"Jackson never suggested making the word illegal, at least not in the article. Not even in the Fox version of the press conference. He called for a voluntary boycott."

There's no other reason for them to be referring to the status of the word as "unprotected" or talking with Maxine Waters about it. If all they wanted was a voluntary ban by the entertainment industry, there'd be no reason to discuss whether it is protected by the constitution. Obviously, the entertainment industry can censor themselves whether a word is protected speech or not.

"He responded with an inflammatory outburst. The club should have gotten the hook and tossed him right then and there. That is not protected speech.'

The club could toss him out for using the word "and" if they wanted to. I doubt you'd admit that "and" is protected speech. Whether something is protected or not only matters in terms of GOVERNMENT action.

Just like here at JU, people yap about free speech, and we know that brad can kick you out or censor you on a whim. The entertainment industry can do that, too. So when we start talking about whether a word is 'protected' or not, we're talking about protected from government censorship or punitive action.

"Once again, no one is talking about making the word illegal. But we are not obligated to give these preachers of hate a podium. Say what you want privately, but I don't have to listen to it."

But neither are you protected from hearing it, unless the government makes it so. This is what makes your argument a tad facetious to me. You claim you aren't talking about making a word illegal, but you're not saying what force will be used to create this environment that you envision, and you quote court cases to back yourself up.

If you're saying that entertainers can be stopped from offending other people in public by the entertainment industry, they already can be, and people don't stop them. If you are talking about the use of "hate speech" and the govenment stopping them, then you certainly are talking about making it illegal.

If you are talking about being allowed to sue someone when you get offended, then that's just a backhanded way of making it illegal. It's still the courts handing out fines, civil though they may be, for using a word. You cite the court case above, so I assume you tend to think it is already illegal, right?

I'm not sure if you'll respond to this kupe, but if you do I guess I can sum my question up as:

When you say that this is unprotected speech, and quote court cases to that effect, I'd have to ask... unprotected from what? If you aren't talking about making it illegal, what are you talking about? If you are saying the government will act in people's interests to civilly harass people for using a word, what's the difference?

When you say that this is unprotected speech, and quote court cases to that effect, I'd have to ask... unprotected from what?

"Unprotecting" the word is not in and of itself making it illegal. But it opens the door for that action since it no longer has the protection of the constitution.

I totally agree with you when you say nobody should be trying to make anything un-sayable what Jackson should be doing, is getting off the media circus, stand up and call for those men who are now suing Richards to accept his apology and move the hell on.

He should be calling for them to do it for themselves, the country, race relations, do it because it is the right thing to do.

I see nothing wrong with calling for a boycott of racial slurs, all racial slurs, but I don't think Jackson went that far unfortunately, shows the kind of leader he is, more telling is the lack of insistence from him that members of the African American community stop repeating it in music and entertainment.

I could be wrong but I don't recall hearing that.

Regarding outlawing words though, I think our country has already fought that battle and it isn't for Jessie Jackson to call for us to overturn our values as an American society because sometimes people are offended. Would you not agree?

Mixing movies there?

Eh...I thought it was kinda clever.

~Zoo

I'm still curious. If Mr. Jackson, and Kupe in the discussion here, don't believe this is about making the word illegal, then why is the issue of it being 'unprotected' mentioned at all? Protected vs. unprotected speech really only matters in terms of government intervention, right? Private businesses can censor how they like whether something is 'protected' or not.

So... what is the point in dragging Maxine Waters into it and pushing the point that the 'n' word isn't protected speech? That sounds like more than just boycotting companies that favor people who use the word.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are nothing but Crackers who wish it was still legal to whip a Black Man.

see nothing wrong with calling for a boycott of racial slurs, all racial slurs, but I don't think Jackson went that far unfortunately, shows the kind of leader he is, more telling is the lack of insistence from him that members of the African American community stop repeating it in music and entertainment. I could be wrong but I don't recall hearing that.

Actually the article did say he was calling on all black artists to stop using the word. That is what he go the Huzzah for. Using a boycott and economic arm twisting to get people to stop saying it - I am all for that. Making it illegal? No.

So... what is the point in dragging Maxine Waters into it and pushing the point that the 'n' word isn't protected speech? That sounds like more than just boycotting companies that favor people who use the word.

I did not even mention Maxine as she is a real buffoon. Proof that stupidity is not always lethal. But you are right. The word "illegal" is not there, but the intent sure is.

"Actually the article did say he was calling on all black artists to stop using the word."

I stand corrected and duly note that. Interesting. Seems like the first time.

"I am all for that. Making it illegal? No."

Agreed completely.

The day they start banning words is the day I add them, as much as possible, to my regular vocabulary.

Big Brother, where art thou?

Watching you very closely, Zoo... Oh, damn, did I type that? Erm, nevermind...

The day they start banning words is the day I add them, as much as possible, to my regular vocabulary.

As a form of civil protest?

Sorry for replying so late, work and a sick child called.

What I thought that Jesse Jackson asked for, a voluntary ban on the use of an offensive word, is fine. Later on Jesse Jackson would write that, "The use of the hate word -- n----- -- has become too culturally acceptable. Some of this comes from black culture and the informal use of the word in teasing mode. In fact, this is hate language. It's a punch in the groin disguised as a word.

Our forefathers created the First Amendment to ensure a robust public debate and to prohibit the government from making laws to squelch political speech, even speech critical of our leaders. But obscenity has never enjoyed that protection, nor should it. Yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theater does not have protection. Similarly, hate speech -- like that wielded by Richards -- has and should be illegal."

That goes beyond what I originally thought Jackson asked for and beyond what I would support. But it is a matter of degree, not principle.

We have laws and rules governing obscenity, Jackson wants those rules extended to a particular racial epithet. (As Ted pointed out, Jackson did not mention his own use of a particular term.) These rules have always been extended to the private sector.

Everyone knows that Clearchannel was fined for Howard Stern's obscenities, right? ABC was fined for Janet Jackson's Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction." If it is okay to fine the company that carries a broadcast with the "f-word" why not one that includes the "n-word?"

We have laws and rules governing obscenity, Jackson wants those rules extended to a particular racial epithet. (As Ted pointed out, Jackson did not mention his own use of a particular term.) These rules have always been extended to the private sector.

We legislate the time and place, but not the use of the word. You can still let loose with a string of filth, just not in all places at all times. That is a big difference from banning a word.

I was accused of using this word once. Of course, being the person I am I don't, not ever, I have absolutely no use for it, but someone once thought that instead of me saying "Are you from Milwaukee or one of the bigger cities?" They had thought I replaced "bigger" with the racial slur.

I was just making conversation, trying to be friendly, cashiering pretty much as was my job. This was while I was working at a gas station, the reason I had asked was, I figured she to be from out of the Valley. This girl had come into pre-pay for gas. An accepted norm in the larger cities in Wisconsin and Illinois, but that we do not yet in the Valley do for whatever reason, certainly not because people always pay for their gas.

Anyway, It was a 10-14 year old girl. She didn't say much, never reacted, never said "What did you say?" never even gave me any indication she had been insulted. She just was pretty blank and quiet. I know she must have been shocked maybe didn't know how to react, but I'm pretty sure she was hurt more then anything else, maybe even so hurt she didn't tell her mother or father until later that night or even the next day.

I found out, the next day, that her father had called, and my boss, had the entire conversation on tape audio/video, and in fact the word I had used was specifically "bigger". It hurt me to think that she could just accept that I would say that, as if it were just "friendly conversation" coming from a cashier, talking about people like that. It hurt that either it is often enough or accepted enough, hurt that that behaviour is her world, her reality, it hurt that she kept quiet long enough about it that her father didn't come storming in to find out.

Her father didn't know me from anybody, neither did the girl, I offered to apologize and to make clear, that is was a misunderstanding, not a slip, casual, or certainly not a intentional racial slur delivery, but at my boss' word the man accepted that what had happened actually did.

Suffice it to say, I'm saddened by the world in which we live, and that some really cruel people live in it, but what I have learned is that there are a lot of good people, even those of us who don't consider ourselves "good" have good in us. That man, his daughter they were good people, I'm a good person, my boss is a good person, I am convinced that even if we did not have the audio/video evidence, that if I would have looked that man in the eye and he mine, that he would have believed me.

As to whether or not this world should be "banned" legally, that's probably going to far. There are other guys out there, good guys, and there are good people who get into misunderstandings. My situation could play out very differently in some place where there is no audio or video recording equipment, and it becomes one persons word vs another persons word. Someone could be fined, or arrested, for using words, is that really what we want? A Soviet type state where people are restricted in another way what they can say? If this word were to be illegal then good people could be harmed by that whether they said it or something else similar (I forget the word for that, it's been a long time since grade school lol) as in my case and though I support anything short of a legal ban, shameful as racial slurs are, people should have the option to say and write, express themselves.

People who have no control of themselves, or care for others, lack of empathy, in choosing to use racial slurs, knowing that some are deeply offended by them, make that choice and will continue to make it whether it is legal or not.

What would be more productive I think is taking the emphasis of hate and inferiority off the word and all racial slurs, and stop allowing other people to racially insult you with words. Anyone who would choose to use the words knowing it hurts people ought to be shamed and shunned by the rest of us. As is Richards, but they should also be embraced for apologizing if they make a mistake, because any of us could possibly do the same, they should also be forgiven.

Forgiveness is more valuable, that and releasing hate, to the world then any accumulation of wealth, and it should be more valuable to yourself too.

That's all I have to say, I hope that sharing my experience with this kinda thing lets you guys feel enlightened.