Friday, April 13, 2007

Imus implications

My friends and I were discussing all the brouhaha with Don Imus. It's interesting how two different friends can have very different views of this controversy. It all comes down to stereotypes, a topic we are discussing in class. Communication is the crux of the himan being and how we communicate is very much based on our culture and envrionment. Those Rutgers players were offended. Imus was fired. Did he go to far? I think so, but it also brings up our beloved First Amendment. What speech is protected? Is there speech that should not be protected even if it is hateful? It's a fine line that likely will never be fully drawn to society's specifications since we are all so diffewrent. There is also the concept of stereotypes. Are all sterotypes negative. I have my students discuss this and the conversations often times become heated. But it is often a good discussion that allows students to hear different viewpoints. I suppose in understanding societies, we need to hear all viewpoints.

2 Comments:

Blogger bint alshamsa said...

I honestly don't understand some people are treating this incident as if it had anything to do with the First Amendment. I haven't heard any serious discussion where someone claimed that Imus should not have been able to say what he thinks. The issue was whether or not consumers wanted to make his speech profitable. Many consumers made their views known and the market responded accordingly after taking these views into consideration.

Imus was never in danger of having his First Amendment rights stifled or trampled on. There is a big difference between a) being able to say whatever one wants and b) being given a microphone and a platform to help disseminate a particular message. The former is a First Amendment issue. The latter is not.

At least, that's how I see it. :)

7:06 PM  
Blogger sabrynac said...

It's funny, I was discussing this with a group of people. Two things really struck me. 1) One person didn't understand why nappy headed was offensive (anyone who thinks those in higher education are inclined to enlightenment obviously haven't spent a lot of time on a campus!) and 2) no one seemed to be too concerned about the "ho" reference. So it wasn't until the two terms were combined that the media took notice. As a woman, I find this so disturbing that people were not as offended by a derogatory comment about women but the racial comment was what did it. Thoughts?

1:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home