[Cody Dawg]

Making fun of tsunami victims. Disgusting.

"You can hear God laughing, 'Swim you bitches swim,'" was one line in the song.

WQHT's program director and deejay Tarsha Nicole Jones, who uses the on-air name Miss Jones, apologized on the program and said the segment should not have been broadcast.

It should not have been broadcast?

Why was the song even created in the first place?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Niiiice.

[Daracle]

I just heard about this and have sent off an email expressing my concern.

I dont think these people should have a raido show.
International opinion on this would maybe give them the idea that this is sick

Here is some info aswell as sponsor email

[pathogen]

Expressing your concern is well and good.

But while you're at it, support public television, too. Anything to help present more people a less ethnocentric, xenophobic vision of their planet.

[mitchell_pgh]

On par with laughing at kids that fall down wells.

[jnrjr79]

This kind of stuff you've got to be willing to put up with if you have any desire to keep that whole constitution thingee around.

[Moderator]

Originally posted by jnrjr79:
This kind of stuff you've got to be willing to put up with if you have any desire to keep that whole constitution thingee around.

i agree, people are ****ed up, people are sick, people lack taste.....this surprises you?

[Superchicken]

If you have a constitution that allows this sort of thing, then you need to revise it. People treat the US constitution as if it was some thing handed down at Sinai, actually they hold it above the Bible or anything else. This was a creation of man that has flaws, this shows one of them.

[brapper]

that's pathetic.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
If you have a constitution that allows this sort of thing, then you need to revise it. People treat the US constitution as if it was some thing handed down at Sinai, actually they hold it above the Bible or anything else. This was a creation of man that has flaws, this shows one of them.

So...I take it you're against freedom of speech?

[jnrjr79]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
If you have a constitution that allows this sort of thing, then you need to revise it. People treat the US constitution as if it was some thing handed down at Sinai, actually they hold it above the Bible or anything else. This was a creation of man that has flaws, this shows one of them.

I do agree that there is an unfair "cult of the constitution" that exists more or less believing that the US constitution is perfect. I mean hell, the document actually said black people counted as 3/5 of a white person. Nuts.

However, I think you're dead wrong in the need to revise it on this point. I would defend my fellow citizens' rights to be offensive, distasteful, and even hateful morons to my dying breath. I never want to criminalize thoughts but only actions. I would hate to live in a place where I didn't feel free to think freely. Also, when you have racist idiots, sometimes I think it's better when you know who they are b/c they feel free to speak. Once you start doing otherwise I think you really run the risk of quickly falling into a distopic society.

I do recognize that lots of other people disagree with that. Other nations which some people find far more progressive than the US think very little of censoring speech/thought regularly. I think that's dangerous, but it's a cultural difference that exists nonetheless.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
If you have a religion that allows this sort of thing, then you need to revise it. People treat this religion as if it was some thing handed down at Sinai, actually they hold it above the Bible or anything else. Religion was a creation of man that has flaws, this shows one of them.

Fixed.

[Mafia]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
On par with laughing at kids that fall down wells.

lol... oh my bad

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

So how long do we have to wait before 9/11 and the Tsunami are funny.

Because eventually you know it will be.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
So how long do we have to wait before 9/11 and the Tsunami are funny.

Because eventually you know it will be.

That was lamer than FDR's legs.
*gasps*
What? Too soon?

[TubaMuffins]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
So how long do we have to wait before 9/11 and the Tsunami are funny.

Because eventually you know it will be.

I think South Park said it's an average of 22.33 years, someone can correct me on that though.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
If you have a constitution that allows this sort of thing, then you need to revise it. People treat the US constitution as if it was some thing handed down at Sinai, actually they hold it above the Bible or anything else. This was a creation of man that has flaws, this shows one of them.

Stay in Canada.

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
So how long do we have to wait before 9/11 and the Tsunami are funny.

Because eventually you know it will be.

I've already managed to laugh at 9/11. (I'm ahead of my time.)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by jnrjr79:
I do agree that there is an unfair "cult of the constitution" that exists more or less believing that the US constitution is perfect. I mean hell, the document actually said black people counted as 3/5 of a white person. Nuts.

People always take the 3/5ths clause out of context, and never own up to what the (far worse) alternative would have been. The south wanted slaves fully counted in order to count greater population and therefore have more representatives- the north didn’t want slaves counted as population at all since they had no vote. 3/5ths was reached as a compromise.

People that rail against this from a modern day P.C. viewpoint always ignore the obvious- counting each slave entirely would have given the southern slave states THAT MUCH MORE POWER!

The worst irony of that, is that the slaves themselves would have been screwed even more (and there would have been more incentive to have even more slaves, and slave-owning states) but for the ridiculous modern P.C. notion that “Hey, at least the constitution would have said a slave was a whole person!” Guess that would have been good for slave self-esteem or something, even while their slave masters counted them merely to gain more political power over the rest of the nation, and enslave even more people?

The reasoning behind 3/5ths was the unfortunate political reality of the day, and actually not really a straight judgment call on what percentage of a white person a black person was, but a census compromise.

[pathogen]

Somehow I got the impression you just jumped to the conclusion that the north wanted to abolish slavery because they didn't want male slaves to be counted in the voting population.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But that is the most pessimistic fud I've heard come from a U.S. citizen who's been to school above the age of 18, since, well, since the inauguration.

[Cody Dawg]

However, I think you're dead wrong in the need to revise it on this point. I would defend my fellow citizens' rights to be offensive, distasteful, and even hateful morons to my dying breath. I never want to criminalize thoughts but only actions. I would hate to live in a place where I didn't feel free to think freely.

Yeah, okay.

Go stand on a street corner and yell, really loud, three times:

"I want to kill the president."

See how fast you get locked up.

People think "free speech" means that they can say ANYTHING that they want. They're wrong.

This thread almost needs to go into the Political Lounge now.

[DeathToWindows]

Originally posted by jnrjr79:
I do agree that there is an unfair "cult of the constitution" that exists more or less believing that the US constitution is perfect. I mean hell, the document actually said black people counted as 3/5 of a white person. Nuts.

However, I think you're dead wrong in the need to revise it on this point. I would defend my fellow citizens' rights to be offensive, distasteful, and even hateful morons to my dying breath. I never want to criminalize thoughts but only actions. I would hate to live in a place where I didn't feel free to think freely. Also, when you have racist idiots, sometimes I think it's better when you know who they are b/c they feel free to speak. Once you start doing otherwise I think you really run the risk of quickly falling into a distopic society.

I do recognize that lots of other people disagree with that. Other nations which some people find far more progressive than the US think very little of censoring speech/thought regularly. I think that's dangerous, but it's a cultural difference that exists nonetheless.

Right on. To quote voltaire:

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

[awcopus]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
If you have a constitution that allows this sort of thing, then you need to revise it. People treat the US constitution as if it was some thing handed down at Sinai, actually they hold it above the Bible or anything else. This was a creation of man that has flaws, this shows one of them.

The people who said this stuff are paying a price. They are being outed as barbarians, they are being humiliated publicly and ultimately shamed. Free people are protesting and boycotting and civilization is responding as it should.

What was said was tasteless, and certainly offensive. But it was not slander or libel or fraudulent. And, interestingly, in light of the fact that many people have wondered how an omnipotent and omniscient and omni-benevolent deity could allow this sort of thing, I would actually say that the line about "hearing" God say "swim you bitches, swim" is almost satire, except that the people saying it are clearly not that sophisticated.

Sorry, Superchicken, but we're allowed to say anything we want about God no matter how personally you or others take it. And not because of the First Amendment, though that helps. We're able to do this because we're free, born free. You don't have the right to tell me or others what subjects we can't think about or talk about because of your beliefs. Period.

I love your logo, man, but the idea of you having any role in shaping public policy reform should nauseate anyone who takes freedom seriously.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
People always take the 3/5ths clause out of context, and never own up to what the (far worse) alternative would have been. The south wanted slaves fully counted in order to count greater population and therefore have more representatives- the north didn’t want slaves counted as population at all since they had no vote. 3/5ths was reached as a compromise.

People that rail against this from a modern day P.C. viewpoint always ignore the obvious- counting each slave entirely would have given the southern slave states THAT MUCH MORE POWER!

The worst irony of that, is that the slaves themselves would have been screwed even more (and there would have been more incentive to have even more slaves, and slave-owning states) but for the ridiculous modern P.C. notion that “Hey, at least the constitution would have said a slave was a whole person!” Guess that would have been good for slave self-esteem or something, even while their slave masters counted them merely to gain more political power over the rest of the nation, and enslave even more people?

The reasoning behind 3/5ths was the unfortunate political reality of the day, and actually not really a straight judgment call on what percentage of a white person a black person was, but a census compromise.

Well said.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Yeah, okay.

Go stand on a street corner and yell, really loud, three times:

"I want to kill the president."

See how fast you get locked up.

People think "free speech" means that they can say ANYTHING that they want. They're wrong.

Oh really? So who decides what we can say and what we can't say? I agree that in the current political climate, you're absolutely right that saying in public "I want to kill the president" could get you locked up, but is that right? Is it Constitutional? Absolutely not. Until you've gone far enough to be successfully prosecuted for attempted murder (or conspiracy to commit murder?) you should not get in any trouble for saying that. Free speech is free speech, no matter who disagrees with it (excluding threats, libel, etc.).

Originally posted by Superchicken:
If you have a constitution that allows this sort of thing, then you need to revise it. People treat the US constitution as if it was some thing handed down at Sinai, actually they hold it above the Bible or anything else. This was a creation of man that has flaws, this shows one of them.

I enjoy having you on ignore, but when people quote you and I see you saying things like this, I can't help but respond.

You are absolutely out of your mind. Handed down at Sinai? The whole point of law is that it's made by man, ideally on the basis of reason. That's completely opposite to your baseless religious dogma bullshît. Of course the Constitution is more important than some book written by power-hungry cultists thousands of years ago.

I am so glad that you cannot vote in the US. We don't need more of you religious fanatics pushing your morality on us. You can't even see the value in something like a consitution that protects free speech? You need to take off your blinders and step into the real world.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by wataru:
Oh really? So who decides what we can say and what we can't say? I agree that in the current political climate, you're absolutely right that saying in public "I want to kill the president" could get you locked up, but is that right? Is it Constitutional? Absolutely not. Until you've gone far enough to be successfully prosecuted for attempted murder (or conspiracy to commit murder?) you should not get in any trouble for saying that. Free speech is free speech, no matter who disagrees with it (excluding threats, libel, etc.).
I enjoy having you on ignore, but when people quote you and I see you saying things like this, I can't help but respond.

You're wrong, it has nothing to do with the "political climate". At any point in US history, if you were to stand on a city street corner and yell that phrase, you'd be arrested (or in the case of the late 18th century, would probably have been shot). It's just common sense, ask Ca$h.

[wataru]

So? That doesn't make it right.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by wataru:
Oh really? So who decides what we can say and what we can't say? I agree that in the current political climate, you're absolutely right that saying in public "I want to kill the president" could get you locked up, but is that right? Is it Constitutional? Absolutely not. Until you've gone far enough to be successfully prosecuted for attempted murder (or conspiracy to commit murder?) you should not get in any trouble for saying that. Free speech is free speech, no matter who disagrees with it (excluding threats, libel, etc.).
I enjoy having you on ignore, but when people quote you and I see you saying things like this, I can't help but respond.

Saying you were going to kill the president would get you a visit from the Secret Service long before anyone ever thought of the current political climate. Ca$h got questioned because of a comment he made on these forums about Al Gore. There's a guy in my town that was arrested (and subsequently acquitted at trial, although he now openly admits that he did do it and tried to blame it on his ex-wife's new husband) for threatening President Ford.

[wataru]

Originally posted by wataru:
So? That doesn't make it right.

Besides, anyone talking openly about killing the president is probably the last person that'll succeed at it.

[wdlove]

They will have to live with what they have done. I made a donation. Also pray for them more than daily.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by wataru:
So? That doesn't make it right.

Yes, yes it does. You don't threaten the president, it's just that simple. I didn't like Bubba, but I sure as hell didn't run to the corner and start screaming that he should be killed. That's just stupid.

[wataru]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, yes it does. You don't threaten the president, it's just that simple.

Oh really? What else is so simple that it doesn't need justification? I'd really like to see a list, if possible.

If I'm frustrated with Dubya and I say I want to kill him, that's my right. Actually trying to kill him is an entirely different story.

[Cody Dawg]

Saying you were going to kill the president would get you a visit from the Secret Service long before anyone ever thought of the current political climate. Ca$h got questioned because of a comment he made on these forums about Al Gore. There's a guy in my town that was arrested (and subsequently acquitted at trial, although he now openly admits that he did do it and tried to blame it on his ex-wife's new husband) for threatening President Ford.

ATTENTION: TO ANY SECRET SERVICE INDIVIDUALS: I ONLY MADE MY COMMENT AS A POINT OF DEBATE AND NOT ACTUALIZATION AND MADE IT IN THE SPIRIT OF STATING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD *NOT* MAKE THREATS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. I AM A TAX PAYING LAW ABIDING CONSERVATIVE CITIZEN.

[Cody Dawg]

wataru said
If I'm frustrated with Dubya and I say I want to kill him, that's my right.

Are you sure you mean that? REALLY sure?

[wataru]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:


Are you sure you mean that? REALLY sure?

Yes, I mean that I should be able to say that I want to kill someone. Like I said, saying that and actually doing (or attempting or planning to do) that are completely different things.

As of right now, however, I recognize Dubya's right to exist. Therefore, I do not at this point wish to kill him.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by pathogen:
Somehow I got the impression you just jumped to the conclusion that the north wanted to abolish slavery because they didn't want male slaves to be counted in the voting population.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But that is the most pessimistic fud I've heard come from a U.S. citizen who's been to school above the age of 18, since, well, since the inauguration.

Say what?

The 3/5ths clause has virtually nothing to do with abolishing slavery, and certainly nothing to do with slaves as 'voting population'. It has to do with slaves being counted as population in order to give the south more Representatives and therefore a great deal more power in congress- a situation that most certainly would have done nothing good for any slave.

If you don't know what the 3/5ths clause is all about, and can't be bothered to look it up for yourself, don't blame me- and certainly don't think you have much room to talk about who's been to school and who hasn't.

[ThinkInsane]

Let's get something cleared up. You don't get arrested for making an off the cuff comment about killing the president. You will probably get investigated to see if it is a valid threat. They show up, they fill out a 15 page questionnaire, and more often than not go on there way with no charges filed. Working in mental health, I've seen it happen on several occasions.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by wataru:
Oh really? What else is so simple that it doesn't need justification? I'd really like to see a list, if possible.

If I'm frustrated with Dubya and I say I want to kill him, that's my right. Actually trying to kill him is an entirely different story.

You can say whatever you like, however, some things that are said have repercussions. As long as you feel like dealing with them, go right ahead.

[wataru]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You can say whatever you like, however, some things that are said have repercussions. As long as you feel like dealing with them, go right ahead.

Good, I'm glad we agree. But that's a far cry from some of the posts in this thread, saying things like "there are some things you can't say," implying that it's against the law or something.

[Cody Dawg]

Trying doing this and see what happens:

1. Go to an airport.

2. Go to the security checkpoint and stand, oh, about five feet away from the security people.

3. Yell "BOMB! BOMB! BOMB!" three times.

Then come back and talk to us about freedom of speech.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by wataru:
Good, I'm glad we agree. But that's a far cry from some of the posts in this thread, saying things like "there are some things you can't say," implying that it's against the law or something.

So, in your opinion, it's ok for me to say... call the cops in your town, and the local newspaper too, and tell them that you are having and video taping sex with minors. Sure, you can clear your name later from this slander, although people will remember the accusation long after they forget they were found baseless. I mean, that's my right to free speech, is it not? I can slander whom ever I choose with no fear of repercussion, right? I can make sexual innuendo to my female coworkers, because it's my right as an American, right?

You can say anything you want, as long as you are wiling to accept the repercussions of those statements.

[Cody Dawg]

Good point, ThinkInsane.

Last year my son's band teacher was accused of "inappropriate touching" by two fifth grade girls.

Turns out that he was showing them how to hold their hands on their clarinet and flute, respectively. He did so by putting his arms around them from behind to demonstrate the correct positions. The girls both said they thought he was trying to hug them - from behind.

He did nothing wrong.

But, it hit the news and everyone was in shock and now he's been absolved of any wrongdoing, but the taint still remains. Mention his name in conversation and you're likely to hear, "Wasn't he the band teacher that..."



The truth is that he is a happily married man who did nothing wrong.

You CANNOT simply say whatever you want in this country. That's one of the points of this thread.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
So, in your opinion, it's ok for me to say... call the cops in your town, and the local newspaper too, and tell them that you are having and video taping sex with minors. Sure, you can clear your name later from this slander, although people will remember the accusation long after they forget they were found baseless. I mean, that's my right to free speech, is it not? I can slander whom ever I choose with no fear of repercussion, right? I can make sexual innuendo to my female coworkers, because it's my right as an American, right?

You can say anything you want, as long as you are wiling to accept the repercussions of those statements.

Has anybody suggested that slander (which is basically a form of assault — it has actual material consequences just the same) should be counted as a free speech right? That's totally different from saying something a bit offensive or expressing hatred toward someone.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Has anybody suggested that slander (which is basically a form of assault — it has actual material consequences just the same) should be counted as a free speech right? That's totally different from saying something a bit offensive or expressing hatred toward someone.

He's not expressing hatred, he's saying it should be his right to make a threat against a persons life, because he has the right to free speech. I'm trying to show that there are many forms of speech that aren't protected.

[MindFad]

God is laughing at this thread.

[Cody Dawg]

Here are some of the lyrics to that disgusting tsunami "song":

All at once you could hear the screaming ch*nks and no one was safe from the wave there were africans drowning, little chinamen swept away you could hear god laughing, "swim you b*tches swim"

So now you're screwed, it's the Tsunami
you better run or kiss your ass away, go find your mommy
I just saw her float by, a tree went through her head
and now the children will be sold to child slavery...

So, it's okay to say or "sing" those things?

Then it must be okay to visit Hot97 radio station's website and email the person who played these lyrics at missjones@missjones.net and visit her lame website, but note that her "forums" are disabled.

Wonder why?

No doubt from the hate mail she is receiving.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
So, it's okay to say or "sing" those things?

Yes.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
He's not expressing hatred, he's saying it should be his right to make a threat against a persons life, because he has the right to free speech. I'm trying to show that there are many forms of speech that aren't protected.

Exactly. If I were to say that Ted Kennedy is a scum-sucking, alcoholic, *********, then that would be my right to do so. However, if I were to declare, "I hate that bugger, and I want to put a bullet in his head", then that would be bad. (Disclaimer: No, I don't want to kill Sen. Kennedy, just making a comparison).

edit: wow, I didn't know douchbag was a "bad word" on MacNN. Learn something new every day.

[Cody Dawg]

Who wants to bet money that "Miss Jones" doesn't have a job relatively soon?

Guess then the people (and radio market) will dictate that it's not "okay" to say - or sing - whatever you want.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Here are some of the lyrics to that disgusting tsunami "song":



So, it's okay to say or "sing" those things?

Then it must be okay to visit Hot97 radio station's website and email the person who played these lyrics at missjones@missjones.net and visit her lame website, but note that her "forums" are disabled.

Wonder why?

No doubt from the hate mail she is receiving.

The point is that it's not a legal issue. It's not okay to say those things, and there are methods in place for citizens to penalize other citizens for their behavior without getting the government involved. Shaming, shunning, protesting, boycotting, picketing... in a free society, we have many ways of addressing bad behavior.

The lyrics are about as bad as the kinds of things that the South Park creators offer up. Depending on your mood, you may or may not find certain things offensive. In a free society, laws aren't based on moods and personal preferences. They're based on individual rights, and we (Americans whose heads aren't lodged way up their behinds, hopefully the majority) consider that the right of the ultimate minority, a single person, to express his views, however extreme, however distasteful, is more valuable than having the government preclude every person from expressing certain kinds of ideas.

Superchicken and other religious nuts take an incredibly ironic stance on this. I may be wrong, but wasn't Christ a lone voice in the wilderness expressing extreme views that were upsetting to his time's majority? And wasn't it a government/social order that refused to tolerate diversity of opinion and felt threatened by his ideas that killed him?

No, I am not equating Christ's teachings with the disturbing lyrics above. I am drawing an analogy between them only because what we want to avoid is letting the government gain the power to persecute people based on their ideas. Which is why it's great to have our secular Bill of Rights.

As an atheist, I sort of wish that Christ had lived in a more enlightened society where his views would have been controversial and debated, but not turned into a basis for his persecution and murder. Shame on them, right Superchicken, for being so damned intolerant!?!

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
He's not expressing hatred, he's saying it should be his right to make a threat against a persons life, because he has the right to free speech. I'm trying to show that there are many forms of speech that aren't protected.

However, I explained why slander isn't protected (and lack of protection should be the very rare exception, not the rule). Why should the right to free speech be abridged in the case of saying you want to kill somebody?