We have all decided that free speech equals a free democracy, right? What is interesting is that although free speech is protected in many different forms, protecting ratings or profit of someone who angers the majority is not. I mentioned in my last post that I keep up with issues related to size discrimination from several sites, including the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) and the media watchdog site from the National Eating Disorder Association (NEDA). For an example, see NEDA's latest letters to Apple concerning a recent ad campaign. Just because a person has the right to their opinion, it doesn't mean that they will continue to voice it when concerned, vocal citizens/customers let them know they don't approve.
The reason I mention this is because this kind of action often encourages debate and discussion. For instance at a size-acceptance/feminist/liberal/civil rights blog I follow, Kate Harding's Shapely Prose, I found information about the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Their "Call to Action" was due to a radio host's comments that implied LGBTQ teens should be physically punished and "beat down," by society. You can read GLAAD's full response here. At first, the radio hosts refused to respond, stating it was just a joke. Until their ratings started to slip. That's right, when their fans told them it was unacceptable, then they really apologized, and started a respectful discussion on both sides. That radio host, Apple, David Letterman, Oprah - they have a right to make comments, endorse products, and spout off about their latest fad, BUT their fans and consumers have the right to stop listening, stop buying, and send complaints. Having that dialogue and having the right to give feedback, is what makes intellectual freedom so great.
"A Sarah." (2009, June 5). Quick hit: GLAAD call to action. Message posted to Kate Harding's Shapely Prose. Retreived from http://kateharding.net/2009/06/05/quick-hit-glaad-call-to-action/
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. (2009). Call to action. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=730
National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. (2009). Get involved. Retrieved from http://www.naafaonline.com/dev2/get_involved/index.html
National Eating Disorders Association. (2009). Media watchdog program: Recent action. Retrieved from http://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/p.asp?WebPage_ID=300
Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the morning. (2009). Transgender response. Retrieved from http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/index.html
Not Goodbye, but See Ya Later
9 months ago
I love that GLAAD put out a call to action. I think people are more likely to boycott, or maybe I should say individuals/radio stations/programs or more likely to respond to a known boycott that occurs in a group fashion. Someone wrote about Pat Buchanan last week. I have always boycotted him, Rush Limbaugh, etc. But a vocal group boycott, making the atrocities stated very public, now that's a great idea. I was not familiar with this but apparently the call to action worked. Enough already with these obnoxious loudmouths.
ReplyDeleteExactly!
ReplyDeleteOne voice in a crowd is sometimes chosen not to be heard but a whole group of voices can not be overlooked. However, only when profit is involved and that profit is being lost does it seem to really matter and the apologies come out. Everyone has a right to an opinion though as long as they are not overstepping the bounds of free speech.
I think the great thing about free speech is, like you said, that we have the right to agree or disagree with something. I think it is great when a group of people come together to make their voices heard regarding any topic--especially if it goes against something that is seen as popular or trendy at the time. I find disagreement interesting because it opens up dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI generally consider myself to be open-minded but my comments above do not suggest that! I'm just expressing my disagreement with the views of some....
ReplyDeleteGreat blog! I think that when it comes to people like Oprah, David Letterman, and other famous opinion sharers-- the best way to let them know you don't like what they are sharing is to stop listening. Viewership/listenship means real dollars and cents to these people and they will start to change their ways when the public stops paying attention to them. I think that is kinda what happened with Tom Cruise. Ten years ago people were in love with him. But when he started preaching to Americans, people stopped seeing his movies. Then he started to be more guarded about sharing his religious views.
ReplyDeleteYou would think that Oprah would have learned her lesson on the power of words when she was sued by the Texas Beef Industry because of a quip about hamburger meat(?). She ended up winning because of her right to free speech, but it hurt her.
ReplyDeleteDoes boycotting help change ways? I would think that the person making offensive comments would have to know what they did before they can change. It is not as simple as not tuning in, a message has to be sent to the Oprahs and Lettermans of the world before change can happen. The message can be peaceful, but it needs to be there.
You would think that Radio and TV host would learn their lesson, remember Don Imus, who made the comment about the Rutgers Female Basketball team. He had to learn a hard valuable lesson. Yeah, it was his freedom of speech, but he was also made to apologize to the women, as well as faced serious consequences.
ReplyDelete