Honest question: what does "ERPN" stand for?You mean acts and words like posting something like this:
Tell me more about how profanity is the real issue...
Honest question: what does "ERPN" stand for?You mean acts and words like posting something like this:
Tell me more about how profanity is the real issue...
As I recall, that never was explainedYou mean acts and words like posting something like this:
Tell me more about how profanity is the real issue...Ale Xander said: ↑
Jemele Hill + Connecticut
http://sites.bu.edu/playitforward/schedule/
She should found a network called ERPN.
At the risk of offending those on the air, the ratings book alone verifies that they are in the small minority, lol.From 6 AM through 2 PM you could have tuned into WEEI over the last 2 days and listened to nothing but questioning Jones and attacking any defense of him. Sure, weak caveats were issued, but that's what it was. That's 2/3 of their daily talk show programming. While I realize that is not the vast majority of the Boston media, it represents a very loud minority, especially to outsiders that view EEI as the "pulse" of the region, much the way that WFAN is considered that in NYC. I understand what you're saying, and you're not wrong, just letting you know what it looks like from an (sort of) outsider's POV.
Do they?At the risk of offending those on the air, the ratings book alone verifies that they are in the small minority, lol.
.
Once again, sports radio dominated the fall Nielsen Audio ratings in the Boston market, with 98.5 the Sports Hub finishing first (13.1 share) and WEEI second (8.8) in the important men 25-54 demographic for the period of September 8-November 30.
In morning drive (6-10 a.m.), more than a quarter of the Boston radio audience was typically listening to one sports station or the other. The Sports Hub’s Toucher & Rich program finished first with a 14.8 share. WEEI’s Kirk and Callahan program finished a strong second (12.5) in its first full book since the departure of longtime co-host John Dennis in August. WZLX’s Karlson and McKenzie was a distant third behind the sports programs (7.0)
Damn... I will stick by my attempt to lighten the mood at their expense. I haven't listened to them regularly in years.
It's a private establishment and i'm not sure when hate speech crosses the line into hate crime. The fact the police are involved at all is a deterrent, even if it's just for show.Racism is disgusting, vile and scummy. People who feel/act/verbalize it should be embarrassed, maybe publicly shamed.
But why is it that we should take away free speech?
And I hope that the number and it's use will be encouraged more in signage around the park and on video displays.That option has been there at Fenway for years. I'm guessing that's true of most other parks. The change based on this incident, hopefully, will be that more people will be apt to use it.
What is "hate speech" and why is it not protected by the First Amendment?Hate speech is not the same as free speech.
It's not just Boston and it's not just sports. Have you ever watched Fox News or read Breitbart, the unofficial official website of the Trump administration?My husband is a huge Pats fan and likes to turn on WEEI on his walks. But he can't stand the morning show, for its only slightly veiled anti-women and anti-minorities tone. It's really embarrassing that these guys flourish in Boston.
It's on the bottom of hard single tickets in bold (back)And I hope that the number and it's use will be encouraged more in signage around the park and on video displays.
I haven't seen a ticket this year - does anyone know if there is anything on the ticket itself that provides the number for security staff? That would ensure that everyone would have access to it under any circumstances (would be trivial to include it on e-tickets and the like as well).
JTB I disagree totally with your premise. Do you live in Boston? I do not equate the WEEI moron with any practical human with a brain. In my mind, they are a very small minority of Mass state residents. Where do you get your claims of a vast over whelming majority of fans that supported the racist viewpoint. How bout some evidence to back up your claims pal? The Governor, Major and most media types obviously backed Jones. Stop with your unbacked claims and let"s see some evidence. I would say that the vast majority of Mass residents and Sox fans do not support racism but I guess you think Massachusetts in 2017 is just like the South in 1861.I said: "a large part"
You said: "not an overwhelming majority"
Ok.
Boston deserves the lumps it's getting. There is no "second issue," as TS wants to describe it.
I'll answer your question when you show me where I "claimed" this.Where do you get your claims of a vast over whelming majority of fans that supported the racist viewpoint.
I was crystal clear right out of the gate. Your post is actually a nice example of how right it is.I would say that the vast majority of Mass residents and Sox fans do not support racism but I guess you think Massachusetts in 2017 is just like the South in 1861.
No one is saying that the average MA resident is a full fledged Klan member. But the above sort of represents a couple problems. Before I go any further, I'm not attacking you, just giving you a different perspective.I do not equate the WEEI moron with any practical human with a brain. In my mind, they are a very small minority of Mass state residents.
I would say that the vast majority of Mass residents and Sox fans do not support racism but I guess you think Massachusetts in 2017 is just like the South in 1861.
My only argument here is why you think it's so weird. It's basic tribalism -- people on your side are never as bad as other people think, but people on the other side are always way worse. That's true here, true pretty much everywhere.There is absolutely a weird thing going on with MA residents when it comes to race relations. And the above quote sort of encapsulates it. No, MA isn't 1861 Mississippi. It is probably better in many ways than 2017 Mississippi. But for some reason (demographics are probably a large part of it) whenever racial issues arise, there seems to be a desire to act as if the enlightened, liberal Commonwealth is beyond reproach. We dismiss, or at least downplay, the various accounts of people like Bill Russell, and claim that those issues disappeared when Yawkey died, or Southie was gentrified. This weird desire to not own what is a very real issue for people that don't quite see things the same way you do are kind of summed up by your final sentence. Sure, we're not as bad as the 1861 South. Who is?
.
I agree with the definition of hate speech as "Racial slurs and epithets or other harsh language that has no purpose other than to injure and marginalize other people or groups."What is "hate speech" and why is it not protected by the First Amendment?
This is not theory or opinion, it's a settled area of law. Hate speech short of an actual threat is protected by the 1st Amendment.I agree with the definition of hate speech as "Racial slurs and epithets or other harsh language that has no purpose other than to injure and marginalize other people or groups."
The argument for not covering it with the First Amendment is similar to why we can ban other potentially injurious speech, such as personal threats or yelling "fire" in a theater.
If you want more detail than that, though, I'll probably have to refer you to people much smarter than me. They're also the source for my definition of hate speech. I got it from Delgado and & Stefancic's Critical Race Theory.
This argument says if we as Bostonians, Red Sox fans, or any other grouping don't drop to our knees and begin self-flagellation when the word race is mentioned that we are deniers at best or simply just racist. There is no room for anything but acceptance that we as a group are guilty - no matter what. Someone says there are 3 disgusting racists in our midst we are guilty. Someone says 10 percent in our midst - we are guilty. Someone says a large minority are racist - we are guilty. Someone says all you guys are merely hiding it - whelp you are guilty. At no point are we allowed to protest, we are just guilty.No one is saying that the average MA resident is a full fledged Klan member. But the above sort of represents a couple problems. Before I go any further, I'm not attacking you, just giving you a different perspective.
There is absolutely a weird thing going on with MA residents when it comes to race relations. And the above quote sort of encapsulates it. No, MA isn't 1861 Mississippi. It is probably better in many ways than 2017 Mississippi. But for some reason (demographics are probably a large part of it) whenever racial issues arise, there seems to be a desire to act as if the enlightened, liberal Commonwealth is beyond reproach. We dismiss, or at least downplay, the various accounts of people like Bill Russell, and claim that those issues disappeared when Yawkey died, or Southie was gentrified. This weird desire to not own what is a very real issue for people that don't quite see things the same way you do are kind of summed up by your final sentence. Sure, we're not as bad as the 1861 South. Who is?
I've harped on WEEI in this thread and in another one. I genuinely don't think people realize how bad a vocal and large enough segment sounds on this issue. And that's not you, but using the 1861 South as measuring stick is exactly what they did on WEEI.
Thank you for the info - I didn't know that obviously.It's on the bottom of hard single tickets in bold (back)
Just posted this too. Please post a link to this.... I can't stand Curt Schilling and I would gladly remove the '04 and '07 trophies to have that shit stain of a human being removed from the history of the Red Sox. Pedro should stand up to this shit.I don't want to shock anyone, but Schilling is on record calling Jones a liar.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/curt-schilling-doubles-orioles-adam-jones-lying-article-1.3136600?utm_content=bufferc2d49&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDNSports+Twitter
Pedro has a charity event this weekend at Fenway and Schilling was listed as one of the guests. I sent the organizers the link to the story and asked if his invitation could be reconsidered.
I assume you know this, but "critical race theory" is far removed from the mainstream. I don't know anything about Delgado and Stefancic specifically, but anyone who embraces the CRT label isn't likely to be someone you should cite to persuade people who don't already agree with you.I agree with the definition of hate speech as "Racial slurs and epithets or other harsh language that has no purpose other than to injure and marginalize other people or groups."
The argument for not covering it with the First Amendment is similar to why we can ban other potentially injurious speech, such as personal threats or yelling "fire" in a theater.
If you want more detail than that, though, I'll probably have to refer you to people much smarter than me. They're also the source for my definition of hate speech. I got it from Delgado and & Stefancic's Critical Race Theory.
Nobody is labeling teachers and medical professionals as racist.---
Edit: Sorry for the rant. But this topic is killing me. I know so many proud Bostonians of every ethnicity who do small, medium, and large things to improve the quality of life here in the city every day. From teachers who have turned down larger salaries to teach in city schools, to police who have stayed to work in the city, to social workers, to ESL teachers, to medical professions who are here in the city when they could make more elsewhere, to volunteers who clean public spaces. All trying to make a difference however small any way they can. And it sucks to hear people label those good people and the city they call home (ugly warts and all) this way.
I tell my son this all the time. Free speech is not devoid of consequences - it is devoid of legal consequences/jail time.My experience is that some people confuse first amendment free speech rights with the idea that you should be able to say anything (with the exception of threats) and have there be no consequences. But because the constitution allows free speech doesn't mean the private sector can't impose consequences like losing your on-air job or being banned from Fenway. (see Don Imus in regards to the Rutgers women basketball team ... Imus' show being cancelled really pissed off a friend of mine who kept citing free speech and wouldn't listen to anybody trying to explain the difference.)
Individually, no. But they are being smeared with the same brush. Their good works and sacrifices in the name of community are being covered with the detritus of the situation in the rush to brand the whole with these (and any labels).Nobody is labeling teachers and medical professionals as racist.
There has been no city in the country that has been more in the limelight than Boston over the past 10-15 years. Through sports, Hollywood, tragedy, etc..., Boston is omnipresent. That's not to say it's undeserved, or unearned. Everyone knows that Boston is a historic city with lots of great things about it. I've never known anyone who visits Boston and doesn't come back saying nice things. But boy, is the rest of the country sick of hearing about how great Boston is. That's the price you pay for all the positive attention.
So when something legitimately bad happens in Boston, and Boston experiences the downside of that out-sized exposure, and there's a vocal minority reacting like "Hey, this could have happened anywhere! Leave us alone!" and, worse, "Hey, that would never happen in BOSTON!" of course other people are going to piss on Boston for it, because those reactions (even if not shared by everyone) confirm the suspicions of a lot of people that maybe people from Boston think they are better than us. Like Bostonians believe their own press. Like maybe all the New York fans who tell us all the time "Dude, Bro, Boston fans are the WORST!" have a point.
Because a racist taunt could happen in any city, and probably does from time to time. That much is absolutely true. Even in Boston. There's nothing super-special about people who live in Boston, but sometimes it seems like the people who live there think there really might be. And that's mostly due to the media coverage, obviously. But that's the downside of being the in the spotlight for a decade: you get overly praised, and you get overly criticized. And when people welcome the former and then kick and scream at the first sign of the latter, it wreaks of a lack of self-awareness.
They're members of a community and stakeholders in it. If we don't like our city's reputation, it's up to us to work to change it. You may think it's unfair, but we're all responsible for each other, even the worst among us.Individually, no. But they are being smeared with the same brush. Their good works and sacrifices in the name of community are being covered with the detritus of the situation in the rush to brand the whole with these (and any labels).
Your response is to me a reasonable take on what I've said, and I get your point. It's probably more balanced than my post deserved. I guess in the end I just see the people affected in this conversation (the racism receivers and those dirtied by it in collateral damage) as more than a collection of labels. I want them all to be able to be judged on their actions, and not some label that paints them as something they are not. I don't want people of color judged by the label of their skin, and I don't want those proud of their home towns judged by the label of their group. Too much to ask I guess.
Thank you again for your reasoned response.
If that brush is "Hey, there are some racist people in Boston." then, yes they are. Rightfully so. Because there are! There are racist people everywhere! I live in Minneapolis; there are racists here! When people say "Hey, there are some racist fucks in/around the Twin Cities!" people go "Yup. Sucks. Fuck those assholes." and people move on and try to fix it where we can. We don't go "Well, hey, it's not fair to label my neighborhood as racist! We have lots of nice people! I really hate how you're implying that my wife is a racist! Yes, there were American Indians unjustly executed here in the Civil War but that was a long time ago!" If someone reacted that way, they'd get laughed out of the room.Individually, no. But they are being smeared with the same brush. Their good works and sacrifices in the name of community are being covered with the detritus of the situation in the rush to brand the whole with these (and any labels).
.
There is some nuance here, if anyone cares. You actually can be punished for hate speech, just not directly.This is not theory or opinion, it's a settled area of law. Hate speech short of an actual threat is protected by the 1st Amendment.
You two are talking past each other. The statement he's objecting to is not "There are racist people in Boston" - it's "Boston is a racist city".If that brush is "Hey, there are some racist people in Boston." then, yes they are. Rightfully so. Because there are! There are racist people everywhere! I live in Minneapolis; there are racists here! When people say "Hey, there are some racist fucks in/around the Twin Cities!" people go "Yup. Sucks. Fuck those assholes." and people move on and try to fix it where we can. We don't go "Well, hey, it's not fair to label my neighborhood as racist! We have lots of nice people! I really hate how you're implying that my wife is a racist! Yes, there were American Indians unjustly executed here in the Civil War but that was a long time ago!" If someone reacted that way, they'd get laughed out of the room.
Actually I've never said anything remotely close to "that happened a long time ago, so it's ok". All I've said is that current scum guilty of racism at Fenway are outliers probably in proportion to the density of other undesirable behaviors in any group. Not to excuse any of the behaviors/attitudes, but to take a larger perspective of the situation. Not to deny the existence of racism here or anywhere else. Not to derail any conversation. Not every societal situation calls for the same solution. When I call 911 I hope they ask what the problem is before they dispatch fire, emt AND police.If that brush is "Hey, there are some racist people in Boston." then, yes they are. Rightfully so. Because there are! There are racist people everywhere! I live in Minneapolis; there are racists here! When people say "Hey, there are some racist fucks in/around the Twin Cities!" people go "Yup. Sucks. Fuck those assholes." and people move on and try to fix it where we can. We don't go "Well, hey, it's not fair to label my neighborhood as racist! We have lots of nice people! I really hate how you're implying that my wife is a racist! Yes, there were American Indians unjustly executed here in the Civil War but that was a long time ago!" If someone reacted that way, they'd get laughed out of the room.
But what's going on now with Boston is a feedback cycle where a vocal minority said "No way! Not here!", and that got taken up by the media, and now folks like you (no offense, and you're not alone, look at any sports message board anywhere where this issue is raised) are defensively making what amounts to a simple, really indisputable statement of fact ("Hey, there are some racist people in Boston!") some huge referendum on literally the entire city's attitude toward's race ("It sucks that nurses are now being called racist!" "The busing crisis was a long time ago!"). It's a defensive reaction that makes it seem like many folks in Boston are more worried about Boston's carefully cultivated reputation than you are about dealing with a very real problem. That's what is being projected, whether you mean it to be or not. Nobody gives a shit about your reputation taking a hit if that reputation wasn't deserved in the first place. Boston's a city, not a postcard. It has problems. They all do.
I just wanted to correct the statement that was made above ("hate speech is not free speech"). Everything past that is hypothetical, since no one was punched or threatened, and Fenway is a private facility and the Red Sox organization may restrict speech there far beyond what the 1st Amendment would permit the a government actor to do.There is some nuance here, if anyone cares. You actually can be punished for hate speech, just not directly.
Imagine a statute that makes arson a 10-year felony but racially-motivated arson a 20-year felony. You have a website that expresses your racist views toward a race that was affected by the crime. The evidence can be used to show both that you committed the crime and, more importantly, that you deserve the higher penalty. Its admission is subject to rules of evidence like any other evidence but there is no first amendment problem to having the evidence admitted or used this way. This is true even if it's the only evidence offered to get to the 20-year felony. In other words, you can be punished because of your speech (in a but for way) and even solely because of your speech (in the sense that if you had not made the speech you would have received 10 fewer years since there would be no other evidence). So, it's probably slightly overbroad to say hate speech is protected by the first amendment in the sense that there is not absolute immunity from all government compulsion or punishment for that speech.
Edit: So, to make it less abstract, if the guy who had used the slur on Tuesday had then punched the child (and if Mass has applicable hate crimes legislation) he would likely be subject to a more severe punishment for having made the slur than he would have been if he'd just walked up and punched the child.
This is a big reason why 2013 was so special.Just posted this too. Please post a link to this... I can't stand Curt Schilling and I would gladly remove the '04 and '07 trophies to have that shit stain of a human being removed from the history of the Red Sox.
Just posted this too. Please post a link to this.... I can't stand Curt Schilling and I would gladly remove the '04 and '07 trophies to have that shit stain of a human being removed from the history of the Red Sox. Pedro should stand up to this shit.
Free speech is a bit more complicated than that. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I teach journalism -- including a unit on the First Amendment -- so being pedantic comes naturally. :^)I tell my son this all the time. Free speech is not devoid of consequences - it is devoid of legal consequences/jail time.
It sounds like this topic is reaching you, which is good, but there's one disconnect that is occurring between a couple of the different groups of posters.Edit: Sorry for the rant. But this topic is killing me. I know so many proud Bostonians of every ethnicity who do small, medium, and large things to improve the quality of life here in the city every day. From teachers who have turned down larger salaries to teach in city schools, to police who have stayed to work in the city, to social workers, to ESL teachers, to medical professions who are here in the city when they could make more elsewhere, to volunteers who clean public spaces. All trying to make a difference however small any way they can. And it sucks to hear people label those good people and the city they call home (ugly warts and all) this way.
Free speech is a bit more complicated than that. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I teach journalism -- including a unit on the First Amendment -- so being pedantic comes naturally. :^)
The First Amendment does not protect you from the legal consequences/jail time of your speech. It prevents the government from pre-censoring the press (now construed to include all media) and individual people's speech (now construed to include a variety of expression.)
For example, although the federal government can't legally prevent the New York Times from publishing secret government information, it can charge the New York Times, its reporters and editors, with a crime after the information has been published. If they're found guilty of violating the law, they'll go to prison and/or pay fines.
And although the government can't prevent you from from calling Joe Blow a dirty, rotten, so-and-so who trips blind people, strangles puppies and urinates in public pools, Mr. Blow can sue you for slander or libel after you've said or written it. And if Mr. Blow's lawyer can convince a jury that you have defamed him, you'll be ordered by the government to pay Mr. Blow some money.
There are any number of ways your "free speech" can lead to lead to legal consequences, including prison time.
I accept both statements in the helpful manner intended and just say I've tried to communicate to him that there are always potential consequences to speech, and just because you can does not mean one should.I don't think that's right at all. I'm pretty sure the government could enjoin publication of state secrets. Plus, according to your theory, the government can't legally prevent people from doing murder, it can only charge them with crimes after the fact.
My argument is that hate speech is not the same thing as free speech, nor does it automatically qualify as free speech. As you and others point out, one situation where it does not automatically qualify as free speech is when it is done in a private facility.I just wanted to correct the statement that was made above ("hate speech is not free speech"). Everything past that is hypothetical, since no one was punched or threatened, and Fenway is a private facility and the Red Sox organization may restrict speech there far beyond what the 1st Amendment would permit the a government actor to do.
Yes. It can. Or it can try to. But the legal standard set by the USSC in the Pentagon Papers case is very high. (New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971.) Of course, the Supreme Court could lower the standard.I don't think that's right at all. I'm pretty sure the government could enjoin publication of state secrets. Plus, according to your theory, the government can't legally prevent people from doing murder, it can only charge them with crimes after the fact.
Nothing "qualifies as free speech" in a private facility.My argument is that hate speech is not the same thing as free speech, nor does it automatically qualify as free speech. As you and others point out, one situation where it does not automatically qualify as free speech is when it is done in a private facility.
In college I was walking arm in arm near the Hynes Convention center with a good friend - the most beautiful black woman I've ever met in person. A car stopped along side us and 4 black men proceeded to give us an earful of racist filth complete with interracial components, etc. She gave them a colorful response in return making clear their ignorance and disgusting attitudes. It was amusing to see their jaws drop and backpedal before racing away in thir car. I learned a few words that day and still find her perspective on race and relationships to be accurate many years later.It sounds like this topic is reaching you, which is good, but there's one disconnect that is occurring between a couple of the different groups of posters.
Boston has a wide reputation (I'm not going to get in a debate of whether it's well-deserved or not, that really isn't the point) of being racist. That reputation has coalesced particularly over the last decades not because of people using the "N word" in public settings but because groups of people, when talking amongst themselves, have found that they have experienced common experiences, such as being followed in department stores, being stopped by the police, having nasty comments made to them if on an interracial date, not having cabs stop for them, etc. etc. etc. I'm not saying that these things couldn't happen just because mean people are doing mean things to other people, but when a group of people find that everyone in their group has these common experiences, they start to jump to conclusions. Rightly or wrongly.
And as I said before, reputations are hard to drop.
I haven't lived in Boston in years so maybe people are correct that things have changed drastically. But Boston's reputation will only change when people stop sharing these types of stories and people start saying, "Oh I love Boston and Boston has been nothing but welcoming to me."
The incident with Adam Jones doesn't help that. For a lot of us, this isn't a one-off incident; it's just a re-affirmation of things that have occurred in the past. And that's why it doesn't help to say, "Well it couldn't have happened in any city."
And frankly, the problem in Boston is that I would guess a lot of people couldn't care less who gets followed in department stores; who gets stopped for no reason at all; or whatever other inconvenience happens to people just because of the color of their skin.
I hope this all makes sense to you.
Don't take this the wrong way, but: your experience isn't comparable to a black person being the target of racist comments/actions. And the fact that you think it is, is part of the problem.In college I was walking arm in arm near the Hynes Convention center with a good friend - the most beautiful black woman I've ever met in person. A car stopped along side us and 4 black men proceeded to give us an earful of racist filth complete with interracial components, etc. She gave them a colorful response in return making clear their ignorance and disgusting attitudes. It was amusing to see their jaws drop and backpedal before racing away in thir car. I learned a few words that day and still find her perspective on race and relationships to be accurate many years later.
I get what you are saying. I've been on the receiving end (edit: of an extremely small amount of racism). I can't offer any perspective on the volume or frequency except the conversations over my lifetime have included fewer and fewer of these examples. I'm also not stupid enough to think my exposure is representative of anyone elses.
I think many people in my exposure have said Boston has welcomed them... but until it's uniformly felt by all who live here as well as those visiting there is more to be done - but I don't see many denying that truth here.
Oversimplifying a direct response to someone else in order to point a finger is a bit on the low end. But if you are now saying white people don't count in any discussion on racism because we don't know what it's like to be black then welcome to the other side of the street - by the terms of this thread you would now appear to be a denier of racism. Remember we aren't allowed to ask how much - only to accept all racism on its face. Or isn't that the message being communicated?Don't take this the wrong way, but: your experience isn't comparable to a black person being the target of racist comments/actions. And the fact that you think it is, is part of the problem.
I'm also not sure why your friend's physical appearance, aside from her being black, is even relevant to the story.
His point still stands, though—what does any of this have to do with your anecdote?I never said she was physically beautiful. That was your jump because you're judging me. She was a engineering double major, a campus leader, a thoughtful daughter, gifted piano player, kicked my ass in chess, diplomatic in most every situation, extraordinary kindness and compassion to others, and the ability to put someone in their place when they needed it. Simply the most beautiful black person I've ever met in my life. I'm sorry if you are seeing things that aren't there.
The implication is that her being beautiful made her somehow worthy of landing a white dude, which is what set off the reverse racism, apparently?[
His point still stands, though—what does any of this have to do with your anecdote?