Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Seslikent
SesliChat
SesliSohbet

backup Says:

You can argue that it’s not a free speech issue, but if someone ponders whether their characterization or caricature or portrayal of the President could likely get them fired; they will probably avoid it.

And you can’t argue that it is, because free speech is a public right, not one that is associated with ones employment in a private firm or organization.

And after a few hundred years of forced slavery, abuse, persecution, sanctioned murder, and oppression, I’d say the least we owe the black Americans of this country is the inconvenience of having to “ponder” what we say about them prior to saying it.

backup Says:

I doubt many people worried about being fired for making offensive caricatures of past presidents. They used the medium to communicate dissent.

This was not an “offensive caricature” of a President.

This was an ugly, prejudiced racial slur against Black Americans everywhere.

It didn’t mock the President. It mocked black people everywhere for the color of their skin.

backup Says:

Waynebro. you’ve got a point about the fact that she works in a public office. She has the right to say (or pass along) anything she wants, but she could suffer the consequence of being fired for it. Agreed.

We agree on nothing here. It is not that its a public office. It’s that an employer has the right to fire someone for racist remarks and there’s no gray area there. It has nothing to do with “free speech”.

If I as an employee send out an email that is offensive in nature from my work computer then I am damaging the image of whatever firm, agency or organization that I work for. Which is why most agencies, organizations and companies screen corporate email for violations including harassment, threats, profanity, obscenity and RACIAL SLURS.

They have a right to protect themselves and to terminate any employee violating those ethics.

No doubt this staffer signed a computer access policy of some sort which prohibited such communications, and even if they didn’t, they have not only the right but given the fact this is a government agency, the obligation to fire her.

Biden had comments about Barack Hussein Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

*********************************************************

As it happens — although I don’t expect that you’ll believe me — that’s not the comment I was thinking of. In any case, I think that no matter who’s making those sorts of comments — Democrat or Republican — they’re unacceptable and the person who makes them should be held accountable. If memory serves, I do seem to recall Biden receiving flak over that comment — as was only right and proper. Did I find it odd that Obama nevertheless chose him as his running mate and/or think he could have chosen better? Yes, I did and still do — for that as well as other reasons — but then again, the choice was not mine to make. Of one thing I have no doubt — he had what he considered to be valid reasons for making that decision, at least some of which he may have kept to himself.

However, the remark which was in my mind was actually the one by Glenn Beck in which he referred to Obama as “colorless”:

“I was driving in today, and I was seeing — because I saw this piece with him on 60 Minutes — and I thought to myself, he is — he’s very white in many ways….He is colorless…[F]or whites, I think he’s colorless. You don’t notice that he is black. So he might as well be white, you know what I mean?”

Granted, this may have been interpretation on my part — but as I commented right here on TP at the time, it struck me that perhaps the reason why Obama seemed “colorless” to Beck was the fact that Obama has a very polished way of presenting himself and that this is something which Beck (whether consciously or unconsciously) views as being more or less exclusive to white people. In all honesty, I find it hard to see what else Beck might have meant by that.

…such as the person (I cannot recall the name at present) who praised Obama for being articulate in a way which suggested that this was something astonishing and not possible for most African-Americans.

I believe the ‘articulate’ comment was Joe Biden:

Biden had comments about Barack Hussein Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1254171.php/Senator_Joseph_Biden_Obama_clean_and_articulate

oh, wait — no you don’t. See, imagining what others do and then criticizing them for your own fantasies doesn’t really work among thinking people.

********************************************************

Personally, I don’t think the fact Ms. Black spent some time in Haiti working as a nurse automatically means that there’s no way she could possibly be a racist. In fact, for some reason, there’s something about her particular choice of words (”people with black skin”) that I find somehow eerily reminiscent of the manner in which some people who express prejudicial attitudes towards certain groups speak positively of people they know who belong to that group — “I have friends who are ______, which proves that I’m not a bigot.” This reasoning, however, is faulty since the person in question usually regards his/her friend as an exception to the rule that “all ______s are _____” instead of as living proof that the rule itself is flawed. We saw a similar kind of thinly-veiled prejudice more than once during the campaign in the comments which some people made about Obama — comments which on the surface seemed to compliment him personally but which disparaged African-Americans in general, such as the person (I cannot recall the name at present) who praised Obama for being articulate in a way which suggested that this was something astonishing and not possible for most African-Americans.

I do believe in the potential for Obama’s race to be used to restrain otherwise appropriate dissent or disagreement.

But, this ain’t that.

How’s it going, joe?

I am out.

b-cup

ask not for whom the bell tolls…

:::

because it’s not for you.

:)

It doesn’t, however change the argument much. Although a double standard can be justified based on a racial power imbalance (although that argument is thin if you consider Obama is arguably the most powerful person on the planet and the offender is a staffer for a state senator); there are limits being placed on speech, informally.

I doubt many people worried about being fired for making offensive caricatures of past presidents. They used the medium to communicate dissent.

I concede this example doesn’t fit adequately. It’s racist, inappropriate and could cause the staffer her job.

But, where do you draw the line? If someone wants to do a caricature of Obama and exaggerates the size of his nose or lips to do it; is that regular ordinary use of the freedom of speech or is it racial slur?

That is a dilemma others haven’t had to contend with.

You can argue that it’s not a free speech issue, but if someone ponders whether their characterization or caricature or portrayal of the President could likely get them fired; they will probably avoid it.

In that way, the racial issue can be used to limit speech. To limit those that might dissent or disagree.

You will say that this racist email has nothing to do with that, but some have conflated this email with using the ‘N’ word.

Where does it stop? Do we create a circumstance where people avoid traditional forms of caricature, or even avoid dissention in general, out of a fear of charges of racism or fear of termination due to the high consequence of the implication?

And your question is moot, because El Bruce is in a free speech public arena, not working for TP and not engaged in any official capacity. Thus, he can’t be “fired” for saying what he wants. Although even in this format, speech is restricted to the “rules”, thus his comments are subject to being censored, as are yours and mine.

This isn’t about “free speech”. It’s about racism being used by a public official while at WORK.

Deal with that, and stow your free speech red herrings.

No you’re not. You are, for the millionth time, arguing that bigots spewing age-old racist slurs should be left alone and suffer no consequences for their bigotry.

ElBruce. No. I’m arguing for balance. The closest example I have at hand is you from yesterday:

I find it interesting that you automatically assume Tennessean = white. How’s life for black people in Tennessee? They’ve got just as bad of an economic situation, plus they have to deal with racist mayo-slurping NASCAR-driving honky-ass crackers like yourself. Go cash a welfare check and eat some more wonderbread, Casper.

June 17th, 2009 at 2:45 am Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

What consequence do you suffer for your racism?

Just dropped in to see which hateful a**holes would defend racism.

nanlichi. do you defend ElBruce’s right to comment how he feels or do you condemn it as racism?

Hi backup.

just long enough to remember what a compete “word that rhymes with glass-bowl” he is.

I’m right here. Always am. Whether I’m commenting or not.

Feel free to put up this same red herring you’ve tried so many times now, and that I’ve laid to rest so many times now for you.

Proving that you really are a racist, trying to pretend to be less than one for obvious reasons.

I know what you are backup. And you know what you are.

The others in here are figuring that out too, if they haven’t already.