Jackson: Going for a TD, Spikes the ball on the One

For a second I thought I missed a hilarious football play. I was so pissed about the Giants that I didn't watch any last night or read the papers today.

But on topic, I wish I could spike him on the one yard line.

lol... banning a word... and people think the war on drugs is futile.

But on topic, I wish I could spike him on the one yard line.

Yea, I already did my rant about the Raiders.

But on topic again, just when you think he is going to stand up for what is right, he fumbles!

lol... banning a word... and people think the war on drugs is futile.

Today one word, tomorrow a whole page from the dictionary.  I know Jackson has his own agenda, but I cant believe he is that stupid.

Hi, Dr. Guy et al.

Did anyone look up "unprotected speech" as referenced by Jesse Jackon? You might want to take a look at Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, a 1942 case decided by the Supreme Court. The Court's decision reads:

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

So, what Jesse Jackson may have suggested is consistent with what has been US law for over 60 years.

Link for the decision: Link

Reply By: Larry Kuperman

Thanks Larry.  But then yelling fire in a crowded theater is not the same as saying cracker or other offensive words. And while that case is not so narrowly defined, I would hope it is narrowed in future decisions.  Still, it is the first step to new speak.  So I bounce this back to you.

Who decides new speak?  Let us now decide the ultimate authority of new speak?

BTW:  While Star Decasis (sp - sorry) has a point in law, Dred Scott and others have been over turned as bad law.  And while this one has not on the basis of its merits, it has been whittled away in the last 60 years - with just cause.

Bad law is worse than no law.  Period.

I understand that you feel differently about this kupe, but can you really imagine making a word illegal? Not like shouting fire in a crowded theater, but really making saying a particular word a crime?

Where would that leave our literature? Are you ready to have Tom Sawyer removed from Libraries because it offends people? Mein Kampf? Should educated people really ever be so afraid of a word that they can't tolerate its existence?

Where does it end? What happens when offending people becomes a crime? What happens when Sharpton again calls Jews "diamond merchants"? Will this just go for white people, or will the word 'niggah' have to be expunged from rap music, too?

I'd be willing to bet I wouldn't have to look to hard to find judgments that you believe to be activist in nature and that you disagree with. Not to be rude to you, and you know how much I respect you, but are you thinking about this from a universal perspective, or just the standard racist slurs? Do we really need to go back to the time when someone saying "a chink in his armor" provokes outrage from Chinese people?

Jackson is a hypocrite. He thinks it's okay for him to make anti-semitic statements but anybody that makes even a moderately negative comment about "African/Americans" needs to pay restitution and apologize over and over until they're blue in the face.

Someone should ask Jackson if the word "heime" or "cracker" is  "unprotected"... since he doesn't seem to mind those words at all.

Counter-points:

1) Jackson never suggested making the word illegal, at least not in the article. Not even in the Fox version of the press conference. He called for a voluntary boycott.

2) In response to a question regarding free speech, Reverend Jackson pointed out quite accurately that not all speech is protected.

3) Has everyone seen Michael Richards outburst? It was bizarre to say the least. Have you all heard the "fork" part? Lets recap briefly. A washed up comedian was flopping in his act, he was heckled. He responded with an inflammatory outburst. The club should have gotten the hook and tossed him right then and there. That is not protected speech. Jesse Jackson called for a voluntary boycott of the "n-word" by media artists, specifically mentioning rappers and Black comedians. A reporter asked a hypothetical question and received an accurate response. Upon replay review, the call on the field is over-turned, touchdown!

Anybody have a link where Jesse Jackson called for making a word illegal?

Do we also know that Richards did an anti-Semitic monologue and then, via his agent, claimed to be Jewish? He's not, not by birth or by conversion. See Link for that story. The guy is just nuts.

This is a tempest in a tea-pot. Bad comedy is not a First Amendment right.

And Ted is quite correct , too. In 1984, Jesse Jackson referred to New York as "Hymietown" and to Jews as "Hymies." That is not protected either and personally, I have never forgiven him.

Once again, no one is talking about making the word illegal. But we are not obligated to give these preachers of hate a podium. Say what you want privately, but I don't have to listen to it.

1) Jackson never suggested making the word illegal, at least not in the article. Not even in the Fox version of the press conference. He called for a voluntary boycott.

Jackson stated the word was "unprotected". I never said anything about illegal. However, since freedom of speech is protected by the constitution, then "unprotecting" parts means they can be made illegal. (he also called for the boycott).

I have not seen Richards speech, but I have read transcripts, and he deserves whatever shunning he gets (I still think it is a mountain out of a molehill - after all he is not a policy maker, and the backlash is his penalty for his potty mouth). But to make it a crime what he did is to pervert the very concept of Freedom of speech.

I do not support the Aryan Nation, or the Neo Nazis, and would not even give them the time of day. But I will defend their right to be idiots. I dont want anyone telling me what "they" think is legal for me to think or say.

Upon replay review, the call on the field is over-turned, touchdown!

Of course they would overturn it. I am a Raiders fan after all.

But there is another flag on the field. 15 yards against Jackson for excessive stupidity.

Banning a word?...Heh, heh, heh...the idiocy is directly proportional to the impossibility. I understand the sentiment...but still, freedom of speech is...oh what do you call it...one of those rights we have. I don't use the 'n' word mainly because I don't really like it...much like the 'c' word for the ladies, it's a rather unattractive word in itself.

banning a word is another step down the slippery slope to New Speak.

Oh Big Brother, where art thou?

~Zoo

Oh Big Brother, where art thou?

Mixing movies there?

"Jackson never suggested making the word illegal, at least not in the article. Not even in the Fox version of the press conference. He called for a voluntary boycott."

There's no other reason for them to be referring to the status of the word as "unprotected" or talking with Maxine Waters about it. If all they wanted was a voluntary ban by the entertainment industry, there'd be no reason to discuss whether it is protected by the constitution. Obviously, the entertainment industry can censor themselves whether a word is protected speech or not.

"He responded with an inflammatory outburst. The club should have gotten the hook and tossed him right then and there. That is not protected speech.'

The club could toss him out for using the word "and" if they wanted to. I doubt you'd admit that "and" is protected speech. Whether something is protected or not only matters in terms of GOVERNMENT action.

Just like here at JU, people yap about free speech, and we know that brad can kick you out or censor you on a whim. The entertainment industry can do that, too. So when we start talking about whether a word is 'protected' or not, we're talking about protected from government censorship or punitive action.

"Once again, no one is talking about making the word illegal. But we are not obligated to give these preachers of hate a podium. Say what you want privately, but I don't have to listen to it."

But neither are you protected from hearing it, unless the government makes it so. This is what makes your argument a tad facetious to me. You claim you aren't talking about making a word illegal, but you're not saying what force will be used to create this environment that you envision, and you quote court cases to back yourself up.

If you're saying that entertainers can be stopped from offending other people in public by the entertainment industry, they already can be, and people don't stop them. If you are talking about the use of "hate speech" and the govenment stopping them, then you certainly are talking about making it illegal.

If you are talking about being allowed to sue someone when you get offended, then that's just a backhanded way of making it illegal. It's still the courts handing out fines, civil though they may be, for using a word. You cite the court case above, so I assume you tend to think it is already illegal, right?

I'm not sure if you'll respond to this kupe, but if you do I guess I can sum my question up as:

When you say that this is unprotected speech, and quote court cases to that effect, I'd have to ask... unprotected from what? If you aren't talking about making it illegal, what are you talking about? If you are saying the government will act in people's interests to civilly harass people for using a word, what's the difference?

When you say that this is unprotected speech, and quote court cases to that effect, I'd have to ask... unprotected from what?

"Unprotecting" the word is not in and of itself making it illegal. But it opens the door for that action since it no longer has the protection of the constitution.

I totally agree with you when you say nobody should be trying to make anything un-sayable what Jackson should be doing, is getting off the media circus, stand up and call for those men who are now suing Richards to accept his apology and move the hell on.

He should be calling for them to do it for themselves, the country, race relations, do it because it is the right thing to do.

I see nothing wrong with calling for a boycott of racial slurs, all racial slurs, but I don't think Jackson went that far unfortunately, shows the kind of leader he is, more telling is the lack of insistence from him that members of the African American community stop repeating it in music and entertainment.

I could be wrong but I don't recall hearing that.

Regarding outlawing words though, I think our country has already fought that battle and it isn't for Jessie Jackson to call for us to overturn our values as an American society because sometimes people are offended. Would you not agree?

Mixing movies there?

Eh...I thought it was kinda clever.

~Zoo

I'm still curious. If Mr. Jackson, and Kupe in the discussion here, don't believe this is about making the word illegal, then why is the issue of it being 'unprotected' mentioned at all? Protected vs. unprotected speech really only matters in terms of government intervention, right? Private businesses can censor how they like whether something is 'protected' or not.

So... what is the point in dragging Maxine Waters into it and pushing the point that the 'n' word isn't protected speech? That sounds like more than just boycotting companies that favor people who use the word.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are nothing but Crackers who wish it was still legal to whip a Black Man.

see nothing wrong with calling for a boycott of racial slurs, all racial slurs, but I don't think Jackson went that far unfortunately, shows the kind of leader he is, more telling is the lack of insistence from him that members of the African American community stop repeating it in music and entertainment. I could be wrong but I don't recall hearing that.

Actually the article did say he was calling on all black artists to stop using the word. That is what he go the Huzzah for. Using a boycott and economic arm twisting to get people to stop saying it - I am all for that. Making it illegal? No.

So... what is the point in dragging Maxine Waters into it and pushing the point that the 'n' word isn't protected speech? That sounds like more than just boycotting companies that favor people who use the word.

I did not even mention Maxine as she is a real buffoon. Proof that stupidity is not always lethal. But you are right. The word "illegal" is not there, but the intent sure is.

"Actually the article did say he was calling on all black artists to stop using the word."

I stand corrected and duly note that. Interesting. Seems like the first time.

"I am all for that. Making it illegal? No."

Agreed completely.