Argh! So! Conflicted!

[clodia_risa]

For those of you who haven't heard of the Opus and Andy thing - they, who are on XM radio, which claims to be uncensored, made jokes about raping Condaleeza Rice, Laura Bush, and Queen Elizabeth. It was some pretty hateful unfunny stuff. They apologized (apparently half-assed) and made jokes about it the next day. XM suspended them for 30 days. XM has been losing subscribers in swarms because they claim to be "uncensored" and yet they suspended a show for inappropriate comments - aka censorship.

I don't know O&A, but I hear that they are pretty offensive all the time. I just don't know what to think!

On the one hand, raping women is not funny. Also, if these comments had been directly applied to someon (to their face, I mean) I would expect it would be called a threat. On the other hand, they were hired to be horribly offensive, XM claimed to be uncensored, and then didn't follow through with that.

Half of me says: arrrgh! Punish those who threaten violence! Rape is not funny! Imus was fired for (what could be considered) less!

The other half says: It's just words. If we start going after words that are not meant as a threat, in a place which is supposed to be safe for any words, what will happen next? I mean, my words are doubtless horribly offensive to some, but if I was speaking in a place where I wasn't supposed to be punished for what I said, how upset would I be if I was punished anyway. How upset should I be?

I think that I am starting to condemn XM more than O&A. If what I read is true, and XM is supposed to be completely uncensored, then they had no right to suspend that show. Even if what they said was horribly horribly crude, unnecessary, hateful, and offensive. Because we're supposed to support everyone's free speech, not the speech we like.

It is so much easier just to stay enraged at the rape jokes.

Comments

[zebeckras.livejournal.com]

I think I am with you in terms of leaning towards blaming XM. I mean - and this came up with Imus too - apparently shock jocks have it in their contract that they absolutely have to be offensive. There is no stipulation on "how offensive is TOO offensive" or what topics are off-limits, they're just supposed to say things that will make you go "WHAAAAT".

This is btw why I loathe and detest the entire concept of shock jocks; even the mildest ones sicken me.

But in the end it does mean that they aren't quite as responsible for what they say as the stations that air them would have us believe. I mean - if they're supposed to be offensive, of COURSE they know how bad the things they're saying are. They're probably looking for things that would offend THEM if they weren't so jaded by this point. To scapegoat them and be like "*gasp!* We had no idea you were such insensitive delinquents!" when there's a public outcry over something they said is not exactly kosher.

None of which is to say that I *don't* hold them responsible for what they say or that I'm NOT offended by comments like O&A or Imus's... only that this whole "righteous indignation" act from the companies that employ them is a load of baloney. Maybe what they should do instead is sit down and put some provisions into the contract and let people know what is and isn't "okay" and "PC" enough to offend people with. :P (See, like I said - I just freakin' HATE shock jocks.)

[clodia-risa.livejournal.com]

I agree 100% with what you said. It's like telling a child that running around is cute and then yelling at him for running in the street. Have some consistency!

I dislike shock jocks as well, but if you're gonna have 'em, support them all the way.