Opie, Jim Norton, and AnthonySo XM has gone and suspended the only show I actually listen to on their service, after a mild amount of protest from some of my fellow compatriots? (h/t JayDee)

Let me get this straight: They speak offensively… on a …

I’m not contesting a right to complain about O&A, Maher, etc. being stupid, obnoxious, offensive, or downright wrong. I’m just worried about those who believe that they should be shut down for the crime of being offensive (despite any market forces, etc.).

Okay, I have to admit that it took Boortz to remind me of this…

gekkobear, where I agree that we shouldn’t be shocked…I think we should be vigilant on Government’s drive to control the information that we get over the airwaves.

tickleddragon

Tickled, I e-mailed Boortz back on this as a counter-intuitive and idiotic plan. Boortz’s plan (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html scroll down to the O&A section) is that we need to forcibly self-censor in order to stop the Government from violating the Constitution and censoring… meh, I’lll quote the relevant bits.

These two pathetic bastards need to be removed from XM satellite radio right now. Today. No suspension. No warning. Fire them. Now.
…
Right now we have a little gem called H.R. 3302, the “Media Ownership Reform Act,” in the congress. H.R. 3302 is a project of DC Democrats who know that conservative talk radio constitutes a real threat to their plans for total victory in 2008. If H.R. 3302 were to become law, talk radio as you know it would be dead inside of nine months.
…
Opie and Anthony just gave these control-freak politicians a huge bit of leverage with their crude little skit…

Should we also willingly disarm if the Government threatens to pass a law disarming the populace? Heck, they don’t even need a majority, a vote, or to avoid a veto; they just need a threat and Boortz is willing to throw in the towel and start shedding rights as fast as he can.

Since when does caving to a threat immediately and giving in to every demand made from a group reduce or end irrational demands? I didn’t think that was how the world works, but maybe the concept of Danegold is forgotten.

I’ll hope you aren’t agreeing with this side of Boortz’s argument. Sure we should watch the Government, and be concerned about their possible actions. But that doesn’t mean we should give up our rights to avoid having them taken away; which seems to be the exact goal of Boortz’s rant.

If they’re calling for him to lose his job, then let’s talk.

Jim Treacher on May 12, 2007 at 2:22 AM

That isn’t the only time we should talk. The blogosphere, including this blog and my blog and plenty of others, write almost daily about provacative and in some cases offensive comments made by others, and invite their readers to respond to those comments. There are a few different arguments going on in this thread, with some people saying it should be ok for O&A to be fired, while other people – lik me – are talking about the offensive nature of the comments in a general sense but not calling for any firing. People are lumping those two groups into the same argument and saying things like “if you don’t like them, don’t pay to listen to them, etc” and my point was that you don’t hear those same responses in threads about Bill Maher and other ‘comedians’ who you have to pay to hear/watch, whether someone is calling for the ‘offender’ to be fired or not.

It is no more wrong for me to complain about O&A than it is for me and others to complain about Bill Maher. O&A and Bill Maher, and others provacative ‘entertainers’ have the right to say what they do, and in turn I have the right to complain about them. True, I don’t have to ‘pay’ to listen to them (and I don’t) but these guys deliberately say stuff that gets them and their show attention and ratings so eventually something they say is going to get national attention and thus invite people to comment on it.

As I said before, I’ve laughed at Stern and some other humor that some people would find offensive. For that matter, Jim, I laugh at stuff you’ve said on your blogs that other people would find offensive, so this isn’t a case of only humorless people not seeing the humor in laughing about rape.

I don’t find Bill Maher calling our troops a bunch of low-lying fruit funny. I don’t find O&A’s laughing about rape funny. I don’t find Rosie O’s little conspiracy theory segments on The View insightful. But I’m not calling for anyone to be fired, either. Just commenting on how offensive these people can sometimes be. It’s as simple as that.

Yup I said it…thugs yourselves.

Icko..gross…not enough soap around to clense thyselves.

I assume that since you agree that they were making fun of him, you agree that they weren’t advocating her being raped.

Jim Treacher on May 11, 2007 at 11:13 PM

I noticed that the only reason to drag in a derelict on to a radio program is to humiliate the fellow. That’s despicable in itself. Not illegal, just rotten. They egged him on, so they were complicit in the insult to Dr. Rice, who deserves better treatment, but these guys don’t think that anyone deserves decent treatment, except probably themselves. Just another dismal and typical example of how crappy our culture has become, especially the media people who have helped drive us all into the decline.

And some of the comments I’ve read about this across the blogosphere make me believe there is a little selective condemnation going on here, because some of the same people defending O&A’s ‘humor’ slam Bill Maher up one side and down the other.

If they’re calling for him to lose his job, then let’s talk.

Well, I don’t generally complain about Maher. Because I don’t see him, because I don’t pay to do so.

I don’t recall saying you specifically ever DID listen to Maher. My comment was on the right in general

I also don’t tune my XM radio to whatever station these two yahoos are on, or to Rush, or any of the other talk stations. Am I surpsied when Maher says something leftist stupid and condescending? How is that news, that’s his schtick. Alrighty?

What a crock. That’s like saying that when Democrat politicians do something stupid, it’s their schtick, and because of that it’s ‘not surprising’ nor is it news, nor worthy of discussion. Michael Moore’s “schtick” is being an a–hole. Do I know this about Moore? Yes. Does it make me less inclined to complain about him? No. Alrighty?

And you for all intents and purposes are complaining about the Playboy channel being naughty,

?? I haven’t said a word about Playboy. That’s your thing, apparently.

or did you not realize that shock-jocks are trying to say something shocking?

Let’s get something straight: The assumption that has been implied in this thread is that the people are offended by this ‘obviously’ don’t have a sense of humor. That’s a load. I used to watch some of the Howard Stern shows they’d play on the E! channel. Some of it offended me, while other bits I laughed til my stomach hurt. I used to watch Beavis and Butthead, which a lot of people I know thought was an offensive show. I have the first season on VHS. So, yes, I do have a sense of humor, and laugh at things others probably would not laugh at, but I don’t think joking about raping someone is funny – again, no more ‘funny’ than some crack a person makes about assassinating the President. And some of the comments I’ve read about this across the blogosphere make me believe there is a little selective condemnation going on here, because some of the same people defending O&A’s ‘humor’ slam Bill Maher up one side and down the other. It’s odd how the ‘pay to see’ arguments don’t come up in those threads.

It is in the job description, and I think they succeeded. When their goal is to offend, don’t be surprised when they succeed.

Who said anything about being “surprised”? Are you striving for the award for most strawmen brought up in a Hot Air thread or something?

Water is wet, porn is naughty, shock-jocks are offensive. If you’re really surprised about this I can’t imagine why; if you’re “acting” surprised for effect, do you expect to have people believe the act?

See above. There’s no “surprise” here and the only “act” is you acting like the people who are offended by O&A don’t have the same right to criticize them as they have to make their little ‘jokes.’ Get real.

You people defending this as free speech are fools. People like you and your ilk are the reason I go to the shooting range. I want to prevent anything funny from happening to myself or loved ones.

Now see, if I was to go along with your mindset, I’d interpret that as a threat of violence. But I’m a rational person, so I understand that it isn’t. Just like the O&A thing isn’t.

I’ve heard it now 5 times..there is no mistaken that they thought this rape thing was funny, holding her down, wanting to see the shock on her face…

Because he’s a disgusting homeless bum. They weren’t saying she should get raped, they were mocking his sick fantasies because no woman would want to have sex with him. Is that a nice thing to say? No, but it’s not advocating rape. That’s a 60-second clip of a longer conversation, and it’s completely out of context.

Let’s say I state “Islam is a religion of hate, a death-cult”. This is an expression of my opinion. Let’s say I state “I’d love to take a woman in a Burqua, hold her down and f* her.” That is not an expression of my opinion, but a vulgar description of a criminal act. I’m all for free speech, but one has to begin to understand the difference between free speech and advocacy of criminal acts and vulgar language on a public channel (the fact that the channel is open only to certain parts of the public does not mean it’s not public).

Too many people equate the notion of free speech with “I can say whatever I want about whoever I want”. This is false, patently so.

Aylios on May 10, 2007 at 10:12 PM

Thank you. I am repulsed by some of the commentators here. Ask Allah, I disagree with HA on several matters, but this is not one of them. And to make that stupid link to the feminist website and tell Ian he’s in good company? Are you saying because feminists are against rape, then rape is okay? I know, I know, a rape never took place. They were only joking about how freaking funny it would be if it had.

You people defending this as free speech are fools. People like you and your ilk are the reason I go to the shooting range. I want to prevent anything funny from happening to myself or loved ones.

US Constitution/Bill of Rights:
Refer ONLY to the limits of GOVERNMENT action. Not PRIVATE.

Freedom of Speech protects the citizen from Government, not from business or other citizens.

These guys have only the rights that their employers allow them to have on the airwaves. Where that might make some of us jump to defend them, we’re forgetting that governement’s ultimate desire is to have control of ALL forms of broadcast media. There is a bill up there now, just waiting for legislators to support it. If we allow idiots like these two to give legislators a reason to complain, WE ALL FREAKIN LOSE.

Oh, and by the way, those that compare these two morons and what they do, to talk show hosts like Boortz, Limbaugh and the like…your head is firmly up your a$$. Please pull it out and come back to see us. There is a difference between political speech and this impractical stupidy of an entertainment. You’d never heard the kind of nastiness, crassness or inanity out of the legit talk show hosts.

Subscription service may give one the ability to be a crass, vulger idiot…but just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

gekkobear, where I agree that we shouldn’t be shocked…I think we should be vigilant on Government’s drive to control the information that we get over the airwaves.

I guess that means the right should cease complaining about Bill Maher, then, because he’s on a channel we have to pay to see, too. Alrighty.

SisterToldjah on May 11, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Well, I don’t generally complain about Maher. Because I don’t see him, because I don’t pay to do so. I also don’t tune my XM radio to whatever station these two yahoos are on, or to Rush, or any of the other talk stations. Am I surpsied when Maher says something leftist stupid and condescending? How is that news, that’s his schtick. Alrighty?

And you for all intents and purposes are complaining about the Playboy channel being naughty, or did you not realize that shock-jocks are trying to say something shocking? It is in the job description, and I think they succeeded. When their goal is to offend, don’t be surprised when they succeed.

Water is wet, porn is naughty, shock-jocks are offensive. If you’re really surprised about this I can’t imagine why; if you’re “acting” surprised for effect, do you expect to have people believe the act?

I’m going through the comments here and there are a lot of people saying “You shouldn’t call for them to resign.” But I’m not seeing too many comments where people are actually saying that.

It seems that a very important part of being “PC” is learning to tolerate increasingly more horrifying statements from sick loons and simply accepting that they have the right to speak their mind. Well, yeah, they DO have that right, but don’t the rest of us have the right to at least throw up occasionally?

Maybe I heard it wrong, but didn’t one of them talk about hitting Condi in the face?

And what about the comment: “George Bush’s wife? I’d f–k that b—ch to death!”

Someone might be getting a phone call from Secret Service after that …