New Listener Question: Why is it...

[R2Prod]

Why is it that a lot of the podcasts I've listened to (Dawn and Drew, PK and J, Vox Monitor, Barefoot Radio) have all used the word nigger, or made derogatory comments about black people? As a new listener, and probably one of the few african-americans that listens to podcasts, I can't listen to a lot of these shows. Everyone can say what they want on their own podcast, but I get the feeling that they are just created by whites for whites. If that's the case, they should say that in the description of the show.

There is one podcast (I forgot the name) that talked about how podcasting should become more accesible to everyone, including people of color. Is that happening? I know some people don't want to have to censor themselves in their podcasts, but is it that hard for a white person not to say the word nigger? I guess this means I should just stick to the news oriented podcasts, or that black people have to make their own.

[PupuStudios]

I've never heard PK and J use derogatory terms.

[vox_monitor]

Well, first off thanks for listening to VM, I appreciate it.

Second, however, I think that we used the word in a totally interesting context, and I think that we were engaging the subject in a meaningful way, yes?

Additionally, we have used the word exactly one time, which is exactly the number of times that it was interesting for us to do so, I'd say. And I strongly assert that we have never made any derogatory comments about black people.

We certainly don't intend our show to be "for whites."

I'd love to discuss the issue further, if you have any more thoughts about it.

Here's the episode in question:

http://www.voxmonitor.com/?p=11#comments

The word is used towards the end, during our review of Dawn and Drew.

thanks,

eric

[Craig]

Personally I find the word so offensive that if a podcaster uses it that will be the last time I listen to their show. Regardless, I would definitley encourage you to consider starting your own podcast. Podcasting is at the moment, overly dominated by whites and I, for one, would like to hear from a wider range of people.

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you get started.

Craig

[mental-escher]

There is one podcast (I forgot the name) that talked about how podcasting should become more accesible to everyone, including people of color. Is that happening?

I believe that was Douglas from Area 51, also highlighted in the recent MAP-001 (http://www.mental-escher.net/MA/).

Is it happening? What, if anything, is stopping you? The "airwaves" are now open! Are they not accesible?

[jeffoest]

Why is it that a lot of the podcasts I've listened to (Dawn and Drew, PK and J, Vox Monitor, Barefoot Radio) have all used the word nigger, or made derogatory comments about black people? As a new listener, and probably one of the few african-americans that listens to podcasts, I can't listen to a lot of these shows. Everyone can say what they want on their own podcast, but I get the feeling that they are just created by whites for whites. If that's the case, they should say that in the description of the show.

There is one podcast (I forgot the name) that talked about how podcasting should become more accesible to everyone, including people of color. Is that happening? I know some people don't want to have to censor themselves in their podcasts, but is it that hard for a white person not to say the word nigger? I guess this means I should just stick to the news oriented podcasts, or that black people have to make their own.

I'll say the same thing I said to another poster on another topic. Those podcasts you have listened to that use derogatory terms loosely or use racial humor to their advantage are in the minority (no pun intended). While asking why can certainly be an interesting theoretical question (there are LOTS of reasons - none very good - usually). But with 6000+ channels, I'd probably just find something less insulting to you.

BTW - PK&J would never use the N-word. I can guarantee it. We would never use it either. It's become a disgusting and hateful word (unless used among a particular demographic in a particular situation that I certainly can't emulate) and we're all about the LOVE!

[Craig]

What, if anything, is stopping you? The "airwaves" are now open! Are they not accesible?
I think he/she's talking about the content being accessible.

Craig

[mental-escher]

mental-escher wrote:
What, if anything, is stopping you? The "airwaves" are now open! Are they not accesible?

I think he/she's talking about the content being accessible.

Craig

That is probably right, but my point is- podcasting allows you to make the MOST accessible media imaginable, your own!

Why is it there are only "x" podcasters making "x" podcasts for other "x's"?

Because podcasting is the realm of the yuppy elite! Hahahah! (ooops- did I say that out loud...?!)

Don't like it, then change it from with-in is one option. But it does take more effort than just pointing out the issue- get proactive.

[Craig]

Because podcasting is the realm of the yuppy elite! Hahahah! (ooops- did I say that out loud...?!)
I don't know that this is entirely true (I think it has more to do with a geek factor), although it seems so sometimes, but it is one of the reasons why I changed the format of Behind the Scenes to using an inexpensive mic and an iRiver. You don't get much more accessible than that.

Craig

[sydbarrett]

Why is it that a lot of the podcasts I've listened to (Dawn and Drew, PK and J, Vox Monitor, Barefoot Radio) have all used the word nigger, or made derogatory comments about black people? As a new listener, and probably one of the few african-americans that listens to podcasts, I can't listen to a lot of these shows. Everyone can say what they want on their own podcast, but I get the feeling that they are just created by whites for whites. If that's the case, they should say that in the description of the show.

There is one podcast (I forgot the name) that talked about how podcasting should become more accesible to everyone, including people of color. Is that happening? I know some people don't want to have to censor themselves in their podcasts, but is it that hard for a white person not to say the word nigger? I guess this means I should just stick to the news oriented podcasts, or that black people have to make their own.
dude, you're doing the right thing here.
you don't like something, tell these awesome podPeople.
hey, they told me if I don't like it, say only positive things and do my own podcast.
I'm a listener, not interested in hearing my own voice.
so go forth dude, and tell'em like it is.
and keep on coming back and giving them a piece of your mind.

because the alley is for listeners too, until they boot you off.

Later dude
And power to the non-podcasters

[Hittman]

Personaly, I'd never use the word, because I'm uncomfortable with it. But you'll hear it on some podcasts, because

. . . you'll hear everything on podcasts. The good, the bad, and the very truly ugly. I don't blame you for finding the word offensive, and refusing to listen to shows that toss it around lightly. But so what? There's thousands more to pick from, and hundreds of them are good.

I can't imagine any circumstance where I'd use that word in one of my casts, but I do use the word "fundy," a derogatory term for evangelical Christians, in day to day conversation, and it will probably show up in one of my casts sooner or later. I'm sure at least some people find it offensive. Tough. It's not like their choices are limited.

[joelthecomic]

We used the "n-word" on our most recent show, #20. Basically, I bought an iRiver H320 on eBay and the guy who sold it to me left his collection of MP3s on it, and he had some racist comedy on it. We played a track named "nigger jokes" on the show because we thought it was ridiculous that a guy wouldn't know to remove crap like that before sending it out. We were exposing him as a racist, and to do so we had to use his terminology. That doesn't make us racist (at least we don't think so).

If you want to listen to this it starts at around the 56:00 mark of show #20.

http://www.coreyandjoelradio.com/Podcasts/coreyandjoelshow20.mp3

[R2Prod]

Thanks for the comments.

I'm not interested in making my own podcast. I just want content to listen to. I think most people just learning about podcasts will be in the same situation. Not every listener will want to have his or her own show.

I just think podcasters should be conscious of the fact that their audience is growing, and that not every listener is the same. If you want to have a big audience, you have to have some censorship, especially when it comes to race in this country.

I read an article in a financial magazine called Black Enterprise that was just about podcasting. It directed people to ipodder.org and podcastalley.com. With it's large african-american readership, I wonder if other people will have the same reaction I did to some of the shows in the Top 50 - that's where I went first.

I think he/she's talking about the content being accessible.

Its he.

[allthewhile]

I can't imagine any circumstance where I'd use that word in one of my casts, but I do use the word "fundy," a derogatory term for evangelical Christians, in day to day conversation, and it will probably show up in one of my casts sooner or later. I'm sure at least some people find it offensive. Tough. It's not like their choices are limited.

In my show I use a similar phraze. "non-mensite" It refers to anyone who doesn't belong to mensa, i.e. the "common folk", "huddled masses", "hoi poloi", turbus, etc. I use it in the show occasionally, but only because I use it all the time in my day to day life. Here's an example:

"That non-mensite thinks a 95th percentile on the Raven's Standard Matrice qualifies him as a mensite. Anyone with even pre-doctorial knowledge of Spearman's G could score in the 95th percentile on the Raven. Now if he show's me his 95th on the Woodcock Johnson, then we'll talk. Humph."

[R2Prod]

Well, first off thanks for listening to VM, I appreciate it.

Second, however, I think that we used the word in a totally interesting context, and I think that we were engaging the subject in a meaningful way, yes?

Additionally, we have used the word exactly one time, which is exactly the number of times that it was interesting for us to do so, I'd say. And I strongly assert that we have never made any derogatory comments about black people.

We certainly don't intend our show to be "for whites."

Vox Monitor,

You have a great show. I'll keep listening. I know you didn't mean to say nigger in a bad way, but in my opinion, there's no good way to say it - whether you're black or white. I wasn't expecting to hear the word at all since your show is just for reviewing other podcasts. Dave Chapelle's humor (you mentioned him) is not always okay just because he's black. The word nigger is not just taboo. If there was a word for whites (in general) that has been the source of violence and discrimination in this country's history, I don't think anyone would be allowed to use it in any context.

If you don't make you're podcast just for people like you (whites) and you don't describe yourself as an offensive show, think about what you're saying and whether or not it could cost you listeners even if you don't find it offensive.

If you're podcast was just conversational and had a description of offensive content I could understand, but you make a very professional podcast that (I think) represents or is sponsored by an operating website - idiotvox.com. As a listener, I take what you say as representing IdiotVox.

[sydbarrett]

and dude
don't listen to that numbers b.s. either
there's 6000, 7000, 8000 podcasts, you have to like something
if you don't like something, then maybe you're the problem.
maybe podcasting is not for you.

what ever happened to..."the customer is always right"
I guess new rules for podcasting.

[vox_monitor]

well, your point is well taken. We try to do as upstanding a show as we can, and we'd like to think that have a well defined moral center and fairly sturdy professional ethics.

The good news is, I'd say that it is very unlikely that we'd use the word again. I can't think of a situation in which to do so would be a wise artistic choice. Having said that, however, if such a situation arose, I'd feel compelled to do what was best for the art.

In other words, I would be remiss to self-censor if doing so ran counter to my aesthetic instincts. I have faith that those instincts are never going to be hateful or racist. They might be wrong sometimes (in fact they definitely will be wrong sometimes) and the art might suffer as a consequence, but they're not going to be evil in intent.

[timn]

R2Prod:

Welcome. Seriously.

I personally choose not to use that particular word because my father was a pathetic racist whose church encouraged and enabled his despicable behavior. I was raised in Oklahoma City in the early 60's. My grade school was segregated. So was my brother's high school. As a child, I was not allowed to even speak to a black person. Or native Americans.

My father used the bible to 'prove' that black people weren't really humans -- more like 'monkeys' (his term, not mine) put here by God to serve the white people.

At the time, I was a child. I thought this was normal -- that this was how everyone felt. My mother had strongly disagreed but hadn't yet found the strength to speak truth to power. It wasn't until much later, after my parents divorced and I had left Oklahoma City, that I realize just how wrong my father and his church were. And it wasn't until still later that I came to terms with my own past. For many years, I was deeply bitter.

I am somewhat less bitter these days and I try not to paint with a brush that is too wide. But I do take the lessons of my youth quite seriously.

While my father lived, he hated black people. He hated native Americans. He hated Catholics. He hated Jews. But most of all, he hated himself. And this is the very valuable lesson he taught me and what I most needed to learn. Hating yourself has some very serious, life-long complications.

So today I choose not to use that particular term because I've been there and I've seen what this kind of hate speech does. I am constantly puzzled that people who understand the depth of injustice associated with this word would choose differently. A sense of history is critical, I believe.

Language is a living breathing thing. It's constantly evolving. My sincere hope is that, with time, this word comes to mean... nothing at all. I'd like to believe that's what's happing when I hear the term tossed around loosely and recorded in hiphop. But I'm not sure. I take resposibility for only my own words.

Please stick around. It's very early and the party's only just getting started. And I'm certain that there will something here for everybody.

[jimk]

While I agree that certain words are toxic...I disagree completely that there is no context in which they can be used. Clinically discussing a social phenomenon sometimes requires you use whatever vernacular fits.

For example: If you're discussing the evils of racist speech and you don't want to sound like a scardey-cat "Politically Correct" douchebag, you need to be intellectually honest and use the words you are discussing.

Saying there is NEVER a context? That reeks of repression and censorship. Two things podcasting at large tends to rebel against. There are ways to discuss racist terminology, or anyoffensive termonology, without condoning or supporting the meaning behind it.

[R2Prod]

well, your point is well taken. We try to do as upstanding a show as we can, and we'd like to think that have a well defined moral center and fairly sturdy professional ethics.

The good news is, I'd say that it is very unlikely that we'd use the word again. I can't think of a situation in which to do so would be a wise artistic choice. Having said that, however, if such a situation arose, I'd feel compelled to do what was best for the art.

In other words, I would be remiss to self-censor if doing so ran counter to my aesthetic instincts. I have faith that those instincts are never going to be hateful or racist. They might be wrong sometimes (in fact they definitely will be wrong sometimes) and the art might suffer as a consequence, but they're not going to be evil in intent.

The thing is though, you hesitated before saying the word, said it was taboo, then said it anyway. My issue from the beginning was never just the word nigger. Whether you say it or not is your choice. My question was why is it in so many of the podcasts I subscribed to? From the outside, it seems like a lot of these podcasts are closed off to a certain type of listener. That's why it's easier for me to just listen to the broadcast type shows designed for a mass audience, where I know what I'm getting. As the audiences get bigger, I think they might end up being the future of podcasting. Your review show could definitely be a part of that - if you watched the language. Some podcasts are taking profanity out of their shows. How is what I'm talking about any different?

I'm just glad that someone replied to my first post. It's good to know that podcasters are interested in hearing from the listeners, and not just other podcasters. I know the number of podcasts to choose from is in the thousands, but the number of high qaulity shows in both content and production seems low. That's why a podcast that reviews other good podcasts seemed like a good choice. Keep up the good work.

[jeffoest]

I think I can speak for all of us on this one point: Podcasters generally hear from a lot of other podcasters but not as many listeners. We CRAVE listener comments both on our podcasts and on the medium and it's impact to you in general.

Thanks for being 'bold' enough to call this to everyone's attention. Your attitude is not one of being critical but more of one of being helpful and in my opinion, you do us all a service by coming in here and contributing to the dialogue.

[R2Prod]

I think I can speak for all of us on this one point: Podcasters generally hear from a lot of other podcasters but not as many listeners. We CRAVE listener comments both on our podcasts and on the medium and it's impact to you in general.

Thanks for being 'bold' enough to call this to everyone's attention. Your attitude is not one of being critical but more of one of being helpful and in my opinion, you do us all a service by coming in here and contributing to the dialogue.

Thanks.

My issue really wasn't with the word nigger, or racism in general. What you say or think is up to you. Probably every podcast that has said nigger or made a derogatory comment has followed it with "we're not racists". I wanted to ask the people who are making podcasts, who are you making them for? Who is your audience? Why does anyone, especially on a recording, have to try not to say nigger? Is it relief that you're just talking to other white people, so it's okay?

I wanted podcasters to think about their content and their audience. If you want shock value, that's one thing, but if you want to inform and entertain people you have to think about who's listening. If you don't care, say so in your description.

[Hittman]

I just think podcasters should be conscious of the fact that their audience is growing, and that not every listener is the same. If you want to have a big audience, you have to have some censorship, especially when it comes to race in this country.

No, you don't have to have any censorship. At all, ever. The beauty of podcasting is that it offers compete freedom, and that includes the freedom to be offensive, and the freedom to be an *****le.

"That non-mensite thinks a 95th percentile on the Raven's Standard Matrice qualifies him as a mensite. Anyone with even pre-doctorial knowledge of Spearman's G could score in the 95th percentile on the Raven. Now if he show's me his 95th on the Woodcock Johnson, then we'll talk. Humph."

If you really want to talk about my Woodcock Johnson, we should probably do it in e-mail.

It's a very nice one, though.

While my father lived, he hated black people. He hated native Americans. He hated Catholics. He hated Jews.

But I bet he bragged about how much he loved America.

He just hated everyone in it.

My question was why is it in so many of the podcasts I subscribed to?

How many did you subscribe to? There are thousands. Unfortunately, there are a lot of juveniles (some of them are very old juveniles) who think the key to funny is being offensive. So they get racist, with the caveat that "we don't really mean it," and swear a lot. And their listeners think it's just great. They get votes, and rise in the rankings, and get posts here about how wondrously funny they are.

I'm tempted, as an experiment, to create The ****ity-**** Show. It would consist of people saying "****" a lot. I bet it would get enough votes to show up in the top fifty in a month or so.

I know the number of podcasts to choose from is in the thousands, but the number of high qaulity shows in both content and production seems low.

Stergon's Law: 90% of everything is crud. That holds true for podcasts, and when this really takes off, I suspect the number will rise to 95%. You've got to dig though a lot of **** to find the pony. The pony is there, and there's some really great stuff to be found, but as you've discovered, the lists aren't always a good indication of quality.

[Will-Casel]

I read an article in a financial magazine called Black Enterprise that was just about podcasting. It directed people to ipodder.org and podcastalley.com. With it's large african-american readership, I wonder if other people will have the same reaction I did to some of the shows in the Top 50 - that's where I went first.

I read that article today, too.
Hopefully that will bring more podcasters and listeners into the realm of podcasting.

Glad that you joined in.
Yeah, there is a lot of crap out there, but don't let that discourage you from listening.

Like someone else mentioned, we podcasters don't get a whole lot of feedback from our listeners, so thanks again!

Will

[timn]

No, you don't have to have any censorship. At all, ever. The beauty of podcasting is that it offers compete freedom, and that includes the freedom to be offensive, and the freedom to be an *****le.


"For of those to whom much is given, much is required"

I would pretty much agree that censorship is always a bad idea. But tell me, would you argue that radio RTLM in Rwanda bears no responsibility for the clear role they played in inciting the genocide in Rwanda?


"...it should be stressed that people must bring a machete, a spear, an arrow, a hoe, spades, rakes, nails, truncheons... barbed wire, stones... and the like, in order, dear listeners, to kill the Rwandan Tutsis, who are currently in Ituri District... So what should they do against the Rwandan Tutsis? They must attack them... Wherever you see a Rwandan Tutsi, regard him as your enemy

Should this, for example, be protected speech? And if those who incite violence bear responsibility, what form does that responsibility take?

Should my "freedom of speech" be extended to allow me to encourage acts of violence against of a group of people just because I don't like the color of their skin or the God they worship or the podcasts they produce or the music they listen to?

This is clearly a huge issue. It should be of interest to all podcasters. I would bet that one or more high-profile incidents during they next year or so will require us to think long and hard about this. The current growth of podcasting almost guarantees it. Unfortunately, when it happens it will be a media circus. Think "runaway bride" times 100.

In the US, the courts have ruled that "free speech does not include
shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre". But they have also given extremely wide latitude to 'satire'.

[Patrick]

I can't believe anyone would be out to make it a point to slander blacks on their show.

Now, Mexicans, on the other hand...

[bramley]

From the outside, it seems like a lot of these podcasts are closed off to a certain type of listener.

People on the inside feel this as well.

I just think podcasters should be conscious of the fact that their audience is growing, and that not every listener is the same.

I think this is perhaps the most important statement in this thread -- and every podcaster should take notice of it. But I also think that plenty of people are so protective of their "freedom" that they care more about that than expanding and keeping an audience. I frequently push myself to think beyond the food cultures and celebrations that dominate the white, Christian US because I sometimes feel guilty about being too narrow. Basically, as you imply, R2Prod, podcasting to the other people who are me. (Not surprisingly, those shows in which we do go beyond have been the ones with the most downloads and with the most hits from other related sites, proving the desire for content that speaks to a wider audience.)

Content will hopefully evolve as the make-up of podcasters does too -- and you will know podcasting is changing when you see some faces of color showing up in avatars around PA, which is starting to happen.

[bramley]

I'm tempted, as an experiment, to create The ****ity-**** Show. It would consist of people saying "****" a lot. I bet it would get enough votes to show up in the top fifty in a month or so.

Do you really think it will take that long?

This is clearly a huge issue. It should be of interest to all podcasters. I would bet that one or more high-profile incidents during they next year or so will require us to think long and hard about this. The current growth of podcasting almost guarantees it. Unfortunately, when it happens it will be a media circus. Think "runaway bride" times 100.

Uh-huh. But I predict it will not be about race but about a teenager doing something he or she heard on a podcast.

[Illumination Audio]

If I may chime in...

I think your concerns are SUPER VALID r2, it seems like ignorance is available in every media format. I for one find D&D a couple of pompus asses, and wouldn't be caught dead with their cast on my iPod. Not even if Curry paid me.

Also, as a minority in this hobby, I think that if it's ok for white people to use the N word, there would be a trend started that would cause all sorts of problems. It's the same as calling hispanics "spic."

The good thing about podcasts, is that there if you hear something offensive, you can just unsubscribe and move on. There are thousands of shows that feature content that is race friendly. Personally I invite all of my listeners to write or call if they have ANY issues with the show. I haven't had a complaint yet.

There is a fine line between free speech and acting like an idiot. Unfortunately some people don't know that line. Good luck with your content search.

[no1slistening]

Now, Mexicans, on the other hand...

Oh, Patrick. Now you've done it ...

I might have to start my biracial podcast soon. ;)

-- JV, the half-Mexican podcaster.

[Patrick]

Half Mexican?

****, I knew y'all were lazy, but if you can't even fully commit to a race, you're taking lazy to a whole new level!

:wink:

[Craig]

While my father lived, he hated black people. He hated native Americans...
It's a good thing nobody ever pointed out to him that Jesus was dark-skinned. And Jewish.

Hatred is a terrible thing. You should be proud you overcame it.

Craig

[no1slistening]

Half Mexican?

****, I knew y'all were lazy, but if you can't even fully commit to a race, you're taking lazy to a whole new level!

:wink:

I'm also part Irish. Does that make me the laziest drunk in the world? ;)

[sydbarrett]

R2Prod dude
What you've discovered is that most podcasts, right now, are audioblogs truly meant for a close circle of relatives and friends. Only a small percentage are appropriate for mass audience. Right now that audience is dominated by whites
with some cash and too much time on their hands. Blacks are not even on the podcast radar yet. But that will change too. So you're going to hear the nasties and that is not going to fill you with that warm and fuzzy feeling of love. Don't let that prevent you from getting into something as awesome and powerful as podcasting. Right now the podsters are what they are, but that will change too. You are that initial voice of a group not represented here. Push this thing until it gives, giving you the content you want and deserve.

good luck dude

Later.

[timn]

Hatred is a terrible thing. You should be proud you overcame it.

Not proud so much as thankful I did not travel that path. But I should be clear on this -- I'm not using my background to argue that podcasters should NEVER use any specific pejorative term, vulgar phrase, racial epithet, etc.

Fact is, I laugh at George Carlin, who never saw a vulgar phrase he didn't like -- I laugh at Wonkette who seems to have a fixation with, well, never mind -- and don't tell Madge but I also laugh at Yeast Radio (but the dog poop episode left me gagging). The world would be a much darker place if we didn't give artists very wide freedom to practice their art.

So no, clearly censorship is never the answer.

But what I am saying is that I make a personal choice not to use the specific phrase 'nigger' because of the history of this epithet - and my personal connection to it. This is not 'political correctness' - it is simply my own choice. Others are free to make their own choices. The choice doesn't make me right and someone else wrong. And, much to my mother's dismay, I seem to have no 'political correctness' issues with many other 'colorful' phrases.

But I do believe that it is important for people to take some responsibility for their words, to understand that their words have an impact, and to have at least some sense of history.

[Hittman]

No, you don't have to have any censorship. At all, ever. The beauty of podcasting is that it offers compete freedom, and that includes the freedom to be offensive, and the freedom to be an *****le.


"For of those to whom much is given, much is required"

That's an opinion, not a fact. Nothing is required of a podcaster. Then can do and say whatever they want.

I would pretty much agree that censorship is always a bad idea. But...

In any discussion of freedom, the word "but" always makes the needle on my bullshit meter jump a bit. There's always a but, isn't there?

... tell me, would you argue that radio RTLM in Rwanda bears no responsibility for the clear role they played in inciting the genocide in Rwanda? [quote="RTLM Radio"]
"...it should be stressed that people must bring a machete, a spear, an arrow, a hoe, spades, rakes, nails, truncheons... barbed wire, stones... and the like, in order, dear listeners, to kill the Rwandan Tutsis, who are currently in Ituri District... So what should they do against the Rwandan Tutsis? They must attack them... Wherever you see a Rwandan Tutsi, regard him as your enemy

Should this, for example, be protected speech? And if those who incite violence bear responsibility, what form does that responsibility take?

This is not Rwanda, who has a very different culture, and therefore, may need different rules. In the United States they'd probably be guilty of inciting a riot.

To my knowledge, threats have never been in any free speech code, including here in the US. That is a form of assault, which moves it into a different realm.

Should my "freedom of speech" be extended to allow me to encourage acts of violence against of a group of people just because I don't like the color of their skin or the God they worship or the podcasts they produce or the music they listen to?

It can all turn on a word or two. If you say, "George Bush should be shot," you haven't violated any laws. But if you say "Someone should shoot George Bush," men with guns will show up at your door.

The key word here is "incite." There is a site that promotes the murder of abortion doctors. It publishes their personal details – their addresses, phone numbers, ect. It even posts where their children go to school. But it never says "Go Kill Them." It celebrates it when it happens, and IMO it is a very clear incitement to violence. The Supreme Court disagreed, in a 9-0 decision.

But where do you draw the line? What about books that claim a race war is coming, and encourage people to celebrate it, or even start it? Would you censor them? I wouldn't.

I agree with Jefferson, who said the cure for too much free speech was more free speech. Frankly, I want the neo-nazis to be heard, so everyone can see what complete *****les they are. And the best counter to racist spew is an intelligent counter-spew, one that not only contains smart arguments, but a healthy dose of ridicule.

If they come right out attempt to incite murder, I'd shut them down. They have a right to be complete *****les. They do not have the right to make threats.

In the US, the courts have ruled that "free speech does not include
shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre". But they have also given extremely wide latitude to 'satire'.

I once shouted theatre! in a crowded fire, but no one seemed to get the joke. Or maybe they just didn't hear it over all the screaming.

[vox_monitor]

hittman has got it just right.

The cure to too much free speech is indeed more free speech.

But I also agree that directly and specifically incite-ing violence against another individual or groups of individuals probably should not be protected. Probably. It sure feels like one of those real world situations that occasionally intrudes on my nice pristine ideals regarding liberty, at any rate.

here is what cohry said about using racial slurs in or as humor, and I think it is a point well taken.

"We're never going to defeat racism until everyone, all people, can laugh at it."

As long as it is taboo, it is powerful. When it becomes clownlike, people will want very badly to avoid being associated with it.

[kickasspodcast]

If you don't like it, >>.


Jack

[timn]

Hittman, you raise a number of valid points...

That's an opinion, not a fact. Nothing is required of a podcaster. The[y] can do and say whatever they want.,

Agreed. I'm always free to do whatever I freely choose to do. Read a book or rob a bank. So there are always consequences to my actions. Some good. Some maybe, uh, not so good.


In any discussion of freedom, the word "but" always makes the needle on my bullshit meter jump a bit. There's always a but, isn't there?


Not to worry -- this is just a minor calibration problem with your meter. I would distinguish here between state-imposed prior restraint and restraint we impose willingly on ourselves.


To my knowledge, threats have never been in any free speech code, including here in the US. That is a form of assault, which moves it into a different realm.


Precisely! There is the law. Then there are the real facts on the ground. And the fact is, for many years, blatant threats against blacks and other non-caucasions were 'protected speech' here in the US. No, certainly not by code, but by tacit agreement of those in power.


It can all turn on a word or two. If you say, "George Bush should be shot," you haven't violated any laws. But if you say "Someone should shoot George Bush," men with guns will show up at your door.


I think this is a key point where we disagree. Yes, perhaps from a legal perspective, it really does 'turn on a word or two'. That's not what I'm talking about. On the ground, words have real world consequences. Often, the fine distinction a court might make will be all but lost outside of that legal setting.

Where we strongly agree is that the solution is not censorship.


I agree with Jefferson, who said the cure for too much free speech was more free speech.


Yep. Jefferson also believed that "Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth." Can this priciple trump a well-oiled Goebbels-style propaganda machine (http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html). I think the answer is clearly yes, though it might take a long while...



If they come right out attempt to incite murder, I'd shut them down. They have a right to be complete *****les. They do not have the right to make threats.


The problem with this of course, is what you've already pointed out. Legally, it could all "turn on a word or two". We've already agreed that we do not want prior restraint on speech that simply encourages the attitudes and prejudices that could clearly lead others to commit such acts of violence.



I once shouted theatre! in a crowded fire, but no one seemed to get the joke. Or maybe they just didn't hear it over all the screaming.

Audiences. What good are they? Theatres can be such hard places to play! :wink:

[bramley]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Does every discussion have to turn to Libertarian politics on PA?

As timn says, this isn't about censorship. The original poster never raised the issue of censorship. He's providing some much needed listener feedback and pointing out that we should be conscious of our audience, implying I believe, that the original remarks were not some great stand of free speech but a lack of awareness -- either about who is listening or what they might think. He was telling us to get aware.

Everyone can choose what they want to do about it. No one is coming to squash your right to anything. And there are no Bolsheviks in your washroom.

[vox_monitor]

. And there are no Bolsheviks in your washroom.

True. They're in the white house.

[sydbarrett]

If you don't like it, >>.


Jack
...paint yourself white and shove a pickle up your.....

awesome idea dude

[mental-escher]

I just think podcasters should be conscious of the fact that their audience is growing, and that not every listener is the same. If you want to have a big audience, you have to have some censorship, especially when it comes to race in this country.

I read an article in a financial magazine called Black Enterprise that was just about podcasting. It directed people to ipodder.org and podcastalley.com. With it's large african-american readership, I wonder if other people will have the same reaction I did to some of the shows in the Top 50 - that's where I went first.

Your feedback as a listener is highly valuable to podcasters and we should all consider and appreciate it.

In the brave new world of micromedia, there is still a lot of learnings to be had, so thanks for the input!

Makes me think there could be a "Listener Feedback" section in PA...

cb

[sydbarrett]

I just think podcasters should be conscious of the fact that their audience is growing, and that not every listener is the same. If you want to have a big audience, you have to have some censorship, especially when it comes to race in this country.

I read an article in a financial magazine called Black Enterprise that was just about podcasting. It directed people to ipodder.org and podcastalley.com. With it's large african-american readership, I wonder if other people will have the same reaction I did to some of the shows in the Top 50 - that's where I went first.

Your feedback as a listener is highly valuable to podcasters and we should all consider and appreciate it.

In the brave new world of micromedia, there is still a lot of learnings to be had, so thanks for the input!

Makes me think there could be a "Listener Feedback" section in PA...

cb
what do you call this?
i'm feeding and backing all the time...

Power to the non-podcasters

[mental-escher]

what do you call this?
i'm feeding and backing all the time...



Sure, the difference is that he provides a concise statement of the issues and his opinion, while you tend to get your message muddled in obfuscation (that is, too much slang-speak, listenerdude- make your point and let it hang on its merits).

"It is better to listen in order to understand than to listen in order to reply"

cb


Power to the non-podcasters

Praise Cheezus!

[sydbarrett]

what do you call this?
i'm feeding and backing all the time...



Sure, the difference is that he provides a concise statement of the issues and his opinion, while you tend to get your message muddled in obfuscation (that is, too much slang-speak, listenerdude- make your point and let it hang on its merits).

"It is better to listen in order to understand than to listen in order to reply"

cb


Power to the non-podcasters

Praise Cheezus!
lol

[WyethDigital]

As timn says, this isn't about censorship. The original poster never raised the issue of censorship. He's providing some much needed listener feedback and pointing out that we should be conscious of our audience, implying I believe, that the original remarks were not some great stand of free speech but a lack of awareness -- either about who is listening or what they might think. He was telling us to get aware.

But Bramley, the original poster did offer voluntary censorship as an option, even after going out of his way not to:
...I know some people don't want to have to censor themselves in their podcasts, but is it that hard for a white person not to say the word nigger? I guess this means I should just stick to the news oriented podcasts, or that black people have to make their own.[emphasis mine]

I'm not saying you or R2Prod are wrong, I'm just saying that the other posters are not off-topic, and if you really want to address R2's concerns, it has to be part of the discussion. Not in the hysterical, crazy-as-a-shithouse-rat kind of way that censorship usually gets discussed, but in a cautious, matter-of-fact way.

See, I'm a listener who also finds the word offensive. No matter where I hear it. I don't care whether I hear it from my racist uncle or from the Hip Hop radio station. It's just as wrong hearing it from Nellie as from Dawn and Drew. It's a vile word with a vile past. And to use it in anything but it's most clinical way (like in this discussion) makes me red.

Someone said that they hope the word loses all meaning... But should the word "Kike" lose all meaning to the Jews? If it does, what about the Holocaust? As unpleaseant as it is, I would prefer that we remember that kind of thing, and that we are capable of such things. The same goes for the word "nigger," and slavery. Or bigotry. Until we are incapable of such horrific crimes against each other, we should remember where these words came from, and why they are used (and by whom), and why claiming "free speech" can put you on the right side of the Constitution, but on the wrong side of humanity.


Eric

[sydbarrett]

It's a good thing nobody ever pointed out to him that Jesus was dark-skinned. And Jewish.

Hatred is a terrible thing. You should be proud you overcame it.

Craig

Someone said that they hope the word loses all meaning... But should the word "Kike" lose all meaning to the Jews? If it does, what about the Holocaust? As unpleaseant as it is, I would prefer that we remember that kind of thing, and that we are capable of such things.
therefore does that make Jesus a "Kike"?

[WyethDigital]

It's a good thing nobody ever pointed out to him that Jesus was dark-skinned. And Jewish.

Hatred is a terrible thing. You should be proud you overcame it.

Craig

Someone said that they hope the word loses all meaning... But should the word "Kike" lose all meaning to the Jews? If it does, what about the Holocaust? As unpleaseant as it is, I would prefer that we remember that kind of thing, and that we are capable of such things.
therefore does that make Jesus a "Kike"?
Well, in the context of a racist, he's not. He's a white European with an auburn beard and would never be something so threatening as dark skinned or Godless as a Jew (maybe a light tan, you know, to look fit for those public appearances).

Seriously, I actually talked to a bigot who was so bad, he could not accept that Jesus was Jewish. "He converted to Christianity!" Oh boy!!!!

Eric

[bramley]

But Bramley, the original poster did offer voluntary censorship as an option, even after going out of his way not to

Not to put too fine a point on it, but "to censor themselves" is to use the word censor casually, to keep one's self in check. "Censorship" is another matter altogether and implies all kinds of state apparati, etc. When that starts happening to podcasting, I'll get interested. But this is not that.

I would also argue that he's kind of making fun of people who were using the word in question. i.e. Does it amount to self censoring to stop yourself? Why is it so natural for you to or why do you want to so much that you have to put an artificial stop in? The clue: "is it that hard for a white person not to say...?"

Maybe we just see it differently. That's okay by me. I gotta go work on my non-censored yet non-offensive podcast.

[WyethDigital]

But Bramley, the original poster did offer voluntary censorship as an option, even after going out of his way not to

Not to put too fine a point on it, but "to censor themselves" is to use the word censor casually, to keep one's self in check. "Censorship" is another matter altogether and implies all kinds of state apparati, etc. When that starts happening to podcasting, I'll get interested. But this is not that.
...
Maybe we just see it differently. That's okay by me. I gotta go work on my non-censored yet non-offensive podcast.

Well, if you mean we see the context of the way "censorship" and "censor" are being used in this discusion, then we probably do disagree; but I seriously would doubt that we're seeing too much differently otherwise :)

Eric

[obtuseangle]

Just wanted to defend the Vox Monitor guys on this one -- I don't necessarily AGREE with them using it, but I think a) they have a right to do so, and b) it was definitely not in a racist context.

Can't really speak to the others, but I think with PK&J you might be referring to when J said "chigger." I know Ferg has played the clip on his show several times, inferring (in a clearly ironical tone) that she said the n-word.

With that said, I think we're all still a little giddy over the no-FCC oversight thing, so we're more apt to say things that we wouldn't even say in everyday conversation. Like a weird, kid-in-a-candystore phenomenon or something.

Steve
The Obtuse Angle

[bazookajoeshow]

"I'm an obtuse man so I'll be oblique."
- Principal Onyx Blackman

Bazooka Joe