to lecture me on the affect of words and language on minorities.

But this isn't a case of censorship. As I said earlier, regardless of how I might feel about corporations, a business is not obligated to finance your speech.

Once again, I never said it was, and the second part I already agreed to.

If you want to talk about "corporate censorship", there are a lot of really serious problems in that area, with truly chilling effects. None of these effects include the slight decrease in corporate-subsidized racism, which should be applauded. One we might discuss is the corporate blackout on East Timor during the Indonesian invasion (I bring this up because it's been pretty well exposed, Noam Chomsky has written extensively about it). This was a US-financed genocide that got virtually no press. Genocide. Another we might discuss is the increasing popularity of the Taleban and similar groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, under US oversight, or the crimes of the House of Saud, or the crimes of Islom Karimov. These are things that result in death and misery for thousands and thousands of people.

As an anti-capitalist, I would have assumed that you would realize that the media in a capitalist society exists solely to sell itself, i.e. make a profit. I really believe that's all that needs to be said about that.

I can only conclude that "free speech" is code for "racism".

My apologies, but I fail to see the connection. Because the profit-driven media ignores certain events, anyone to campaigns against censorship is guilty of racism? Sorry, I don't control CNN. And all the hoopla about Imus begain in the first place with the media. I can assure you, these 'free speech advocates' care much more than I think you're willing to allow about such atrocities.

Uh. Not to defend Bush, but how the hell is US condemnation of a Danish comic "restricting freedom"? He just "reacted" (as you put it).

In theory, not in practice. I guess I put too high a standard on the 'leader of the free world'.

But taking it back to the actual subject matter... was Don Imus (or his speech) banned? No. This is not a free speech issue.

Should all of these people be banned as well? ... Or not. But if you answer "not", how do you justify that position in regard to the 1st Amendment? Curious, as always.

Oh, man. Gee whiz. I actually responded to the topic question. Once again, I offer my apologies.

Nevermind, I shouldn't have bothered.
The walls have ears.
Your ears are walls.