Jackson Free Press

Of course I have more to say, but in my busy chick world, for now I only have to say it's time. It's time to use that repressed energy to let folks know it's enough. We don't have to live in a world where pop culture defines them with degrading language. We don't have to live in a world where our sons learn to tear women down to build themselves up. We don't have to be quiet and just accept that our society is what it is, because it's not.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/338444,rutgers041107.article

Because the fact is, we do have the power to say no more, and it's been time to say it.

Previous Commentsshow

I would like to know who appointed the members of the thought-police, or is it a process of self-nomination?

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

You'll have to clear that one up Professor. I'm unsure what you're trying to say.

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

IGNORANCE=STRENGTH FREEDOM=SLAVERY THERE IS NO WAR, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A WAR You know, Thought-police. There are certain things you can't say, or even think. Anyone who deviates from the accepted norm must be silenced. Thoughtcrime. Groupthink.

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

Willezurmacht, your analogy is dumb. People speaking out because they are offended by something offensive a public figure said has absolutely nothing to do with secret police supporting a totalitarian regime. You insult all of those freedom fighters who resisted Soviet tyranny--which is what 1984 was really about, never mind my idiot high school English teacher--by pretending that the two have anything to do with each other.

Brian C Johnson

Apr 12 2007

Emilyb, "We don't have to live in a world where our sons learn to tear women down to build themselves up." I agree... and I have some Eminem and 50 cent albums I'll loan you. And this is applicable to so much more than some idiot on MSNBC. But let me make this one statement. Although I disagree with Imus on pretty much everything, I support his right to speak his mind. It is extremely clear to me that the firing of Imus is going to have a chilling effect on what should be protected speech, regardless of the offense taken. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard one of those girls say that they were "scarred for life" from what he said. Are you kidding me?

LawClerk

Apr 12 2007

Imus didn't scar them for life. This was not one incident for girls or women. It's much bigger than that. I'm sure it's not the first time those girls have said, "I'm not what you say I am." Especially when they do express that thought and are put down for that. It is applicable to so much more than some idiot on MSNBC, and I think this has been a huge line in the sand. Again, I'm all for free speech. Which is why I'm so grateful to live in a free country where we can say, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" It's happening at major networks, NBC and CBS, right now and it should extend, in my opinion, to other industries. "I'm a human being, goddammit! My life has value!"-I think that's what these girls are trying to say. You think it's the first time they've been called ho's? No. Hell, I'm here in the suburbs and have heard boys on the fourth grade school bus singing, "Row, row, row your ho!" The teacher said, "You may speak like this at your house, but you will not speak that way here. Do you understand?" That's how I feel about big corporations promoting this stereotype. Don't buy the CD's. Don't support the advertisers. Don't let excuses, fingerpointing and blame keep you from saying you have a right to NOT be namecalled. Talk about groupthink :P I think we'd all have to have equal rules to begin with for that to be true.

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

"You insult all of those freedom fighters who resisted Soviet tyranny--" Am I? I am saying that the people who raise a stupid comment to the level of a "civil rights abuse" are making a mockery of people who have to deal with actual oppression. Making a stupid, racist, offensive comment is NOT oppression-it is expression. DOING something to STOP this expression is indeed OPPRESSION. When people are afraid to speak liberty dies. There is a reason that freedom of speech is in the FIRST amendment to the Consititution, it is the most important for maintaining a democracy. Offensive speech is an unavoidable by-produce of the free exchange of ideas.

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

"Don't let excuses, fingerpointing and blame keep you from saying you have a right to NOT be namecalled" I dont get that at all. Are you arguing that everyone has an inalienable RIGHT to never be riticuled? That someone who offers a critique in a rude manner has committed a crime against some form of natrual law? That the "Right to be unoffended" is greater than the right to free expression of ideas?

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

Here, read this if you want to get why I am using Orwellian concepts for such a "trivial" matter. http://ancientliberty.blogspot.com/

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

Wille, not sure of your point here. Are you saying we shouldn't be raising a stink about a jackass spewing hate? No one that I've seen on this board is calling for Imus to be locked up. Just taken out of a position where he can spread his views to millions. Now, I hope, he'll be limited to spewing hate in a smaller forum. Also, I want to reiterate what emily said. That this is not an isolated incident for any woman. this one's just highly visible.

kate

Apr 12 2007

No that's not what I'm arguing Long-Named Will. I'm questioning why you view me speaking out as LESS of an inalienable right than other people. I mean really. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. It's that simple right? Believe me, there are LOTS of women who have been afraid to speak out on this for a long time. Are you arguing that women have not experienced actual oppression?

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

This is what you will get eventually: Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Criminal Code "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

And Willie Boy, I'll read your articles when you read up on women's issues :P Orwell is not *my* agenda sweet cheeks, and that's a weak attempt with the *thought police.* Seriously. You should know better.

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

Wille, as emily asks, why does Imus get to be a public jackass, but women who 'express themselves' by voicing their anger are suddenly leading us down the road to an Orwellian future? The only groupthink that's happening here is "women = ho's = objects to be used = shouldn't ever complain about being called ho's".

kate

Apr 12 2007

Maybe I have not made my point well- I WANT you to speak out. I don't want there to be laws, sanctions, etc. imposed on people who say unpopular things. And I certainly dont want people to engage in self-censhorship out of the fear of being fired, jailed, etc.

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

Um. Yeah. So you're going to come on here, put words in my mouth and say that I'm arguing for a "two year sentence"??? No sir. That's illogical. You should know better, and if you don't, bless your heart.

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

Hmmm, thanks for calling my cheeks sweet. I am pretty sure I am as well-read on women's issues as any of the people commenting. I tell you what, let's see in 5 years if my Thoughtcrime comment turns out to be "weak."

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

I personally don't want a world of unfettered self expression. it'd be like living in a frat house for all eternity.

kate

Apr 12 2007

"I personally don't want a world of unfettered self expression" My question is who does the fettering.

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

Kate, can you imagine the smell? Willie, if you're so well-read on women's issues, perhaps you could contribute to that discussion instead of this grand stretch. There's nothing new under the sun. Still. This is not a panic situation. This is not an oh-my-goodness they are stripping my rights. This is the simple fact that those airwaves belong to ALL of us, and it's about damn time those airwaves had a full view of women instead of just the "ho's." And a full view of young black males except the "thugs."

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

That's a good question. Who does the fettering? Who owns these stations and makes the big decisions? What one-sided world-view do these people perpetuate?

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

so you want to have government regulation of the media that mandates only positive images be displayed? That is called PROPOGANDA. Keep playing into my analogy, please. It's fun to watch. I am not only well-read on women's issues, but have actually DONE things about them, like working as a clinic escort against Operation Rescue and volunteering for Planned Parenthood when my wife was a clinic manager. (I was the one who got to open the mail and look for anthrax and/or tell-tale wires).

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

You're the one who injected government regulation into this, and I'm well aware that this is fun for you to watch. Pardon me if I find your stretch to George Orwell desperate.

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

I pardon you. Now you must pardon me, I must go teach a class. Perhaps today we will discuss Thought Control in Democratic Societies by Noam Chomsky. He makes the point that propoganda and groupthink can arise spontaneously even without the need for governmental control. Self-censorship, as I argued above. Or maybe go back to good old Plato, who wanted to ban poetry and certain types of music because they tended to vulgarize the culture. Sound familiar? After class I shall relax with my banned CD Body Count's CopKiller and the banned album by the Dead Kennedys. Banned by the government? NO. pulled by private record companies after public outcry. But a few of us still like dissent enough to horde such things.

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

Willez, you're switching back and forth a bit. To the extent that you're talking about government regulation of speech, you're just farting into the wind, because no one (on this thread at least) has advocated that. It's a total straw man you've concocted, and all talk of "censorship" or the "first amendment" is out of place here for that very reason. No one has violated Imus' first amendment rights, and no one is even talking about violating them except for you. I do take seriously your other point (the only one that has legs), which is that even if the government is not regulating speech, corporations that control the media can have a similarly dangerous effect. I still find the comparison with Orwell ridiculous, however. Orwell's novel was an important piece of art and social commentary. He was speaking out about a clear and present danger to the present and future of all humanity. Our culture and politics would have been diminished had Orwell's book never been published. Imus shooting his mouth off does not rise to that level. At all.

Brian C Johnson

Apr 12 2007

Plato was the most notorious anti-democrat in the history of philosophy, and platonism with its dip-shit forms is a farce, IMHO.

Brian C Johnson

Apr 12 2007

His cycle of governments has held up pretty well throughout history. I think even you would agree that democracy must have some limits.

Kingfish

Apr 12 2007

Emily, thanks for letting us know about the show. I figured they would be on Oprah no later than next week. I'll put this link in the other thread.

LatashaWillis

Apr 12 2007

actually Brian you are dead wrong. Nietzsche was an even stronger opponent of democracy.

Kingfish

Apr 12 2007

"Plato was the most notorious anti-democrat in the history of philosophy" you would then agree that those who use Platonic-sounding arguments are therefore anti-democratic? Government regulation is implied in all of this discussion. It simply cannot be separated. Now I really have to run.

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

Nietzsche did not trust democracy because it tended towards the lowest common denominator in culture. He hated socialism much more than democracy for the same reason. He never really advocated any political system over another.

Willezurmacht

Apr 12 2007

I'm tivo'ing L.W. You know they reached out to her. They called her. We need more soundbites saying "dignity and class" and less "nappy headed ho" and "Imus." I feel like if we had more diverse shot callers the story would be less about Imus and more about these girls. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/opinion/10ifill.html That's a column written by the "cleaning lady."

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

And I do honestly believe that government regulation is a different discussion. I don't need the government to tell folks that it's time to do the right thing. I can say that all on my own. The government didn't force MSNBC to cancel the simulcast. L.W., do you remember the drive-by comment that struck you most as a woman? I've got several. I've shared the "hey we want some pussy" story before that happened in sixth grade. The most recent I remember was walking into a video store and the man yelling from his damned t-tops, "Look at those hooters!" Like Ray said, maybe it's something that's not gotten by those who don't have daughters, but I happen to know there is more compassion in this world than that.

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

Who does the fettering? Anyone with a brain self censors, at least somewhat. Which, apparently Imus couldn't do. Wille, I completely disagree that gov't censorship is implied in this discussion, simply by it's nature. And, yes, groupthink happens spontaneously. Which is why women are so frequently verbally abused/insulted. Because the prevailing groupthink is heavily misogynistic.

kate

Apr 12 2007

Basically, you're going to have to prove it, Willez. We've got at least three folks saying they don't see how government censorship is at issue here, so you should make a better argument (when you're done with class) at to why you think it has relevance. I think you're going to have a tough time with that one and should stick to arguments about corporate censorship, but I am ready to be surprised. King, I almost threw Nietzsche into the mix. I don't know that he was more anti-democratic than Plato, but he was certainly in the running. It's funny that Plato and Nietzsche disagree so starkly in metaphysical and epistmelogical terms but they were both horribly elitest creeps. Of course, like most folks, I think Nietzsche is much more useful for understanding modern conditions. ...

Brian C Johnson

Apr 12 2007

you avoided what I said about Plato. His cycle of governments has pretty much stood the test of time. There is nothing wrong with elitist if its based on merit, meaning you've earned that status through ability and effort.

Kingfish

Apr 12 2007

Glad to see its name dropping day, here on JFP: Live! LOL. Nietzsche, Plato, Orwell. All great names to prop up everyone's argument. I'll go back to LawClerk's idea about the chilling effect. If every time someone says something that we find offensive on radio or television and the person is fired because advertisers are scared of losing money, then the result is some pretty "milquetoast" commentators who are ordered by their employers to not say anything that even borders on controversial for the fear of the loss of revenue. This becomes a form of censorship and then everyone has lost something. Also, I think an internet video talk show hosted by JFP people would be great! Name ideas: "JFP: LIVE!", "JFP and Friends", "The JFP Factor", "JFP and Company", or an homage to the wonderful shows of Japan: "Super Happy Jackson Free Press Hello Kitty Show!!!!!"

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 12 2007

willezurmacht: just to answer your question, the Thought Police are nominated positions. you have to be high up in The Party. Remember everyone, Down With Eurasia!!!

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 12 2007

I'm totally in charge of the "Super Happy Jackson Free Press Hello Kitty Show"! I'm not saying fire them. I'm saying don't support them. Simple. Simple. Simple. I can not support something by writing the producers and saying I don't support it and I'd rather have something else. I can write the advertisers and say the same thing. I spend money too you know. I mean, I have the Hello Kitty gum. (all the cool kids had the Hello Kitty gum.) I'd hate for us to have a future of no notable female voices of the time. I mean, do we want our legacy to be "Women are Cows" and "God is Dead", or do we have more to say? Maybe "Women are ho's" and "Fear the Oprah" ;) Alum, THAT made me laugh. Thanks for the "JFP and Friends." I'm sure MF and I would be fired faster than Imus. We'd piss off the boss quicker.

emilyb

Apr 12 2007

Just imagine this: You are a part of the JFP and Friends television program. You are called a sringy headed HOs. (trying to creat an opposite for black women). How would you feel? What would you think? What would you say? Consider this: Donald Trump was mimicked by Rosie O'Donald. She called him a bully and accused him of filing bankruptcy and not paying the people he owed. Trump blew a gasket!!!!!! He was pissed to the roof!!!!!!!!! He went on every talk show in the country and tried his darnest to get Rosie dropped from the VIEW and anything else she was connected to. If Donald Trump could have this reaction to an his "insult;" then, why is it so hard to believe that these youngsters feel "scared for life." This speaks to the vulnerability of the young and the inexperienced. Only a Ray Carter and a few of us fighters from the 60s could stand toe-to-toe with IMUS "ANUS" and feel vendicated. So many of our young Black girls have been insulted, locked out of, voted down, passed over and the list goes on. Sticks and stones do break bones and words not only hurt: They can actually destroy. Where were all of the bloggers with the position of "Freedom of Speech" then? This argument was not made to this extent; so, is it a double standard for this issue because a white man lost his job and sponsors pulled support because of this kind of filth being said about some young African American Women?

justjess

Apr 12 2007

King, can you give me an example of a state that has been based on Plato's precepts? Or do you mean it in a vague, well-there's-always-feudalism way? Ole Miss, you've really got a false dichotomy going there. Our alternatives are not between having utterly milquetoast commentators and letting Imus get away with shooting his mouth off. I don't think we can say that Imus was making some borderline controversial argument. Instead, he just said something vulgar and offensive. I don't see why we should be concerned that someone is fired for such a thing. If I had a radio show and I screamed fuck at the top of my lungs, would any of us be worse off if the radio station fired me? You guys keep acting like Imus made some brave speech about some politically controversial subject. There is a great deal of daylight between having a milquetoast cultural dictatorship and letting Imus just say whatever he wants on the air. In other words, firing him for the second does not mean we are headed for the first. Besides, everyone knows East Asia is the problem, and always has been.

Brian C Johnson

Apr 12 2007

Brian, thanks for that last post. I was working my way towards a much less articulate version of the same thing. Imus was rude and vulgar - and it was completely unnecessary. He wasn't calling for an end to the war in Iraq, or the impeachment of the president, or even arguing in favor of the Tobacco Tax. He was being rude and boorish. He can quite freely continue to be rude and boorish - only in front of a much smaller audience now. And, as for the "now everything will be boring" argument. I beg to differ. I think it would actually be way, way, way more interesting if we had commentators who actually presented FACTS and facilated DISCUSSIONS about things, rather than resorting to name calling. It's the name calling that's boring and bland as all get out.

kate

Apr 12 2007

Breaking news, this just in from the Nations Capitol. The US Constitution has been officialy changed. The preamble now reads : We the BLACK people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and screw the WHITE MAN and everyone else because we are special and deserve special treatment, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The first amendment has also been rewriten to say : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press UNLESS BLACK PEOPLE FIND IT OFFENSIVE; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is a shame we live in a world of people afraid to express their opinions because of fear of reprisals. Sounds like democracy just officialy went out the window without a parachute.

kdbstlrfan1

Apr 13 2007

kdbstlrfan1..... um, that's just plain ridiculous. Besides, you left out WOMEN. I do think we need a consititutional ammendment preventing hysterical gits from "defending" the first ammendment.

kate

Apr 13 2007

Brian, you did not read what I wrote. you are getting almost as bad as me in that regard. I said his cycle of governments. Monarchy, landed aristocracy, commercial aristocracy, democracy, anarchy, tyranny. Rome, Greece, France are just a few examples. That was all I said. I think the rule of Europe by the monks in the dark ages probably came the closest to that or what was used by the Ottomans for a while.

Kingfish

Apr 13 2007

It is a shame we live in a world of people afraid to express their opinions because of fear of reprisals. Sounds like democracy just officialy went out the window without a parachute.--kdbetc. This is the most whining, pathetic piece of crap post I think I've ever read here. Waaaah! Waaah! Somebody acted like a jerk (Imus) and the public denounced it. Be real, kdb, don't you want a democracy where people can exercise their freedom of speech in order to speak up and denounce something they find to be offensive? Or would you prefer a society that encourages everyone to shut up and hold their nose no matter how disgusting somebody is? BEsides, nobody is telling Imus he can't speak. The principle of free market is a work here, my chum, and the voice of the public has spoken. People want opinons on the air but they don't want racist, immature crap.

Izzy

Apr 13 2007

Don't forget Hello Kitty in that amendment. It's incredible. Now we are challenging free speech AND the freedom of religion! Here's the deal, if I'm offended, that means I don't want it. Lots of folks were offended. Lots of folks made that clear. I think perhaps some personal responsibility should be taken by Imus's fans and accept that you can't be blatantly offensive on the job and expect to keep it. Just because it's been the norm doesn't mean it will stay the norm. I'm sorry that some folks are reacting in such fear to some women speaking out. Now, I'm self-censoring as I have something incredibly offensive to say about what happens when someone steps on his own dick.

emilyb

Apr 13 2007

Well, maybe the funniest thing is that Peter Alexander is getting his big break with this Imus thing. MSNBC is running a special right now about whats ok to say in media and entertainment and Alexander is sitting in the main chair. I can just imagine how the call went. "Pete, this is Dan (Abrams, the manager)." "Oh hey Chief, just getting ready to head out and do some field reporting." "Look, kid. This is it. Its your big break. This Imus thing is blowing up and we want you at the big desk. Get your ass out there and break a leg!" "Your serious, Chief? I mean...I can't believe it! (tears welling up in his eyes)" "Kid, its all you. Now get out there and make us proud!" The theme to Rocky commences and "Battlin" Pete Alexander storms the stage. LOL.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 13 2007

Will. not. say. how. Rocky. looks. these. days.......... Lots of big breaks this week. I've enjoyed the diverse voices.

emilyb

Apr 13 2007

The cycle of governments is found in Aristotle's "Politics". I dont recall it in Plato.

Willezurmacht

Apr 13 2007

Lots of big breaks this week. I've enjoyed the diverse voices. I have too, Emily. It's about time America started having this dialogue.

LatashaWillis

Apr 13 2007