Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by The Scribe, Nov 29, 2007.
IMUS BASHERS FACE VENGEANCE - New York Post Online Edition: Seven
Well good for him. And chalk one up for the Constitution. But I am afraid that his message may be tailored by the fear of this happening again. I am sure media matters and Big Al will keep a close ear.
Stevie Wonder's thoughts on all this? "Thinkin' back on when I was...
good for him. :thumbs:
How is this a Constitutional issue?????
Freedom of speech.:saint:
Since the Government did not take Imus off the air, then there is no Freedom of Speech violation.
The government doesn't have to be the ones who violate your freedom of speech. The network violated his rights. If Imus had truly broken a law he wouldn't be back on this Monday.
The Bill of Rights refer to the peoples' protections against the governement. The network didn't violate his rights, as the network is not a government entity. If Imus had been charged with breaking the law for making his comment, then that would be a government action and would be a violation of Freedom of Speech.
This sounds better. :saint:
Don Imus’ issue isn’t free speech. It’s a violation of freedom. Period. « Pro Patria
Rosie O’Donnell should have been fired because of her actions on the View.
When she mocked the Chinese. The Chinese Embassy called them after she did it. But, of course nothing was done. It's a double standard.
Don Imus has the right to free speech, but the radio station isn't obligated to provide him the airwaves as a forum.
That's what they believe.
So, they were obligated to protect Rosie O’Donnell? Because she is "gay" she's couldn't find a man that's why she's "gay." She's putting on airs. Remember when she used to talk about how she "loved" Tom Cruise? This is a case of double standards.
It's called economics. When it comes to money the only thing that matters is profit. There is no double standard. Guess the American people weren't all that upset that the Chinese were offended.
But it still not a constitutional issue nor a Freedom of Speech issue because a governement entity did not take action against Imus.
Are you being serious? Again there is not a double standard. Networks love controversy so long as it does not cost them money. If anyone is to blame its the American people, not the networks. You honestly think nothing is done to Rosie because she's gay? Maybe Rosie is just tactful enough to offend the right people, i.e., the ones that the majority of Americans could care less about, generally speaking of course.
Too bad that enough people like smut, to bring him back.
His remarks about the Rutgers students was irresponsible, but Imus does do a lot for kids with cancer. He deserved to be chastised, but he also deserves a second chance.
I can't stand Imus, but I do believe that he did the best he could to try to make amends for his stupid choice of words.
I lost all respect for the group of "nappy headed hos" when they decided to sue him.
That was his shtick, which, this time galled the targets. Mike, I can't stand him either, but I've always admired his work with those kids.
I listened to Imus on a local station in Philly several years ago. I enjoyed the interviews with politicians. He did excellent interviews. Other than that the show was quite smutty. I learned to turn it off quickly when he was bantering with his in-house buddies. I can't imagine that listeners who like the in-house banter will listen to a cleaned-up version of it. I can't imagine that major politicians or media figures are gonna show up on that show; at least not for a while. That combination of losses leave the I-man talking to himself and I can't imagine that would be interesting. This sounds like a recipe for the end of his career.