17 Comments

Until this all came out I thought “Nappy” was a compliment!

Lawyers can’t stop their disputatious ways even if not being paid. At best, this case is weak, and worth much less discussion.

Until this all came out I thought “Nappy” was a compliment!

It can be, under certain circumstances. Of course, one of those circumstances appears to be, “The speaker is black, or the very least, not white.”

There are other reasons why it would not be a compliment in this case, as well, but that alone is sufficient (and the only reason th outcry was narly so bad).

Could this lawsuit – and the volume of comments generated – possibly be an example of how diversity ISN’T our greatest strength? At the very least, it’s clear to me that the more “diversity” you have, the less freedom of speech you have. Rather than the bracing exposure and resulting expanded horizons we’re promised, everyone becomes MORE clannish, more hyper-sensitive, more isolated, more combative. Cui bono?

“it’s clear to me that the more “diversity” you have, the less freedom of speech you have”

What nonsense!

Unless by “less freedom of speech” you mean “requirements” to be civil”

A racist insult carries no useful information and is not speech by any reasonable definition, it is just a rude noise.

“A racist insult carries no useful information and is not speech …”

Yes, Larry, and Ignorance is Strength, too, isn’t it?

” …”requirements” to be civil”, huh? What else, Larry? I think I owe you money, and I feel bad about it, as I never even remember hiring you to be my nanny … must have slipped my mind.

What part of Eurasia do you hail from, by the way? Is it very diverse, the way you like it, or is it completely full of leftist, socialists like yourself? Maybe you need some affirmative action for some freedom-lovers, so we can get jobs there. It’s only right, as we’ve been put down so long by the man.

I am aboslutely shocked by how many people think this case somehow has merit. The common theme of the defenders is that the suit has merit because the statment constitutes slander per se. This completely ignores the fact that the statement was not one of fact, and thus is not actionable.

People who have access should read the case of Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting (97 Cal.App.4th 798 (2002)) for an eerily similar case involving two DJs that referred to a reality show contestant as a “skank.” The case was tossed under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, because the statements were “rhetorical hyperbole which no listener could reasonably have interpreted to be a statement of actual fact.”

Imus, of course, is being sued in another venue, so the case is by no means precedent; but it helps explain why the case has no merit. I hope New York has its own Anti-SLAPP statute to dispose of this case at the outset.

“leftist,(sic) socialists like yourself”

First time I have _ever_ been called that. (He is way to the right of Attilla the Hun” is the way I am usually described.)

“Dave Lincoln”. What an unfortunate name.

Do you know anybody that can read, rather than scan for buzzwords?

I’ll defend my “nonsense label by pointing out that my wife and I share very little in common beyond a mortgage and probably three daughters but we have been working in a diverse environment for more than forty years.

And I apologize for rudely failing to answer the serious question “What part of Eurasia do you hail from, by the way? Is it very diverse, the way you like it…?”

I was born near the mighty Los Angeles River and lived there a goodly number of years except for a brief experiment in the US Navy, then moved to that bastion of sober reflective thought, the SF Bay Area for the balance of 5o or so years. For the last 15 I have lived in the middle in the Great Plains. The folk here are given to truly reflective thought, which is one of the reasons I moved here.

But the diversity in all of those places was what I grew up to expect.

Only in recent years have I noted a stifling of all thought and a restriction of what can be said in public to what is prescribed by the shifting sands of the politically correct.

I guess my comments, Larry, are due to the fact that you seem to not understand at all what free speech is about. No, I would not expect that from a right-winger (non-sic).

Believe me, I read your post completely – hence the reply.

Bascially, do you really believe, Larry, that saying racist remarks should not be allowed (i.e. is not free speech)? If so you are indeed a socialist – not a “sic socialist”, BTW. I think you meant a “sick socialist” or possible a “sicko commie” to be precise. ha!

The comments on this post and the original post could be used as the basis for a skit on Mad TV.

At the risk of repeating myself…

Don Imus tells jokes for a living.

Let me repeat that really slow, so that even lawyers might understand.

Don… Imus… tells… jokes… for… a… living…

Wacky, isn’t it? There’s something incredibly funny about how the commenters have buried this under a avalanche of mumbo-jumbo.

Well, there’s money to be made, isn’t there? Let nothing stand in the way of the collection of fees.

I’ll make a prediction. By the time this fiasco comes to an end, we’ll discover that Imus was just about right on the mark in his comments. I’d like to hear what he has to say about the vultures (er, lawyers) circling over this carcass. What kind of ho’s are they?

Opinions do not negate one’s right to free speech.

Freedom of speech essentially allows one the ability to voice their opinion, regardless of how wrong it very well may be. Sometimes you may have to hear offensive or just plain stupid thoughts, but this discourse is necessary so that those who have something valid but controversial to say can in fact say it without fear of legal implications.

There are a few obvious exceptions for public safety (like screaming “fire” in a movie theater), but this was far from that.

What I see here is just another frivolous lawsuit. Yes Imus was out of line, but I doubt his name calling was of any actual harm. The drama-fest that followed may be a different story however, but that was not of his making. That was the various media outlets and rights groups having a PC conniption.

“we’ll discover that Imus was just about right on the mark in his comments.”

Sh.T., Exactly what is meant by this?

I think it generally undisputed that the above is not true, therefore truth is not a defense to this action, however it is hard for me to see defamation in anonymity.

Who is it that was defamed? Mary C. Jill W.? So very few know the identities of the persons who are alleged to have been defamed.

Of course those who do know their identities no doubt aggressively dispute the alleged characterization and denigrate the speaker (unless they simply ignore it), thus the only person whose reputation and name could have been injured would be Imus, tho’ I doubt this as well.

In fact (fancy), just as much legitimate cause of action may lie with members of the 1998 Rutgers women basketball team, since to most they would be indistinguishable from the … was it the 2006 or 2007 team mebers who were called a name?

Unless in the future any or all of these women are adressed at banquets as ‘ Jane Zoe, member of Rutgers basketball team who was once said to be part of a collection of nappy headed hos, really who will know? One cannot be defamed in one’s own opinion.

“Don… Imus… tells… jokes… for… a… living…”

If that were true, then the rest of the nonsense here might in fact make sense.

But it isn’t is it doesn’t.

Imus and his ilk do not tell jokes. He demeans, he insults, he denigrates, he belittles, …

None of which meets any test for “joke”. That some idiots laugh at him only compounds the felony.

“Imus and his ilk do not tell jokes. He demeans, he insults, he denigrates, he belittles, …”

Well, I’m only 58 years old, but in my lifetime, jokes have always been about demeaning, insulting, denigrating and belittling. That, in my experience, is exactly what jokes are designed to do. The best humor is always ethnic, racial and sexual. Under your standard, I think that jokes would simply cease to exist.

I listen to two comedy channels on Sirius, Blue Collar comedy and Raw Dog. Blue Collar consistently ridicules the habits and lives of white trash. Raw Dog deals almost entirely in racial and ethnic humor of the rawest sort. I suggest you listen to Chris Rock discuss the difference between “blacks” and “n***gers” to get an idea of how this works.

Imus and Stern dominated the NYC drive time market for years, and while Stern is cruder than Imus, they both had the same act…

You see when New Yorkers are driving to work in the morning, they are disgusted with the commute and looking forward to a day of wrestling with a-holes. So, they aren’t in a very good mood. Imus and Stern both played to this, each invoking the “everybody’s an a-hole” theme in his own peculiar way. Everybody is an a-hole in New York City. And, I include myself, as Imus and Stern also included themselves.

As the workplace has been strangled under the velvet glove of PC, those of us who must choke back honest expression in the office appreciate the opportunity to demean, insult, denigrate and belittle the stuffed shirt PC cops… at least while we’re driving to work.

In the aftermath of the Imus controversy, I discovered that in private just about everybody laughed at the racial humor Imus employed, while in public everybody pulled on their halo and lied.

And, yes, the reason ethnic, racial and sexual jokes thrive and survive is because they tell the truth you can’t tell in the office. One day, the lawyers will record what we say in our homes, and then we’ll have to hide behind the trees to tell those demeaning, insulting jokes. And you can bet that the lawyers will be trying to figure out a way to ferret us out from behind the trees.

A racist insult carries no useful information

Oh, but it’s very useful. It tells you nothing about the subject, but volumes about the speaker.

In a final attempt to counter the left-liberal force trying to change the subject…..

The subject is not “PC”.

The subject is “humor” that depends on defamation to be “funny”.

The truth in _my_ office that Imus’s victims in the instant case are not whores. Period.

And to suggest that they are because they are black is not funny.

I’m outa here.