How much context do you need for

There should be a difference between what's: in poor taste, repulsive, juvenile, and to be shunned; and what's illegal. Too often some people who don't like something want to make it illegal. We do too much of that as it is.

If decency standards are to be imposed on over-the-air broadcasts, why not on satellite broadcasts? Why not on cable TV? Why not on Internet radio, podcasts, and blogs? Yes, there are historical reasons (limited radio bandwidth, etc.), but one could argue that the Internet was founded by US Government investment so it has an interest in keeping it "decent" too. I don't think it's a good argument, but it is one that could be made. Stuff like this is usually like squeezing a fist full of Jello - if you compress it in one place with decency standards and the like, it will just come out somewhere else.

Even if [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imus_in_the_Morning|1.6 M people] listened to Imus every week, that's less than 1% of the country. It seems to me the market was working. As long as he's not advocating violence, conspiracy theories meant to incite people, or other things that are obviously immediately harmful to society, then there should be a pretty high threshold for the government to get involved in his content. The rest of us need to do 2 things if "entertainers" bother us: 1) write them and their management and tell them that we don't like it; 2) don't patronize them or their advertisers and let them know why. Other than that, I'm not sure that much more needs to be done in most circumstances.

Driving Coulter and the like off the air would just make her more of a celebrity in her circle. Let her rant in her corner of the world, and you write scathing rebuttals if you're so inclined. But let's not get the government involved just yet.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks it's rather sad that Imus and the Duke lacrosse team are such big stories when so many more important things get short shrift. Maybe I'll write my local TV stations...)

Post #281,842 by tuberculosis 4/14/07 11:07:42 PM Reply	How much context do you need for "Mohammed is a rag picker" to become inoffensive? We posture as apostles of fair play, as good sportsmen, as professional knights-errant-- and we throw beer bottles at the umpire when he refuses to cheat for our side...We save the black-and-tan republics from their native [statesmen]--and flood them with "deserving" democrats of our own. We deafen the world with our whoops for liberty--and submit to laws that destroy our most sacred rights...We play policeman and Sunday-school superintendent to half of Christendom--and lynch a darky every two days in our own backyard. H.L. Mencken, 1914
Post #281,845 by bepatient 4/15/07 12:12:13 AM Reply	One out of how many? Seems to me the author is stretching here to try and make some kind of point. And doing very badly I might add. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #281,846 by tuberculosis 4/15/07 3:26:25 AM Reply	Plenty more in there Micheal Savage for instance out offends Imus on any given day. Point being - if we're gonna clean up the airwaves, lets clean up the air waves. We posture as apostles of fair play, as good sportsmen, as professional knights-errant-- and we throw beer bottles at the umpire when he refuses to cheat for our side...We save the black-and-tan republics from their native [statesmen]--and flood them with "deserving" democrats of our own. We deafen the world with our whoops for liberty--and submit to laws that destroy our most sacred rights...We play policeman and Sunday-school superintendent to half of Christendom--and lynch a darky every two days in our own backyard. H.L. Mencken, 1914
Post #281,859 by Another Scott 4/15/07 8:09:29 AM Reply	I dunno... There should be a difference between what's: in poor taste, repulsive, juvenile, and to be shunned; and what's illegal. Too often some people who don't like something want to make it illegal. We do too much of that as it is. If decency standards are to be imposed on over-the-air broadcasts, why not on satellite broadcasts? Why not on cable TV? Why not on Internet radio, podcasts, and blogs? Yes, there are historical reasons (limited radio bandwidth, etc.), but one could argue that the Internet was founded by US Government investment so it has an interest in keeping it "decent" too. I don't think it's a good argument, but it is one that could be made. Stuff like this is usually like squeezing a fist full of Jello - if you compress it in one place with decency standards and the like, it will just come out somewhere else. Even if [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imus_in_the_Morning\|1.6 M people] listened to Imus every week, that's less than 1% of the country. It seems to me the market was working. As long as he's not advocating violence, conspiracy theories meant to incite people, or other things that are obviously immediately harmful to society, then there should be a pretty high threshold for the government to get involved in his content. The rest of us need to do 2 things if "entertainers" bother us: 1) write them and their management and tell them that we don't like it; 2) don't patronize them or their advertisers and let them know why. Other than that, I'm not sure that much more needs to be done in most circumstances. Driving Coulter and the like off the air would just make her more of a celebrity in her circle. Let her rant in her corner of the world, and you write scathing rebuttals if you're so inclined. But let's not get the government involved just yet. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. (Who thinks it's rather sad that Imus and the Duke lacrosse team are such big stories when so many more important things get short shrift. Maybe I'll write my local TV stations...)

Welcome to IWETHEY!