On April 4th, 2007, radio personality Don Imus made some disparaging remarks about the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team on his radio program, Imus in the Morning. He was thereafter suspended, his show cancelled, and threatened with a lawsuit over the controversial comments. I concur with these actions. Not only were Imus’ comments perverse and unkind, but historical evidence also justifies the actions taken against him.
At the time of the incident, Imus and his executive producer Bernard McGuirk were discussing the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship game between the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights and the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers. A brief transcript of the conversation is as follows:
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.
IMUS: Yeah.
McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had. [#1]
[NOTE: for clarification purposes, I offer the following from dictionary.com:
nappy (adj.)
"downy," 1499, from nap (n.). Meaning "fuzzy, kinky," used in colloquial or derogatory ref. to the hair of black people, is from 1950. ]
Two days later, amidst many prominent media figures calling for his firing [#2], Imus issued a formal apology on his radio program [#3]. However, that appeared to be too little, too late, as one week later, MSNBC announced that it would no longer broadcast Imus in the Morning, and the next day CBS fired Imus and cancelled the show altogether [#4].
It has been established in the courts that speech that carries a captive audience is one of three types that are unprotected under the First Amendment. This neoliberal guideline came into being as a result of the Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation case from 1978 [#5]. In that case, the court ruled that the broadcast medium (i.e. radio, television) fell under the realm of captive audience in that once one accessed the material, there was no plausible way to avoid receiving it (This is opposed to a medium that does not possess captive audience, such as the Internet, where one must make a conscious choice to receive content). Thus, speech on the broadcast medium can be regulated.
While Imus’ speech was indeed not regulated on a “live” basis like one thinks of censorship on television today, in my opinion, his ensuing reprimand was justified and a regulation in its own right. Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t present the Constitutional evidence that promotes Imus’ reference to the hos of the nappy-headed variety. Yes, his words did not fall into either of the other two categories of unprotected speech: They did not create an immediate threat to violence (fighting words), nor can the word “ho” be defined as obscene in comparison to Cohen v. California (1971), where the word “fuck” was deemed permissible as protected expression [#6]. And if you don’t buy the Cohen argument, look no further that the multiple explicit uses of “ho” in today’s entertainment spectrum [#7-9].
On a broader sense, one can even go so far as to say that Imus’ words contributed to the marketplace of ideas advocated by the First Amendment. In this blogger’s opinion, however, all that falls short to the point I made above. That is, Don Imus operated on a medium that had captive audience, and thus, he must pay the price for his actions.
One does not even have to gaze that far back to come across another broadcast controversy with similar circumstances and the same outcome. On May 8th, 2006, DJ Star (real name Troi Torain) of Hot 97 FM in New York City made explicit comments on air about the four year old daughter of a rival DJ. He elaborated that he would like to sexually violate the young girl as well as urged listeners to provide personal information about her for his personal use. Two days later…you guessed it…Star was terminated by Clear Channel Radio [#10].
The First Amendment aside, Don Imus’ remarks were perceived by a multitude of people to be hurtful, wicked, and inexcusable. Rutgers player Essence Carson went as far as to say that Imus' remarks “had stolen a moment of pure grace” from the squad, who had completed a Cinderella-like run in the NCAA tournament. This, to me, paints a grim picture for what is acceptable in media and entertainment today, and it is why I agree with the actions taken against Imus. If the outcome had been different (say, Imus merely suspended and back on the air within days), it would undoubtedly create a slippery slope of what can be broadcast on mass media. Then who know what kind of perverse speech we’d be hearing and seeing on a daily basis?
Sadly, that is a topic for another blog on another day.
#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF9BjB7Bzr0
#2: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?archive=070406
#3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaGnu0l8shs
#4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yz-uUHiahA
#5: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/FCC_v_Pacifica/fcc_v_pacifica.decision
#6: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html
#7: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rTO_oG3GpH4
#8: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VFSNYIrDKY0
#9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QvKSPnqHbl4
#10: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4161148
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with the action taken on this matter. Imus's remarks were offensive and degrading. They were unnecessary and in fact harming the market place of ideas. The point of this market place is to allow different points of view to be voiced and pondered. I would not wish to ponder if the Rutgers girls are "nappy headed hos". This comment carries no merrit for First Amendment protection.
I agree with the idea that if Imus was simply suspended for a few days and then permitted to go back on the air it would send a huge message to the American people. Who knows what sort of content would be next to slip from a broadcasters' mouth. It is vital to draw the line somewhere, and Imus was clearly crossing the line.
It is not the First Amendments job to protect speech such as Imus's. The First Amendment is meant to protect speech such as a jacket that says "F*%@ the draft" or an individual criticizing the war in Iraq and the US government. I fail to see where Imus's speech falls into either of these such examples. Imus's punishment was fair and just. He got what he deserved.
I too agree with the way MSNBC handled the situation. Although the First Amendment is meant to protect speech, the fact that Imus's remarks were made in front of a captive audience makes the radio show able to be regulated. What he said was racist and completely unnecessary to the content the radio show. I think because of the captive audience, the network did the right thing first by firing him and more importantly by not allowing Imus to return.
Had Imus been allowed to return, it would have only been a matter of time until he said something else racist or otherwise offensive. He would have realized the absurd amount of freedom he had and would have no doubt abused it. To say Imus's remarks contributed to the market place of ideas has a point, but I believe having regulations for radio shows with a captive audience overpowers that contribution.
Don Imus's release from MSNBC was the correct choice. When taking into account all of the cases dealing with radio stations and the freedom of speech, Don Imus's firing is clearly justified. I'm sure whoever was listening to that specific broadcast that day did not expect to hear those words. Many people, upon coming across his derogatory comment would feel offended and they were not even given the choice or freedom to flip the channel before they heard it. Also, I did not know about the DJ Star case until I read your blog. I am truly disgusted by his horrifying threat-like comments. The radio limitations on freedom of speech by the Supreme Court are a good way to preserve our society's values for a while longer.
Reading your blog made me wonder what the exact rules were for radio stations as far as obcenity and censorship goes. I knew--and you mentioned--that the broadcast medium is under a category of restricted speech, but I didn't exactly know what that entailed or how it could be enforced. Here's a website thought cleared that up for me.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html
Radio stations are all monitered by the Federal Communications Commission who are working under federal enforcement to ensure that obscene, indecent, and profane broadcast is not aired on the radio.
In short, the FCC states what is considered to be indecent. This includes: dipicting in an offensive way sexual conduct or material lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (What we discussed in class) The FCC has spelled everything out along with the course of action which can include anything from a monetary forfeiture, issue a warning for the station as to one that broadcasts obscenity, to revoking the entire stations license.
Because all of these was clearly spelled out, and the radio station was clearly under the FCC's control, I see absolutely no question reguarding the resulting punishment to his crude remarks.
Post a Comment