Imus Calls Rutgers Women's Basketball Team "Nappy Headed Hos" - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-10-2007, 01:27 PM   #106
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:07 AM
i think the basketball team should invite Imus to get tattos with them.

Al Sharpton is a bigger racist than Imus.

dbs
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 01:31 PM   #107
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:07 AM
It wasn't at all saying "I am not a ho", and I was impressed by those girls and their coach. I know that if I was Don Imus I'd be shaking in my shoes right now at the thought of meeting with them, considering how you could see how they were hurting yet they were so dignified and humble. I'd hate to be him facing how much I had hurt them and having to explain myself.

I think everyone is well aware that we have all these important issues going on, no one is saying Don Imus is the most important. But racism certainly is, and if this prompts discussion about it then it's important.

Not that I think it's any sort of "contest" between gay people and blacks, but it appears that MSNBC has been more harsh on someone who made anti-gay comments

tmz.com

Don Imus, Michael Savage
Don Imus received a two-week suspension yesterday from both CBS Radio and MSNBC (which simulcasts his radio show) after he referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." But four years ago, Michael Savage, who had a weekend show on MSNBC at the time, referred to a caller as a "sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die." Savage was fired in what was referred to at the time as any "easy decision" by MSNBC spokespeople.

Imus and his crew have a long history of making comments that might be considered inappropriate; they once called the New York Knicks a group of "chest-thumping pimps."

As part of his suspension yesterday, an MSNBC statement said, "Our future relationship with Imus is contingent on his ability to live up to his word."

tmz.com

Don Imus isn't ready to be the next Michael Richards.

The radio host was on "Today" this morning where Matt Lauer -- who Imus mistakenly called "Mark" -- grilled him about the similarities between calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" and the racial tirades of Mel Gibson and Michael Richards.

"There's a world of difference between what Mel Gibson did, Michael Richards and the guy from "Grey's Anatomy" [Isaiah Washington]," said Imus, "we have to understand that I have a record of a relationship with the African American community whether Reverend Sharpton likes it or not."

He also said he runs a "comedy show," making the comments OK in his mind, and wants to get a black co-host for the show to "add some perspective."

The Rutgers women's basketball team is currently holding a press conference where the school's president called Imus' words "despicable" and "offensive," adding "racism and sexism have no place in our society ... they [the team] did nothing to invite the words Don Imus used."
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 01:33 PM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Maybe the news conference doesn't help the overall situation, but perhaps they needed to hold it as a part of their personal healing process. Unlike John Edwards, they are private figures and Imus' comments are borderline slander. If one of us were insulted publicly by a broadcaster, we might want to give our side of the story as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

Al Sharpton is a bigger racist than Imus.
Sharpton is a 3rd party in this incident.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 01:38 PM   #109
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:07 AM
Regardless, accusing somebody of something that you already are is hypocrtical.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 01:41 PM   #110
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:07 AM
This is the transcript-are they going to suspend the other guys too?

From the April 4 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:

IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

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.

IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough --

McCORD: Do The Right Thing.

McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?

ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors.

IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah.

RUFFINO: Only tougher.

McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more appropriate.

Sophomore forward Heather Zurich, said her pride at going so far in the tournament was undercut by the radio host's on-air insults.

"We were stripped of this moment by a degrading comment by Mr. Imus," she said.

She added that she believed she and her teammates "present ourselves well both on and off the court, though Mr. Imus doesn't agree. Then again, he knows not one of us."

Junior forward Essence Carson, who said she felt "great hurt, anger and disgust" over the remarks, explained that she wanted to meet with Imus to understand why he said what he said.

"We just hope to come to some understanding of what the remarks really entailed," said Carson.

She also said the team was optimistic that the meeting with Imus could be productive.

"We all agreed the meeting with Mr. Imus will help," Carson said. "We do hope to get something accomplished during this meeting."

Carson added that the incident served to show that underneath the media's apparent embrace of diversity and equality, bigotry can still rear its head.

"Somehow, some way, the door has been left open to attack the leaders of tomorrow," she said.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 01:54 PM   #111
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
[B]. I'd hate to be him facing how much I had hurt them and having to explain myself.
do you really think these women were paralyzed with hurt? do you really think they cried themselves to sleep at night? do you really think they looked at themselves in the mirror the next day and thought, "gosh, maybe i really am a ho"? do you really think they looke at themsleves in the mirror the next day and thought, "oh no, America thinks i'm a ho."

because i don't.

i'm not excusing the comments. i'm just saying that the comments themselves probably made little or no difference in the lives of these women, but the reaction to the comments certainly has.



[q]Don Imus received a two-week suspension yesterday from both CBS Radio and MSNBC (which simulcasts his radio show) after he referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." But four years ago, Michael Savage, who had a weekend show on MSNBC at the time, referred to a caller as a "sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die." Savage was fired in what was referred to at the time as any "easy decision" by MSNBC spokespeople.[/q]

i personally see a difference between "nappy headed ho's" and wishing death on someone because they're gay?

i also see the Michael Richards comments, and especially Mel Gibson's drunken tirade, as far more offensive than Imus.


[q]Imus and his crew have a long history of making comments that might be considered inappropriate; they once called the New York Knicks a group of "chest-thumping pimps."[/q]

so where's the talk of the "hurt" he caused the Knicks? where was their "but i'm not a pimp" press conference?

i think some of this ties into the whole infantilization of women that i've talked about in other threads. that we think these poor dears had their feelings hurt, but big strong NBA players aren't bothered by mean words.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 02:20 PM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

so where's the talk of the "hurt" he caused the Knicks? where was their "but i'm not a pimp" press conference?

i think some of this ties into the whole infantilization of women that i've talked about in other threads. that we think these poor dears had their feelings hurt, but big strong NBA players aren't bothered by mean words.
The Knicks are wealthy public figures. The Rutgers team is the opposite. E.g. for slander cases, there are different legal standards for public figures and private figures. We hear about multimillion dollar slander cases being filed for remarks less harsh than what Imus said, so people are hurt by such public reputation-damaging comments.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 02:31 PM   #113
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


The Knicks are wealthy public figures. The Rutgers team is the opposite. E.g. for slander cases, there are different legal standards for public figures and private figures. We hear about multimillion dollar slander cases being filed for remarks less harsh than what Imus said, so people are hurt by such public reputation-damaging comments.


so it seems here that the Knicks should have sued Imus for slander?

do you know what slander is?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 02:38 PM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

so it seems here that the Knicks should have sued Imus for slander?
No - the Knicks probably did not have a case because public figures - politicians, celebrities, etc. have a much higher standard of proof for it (from a business law class I took). Slander in a nutshell is defamatory speech.

And if you read the details of the news conference, it's not about "I'm not a 'ho" or whatever. E.g. a quote from it is "We'd just like to express our great hurt, the sadness that he has brought to us..."
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 02:44 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
LyricalDrug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Posts: 3,212
Local Time: 01:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


so it seems here that the Knicks should have sued Imus for slander?

do you know what slander is?
Sweet, a legal discussion!

Been a while since I studied it in law school, but slander is a false, defamatory statement expressed in a transitory form (i.e., not printed), especially speech. Unlike libel (i.e., printed) damages from slander are not automatically presumed and therefore have to be proven by the plaintiff (UNLESS the defamation falls under the category of "slander per se," which applies to especially offensive statements).

So, you've got to figure out whether slander per se is present here. With slander per se, damages do not need to be proven, because they are automatically presumed. To be classified as slander per se, a statement must relate to:

1) a crime involving moral turpitude,
2) a loathsome disease (such as an STD),
3) conduct that could adversely affect someone's business or profession, or
4) the unchastity (especially of a woman).

Given that it's a women's team, and their chastity is being called into question (being called ho's), I think it's fair to bring up the issue of slander per se.
__________________
LyricalDrug is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 02:48 PM   #116
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


No - the Knicks probably did not have a case because public figures - politicians, celebrities, etc. have a much higher standard of proof for it (from a business law class I took). Slander in a nutshell is defamatory speech.


so why bring up slander? slander is something very specific.


Quote:
And if you read the details of the news conference, it's not about "I'm not a 'ho" or whatever. E.g. a quote from it is "We'd just like to express our great hurt, the sadness that he has brought to us..."
not sure i agree -- the continuous back-patting and lauding of teammates accomplishments seemed to be a very direct rebuttal to the "ho" comment.

this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

here's my point: people say stupid things all the time, and sometimes people live to regret their words, as Imus will. he will be hurt professionally, and he should be. but the circus that has popped up today around these stupid comments has degraded all of us is a colossal it's a waste of time and completely out of proportion to what was said. the rightousness feels good, i know, but it also infantalizes a bunch of very competent women who probalby have better things to do than waste time respond to such ridiculous comments. it's this all-hands-on-deck media outrage that's driving me crazy when there are a million more important things to be thinking about.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 02:49 PM   #117
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 02:07 AM
I don't agree at all that these girls needed to or should have held a news conference. It's there right and if they felt like doing so more power to them, but to suggest that they should have to, in order to clear their reputation is ridiculous.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-10-2007, 02:50 PM   #118
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LyricalDrug


Sweet, a legal discussion!

Been a while since I studied it in law school, but slander is a false, defamatory statement expressed in a transitory form (i.e., not printed), especially speech. Unlike libel (i.e., printed) damages from slander are not automatically presumed and therefore have to be proven by the plaintiff (UNLESS the defamation falls under the category of "slander per se," which applies to especially offensive statements).

So, you've got to figure out whether slander per se is present here. With slander per se, damages do not need to be proven, because they are automatically presumed. To be classified as slander per se, a statement must relate to:

1) a crime involving moral turpitude,
2) a loathsome disease (such as an STD),
3) conduct that could adversely affect someone's business or profession, or
4) the unchastity (especially of a woman).

Given that it's a women's team, and their chastity is being called into question (being called ho's), I think it's fair to bring up the issue of slander per se.


and does the context of the speech have anything to do with it?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 02:52 PM   #119
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
t to suggest that they should have to, in order to clear their reputation is ridiculous.


precisely.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-10-2007, 02:52 PM   #120
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
LyricalDrug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Posts: 3,212
Local Time: 01:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and does the context of the speech have anything to do with it?
I believe so, yes -- these are generally fact-sensitive inquiries, as I understand it. I'm an intellectual property lawyer, so I haven't studied this much and am a little bit far afield, though.
__________________

__________________
LyricalDrug is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com