For Imus, It's No Ho Ho For Calling Them Hos
Patrick Carlock
April 10, 2007
Imus has, apparently (I don't listen to his show), been offending people for quite a long time. He is not the only one. I don't particularly care for it, but why is Imus, all of the sudden, being singled out, when this type of thing has been going on for a long time, by a lot of public figures, on the air?
Let's back track for a moment. I remember a time with the word "pregnant" would be censored on the air. I remember a time when a man and a woman sleeping in the same room had to sleep in separate beds. I remember the time of McCarthyism, where writers were blacklisted because of their political views. I remember Lenny Bruce and the price he paid for free speech. In that era, if you appeared in or were the producer of a porno film, you would be jailed.
Okay, I was a toddler at the time, but let's just say I have a good memory.
During the sixties, America had enough of censorship, and we bitched and moaned about it, and now that we have finally got free speech, we are bellyaching about its consequences. That being said, I do think that, in the case of Imus, we do have to make some fine point clarifications on just what he did, and just what, if anything, should be the consequence.
I watched the show, at least the segment of the quip in question, and it was done in an affectionate way, and based on the context, body language, etc., in which I heard the broadcast, he was describing the team in words which, in my opinion, were intended to mean that the team was rough looking, and he also mentioned them having tattoos. Does Imus have the right to say that the team in question was rough looking? Yes. Does the team have the responsibility to be tolerant of Imus's opinion, if it is a reasonable characterization? Yes, but it would depend, of course, on the words used. I think the girls are justified, of course, in being offended. Yes, I question the wisdom of verbalizing that train of thought in the way that he did, but that is what Imus does for a living. Yes, his choice of words was unfortunate. I would never have used those words. Yes, I agree with many that it is offensive, but I also accept that it is Imus's right to speak in the fashion that the first amendment provides. Some might argue that the speech was sexist and racist, but, given the context in fashion in which the words were delivered, I do not believe that to be his intention. If that was the result, and that seems to be the case, it is up to his employer to punish him. I agree, wholeheartedly, that it was a guffaw of the worst order, and I think Imus knows that, too.
However, if he were sued, I believe he would prevail. Simply put, his speech probably does not meet the legal standard of hate speech against a race, and though I'm not a lawyer, I will bet on it. We shouldn't incite people into sedition or hate, that is speech that is not allowed, but being offensive, is. If one is being offensive in a commercial setting, it is really up to the employers/agents/contractors, etc., as to what to do, it's their nickel, and their conscience (if they have any).
Black comedians and rap singers, or so the argument goes, use these racial epithets a lot because that is their supposedly their culture (but surely not the culture of every black person), and the language is not intended to belittle. Ah, there's that word again: intent. However, their words are very offensive, to me, but I'm not complaining. I don't see recording companies, and cable TV sponsors pulling the plug on artists who use offensive language, racial slurs, etc. And what about South Park? However, I'm deeply offended by Ann Coulter, and any one else, who charactizes my political views as treasonous, when in fact, they are not, but no one is marching to put Ann Coulter out of business.
I feel that Imus's case is somewhat different than the case of artists, in the practice of their art, who make fun of ethnic groups, in that Imus used offensive words aimed at a specific group of inividuals, the Rutgers women's basket ball team, girls who clearly did not deserve the characterization. I therefore think that the two week suspension was an appropriate punishment for the degree of the offense. I don't think firing him would be punishment commensurate with the offense. I think Imus is doing the right thing by confronting Rutgers and the team, in person, to deliver his apology. I doubt that he will be fired. I hope that people will accept his apology, which, to my ears, seems to be sincere.
But, in a few weeks, Imus will be Imus, though I do hope that this experience will have humbled him, in some way.
All of us, at some point, need to be humbled.
Let's back track for a moment. I remember a time with the word "pregnant" would be censored on the air. I remember a time when a man and a woman sleeping in the same room had to sleep in separate beds. I remember the time of McCarthyism, where writers were blacklisted because of their political views. I remember Lenny Bruce and the price he paid for free speech. In that era, if you appeared in or were the producer of a porno film, you would be jailed.
Okay, I was a toddler at the time, but let's just say I have a good memory.
During the sixties, America had enough of censorship, and we bitched and moaned about it, and now that we have finally got free speech, we are bellyaching about its consequences. That being said, I do think that, in the case of Imus, we do have to make some fine point clarifications on just what he did, and just what, if anything, should be the consequence.
I watched the show, at least the segment of the quip in question, and it was done in an affectionate way, and based on the context, body language, etc., in which I heard the broadcast, he was describing the team in words which, in my opinion, were intended to mean that the team was rough looking, and he also mentioned them having tattoos. Does Imus have the right to say that the team in question was rough looking? Yes. Does the team have the responsibility to be tolerant of Imus's opinion, if it is a reasonable characterization? Yes, but it would depend, of course, on the words used. I think the girls are justified, of course, in being offended. Yes, I question the wisdom of verbalizing that train of thought in the way that he did, but that is what Imus does for a living. Yes, his choice of words was unfortunate. I would never have used those words. Yes, I agree with many that it is offensive, but I also accept that it is Imus's right to speak in the fashion that the first amendment provides. Some might argue that the speech was sexist and racist, but, given the context in fashion in which the words were delivered, I do not believe that to be his intention. If that was the result, and that seems to be the case, it is up to his employer to punish him. I agree, wholeheartedly, that it was a guffaw of the worst order, and I think Imus knows that, too.
However, if he were sued, I believe he would prevail. Simply put, his speech probably does not meet the legal standard of hate speech against a race, and though I'm not a lawyer, I will bet on it. We shouldn't incite people into sedition or hate, that is speech that is not allowed, but being offensive, is. If one is being offensive in a commercial setting, it is really up to the employers/agents/contractors, etc., as to what to do, it's their nickel, and their conscience (if they have any).
Black comedians and rap singers, or so the argument goes, use these racial epithets a lot because that is their supposedly their culture (but surely not the culture of every black person), and the language is not intended to belittle. Ah, there's that word again: intent. However, their words are very offensive, to me, but I'm not complaining. I don't see recording companies, and cable TV sponsors pulling the plug on artists who use offensive language, racial slurs, etc. And what about South Park? However, I'm deeply offended by Ann Coulter, and any one else, who charactizes my political views as treasonous, when in fact, they are not, but no one is marching to put Ann Coulter out of business.
I feel that Imus's case is somewhat different than the case of artists, in the practice of their art, who make fun of ethnic groups, in that Imus used offensive words aimed at a specific group of inividuals, the Rutgers women's basket ball team, girls who clearly did not deserve the characterization. I therefore think that the two week suspension was an appropriate punishment for the degree of the offense. I don't think firing him would be punishment commensurate with the offense. I think Imus is doing the right thing by confronting Rutgers and the team, in person, to deliver his apology. I doubt that he will be fired. I hope that people will accept his apology, which, to my ears, seems to be sincere.
But, in a few weeks, Imus will be Imus, though I do hope that this experience will have humbled him, in some way.
All of us, at some point, need to be humbled.
Print
Email
