So where is the ACLU on the controversy surrounding Don Imus?* Usually so outspoken about matters of constitutionality in which it seems the public has erred, the ACLU has remained loudly reticent in this particular debate. Apparently encroaching on the first amendment right to free speech is not worth the ACLU's attention, but God forbid anyone should try to enforce section of that same amendment that protects the "free exercise" of religion. I guess the ACLU was too busy trying to eliminate prayer in schools to help defend Mr. Imus.
[Since it's probably not entirely clear here: I'm not at all against civil liberties, since my being able to blog so freely on a number of topics depends entirely on the privileges granted to us in our divinely wise Constitution. I do take issue with the politicized way the ACLU seems to selectively promote the application of "liberty" for certain (read: left-leaning) groups or for pet causes (read: issues on the Democratic agenda), but not in others. I have no actual "hard" statistics comparing cases in which the ACLU has supported or represented conservative litigants versus liberal litigants. I have, however, noticed that every time I hear of the ACLU involving itself in a matter, or speaking out on behalf of a group, the Union has never fallen on the side of the line I supported. Incidentally, I recently received mail from them inviting me to some fundraising dinner. How they got my mailing information—or why in the world they thought I would give them anything other than a very severe scowl and a mini-tirade such as that featured above—is, to me, a mystery of the universe.]
Actually, I'm pretty conflicted about this whole affair. Normally, I am all for decorum, politeness, etiquette, and the preservation of civility in modern society, and referring to anyone as a "nappy-headed ho" (especially on air, to national audience) is certainly outside the bounds of common decency.
Nonetheless, I also think we need to protect the freedom of speech. Doubtless Imus's comments were frivolous, mean-spirited, rude, racist, misogynist, &c, &c, but can we then ask people who are offended not to listen? I don't think sponsors pulled their ads because ratings suddenly dropped. In fact, (though, again, I have no hard data to substantiate this speculation) I'm willing to bet that after his nappy-headed gaff in which Imus's show was brought to the fore of American consciousness, millions who had never heard of Don Imus recognized his name, and many likely tuned in. I don't think rating numbers were out fast enough to determine that his stock had plummeted. I think advertisers were just scared of the backlash...and not even necessarily a genuine, certifiable downturn in sales, because I'm fairly confident that (sadly) most Americans are so apathetic that they just would continue buying the same brand of toothpaste, laundry detergent, saltine crackers and indexed mutual funds as before. Whatever is cheapest and most convenient. Whatever is on sale at WalMart or is being offered economy-sized in the Costco coupon book.
Granted, the type of comment that Imus made on his radio show perpetuate the prejudices that for many decades hijacked the machinery of democracy (namely the power of the majority to impose its will upon dissenting groups) for deplorably undemocratic aims. And while I do think we need to value the constitutional right to speak freely, I also recognize that there exists (at least in the mind of many Americans) the right to live free from being called a nappy-headed ho. How do we balance this? Even though Imus was not censored by the government, he was effectively silenced and his right to voice his opinions (however repugnant they might have struck most listeners) quashed by his firing. Of course the greater concern is not this particular case, but the implications this instance has on broadcast freedoms more broadly understood. Can we take anyone off the air from saying things we find offensive? What about things with which we simply disagree? Will this frighten and deter others from saying exactly what they think on air?
Incidentally, this is the same sort of thing we saw with the O.J. Simpson book deal (his book If I Did It), in which popular opposition was so strong that Rupert Murdock was forced to can the deal. (Click here if you're not familiar with that brouhaha.)
What do you, readers, think about this sort of censorship by the masses? We can see how in theory it's vastly different from governmental censorship, but in practice, aren't the effects the same (e.g. silencing the voices of those whose opinions Power dislikes, and preventing a free exchange of ideas)? If we become a nation that no longer values the right to free expression (even offensive, hateful expression), then isn't it logical to conclude that at some point we wouldn't care if the government did begin censoring, because we'd already be doing it to ourselves?
Is this because he's a white man referring to black women? What if it had been a black woman talking about a white man, say, Oprah referring to Steve Nash as a "balding white cracker"? Or, what if it had been Queen Oprah calling the Rutgers women's team nappy-headed ho's? I'm sure there would be press coverage of blacks perpetrating hateful attitudes against their own kind, but I doubt that the offender would have lost her job. Can we tolerate this two-tiered standard if we really want to live in a society in which race exists, yet without creating hypocracy and a double standard? In the wake of the Imus comments, much has been made about rap—a musical form dominated by black males—and the attitudes the artists of that genre perpetuate by reguarly using lyrics as incidious as those for which Imus was canned. Doesn't every race have the right to turn a profit off hate speech?
As the profusion of interrogatives above indicates, I am still very, very unsettled on the matter of where the "rights" and "wrongs" fall in this case. All I know for sure is that I am not attending that ACLU fundraiser.
*If you've been living in complete seclusion for the past week and aren't sure what the Imus controversy is, click here for some cultural currency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
hey jt. I think you'd enjoy constitutional law. In effect, the censoring of speech by a person is very different from the censoring of a person by the government. You argue that practically, they are the same thing, hinting that the Constitution is designed to keep this sort of behavior out of society. In fact, the Constitution "merely" binds the government - it is not so bold as to mandate behavior on the people. So, if society chooses to discriminate, become bias, or even adopt a fascist government, the Constitution can not, and really, should not be able to stand in the way of the will of the people.
In addition, I do believe in eliminating prayer from public school, although i am not necessarily against classes that study Christianity or prayer itself. As an atheist, I prefer not to be intimidated by religion in school (although it is, admittingly, unrealistic to escape religion's influences).
Although your dislike for the ACLU does shine through in this piece, perhaps some clarifications as to why this is so might help, since I didn't understand which fundraiser you were talking about near the end (although I can guess you were being mildly sarcastic or playing with rhetoric to end on an emotionally stirring note).
Your characterization of the ACLU is inaccurate. First of all, what someone says on the radio is not the concern of the ACLU. The ACLU only acts in cases where the GOVERNMENT infringes on civil liberties. It's inaccuate to say that the ACLU picks and chooses when to protect free speech rights because it has routinely fought for the right of the KKK to stage marches despite how tasteless the KKK is.
As for Don Imus, he does have the right to say what he wants, but he should also keep in mind that there are consequences to what you say. In this case, it was economical, due to a public backlash towards his comments, sponsors no longer wanted to be affiliated with the show. With advertisers pulling out, NBC had to make an economic decision to pull the plug on him.
As far as prayer in school, I think you have to understand that the ACLU is not trying to eliminate prayer from school, but rather government-sponsored prayer. When a teacher leads the class in prayer, or when a graduation ceremony is steeped with religious undertones, then MY right to NOT practice religion has been violated. But the ACLU will never fight to take away YOUR right to pray privately in class or before a test. In fact, I am almost certain that the opposite is true. That if a public school infringed upon your right to your religious beliefs, the ACLU would come to your defense. But I doubt that would happen because people like you are in the majority whereas people like Eddie and I are in the minority, and usually its the minority whose rights need protection from the majority.
Wow, this one got so many comments! Unfortunately, they're centered around part of the blog (the digression into the ACLU, prayer in school, et al) that was intended as tangential.
I acknowledge the fact that the Constitution only prohibits the government (not individuals or private grps) from limiting the free expression of speech. Nonetheless, I really am concerned about the de facto censorship of Imus. My own views (while rarely racially/sexually offensive) are often unpopular, and I would hate for my blog to be shut down because of that. Etimus says that the Constitution "cannot...and should not" prevent people from adopting descrimination or bias. I disagree here, and Etimus himself has previously pointed out the dangers of the "tyranny of masses" when it comes to the will of the majority imposed unfairly on others.
[About the ACLU fundraiser, I aluded to it toward the bottom the 2nd paragraph.]
In response to Ben's comments about the ACLU: I stand corrected regarding their non-support of Imus since this incident did not involve the government. I also stand corrected regarding the Union's defense of the Klan. However, I have still not been won over to ALCU's side--years of bias and hostility built up through the news (and one personal encounter)cannot be undone in one day, even by Ben.
Regarding prayer in school generally: I accept that school-led prayer (in class, before sporting events, or other school-related functions) could constitute an infraction against the seperation of church and state. I am not advocating the mixing of those two entities. However, the enforcement of a complete ban on prayer in school could never be realized, because often times no one has any idea that I am praying.
With regard to the ALCU and school prayer, the Union did, in fact file a suit against the Wilson County School System in 2006, a case in which the ACLU argued the defendents' right to assemble on their own on campus (without official approval of the school, or at a school event) to pray was illegal. If groups of students or faculty congregate privately on their own time (ie not during class/a school-sponsored function)and particiation is entirely voluntary (again, meaning those attending are there for the expressed purpose of prayer, not a math test or baseball game), why can they not practice their beliefs on campus?
As far as the majority/minority issue, while some argument might be made for the religiousity of America as a whole, at the local level (greater metropolitan LA/OC area), I am dubious whether the religious in any way constitute a "majority".
If one believes that the entertainment media shapes and/or is shaped by society, a quick glance at that industry will reveal how non-mainstream religion is. With a few notable exceptions, movies, television music, books, and the arts are all profoundly secular. I would actually argue that non-religious people finding themselves "in the minority" are acutely aware of situation in which they feel minoritized because such instances are rare, and stand out as special in their memories (though, of course, I cannot prove this).
I am willing to be corrected on this point, but: on a daily, even weekly, basis, I imagine their minority status rarely crosses their minds or impacts their lives in a meaningful way (unlike, say, blacks as the minority in 18th century America). Again, I make this assertion based on my own day-to-day living experiences (outside of church, which is a context most non-religious can choose not to enter) engaging in various conversations, reading, watching tv and movies, listening to music and the radio.
I am eager to hear others' thoughts, but on the whole, I think religion occupies a very small part of mainstream, daily American life.
Well I guess ben and etimus will never be President.
Imus can say whatever he wants. There just may not be a microphone there to catch what he says.
Post a Comment