> gMoney wrote:
> Well, if we apply the same standard, Jackson and Sharpton should have hosted
> community meetings concerning Imus' comments. Instead, I heard fiery public
> calls for his canning. I heard patent refusals to accept any apology.
>
Exactly, it's about equal treatment of equal intens
Well, if we apply the same standard, Jackson and Sharpton should have hosted
community meetings concerning Imus' comments. Instead, I heard fiery public
calls for his canning. I heard patent refusals to accept any apology.
Maybe that's where some perceive a double standard
On 4/18/07, Larry L
My point stands. You accused Sharpton and Jackson of promoting a double
standard. I pointed out that they are acting against that sort of language and
behavior in the rap music industry. They've had community meetings with the
recording industry, musicians and listers about the topic. They've de
> Weegs wrote:
> its a double standard if those who are of another
> color can rap about it forever, yet a white man
> who is in the business of fucking with people
> can not.
>
Exactly. Gel is right in saying that there's not censorship here and
Weegs you're right in saying that people don't car
they make more of it than it really is/was.
consider the source.
now, had the pope said it, or mother
theresa, sure, then it would be cause for alarm...
george bush, sure... rail him for it.
but not someone who makes his MONEY
on being politically incorrect.
its a double standard if those who a
An organisation would give up someone that was making over 15 million
US for them because they don't care and what he said wasn't bad?
Who knows...you could be right. After all, there are claims that the
only reason Slavery was stopped in the US was that it stopped being
economically sound.
So ye
i dont think many in the entire organization
REALLY give a fuck.
its the shock and awe bullshit that FUCKNUTS
like sharpton and jackson sow that makes them
cave into the fear of being NOT politically correct
in this era of scaredy cats.
thats the truth.
its all a big joke, we in middle america,
Why are we changing the subject to one of Freedom of Speech?
The manhad and has freedom of speech.
There IS no censorship. He said something, people didn't like it, the
Company didn't like it..they fired him.
There is no threat to freedom of speech.
You keep overlooking the fact that he had been w
If we start censoring people because what they say may offend some people
then no one will ever say anything.
I may not agree with your stance on this, or any issue, but I will fight for
your right to speak your mind about it.
This is not about racism or sexism, its about freedom of speech. Wher
On 4/16/07, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Can you explain _exactly_ what was so generally bad about these
> remarks? As in country-shaking, protest generating, I should be
> completely shocked. (Shocked, I say). never before had something this
> bad been said on the radio, string
You are so missing the point.
My point is that Dom Imus AND rappers should (and, by law, do) have the
right to say whatever they want to say. trying to limit either's right to
expression is censorship.
On 4/16/07, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If this is true I find this m
"an excuse for the man"?
then what's the excuse for Halle Berry starring in a movie called
"Nappily Ever After"?
http://www.reuters.com/article/filmNews/idUSN0522112820070405
On 4/16/07, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gel,
>
> It _is_ comedy. Mixed with social satire.
>
> Just becaus
> Gel wrote:
> Comparing him to music, or comedy, or satire is just ridiculous and akin to
> frantically clawing for an excuse for the man.
>
(1.) His show is a "variety show", one part of which is comedy, and he
was laughing when made the comment. It's clear he wasn't saying that
the entire team
Gel,
It _is_ comedy. Mixed with social satire.
Just because it is not your cup of tea (or mine), does not make the
show unfunny or "not comedy".
Apparently enough people found it funny for enough years that he's
been doing the same schtick for 25 years, and clearing his company 20
million a year
Gel, How on earth did they "vote with their pocketbook?" What people
specifically, and what form(s) did it take?
What exactly happened in terms of finance that makes you say that.
(I saw large corporations caving quickly for _fear_ of what might
happen with pocketbooks, but what exactly are you r
It is not a one time mistake.
60 minutes is dedicating a show to Imus and his callous remarks over the
years. He has been pulled up many times and a lot of people were sick of
him.
He had a strong following among mid-west America though, and certainly
brought in a certain demographic for CBS and M
My point exactly.
I don't understand the comment about the Raptors though. Is he saying the
members of the Rutgers team look like men? Or what exactly?
Also, that Kelly Minogue thing pretty much argues against this being a one-time
mistake. What a horrible thing to say. The woman is fighting
> > If this is true I find this more damning than the nappy headed ho
> > comment.
>
> Sure it's true. Here's a transcript of the bulk of the exchange:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264646,00.html
>
> If someone doesn't see how this is incredibly racist and sexist, I
> sure am not go
> If this is true I find this more damning than the nappy headed ho
> comment.
Sure it's true. Here's a transcript of the bulk of the exchange:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264646,00.html
If someone doesn't see how this is incredibly racist and sexist, I sure am not
going to waste my ti
If this is true I find this more damning than the nappy headed ho comment.
his producer for instance followed up his comments on the Rutgers team with a
statement of the game being "the jigaboos versus the wannabes."
~|
Depl
No, I don't think it would have been any different.
There was no stomache to back Imus up, and the professional protesters
were too organized.
How bad _were_ the remarks? (As compared to other things he said on
that show and on previous shows, and held against the light of other
shock-jocks, and
> Larry wrote:
> So where is the double standard again?
>
What Jerry said: where are the calls for resignations? When is
Proctor and Gamble pulling it's support of MTV? Where is the public
admonishment, rallies, and strikes against Rap artists and the media
companies and advertisers that support
Where are the calls for firings? Where are the public cries of
outrage? Where are the protest marches?
All I read was _recent_ (as in post Imus blowup) peace march and
meetings with rappers.
To me, that smacks _exactly_ of a double standard.
(Of course, I never expected anything more from Sharpt
>In America is it ok for someone to do something repeatedly and each time
>they say sorry and that makes it ok?
>Sure you can forgive, but that doesn't absolve the person from facing the
>penalties if any for the action in the first place.
>Imus was wrong. He apologized, some forgave him...but that
>> Gel wrote:
>> The only comparable situation would be if a black, nationally syndicated
>> talk show host did the same thing to a white women's basketball team.
>> Has this occurred?
>> I raised this point before and received no response.
>>
>
>Because the point is moot. Imus is an entertainer a
I have heard interviews with black people who thought it was funny. But more
for who said it rather than what was said.
On 4/16/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Gel wrote:
> > Quick Question:
> >
> > Was what Don Imus said wrong, or right?
> >
>
> There is not "right" or "wrong" wit
> Gel wrote:
> Quick Question:
>
> Was what Don Imus said wrong, or right?
>
There is not "right" or "wrong" with a joke; it's either funny or it
isn't. In this case it wasn't funny.
~|
ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2
Build sales & m
Let's also not forget that he gets paid (by the very company that
fired him) to be a shock jock.
It's his -job- to find the line...and then cross it.
At any given time of any given show (whether it's Imus, Howard Stern,
Opie and Andy, Mancow, etc) somebody can choose to be offended.
That's what t
And even if I thought it was 'wrong', I would still defend his right to say
it.
On 4/16/07, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It did not violate any laws, nor any decency guidelines. Therefore, I
> have to say it was not wrong.
>
> The fact that someone was offended does not make it wron
It did not violate any laws, nor any decency guidelines. Therefore, I have
to say it was not wrong.
The fact that someone was offended does not make it wrong. Nowhere are you
protected from being offended.
On 4/16/07, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quick Question:
>
> Was what Don Imus
Quick Question:
Was what Don Imus said wrong, or right?
~|
ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2
Build sales & marketing dashboard RIAâs for your business. Upgrade now
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2?sdid=RVJT
Archive:
h
Fair enough.
On 4/16/07, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> you were not in the thread when I made the comment, so I did not have you
> in mind. You can always say the shoe fits if you like, but that would be on
> you.
>
> I bowed out of the argument and suggested to Gel that h
How is it not discrimination that Snoop can say 'ho' and 'nigga' in his
songs, but Imus can't say 'nappy-headed ho'?
Free speech is being applied through filters.
On 4/16/07, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "discriminating against the white man" ;)
>
> Hehehe. I'm outta here. That's n
"discriminating against the white man" ;)
Hehehe. I'm outta here. That's not even worth a reply.
Dana
>> Dana wrote:
>> But I'm definitely not shedding a tear on his behalf.
>>
>
>The issue is professional not emotional and it's an issue of a double
>standard. The question is whether we, as a s
in both cases, someone said something that could be construed as
inflammatory. personally, I find Isaiah's comemnts much more inflammatory
than Imus'
The comments Imus made were not made about a black women's basketball team,
rather a women's basketball team, not all the players are black.
Then
> Gel wrote:
> The only comparable situation would be if a black, nationally syndicated
> talk show host did the same thing to a white women's basketball team.
> Has this occurred?
> I raised this point before and received no response.
>
Because the point is moot. Imus is an entertainer and so sh
> Dana wrote:
> But I'm definitely not shedding a tear on his behalf.
>
The issue is professional not emotional and it's an issue of a double
standard. The question is whether we, as a society, should judge a
man's career based on a botched joke for which he's apologized. If
the answer is yes, t
How is it a double standard?
The gay community are the ones that needed to speak out about that issue if
they felt it was warranted under the circumstances. They pursued it, Isaiah
denied making the statements, he did not do so on nationally syndicated talk
radio, it was ALLEGED comments made on t
Despite all the negative publicity, not being on air for most of it, and
sponsors pulling out, Imus' 'radio-thon' raised more than 3.4 million
dollars...the highest amount in 18 years. That speaks volumes for what
Americans think of the situation.
On 4/16/07, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
I said it earlier...it sure is an odd time in our history when liberals stop
defending free speech and conservatives start defending it.
On 4/16/07, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Look, make a donation to the man's ranch for kids if you feel he was
> treated unfairly. (Though you mig
Look, make a donation to the man's ranch for kids if you feel he was treated
unfairly. (Though you might want to check out theose administrative costs...)
http://www.answers.com/topic/imus-ranch
But I'm definitely not shedding a tear on his behalf.
Dana
>And what of Isaiah Washington, the bla
Still makes it a double standard ;)
On 4/16/07, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Its simpler than that.
>
> There was no money, political power, or pandering to the base to be
> made on that story for Jesse or Al, and therefore no fake outrage.
>
>
> On 4/16/07, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PRO
Its simpler than that.
There was no money, political power, or pandering to the base to be
made on that story for Jesse or Al, and therefore no fake outrage.
On 4/16/07, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And what of Isaiah Washington, the black actor who referred to homosexuals
> as 'fagg
And what of Isaiah Washington, the black actor who referred to homosexuals
as 'faggots'? Why is that OK? Why didn't the Reverends Sharpton and
Jackson condemn him and demand his job? Why wasn't the black community
rallied to boycott ABC and the sponsors of 'Grey's Anatomy'. Was it because
the sl
So I am supposed to defend the honor of -- whom exactly? Jesse Jackson?
I have work to do, Gruss ;) As far as I am concerned, I wasn't clamoring for
Imus' job but I am kind of glad he lost it. It may make a difference to public
discourse. But it's a Done Deal. Kind of like minimum wage. You ma
> Dana wrote:
> Gruss said that anyone who disagreed with him was dishonorable. That's a
> pretty good example of invincible ignorance
Ma'am - you have misunderstood my point which I will accept
responsibility for and restate for clarity:
I posited that anyone who insists on somebody's workplace
Brian,
you were not in the thread when I made the comment, so I did not have you in
mind. You can always say the shoe fits if you like, but that would be on you.
I bowed out of the argument and suggested to Gel that he do the same because
Gruss said that anyone who disagreed with him was disho
If i read her last post correctly, her compelling argument seems to be that
many of us are "pigs" who are "invincably ignorant". I particularly like
that last phrase.well done.
On 4/15/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Dana wrote:
> > we are no longer in the realm of logic, and t
> Dana wrote:
> we are no longer in the realm of logic, and they aren't listening to you.
It's not the fault of others when you can't lead, it's yours, so
accept accountability and use this as a growth opportunity.
When you make a compelling argument, everyone will listen.
~~
Gel
we are no longer in the realm of logic, and they aren't listening to you.
Honorable, forsooth. There is no point in arguing with invincible ignorance or
with trying to teach a pig to sing.
Dana
>
>On 4/14/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm defending honor by reminding
> Nick wrote:
> You are assuming Gel is honourable ;)
>
Well, we'll find out.
Call me goofy but racism is absurd and, therefore, humorous. Remember
that asshat that was posting for awhile who, during Katrina, said the
solution was, "if it's black and it moves shoot it"?
See now that's funny unt
You are assuming Gel is honourable ;)
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:42 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Imus On Nappy Headed Hoes
>
> > Gel Wrote:
> > An honourable person would have
eason to resign.
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:07 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Imus On Nappy Headed Hoes
>
> An honourable person would have offered his damned resignation
> Gel Wrote:
> An honourable person would have offered his damned resignation when he
> realised what he had said.
>
Your comments here have offended me. We all await your letter of resignation.
~|
Deploy Web Applications Quickl
On 4/14/07, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> An honourable person would have offered his damned resignation when he
> realised what he had said.
So, if you offend someone, you will resign from your job?
There is no law that states you have a right NOT to be offended.
Free speech is free spe
An honourable person would have offered his damned resignation when he
realised what he had said.
On 4/14/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm defending honor by reminding you of intent. He didn't say it
> > maliciously or to offend; he said it to amuse his audience. It did
> >
Right.
You equate honor with calling women nappy headed hoes.
You have no idea of the 'intent'.You expected him *not* to apologize?
How do you know what his 'intent' was?
A: Yeah those white bitches are rough, they got tattoos and all!
B: Yeah! Thems some rough honkey hoes for real Ha! Ha! Ha!
W
I'm defending honor by reminding you of intent. He didn't say it
maliciously or to offend; he said it to amuse his audience. It did
offend so he apologize. Honorable people will accept that.
On 4/14/07, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ROFL!
>
> How is this in anyway applicable to Imus?
>
> R
ROFL!
How is this in anyway applicable to Imus?
Referring to a woman as a HOE on the air isn't offensive?
Are you trying to imply that it is a far stretch of the imagination that
Imus could know that calling a black woman a Hoe,any woman a hoe, could be
seen as offensive?
Is he a rapper? Was he
> Jerry wrote:
> French people, in the city
Americans don't know that in Japan you don't stick your chopsticks up
in a bowl of rice. Or that it's impolite to wear you shoes into
somebody's house. Or how to bow properly.
The point is, people do things every day that offends someone else for
one
French people, in the city, pee in hallways on carpets and walls.
This was the single biggest problem a famous oceanographer we worked
with had in his Paris museum. People waiting in line would pee on the
carpeted walls rather than walk _10 feet_ out of line to the bathroom.
The second biggest pr
>Chicken tastes like dog crap.
>
>That is an affirmative statement, which isn't being presented as fact to
>defame chicken. It is clearly a subjective statement. A reasonable
>person would see that as an opinion.
Uh no, that is hyperbole. A reasonable person would hear that statement and
know the
> Nick wrote:
> I don't see the racism in this comment
How can there be racism in a joke? E.g., "When white people dance
they're all like 'eh eh eh'". Is that racist? No.
~|
Deploy Web Applications Quickly across the enterpris
I don't see the racism in this comment, however it is hardly his first
time offending people with his remarks.
Should he have been fired, maybe, the advertisers and the listeners
would have taken care of that in time.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Weegs wrote:
> i think thats very easy to say perched atop ur white house
But it's not about their perception, it's about his intent. And the
intent was a joke, not malice.
French people, outside of a city, pee on the side of the road in plain
view of anyone passing by and it's ok. Here it's
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 4:47 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Imus On Nappy Headed Hoes
>
>
> I have to disagree there. You can argue that it was humor and thus not
> slander but very hard to claim it was just opinion. Here's the
definition
>
well ok. I'll go for the proposition it's probably not his opinion, but that
still doesn't make it libel. It makes it untrue, but for it to be slander it
has to be a statement which can be construed as fact.
For example -- if I said Gruss has a horrible singing voice and he can't carry
a tune
> No, Mary Jo, I don't think so. He didn't say they were down on the
> corner peddling their all. The remark was derogatory but I do not
> think that anyone could show that it was meant as a atatement of fact.
> It was an insult but it was an opinion.
I have to disagree there. You can argue tha
You'd have to find a reasonable person that listened to his show first :)
> -Original Message-
> From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You're absolutely correct...but you'd have a hard time justifying his
> remarks as a joke. Again, they have to be stated in such a way that
i think thats very easy to say perched atop ur white house... go down
to niggerville usa and call andre 3000 nappyheaded then talk to me
'bout how funny that racist rude remark was funny.
On 4/13/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mary Jo wrote:
> > You're absolutely correct...but you'd
> Mary Jo wrote:
> You're absolutely correct...but you'd have a hard time justifying his remarks
> as a joke.
He was joking! He was referring to their toughness. When you think
of tattooed Hos don't you think of tough chics? I do.
In any event, if you can't laugh at racism (because it is, in
The fact that it was stated on a show known for humor and sarcasm, as
well as the overall derogatory nature of the show would be enough to
dispel any notion that they were stating was fact vs. comedy. They
insult each other as well as others and get cheap laughs at the expense
of others, othe
Well to that end, I thought his remarks were sexist as well.but I had no
idea, as i explained earlier, that the word "nappy" had racial overtones.
Racism, perceived or otherwise, will always trump sexism.probably
because there's more money and/or notoriety in it :/
On 4/13/07, Mary Jo Smin
I thought I posted this link. Maybe I hit reset. In my opinion it's worth a
read.
When Essence Carson took the microphone to speak for the Rutgers team, you saw
Imus's problem and why it hasn't gone away. In comparison with that blameless
face and voice, his slur seemed tangibly, specifically
hmm I thought I posted this link. Maybe I hit reset.
> nice post. I read an article by a Washington Post columnist this
> morning that said something of the kind -- that firing Imus does less
> to amend the situation than having him talk women's basketball up on
> his show. There are still hug
>It isn't just a malicious statement. Otherwise Tabloids and every talking
>head would be out of a job.
>
>It is a malicious statement presented as fact with the intent to do harm.
>
>Jokes, even bad ones, satire, and things like that don't count.
You're absolutely correct...but you'd have a hard
Oh, and just to put the cherry on top of this shit sundaethe Rutger's
woman's basketball team left the meeting with Imus and said that they have
accepted his apology. Which is awesome, but doesn't do much good.
Just unbelievable. I think it would be great if a spokesman for Rutger's
university
opinions are not slander
>But I don't think there IS any legal protection in this situation. This does
>not even approach the legal definition of slander, so a discussion about
>possible legal action is over before it begins. I don't think an _opinion_
>can be slanderous. It can be malicious, hat
No, Mary Jo, I don't think so. He didn't say they were down on the corner
peddling their all. The remark was derogatory but I do not think that anyone
could show that it was meant as a atatement of fact. It was an insult but it
was an opinion.
You might be able to get someplace by calling it ha
>Are you implying that racism has gotten WORSE in this country over the last
>20 years? Because that is a position that i would take strong opposition
>too.
Of course not...I'm not talking about racism at all, but what is considered
acceptable speech. I mean, I personally find the use of language
yeah well I'll agree with that. Pompous asshole is a term that comes to mind.
>And, the thought of Sharpton and Jackson as arbitors of racial
>sensitivity, womens rights and good taste, and that people are
>listening is so funny as to be absurd.
~~
nice post. I read an article by a Washington Post columnist this morning that
said something of the kind -- that firing Imus does less to amend the situation
than having him talk women's basketball up on his show. There are still huge
disparities in how women's sports are treated. FWIW, I can't
nope, I'd laugh. It's your delusion not mine.
>> Dana wrote:
>> hehe minimum wage ;) this is as offensive to you as ho? Ok fine.
>>
>
>If I start calling you "minimum wage Dana" will you be offended?
>Would you use it for a business name?
>
>(Cuz I'm a ho, ya know I'm a ho ... I rock 3 straight fr
It isn't just a malicious statement. Otherwise Tabloids and every talking
head would be out of a job.
It is a malicious statement presented as fact with the intent to do harm.
Jokes, even bad ones, satire, and things like that don't count.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mary Jo Sminkey [ma
> Scott wrote:
> If it's served any purpose, it's turned a bright light on racism in this
> country
It will make personal racism worse.
A good analogy here might be Industrial Health and Safety. While
institutional safety is WAY up over 100 years ago and over 45 years
ago, that doesn't mean you
On 4/13/07, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I do find it interesting that we've changed so much in the last 20 years
> or so as to consider this kind of thing practically acceptable and the
> majority of people don't think Imus should be fired and a little slap on the
> wrist suffici
>But I don't think there IS any legal protection in this situation. This does
>not even approach the legal definition of slander, so a discussion about
>possible legal action is over before it begins. I don't think an _opinion_
>can be slanderous. It can be malicious, hateful, even against the law
He'll be back employed by next week, is my opinion.
Either Sirius/XM, or just internet broadcasting and pocasting.
The audience is still there, and the market _will_ speak, I think.
The question for me is: will the show drop the Howard Stern parts, and
get more serious, or will it need to go bac
st my $.02
--
Scott Stewart
ColdFusion Developer
SSTWebworks
7241 Jillspring Ct.
Springfield, Va. 22152
(703) 220-2835
http://www.sstwebworks.com
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 11:46 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Imu
> gMoney wrote:
> But I don't think there IS any legal protection in this situation.
You're exactly right. My point is that we're ALL victims of
discrimination and we're ALL open to insults everyday from 1000s of
sources.
Ever heard someone say "redneck"? Should be off the list? How about
call
seen by any
reasonable person to have been intended to be taken factually.
> -Original Message-
> From: G Money [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 11:24 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Imus On Nappy Headed Hoes
>
> But I don't think the
But I don't think there IS any legal protection in this situation. This does
not even approach the legal definition of slander, so a discussion about
possible legal action is over before it begins. I don't think an _opinion_
can be slanderous. It can be malicious, hateful, even against the law if i
> Do you think a slander or libel lawsuit would have any standing at
> all?
Well, most states have specific laws on defamation so it would depend on the
jurisdiction. And yes, he's apologized after the fact, but that doesn't mean
the statements were not slanderous or harmful. You say the women'
mmunity
> Subject: Re: Imus On Nappy Headed Hoes
>
> > We don't have right to be free from offense so if someone
> > is offended, too bad.
>
> Offense is one thing...but there *are* laws against slander and libel
> and I do think they come into play here. Freedom
Do you think a slander or libel lawsuit would have any standing at all?
He said it offhandedly.
He repeatedly apoligized.
He said there was _no_ basis for these remarks.
The reputation of the players has not been hurt in any way.
As a matter of fact, the reputation of these women has raised
unbel
> We don't have right to be free from offense so if someone
> is offended, too bad.
Offense is one thing...but there *are* laws against slander and libel and I do
think they come into play here. Freedom of speech does not mean you can just
freely say anything you want to about someone elsean
What I find interesting is that I have _never_, _ever_ heard it used
by a white person in reference to a black person. There are so many
OTHER things I have heard said, but never that.
The only times I have heard it was from young, black, male comedians
(Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, The Kings of Come
I believe yaI just can't believe I didn't know that. Seriously, I could
have used "nappy headed" in a conversation a few weeks ago and had NO idea
what the implications could have been. That's crazy scary
On 4/13/07, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> on the street it is.
>
> trust me. it
And these same people will tell you how difficult it was for them and
how much racism they have faced along the way, and even today still
face.
Nappy- Head is not an invention of black culture.
This is what was said:
""That's some rough girls from Rutgers," Imus said. "Man, they got tattoos
"
--
> From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:09 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Imus On Nappy Headed Hoes
>
> on the street it is.
>
> trust me. it just is.
>
> i wouldnt call any black woman, a nappy headed anything.
> n
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
