Now it's Samantha Bee - What is the Standard for Determining the Response to Offensive Speech?
since your 5th point is the most recent, I'll respond to that. It's perhaps the most troublesome from a free speech perspective because:
- use of a vulgarity notwithstanding, Bee's speech was clearly and obviously a commentary on a government policy she finds outrageous, and about a person who is semi-officially a member of the presidential administration. Bee is angry that Ivanka Trump puts on the trappings of a feminist and yet seemingly supports her father's misogynistic tendencies.
- the call for Bee's firing is now coming from the president himself. It's not technically making a law to abridge free speech, but it's certainly in violation of the spirit of the First Amendment when the chief executive calls for someone to be fired for criticizing a member of his administration.
People will find this important or not, but one distinction with the Bee situation is that is was a scripted comment written by and discussed in advanced among a team of people. (Afterwards, the network stated, "It was our mistake, too.") That's what the show does, it rants against the administration. And the comment was not racial or racist in nature.
You could argue that the whole Bee team should be held accountable, and one way of doing that is to just cancel the show. Perhaps there is a bit of a double standard, but that is because the "line" one crosses isn't clearly defined. They lost a few advertisers, but not most of them, and certainly not all of them, which suggests there is some sort of rationale for TBS and its parent to just move through this.
I think one mistake TBS made is that it bleeped the offending word from one platform (broadcast) and left it on the digital/online platform. They should have taken one position and applied it consistently.
Part of this is about who has a show and who doesn't. Who keeps his/her job and who doesn't. And there's always been unfairness and inconsistency in that - just ask anyone who is unemployed or underemployed.
to me the single most important aspect of the Bee incident is that it was a political statement. It wasn't just a gratuitous insult.
ml1 said:
to me the single most important aspect of the Bee incident is that it was a political statement. It wasn't just a gratuitous insult.
Agree. I said it was a "rant against the administration" but you state the distinction more clearly.
To answer your question, many people make the judgement based on whether they agree with the person and/or whether they like the person. In the SLM thread, you can see several people explicitly state the political calculation they make about her removal from the BOE for her racist insults and her abuse of power — that is, they support her because it’s in their narrow self-interest. Many of the same people will condemn Roseanne, probably also making a political calculation with a different outcome.
It’s a kind of consistency at least, but an ugly and destructive one.
kmt said:
To answer your question, many people make the judgement based on whether they agree with the person and/or whether they like the person. In the SLM thread, you can see several people explicitly state the political calculation they make about her removal from the BOE for her racist insults and her abuse of power — that is, they support her because it’s in their narrow self-interest. Many of the same people will condemn Roseanne, probably also making a political calculation with a different outcome.
It’s a kind of consistency at least, but an ugly and destructive one.
You’re also making all of this up, none of what you describe is actually happening on the ‘SLM’ thread, but what the hell right? It’s entertaining.
ml1 said:
to me the single most important aspect of the Bee incident is that it was a political statement. It wasn't just a gratuitous insult.
Respectfully disagree. When are you gonna do something about your father's immigration policy is a political statement. You feckless c-word is a gratuitous insult, imho.
it's an insult for sure. I don't find it gratuitous if it's an expression of anger over a policy.
ml1 said:
it's an insult for sure. I don't find it gratuitous if it's an expression of anger over a policy.
It's trashy invective that whips people into a froth while adding no value - in other words, Tump-speak. How about she spins a tale about the monstrosity of a government that separates children from parents who have really committed no crime other than trying to give their children a future.
tjohn said:
ml1 said:It's trashy invective that whips people into a froth while adding no value - in other words, Tump-speak. How about she spins a tale about the monstrosity of a government that separates children from parents who have really committed no crime other than trying to give their children a future.
it's an insult for sure. I don't find it gratuitous if it's an expression of anger over a policy.
it's a comedy program. That's how she always speaks.
ml1 said:
tjohn said:it's a comedy program. That's how she always speaks.
ml1 said:It's trashy invective that whips people into a froth while adding no value - in other words, Tump-speak. How about she spins a tale about the monstrosity of a government that separates children from parents who have really committed no crime other than trying to give their children a future.
it's an insult for sure. I don't find it gratuitous if it's an expression of anger over a policy.
Trash is trash. The Internet and the not so recent demise of standards of public decency have created this environment where people make nasty comments to huge audiences where those comments are best left to private conversations among a few friends.
Does it matter whether the (very offensive) language is about a person's behavior/policies (Bee on Ivanka) vs. appearance/ancestry (Barr on V. Jarrett)?
My personal take, fwiw: I really really wish Samantha hadn't gone there. I value her pov and would be sorry to see the show cancelled due to overstepping like this. Same way I felt about B. Clinton: you have so much potential, and good ideas, and you're going to impair your effectiveness b/c you just can't keep your pants zipped??
And for the opposition in general: Yes, a lot of us are mad & on the edge of despair, but using T-style language/demagogy can't be a good thing.
tjohn said:
ml1 said:Trash is trash. The Internet and the not so recent demise of standards of public decency have created this environment where people make nasty comments to huge audiences where those comments are best left to private conversations among a few friends.
tjohn said:it's a comedy program. That's how she always speaks.
ml1 said:It's trashy invective that whips people into a froth while adding no value - in other words, Tump-speak. How about she spins a tale about the monstrosity of a government that separates children from parents who have really committed no crime other than trying to give their children a future.
it's an insult for sure. I don't find it gratuitous if it's an expression of anger over a policy.
That's not really the question at hand though. The question is does someone deserve to be fired for that? I would say that we're venturing into dangerous territory if someone is fired because she used a profanity in what cannot be denied is political speech. And it's especially dangerous if the firing comes at the insistence of the man who was the target of it. It's not language that I use, and I understand why people are offended. But it shouldn't be held apart from the context of political speech in which it was used.
I think networks fire people or cancel shows based on business calculations. If this is going to result in advertiser flight, then Bee is out of luck.
And not for nothing, but the outrage over Bee on the right is as faux as faux outrage can be. Where was the clutching of pearls over this stuff?
The most misogynistic things people wore to Trump rallies.
You don't have to guess whether the word that Bee used showed up on someone's shirt.
Norman_Bates said:
I find myself pondering the Samantha Bee situation ...
BS. You find yourself dancing to the tune of right wing outrage practitioners.
ml1 said:
And not for nothing, but the outrage over Bee on the right is as faux as faux outrage can be. Where was the clutching of pearls over this stuff?
The most misogynistic things people wore to Trump rallies.
You don't have to guess whether the word that Bee used showed up on someone's shirt.
And Trump is the CEO of guttersnipes but self-awareness is in rather short supply in Trumplandia.
Thanks for posting, Norman_Bates. I’ve respected your MOL comments in the past, and this one is no exception.
Train_of_Thought said:
ml1 said:Respectfully disagree. When are you gonna do something about your father's immigration policy is a political statement. You feckless c-word is a gratuitous insult, imho.
to me the single most important aspect of the Bee incident is that it was a political statement. It wasn't just a gratuitous insult.
Exactly, the term is both vulgar and gratuitous. She could have made her political point without it. It was also a really stupid tactical blunder because it gave Trump and his minions a chance to cry foul, slam the media, and assume the high ground.
All you need to do is add the word "-gate" at the end of this and you have the plot of an actual episode of Veep.
Where I come from, my friends and I used it as a term of endearment, but here in the land where people have to say **** like h-e-double-hockey-sticks it's not a big surprise.
I get the anger; Ivanka, of course, has plenty of feck.
But seriously: I do see the difference when it's political in nature, which this is ... but at the same time, we on the more liberal side of things seem to be utterly amazing at creating these self-inflicted wounds again and again and again. The right wing outrage machine spins up very easily, and destroys all in its path.
I'd tend to agree that it was a tactical error from Bee. Because it's actually a good example of why liberals always lose. Conservatives would NEVER have apologized for something like Samantha Bee said. NEVER. No excuses. No retreat, no surrender.
Liberals rush to grovel and apologize. That more than anything is what people love about Trump. He sticks it to the liberals and NEVER apologizes. Liberal tears are what drives him and his base.
ml1 said:
I'd tend to agree that it was a tactical error from Bee. Because it's actually a good example of why liberals always lose. Conservatives would NEVER have apologized for something like Samantha Bee said. NEVER. No excuses. No retreat, no surrender.
Liberals rush to grovel and apologize. That more than anything is what people love about Trump. He sticks it to the liberals and NEVER apologizes. Liberal tears are what drives him and his base.
That's very true and this is why Trump cannot be battled in the wagon rut where he dwells.
ridski said:
Where I come from, my friends and I used it as a term of endearment,
Where exactly do you come from?
tjohn said:
ml1 said:That's very true and this is why Trump cannot be battled in the wagon rut where he dwells.
I'd tend to agree that it was a tactical error from Bee. Because it's actually a good example of why liberals always lose. Conservatives would NEVER have apologized for something like Samantha Bee said. NEVER. No excuses. No retreat, no surrender.
Liberals rush to grovel and apologize. That more than anything is what people love about Trump. He sticks it to the liberals and NEVER apologizes. Liberal tears are what drives him and his base.
I'd prefer the liberals try. It's better than "going high" and being punching bags. What do they have to lose at this point? Taking the high road got them nothing.
ml1 said:
I'd tend to agree that it was a tactical error from Bee. Because it's actually a good example of why liberals always lose. Conservatives would NEVER have apologized for something like Samantha Bee said. NEVER. No excuses. No retreat, no surrender.
But Roseanne apologized, just like Samantha did.
I must have missed when conservatives apologized for all the offensive misogynistic signs, buttons, shirts, etc. were all over the place during Campaign '16.
I don't get the comparison. Some random Joe Schmoe or Jane Schmoe at a Trump rally isn't going to have any reason to apologize for anything because they're not public figures. But Samantha Bee and Roseanne are, and they both apologized.
I don't imagine conservatives have apologized for the stuff you mention, but to my knowledge neither have liberals who have had some pretty offensive signage at anti-trump rallies.
I find myself pondering the Samantha Bee situation [ https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/opinions/samantha-bees-message-was-right-even-if-her-word-wasnt-drexler/index.html ] in light of recent MOL conversations on Freedom of Speech along with the threads concerning Stephanie Lawson-Muhammad, Rosanne Barr, NFL Owners, etc. At the risk of over simplifying the various MOL threads, my subjective take on those threads is as follows: (but I may stand corrected)
1. Roseanne Barr issues a tweet that most people find racist - seems to be a clear consensus that she and her show should be removed from the network schedule
2. Stephanie Lawson-Muhammad makes what some find to be a racist comment - seems to be a split consensus on whether she should be removed from the School Board.
3. Players are prohibited by NFL from kneeling during national anthem - there seems to be a consensus that the owners have the right to do this but that consumers should boycott games because the players' speech and the cause are being suppressed (did I get that correct?)
4. Should colleges prohibit speakers (including faculty and students) from making comments that others find offensive?...frankly, I am not clear if there is a consensus on this issue although I think it leans toward "yes"
5. Samantha Bee uses an offensive and derogatory sexual term to refer to Ivanka Trump - Should she and her show be removed? So far, no discussion on MOL
These various threads have me wondering what standard people are employing in concluding what the response should be when a public person (or anyone, I suppose) makes a public comment that others find offensive. What makes the difference? Does it depend on the nature of the comment, the target of the comment, the intent of the comment, the position/status of the speaker, whether one is in agreement or antipathy with the political stance of the speaker/tweeter or the target, financial considerations, the principle of Freedom of Speech, or some other factor? What matters most?