The Foul and Rebound of Don Imus
Ever Odessa
- Published Content: 346
- Total Views: 263,790
- Favorited By: 10 CPs
"I'm not a bad person, I'm a good person. But I said a bad thing. But these young women deserve to know it was not said with malice." -- Don Imus
Apparently, you can call an unknown group of young women "nappy headed hos", as Don Imus did on his radio show while talking about the woman's Rutgers basketball team, and think it not malicious. Or at least, that is the mindset of what sadly appears to be many in America. The "as long as people lau 
gh, it's okay" theory. You know what I'm talking about. You were sitting next to me in the theater watching Borat. Except while you were busting a gut declaring Borat the funniest film in all of history, I was feeling like I had wandered into the twilight zone. Call me uptight if it makes you feel better, but degrading and humiliating undeserving people has never been my idea of humor, entertainment or what I consider acceptable behavior.
But what I find acceptable or unacceptable is beside the point. What I am interested in knowing is when did other Americans decide it was not just okay, but also enjoyable, to degrade and humiliate others?
I have heard some answer with arguments of free speech. Regardless of whether they agree with Don Imus, they feel Don Imus has the right to make humiliating, degrading, or prejudicial comments based on the concept of free speech.
Frankly, I am tiring of freedom of speech arguments. Because it has just become one of those phrases people pull out of the sky to justify whatever they feel in the moment, usually hate.
But hey, if you truly believe in the absolute concept of free speech, then while you are demanding Don Imus to be rehired, see if you can get Judith Regan back her job as well please.
Actually, don't misunderstand, it is the blatant hypocrisy that bothers me. Not the concept of free speech or people's desire to defend it.
For those who do not believe in absolutes, free speech is a complicated matter, and has been since its conception. There have always been difficult to define limits and rules regarding free speech based on theories of harm, offense, and relative values.
I have conflicting feelings myself about the Don Imus matter.
Apparently, you can call an unknown group of young women "nappy headed hos", as Don Imus did on his radio show while talking about the woman's Rutgers basketball team, and think it not malicious. Or at least, that is the mindset of what sadly appears to be many in America. The "as long as people lau
But what I find acceptable or unacceptable is beside the point. What I am interested in knowing is when did other Americans decide it was not just okay, but also enjoyable, to degrade and humiliate others?
I have heard some answer with arguments of free speech. Regardless of whether they agree with Don Imus, they feel Don Imus has the right to make humiliating, degrading, or prejudicial comments based on the concept of free speech.
Frankly, I am tiring of freedom of speech arguments. Because it has just become one of those phrases people pull out of the sky to justify whatever they feel in the moment, usually hate.
But hey, if you truly believe in the absolute concept of free speech, then while you are demanding Don Imus to be rehired, see if you can get Judith Regan back her job as well please.
Actually, don't misunderstand, it is the blatant hypocrisy that bothers me. Not the concept of free speech or people's desire to defend it.
For those who do not believe in absolutes, free speech is a complicated matter, and has been since its conception. There have always been difficult to define limits and rules regarding free speech based on theories of harm, offense, and relative values.
I have conflicting feelings myself about the Don Imus matter.