i'd say what they did is far beyond bad taste and poor judgement. i'd call it racism and hatred. protect freedom of speech? yes. protect racism and hatred? hell no.

 

Agreed. While the song was completely tasteless, it shouldn't be the government's place to tell people what they can and can't say.

on another note, that Ms. Jones bitch is a bitch. I'd like to give her a kick in the throat.

 

The Constitution doesn't make that distinction. Even the Ku Klux Klan still gets to hold public rallies. A lot of people thought that The Passion of the Christ was incredibly anti-semitic. I"m Jewish. You know how I reacted? I didn't go see it. Thats how a free society works.*

I disagree that the song was written in the spirit of racism or with hatred. They probably just thought it was really funny and edgy, not realizing how incredibly insensitive the lyrics were and how horrifying the tsunami was for a lot of people. They may each carry their own prejudices, but I doubt they sat in a room asking each other "How can we upset the chinks today?"

I'm also not sure that the song would have become such a big deal if they didn't have that ridiculous argument on-air just before the song aired.




* I'm baffled at how often I've been using that phrase lately.

 

I wholly agree with benjamin.

Freedom of speech is just that, and if you don't like what you're hearing then don't listen. Period.

Personally I think it's ludicrous that they be suspended and all that for saying what they like. It may be wrong, it may be hideously stupid- but it's free speech. Get used to it.

 

I would disagree with that statement. I know for a fact the Asian community made it a big deal not because of the on-argument.





This argument isn't going anywhere.

 

What I meant was that the argument that preceeded the song set up a condition where the listener would have a reason to believe there was something offensive in the song to Asians because of Miss Info's distancing herself from it.

I do think the song would have been a big deal, but I'm not sure if it would have been as huge as it turned out to be if they hadn't argued about it. Particularly inflammatory was Todd Lynn saying that he was going to start shooting Asians.

For what its worth, I think he should have been fired on the spot for that remark, but I feel the same way about a lot of radio personalities, especially political pundits. Remember when Rush Limbaugh called 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton a dog? That wasn't clever or insightful -- it was unprofessional and disgusting and it brought ridicule on a defenseless teenage girl for no reason other than Rush didn't like her parents.

 

there's a difference between having the freedom to say whatever you want, and being held accountable for what you just said. to blur the two is idiotic.

no one here is arguing against freedom of speech. say whatever the hell you want. go up to your boss and call him a f*cking idiot if you want. just don't be surprised when your ass gets canned. that's a right too.

 

I never said they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, nor do I think that.

 

No, what led ME to believe there was something offensive was the actual lyics:

That is all.

 

Did you read my whole post? The next sentence was "I do think the song would have been a big deal, but I'm not sure if it would have been as huge as it turned out to be if they hadn't argued about it."

Obviously I see that the song was offensive.