|
|
|
|
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/19/2009 10:14:56 AM | However, to battle this out as an organization would inevitably lead to a First Amendment battle.
Interesting point Skoochie. ~ had not been thinking anything about these lines before. You're probably right in general about freedom of speech, but with the exception that in this instance, since it was a TV broadcast, it should also fall under action by the FCC. If the FCC decides in fact that they don't like people talking about (promoting?) sex for 14 year olds on the air, they would be obligated by their own charter to do something with Letterman, even if it were just to be to issue something of magnitude of a "traffic ticket" to him. But if they decide to do nothing, I guess they are saying that they are fine with this as a standard. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/19/2009 12:54:45 PM | I think a few stars have shown how far freedom of speech can be carried. When the 1st admendment is used to wrongfully defame people of things they did not do that is not freedom of speech. Carol Burnett is one of those people.
This joke was not about freedom of speech it was about telling of tasteless sexist jokes. Tasteless sexist jokes that I have a feeling that Letterman would Never want told about his own family and friends; especially his very young son.
More comedians should just insert their own , their spouse/signifcant other, child's, parent's, very good friend's or etc's name into some of their tasteless jokes. If they honestly thought about it that way they might just not tell such some tasteless jokes.
I have heard Bill Cosby often and he is still very funny. Strange he is one of the few comedians that does not resort to the F bomb in every sentence or the put down of other people for a laugh. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/19/2009 1:23:21 PM | One example is Imus.... Was his comments about the girls basketball team freedom of speech?
There was all sorts of organized protest... and it lead to him being fired. If he would have made the statement that it was like a team of Albinos... if the team was all white.... Nothing would have happened. I think what he said was wrong... but was it really any worse than Dave's comment?
Liberals are not held to the same standard as others, they are allowed to get away with much more, There is a double standard. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/19/2009 2:47:30 PM | The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech against interference by the *government.* ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .") The Supreme Court has held that the Free Speech Clause also applies to state governments.
And the Court has defined "speech" very broadly, to include activities like nude dancing, campaign contributions, cross burning, flag desecration, etc.
People can say pretty much what they want. And they can also sue to recover damages from those who defame them, misrepresent things to them, unfairly profit from using their name, and so on. With some exceptions, you have to prove you were damaged by what the person you're suing said.
But people who are public figures, whether that's because they hold a political office, or because they've entered into a public controversy, have a steeper hill to climb. There are some limits, but the law considers them more or less fair game. We're a democratic society, and we don't want to squash public debate just to keep the thin-skinned from having their feelings bruised.
So Governor Palin wouldn't have a prayer of winning a suit against Letterman or his network. But she was free to say, publicly, what she thought about his comments. He took a shot at her family, and she fired back. Letterman now may think twice about making that family the butt of any more jokes. That's how things work in a free country. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/19/2009 8:07:03 PM | Yep. I suppose one could make the argument that minor children are not public figures by definition, so the children of pols would have the same protection against defamation as any other private individual.
Re: the double standard. I don't know. It was one bad joke about one pol's kid in an otherwise fairly clean record. Perhaps Letterman isn't all that funny any more, but certainly not a shock jock like Imus. When you use racial epithets on the airwaves, I don't care who you are, it's time to start looking for another job.
Of course you have the right to say whatever you want wherever you happen to be, and no one can jail you for it. However, you do not have a Constitutional right to a particular job, and if you say things that enrage enough people sufficiently, you could well lose it. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/19/2009 10:08:24 PM | ^^^^^ But 5 bucks says that if Imus was black there would not have been such an outrage over his remarks, if any at all.....and you can also damn well be sure that Sharpton would not have held his butt to the fire either.... So much would have to do with what color skin you have as opposed to what specifically you said as well as what color skin the person you were referring to is because it is ok (or acceptable) for people of different races to say certain things....
There are people who have made millions and millions of dollars using the same epithets in their music ( and some much worse) yet Imus was roasted for it......simply because he was the wrong color....... So was it his actual remark or the color of Imus`s skin ? Or both ?
Gets complicated, I know lol | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/19/2009 10:47:10 PM | What Imus said was wrong and he apologized immediately ...yet what was strange is they still went after him..IF I remember right Obama even put in his two cents too..
There are two differences I see between Imus's and Letterman's mess
Imus's comment was an off the cuff non-rehearsed comment which he quickly apologized for ....Yet he still got fired
Letterman on the other hand said his comment not once but twice since it was rehearsed, In the beginning Letterman even refused to acknowledge that there was anything really wrong with his comment except that he made a mistake in which daughter he was talking about. I still dont think Letterman really gets why people are upset with the joke----Its not that he accidently aimed the joke at an underage girl, its the fact that the the joke is a sick sexist joke and should not have been aimed at anyone regardless of their gender, age, fame, political standing or ???
Do I like either Imus or Letterman---No!!!..(prior to this had never listened to Imus but have on occassion watched Letterman due to certain guests)..I will say now that I feel that Imus is a bit of a better man than Letterman, because I think Imus's apology was more real and Imus understands the error he made. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/19/2009 11:15:23 PM | Gets complicated, I know lol
Yes, it does. Part of it is that Palin is a public figure and so fair game. Her kids should be off limits, except for the irony that Mom ran on a morality platform that her older daughter apparently didn't live up to. That failure reflects badly on Mom's authoritative stance.
Another part of it is that race relations in America have never been symmetrical. There was a time where a black person making a durogatory remark about a white person would have been in for far worse than losing a job. Racial minorities have good reason to be touchy when white people say crass things. When members of racial minorities are talking among themselves, if white people happen to overhear racial epithets being used, that does not mean that black people or other minorities are assenting to a return to the bad old days.
White people need to understand that racial minorities live in a world where the threat of renewed oppression is real. Just look at the prison population stats to get an understanding of why they're touchy. You would be too. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 12:58:54 AM |
White people need to understand that racial minorities live in a world where the threat of renewed oppression is real.
I don't know what world you mean, or what makes this supposed threat real, rather than imaginary. If you're claiming white Americans could once more oppress blacks and other racial minorities, I'd like to know how. This country just elected a black President, for heaven's sake. There's no evidence I know of that any substantial proportion of white Americans wishes blacks ill, in the first place.
But assume, hypothetically, that a majority of white Americans hated blacks and other minorities. For starters, they'd want to repeal the 14th Amendment, and probably the 13th and 15th as well. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Those Amendments are very much alive and well. And the Supreme Court, for many decades now, has made it next to impossible for any law that discriminates against blacks and members of other racial minorities to survive its review. The Justice Department also enforces civil rights laws very strongly. There's not the faintest indication--anywhere--that this legal protection is going to weaken.
I don't believe in holding black Americans to any lower standard of behavior than white Americans. It's not only condescending to expect less of them, but also subtly racist--people who are equal have equal obligations. We should no more tolerate or excuse bad behavior by blacks, than by whites. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 2:02:53 AM | Points well taken, Matchlight.
Racial minorities harboring suspicion is one thing, and understandable given the history. While overt discrimination is on the wane, there is still a climate in which discrimination appears to be practiced more covertly, and only somewhat less effectively than in the past.
That appearance might be in error or it might not. Hard to say. Only those who have the relevant experience can say.
As far as tolerating bad behaviour goes, I can't argue with you when you're right.
It's one thing for minorities to appropriate the terms that were once used against them. It is quite another for anyone to practice racism while justifying it on the sufferings of their ancestors. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 9:07:17 AM | Yes, it does. Part of it is that Palin is a public figure and so fair game. Her kids should be off limits, except for the irony that Mom ran on a morality platform that her older daughter apparently didn't live up to. That failure reflects badly on Mom's authoritative stance
No Ace, there is no but. The kids should be off limits period, that's where you should have ended that sentence.
Furthermore, as a parent, I try to live a moral life, and set a good example for my sons, but my 20 year old son, much to my dismay, seems ruled by his hormones and seems to have taken it upon himself to "spread his seed" far and wide so to speak. I'm curious, does this reflect badly on me as his mother in your estimation? | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 9:42:33 AM | What Imus said was wrong and he apologized immediately ...yet what was strange is they still went after him..IF I remember right Obama even put in his two cents too..
The issue I was trying to make was not about if it was right or wrong, rather if Imus was black, I seriously doubt there would have been anything made of his comment.
If Palin was black would Lettermen still have said what he said ? I seriously doubt it and if he did....... all hell would have broke loose. That you can bank on.
So how much really depends on "what " you say or does it truly depend on the color of your skin ?
If a black man calls another black man the N word or if a black musician uses the N word in his lyrics not a eyebrow is raised but if a white musician uses it, it will be an entirely different issue....so once again we are back to it.... is not what you actually say but what is the color of your skin as well as the color of the skin of the person you are saying it to......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bmXP-oGf_E&feature=related | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 1:51:01 PM |
I'm curious, does this reflect badly on me as his mother in your estimation?
If you made your morality a public issue, and it turned out that you couldn't even persuade your own childen to abide by your rules, I'm not sure it would make you a bad mother, but it would definitely call your leadership capability into question. It might also call into question the viability of your moral stance. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 2:12:12 PM |
So how much really depends on "what " you say or does it truly depend on the color of your skin ?
I will go ahead and stick my neck out, for I feel that last year seemed to become a turning point that brought us backwards a few decades in regards the label of racism. Too many of last years agruments got labeled racist when they actually had notthing to do with race,they were just not Pro-Obama. This happened several times to white politicians and political activists. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 2:22:01 PM | It might also call into question the viability of your moral stance.
Millions have proven that it's a pretty viable moral stance, even in this world, and that's regardless of time and/or place. To suggest that the stance is unachievable or regularly unachieved is probably not the most founded of suggestions.
As for the rest of the post Ace, I would suspect that mothers everywhere in this world have moments and issues about their children that they are not particularly happy with. Was my mom, who is pretty proud of me overall, ALWAYS proud of me over every subject? - No. And I'd be pretty amazed if your mom has always been proud of your every activity too; but then again, maybe she really is, what do I know?
I think this might be one of those areas to which the proper response might be rather: Let he who is free fully of any and all sin be the first to cast a stone.
Barbe, as a mom, you'll probably always be worried about your offspring and the choices that they make. That's called love and experience. But no one gets to, or is denied from, heaven based on what their mother's tried to bring and teach to them. It's what they understand themselves that gets people to where they end up.
I'm willing to bet that Palin has gone through a whole series of "I shoulda's" as mother of her daughter,..........just as I'm sure Letterman's mother has done for him too. I don't blame Letterman's mother for the grandson he sired illegitimately. I can't see the reverse arguement for Sarah holding any more water with those that stand on a level playing field either. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 2:43:01 PM | and it turned out that you couldn't even persuade your own childen to abide by your rules,
Oh c`mon now Ace..... how a child behaves or what they do behind their mothers back when they are in their mid to late teens can hardly be blamed on the parents. All one can do is bring the children up as best they can and keep their fingers crossed.
Have you any idea just how many teens get pregnant in our country every year ? Does that mean it is somehow always the parents fault ?
I know I did things when I was a teen that would have had my parents hit the roof and beyond if I ever got caught and I was brought up in a strict household....... but......I did stuff anyway...... and got away with it most of the times 
Luckily getting myself pregnant was not one of them, Baahaaaaa
Peace | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 4:15:01 PM |
Barbe, as a mom, you'll probably always be worried about your offspring and the choices that they make. That's called love and experience. But no one gets to, or is denied from, heaven based on what their mother's tried to bring and teach to them. It's what they understand themselves that gets people to where they end up.
I'm willing to bet that Palin has gone through a whole series of "I shoulda's" as mother of her daughter,..........just as I'm sure Letterman's mother has done for him too. I don't blame Letterman's mother for the grandson he sired illegitimately. I can't see the reverse arguement for Sarah holding any more water with those that stand on a level playing field either.
Thanks 04, and I couldn't agree more, as a parent we lead, we discuss, we pray for, we do our best (or more acurately what we think is our best but since the little stinkers don't come with an instruction book, we follow our instincts), and then we help them pick up the pieces when they make mistakes. That's what parents do, and that is what Sarah Palin did in regards to her daughter.
How interesting that someone who has never parented should be so quick to point out the shortfalls of those that do parent, and . As my mother used to tell me, "I hope you have one just like you some day." I couldn't wish for a more fitting gift! | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 4:37:31 PM |
Let he who is free fully of any and all sin be the first to cast a stone.
Actually, turn the other cheek might be better. Seems to me that the ones who cast first usually do so under the rubric of maintaining a "Christian," or "moral" society.
If one of them gets a little of their own back, ... well ... as y'all say, we all can't live up to Christ's teachings all the time.
The kids are off limits. The job she did as a mother is fair game.
Why was she taking any role in politics when her Bible clearly states that women are supposed to defer to men when it comes to leadership and governance? And why was she doing that when she had children to raise? Had she paid more attention to her daughter and less to her ambition, she might have a moral claim to make. As it stands, she is a hypocrite. She is also ungrateful.
I'm fine with her being Governor, but I'm not fine with her claiming a morality that she herself does not follow. When she acknowledges the debt she owes to the people she actually does follow--those dreaded feminist liberals whose tireless work opened the door for her to reach political prominence--I'll cut her all the slack in the world. Until then, I consider her a snake. | |
|
| |
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 6:19:11 PM |
If you made your morality a public issue, and it turned out that you couldn't even persuade your own childen sicto abide by your rules, I'm not sure it would make you a bad mother, but it would definitely call your leadership capability into question. It might also call into question the viability of your moral stance.
...Spoken like someone who has never raised children and hasn't had to deal with their child's choices. And the Palin-bashing is spoken like a political liberal. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 7:40:03 PM | Why was she taking any role in politics when her Bible clearly states that women are supposed to defer to men when it comes to leadership and governance? And why was she doing that when she had children to raise? Had she paid more attention to her daughter and less to her ambition, she might have a moral claim to make. As it stands, she is a hypocrite. She is also ungrateful
I don't recall that it any of Christ's teachings....perhaps you'd care to point out where?
Ace..seriously, your hatred for the mother is coloring your judgement on this issue. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 7:59:56 PM | I cant believe how many people seem to Hate Palin to the point of almost pure detest, yet have never met the women nor probably even taken the time to know the lady. Just because she ran against Obama and/or because she was a republican people have felt the need to attack this woman way beyond what is even human.
Hey there are a lot of politicians that I dont like but I know I would never talk about them the way some talk about Palin especially in public. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 9:51:17 PM | I don't recall that it any of Christ's teachings....perhaps you'd care to point out where?
All that stuff that Paul talked about. I don't remember exactly which epistles tell women to be subservient to men, something about as the chuch being the bride of Christ and subject to his will, so should women be toward their husbands.
I tend to think that Paul took liberties when he gave that advice. It doesn't seem consistent with Christ's message to me, but that is the conservative morality.
Just because she ran against Obama and/or because she was a republican people have felt the need to attack this woman way beyond what is even human.
My animus toward her has nothing to do with Obama, or her party affiliation. In fact, my first reaction when McCain announced her as his pick was elation! If the Republican candidate chose a woman to revitalize his campaign and saw that move as his best option to come from behind, then the glass ceiling is well and truly dead. It was a great day for us all.
I just don't like mean cheerleaders.
Letterman was out of line. The older daughter did a good thing by advising other girls not to make her same mistake. The younger daughter is should have been off limits. He finally apologized and she accepted it, presumably on behalf of the daughter(s). At least she had the Christian grace to do that. I give her that.
Finally, there is a difference between cracking wise over someone's inherited characerisics and commenting on discrepancies between their words and their deeds. Letterman's choice of that joke to poke fun at Mom was definitely in poor taste, but the discrepancy between a person's behavior and claims is something that is within that person's power to change. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 10:00:13 PM | Ace, We gotta get you a bible. You're only working with half of what Paul wrote in that passage (and also with one modification needed). That 1/2 of the passage was to wives, he also gave complimentary words to husbands in the flip side of that same passage, albeit in one it's "love" and the other "respect" (and not the word "subservient"), but neither fully precluding or assigning leadership to strictly one or the other. And, Paul as far as I can remember anywhere else, didn't say women couldn't have positions of leadership in churches or governments.
There was a passage in Timothy that some have interpretted to mean that women should not be pastors of churches. But even some of the most established of denominations have refuted that interpretation these days, and in fact it's not that uncommon to find women pastors anymore in them.
Getting back to Barbe's question about what Christ said though, I can't remember Him saying women couldn't/shouldn't hold power..... Perhaps this might be an Old Testament thing???? (I'm not quite as good on OT as NT)......I'll see if I can find an expert. If indeed it is an OT thing, then of course it would follow to remind that Sarah is not Jewish. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 10:25:19 PM | Yes, I'm familiar with Paul's advice to husbands, and tend to think it is generally good advice for anyone in a leadership role. I am also aware that for a couple of millenia conservatives interpreted that passage to keep women down, including the murders of 2 million or more "witches" throughout Europe.
I was commenting on the Bible's teaching, not Christ's. I often see differences between the two, even when talking strictly about what's in the NT. I don't there is anything in any of the NT Gospels, one way or another, about women in positions of responsibility. There are some apochryphal rumors about Mary Magdelene administering the money for Jesus and the Apostles, so it might be that his true thoughts on the role of women were suppressed.
Of course these are heretical views. Thank God nobody is going to come after me for expressing them. | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
