[Emland]

The Freedom of Speech is a concept many people misunderstand. Many think the Freedom of Speech allows you to say whatever you want, whenever you want and nothing bad will happen to you because you are excercising your Right.

The truth of the matter is the Freedom of Speech allows you to say whatever you like without having to fear being thrown in jail as long as what you say isn't fraudulent or causes a panic.

The Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from being fired if you say something that angers the customer base and causes problems for management. The Dixie Chicks went on years ago that they were being "censored." When your own demographic tells you to kiss off and stops buying your product, you aren't being censored, that was the consequence of your Freedom of Speech.

No one is going to arrest this fellow for his opinion on unwed mothers and academic levels. I happen to agree with his point. However, he had to know that making this bold statement could cause big problems and that is the consequence that he will have to live with. Freedom isn't free.

[Synnen]

I agree with Emland. He can SAY whatever he wants, as long as it's not an outright lie, or not dangerous in general. His CONTRACT, however, probably prevents him from saying things that would detrimentally affect his employer. That's the same in ANY business.

What his Freedom of Speech DOES protect, though, is the right to say those things without being thrown in jail. It's also unlikely that the groups he was talking about would be able to successfully sue him for his comments, because they are, in a sense, true--as true as any opinion can be.

Should he lose his job? I don't know. It depends on what his contract says, and what sorts of things he USUALLY says on his show. If it's the kind of show where that sort of topic is discussed regularly, and the only difference is the groups targeted for comment, then why should he lose his job? If, however, the comments were totally out of line from what his show usually is--well, you're not allowed to have a bad day when you work in the public's eye. Changing your show without taking into account your listeners and your employer is a really bad idea.

Is what he said derrogatory? I don't believe so. I believe that his comments were pointing out a problem with what people expect from others---and from themselves. Had he made a similar point at a high school graduation, about not letting others set the bar low for you--he probably would have been cheered. He didn't minimize the accomplishments of the groups he talked about---he talked about how those accomplishments had been diminished to begin with, to make them achievable. He pointed out OTHER accomplishments, ones that were not given enough recognition, and all of a sudden he's a bad guy?

Maybe I need to hear the original show to hear exactly how offensive his wording was on-air. But really--telling people to stop accepting the mediocre as achievements isn't a truly horrible thing to say.

[Skell]

IMO he makes sense with what he said. Tom, to compare what he said with Imus's remarks was one of your sillier posts.

[tomder55]

Not at all . He is undergoing a "lynching " by the PC crowd.

[NeedKarma]

not at all . He is undergoing a "lynching " by the pc crowd.

What's your alternative, one can say and do anything they please?

[tomder55]

The DJ is subject to the rules of the company that hires him and to the few restrictions on language that the FCC has imposed. To date there is not restriction on the free expression of ideas ;and I don't want them. The market place knows how to deal with those who go over the line.

[NeedKarma]

The market place knows how to deal with those who go over the line.

Isn't that exactly what's happening?

[tomder55]

In a way ;but the market that counts in my books in this case is the dj's ratings. If people don't like what he says they won't listen.

[Tuscany]

The owners of the radio station have supported the dj, but also issued a statement saying that they support the listeners right to disagree.

Personally I think he overstepped his bounds on this one and action should be taken. I am just not sure what.

[inthebox]

Bill Cosby said things in a similar vein - truthful to the point of being harsh, and the PC establishment criticized him.

While I agree with the dj's statements, I do think that teenage mothers should be praised for graduating HS, because 1] they chose to have the child - not an abortion. 2] they had more obstacles to overcome compared to non pregnant teens.

Why is there no outcry for the boys that get these girls pregnant? Are they manning up and standing by her and the child? Are they financially, emotionally supporting the family they created? All the focus is on the pregnant female, because it is obvious, how about calling out the boys that get them pregnant?

[Synnen]

Bill Cosby said things in a similar vein - truthful to the point of being harsh, and the PC establishment criticized him.

While I agree with the dj's statements, I do think that teenage mothers should be praised for graduating HS, because 1] they chose to have the child - not an abortion. 2] they had more obstacles to overcome compared to non pregnant teens.

Why is there no outcry for the boys that get these girls pregnant? Are they manning up and standing by her and the child? Are they financially, emotionally supporting the family they created? All the focus is on the pregnant female, because it is obvious, how about calling out the boys that get them pregnant?

By your logic, girls that choose adoption should be even MORE praised--not only did they not choose adoption, but they gave a childless couple a chance at a family. AND they're not a burden on society. Plus, they have even MORE obstacles to overcome, since they have to deal with some pretty serious forms of depression while going to school, along with the stigma of having been pregnant (and therefore not a "good" girl) plus the stigma from choosing adoption (how could you give your baby away? Didn't you LOVE him/her?) from their peers, and without the consolation of having a baby to show off.

Girls who get pregnant have a different set of obstacles to overcome than other high school students, but I certainly don't think it's any MORE challenging than, say, a student from a poor family who needs to work to help support the family, maintain good grades in school so that he/she has a chance at a scholarship, and help take care of younger siblings. And it's not more challenging than living in a neighborhood where doing drugs in high school is the norm, and breaking away from that.

We shouldn't be rewarding the kids that got themselves into trouble and then made the best of it. We should be rewarding the ones that avoided the trouble to begin with.

Or --let's be novel here--let's reward kids in school for how well they do academically, regardless of their circumstances! You never know what is going on behind closed doors, so you can have no idea how hard or how easy the challenges in the rest of a student's life are to overcome. The kid that everyone likes, and that gets decent grades, is popular, on student council, and is captain of the basketball team might go home every night to an abusive parent. And two kids that came from good families, with decent money, and supportive parents, but were bullied by their peers shot 12 of their classmates then themselves 9 years ago at Columbine.

So I guess my position is that the SCHOOL should reward kids for good grades or other academic achievements. Planned Parenthood (or some similar organization) can reward those teen parents that graduate. The Black Youth Organization can support and reward black kids that get a B average on their report card. Local churches can reward kids that make it through school and still stuck to their morals.

Doesn't that make more sense?