| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sass
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 5576
Location: where it's sunny and warm
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/13/07 1:06 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| Sass wrote: |
| How about a different angle: what makes you think I care about your opinion? |
If you don't care, don't respond. |
Your bullying/arrogant/condescending tactics don't work here. So back to my original statement: don't talk to me. I don't like you, you don't like me. Keep your distance.
_________________
_________________
More high school team allegiances than can be believed
_________________
He's the greatest of the greater
get it straight - he's great
- Run-DMC
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/13/07 1:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| This isn't a hard case, and it isn't in the gray area. What he said wasn't a factual statement, and no one interpreted it as a factual statement. |
You might want to ask Kia Vaughn about that.
Moreover, it doesn't seem like a terrible stretch to me to conclude that it is possible for a statement to be an insult and defamatory at the same time. While some things that are insulting aren't defamatory (saying "You're a terrible dresser."), and some things that are defamatory aren't insulting in the normal sense of the word (falsely saying "You stole $100 million from your company."), there's still plenty of room for overlap. In fact, your conclusion that it is an easy case is based on your own claim that "no one interpreted it as a factual statement," which is not something that a court would allow a defense attorney to claim without actual evidence, which I suspect would be hard to find. (You may not, perhaps, have read as many blog comments as I have on this one, or maybe you've just been reading them in more genteel venues, but there's a predictable number of yahoos who have said "How do we know they aren't hos?") Besides, that seems like a question for a jury to me, even in the world of defamation where judges have much more sway than in normal cases.
And, as an aside, I'm not really sure why you felt compelled to disagree with me when I said the case was easier to prove if they're not public figures, since, as you described, that's obviously true. (I did not, after all, say it was easier to prove that the statements were defamatory; I just said that "the case" was easier.) Having to prove that a statement was made with actual malice is an enormous burden, and that's what ends up killing off the vast majority of defamation cases filed by public figures.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/13/07 1:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
You might want to ask Kia Vaughn about that.
|
what, did Kia respond by saying, "what he said is false -- I am not a prostitute"?
It's like if someone says "fuck you" and you respond by saying "that's false!"
| beknighted wrote: |
| Besides, that seems like a question for a jury to me, even in the world of defamation where judges have much more sway than in normal cases. |
let's do a hypothetical. Radio DJ Ron Amus calls the NJU women's basketball team "nappy-haired bitches." They sue him. Amus files a motion to dismiss on the basis that they failed to allege an element of the tort -- namely, a false factual statement.
In their opposition to the motion to dismiss, they make this argument: "Bitch means female dog. He was making a factual statement that we are female dogs, rather than humans. Therefore, we should be able to present this case to the jury."
What ruling?
| beknighted wrote: |
| And, as an aside, I'm not really sure why you felt compelled to disagree with me when I said the case was easier to prove if they're not public figures... |
because the public figures First Amendment overlay on defamation is irrelevant to the core issue here. Just as the "libel per se" doctrine is irrelevant to the core issue here.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/13/07 1:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Sass wrote: |
| Your bullying/arrogant/condescending tactics don't work here. So back to my original statement: don't talk to me. I don't like you, you don't like me. Keep your distance. |
I don't like you? You are irrelevant to me. Why would this be a "like" issue?
Bullying? You said you didn't care about the Duke lax team...then don't post in a Duke lax thread. Then you said you weren't speaking to me...well, if you post on a message board, you are conveying communication...and in your initial post, if there is no specific recipient, it is addressed to everyone. Pretty simple concept.
|
|
Sass
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 5576
Location: where it's sunny and warm
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/13/07 1:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| Sass wrote: |
| Your bullying/arrogant/condescending tactics don't work here. So back to my original statement: don't talk to me. I don't like you, you don't like me. Keep your distance. |
I don't like you? You are irrelevant to me. Why would this be a "like" issue?
Bullying? You said you didn't care about the Duke lax team...then don't post in a Duke lax thread. Then you said you weren't speaking to me...well, if you post on a message board, you are conveying communication...and in your initial post, if there is no specific recipient, it is addressed to everyone. Pretty simple concept. |
Blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda. There's an old N.W.A. line that is appropriate for you: "You've always got something stupid to say."
It gives me great pleasure to ignore you entirely from here on out.
_________________
_________________
More high school team allegiances than can be believed
_________________
He's the greatest of the greater
get it straight - he's great
- Run-DMC
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/13/07 1:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Sass wrote: |
| It gives me great pleasure to ignore you entirely from here on out. |
Weren't you doing that before? And yet you keep responding...
Again, if you didn't/don't care about Duke lacrosse, why do you keep posting in a thread on the subject.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/13/07 2:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
do a hypothetical. Radio DJ Ron Amus calls the NJU women's basketball team "nappy-haired bitches." They sue him. Amus files a motion to dismiss on the basis that they failed to allege an element of the tort -- namely, a false factual statement.
In their opposition to the motion to dismiss, they make this argument: "Bitch means female dog. He was making a factual statement that we are female dogs, rather than humans. Therefore, we should be able to present this case to the jury."
What ruling? |
Look, I get that you don't think this was anything worse than a garden-variety insult. I just happen to disagree with your premise that nobody reasonable would think otherwise.
In any event, if we're going to try a hypothetical, let's try one where there aren't well-understood alternate meanings of the word. The one you picked is unreal because no reasonable person would believe that "female dog" was intended unless there was a particularly unusual context. In this case, I'm pretty sure most people understand "whore" to have only one real meaning (the variation that treats it as equivalent to "slut" isn't meaningfully different, in my view). And what Imus would have to argue in this case is not that they misunderstood the meaning of the word, but that they unreasonably misunderstood his intent in using it. (In other words, that it was more like calling Cam a whore on this site, where he calls himself one, than like calling a random person on the street a whore.) Maybe a judge would rule in his favor on that, but again proving his intent seems like a factual matter to me.
Finally, the Kia Vaughn comment might be clearer to you if you had a chance to read the transcript of the press conference. Scroll about 2/3 down Of course, I suspect you'll still disagree, but such is life.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66926
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/13/07 3:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| let's do a hypothetical. Radio DJ Ron Amus calls the NJU women's basketball team "nappy-haired bitches." They sue him. Amus files a motion to dismiss on the basis that they failed to allege an element of the tort -- namely, a false factual statement. |
Would it make a difference if the show was on a TV news network?
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/13/07 4:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| Look, I get that you don't think this was anything worse than a garden-variety insult. |
that is utterly ridiculous. This wasn't a garden-variety insult, but that is entirely irrelevant to the legal quesiton. Another hypothetical -- suppose he said "nappy-haired [n-words]."
That would have been worse than what he actually said. It would be far worse than a "garden-variety insult". But it still isn't actionable defamation because it isn't a factual claim. Sometimes really, really bad insults -- like th actual one here -- aren't defamation.
| pilight wrote: |
| Would it make a difference if the show was on a TV news network? |
It could. If people understood him to be reporting that the women on the Rutgers team were prostitutes, then it would be defamation. If it's on a new channel, it might be more likely that it would be understood that way.
But that's not what happened here. He wasn't reporting something. He wasn't making a factual statement about what these women do for a living. He was just using the word in a different sense -- as a racialized and offensive and derogatory insult to refer generally to black women.
You might think the law of defamation should cover that sort of thing, but for better or worse, it doesn't.
|
|
caune
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 17919
Location: Valley of the Bun
Back to top |
|
Bigorange123
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 304
Location: DC
Back to top |
|
Slovydal
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 12205
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Back to top |
|
sweets
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 78
Location: To Da Left To Da Left
Back to top |
|
LTF1
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 2252
Location: Louisiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/15/07 8:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It is amazing to me the power that people GIVE other people over them. Someone thinks she is "scarred for life" by words of someone they don't even know. The only power Don Imus had over the Rutgers team is the power they gave him. What does it say about people when WORDS from a stranger, can so debilitate them?
There are some people all over the country now claiming to be distraught, devestated, etc., because Imus said some thoughtless things. I would be ashamed, if when my daughter is old enough to understand what a shock jock is, and that person said something nasty about her or about women, and she were to say that she was "scarred" forever by it. I would be ashamed that I would have raised her to give such power to another and to be such a wimp.
If Don Imus has this much power over some people, imagine how much power their spouses, friends, children, employers, etc. must have over them. Just with WORDS.
I don't think anyone has a right not to have their feelings hurt through life, especially since it is the receipient of negative remarks who decides how much they hurt, ie how much power they have handed over.
What power people give racists, gay bashers, etc., when they become emotional over words.
Being fired wasn't the worst thing that could have happened to Imus, being ignored would have been |
|
Koopster
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 444
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/15/07 11:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Curious post...especially with this being Jackie Robinson's 60th anniversary of his first game in baseball. The Rutgers situation is not intended to serve as a direct comparrison...just your thoughts that words mean so little and that giving them power translates in being a 'wimp'.
You make it sound so simple...just like you are quite experienced in the art of deflecting potentially harmful/hateful racist remarks from others. Maybe you are experienced with this...but not likely that your opinion serves as a blanket to wrap across the shoulders of all. Such a strong position comes across as absolutism...you are entitled to it...but it is ironic that you do not represent a minority class as previously claimed.
I thought "scarred for life" came across as a bit melodramatic...but also know that I have very little long-term experience to be an expert on the matter. This kind of stuff (Imus) can open up wounds that are not visable to others.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19763
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/16/07 10:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| LTF1 wrote: |
It is amazing to me the power that people GIVE other people over them. Someone thinks she is "scarred for life" by words of someone they don't even know. The only power Don Imus had over the Rutgers team is the power they gave him. What does it say about people when WORDS from a stranger, can so debilitate them?
There are some people all over the country now claiming to be distraught, devestated, etc., because Imus said some thoughtless things. I would be ashamed, if when my daughter is old enough to understand what a shock jock is, and that person said something nasty about her or about women, and she were to say that she was "scarred" forever by it. I would be ashamed that I would have raised her to give such power to another and to be such a wimp.
If Don Imus has this much power over some people, imagine how much power their spouses, friends, children, employers, etc. must have over them. Just with WORDS.
I don't think anyone has a right not to have their feelings hurt through life, especially since it is the receipient of negative remarks who decides how much they hurt, ie how much power they have handed over.
What power people give racists, gay bashers, etc., when they become emotional over words.
Being fired wasn't the worst thing that could have happened to Imus, being ignored would have been |
If you aren't Black and if you aren't a woman, you need to shut your mouth.
Imus pointed out ten individuals, and called them and extremely sexist and racist term. He pointed out ten kids. Ten kids who did absolutely nothing. It's one thing to point out celebrities (still wrong) but it's another thing to point out innocent college kids.
If Imus was ignored, he could have spout the same racist crap again. The problem is you wouldn't understand what wounds those words might create. I can't personally understand the racial slurs, so I'm not going to pretend like the Rutgers players shouldn't be offended, because I wouldn't know how that feels like. I certainly know it would piss me off, and hurt me. It's one thing to call someone a whore when joking around, and you are face to face with a that person...and you KNOW them. It's another to do it as a nasty "joke" on the radio. I've said it numerous times, he's damn lucky the Rutgers players reacted like the way they did.
What he said, showed once again, that he is either racist and sexist, or doesn't understand where to draw the line. No one gave him power, those words have a power in them. As others have said, they open up wounds that men and non african americans wouldn't understand.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
LTF1
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 2252
Location: Louisiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/16/07 10:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
koopster:"but it is ironic that you do not represent a minority class as previously claimed."
When did I claim that? I am male which makes me part of the minority in the United States, but I don't ever recall saying that I was part of a "minority class." My viewpoint on this board is in the minority and at times the reaction to it has been rather hostile, but that's ok.
Koopster:"This kind of stuff (Imus) can open up wounds that are not visable to others."
Of course people cannot but help at times to be hurt by what someone says (it is a human failing). However people are capable of either letting it fester or to forget it (unless they perhaps suffer from some form of OCD). My main point is though, people do not have a natural right imo not to be offended. I saw a contributor in Time Magazine compare Imus' comment to a "violent midday mugging" (Debra Dickerson).
Imo I would prefer a verbal assault over a physical assault and robbery any day of the week. But that is not the point, which is that Imus is not responsible for how others feel. Other than having some people feel bad, angry, hurt etc, what tangible harm did Imus actually do? Ironically, he ultimately wound up doing the most harm to himself, ie he lost two jobs (MSNBC and CBS radio) because most of his advertisers wanted to distance themselves from the controversey. Curiously, Imus was put off the air, not because his listeners abandoned him, but because people who most likely never listened to him financially threatened his advertisers.
What all of this boils down to, and again just my opinion (though those can be dangerous things to have it seems) is about power. Imus' power to say something offensive and those who are offended to shut him up. In this case, the latter won.
What I find interesting is that a year ago or so, Limbaugh referred to the (false as it turned out, but Limbaugh didn't know it at the time) accuser in the Duke case as a "ho". He apologized and that was it. Now calling an alleged victim that in a rape case strikes me as pretty vicious, but nothing happened to Limbaugh, why?
I think because his audience is bigger then Imus' and that advertisers who might have abandoned Limbaugh would have faced a backlash from his listeners. I also think his advertising structure and radio syndication is more diversified which probably makes him less vulnerable to say boycott threats.
Just some thoughts (I just hope the thought police aren't out) |
|
LTF1
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 2252
Location: Louisiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/16/07 10:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
mercfan3:"If you aren't Black and if you aren't a woman, you need to shut your mouth."
So only people of certain groups should be able to comment about things relating to their groups? We have had this debate in my profession, academic history, Should only African American historians write African American history? Should only French historians write French history? White historians write white history? And for the most part, historians have rejected such particularism for obvious reasons.
I am not black nor a woman, and I will not shut my mouth. Your argument is used simply to stifle contrary opinions.
And in any case I am human, and I have had people say things to me, not necc general racial or gender things, but still very personal things, that have been very hurtful. I have been offended. And having been, I could, let such remarks eat at me, damage my self-esteem, cry, scream, and try to get the people who said them fired OR I could logically work to diminish the pain, ignore it, forget--which happens the most often--(or even turn the pain to pity for those who have said such things).
It is my opinion that words have the power one gives them. You may think words have power in and of themselves and therefore people who utter unapproved words should be silenced. We just disagree |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/16/07 11:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| LTF1 wrote: |
| It is my opinion that words have the power one gives them. You may think words have power in and of themselves and therefore people who utter unapproved words should be silenced. We just disagree |
I've been pondering this question, and I think that perhaps a better way to phrase it is "words have the power we give them." And by "we" I mean our society.
What Imus said didn't change who any of the Rutgers players are - it made them no more or less noble or accomplished. But it did define them to others. The argument, made by Jason Whitlock and a few others, that the best thing to do would have been to ignore him, itself ignores that not responding would allow a certain number of people to believe that what he said (not the literal words, but the underlying, trivializing meaning) was correct.
I'm not a big fan of censorship in any form, but if you're not going to censor then you cannot say that people who hear "bad" speech should sit quietly by and make believe they didn't hear it, particularly when they're the targets and when the speaker has a very large megaphone. (That's the difference between ignoring some bozo on the street and ignoring a Dom Imus - the bozo isn't heard past the range of his voice, and nobody cares what he says anyway.) In that context, a response is necessary so that nobody can make the mistake of thinking that what was said was okay. If you don't respond, you implicitly agree with the statement or at least suggest that your voice isn't important enough to refute what was said. That's just not the right way to go.
BTW, I think it's unfortunate, but unsurprising, that the media picked up on "scarred for life," particularly because it was said by only one person. We all know, though, that the flashy line gets picked up and repeated. It's why the first part of the Imus bit, not the part where the team got compared to the Toronto Raptors, got repeated ad nauseum as well.
|
|
Slovydal
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 12205
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/16/07 11:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
LTF1,
It seems to me that you're letting the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team have too much power over you.
Why are you so afraid of women standing up for themselves?
|
|
LTF1
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 2252
Location: Louisiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/16/07 12:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
slovydale:"It seems to me that you're letting the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team have too much power over you. Why are you so afraid of women standing up for themselves?"
I am not afraid of women standing up for themselves. I don't think this situation applies to that sentiment. What I see is that the media took a remark that maybe 2 million people heard (few who were peers of the team), spread it everywhere all the time for a week, so that most of the nation's 300 million people heard it, and then asked the young women for their response (with of course the University issuing a statement and of course CVW taking and making every opportunity to respond). Whew!
I see a press conference not organized by players and an "apology" set up to be a media circus. I see a person with a history of anti-Semitic remarks pressing CBS radio to have Imus fired. What I see is cultivated indignation. Women standing up? I imagine they heard worse while playing ball in hs and junior high |
|
RedEqualsLuck
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 4781
Back to top |
|
luvDhoops
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 8229
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19763
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/16/07 7:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| LTF1 wrote: |
mercfan3:"If you aren't Black and if you aren't a woman, you need to shut your mouth."
So only people of certain groups should be able to comment about things relating to their groups? We have had this debate in my profession, academic history, Should only African American historians write African American history? Should only French historians write French history? White historians write white history? And for the most part, historians have rejected such particularism for obvious reasons.
I am not black nor a woman, and I will not shut my mouth. Your argument is used simply to stifle contrary opinions.
And in any case I am human, and I have had people say things to me, not necc general racial or gender things, but still very personal things, that have been very hurtful. I have been offended. And having been, I could, let such remarks eat at me, damage my self-esteem, cry, scream, and try to get the people who said them fired OR I could logically work to diminish the pain, ignore it, forget--which happens the most often--(or even turn the pain to pity for those who have said such things).
It is my opinion that words have the power one gives them. You may think words have power in and of themselves and therefore people who utter unapproved words should be silenced. We just disagree |
You can comment all you want, but you can't state anything as fact. Because you don't know what it's like to be called a racist and sexist deragotory term..so you shouldn't make like these players shouldn't be offended Because YOU have no idea. You say these players are giving powers to others, and are acting as a wimp. That is what you need to shut your mouth about, you wouldn't understand where they are coming from because you've never been there.
As stated, I'm not going to make like they shouldn't be offended because of the racist statement, because I'm not black, and I can't identify with that.
I don't have a problem with people saying what they feel, I have a problem with people, especially people who wouldn't know what that situation feels like, telling other people how they should feel. Preaching if you will. Stating your opinion, that you think words are just words, and the fuss this has caused is giving Imus Power, is different than saying that those players are "wimps" because they let Imus's words get to them..and that they've most likely heard worse.
It's like a man having an opinion about abortion, and a man who has the power to make a decision about whether or not abortion is illegal. IMO, until a man has a baby, men should not be able to tell women what they can and can not do with their own bodies.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66926
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/16/07 7:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| IMO, until a man has a baby, men should not be able to tell women what they can and can not do with their own bodies. |
Even if the woman has never had one either?
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
|
|
