I guess were making words illegal now.

Jesse Jackson

*will not point it out*

From the article:

Emphasis added.

For future reference, if you actually read the articles you post, you might not come across like such an idiot.

And the whole idea is ridiculous.

Well since he is only talking to TV and film executives then no we aren't making words illegal. Sounds to me like he wants a voluntary ban. I think it is unnecessary but it sure doesn't violate the Constitution.

Sigh...

While i would REALLY love to never hear a racial slur again in my entire life, i'm afraid i can't support the removing of someone's right to say them. That kind of thing can go really wrong really fast. *reminded of demolition man...*

Freedom of expression really isn't the kind ofthing i want to see curtailed in entertainment. KINDA affects my future a bit.

Honestly, which execs are going to be willing to do this? I would think that anyone who felt that certain words were derogatory, like 'bitch' for female, 'fag' for homosexuals, would demand that the use of those words be removed as well. I just don't see it happening any time soon.

So does this mean that if someone was going to make a movie of the Mississippi civil rights workers who were murdered in 1964 that Jesse Jackson would prefer the depiction of the racist killers not include them using racial slurs?

This has nothing to do with people's rights, or making anything illegal. This is Jesse Jackson asking people to voluntarily participate in a boycott of certain words.

I find the TV and Film executives bit amusing. Did he not make the same appeal to the record industry? Because I guarantee that the "n word" is used more times on the top ten hip hop albums than it is in every movie released in the United States in the past 5 years.

Heh... oops... my bad.

But still, if this did become a legal issue i'd have a problem with it. Good thing it's not. Currently.

It might not be a legal issue per se, but suppose all media outlets decided on a restriction of xyz then it would become a de facto restriction rather than de jure, but a restriction nonetheless to some extent. I don't necessarily think that it's wrong, and it's certainly being done as we speak, but to what degree do you allow them to increase?

PS I'm insane. Only read if you too are insane.

I'm pretty sure they don't use the N word on sit coms. I would imagine if a writer tried to get it in the script the network would tell him to go to hell and then fire him. If the network didn't the advertisers would. So, there is a de facto ban on the word. As soon as you find the writer who wants to make a constitutional issue out of the situation, let me know.

Quite unlike Michael Richards, Rev. Jackson rarely fails to give me a good hearty laugh. He should suggest starting the ban with the word Himey me thinks.

See I'm insane. That's why I put the I'm insane warning at the bottom.

I understand it's not a constitutional issue as is. And I was thinking outloud abstractly about any concept not just the 'N word'. It was a theoretical question I suppose: at what point do de facto restrictions on speech violate the first amendment rights?

De facto restrictions on free speech implicate the first amendment on their face - if those restrictions are set by the government. This is not to say that they are per se unlawful, but an inquiry is likely appropriate. If television programers decide that it is in their best interest, financially speaking, to limit the language on their networks, the first amendment is not implicated. There is no right at stake. The public has no right to expect X language portrayed on television. The key is always "government action." This would be analagous to media outlets agreeing to not publish information about alleged rape victims.

So government involvement is the key then? That certainly makes sense and is pretty painfully obvious. I suppose if everyone in a society decides they don't want anyone to be able to talk about X it's not violating the one guys right to free speech that wants to talk about it. As long as the force behind the prohibition doesn't stem from the government. Hmmm

EDIT:Wrong article.
The use of the hate word -- n----- -- has become too culturally acceptable. Some of this comes from black culture and the informal use of the word in teasing mode. In fact, this is hate language. It's a punch in the groin disguised as a word.

Our forefathers created the First Amendment to ensure a robust public debate and to prohibit the government from making laws to squelch political speech, even speech critical of our leaders. But obscenity has never enjoyed that protection, nor should it. Yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater does not have protection. Similarly, hate speech -- like that wielded by Richards -- has and should be illegal.

Here's the Link

Especially "bitch." No one has a problem with that word, it seems. They beep out "God" more often than they beep out "bitch."

Random side comment.

Of course. The Constitution is a pact between the people and the state, not the people and private entities. This isn't a matter of "society" deciding it does not want to approach a topic or that it does not want to express certain ideas. It's purely a matter of corproations for profit deciding what is best for their bottom line. By definition, they are not government entites (although arguably they are public trusts), and therefore incapable of violating the first amendment. You are perfectly free to say the "n" word, and you are perfectly free to listen to others say the "n" word if you and they choose to. Here, the broadcasters may or may not choose to say the "n" word.

*Beep*DAMN Bitch! You gotta good *Beep*Damn point!

I think Quintin Tarantino and many generic rappers will be very upset.

I have a hypothetical question, since you seem to know what you're talking about. You have a right to life guaranteed by the constitution, so when a person seeks to violate that right the government can intervene on the individuals behalf. In this situation the act which is unconstitutional is being implemented by the government, but it's still unconstutional. So on the other hand if all forms of media decided they were not going to publish anything with the N-word (this seems increasingly possible given the push towards consolidation) including books, movies, television to the extent that there was literally no method of disseminating a discussion, could there not also be a case for a violation of the right to express ideas even though the act did not originally stem from a government act? I could very well be missing something. I was just wondering what you're response would be. And keep in mind this is purely hypothetical, 'mI talking about a case where non-governmental action virtually eliminated one's ability to communicate effectively.

[forget everything I said above; I'm not thinking straight]

"Last week Richards, who played Kramer in the sitcom, was forced to apologise after racially abusing two hecklers during his comedy show in Los Angeles."

emphasis added for WTF?!

he was screaming the n word over and over again... calling these dudes a bunch of n---s. it was pretty fucking bad... using the term abuse isn't that far off