Dr. Laura: criticism of me infringes my first amendment rights

drlaura.jpg Dr. Laura Schlessinger is leaving radio to regain her "first amendment" rights on the internet. Welcome to the blogosphere, Dr. Laura! This follows her on-air use of the N-word to suggest that it shouldn't always be taken as a slur.
It's not clear exactly who Schlessinger claims took her free speech away, though she suggests special interest groups are silencing her by pressuring sponsors. Without the ability to earn a living, she said, "I don't have the right to say what I need to say. My first amendment rights have been usurped." Schlessinger's announcement -- and her invocation of a constitutional right to earn a living from her speech -- was made on Larry King Live. In it, King and Schlessinger both indulged the idea that the issue is about whether its OK for black people to use the N-word but not OK for whites. "I thought I was trying to be helpful," she told King. "I thought I was making a philosophical point." Laura believes her use of the term illustrates an important point about semantics: that its offensiveness is rooted in context and history, and that we'll be happier if we look beyond our reactive sensitivitities to better understand our interlocutors' motives. But that "philosphical" point was never really the problem. Context does matter, and the context here was a caller suffering from daily encounters with racial discrimination in her family life. Schlessinger denied the reality of her caller's problem so she could veer off into a rant about political correctness and language. Laura's not quitting because her constitutional rights are under threat, but because she said the N-Word eleven times in an act of childish transgressive spite and can't take the heat. People get the criticism of our racial double-standards, but also get that she used that as a specious excuse to turn a caller's personal problems into an inane tirade about something else entirely. In watching the Larry King Live segment [Gawker TV], however, the most striking thing is how eager Schlessinger is to play the hapless, helpless victim herself. For someone in the business of giving life advice, bathos is clearly the new black.

210

  1. The First Amendment does not say what you think it does, idiot. I am sick of the willful misunderstanding and subsequent misuse of First Amendment protections.

    1. while i agree with most of your comment, the way you use “idiot” here appears to be directed at the author of this article, which i doubt you intended.

    2. You mean the first amendment doesn’t guarantee you the “right” to a multi-million dollar a year radio show? DAMN IT! Now i have to go out and get a job! Thanks a lot, creep.

    1. Dr. Laura is the lady who used to call women sluts all the time, until somebody leaked some slutty photos of her on the Internets.

      What amazes me is that she thinks it’s acceptable to use the N-word on AM talk radio because black people use it on HBO.

  2. The whole idea of a word so offensive that we have to use code to refer to it is the most interesting part of this story. If Dr. Laura had said “N-word” a hundred times on her show, this would not be an issue, regardless of the relative offensiveness of the statement she may have made. You say something racist and use the term “N-word”, well, that’s par for the course. You say something obvious (“black comedians use this word”) but use the actual word when you say it, you’re screwed.

    It’s really bizarre.

    1. I’m surprised Blazing Saddles is still available on DVD and Blu-Ray.

      I think using “the word” as a racial epithet or general insult is totally indefensible and obviously “the word” has a lot of baggage and reminders of slavery and abuse, but I think it’s interesting (and scary) that it has become the most taboo word of all time. You can say the most vile, profane, and scatological phrases you can dream up and you get a laugh, free speech support, and at most an R-rating in a movie. But say “that word” if your skin isn’t the proper shade and you’re ostracized, publicly condemned, and your career is over.

      1. Blazing Saddles is still available because it uses the word in question in order to point out and ridicule the attitudes of Anglo-Saxon-descended people (Privileged, “White”, etcetera) towards people of African descent.

        It simultaneously displays the phony concern for the rights of “others” on the part of the majority and makes it clear that this hypocrisy is not any sort of secret except to the majority, who are in denial of their privilege.

        It inverts the power relationship implied by the word, using it as a lever to outwit the witless majority.

        It’s Coyote, Br’er Rabbit, Raven, and any and all Trickster figure archetypes employed in a commentary on modern-day racial politics and the legacy of racial oppression of the United States.

        That, in stark contrast to Radio Jock (I refuse to give her an honorific) Laura’s incredibly selfish and privileged tantrum over not being allowed to ignore historic and modern racial oppression in the United States.

        1. Well, yes (and I really love the movie for those exact reasons), but it’s still a comedy that gets many of it’s comedic elements from the use of “that word” by the mostly white cast in a movie produced and directed by a white guy (but written, mostly, by Richard Pryor). It also makes fun of gay stereotypes.

          It’s also a movie that I hesitate to show my kids even though I’m long past worrying about any other bad language in films. Having the whole family laughing at an old woman saying “Up yours, (that word)!” makes me uncomfortable.

          The “edited for TV” version of Blazing Saddles is worse, in a way.

          1. “The “edited for TV” version of Blazing Saddles is worse, in a way.”

            Indeed, the beans-and-coffee scene is nearly pointless on TV.

      2. cmpalmer:

        But say “that word” if your skin isn’t the proper shade and you’re ostracized, publicly condemned, and your career is over.

        Well, only if it gets into the papers. It’s used behind closed doors among white people all the time, with zero repercussions because of the “wink wink, we’re all white here, we can’t say this in public but we can say it among ourselves” culture.

        nutbastard:

        also, isn’t it kind of self deprecating that blacks intentionally identify with that word? lets be fair, by the definition, i’ve met more than a handful of ni**ers in my life – however, none of them were black. i’ve used that word to describe my ignorant, untrustworthy, and financially foolish brother, because the shoe fits. (we’re of scottish lineage, FYI)

        Can you see what is racist and hateful about calling someone a name that means “black” when you mean “lazy, ignorant, stupid and untrustworthy”? It implies that those qualities are inherent in being black. It says “Oh, you’re just like a black person — lazy and stupid.”

        As for “blacks intentionally identify[ing] with that word,” there’s something called “reclaiming” that can happen with insults and slurs. People who have the slur thrown at them sometimes say “You know what, I’m going to take that slur and turn it around, make it my own, make it mean something I like.” It’s a way of taking back some power.

        For a milder example, the word “nerd” (or “geek”) used to be an insult meaning that someone was weird and unlikable, because they were too intellectual. But now people use it about themselves to say “I’m proud of being into science/math/computers, because those things are awesome and I have skills.” But if the high school quarterback yells “You fuckin’ geek!” before he punches you and throws you against the lockers, it definitely doesn’t mean “You person with enviable skill at computing!”

        To everyone saying “Oh, just ignore it, it only has power if you let it” — no. Because the person who flings the n-word at you is the same person who will refuse to give you a job because “black people are stupid and lazy,” beat you up or shoot you during a traffic stop, falsely accuse or convict you of a crime because you “look like a criminal,” and generally treat you like dirt because of your skin color. The way our society works, white people who hate black people have real power to enforce that hate in real ways.

        So the word has more power than just an individual insult. It not only means “I hate you,” it means “I don’t even respect you enough to hate you personally. I just hate the entire group you’re part of, because I believe you’re all alike, and all have these bad qualities. You are not even a person to me. You are nothing. And I, and people like me, will make sure you’re treated like nothing.” It’s an insult and a threat.

        1. Caroline, showing an emotional response to a bigot isnt going to change the fact that the bigot wont give Group-X a job. If anything it will certainly reinforce whatever thoughts they hold.

          And what does the n-word mean? That you are black? Um, how the fuck is that offensive?

          Take away race, or any trait people hold bigoted feelings towards, and those feelings will just migrate to something thing. Unattractive people, or just people who are different, are discriminated against all the time, and called hurtful names. Nerd, fatso, dweeb, freak, homo, beatlejuice, wompa wompa, slut, whatever… We’re supposed to somehow say its more wrong to use race to belittle someone than it is some other trait? Seems kinda stupid.

          “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Is what parents try to tell their children, but its a lie. Words hurt. Everyone wants to be accepted and the rejection some of these words bring stings. But by showing your pain you are only giving bullies power over you, and they will continue their onslaught until you break down and cry or do something regrettable that will threaten your freedom.

          We’re all bigots to some degree or another anyways.

          We also cant assume a person holds bigoted feelings about a group just because they make a joke/slur or comment about them. Humans are a bit more complex than that.

          Things we cant ignore… Stereo type/group profiling. Black folks are not the only ones who get pulled over for not looking quite right. Law enforcement love to harass youth of all colors. Long hair? Must have drugs in the car. White in a black neighborhood? Must be trying to score drugs. Dressed in all black? You are just someone to fuck with. By calling oppression a black only experience you insult anyone else who has been chewed up by the machine. Women of all races have traditionally been treat a hell of a lot worse than any single race.

          My group of diverse friends toss around racial slurs at eachother on a regular basis. We find the subject of racism and bigotry pretty amusing because its pretty stupid.

          As my grandfather used to say… It’s all pink inside.

          1. We find the subject of racism and bigotry pretty amusing because its pretty stupid.

            No. You find it amusing because you haven’t been thrown in jail or beaten half to death because of your race. You find it amusing because you’re privileged, shallow and devoid of empathy.

          2. Actually, the n-word has a connotation of “slave.” It was used as a synonym for slave in the antebellum US South (since almost all slaves were black folk, and most black folk were slaves). It no more means *just* “black” than “tard” *just* means “slow (in intellectual development).”

          3. Can a /b/tard call another a /b/tard?

            Or is insulting below the noise on /b/?

            /b/tards want to know.

    2. I think the idea is that we use code out of respect for the people who have had to put up with repression, discrimination, and hatred. It’s your choice whether or not you acknowledge these issues.

      We use “n-word” because you can’t say to someone who took your parking space “you n-word” in the heat of the moment but you can talk about the issue of someone who would use the actual epithet in that same situation.

      I don’t find that a bizarre concept at all. It’s one of the most hate-filled words you can use.

    3. Honestly, way to further the code of conduct that allows her crap to flourish. There are far more racist things in what she said and did in that segment – such as implying black women are consenting to racist conduct from in-laws when they dare to marry a white man – than use the word in the context of simply discussing its meaning.

      She is pretending that’s all that happened, and the media are going right along with it, because ‘white person using the n-word’ is something that can be expressed in a clip as a social taboo regardless of complexity, and ‘no, of course your white in-laws can say it to you and question you on the habits of every black person in the tri-county area and they’re not racist at all’ is something some bigot somewhere actually believes.

  3. Dr. Laura, who seems to take perverse pleasure with verbal abuse to those who call her show, demonstrated she is truly a hate filled individual. Her response to this person, who was going through a hard time with her extended family was to ‘quit being so sensitive’.

    If this wasn’t enough then comes a few other statements, such as when the caller expressed hurt and surprise with Dr. Laura’s rant, she says ‘don’t go all NAACP on me’. Excuse me? What does that got to do with anything? Dr. Laura have problem with uppity blacks??

    Of course Dr. Laura is the victim. Let’s be honest, from the reaction she received, she crossed the line and now people are practicing their first amendment right, not to listen to her and, obviously, her sponsors are practicing their first amendment right not to sponsor her any more.

  4. This broad is insane cubed.
    She was so full of contradictions, it was unreal.
    One of my favorite rants of hers was her insistence that married couples who do not have children are “selfish”.

  5. You know what’s funny? Criticism of how she expresses her first amendment rights is ALSO protected by the first amendment! So :P

  6. Freedom of speech not only means that you have the right to say anything you want anytime you want anywhere you want. It also means you take responsibility for what you say and you deal with the consequences.

    This is true of all freedoms.

  7. It’s funny, I’ve had a pretty extreme aversion to Dr. Laura for much of my life (forced to listen to her show in the car w/ mom as a kid), and I really didn’t think I could dislike her even more. I was wrong!

  8. I think whether she hurt the caller’s feelings is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not she received outside pressure for discussing such a “taboo” topic. Such actions may be legal (and not a violation of the First Amendment) but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    We’ve seen it before, this kind of knee-jerk reaction: he’s discussing race, ban him! She said something that could be construed as racist, ban her! It frightens off reasonable discourse and muddies the waters for real racism. If Dr. Laura, for all her smug platitudes and self-aggrandizement, really is a victim of this, then I support her in this case.

    1. Hey we should all be free to use ugly loaded terms with absolutely no backlash! If what she did was, in actuality, a misguided attempt to discuss race in an ignorant, hurtful manner and she actually, genuinely apologized for her ignorance, things may have turned out differently for her. Instead, she played it like she herself was a victim (and improperly invoked the FIRST AMENDMENT) when, in reality, her sponsors, listeners, and others are refusing to support her disgusting rant. As I see it, the hurt feelings of one person really haven’t entered into it. People are voting with their time and money. Boo hoo, poor ignorant racist doesn’t like the result of exhibiting her ignorant racism.

    2. She acted truly hatefully in an explicitly racist way. This was not a discussion of race, it was a venomous diatribe about black people. People have every right to be offended about that and a right to complain. No one is “banning” Dr Laura. She is quitting because can’t handle people calling her out for who she is. I have no qualms at all for the public reaction against her, and it increases my faith in humanity rather than decreases it.

    3. She claims “special interest groups” put pressure on her sponsors which is what prompted her decision.

      Newsflash: THIS IS PRECISELY HOW THE FREE MARKET IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

      If your money comes from consumption in some form or another (either a direct transaction or ad based revenue dependant on the number of impressions) then when people don’t like you, they will stop consuming. Sometimes they will even make a big stink about it! And then your money goes bye-bye!

      If there was a big market for this kind of racist baloney (and apparently there is, hence the popularity of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, etc.) then really the problem is that she hasn’t figured out who her market is. It’s HER failure.

      And people exercising their right to free speech to shut down her stupid racist bile are not actually infringing on her rights. She can still stand on the street corner and yell this stuff or write it on a sandwich sign or whatever. She has no constitutional guarantee to get PAID for it, though.

      1. At the risk of being accused of defending Rush Limbaugh, I’ve never heard him say anything racist that wasn’t a quotation of someone else (and I’ve never heard him use those quotations to describe his own positions or opinions).
        I’ve listened to a lot of Rush Limbaugh, too. While I very often disagree with him, he has high entertainment value and I use talk radio as background noise a lot.
        So if you’ve got an example, post it. But if you don’t, please don’t lump all his listeners together as racists. I bet some are, and I know most aren’t.
        Serious negative accusations without evidence are unhelpful to any discussion.

          1. The James Earl Ray and slavery quotes are from a book called 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America, which itself cites no sources. The slavery quote which was retracted by almost everyone who used it when he tried to buy part of the Rams, because he never actually said it: http://bit.ly/4A3uZ7 (Also note that the post you linked to is from *after* the retractions, and doesn’t mention it at all.)
            The bone-in-nose quote is, I believe, from the 1970s when he was an insult-radio DJ, which of course doesn’t excuse it (it’s pretty damned racist) but certainly gives a little context.
            The Darfur quote, from 2007, is racist if you believe that ‘communist’ is still a common code word for ‘black.’ I’m of the opinion that it isn’t anymore, but feel free to disagree with me.
            The riot rehearsal quote is from a Flush Rush Quarterly from 1993. Couldn’t find other verification.
            The magic negro one is a quote directly from an LA times column that was referring to then-candidate Obama.
            The anti-Latino quotes are from an anti-McCain attack ad from 2008, and involve a good deal of creative editing.
            As for the rest, thanks for pointing them out – I’d never heard him say anything like those on the air, and thus had generally dismissed accusations that he is a racist.
            Boy, that was all way off-track.

        1. At the risk of being accused of defending Rush Limbaugh, I’ve never heard him say anything racist that wasn’t a quotation of someone else

          Without trying to get this conversation off-track too much, that’s just silly. It took 10 seconds of Googling “Rush Limbaugh racist” to find dozens of examples.

          E.g. [To an African American female caller]: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back”; [Re black people]: “They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”; “In Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering”; [On the media not attacking Obama]: “you can’t criticize the little black man-child.”

        2. I thought “the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” was a pretty good one.

        3. Examples of racist Rush quotes:

          “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

          “The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

          “They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”

          [To an African American female caller]: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

          “Obama’s entire economic program is reparations”

          “Obama is “more African in his roots than he is American” and is “behaving like an African colonial despot”

          “Let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do — let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.”

          “You’re a foreigner. You shut your mouth or you get out.”

          A Chavez is a Chavez. We’ve Always Had Problems with Them”

          “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

          “We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles … because his father was black.”

          “[I]n Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.”

          “you can’t criticize the little black man-child.”

          “The government’s been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives.”

          “[M]inorities never do anything for which they have to apologize.”

          Limbaugh repeatedly calls Native Americans “Injuns.”

          Things he’s called Obama:
          ‘halfrican American’
          ‘affirmative action candidate’
          ‘Barack the Magic Negro’

        4. You’ve only heard him “quote” others? Then someone else came up with and popularized the word “feminazi”? Or is misogyny also okay as background noise? Silly me — of course it is. Soaking in a daily brew of deliberate misrepresentation, racism, misogynism and ignorance, *just* loud enough to catch your own favorite phrases… that couldn’t have any effect on you. You wouldn’t absorb those qualities, and put them into practice in your life. Of course not.

      2. This is funny, because isn’t this the same tactic that conservatives use when they are offended?
        “Yeah, we should boycott so and so because they don’t have xx values”.
        At least she is getting out of the (well paying) kitchen because she can’t take the heat. But no doubt she will appear somewhere else sometime soon.

  9. I wonder when “n-word” becomes a word of its own.

    “You are such a stupid nword!!”

    And how offensive that will be to people of Nordic descent.

  10. Last time I read the Constitution, it said we had the right to say what we believe. I couldn’t find anything about a right to get paid for saying what we believe.

  11. Quoth Rob….”the N-word”

    Narwahl?

    Nankeen?

    Nonpareil?

    Ninepence?

    OK, I give up. Since “fuck” and “shit” appear fairly regularly on this board, I’m at a loss as to what words -qua- words cannot be posted here.

    1. As silly as ‘n-word’ is, the real deal has a certain impact, and that impact would be a distraction in the post.

      Attention commenters! Do note that it is indeed one of the magic words completely forbidden by our comment guidelines: I imagine some leeway may be afforded by the moderators given that the post is about the word, but don’t be surprised if comments that use it get edited or deleted and so on. Honor our desire to avoid misunderstandings, no matter how clear you think your meaning is.

      1. This calls for a test to see how much common-sense leeway there is in Boing Boing’s moderation policy. Let’s see what happens to this post:

        An excellent primer on this topic is the book Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word by Randall Kennedy.

        Also, Dr. Laura is a bitter sack of hatred and ignorance.

        1. I agree that a test is a good idea.

          To paraphrase Rob’s comment to me, if this word appears out of the blue in a discussion of privacy rights, energy policy, or comic books, it’s out of line, you get no argument from me.

          But if the thread itself is —about someone’s use of that word—, who are we trying to kid?

          Everyone who read Rob’s original post read the phrase “use of the N-word”. Can anyone seriously argue that the full word itself did not come into their mind upon reading that phrase?

          Only those who literally don’t know what it means could expect to be shocked by seeing the word spelled out further down-thread.

        2. “This calls for a test to see how much common-sense leeway there is in Boing Boing’s moderation policy. Let’s see what happens to this post:”

          We will can you just for being ‘otherwise annoying’ irrespective of the words you use. Right there in the policy, bud :D

  12. Huh, so a PhD in Physiology doesn’t actually make you more qualified to give life advice?? Who would’ve thought.

  13. It’s not a case of “hurting the caller’s feelings”. A woman called in, seeking advice with a specific question–her white husband’s extended family make racist comments to her and in her presence.

    Instead of responding to this, Dr. Laura went on a discourse about using the n-word and why she didn’t think it was right for non-blacks to be censured for using it when some blacks use it. She then concluded that the caller was simply “hyper-senstive” and “shouldn’t have married out of her race”.

    It’s not a knee-jerk reaction to discussing race–it’s a reaction to the bigoted and racist manner that Dr. Laura displayed.

  14. Apparently, being hopelessly blind, dim and ignorant about the protections granted in the First Amendment is one way in which to be Patriotically Correct.

  15. Let me see if I have this right.

    Dr. Laura briefly intruded on the national consciousness in 1995 (give or take) when she essentially lost the “voice of right-wing talk radio” primary to Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, and a few others. I think I remember her making a blip again during the Clinton impeachment mess, but I really can’t be sure.

    Last week, people outside of her core audience remember that she exists for the first time in over a decade.

    This week, she’s in the news again, by announcing that she’s quitting, but only after five more months, oh and she’s got a book coming out and an exciting new internet presence to promote. Wow, good thing she had an elaborate multi-media fallback plan in case she suddenly had to quit her radio job, huh?

    I think at this point the only question is whether the caller was a plant, or they actually waited for a natural opportunity for her to say “n****r” eleven times on the air.

    1. That was my first thought, too. “Dr. Laura? She’s still on the radio? She’s still alive?” I guess people (at least a few) still listen to her. I listened a little while in the late 80’s for entertainment value, but that quickly passed.

      I always thought the high point of her career was in the mid 90’s when those grainy nude shots were posted to USENET. I would have thought it was all down hill after that….

  16. What a spiteful and elitist attitude. No the constitution does not singly protect your business interests.

  17. It does seem very weird to me to see adults discussing “the N-word” here, as though spelling out D-I-V-O-R-C-E in front of the children.

    On the other hand, I accept that sensitivities are different in the US, and that that’s country of origin of most of the posters here, so it would be even more childish of me to use the word in full just for the sake of it.

    I like the point made here and elsewhere that the use of the word was actually one of the least racist things about her rant.

    1. For the record, my comment above was also not defending Dr. Laura. I haven’t listened to her rant or watched the Larry King piece.

      As someone else said, if her rant was still racist and offensive if she’d said “N-word” instead of that word, I still doubt she’d be in very hot water.

  18. I was amazed Schlessinger was still peddling her equal mix of ignorance and prejudice. I’d rather hoped she’d crawled back under a nearby stone in 1999 when Christine Baranski appeared on ‘Frasier’ as Doctor Nora and nailed her to the wall.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFa1GKtmSlM (it kicks off about 3:30 into the video)

  19. See? this is what happens when you let blacks be powerful and influential, like Rev. Al Sharpton, who did not blink and kept his criticism right in the bullseye all of the time:
    You cannot longer have racists get their way insulting minorities and then laugh all the way to the bank.
    Dr. Laura is a despicable host who enjoys humiliating her callers on a regular basis, has done so for many years and now quits without even putting up a fight.
    What a phony!

  20. Actually, she did not use the n-word in a hateful way. She was being very clinical about the entire thing.

    Now… If you go back and listen to the things she has said about homosexuals… or just the general self righteous hate mongering bs she has spewed in the past you will go… um… wtf.

  21. Good riddance to Dr. Laura. As a psychologist I have found her to be offensive and dangerous for decades. I suspect there has been many a suicide left in this bozos wake.

  22. I went back and read the guidelines per your post 25.

    I daresay this has been discussed over and over long before I came here, Nonetheless it’s sad that BBers cannot be trusted to distinguish between:

    “N-words are lazy and inclined to crime”

    and

    “…on page 32 of Dick Gregory’s book, ‘n-word’ he says…”

  23. She needs to go back and actually read the First Amendment. All it really limits is prior restraint by the government, and even then legitimate time place and manner restrictions are allowed. It is no way requires private citizens to listen to her, give her an audience or pay for her to have a forum in which to speak.

  24. No one took her first amendment rights away fom her. But her hate-filled ranting took her advertisers and sponsors away from her. THAT’S the real reason she’s quitting.

  25. I wonder if we’re simply hardwired in some way to treat some words as taboo. Not specific words, mind you, but just that there are always some. George Carlin made famous Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television, and that shares only one word in common with the the Three Words You Can’t Say on Boing Boing, which seem more modern only a few decades later. (Louis C K has a bit on those specific three, including extensive use of all three.) Funny how becoming the uptight square can sneak up on you.

  26. By her definition, it sounds like the pressures of the marketplace are in direct opposition to the First Amendment. She should denounce capitalism. Somehow I don’t think she will.

  27. So you leave radio to save your first amendment rights? LMAO.
    Freedom comes with responsibility. If you choose to go off the track expect consequences for your actions. Consequences of course something we have have forgotten.

  28. T-word was suffering from a case of the ch-word-s, caught while working as a d-word. The wise owl suggested he splash a j-word of poison on his lovely fur to kill the nasty beasts, but T-word just couldn’t pull the tr-word. Instead, T-word paddled his out-r-word, glad that the westerly breeze was not b-word. He went for a swim, and that solved his ch-word problem once and for all.

  29. Last week we watched the great 1964 Steve McQueen film The Reavers. I was struck by two things that would never appear in a film today: boys enjoying a swimming hole without appropriate bathing costumes, and the enn-word casually used to refer to a black character. The language was used was appropriate to the speakers in that context and thus was historically accurate. But you just wouldn’t do that today. Not to say we’ve lost something by tightening our self restrictions on controversial images and language, but I’m truly puzzled about how we got to this point and why.

      1. The Reivers, yes. I didn’t edit, and should have added that the film has a score by John Williams and a fantastic Edwardian roadster created by Von Dutch that is central to the plot. Also, a hooker with a heart of gold.

  30. Hey guys. I know the lady said some mean things, and that she is a mean lady, but let’s try to be a little more objective.

    I know this is the Free Market at work, but that isn’t the ultimate arbiter of morality. Suppose the RIAA tried to pressure some anti-copyright guy off the air, that’d be the “Free Market” too. Of course, efforts to marginalize the pressurers is also the “Free Market”. (For example, nobody cares what the KKK is boycotting nowadays.) Just invoking the Free Market isn’t the end of the discusion.

    There are indeed groups out there overplay racism to drum up support. I’m against that because it creates an atmosphere or paranoia around certain subjects and probably creates more racism than it prevents. Today they targetted Dr Laura (who certainly made it easy for them for a myriad of reasons outlined above) but that doesn’t I’m going to blindly support whoever is against her. Honestly, instead of trying to martyr herself, I wish she had stayed on the air and fought for her right to be the biggest evil megabitch she can be. More damage all around that way.

    1. Perhaps “Dr.” L was pulling a “Dr House” in trying to exacerbate symptoms to get to root causes.

  31. Brainspore: “Common-sense leeway” is a bad thing in a moderation policy. Your common sense and the moderators’ may not jibe.

    The ideal moderation policy would contain a list of specific words that are forbidden. That’s not possible in the real world, of course, but that’s the goal one should aim for. No gray area, no judgment call, no chilling effect.

    1. The ideal moderation policy would contain a list of specific words that are forbidden.

      I’m going to disagree with you big time on that one because such a policy would treat “burn in hell FAGS!!!!” the same as “Fred Phelps is a disturbed man known for his incendiary ‘God Hates Fags’ demonstrations.”

    2. The moderation policy is specific about specific words.

      It also says “Replacing a few letters with asterisks is not a valid workaround.”

      I don’t see a difference between “Dr. Laura said the N-word” and “Dr. Laura said ‘n—-r'”. Do you?

      If the idea is to avoid any appearance of the word “n****r” in any BB thread ever, then I respectfully suggest that posting lead articles about the use of that word is probably not recommended.

  32. For someone who spent a whole lot of time telling her callers to toughen up, LS sure has a thin skin when it comes to being criticized. It’s all part of the WhinyRighty gig: rank people out if they disagree with you, but scream like a goosed maiden aunt when they call you on your demagoguery (cf Teabaggers, Breitbart, Limbaugh, et al).

  33. About the n-word: part of the reason it’s completely forbidden here is so BB won’t attract the wrong kind of attention. We don’t want the KKK (or any other avowedly racist group) descending on us and filling up the comment pages with racist ranting. Don’t want the n-word to come up on a search and point to this page.

    So: it doesn’t matter if you’re quoting, or naming a book, or anything. It has to go.

    If I Understand Correctly, and With All Due Respect To the Mods.

    About Dr. Laura: While I would defend her First Amendment rights were they being violated, they are not. If boycotts for using the n-word really forced her off the air, then I say good riddance to the honky paleface roundeye bule gringa gubba gweilo haole ofay.

    1. so “honky paleface” is alright to use, but ni66a isn’t?
      Personally I’m of the opinion that offense cannot be given, only taken.

          1. Oh right.
            But aren’t you now attracting hordes of extreme black panther types to flood BoingBoing by typing the ‘H’ word?

          2. Where I’m from, the speeches of Malcolm X are as much hate-speech as Holocaust denial, or verbal gay-bashing: and NONE of those have ANY legitimate place on the public airwaves.
            These regulated radio and TV stations are commercial enterprises: why allow them, by the use of inflammatory rhetoric, to divide us from ourselves, for THEIR profit?

          3. UC, the entire legal concept of “hate speech” is unconstitutional. (Its also ungrammatical, should be hateful speech.) But we are aware that you and many Europeans readily bend over for infringements of what Yanks consider natural rights.

            We take the first too seriously to sacrifice freedom of expression for the appearance of tolerance and uniformity.

            That’s why we go ballistic over the distinction between State intervention and ordinary boycotts.

            And how idiots like Miss America and “Dr” L lose cred by misunderstanding it.

          4. She’s on publicly regulated airwaves, which have always been subject to prior restraint for public policy purposes.
            Or has the FCC been dis-banded?

          5. Recently the courts have struck down the FFCs language rules. Hate speech, the n-word, etc were never included in those ‘rules’ anyways (tho anything could have fit into the vague patently offensive model)

          6. The how come I never see nudity on any American broadcast TV channels, ever? No commercial interest?
            Compare and contrast Canadian TV!

          7. Depends on when you are talking about. The uncut version of Lipstick (with the hemmingway sisters) was broadcast on regular commercial tv in the early 80s. Clear shots of tits and ass. Animal house was also shown uncut.

            The FCC stated it had the power to censor speech and content on radio and television, yet never had clear rules as to what could be shown/said on tv. The courts have recently rejected this.

            Two things that have kept nudity and such off the airwaves has been the threat of the FCC and the voices of sponsors.

            Canada has rules against hate speech being broadcast…

          8. We sure do. They are not without controversy, but such do have broad support. That kind of “commentary” (ie hate speech) is not considered by us to be conducive, shall we say, of our Constitutional values of “peace, order, and good government”.
            And they have a longer back-story than many know: but I do not propose to bore you with that!

          9. Also, if freedom of the press is considered as a “natural right”, why the need for it to be specified in an Amendment?
            The implication must be, that absent the 1st Amendment, Congress could freely abridge this “natural right”.

            Be that as it may, this decision to cease providing this lady a platform is a commercial decision by her employer, nothing more.
            Upon that consideration, I have little to say.

          10. “Also, if freedom of the press is considered as a “natural right”, why the need for it to be specified in an Amendment?”

            that was a huge debate that James Monroe had with some of the other drafters – he feared that in enumerating the rights of the people in the Constitution, over time people would mistakenly come to believe that their rights are granted to them *by* the Constitution. Many people DO believe that you have the rights as written, no more, no less, so much so that millions of man hours have been wasted on the verbiage of the amendments.

            repealing the 2nd amendment doesn’t negate the rights of americans to arm themselves – such a right is inherent in our very existence, just like the right to your person and property. changing a piece of paper to say otherwise doesn’t affect what your rights ARE, it only signals to the population that the government is no longer legitimate.

          11. I know you were only using the 2nd Amendment as an example, but let’s not turn this into a gun control debate. It will not end well.

          12. “I know you were only using the 2nd Amendment as an example, but let’s not turn this into a gun control debate. It will not end well.”

            Seconded.

          13. Ah, perhaps: but if repealed, it would no longer be a “legal right”.
            And that counts for something.

          14. “Ah, perhaps: but if repealed, it would no longer be a “legal right”.
            And that counts for something.”

            No no, see, that’s where you’re wrong. You could abolish the entire Bill of Rights, but doing so is in itself an illegal and treasonous act. By definition the government that does such a thing is no longer the legitimate government of the US, since the government is bound by the Constitution. Therefor, whatever is or isn’t legal according to such a government isn’t valid and does not apply to the citizens of the US. So, you would be perfectly within your rights to do as you’ve always done – defend your person and your property against criminals and criminal organizations – which is exactly what such a government would be. Voila, your rights remain intact regardless.

          15. my sledghammer will get me into your house. Your pedantry is no defense against it. Welcome to america.

          16. “You could abolish the entire Bill of Rights, but doing so is in itself an illegal and treasonous act.”

            If it’s done by the full amendment process, no, it’s not, by definition.

          17. UC, the entire legal concept of “hate speech” is unconstitutional. (Its also ungrammatical, should be hateful speech.)

            No, that’s not correct. First, a concept cannot be unconstitutional. I can think “aorta be a lawr” about anything I want. Only the law or an act can be unconstitutional.

            Second, it’s not at all ungrammatical. In English nouns modify other nouns, and do not thereby become adjectives (a security station is not the same as a secure station). Hate speech is speech based on hatred and intended to foment it. It’s a perfectly cromulent phrase.

            Third, using the wrong its/it’s IS ungrammatical; you’ve fallen victim to a law of the internet: any comment correcting someone’s grammar will itself contain a grammatical error. I have no doubt I will miss a mistake in this comment, as well.

            But we are aware that you and many Europeans readily bend over for infringements of what Yanks consider natural rights.

            Is being insulting and contemptuous of people from other countries what passes for patriotism in your worldview? I beg you to reconsider. It reflects poorly on you as a former member of the Armed Forces, as an American, and as a human being. Moreover it reinforces the common view of Americans as boorish slobs.

          18. Thanks for the back-up, Xopher.

            The best thing to do with insults, in my experience, is to ignore them.
            Do commercial radio stations REALLY want people to ignore them?
            Does that particular audience response help to sell advertising?

            Broadcasting insult, applicable to a significant portion of your potential audience and offensive to the ears or delicacy of a great many others, at whom such insult is not directed, is the rankest stupidity, especially, as in this case, for a business which relies directly upon the number of ears or eyes paying attention to it for its revenues.

            I consider this whole episode to be an excellent example of how “free speech” is supposed to work for the benefit of society…the fool is being shouted down.

            Racism is so stupid!

          19. Xopher, if I may,

            >>UC, the entire legal concept of “hate speech” is unconstitutional. (Its also ungrammatical, should be hateful speech.)
            No, that’s not correct. First, a concept cannot be unconstitutional. I can think “aorta be a lawr” about anything I want. Only the law or an act can be unconstitutional.< < Ok, if its not obvious, *laws* that mention "hate [sic] speech" are as intrisically bogus as laws that mention race, religion, etc. I'm sorry if bogus doesn't have a legal definition. >>Second, it’s not at all ungrammatical. In English nouns modify other nouns, and do not thereby become adjectives (a security station is not the same as a secure station). Hate speech is speech based on hatred and intended to foment it. It’s a perfectly cromulent phrase.< < Feh >>Third, using the wrong its/it’s IS ungrammatical; you’ve fallen victim to a law of the internet: any comment correcting someone’s grammar will itself contain a grammatical error. I have no doubt I will miss a mistake in this comment, as well.< < Mea culpa. >>But we are aware that you and many Europeans readily bend over for infringements of what Yanks consider natural rights.
            Is being insulting and contemptuous of people from other countries what passes for patriotism in your worldview? < < I find "patriotism" a disgusting drug used by many in my country. Some kind of endocrine release, driven by software. Dangerous and evil. That said, if you hold to some values, you must view other values negatively. As a Bill of Rights dude, I view less liberal values negatively. I also value the current US regime's implementation very negatively. >>I beg you to reconsider. It reflects poorly on you as a former member of the Armed Forces, as an American, and as a human being. Moreover it reinforces the common view of Americans as boorish slobs.<< Oh dear, your stereotypes are showing. I'm a post-Randian cypherpunk stoner who writes medical software. I won't even begin to discuss military contempt. As for my humanity, in a decade I'll be able to submit my sequence to you.

          20. Oh dear, your stereotypes are showing. I’m a post-Randian cypherpunk stoner who writes medical software. I won’t even begin to discuss military contempt.

            To me that means two things:

            1. You’re falsely representing yourself as a former member of the military, and

            2. You’re putting in all the extra lines because you’re being deliberately obnoxious, not because you don’t know any better.

            I spoke to you earlier with respect. I now regret that.

          21. X, apologies, I just realized why you think me
            disgustomilitary. Read my nym as a Linnaen name
            (sp) of the end-string (think: select agents.
            Smallpox. Extinction.) for H. sap. Jeebus. The name expresses disdain for the ranking, its f’in’
            irony. I regret that this was distracting.

            You need to get a better grip on teh internets.

            Anyway: I’m a US citizen nominally, though I loathe its policies. However, I fully support its BoR
            concept of absolute free speech, albeit this is not practiced de facto in many places here.

            BTW, you have no idea whether I am what I claim.
            Deal with teh nets. I might be a dog but really
            I am a cat.

          22. For your edification, I give you Chapter and verse:

            “Public incitement of hatred
            319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
            (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
            (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

            Wilful promotion of hatred

            (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
            (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
            (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

            Defences

            (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
            (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
            (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
            (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
            (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.”

            From:

            http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-6.html#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318

            Seems reasonable to me. I don’t see any value in any speech which is prohibited by this.

          23. Wow. Hard to imagine Martin Luther King’s speeches being considered ‘hate speech’. The guy had nothing but love.
            I’m not sure I entirely understood your response, but I’m in agreement regarding profitmongers marketing propaganda. They can suck Satan’s cock.

            My point was, that hordes of KKK types aren’t likely to start swamping BB, and if they did they’d soon be weeded out and banned, or they’d get bored first and leave.

          24. But aren’t you now attracting hordes of extreme black panther types to flood BoingBoing by typing the ‘H’ word?

            You might have a point, if whites were an oppressed group, and “extreme black panther types” were a major social problem, and BB were worried about attracting them. None of these being true, however, you have no point.

            Also, I didn’t make the mod policy or the list of banned words, and if the mods decide that my list of derogations for white people was offensive they will disemvowel it, or perhaps delete the whole comment. I am a commenter like others here, with no special powers; I took that risk. I believe it was within bounds (and as a European-descended person myself I claim a bit of right to use those words), but the final decision is not up to me.

          25. Where? I think it’s possible we may have a difference of opinion about what the term ‘oppressed group’ means, unless you’re talking about Zimbabwe…where, as far as I know, none of the terms I used wrt to Dr. Laura are in use. It has to be a specific term used by a specific group that BB doesn’t want to attract to support your point.

            I still think your point fails.

          26. In Zimbabwe the word ‘honky’ is still used as a derogatory slur. Zimbabweans are all around the world, even on BB, so I think my point still stands.

          27. In Zimbabwe the word ‘honky’ is still used as a derogatory slur.

            Have a cite for that? I haven’t heard it one single time, not in all the coverage of the appalling behavior of the Zimbabwean government I’ve heard in the past few years.

            Or are you a white person living in Zimbabwe? Do you have personal experience of ‘honky’ being used as a slur there?

            Zimbabweans are all around the world, even on BB

            Not so’s you’d notice. I haven’t. And they’re also not a big enough group to be a problem, and more importantly the word is not on BB’s banned list and it would be if the Boingers and mods thought it was an issue.

            I think my point still stands.

            You’re free to think whatever you want.

          28. I have Zimbabwean friends, black and white, And I have spent some time there. So my cite is my write.

            Anyhow, the point wasn’t about words being on BB’s banned list. The point was; You used a racial slur on somebody because they used a racial slur on somebody. That was hypocritical, I was merely pointing that out.
            Carry on.

          29. Currently, IMHO Zimbabwe ought not to be a model on such matters for anyone, in any way.

            But two wrongs….

    2. So, what you are saying is that you are buying into the insanity of the n-word, and thus giving it power. It’s easy enough to delete and ban actual racist commentary without touching clinical discussion of the word. Your house, your rules, but I have to tell that this mentality is part of the problem that allows the word to have so much power over others. For the boing boing does to ascend mankind out of stupid this single act detracts from all those efforts imho.

      1. Your house, your rules

        Neither. I’m following the rules for the house I’m in. I was explaining my understanding of the reasoning behind the rules, not laying down the law. I have no such power, and no desire to arrogate such power to myself.

  34. It aggravates me that people allow her to talk about first amendment rights in this situation.

    At no time were her rights at risk. At no time was she being restrained from sharing her thoughts. She is , and has always been, free to say whatever she wants.

    The matter at hand, is a question over if should she be compensated for that speech and assisted in spreading her speech by the private sector. Furnishing her with a paycheck and a broadcast forum looks incredibly poorly upon her producers/network and sponsors when she engages in “divisive” commentaries.

    This has nothing to do with Free Speech, this has everything to do with the Free Market. Giving her a forum hurts advertising revenue and brand integrity for the broadcasters and sponsors.

  35. Her complaint about a caller going all NAACP on her is pretty rich considering she’s made a career of going all Old Testament on her callers.

    Will Clear Channel, Excellence in Broadcasting or News Corp show the doctor a little love (and piss off liberals into the bargain)? Probably not. The Right hates losers, even among their own ranks. Maybe Rush will invite her on for a pity party and they can commiserate over the Politically Correct Thought Police being, er, niggardly with the First Amendment. But if she can’t play a dog whistle, she has no place on rightwing TV. Some words still are bad for business. And when movement conservatism’s cashed in its Buckleys for Douthats, it can’t afford the likes of Dr. Laura dragging the intellectual tone down even further.

  36. Hey, I didn’t realize until now that MY First Amendment rights are being violated too! I’m not being paid to talk about my opinions on the air!

    Now I just have to figure out who to sue…

  37. Based on some of the comments here, maybe the real reason she’s leaving the air is that there’s too much competition in real life for the job of white people telling blacks to ‘get over it, it’s just a word’.

  38. The interesting thing is that those who wish to ‘test’ us are doing exactly what Dr Laura did: uttering the N-word ostentatiously to spite the perceived injustice or stupidity enshrined by its forbidden status.

    The funny thing is that anyone who gets the boot will, inevitably, write nerdragey emails to us about how we have crushed their free speech.

    1. Rob, I’m honestly curious about whether you find “the N-word” (apparently permitted) less offensive than “n—-r” (apparently not).

      ‘Cos I don’t. My mind fills in the quote with the banned word just the same either way.

      1. I guess, but blame yourself for that, as you are the source of your own ‘filling in’

        Sorta like I could actually shit in your cornflakes, or just say ‘shit in your cornflakes’. Most people would react differently to the two.

        So, you can say n-word as a euphemism for the act of using the word, but the difference is that one is about intentionally trying to discuss oppression, while the latter is about intentionally exercising it.

        (irony) I am heartbroken to hear she is off the air, just heartbroken (/irony)

        1. Missing my point. The moderation policy states that “Replacing a few letters with asterisks is not a valid workaround.”

          What I was saying is that reading the phrase “the N-word” is no more or less offensive than reading the word itself with asterisks – “n****r”.

          1. Charlotte Corday,

            You’re repeating yourself. If you have nothing new to say, go have some pie.

  39. eople who don’t listen to talk radio shouldn’t be allowed to express an opinion about what talk radio hosts can say.

    Shouldn’t be allowed? You mean we should be forbidden by law? I think, sir or madam, you need to read the First Amendment yourself.

    And it’s assholes like Rush, Laura, and Glenn who’ve ruined the world, not people like Oprah.

  40. Bathos because Dr. Laura’s career has been to exalt no-nonsense personal responsibility and self-control, but her radio career is apparently going to end with her wallowing in the most mundane act of self-pity you’d ever expect from a celebrity: “I’m being silenced by my critics,” declared on national television to millions.

  41. Sure, boycott politics is stupid and awful and cheap, but it’s definitely not an infringement of anyone’s constitutional right to free speech. I wish Dr. Laura every success on the blogatubes, where she will doubtless feel free to express herself more forthrightly than ever before.

    1. I can see respecting her right to express herself on the blogatubes, but why on Earth would you wish her success? That’s just bizarre.

      I hope she fails utterly, despairs, and decides to end it all. I wouldn’t lift a finger to harm her, and I don’t think she should be forbidden by law for uttering her reprehensible, evil, disgusting, harmful views, but I certainly don’t wish her success.

      Or maybe my sarcasm sensor is broken. Probably so. Time to call tech support again.

  42. Her comfort using the “n-word” speciously is partly because she’s so used to people referring to her as a “d-word” without appropriate cause.

  43. “But Dr Laura’s critics didn’t directly engage her with emails”

    The idea that people haven’t engaged her directly is just silly. Direct criticism and argument is all over the place — in newspapers, the internet, on television, and (maybe!) even the radio.

    If anything, complaining directly to sponsors is an infrequent strategy used in response to specific events, and one that often backfires: Glenn Beck seems to revel in it.

    Perhaps Dr. Laura’s problem is that her particular sponsors are particularly sensitive to association with someone so abrasive and divisive. Her speech is just a hard sell, and that’s just too bad.

  44. I’ve never been disturbed by (but nor have I ever agreed with) a person’s honest prejudice; but others may be, and for very good reasons.
    I also think that such sentiments have no place AT ALL in, or upon, the electronic, regulated, mass media.

    1. In which case, it would become what we
      yanks call a first amendment problem.

      When State Violence threatens expression.

      UC,
      Y’all need a bill of rights up there,
      maybe we’ll invade and bring you democracy and nation-building in a few years. :-P

      1. And you Merkans (as a country) could learn a little something from a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that forbids discrimination for sexual orientation.

        :P

        1. Anon #177:
          We obtained much guidance and instruction from the Americans in the drafting and creation of our Charter.
          Over two centuries worth of jurisprudence relating to individual rights under a written Constitution: invaluable. Priceless, as a matter of fact.

          I take this opportunity for thanking Americans, for the better examples they have provided,if not for all of their Constitutional praxis: for although it may seem from my comments, posted on this and other threads, that I am not a supporter of the USA, I say now that nothing, but nothing, could be further from the truth.

          In many things, and in relation to many issues, I yet consider the USA a “shining beacon on the hill” (cornball as that may sound to some too-cynical Americans); being, at one and the same time, an inspiration to those who yearn for freedoms yet denied, and a model for those who wish to preserve freedoms once obtained.

          The drafters of our Charter of Rights and freedoms could not have done it, without the inspiration and model provided by the great republic to our South!
          That we attempted to improve on it while we had the opportunity IMHO forms no occasion for smugness on our part, and I apologize for my compatriots who would use this as a item of “one-upmanship”. (But… I AM conceited enough to believe that we DID improve it, in some aspects, by codifying therein the ability to prescribe reasonable limits to those rights by Law, under very specific conditions.)

          We are obliged to you, my American friends and allies, for the example: and we would be more than honoured should you ever condescend to glance at our own jurisprudence of rights, in seeking to improve your own.

          Like many Canadians, I have American relations and family, too. Most of them are Republicans and I love and esteem them, very much.

          And I KNOW that you guys are very well capable of doing the right things: and you usually do, after a while.

          But this post is to simply say “Thank you” for the example and the model: the USA is yet the original free country!

  45. ” It’s true that black comedians can say things that white ones can’t.”

    Sure. The problem is that bringing this observation up is an odd way to respond to a victim of actual, everyday racial discrimination. It attempts to invalidate the experience of racism, on the grounds that the relevant privileges are inverted in some other irrelevant cultural sphere.

    1. I think racism only becomes racism when it impedes another, otherwise it’s only an insult, and with a few exceptions of course, most of the people here will have only experienced racism as an insult and not in a way that hampers their rights.

      My point is; we are not responding to victims of racism here, we are in a discourse with BB’ers, so bringing up the observation here doesn’t “attempt to invalidate the experience of racism”.

      Words, when used as an insult, only have the power that we give them.
      And we can take away all their power too, by not being afraid of them.

  46. I take offense at the idea that your skin colour automatically determines whether a word you’ve said is offensive. Saying you’re not allowed to use something- water fountains, words- based solely on your skin colour is racist in itself.

    She was however rude to her guest and didn’t take even a few seconds actually listen to her caller’s concerns, meaning she’s bad at her job.

  47. As an aside, just using the word can indeed attract riff raff. Google alerts, etc. You should see some of the search terms that refer people here. The sexual ones alone, it’s like having your soul degloved.

    1. BB had no problem, e.g., introducing to the world the speculation that Bradley Manning was pre-T-G-word, and you are claiming worry now about search?

      We get it that its not an easy life being a mod,
      but the powers are absolute, that must be a consolation :-) And you did publish (an article referring to the contentious subject) first.

  48. I find nearly every case of “But it’s Political Correctness gone mad!” is actually just people angry that other people have noticed their bigotry. PC can go too far, of course, but the examples of this are few and far between, and vastly outnumbered by cases of genuine prejudice. Mostly, it is a strawman that attempts to discredit any public acknowledgement of prejudice.

  49. There’s a confusion of concepts here. It’s bad to restrict the expression of ideas, but to restrict someone from expressing themselves with the particular, specific words that they want to use is far less harmful. When someone claims they’re being oppressed because they can’t get their point across without inflammatory vocabulary they’re either not very smart, not trying, or secretly just want to be a jerk.

  50. oh lord…at this point we’re just beating on a pile of good that used to be a dead, long decomposed horse. seriously, it’s the mel brooks rule. he could make fun of jews because he was jewish. black people can call each other the N-word because they’re black. we white-as-the-driven-snow, cracker-ass, ol’ cracka’ sons-of-bitches can refer to ourselves as just that if we so desire, because we are just so, so very tragically white.
    And here i really thought we’d gotten over this issue in 1994.

  51. i’ve always felt that word-based racism is the weakest and most toothless kind. isn’t real racism being assaulted, or denied employment, or being profiled by police? if someone is kicking the shit out of you because you’re black, does it really matter if he’s also calling you an n-word? ‘piece of shit’ isn’t racist, yet carries the same hatred, contempt, and accusation of inferiority.

    all i’m saying is it seems juvenile to perpetuate the weight and impact of certain words by refusing to say them *at all*.

    also, isn’t it kind of self deprecating that blacks intentionally identify with that word? lets be fair, by the definition, i’ve met more than a handful of ni**ers in my life – however, none of them were black. i’ve used that word to describe my ignorant, untrustworthy, and financially foolish brother, because the shoe fits. (we’re of scottish lineage, FYI)

    that’s not to say i’m indifferent to other peoples perception, so just out of decency and respect i generally won’t say it, and out of supreme empathy, regardless of the person or situation, i’d never use it to describe a black person. is that like, reverse racist? or something?

    i realize that i may, in fact, be insensitive or misguided or socially retarded or warped or something, but one thing i absolutely am not is a bigot of any sort. i love everybody, truly and deeply in my heart of hearts, so call me an asshole or an idiot, but not a racist.

    1. We are all the prisoners of history: and not all blows are physical: nor do the merely physical insults necessarily hurt the most.
      Wounding a person’s dignity, is yet wounding….don’t Texans have a “legal out” for people who respond with violence to “fighting words”?
      But I’m ignorant of those particular details.

      Society always has an interest in preventing violence amongst its members.
      And what starts as a “merely verbal” dispute has often – all too often! – escalated into actual physical battles, with bad consequences.

      May not we as a Society exercise a little foresight in these matters, if not a little restraint?

  52. And for an unobjectionable, IMHO, use of the term under discussion, by a white entertainer, listen closely to this:

    Now it’s time to get back to trying to reason with hurricane season.

  53. You want to bet that Dr. Laura’s blog will have the comment section closed, or heavily moderated?

    Missing posts or no posts at all. That would be my wager.

  54. And actually on-topic, lulz at the idea that “freedom of speech” means “freedom from criticism for your speech” or “the right to get paid lots of money for your speech.”

    You have the right to say what you like, even if it’s hateful and offensive. But you don’t have the right to an audience. Corollaries: you don’t have the right to an uncritical audience, and you definitely don’t have the right to a paying audience.

  55. ahaarchive: I thought exposing and criticizing Dr. Laura *was* countering her expression. I doubt anyone here wants to silence her. Far from it–bring it on, I say!

  56. I don’t find any of the various thing offensive myself. Perhaps we should revise the moderation policy to be a little less specific about how exactly offensive terms would best be fig-leafed when legitimately the subject of discussion.

    However, “N-word” perhaps creates a grammatical detachment not present when you simply conceal the letters of the word itself. That said, I see moderators have the packet of sparkly stars out — appropriate for this thread, I think, where the word is reasonably a subject of discussion and normal policy has to give way to some common sense. But please don’t be upset if our idea of common sense ultimately differs from yours.

    Speaking broadly, I know these things are fundamentally silly and that we’re all adults here, but not everyone is. People sometimes react to this very special word in ways that aren’t easy to anticipate. Ways that create work and generate heat. So the proverbial packet of sparkly stars will have to be lived with.

  57. The first amendment is protection from limits on speech coming from the federal government.
    Dr. Laura is confusing the widespread just and valid disapproval of her statements as somehow infringing on her rights.
    The court of ‘common decency’ can seem like an oppressive conspiracy when your attitude towards race is so tragically out of touch and cruel. Folks in the American audience can get things wrong at times but for the most part, we are a discerning bunch. Dr. Laura, we will hold you accountable for trying to impose your experience of race unto others. Aside from using a racial slur like a taunt, you placed yourself in the seat of judgment of how ‘racially sensitive’ African Americans ‘should’ be.
    If you are at the neighborhood picnic and turn into a meanspirited and insensitive ego-maniac, you will be confronted on it. The public arena of radio is no different. Dr. Laura, it was time for you to hang up your backwoods schtick long ago.
    Ryan McGivern

  58. With apologies to Voltaire: I disagree with what Dr. Laura says; but I’ll defend to the death her right to say it. But I’ll even more vigorously defend to the death the right of others to criticize her for saying it.

    I just recently re-read John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (available as a free .pdf download from here: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/jsmill/liberty.pdf ). In fact, I decided to re-read Mill for the first time in several years because of some of the recent discussions we’ve had here on BoingBoing, regarding matters as diverse as burqa bans, Proposition 8, laws against women going topless in public, and the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (which, much like the Holy Roman Empire, is neither, in the strictest sense, at Ground Zero nor a mosque). While reading some of the comments on those issues, I kept thinking to myself: “Don’t people read Madison and Mill anymore?!” So, I decided to re-read Mill to reacquaint myself with the wisdom of his political philosophy; and I found myself just as impressed by his words today as I was when I first read them a quarter-of-a-century ago as an undergraduate Political Science student.

    I am still convinced that Liberalism — the political philosophy of Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Smith, Kant, Mill, Lincoln, Popper, Berlin, Rawls, et al. (and especially the particular “flavor” of Liberalism expressed in the writings of James Madison and John Stuart Mill) — is the ideal way to organize the civic affairs of any society. This philosophy holds that every individual ought to be free to privately think and believe anything he or she wishes, no matter how unpopular or wrong-headed those thoughts and beliefs may be, and to publicly express those ideas in speech or writing, no matter how offensive his or her words may be (with the only restrictions on freedom of speech or of the press being that one may not commit slander or libel, and may not deliberately incite others to commit wrongful acts). This philosophy also holds that every individual ought to be free to do as he or she pleases in matters that directly affect only his or her own wellbeing; but must adhere to the rule of law in matters that affect the wellbeing of others. However, the law itself must be designed to guarantee as much individual liberty as possible, while insuring the equal liberty of all, and protecting the general welfare of society and the safety of its members. There is a legitimate debate among Liberals about the ideal balance between individual liberty of action on the one hand, and public safety and the general welfare on the other; as well as debates about the legitimate functions and powers of government, the ideal structure and operation of the economy, the proper role and privileges of religion in society, etc. But there is no debate on the one fundamental principle of Liberalism: that we must not allow the essential rights and freedoms of the individual to be trampled by anyone — not even by the overwhelming majority of the community acting through the democratic process — no matter how reprehensible that individual’s beliefs, values, words, or behaviors might be, so long as he or she is not harming anyone else or depriving anyone of equal liberty. As Mill famously wrote: “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

    So, as a Liberal, I have to defend Dr. Laura’s right to speak her mind, even though I utterly reject what she is saying. But I also have to defend the right of others to speak out against her, to criticize her, to condemn her, and to refuse to associate with her (i.e. to boycott her radio show and its advertisers) and to encourage others to do the same. All of this falls within the scope of individual freedom; and none of it infringes upon Dr. Laura’s right, as an individual, to hold her own (bigoted) views, and to freely express them in her own (repugnant) words. Some people seem to forget that freedom is a two-way street: You have the freedom to speak your mind; but your critics have the freedom to speak theirs, too.

    As many others here have pointed out, her claim that her First Amendment rights have been violated is patently absurd. The First Amendment applies only to acts of the government; and the government did not censor Dr. Laura in any way. She was free to say what she chose to say; and now she is forced to live with the consequences of her choice. As Mill points out, each of us has the right to express our disapproval of the behavior of others in various ways, provided that we don’t try to deprive them of their freedom to engage in that behavior. The critics of Dr. Laura are simply exercising their own freedom, just as she exercised hers. No one’s freedom is being infringed here. Censure by a large segment of society is not equivalent to censorship by the state.

    As for the question of the appropriateness of the so-called “N-word” itself, I don’t really have much to add to the discussion here, except that it reminded me of Steven Pinker’s analysis of profanity, and why some words are considered taboo. It’s a fascinating discussion, and a fun read (though probably NSFW): http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/what-the-f

  59. Lincoln Mitchell posted an interesting analysis on Huffpost comparing what the discussion was actually about and how Dr. Laura responded with racist stereotype non-sequiturs.

    A summary:

    Dr. Laura’s later half apologized for her use of the N-Word, expressing regret for “losing the point I was trying to make.” However, Schlessinger made her point all too clearly, touching on all the major talking points of the new racism: the real problem is that African Americans are over-sensitive; knowing whether or not it is okay to use the N-Word is “very confusing”; and African Americans should stop complaining because the President, for whom they mindlessly voted is African American.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/dr-laura-and-racism-in-th_b_683657.html

    1. Department of Motor Vehicles. In most states, it’s where you have to go to get or renew a driver’s license, or just wait in line for hours and hours to be told, usually rudely, that you didn’t bring the right paperwork.

      In New Jersey, we once had a governor named Jim McGreevey, who for all his other faults got rid of the DMV and replaced it with a Motor Vehicles Commission that runs very differently. You can get in and out of there in less than an hour.

      1. (slaps forehead) Thanks. heh heh.

        Actually, I was just at the Motor Vehicle Licensing Bureau a few days ago: in this Province, its function has been “privatized” (ie contracted out by competitive tender to private outfits to manage), and the staff were very courteous indeed.

        The people who were told by the counter personnel that other forms and documents were required, and thus refused service, were treated with sympathy.

        OTOH, in my experience the Canadian public seems, in general very courteous, and more willing to “wait their turn”, without taking it out on the staff, perhaps.

        A little politeness goes a long way. That ought to be Canada’s motto.

        But others know about us and how we wait in line:
        “The Canadian believes in the first-come, first-serve principle while waiting in line “and will be angry if you push ahead.””

        From:

        http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/846560–british-told-how-to-treat-visitors-including-canadians-to-the-2012-olympics?bn=1

  60. Oh, and the definitions are important, too:

    “Definitions

    (7) In this section,

    “communicating”
    « communiquer »

    “communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

    “identifiable group”
    « groupe identifiable »

    “identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;

    “public place”
    « endroit public »

    “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

    “statements”
    « déclarations »

    “statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 2004, c. 14, s. 2.

    Same source as above.

    This stuff is NOT the stuff of tyranny.

  61. I just find it amusing that the offensive word in question is more of an indication of the originators’ ignorance and stupidity than anything else. It came from uneducated slave owners who were too retarded to even pronounce the word “Negro”. It’s basically the calling card of Southern, redneck trash.

  62. Sigh – I’d better give Section 318 as well, since the definitions above refer to it.:

    “Advocating genocide
    318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

    Definition of “genocide”

    (2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
    (a) killing members of the group; or
    (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

    Consent

    (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

    Definition of “identifiable group”

    (4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

  63. My friends and I use the word Limey or McGee to refer to others like ourselves of British or Irish descent.

    Like, “Whassup man, you’re my McGee!”
    “You lazy f-ing limey.”

    But, is some Asian-American, where to use those terms, I would give precisely, not one shit.

  64. People use all kinds of names on the net. No, they aren’t always accurate. You’re using one that says you’re retired from the military. While that doesn’t mean you’re telling the truth, it’s reasonable to treat you as if you are until I have a reason to think you’re lying. In fact, it would have been rude not to.

    I may have no idea whether you are what you claim (“post-Randian cypherpunk stoner who writes medical software”) but I do know you’re a lying sck f sht who thinks putting extra line feeds in prose makes it free verse (it doesn’t), or is just being obnoxious by making his posts take up extra room. I have nothing but contempt for you.

    It’s really unfortunate that Boing Boing doesn’t have an Ignore function.

  65. “It does seem very weird to me to see adults discussing “the N-word” here…”

    That’s probably because typing n♥♥♥♥r might inspire boingboing’s enthusiastic censorship popups. I’m a little unsure just what does cause that to happen.

  66. Imagine you’ve got two groups of people — let’s call them the “Big-Enders” and the “Little-Enders” — and that, historically speaking, members of former group have viewed themselves as superior to members of the latter group, and thus have discriminated against them. So, in times past, when Big-Enders openly and unabashedly treated Little-Enders as inferior, they coined a particular epithet that they used when addressing, or speaking about, Little-Enders. Let’s say that the Big-Enders referred to Little-Enders as “Lillies”. Whenever a Big-Ender referred to a Little-Ender as a “Lilli”, the clear connotation was that the Little-Ender was being regarded as an inferior.

    Over time, a formal, legal equality was established between Big-Enders and Little-Enders, and discrimination was outlawed, though there was still a considerable amount of bigotry against Little-Enders. Many Big-Enders continued to refer to Little-Enders as “Lillies”; and the term even began to take on a connotation of contempt, as the bigoted Big-Enders venomously hurled the epithet as an expression of their resentment at the fact that Little-Enders were now legally their equals. But Little-Enders were no longer willing to simply take this abuse. Some objected, in the strongest possible terms, to the continued use of the epithet “Lilli”. Others opted to fight fire with fire, and coined a new epithet which they used when referring to Big-Enders: “Blefs”. (Though, since there was no history of oppression behind the word “Blef” like there was behind the word “Lilli”, it just didn’t have an equivalent impact.) Still others decided that the best way to deal with being called “Lillies” was to take away the power of the word by “owning” it: Therefore, many Little-Enders began to refer to each other as “Lillies”.

    Over time, as the older generation of Big-Enders began to die off, and a new generation came of age, attitudes toward Little-Enders began to change. There were still a number of bigots among the Big-Enders; but most Big-Enders now viewed Little-Enders as their equals, and deeply regretted how their forebears had treated them in times past. The term “Lilli” had now come to be regarded as extremely offensive, with most people voluntarily refraining from using it. But a few people continued to use it. Some Little-Enders continued to refer to each other as “Lillies” as an expression of solidarity. When one Little-Ender called another a “Lilli” it was a way of saying: “You and I are the same: We are both members of a group that some people want to think of as ‘inferior’; but we know that we are not inferior to anyone; and no mere word can make us inferior.” Even so, this use was very controversial among Little-Enders, many of whom still regarded the word “Lilli” as extremely offensive and derogatory. They wanted the word purged from the language, and saw no virtue in Little-Enders using it when referring to each other.

    But, sadly, Little-Enders weren’t the only ones who still, on occasion, used the word “Lilli”. There were still some bigoted Big-Enders who continued to see Little-Enders as inferior, and who persisted in referring to them as “Lillies”. This was no longer considered socially acceptable; so only the boldest of the bigots would dare utter this word in a public forum, unless protected by some cloak of anonymity. But many persisted in using it in private. Though some insisted that they meant no offense when referring to a Little-Ender as a “Lilli” — after all, many Little-Enders openly used the word when referring to other Little-Enders — given the historical usage of the word, and the way that bigoted Big-Enders continued to use it, the word “Lilli” in the mouth of a Big-Ender was almost universally regarded as offensive. Any Big-Ender who would openly use the word had to be either a bigot or an idiot. The Big-Ender who called a Little-Ender a “Lilli” was either trying to cause offense, or was so clueless about the connotation of this word as to not realize that offense would inevitably be taken.

    Now, this was a story about Big-Enders and Little-Enders; but it could just as easily have been a story about whites and blacks, men and women, straights and gays, Christians and Jews, Anglos and Hispanics, or any number of other groups. The epithet “Lilli” could be replaced by any number of racist, sexist, homophobic, sectarian, xenophobic, or otherwise bigoted epithets. The principles are the same. When one group has historically mistreated another, but has repented of that mistreatment and is trying to make amends, the heirs of the former group don’t get to keep referring to members of the latter group by the derogatory terms that were used by their bigoted forebears without being accused of bigotry themselves. Or, if not bigotry, stupidity. Of course, bigotry and stupidity are not mutually exclusive; as Dr. Laura has so brilliantly demonstrated.

  67. It’s talk radio, you have to be batshit crazy or you’re too boring to keep your job.

    Unfortunately, people listen to their advice.

  68. I find Dr. Laura loathsome. Boycotted Amazon.com for about a decade because of the mealy-mouth responses and excuses they made when I pressed them to explain why they were sponsoring her while the company’s official position was against hate speech (unless it is against gay and lesbian people, you see…). And I was surprised to learn that she is, was, still on the air.

    That said, I was amazed that anyone called in and asked her for advice. This is no excuse for the bile that she spits out, no excuse for the things she says. But, if you are hurting or in trouble, why would you call this viper for comfort?

    I heard her on the radio years ago and I was just cringing as I listened. I think the reason I listened to an entire show was that I was stunned.

    Do listeners who call for advice agree with Schlessinger’s screels at other people? Are they identifying with Dr. Laura and under the delusion that when they call and voice their problems she will support them? Honestly, is she ever nice to anyone? I really don’t know. I have not listened to her very much and certainly not recently. She’s just a nasty piece of work. I can’t imagine how anyone can find her funny or ironic. She’s icky.

  69. I’m really tired of people claiming their constitutional rights have been stepped on.

    Dr. Laura has every right to say any word she feels, within the applicable legal constraints. She just doesn’t have a right to GET PAID for doing so.

    So don’t fret Dr. Laura, keep on saying whatever you want, and don’t mind those sponsors who use THEIR first ammendment rights to deny you their financial support. Your FREEDOM is more important. You should keep doing your show, helping all the people who call you for advice, even if you don’t get paid a dime. THAT will show them communist sponsors and corrupt media executives!

  70. Once upon a time, mentally impaired people were called “idiot,” “moron,” and “imbecile.” Then people thought those words were offensive so they said “Let’s call them slow, but use a more Latin sounding word so it’s not so offensive.” So then mentally impaired people were called “retarded.”

    Now “retarded” is offensive.

    Pretty soon people discussing this situation will say “R-word” in its place so that no one will ever be offended ever again.

    1. The current euphemism for “retarded” is “special needs”, and yes, it did not take long for “special” to become an insulting adjective among the 13-year old set.

      Another great take on this is George Carlin’s routine on how “shell shock” became “combat fatigue” became “post-traumatic stress disorder”.

      1. In WWI, I understand they called it “cowardice,” and shot people for it. We HAVE progressed some, just not enough.

  71. I think the main problem in this situation is that many businesses advertising on the radio are suffering during this recession. When a media scandal like this happens, the offending show’s sponsors can discontinue their support and get immediate, rapid-spreading, free publicity from the issue. Most media outlets do not report the sponsors who refuse to support the protesting party.

    But, to be clear, Dr. Laura’s show is popular because she essentially scolds her callers. She is a sort of AM radio, “telling-it-like-it-is kind of personality.” I am not justifying her racist comments, but — to be fair — this is what her show is. She scolds dissatisfied housewives planning to cheat on their husbands. She scolds single parents for being single parents. She scolds sons and daughters for complaining about their parents. It is just what the show is (Personally, I think it is boring garbage.)

    I think it is naive of her to think that this is a true freedom of speech issue. If she were to say her sponsor’s product, Ovaltine tastes like a hideous mix of sweat and brewer’s yeast, they are going to stop advertising. If she is sponsored by a prolife organization and she tells a caller to get an Abortion, likewise, they will probably stop advertising on her show.

    If you are working for ad revenue, there is a certain amount of ass-kissing and pride-swallowing you are going to have to do to survive on top of your on air personality and show format. It is a fact of life. Perhaps, she already made the decision to do a pay-per-listen podcast that will leave her with more direct profit than her advertisers could provide her on the radio.

  72. She was run out of Canada for violating the rights of Canadians to be free of discrimination. Apparently her first ammendment rights are more important that other people’s right to be free of hatred. I’m ashamed that she’s Jewish. She has no understanding of Jewish law or morality.

    Hey Dr. Laura… “Love your neighbour” doesn’t have exceptions! You can’t pick and choose.

    As Dolly Parton said… “Get down off of the cross, somebody needs the wood!”

  73. At least she isn’t going to be on the radio anymore. I’m forgetting about her as fast as I can.

  74. I am so happy that the ugly (inside and out) crazy old gym teacher reaped what she had sowed. She could have gotten her argument across by saying “N word” and not using the word and by not saying “don’t NAACP me” but like Michael Richards AKA “Cosmo Kramer”, she ends up the trash heap of history, a history of her own making. I am so happy that the free market AKA sponsors started to pull their ads (I guess they were exercising their free speech) and she finally realized that she was just another “run of the mill gabby” and her days were numbered. She realized that she was not as smart as she thought she was, finally! The first three times she used the word might not have been in anger but the last eight she was filled with hate, so good riddance.

    Palin was the one who got bent over the use of the word “Retard” (she wanted someone fired for using it once), Palin also said that the people have the right to build the Mosque in NY, but out of respect for the 9/11 families they shouldn’t, but I guess this same standard is not applicable to Laura Schlessinger. Do you see the hypocrisy? The problem with Palin is the same when she mistakenly referred to Ronald Reagan Eureka College, being in California and we all know its in Illinois, same thing, she does not fact check anything she is going to say. She is soooo Palin!

    http://vodpod.com/watch/3933949-keith-olbermann-mocks-sarah-palins-imbecility-stupidity-video

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-24-2010/the-hurt-talker

Comments are closed.