Imus at it again! - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to General Talk

Imus at it again!

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Imus at it again!

Postby aaawall91 » Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:39 pm

Stefan Micke? O:-) ;-)
aaawall91
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9934
(Past Year: 63)
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: East Lansing

Re: Imus at it again!

Postby flotsamnjetsam » Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:53 am

josebach wrote:
dream_017 wrote:
flotsamnjetsam wrote:George Carlin said it best about censorship...if you don't like what you're listening to, change the channel.

AMEN ;-D


Come on now. Censorship still has it's place. What would happen if I listed the 7 words here?



You'd get banned because this is a public forum and it's against the rules. My point is that it shouldn't be IMO. But I'm in the minority in that few things REALLY bother me. It wouldn't bother me at all if you posted a bunch of curses...as long as they weren't directed towards another poster. But some people would get offended, Madison would get a bunch of PM's from people complaining, & a lot of people would stop visiting the site if we cursed all the time. It's ironic that George Carlin died this week. His "7 Words" skit is the reason why we have censorship:

When New York City radio station WBAI played Carlin's ''Seven Words'' routine, uncensored, in 1973, a man who heard the broadcast with his son complained to the Federal Communications Commission. The station's owner, the Pacifica Foundation, challenged the FCC's citation all the way to the Supreme Court. In the 1978 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation case, the court ruled in the FCC's favor that the commission has the right to regulate the broadcasting of indecent material when kids might be tuning in. Still the decision also established the ''safe harbor'' period, between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., when broadcasters don't have to worry that kids might be awake. ''So my name is a footnote in American legal history, which I'm perversely kind of proud of,'' Carlin told the Associated Press earlier this year. Still, you're unlikely to hear any broadcaster risk airing the ''Seven Words'' routine, safe harbor or no, anytime soon. —GS



There you go. One person complained and all of a sudden... :-t


Now I agree that censorship has it's place...I just think that "place" could be a lot smaller and it wouldn't bother me at all. Same thing with Imus, Stern, Carlin, & every stand-up comedian. That's what they get paid to do! If you don't think it's funny, change the channel. You don't have to take it to the next step and ask the government to get involved. :-t
Image

Thanks to deluxe_247 for the awesome sig!
flotsamnjetsam
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerTrivia Time Trial ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 17169
(Past Year: 81)
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: New York State Of Mind: 18-1

Re: Imus at it again!

Postby josebach » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:12 am

flotsamnjetsam wrote:Now I agree that censorship has it's place...I just think that "place" could be a lot smaller and it wouldn't bother me at all. Same thing with Imus, Stern, Carlin, & every stand-up comedian. That's what they get paid to do! If you don't think it's funny, change the channel. You don't have to take it to the next step and ask the government to get involved. :-t


People often quote the first amendment as if it gives them a license to say whatever the heck they like wherever the heck they want to say it. You can't put a show like Real Sex on at 4:00 in the afternoon on a channel like ABC that's broadcast for free. You can, however, put Real Sex on HBO at 4:00 in the afternoon because is a channel that requires a subscription. The point is there is already a medium in place for almost every single type of "entertainment" imaginable. Nobody is saying you can't say something just that you have to follow the rules when you say it. Nobody is telling Imus he can't say whatever he wants, he just can't say whatever he want on his current radio show.

As with most issues, censorship is a whole lot more complicated than people make it out to be. It's not black and white.
Image
josebach
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 4611
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Imus at it again!

Postby scottaa1 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:17 am

josebach wrote:
As with most issues, censorship is a whole lot more complicated than people make it out to be. It's not black and white.


Yep. Cuz if it was it'd be racism ;-)
Image
Thanks Chaoyi Shih for the sig.
scottaa1
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 8540
(Past Year: 13)
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Indy

Re: Imus at it again!

Postby josebach » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:22 am

scottaa1 wrote:
josebach wrote:
As with most issues, censorship is a whole lot more complicated than people make it out to be. It's not black and white.


Yep. Cuz if it was it'd be racism ;-)


I almost said "no pun intended" after I typed that, but decided not to. :-b
Image
josebach
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 4611
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Imus at it again!

Postby deerayfan072 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:34 am

knapplc wrote:You're talking about the difference between legality and morality, Dee. Legally he can say what he wants - this is Freedom of Speech. Morally he's bunged it up once again according to societal morés. Of course this is different with each individual, but overall American culture is not tolerant of the kinds of words Imus is choosing in these situations, hence the outrage over the statement.

I don't think anyone is saying he can't say these things, just that he shouldn't say these things.


Absolutely I am saying that, but whose morals does he have to go by? His? Pac Man's? Yours? Mine?

What words did he use here? He said he is black, there you go. The words weren't anything wrong, but we know what he meant. I disagree with his statement on multiple fronts, but if he wants to say it, what is the problem? What did it really do to people other than make them think he is more of a racist than before? IF this was about nasty words or nudity on TV than I would agree that certain things can be censored -- because it is a paid medium and they can do that. This is his opinion and he did not use any derogatory words or break any other rules, other than a set unwritten ones that we can't speak our mind if it is the opposite view of the rest of society.

By the way, his statement is inaccurate because the number of white people in prison far exceeds the number of Black people. The % of whites in jail to the whites in america is lower than the % of blacks in jail per blacks in america, but if took 100 random prisoners, you would get more whites. Numbers can be used in so many different ways :-)
Image
deerayfan072
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18976
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On an Island

Re: Imus at it again!

Postby josebach » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:54 am

deerayfan072 wrote:Absolutely I am saying that, but whose morals does he have to go by? His? Pac Man's? Yours? Mine?

What words did he use here? He said he is black, there you go. The words weren't anything wrong, but we know what he meant. I disagree with his statement on multiple fronts, but if he wants to say it, what is the problem? What did it really do to people other than make them think he is more of a racist than before? IF this was about nasty words or nudity on TV than I would agree that certain things can be censored -- because it is a paid medium and they can do that. This is his opinion and he did not use any derogatory words or break any other rules, other than a set unwritten ones that we can't speak our mind if it is the opposite view of the rest of society.

By the way, his statement is inaccurate because the number of white people in prison far exceeds the number of Black people. The % of whites in jail to the whites in america is lower than the % of blacks in jail per blacks in america, but if took 100 random prisoners, you would get more whites. Numbers can be used in so many different ways :-)


Did you see the post where I said there wasn't anything wrong with what he said, but that he should smarten up and be more careful?

My response wasn't to this incident, but to the George Carlin quote that other people here were agreeing with. It's kind of like the drug thread. There's a world of difference between saying "heroin should be made legal and readily available" and saying they should have a "govt controlled, safe clinic where people can go to shoot up". I wouldn't be in favor of either, but one is a whole lot more extreme than the other. I actually think this is where a lot of the problems here come from (and other forums). People either aren't specific and instead make blanket statements or they oversimplify an issue. If we all were more specific, I'm sure there would be a heck of a lot fewer differences of opinions here. Of course, being specific takes more effort and we're not here to work and also, not everybody is articulate enough to express in words exactly what they mean, so I doubt this will ever happen.
Image
josebach
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 4611
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Imus at it again!

Postby knapplc » Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:08 am

deerayfan072 wrote:
knapplc wrote:You're talking about the difference between legality and morality, Dee. Legally he can say what he wants - this is Freedom of Speech. Morally he's bunged it up once again according to societal morés. Of course this is different with each individual, but overall American culture is not tolerant of the kinds of words Imus is choosing in these situations, hence the outrage over the statement.

I don't think anyone is saying he can't say these things, just that he shouldn't say these things.


Absolutely I am saying that, but whose morals does he have to go by? His? Pac Man's? Yours? Mine?

What words did he use here? He said he is black, there you go. The words weren't anything wrong, but we know what he meant. I disagree with his statement on multiple fronts, but if he wants to say it, what is the problem? What did it really do to people other than make them think he is more of a racist than before? IF this was about nasty words or nudity on TV than I would agree that certain things can be censored -- because it is a paid medium and they can do that. This is his opinion and he did not use any derogatory words or break any other rules, other than a set unwritten ones that we can't speak our mind if it is the opposite view of the rest of society.

By the way, his statement is inaccurate because the number of white people in prison far exceeds the number of Black people. The % of whites in jail to the whites in america is lower than the % of blacks in jail per blacks in america, but if took 100 random prisoners, you would get more whites. Numbers can be used in so many different ways :-)

I don't think I'm following where you're going here. I was not necessarily disagreeing with you, just clarifying a point about could or should. As I said before, Imus has every right to speak as he sees fit. But just as he's allowed to speak his thoughts based on his own morals, so is the rest of America allowed to judge him based on theirs, and that's where he's falling short. When enough of the public has a problem with his statements, they're going to speak out against him. That doesn't infringe on his right to make those statements, it just makes making a living more difficult for him because his audience (presumably) would start to turn away from him. Just as he has Freedom of Speech, we have the freedom to change the channel when his speech gets too annoying.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Re: Imus at it again!

Postby deerayfan072 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:09 am

josebach wrote:
deerayfan072 wrote:Absolutely I am saying that, but whose morals does he have to go by? His? Pac Man's? Yours? Mine?

What words did he use here? He said he is black, there you go. The words weren't anything wrong, but we know what he meant. I disagree with his statement on multiple fronts, but if he wants to say it, what is the problem? What did it really do to people other than make them think he is more of a racist than before? IF this was about nasty words or nudity on TV than I would agree that certain things can be censored -- because it is a paid medium and they can do that. This is his opinion and he did not use any derogatory words or break any other rules, other than a set unwritten ones that we can't speak our mind if it is the opposite view of the rest of society.

By the way, his statement is inaccurate because the number of white people in prison far exceeds the number of Black people. The % of whites in jail to the whites in america is lower than the % of blacks in jail per blacks in america, but if took 100 random prisoners, you would get more whites. Numbers can be used in so many different ways :-)


Did you see the post where I said there wasn't anything wrong with what he said, but that he should smarten up and be more careful?

My response wasn't to this incident, but to the George Carlin quote that other people here were agreeing with. It's kind of like the drug thread. There's a world of difference between saying "heroin should be made legal and readily available" and saying they should have a "govt controlled, safe clinic where people can go to shoot up". I wouldn't be in favor of either, but one is a whole lot more extreme than the other. I actually think this is where a lot of the problems here come from (and other forums). People either aren't specific and instead make blanket statements or they oversimplify an issue. If we all were more specific, I'm sure there would be a heck of a lot fewer differences of opinions here. Of course, being specific takes more effort and we're not here to work and also, not everybody is articulate enough to express in words exactly what they mean, so I doubt this will ever happen.


My quote was more in response to Knapps post. My bad :-/
Image
deerayfan072
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18976
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On an Island

Re: Imus at it again!

Postby deerayfan072 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:11 am

knapplc wrote:
deerayfan072 wrote:
knapplc wrote:You're talking about the difference between legality and morality, Dee. Legally he can say what he wants - this is Freedom of Speech. Morally he's bunged it up once again according to societal morés. Of course this is different with each individual, but overall American culture is not tolerant of the kinds of words Imus is choosing in these situations, hence the outrage over the statement.

I don't think anyone is saying he can't say these things, just that he shouldn't say these things.


Absolutely I am saying that, but whose morals does he have to go by? His? Pac Man's? Yours? Mine?

What words did he use here? He said he is black, there you go. The words weren't anything wrong, but we know what he meant. I disagree with his statement on multiple fronts, but if he wants to say it, what is the problem? What did it really do to people other than make them think he is more of a racist than before? IF this was about nasty words or nudity on TV than I would agree that certain things can be censored -- because it is a paid medium and they can do that. This is his opinion and he did not use any derogatory words or break any other rules, other than a set unwritten ones that we can't speak our mind if it is the opposite view of the rest of society.

By the way, his statement is inaccurate because the number of white people in prison far exceeds the number of Black people. The % of whites in jail to the whites in america is lower than the % of blacks in jail per blacks in america, but if took 100 random prisoners, you would get more whites. Numbers can be used in so many different ways :-)

I don't think I'm following where you're going here. I was not necessarily disagreeing with you, just clarifying a point about could or should. As I said before, Imus has every right to speak as he sees fit. But just as he's allowed to speak his thoughts based on his own morals, so is the rest of America allowed to judge him based on theirs, and that's where he's falling short. When enough of the public has a problem with his statements, they're going to speak out against him. That doesn't infringe on his right to make those statements, it just makes making a living more difficult for him because his audience (presumably) would start to turn away from him. Just as he has Freedom of Speech, we have the freedom to change the channel when his speech gets too annoying.


AH HA ;-D ;-D ;-D

I read it the wrong way. You said exactly what I meant now :-D

Sorry bout that, I got :-S :-S . What you just said is exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks man ;-D
Image
deerayfan072
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18976
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On an Island

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 16:12 hours
(and 42 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact