Opie and Anthony make my skin crawl. Even typing their names makes my skin crawl. Someone quoted in the WashPo article calls them *victims*. Typical. I'm curious what, if anything, the status of the women named had to do with XM's reaction (versus what reaction they would have shown to less specific, less powerful, targets being identified by said "guest" or to generalized rape "jokes"). Maybe I'm just cynical and they would have found it equally heinous?

It's absolutely insane and ridiculous. I blogged last week about how the media coverage of this whole thing has pissed me off even more than them saying it did. The fact that three assholes thought this was funny is horrible. The fact that thousands of viewers and our mainstream media don't understand why we're so upset is just insane and unforgivable.

Aaargghhh.

I find myself asking over and over and over again... why is it that stupid douchebags seem to be so interested in undermining the importance of the first amendment? They use it justify their fucked up words and images, saying that their first amendment rights are being violated if you say or do ANYTHING in protest.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the Constitution, but wasn't freedom of speech intended to allow us to be able to disagree with the government without fear of punishment? Something tells me our founding fathers weren't sitting around thinking of a rule so that we could all call people "gay" or make heinous rape jokes about people. Sure, technically this speech is covered--I'm not arguing for censorship.

I'm just saying is all. The more that these unbelievable assholes take advantage of the ambiguities surrounding the first amendment, the less we as Americans can respect its importance.

*getting off soap box now*

Aaargghhh.

I find myself asking over and over and over again... why is it that stupid douchebags seem to be so interested in undermining the importance of the first amendment? They use it justify their fucked up words and images, saying that their first amendment rights are being violated if you say or do ANYTHING in protest.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the Constitution, but wasn't freedom of speech intended to allow us to be able to disagree with the government without fear of punishment? Something tells me our founding fathers weren't sitting around thinking of a rule so that we could all call people "gay" or make heinous rape jokes about people. Sure, technically this speech is covered--I'm not arguing for censorship.

I'm just saying is all. The more that these unbelievable assholes take advantage of the ambiguities surrounding the first amendment, the less we as Americans can respect its importance.

*getting off soap box now*

Aaargghhh.

I find myself asking over and over and over again... why is it that stupid douchebags seem to be so interested in undermining the importance of the first amendment? They use it justify their fucked up words and images, saying that their first amendment rights are being violated if you say or do ANYTHING in protest.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the Constitution, but wasn't freedom of speech intended to allow us to be able to disagree with the government without fear of punishment? Something tells me our founding fathers weren't sitting around thinking of a rule so that we could all call people "gay" or make heinous rape jokes about people. Sure, technically this speech is covered--I'm not arguing for censorship.

I'm just saying is all. The more that these unbelievable assholes take advantage of the ambiguities surrounding the first amendment, the less we as Americans can respect its importance.

*getting off soap box now*

Vanessa, have you heard about any advertisers who've pulled out of Opie & Anthony (once they go back onto the air) on account of this the way people pulled out of Imus? I would like to write them thank-you letters in addition to my thank-you/encouragement letter to XM. (I know they didn't do enough, but I want to counteract the O&A supporters & XM boycotters.)

At the risk of sounding like a troll, I am siding with defense of O & A on this one. The two guys are "shock jocks" who initially left terrestrial radio so they could say whatever they wanted on satellite radio. They were hired to be blatantly offensive. They are programmed on an channel labeled as offensive, on a service that people pay to hear. They were catering to their audience. They got punished for doing their job on a new(er) service that was supposed to be a bastion of free speech. I am falling on their side for free speech reasons.

And just so you don't think I am a total troll, what they said does disgust me. I also acknowledge that it could be deeply hurtful to someone who has experienced domestic violence. I just think they have a right to say what they said in the format they said it. I choose to not listen to them. What really disturbs me is that they have a wide audience for the things the say.

I think this sort of supports my theory that Imus would not have had any fall out if his comment had been purely sexist and not racist.

And for those of you who believe these guys can say whatever they want, should they also be allowed to talk about lynching black people? Would that be ok? What is the difference between that and what they are discussing?

ON THE OTHER HAND, censorship does make me nervous. But the problem is that we should be evolved enough as humans to not WANT to say crap like this. When is that going to happen? Ever?

Aaargghhh.

I find myself asking over and over and over again... why is it that stupid douchebags seem to be so interested in undermining the importance of the first amendment? They use it justify their fucked up words and images, saying that their first amendment rights are being violated if you say or do ANYTHING in protest.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the Constitution, but wasn't freedom of speech intended to allow us to be able to disagree with the government without fear of punishment? Something tells me our founding fathers weren't sitting around thinking of a rule so that we could all call people "gay" or make heinous rape jokes about people. Sure, technically this speech is covered--I'm not arguing for censorship.

I'm just saying is all. The more that these unbelievable assholes take advantage of the ambiguities surrounding the first amendment, the less we as Americans can respect its importance.

*getting off soap box now*

Feliz - I tend to agree with you. I believe that people have the right to be an asshole, but that doesn't mean they have to exercise that right.

Oh, um... sorry about the multi-post, guys.

Firstly, there is an extremely large difference between saying something offensive, and making a physical threat. Talking about how "funny" it would be to rape a woman is, in fact, a threat.

Secondly, everyone has every right to say whatever they want to say. But that doesn't mean ANYONE has to give them a public platform to say it-- particularly, a paid platform.

I agree thisisendless. I've noticed that even after the Imus ordeal, people tend to forget to mention that his comments were not only racist but sexist, also. It seems like sexism is acceptable but oh gosh if you mention race beware! I just don't understand who can listen to this stuff and seriously find it entertaining. I hate hearing people talk on the radio, it's all trash unless it's NPR.

I am siding with defense of O & A on this one. The two guys are "shock jocks" who initially left terrestrial radio so they could say whatever they wanted on satellite radio.

Great. Nobody has suggested that what they said was against the law. They said what they wanted to say. It was patently offensive and disgusting. People got pissed about it. Now, O&A are dealing with the fallout. That's the price of saying shitty things- you have to deal with people who think you're a shithead for talking about how great it would be to rape someone.

I am falling on their side for free speech reasons.

I can feel my brain exploding and my blood pressure rising.

Let me very very precise and explicit.

This. Is. Not. A. Free. Speech. Issue.

If you say that it is, you're betraying a profound ignorance of what a free speech issue is.
Having private citizens complaining and asking for O&A to be fire? Not a problem with the first amendment.

O&A's right to free speech protects them from government attempts to silence them- not from private citiezens or businesses.

I also acknowledge that it could be deeply hurtful to someone who has experienced domestic violence. I just think they have a right to say what they said in the format they said it.

Then you should absolutely be supporting our rights to say "Hey, they're disgusting sexist assholes, and you should fire them!" All of us have a right to free speech, and that absolutely includes calling for businesses to punish and sanction people working for them who say racist, sexist, homophobic things.

This is not about free speech- they're absolutely free to be hate-mongering asshats... what this is about is whether the deserve to be given a forum to do so and paid for it. If they want to encourage rape, let them fund their bile themselves.

I agree thisisendless. I've noticed that even after the Imus ordeal, people tend to forget to mention that his comments were not only racist but sexist, also. It seems like sexism is acceptable but oh gosh if you mention race beware! I just don't understand who can listen to this stuff and seriously find it entertaining. I hate hearing people talk on the radio, it's all trash unless it's NPR.

Roymac, I think I love you.

RoymacIII - Do you think the people who got pissed about it were the people who were listening, or people who heard about it elsewhere?

They said a shitty and patently offensive thing, to an audience who pays to hear assholes say shitty and patently offensive things.

You say it isn't about free speech, but the FCC (a government agency) is constantly cracking down on what people can or cannot say on the radio. That is why O&A left for satellite.

I would argue that free speech applies here not in a government regulation sense, but in the sense that you are trying to silence people who you don't listen to in the first place, just so other people can't listen to them. Who do you get to determine what I get to listen to or not listen when I am paying for a service.

And again - I really don't like A & O.

I can feel my brain exploding and my blood pressure rising.

Let me very very precise and explicit.

This. Is. Not. A. Free. Speech. Issue.

THANK YOU roymac. My brain was about to explode too. Thanks for saving it from going ka-boom.

Roymac is absolutely right. This has nothing to do with ANYONE'S free speech, except perhaps OUR free speech to say, for example, that Opie and Anthony deserve to be fired for their callous, disgusting, violent remarks. And OUR free speech to contact sponsors and urge them to withdraw sponsorship. And OUR free speech to say that what they said was wrong, unforgivable, and absolutely not fit to be said, anywhere, ever.

Anyone who thinks that any adverse action against them amounts to a violation of free speech, is a communist.

That's right, pinkos. You want to tell XM they don't have the right to do whatever they damn well please with THEIR money and THEIR airwaves and THEIR shows.

I believe I read somewhere that Trojan (condoms) withdrew sponsorship after the the show in question, because it didn't fit with their values of promoting sexual health. GO TROJAN!!!!!

roymacIII--yes, yes, yes

Slightly tangential to the *free speech* red herring which I absolutely think is the most important to point out here in debunking any defense of this behavior, I think this situation also very clearly illustrates something fascinating about power. The women who were targeted may arguably be some of the most powerful (and hello--connected) women around (double hello--this is the Bush administration, that basically does whatever it WANTS). To talk about raping them and killing them, or to *host a guest* who does so, and then NOT EXPECT any repercussions, even ECONOMIC or SOCIAL ones, is so, so indicative of patriarchal male entitlement. It is simply such a foreign concept - and such an *unforgivable injury* - that power could be leveraged against THEM for a change. Even when the result of such power-leveraging is not even close to a millionth as damaging as what has happened to countless other individuals and groups.

Unspoken sentiment of Opie and Anthony defenders: What - someone ELSE could have the connections and power to silence ME? I am outraged! Never mind that I have been using my power to (or been complicit with others in) unfairly silencing and marginalizing non-dominant groups for thousands of years! That's DIFFERENT!

Awesome points about language too (i.e., watering down *rape* to something more palatable / less graphic / grossly mischaracterized / atrocity made invisible), from Vanessa, Cara, Shakes and others. You better believe that it's deliberate!!

(to clarify my last post, I'm not a huge fan of capitalism. I'm just pointing out that the people who chant "freedom," etc. in defense of this are actually defeating their own argument. XM has just as much right to free speech as O&A, and on top of that right, they actually have the RESOURCES to exercise it on a broad scale. I'm not saying they always do it right, or such power should be unlimited... but the people who are pro-anything-goes-freedom-in-broadcasting CANNOT make a coherent argument for apologizing to O&A, etc.)

TLF - Why is it that I am a communist for thinking that XM was wrong to bow to public pressure but others who said XM should fire O&A are just exercising their free speech? Aren't you telling the same company how to run their business?

I never denied your ability to condemn O&A.

Do you think the people who got pissed about it were the people who were listening, or people who heard about it elsewhere?

A more important question might be "Do you think that it matters?" Because I don't, as it turns out. We all choose how to spend our money. I would guess that at least some of the people making their voices heard do in fact pay for XM radio. Do they necessarily listen to O&A? No. Does that matter? Not a bit.

They said a shitty and patently offensive thing, to an audience who pays to hear assholes say shitty and patently offensive things.

Yep. They sure do. So?
If they got fired, they could absolutely print their own cds or start their own web program and collect money from those same morons, and nobody here has suggested that the government step in and shut them down.

That being said, all of us have every right to say what we feel about it, too. You know, from our right to free speech.

You say it isn't about free speech, but the FCC (a government agency) is constantly cracking down on what people can or cannot say on the radio.

So? Is the FCC fining them? Did the FCC fire them? Did the FCC shut them up? No. They didn't. What the FCC does is completely seperate from this incident.

I would argue that free speech applies here not in a government regulation sense, but in the sense that you are trying to silence people who you don't listen to in the first place, just so other people can't listen to them.

No, I'm trying to make it harder for asshats like them to get paid for being the sort of sexist assholes who would make a buck by laughing about how funny it would be to rape someone and punch her in the face. They can say whatever the hell they want- but you're damn right that I want it to be as hard for them to get paid doing it as possible. I won't support or give money to a business that I know is giving them a forum, either.

Who do you get to determine what I get to listen to or not listen when I am paying for a service.

I don't. All I can do is make my voice heard. It's not my call if they get fired or not. If they get fired, all the better. If not, you can still listen to them. If I had the power to fire them, they'd already be fired.

Wanted to clarify that I was not insinuating that those women's power was what influenced XM's decision behind the scenes or anything (although who knows). More that it adds another interesting level. Only those who are used to holding unquestioned power would feel so victimized and OPPRESSED by such a minor consequence to what is objectively repugnant behavior - yeah, these guys are really suffering, I'm sure. /sarcasm

I never denied your ability to condemn O&A.

No, but you essentially argued that we shouldn't have that ability, though.

It's all over your comments.

A thousand times I say this- IT'S NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE! You talk about O&A "exercising their free speech" like that means something here. It doesn't.

NOBODY here is saying that they didn't have a right to say stupid, offensive things.

They absolutely have a right to say horrible things. They have a right to be racists, sexists, and homophobes. That right does not mean that they are afforded a forum for those things, though. When people don't like what they hear, they have just as much right to say "that's sexist, hateful, and insulting, and you should fire them." It's up to XM if they agree or disagree.

It could be that XM agreed that the comments were over the line. It could be that they caved to public pressure. It could be that they were worried about the bottom-line (mooooney). The final call was totally the station's.

Say it with me: This was not a free speech issue. Nobody violated anyone else's right to free speech.

bear, if you look at my later post you'll see my point was simply that your argument is inconsistent. Opie and Anthony have no greater right to their jobs than any other person. I can guarantee you, if one of the lawyers I work with said something like that in front of a partner, his or her ass would be canned forthwith. Why should Opie and Anthony have more rights than my coworker???? What makes them so special????

Opining that someone should be fired is an act of free speech. Come on, you think I actually have the power to make XM fire them? I wish.

Make no mistake, XM acts in its own capitalist self-interest. If XM believes (say, because of withdrawn sponsorships) that having Opie and Anthony will hurt its bottom line, it won't care if they go on every day for the rest of their lives and talk about saving puppies. Their asses are GONE the second they become too much of a liability. Has NOTHING to do with free speech and EVERYTHING to do with money.

So to the extent you think that negative repurcussions have anything to do with free speech, as roymac and others here have been pointing out, you are just plain wrong. This is not a free speech issue. It's about MONEY, and for once it appears capitalism is actually on the side of good.

The FCC had fined them before for less objectionable comments, which is why they went to satellite radio. They were supposed to be able to say whatever they wanted in that format.

I understand your (and my own) objections to these perticular comments, but where does it stop? I don't like that there is a market for this material, but I have a problem with firing the people who are paid exactly for the job of providing it because they did their job. There are things I find objectionable that others like and things that I like that others find objectionable. Who gets to decide which is right? If a bunch of religious wingnuts got your favorite show cancelled because they screamed louder that you, would they have been right?

I hate what they did and I hate that I am arguing with people I respect over two assholes I don't listen to, but I think they were doing exactly what the people paying them wanted them to do. If the media hadn't picked this up and others who don't listen to them hadn't complained, would we even be talking about this?

As usual, I can see both sides of this issue. For those who do want to take action one way or the other, I thought that I'd let you know that fool.com - an excellent investing website - has reported on this incident to the detriment of XM Radio (and, thus, its stockholders). You can get more information about the fallout on all sides there, but for the most part, businesses are pulling their advertising, not continuing it, as a result of XM's move.

As usual, I can see both sides of this issue. For those who do want to take action one way or the other, I thought that I'd let you know that fool.com - an excellent investing website - has reported on this incident to the detriment of XM Radio (and, thus, its stockholders). You can get more information about the fallout on all sides there, but for the most part, businesses are pulling their advertising, not continuing it, as a result of XM's move.

As usual, I can see both sides of this issue. For those who do want to take action one way or the other, I thought that I'd let you know that fool.com - an excellent investing website - has reported on this incident to the detriment of XM Radio (and, thus, its stockholders). You can get more information about the fallout on all sides there, but for the most part, businesses are pulling their advertising, not continuing it, as a result of XM's move.

Whoops. Site said that it was experiencing errors, hence my multiple attempts at posting. I'll be more suspicious next time.

(Jessica, just a tip re: multiple postings . . . usually the "error" happens after the post is up and TypeKey tries to return you to the original page. I usually go back, copy my text--in case it gets lost--and then refresh the page before trying to re-post. Usually, it's been successfully added to the thread . . . I lived through a few unsightly multiple posts myself before I figured that trick out ;o))

I don't like that there is a market for this material, but I have a problem with firing the people who are paid exactly for the job of providing it because they did their job.

But, see, bear, that's NOT a free speech issue. At most, it's maybe a labor issue. But, as any employer, XM is legally entitled to change its mind about the direction in which it takes its workforce. If XM finds that the way it's running its station does not bring it the money it thought it would, then XM is acting within its rights to change the parameters, except to the extent that it may violate a contract with its employees (I don't know what their contract says; I'm operating from the assumption that it's at will, as are, I dunno, 95% of employment contracts in the country, including mine). Every single employer in the country does this. That's why we have layoffs: companies thought they would be able to grow, thought taking a company in a certain direction, etc., would bring them more money. New people/new executive/new direction doesn't work, and changes are made. Happens EVERY FREAKING DAY and usually to much better, nicer people who are much harder-working and much more deserving of their jobs, and who need them a lot more than Opie and Anthony.

If O&A were fired, there would be no injury to democracy, to labor and employment law, to the Constitution, to subscription radio, or to anyone else but Opie and Anthony. They are no more deserving of job security than any random Joe Schmoe on the street. The only reason people are crying foul on this one is because for a while they had INCREDIBLE power by virtue of being SO CRAZY LUCKY as to have their own radio show. I wish every person who has been unfairly (in his or her mind, right or wrong) fired had his or her own radio show. I wish every person who just got laid off could have his or her own show. Opie and Anthony should NOT be afforded special treatment simply because they're celebrities. I mean, wouldn't you be pissed if, oh, say, they caused your flight to be delayed because they got on board and then realized the first-class seats weren't leather enough, so they had to get off the plane?

That's right, I just compared them to Britney Spears. Deal with it ;)

(annajcook, I have the exact same trick!! :))

Great points, LF. Not to mention that "freedom of speech" clearly does not apply while you're on the job-- if it did, a lot of us would probably call our bosses assholes every single day of our lives. But we don't, and we can't, because we would be FIRED.

Right fucking on, TLF. Sort of along what Charity said about Condoleeza Rice, Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth being quite powerful people, I did a search and found out how easy it is to get the Secret Service called on you if you utter anything remotely sounding like a threat to President Bush. Now those are actual examples of free speech interference, since the government actually got involved in these instances and prosecuted the people who may or may not have (but let's face it, really didn't) threatened Bush's life. I wonder why O&A fans aren't all up in arms about this? Gee, maybe because they think that speech should only be "free" when it involves violence against women? So bear, until O&A's situation looks like the examples I just linked to, until Secret Service agents visit them, until they're put on trial and end up in jail, nobody's free speech is being violated. And nobody here is arguing that's what should happen.

It's also fucking sick that O&A's fans apparently think it's more important to help out a couple of rich, entitled little fuckwads than to help the very real laid off people TLF mentioned, people who work shitloads harder than O&A's lazy asses, who haven't done anything wrong and whose children are going to fucking STARVE because their parents can't find work. People need to get their bleeding priorities straight, for real.

TLF (whom I respect on here greatly, although I imagine you don't care right about now) - you argue that a partner at your firm would be fired for making the same comment. Your partner isn't paid to make remarks like that. O&A work in a different environment and their job is to make comments like that. The channel of the subscription radio service the air on is labeled offensive. They just did their job.

You also argue that XM can change the way that they run their company. I would argue they aren't changing because they want to or because the market changed, but because people who aren't part of their market complained and got lots of media attention.

If you worked as an attorney on the side of someone/something that I find offensive; and I bring a lot of negative attention to your firm, who then reassigns/suspends/fires you; was I right?

While acknowledging the merit of the capitalism argument, I still think free speech plays a part here. The FCC has been cracking down on radio/tv for years now, especially since the nipple incident at the super bowl. Those affected (initially by complaints from family values religious conservatives) ran to satellite so they could say what they wanted without reason for worry. Now they again are being hounded for things they said by people who don't listen to them anyway.

roymac argued that free speech isn't relevant because he isn't trying to shut them up, he just would like to make it tougher for them to reach a mass audience. How is that not restricting their speech? People signed up for a service specifically to listen to them and you are trying to prevent that.

To be clear, bear, my earlier point about a coworker (I was actually thinking an associate, a subordinate, rather than a partner because I think it tracks better) was in response to a different point. My most recent post was in response to your argument about them "only" doing what they were hired to do.

I would argue they aren't changing because they want to or because the market changed, but because people who aren't part of their market complained and got lots of media attention.

Do you really think a for-profit radio station would do that? I mean, I'd LOVE to think our for-profit corporations are so conscientious, but I don't buy it.

Do you think that XM is ANYTHING OTHER than a money-maker? Do you think they care what people say if it doesn't hurt their bottom line? Or do you think that they only care to the extent it influences others who DO affect their bottom line? I'll give you a hint: every single corporation has a legal obligation to its shareholders to make sound business decisions that accord with its articles of incorporation. I would put good money down that there's nothing in XM's articles of incorporation about providing a forum for people to say any damn thing under the sun. Rather, I suspect that XM's articles of incorporation, like the articles of incorporation of virtually every for-profit corporation in the country, make it clear that XM's primary purpose as a radio station is to make money. Therefore, it has a legal obligation to its shareholders to make decisions most likely to make the station (and the shareholders) more money. In a lot of ways, this is a really ugly and gross setup -- but it's the law. Nothing illegal was done here.

Let me try a different analogy. You just bought a ginormous studio loft, and you decide you want to turn it into a gym. You do some market research that leads you to believe that what people really want is a great bodybuilding-and-cardio center. So you hire a bunch of performance trainers to attract rich clientele. For a while, it seems to work and you're making decent money. But then people start griping about how hard the trainers push them, they don't like coming in at 6 in the morning just to be worked to death, and slowly you start losing clients. You start to think, hmmm... maybe what people REALLY want is a yoga studio. So you fire all your trainers and hire yoga instructors instead, in the hopes that THIS will prove a more lucrative use of your space.

How many laws have you violated? How many contracts have you breached?

(Hint: none).

Now let's say, instead, that no one is leaving the gym, but someone writes a letter to the editor of the local newspaper complaining that your gym perpetuates unhealthy forms of exercise that emphasize bulk and performance over the integration of the mind and body, and calling for you to fire your performance trainers and hire yoga instructors instead. As a rational businessperson, are you going to give two shits what this person says if none of your clients or investors seem to care? Or will you stick with a lucrative business model until it quits working?

If XM were stupid enough to fire people just because of public pressure that had absolutely no actual monetary impact on its operation, it would not be a powerful subscription radio network.

Not to mention that "freedom of speech" clearly does not apply while you're on the job-- if it did, a lot of us would probably call our bosses assholes every single day of our lives.

I think the real point is that we realize: we don't, and we can't, because we would be FIRED. and we realize that our employers would be perfectly within their rights to do so.

They were supposed to be able to say whatever they wanted in that format.

No. They were supposed to be able to say whatever they wanted in that format without the government fining them. The government hasn't fined them.

Look, if O&A had gone on the air and made those jokes about, say, their bosses' mothers, would you be crying foul if they got fired? After all: Free Speech, right? I don't think so.

O&A have every right to say whatever they want, and none of us are stopping them. Nobody has a Right to Forum, though.

I don't like that there is a market for this material, but I have a problem with firing the people who are paid exactly for the job of providing it because they did their job.

Isn't that the whole point, though? People are saying "Hey, we don't think you should be paying these assholes to say things like that." It's up to the company to decide if they want to continue employing them, not us. We can make our opinion known and try to exert pressure, but the choice isn't ours to make. If O&A get fired, that was the company's choice, in which case, it turns out, rape jokes were not part of their job.

Who gets to decide which is right?

If we're talking about job related matters? Ultimately, the business does.

If a bunch of religious wingnuts got your favorite show cancelled because they screamed louder that you, would they have been right?

They would be within their rights. Would I be happy about it? Of course not. Would I cry "Free Speech!" over it? Fuck no. I'd be pissed, and I'd complain to the company that I wasn't happy my show got cancelled, but never would the phrase "Free Speech" cross my lips.

you argue that a partner at your firm would be fired for making the same comment. Your partner isn't paid to make remarks like that. O&A work in a different environment and their job is to make comments like that. The channel of the subscription radio service the air on is labeled offensive. They just did their job.

The problem with saying that "they just did their job" is that you make it sound like it would have been impossible for them to do their job without making those particular remarks. The fact that they're paid to be obnoxious jerks doesn't mean that nobody cares what they say at all. Do you think if they'd gone off on a violent anti-semetic rant that they wouldn't have been fired? If they'd started using racial slurs and talking about how funny it would be to lynch blacks? Their job was to entertain, and I use the term loosely. That's a broad and imprecise term. They took a chance, and now it's biting them in the ass. They weren't sure where the line was, or they didn't care, or they didn't think that there was one. Their job was not "make violent rape threats."

You also argue that XM can change the way that they run their company. I would argue they aren't changing because they want to or because the market changed, but because people who aren't part of their market complained and got lots of media attention.

So?
Look, it's still their choice. If they didn't care, they'd ignore it. What, exactly, is wrong with people voicing their opinions and trying to push businesses into better practices? I don't shop at Walmart right now, because I object to the effect that they have on local economies and I don't like their business practices, and I don't like the ways that they treat their employees. Walmart consistently refuses to change, despite my- and others- criticisms. That's their choice. As long as they don't change, they don't get my business. If they change, they might get my business. It's their call.

If you worked as an attorney on the side of someone/something that I find offensive; and I bring a lot of negative attention to your firm, who then reassigns/suspends/fires you; was I right?

You were certainly within your rights. Whether your complaint was valid or not would sort of depend on what the case was, wouldn't it?

The FCC has been cracking down on radio/tv for years now, especially since the nipple incident at the super bowl.

That'd be a complaint about the FCC. Personally, I think that the FCC is ridiculous, and someone should start pushing back.

Those affected ran to satellite so they could say what they wanted without reason for worry. Now they again are being hounded for things they said by people who don't listen to them anyway.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make it a free speech issue. The government is the only entity that can create first amendment speech issues. If a bunch of people get together and complain so loudly that a company changes policies... I'm sorry, but too bad for O&A. That's tough for them, but they're free to find another station that doesn't care, or get a webstation or start their own station or any number of other actions.

roymac argued that free speech isn't relevant because he isn't trying to shut them up, he just would like to make it tougher for them to reach a mass audience. How is that not restricting their speech?

I'm not the feds.
It doesn't matter if I restrict their ability to get their message out, because I'm not the government.

Look at it another way- why don't I have a radio show? Why hasn't anyone giving me money to talk about sexism and racism and homophobia and what we can do to stop it? I'd love to have a chance to talk to people about misogyny, and how men can help prevent rape.

And yet... here I sit, at my computer. Why? Because I don't have a radio program. Is it a free speech issue? Are all those radio networks violating my right to free speech by not giving me a program?
Of course not.

O&A have a right to say whatever they want. That right doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen, nor does it mean that the station has to give them a show, nor does it mean that the general public can't shout back that they hate what O&A are saying (thus getting them shit-canned).

People signed up for a service specifically to listen to them and you are trying to prevent that.

Yep.
And it's up to the company to decide whether the money coming in is worth the shitty things that O&A are saying.

Oh -- also -- I do care that people respect me, so thanks for saying so. Please don't take the fact that I'm fiercely arguing my position means anything negative. I just love myself a good argument :)

Bear,
There is a substantial difference between a government agency (FCC) legally penalizing a broadcaster and private individuals complaining to/about a broadcaster. The FCC can *actually restrict* what is said, and levy crippling, bankrupting fines. No person or other entity can do this, which is my way of agreeing with roymac’s analysis.

Private individuals can complain, and threaten boycotts, and XM can choose to listen or not, depending on how loud the complaints get. People complain about Rush Limbaugh all the time, but the chorus has never gotten loud enough to take him off the air.

With Imus, he was not fired right away, but when the sponsors started to pull out, MSNBC made a business decision: if the sponsors run away, they will lose more money by keeping Imus on than by ditching him, even if they have to pay his salary, which they probably will. They’re in business to make money, not to give people a permanent forum.

XM Satellite does not owe anybody, including O&A, a public forum under any circumstances. O&A are “talent� (to use the term loosely) - XM can pull O&A’s show whenever they want, for any reason or no reason. They will owe O&A their salary, but don’t have to run the show.

Would it be restricting roymac and Law Fairy’s free speech to ask them not to criticize O&A’s “free speech�? Where would that end?

"Great. Nobody has suggested that what they said was against the law. They said what they wanted to say. It was patently offensive and disgusting. People got pissed about it. Now, O&A are dealing with the fallout. That's the price of saying shitty things"

Or more accurately, people got pissed about it and said stuff back. Now, O&A are dealing with what their bosses have to say about what the pissed-off people are saying. The price of freely speaking shitty things is having other people freely speak negative things about one in return. ;)

"That's right, pinkos. You want to tell XM they don't have the right to do whatever they damn well please with THEIR money and THEIR airwaves and THEIR shows."

Exactly. Freedom of the press belongs to she or he who owns a press.

"...Now those are actual examples of free speech interference, since the government actually got involved in these instances and prosecuted the people who may or may not have (but let's face it, really didn't) threatened Bush's life. I wonder why O&A fans aren't all up in arms about this? Gee, maybe because they think that speech should only be 'free' when it involves violence against women?"

Hmm. What if Hillary Clinton wins in 2008 and this O&A thing didn't happen until 2010?

bear - There is a difference between "offending" people and advocating/encouraging/threatening harm. Why *do* you think someone like Howard Stern, for instance, has not been picketed off of satellite radio, versus Opie and Anthony getting suspended? As someone who was a long time listener to Stern when he was on free radio, and who was an embattled guest on his show once, after it went to Sirius, I would argue that it's not as simple as Stern being more successful and therefore more valuable to Sirius than Opie and Anthony are to XM. Stern is actually funnier than they are, and is actually more successful, but you bring up the topic of audience, also. Howard Stern, and now particularly others who work for him and get air time, say and do some foul shit on the air. He has, obviously, a much wider audience than Opie and Anthony, never mind Don Imus. That would not be the case if he were doing what they do - saying hateful things just to try to be shocking. (And I say this as someone who first got introduced to Stern on TV when he was doing a skit on Clarence Thomas in blackface.) He is sometimes a dick, he frequently says what I consider to be racist and misogynist things (as does Adam Carolla, for that matter, who I also listen to and who is still on free radio and not being harrassed at all by the FCC or his station's sponsors). If either one of them spewed hate just to spew it and/or "do their job of being offensive," they would be as useless and unfunny as Imus and O & A. And, rightly, as unemployed or potentially-unemployed.

I am not offended by Imus' remarks or by Opie and Anthony thinking it's funny to have a guest who talks about raping and otherwise harming women. Offended is what I am when I hold the door open for a stranger and they act like I must belong to the class of slaves that rightly serve them throughout their day, so there's no need to acknowledge me, let alone say "thank you."

I don't think Imus wants black women to be singled out for hate or harm; I don't think O & A feel that way towards women in general. Why broadcast it then? Carolla and Stern say things that bum me out and piss me off, but the things they say never feel reckless to me. Saying misogynist and/or racist things you don't even believe, because you think that's what it means to be provocative, is reckless. I hate this tired old cliche, but yelling "fire" in a crowd is reckless, when there's no fire, because there's no point to it but to cause a fucking reaction. I never hear anyone worrying about "where it all ends" if we don't let fucking idiots have that particular freedom of speech.

I would like to know exactly how Imus', or Opie and Anthony's potential lack of ability to continue saying or supporting speech they don't even believe in is a harbinger of free-speech-doom to anyone, any time, any place. Ever.

I keep getting interrupted with a final post and they get kicked out by the time I send it.

I feel like I could have said more that you (and I) would have agreed with. I am going to stop here though. I don't really care if O&A go away forever. But there is something troubling to me about the
process that is playing out now and played out for Imus (another person I am not a fan of). The process of what is and isn't appropriate and when and how it should be dealt with is something I hope we think about. Not just for these asses, but for everyone.

Whoever commented about sexist issues not having as much attention or importance as racial, etc, issues, I agree.

TLF & roymac - thanks for the spirited but respectful discussion. I really appreciate it.

I think the whole show is degenerate, and you may have some shock-jocks that feel they can say whatever they want because subscribers pay to listen-but they can't. There is a difference between being a legit shock jock, and being a phycopath. What next, a incest radio channel, a bestiality radio show-its shit, and public standards need to be imposed.

I think the whole show is degenerate, and you may have some shock-jocks that feel they can say whatever they want because subscribers pay to listen-but they can't. There is a difference between being a legit shock jock, and being a phycopath. What next, a incest radio channel, a bestiality radio show-its shit, and public standards need to be imposed.

I'm writing from my university, and computer tech is working on doing 'something'(?) with the computers. I wasn't sure if my last post went through.

Surprisingly enough, Opie and Anthony fans are protesting the suspension the only way they know how -- smashing things, burning things, and shooting things.

Just a thought, but I think it's interesting that the people who are so fiercely defending the shock jocks' right to say whatever they want whenever they want based on their right to free speech are the same ones who are standing up and screaming at the top of their lungs, "STUPID FEMINISTS! SHUT UP! YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY THOSE CRITICAL THINGS! THE FIRST AMENDMENT PREVENTS YOU FROM CRITICIZING OFFENSIVE, ABUSIVE SPEECH!"

It's just highly ironic, in that bang-your-head-against-the-wall kind of way.

I never heard of O&A until this, but...

This episode reminds me of the Marcotte-Edwards-Donahue thing.

People who don't like them, and don't listen to (or read) them, trying to ensure that nobody else is able to listen to (or read) them either.

“This episode reminds me of the Marcotte-Edwards-Donahue thing.�

I didn’t know Amanda had threatened to rape Donahue.

Nobody has suggested that what they said was against the law.

Actually, Cara did. Two comments above yours.

Then you should absolutely be supporting our rights to say "Hey, they're disgusting sexist assholes, and you should fire them!"

I do. I also support the right of the knuckleheads who listen to them to demand that they be reinstated.

Unfortunately, it's supply and demand. People apparently want to hear that kind of humour. If O&A are fired, some other asshole will take their place.

The USA is not fucked up because O&A are on the radio. O&A are on the radio because the USA is fucked up. They're the symptom, not the disease.

It may actually be somewhat of a first amendment issue. There is a lot of speculation that XM fired them because the FCC needs to approve the XM/Sirius merger, and they want to look good so there won't be any reason to deny it. If that's the case, then it is a free speech/first amendment issue.

Nobody has suggested that what they said was against the law.
Actually, Cara did. Two comments above yours.

Where? I don't see a single comment from her where she says that what they did was against the law. I see a post where she indicates that what they said went beyond offensive into threatening.

Talking about how "funny" it would be to rape a woman is, in fact, a threat.

That doesn't indicate that it's against the law, by a long shot. Not all threats are illegal.

I think that the bulk of the comments here made it pretty clear that the vast majority, if not all, of us were not suggesting that legal action was required.

Thanks for being so very particular, though.

I do. I also support the right of the knuckleheads who listen to them to demand that they be reinstated.

Great. You won't find me anywhere saying that they're silencing me, or that it's a free speech issue, so what, exactly is your point?

The USA is not fucked up because O&A are on the radio. O&A are on the radio because the USA is fucked up. They're the symptom, not the disease

Do you think that anyone here thinks that O&A are The Big Problem? Maybe someone does, but the impression I got wasn't that anyone thought that firing them would Solve Everything. Personally, punishing them for it isn't about Soloving Everything, it's about sending the message that these sorts of attitudes and actions are not okay. Will it solve everything? Obviously not. I wasn't aware that I- or others- should remain inactive and not take any actions unless they were The Big Solution.

Nobody has suggested that what they said was against the law.
Actually, Cara did. Two comments above yours.

Where? I don't see a single comment from her where she says that what they did was against the law. I see a post where she indicates that what they said went beyond offensive into threatening.

Talking about how "funny" it would be to rape a woman is, in fact, a threat.

That doesn't indicate that it's against the law, by a long shot. Not all threats are illegal.

I think that the bulk of the comments here made it pretty clear that the vast majority, if not all, of us were not suggesting that legal action was required.

Thanks for being so very particular, though.

I do. I also support the right of the knuckleheads who listen to them to demand that they be reinstated.

Great. You won't find me anywhere saying that they're silencing me, or that it's a free speech issue, so what, exactly is your point?

The USA is not fucked up because O&A are on the radio. O&A are on the radio because the USA is fucked up. They're the symptom, not the disease

Do you think that anyone here thinks that O&A are The Big Problem? Maybe someone does, but the impression I got wasn't that anyone thought that firing them would Solve Everything. Personally, punishing them for it isn't about Soloving Everything, it's about sending the message that these sorts of attitudes and actions are not okay. Will it solve everything? Obviously not. I wasn't aware that I- or others- should remain inactive and not take any actions unless they were The Big Solution.

I don't see a single comment from her where she says that what they did was against the law.

I guess I misunderstood. I read

Firstly, there is an extremely large difference between saying something offensive, and making a physical threat. Talking about how "funny" it would be to rape a woman is, in fact, a threat.

to mean that she believed the "jokes" were in fact "physical threats", and therefore criminal.

Thanks for being so very particular, though.

No prob.

They were supposed to be able to say whatever they wanted in that format.

And they subsequently learned that having the legal right to say something is not the same as having the legal right to not be treated like an asshole for saying assholish things. I fail to see why this is something I should be concerned about, rather than in favor of.

Regarding the potential illegality of what O&A said: death threats can be criminal and that was what I understood Cara to mean as well.

However, since I also read roymacIII original comment as saying that no one argued that simply saying offensive things was criminal, I fail to see your point in bringing that up. Plus - timestamps? They obviously wrote these comments at the same time, so roymacIII was still technically correct at the time. So the "gotcha" tone is a little unnecessary.