This is pretty good. I thought I knew where I stood on this but all your arguments are pretty persuasive.

Nope, it's correct. Gold star!!!!!

Who draws the line? Well, clearly the station or the FCC will. But by making your and my and everyone else's views known we can inform the decision of whoever makes the choice. That's why making your voice heard matters. I am pretty sure that if no one said anything when this was aired, neither the dj nor the station nor the fcc would have paused to consider if there might be a problem in spewing racism over the publicly owned airwaves. They're mine, too, I get to say how I would like them to be used. I don't get final call, but I'm allowed to find it offensive and it's my job as a citizen to speak up on this shit. Work toward the society you want to live in, and all that.

As for whether one has the right to decide for someone else what is morally acceptable regarding treatment of race in society, I think you can't acceptably advocate hatred against any group of people. It's not in the best interest of the macrocosm to do so and there are some moral absolutes that actually work moving society forward.

The absolute here being that inaction against hatred always leads to a damaged and chaotic society. And no person should have to live in fear of others.

Unless the people are actively hurting others, they shouldn't be banned by the government, but the listeners have every right to cause a stink to management and try to get the guys fired. There are consequences for actions in society. I'm certainly not going to abdicate my ability to affect those consequences simply because there's a possibility that my version of right and wrong might be subjective in someone else's eyes. If everyone decided that everyone's actions were their own business, there'd be no human rights, no civil rights, no judgement of guilt in the courts, no sentences, and no deterrents to actions other than personal conscience. Personal conscience can't be relied on to sustain a soceity.

i'm not proposing inaction. i'm saying that look, these guys have been fired before. stern's been protested before. taking their speech, however hateful it sounds and regardless of their motivations for saying it, as an emotional affront never changes anything. they'll get another job because they bring high-profile status and publicity to the radio stations that broadcast their shows. controversy is what's selling here, and arousing reaction is their goal, right? you can protest all you want but the only thing that matters in this country, and pretty much all the others, if the bottom line. the only thing that's ever going to be effective, and in many ways the only thing that has ever been effective, is where you vote with your dollar or maybe your bullets. everything else is worthless.

yeah, this is true

I'll stand by my assertion that with the dollar vote has to come the speech. If all those anti-sweatshop kids had just stopped shopping at the gap back in the 80s, it would have cut their margins, sure. Since they also called the company out on the sweatshops at the same time, the company had to put a good deal of time and money into improving, defending, and publicising their labor practises. From what I've read, those labor practises actually improved as a result of the scrutiny. Boycotts need outcry as well as keeping the bucks in the pocket.

In this case, you have a real beef, contact the advertisers on the station.

which is why i think that the station was so quick to retract and publish an apology. they know the dollar is at stake. i'm not sure if you're trying to say the station actually didn't find it offensive but are reacting just to keep their market share, but my bet is that they tried something out that may have been borderline offensive and are experiencing a backlash because it was too close to the edge (or far from it, strike out).

i'm not saying if the fcc will or will not touching this one... my point was that there literally is an institution in the government constructed for citizen representation, therefore people (according to the government) DO have a voice as to what goes on and off the air. so you're comment that nobody "has the right to be offended" is untrue. the government says we have a right and, even is the government is benign, the citizens are not. if you don't believe in a government, or specifically our government, then whose rules do you operate under, specifically for the "offensive," oppression, injustice? what system do you think these things should answer to, and how are they any different system of "some better understanding of what is and is not acceptable on a moral and philosophical level"? or is there such thing as injustice (slavery, murder, etc)?

while you think it's a high-handed remark to say you're offended at something because it causes oppression, i suppose the other side of the coin is that oppression continues because nobody says they're offended or nobody's allowed to (see: press law in tyrranical regimes). i guess that goes hand in hand with the question of belief in injustice (and perhaps decency, mercy, offensiveness, etc)

radio stations don't get their "standings" of the season until six months down the line. if people are offensive and stop listening but nobody said anything, the station won't find out until then, losing people all along the line (for better or for worse). a lot of people listen to the station because they find worth in listening to it and when they have a reason to switch off something that they feel is otherwise ok, then they can be angry and say so. people have a say, and that's sometimes relative to the dollar. but due to apathy and general nature of radio-listening, people will take what they are fed and some people feel its important to let others know that what they say on the morning show is not ok. so instead of telling "them" to either switch from the stationor not, its your turn to either believe what they're saying about the offense or not. the radio station believed they were offended, because of the dollar and maybe because they themselves found it offensive, and so they retracted. they didn't tell their listeners to shut up and listen to another station because they know their listenership is important.

but the people can't fire that morning show, but they can request it. the people can't make decency laws, but they can complain about indecency.

i apologize. i might be off by about 10 million, actually. my brain farted. thanks, g.

i don't think that things that are offensive are necessarially equatable with those that actively oppress people or are in themselves an injustice. these djs certainly didn't add to the death toll of the tragedy with their remarks. stern can laugh at a woman's vanity in her desire for fake breasts and it's not denying anyone any rights. maybe the government does have a law that says that this is indecent and this is not, fine, i don't think that anyone can check that law to see what fits and what doesn't.

i just don't think that things that are offensive require the same response that things that are unjust do. perhaps we're dealing with semantic arguments, but i distinguish between those actions that hurt my feelings and those that affect someone's right to live their life as they see fit.

they're not that smart. that just thought that bit was humorous.

Well put. I think it's okay to mouth off to management about those employees actions, though.

i agree with you. at least i listed them separately. while i also view them as separate, i do think attention should be paid when the offensive borderlines that which is unlawful/unjust. thus...

ill preface by saying this is my own opinion and you can disagree with it... but while the dj's didn't add to the death toll of the tragedy, they added to, i guess, the tragedy of the tragedy. the fact that these people were asian were completely irrelevant, it only helped make their "joke." it also made light of something unpreventable as a tsunami.

why does this make something offensive borderline unjust?

sure, people's feelings may be hurt, but it could be deemed unlawful if the fcc takes those complaints from hurt feelings and does something with them -- a fine, a slap on the wrist, whatever. if this is important enough, which many feel it is, the fcc may view it as unlawful to do with the public's airwaves (for instance, the public would rather not have their airwaves used to subject hundreds of thousands of people to racist remarks).

this is why i make the parallel to hate crime and hate speech. it is punishable by law to do certain things in this country if they're meant to cause emotional, psychological or bodily harm to certain groups of persons. the law says its unjust. now, what they said on the air may not have intended to harm to asians (perhaps they're not racist but just ignorant, or just aiming for the bottom line or just trying to make a joke and taking it to the next level, or whatever) but regardless, their actions could have caused harm -- maybe falling out of the way of hate speech, but falling into civil justice (lawsuits for personal or psychological harm). as an broadcasting outlet, a space of speech, the station probably already had a statement written out that it was a joke, that they didn't intend to cause harms, thus, unintended consequences of their speech. but even if it won't qualify as hate-speech, what they said on the air doesn't fall entirely out of the "harmful" range.

stern can laugh at some woman's boobs and she can sue for defamation or whatever. miss jones and her morning show can say all that bs about tsunamis and asians as a joke and face the consequences too. personally, i wish the fcc would concentrate less on breasts and get rid of trash of this racist ilk. i don't blame, and appreciate, citizens who stand up to it, too.

i stand by my first post.

lol.

if only people actually took your advice.

Ok, they probably shouldn't have brought up the one chick's ethnicity, but I just caught this on O'Reilly, and DAT FUNNY!! I want this song played at my wedding. Sorry, but again, DAT FUNNY! Seriously, God saying swim you bitches swim is the best line I've heard in a song this year. If you think this is bad, maybe I'll post our bit about planes flying buildings.

Also, it's called reverse racism, because many people believe that only those in power have the power to be racist, but others (read:white people) are always quick to say that there is 'reverse racism' as well.

Also, MIKE JONES!! and DAT WAVE!! AAAAGH!!

So, why is it funny?

Cuz they died! And their Asian! They're all the way on the other side of the world. Don't you get it?

Me neither.

Well, I mean aside from hatred for all minorities, I find tragedy in general to be good fodder for humor. Remember 1 person dies its a tragedy, 1 million people die its a statistic. Let's just say I'm a sick fuck and I found the song to be humorous, partly just because its so OBVIOUSLY over the top and made to provoke, and then all you crybabies get up in arms about it.

Nothing is Sacred, and you will NEVER offend me. If I told you two of my bets "jokes" which is to say commentaries on current events, I'd be an instant pariah on the board.

This british soccer broadcaster got fired for the following. I'm not offended by the joke. It's not really a joke about the Tsunami but about how thick Beckham is.

-- An English sports commentator was fired Tuesday for making a joke about the tsunami disaster.

Former English soccer player Rodney Marsh made the comment Monday night during a phone-in program on Sky Sports. A Sky spokesman said Marsh apologized on the air for the comments, which were edited when the program was retransmitted.

In his comments, Marsh jokingly said Real Madrid midfielder David Beckham turned down a transfer to the English club Newcastle after hearing of trouble with the ``Toon Army in Asia.''

Supporters of Newcastle are called the ``Toon Army,'' which sounds similar to the word ``tsunami.''

``During the live nighttime phone-in, Rodney made comments that were offensive and inexcusable,'' Sky said in a statement. ``These remarks should never have been made, and Sky would like to offer its apologies to those who were offended.''

A former striker for Queens Park Rangers, Manchester City and Fulham, Marsh was a regular sports commentator with Sky, Britain's satellite broadcaster.

I think "reverse racism" is a confusion of the phrase, "reverse discrimination" -- which is a perfectly legitimate concept. Reverse discrimination is when, due to equal opportunity employment quotas attempting to be met, a person of the majority race is not chosen (for employment, promotion, etc.) due to his ineligibility to help meet those quotas.

Just being a pedant, we now return you to your petty bickering.

Yeah, I understand CONCEPTUALLY what makes this kind of thing funny, but in PRACTICE, I'm too aware of all the people, many of them children, who died horribly in this disaster. Swept out to sea, crushed by the weight of the water, killed by falling debris, suffocated after being trapped under mud, trees, cars or buildings. And the many more dead of exposure, dystentary, malaria, starvation, and untold other causes. I guess you can call that being a crybaby if you want. I just don't feel very good about myself for cracking jokes about it is all. Generalized, outlandish jokes, maybe, but not ones that imply the people deserved their fate.

right on spoon.

and LooGar, I can almost guarantee i could offend you, but i won't.

My problem is more with the epithets, not so much the occurence or casualty of a natural or even man-made disaster.

That and I just found the joke to be pretty lame. Now Challenger jokes on the other hand...