Comments on: Shock jocks: A long history of crossing the line

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The real issue here is that people actually listen to these fools and, apparently, like them. What an insult to my intelligence, almost as bad as rap “music”.

By: The South Point

The South Point — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I used to listen to the radio almost all the time. I loved radio. Much more than tv. And then shockjocks came along with their “humor” which was really nothing more than sadism. I pretty much stopped listening to radio.

Shockjocks remind me of the movie “Idiocracy”… Sadist DJs appealing to the wants of sadist listeners.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

By: dd

dd — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

We fire people because a criminal like Sharpton says so. Regardless of race, this guy is a leader? What a joke.

Has anyone ever heard of changing the channel? This country is turning into a bunch of crybabies.

That is the true insult to intelligence.

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The contradiction that this whole FIASCO has become is much deeper than one mans comments. Black personalities have had the freedom to make whatever racial comments they want, but when a white man does it the CRIMINALS Sharpton and Jackson come oozing out of the crack they reside in.

This is a free speech issue, not a race issue. You don’t like it, change the channel. There are no laws protecting people from getting offended….and this is one step in that direction.

I’m disgusted that no one has stoop up publicly against Imus’ firing…Opie and Anthony are the only two who have been willing to put a mark on their back to stand up for what they feel in.

By: BigRog

BigRog — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

We cannot let the al sharpton’s of the world dictate what is right or wrong.
I feel that they are protected by the following Supreme Court decision

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

The Court’s decision
The Court ruled that a public figure could not recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a satire, because under the First Amendment, an obvious satire or parody of a public figure remains protected speech, even if it causes emotional distress to that person. A public figure could not recover damages without showing not only that the publication contained a “false statement of fact” (that is, a statement that a reasonable reader would believe to be true), but also that the satirist acted with “actual malice” (that is, “with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true”). The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court.

The court stated that satire (even outrageous satire) has a long and important history in America and that the Founding Fathers had specifically intended for the First Amendment to protect these types of parodies. The court cited many examples of famous, if bitingly satirical, political cartoons, “from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day.” The Court paid particular attention to the cartoons of Thomas Nast, whose cartoons ridiculed the corruption of Tammany Hall and helped bring about the downfall of Boss Tweed. The court noted that Nast’s cartoons were successful because of their emotional impact, which arose out of going “beyond the bounds of good taste and conventional manners.”

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” –Thomas Jefferson: