Jay Sevrin deserves to be canned.
Offline ...For those who did not happen to hear this story:
This wonderful 'moderate' coservative talk show host decided to go on a rant about the 'dirty', 'leeching', 'primitive' Mexicans that are apparently somehow the cause of all disease (and, of course, most certainly somehow the reason that the recent flu problem has attained it's present rate of propagation).
Needless to say, I wanted to throttle this man.
First, let's just be clear: there have not been any cases of the recent influenza outbreak that have spread to the American population via contact with illegal aliens (and this should not be surprising; Mexico City isn't exactly snuggled against the U.S. border). Moreover, now the earliest known cases of the present outbreak trace their origins to California - so perhaps you can turn the racist vitriol against those 'dirty', 'primitive', 'leeching' Californians instead?
Second, here is a look at what those 'little primitives' call Mexico City:
...Not bad for the work of subhuman thilth, eh?
America?
This is why the rest of world tends to get cranky with you.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Jay Sevrin needs to be canned.Well I never heard of this clown,but if he's scapegoating the Mexican illegals for the swine flu, I agree. First off, he needs to do some fact checking about this flu entering America.The last thing that I read on this subject was that it came from a small Mexican town where a American pork company Smithfield's factory farms,has dumped all of the pig's manure and other by- products into a small pond,that is now a cess pool with cloud's of flies hovering around and on floating pig parts. And the flu entered into the USA from a catholic school in New York,the students were in Cancun Mexico on a Holiday vacation. and the rest of the world hates us because of our Foreign policies,and not because of these Idiots who flood our airwaves with their xenophobia.
Signature ? How ?
I believe that he's the same guy who wants to kill Muslims, according to wikipedia at least.
for the info Captain,and if he wants to kill all Muslims,I would say that he's as ignorant as cat shit and that he's living in the wrong century,he belongs with the Christian Crusaders.
Signature ? How ?
Seriously, Kevin?. He's one jackass with a radio show. I didn't even know who he was until you started bitching, and for that matter, I thought the world gets "cranky" with us because of our foreign policy. Apparently, now it's because some asshole shock jock that maybe one percent of the population could identify by name (if that many) made some disgusting racist comments. You let this shit wind you up way too easy, man.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
But it isn't 'one guy' with a radio show. He represents an entire (if shrinking) ideology within your borders - the same one espoused by our portly friend Mr. Limbaugh, the entire Fox News network, a sizable portion of your Republican political party, etc. It's the underlying ideology that creates your (formerly) atrocious foreign policy.
Here's what I mean by, 'This is why the rest of the world gets cranky with you': If I showed a transcript of that fellow's vitriol to any adult outside of the U.S., blacking-out the obvious references in it to America, and asked them to guess what country he's from, how many guesses do you think they'd go through before guessing the United States?
Probably not terribly many.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Kevin...I am going to respectfully disagree with you. I usually love reading your stuff...
The first ammendment guarantees us the right to free speech, not the right to not be offended. This is why radios have dials...if enough people don't like what Severin has to say, they are free to change the station...
The first ammendment is being circumvented----not through legislation---but by pressure from political lobbies and special interest groups who want to change language and put people on the air who offer opinions in line their own astigmatic presumptions, and to further their political influence...
The marketplace (ratings and ad revenue his show generates) should determine his employment...not bullying mob tactics directed at station management. Racism has become the liberal McCarthy-ism...and it has become easier to sinmply fire people than stand up to these special interests...it isn;t the threat of sponsor boycotts that influences management...its the threat of being labled a racist.
There are *A LOT* of people who do not want the Atheist viewpoint to be heard...if a radio host came out and annouonced that there is no god there would be a good chance that he wou,d be fired... I bet you and I would be among the first to support his right to free speech...
Unless we are also calling for "Def Comedy Jam" to be taken off the air... these stereotypical ethnic remarks delivered to make people laugh need to stand as well...I am hardly a conservative...I disagree with Severin *A LOT*... but "Crimaliens"?...Importing Women with mustaches?...thats funny shit...if it were said in a comedy club it would have a different dynamic... if it were similar jokes made at white people's expense...no one would say a word.
Support Free speech...because there are people who want to take *OURS* away too...if we dont like it, lets just change the channel...as they can do with us.
...and the Rutger's Women's Basketball team?...lets face it...they weren't a bunch a nice looking young ladies..."Well Marge, no one will fuck us...lets play some hoops"
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
Well, Rich, the 1st ammendment right does not protect your employment (as far as I'm aware). It prevents you from being tossed in jail.
...Let's forget about that for a moment, though, because this is something I've sort of been mulling over the past few days anyway:
What is 'free speech', exactly? What are it's limits (if any)? If we accept that indeed there aren't any limits to a person's freedom of speech, we then essentially acknowledge that every act to cover-up one's misdeeds, rewrite history, invoke violence, spread propaganda, etc, was a protected and thus a just act. If there are (which seems to me the more logical case to make), where do you set those limits?
Personally, I tend to set them at the line of inciting & promoting hatred and racism. There's nothing constructive, interesting or otherwise anything to be gained from Sevrin calling mexicans thilthy little parasites. There's no sense in protecting his 1st amendmnt right just for the sake of protecting it, is there?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
And Americans wonder why majority of the world hates them.
Humans are not superior to other life forms, Americans are not superior to other humans.
People who think they are superior, are simply inferior.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Wow, and this coming from a guy who thinks Palestine should be a smouldering crater.
Kevin: Yes, it is (though that's something of an exaggeration)
Though I fail to see what that has to do with free speech.
Anyway, the point is that by your logic, and since this is a public website, then the first ammendment does not apply here, I would theoretically be unable to say: fuck, skank, bitch, etc...
Kevin: Go back and read my post, Alison. I did not say 'the first amendment need not apply'.
I was interested in starting a legitimate discussion about what free speech encompasses, what it does not, and whether or not protecting someone's vitriol simply for the sake of protecting their vitriol is a worthy effort.
Now, since this is Sapient's website, he can run it as he likes. He can ban people for whatever he wants, there is no question of this.
Now imagine, if somebody came and read this post and say me saying "fuck skank bitch" got offended, and complained to Sapient that he should ban me for saying such. Should he?
Kevin: What do you mean, 'should' he? You have a hidden premise here, Alison.
Or hell, imagine if a Christian lobby group said that this website should be shut down because of the blaspmey challenge.
Slippery slope is slippery.
Kevin: Well, does the Christian lobbying group have a legitimate case to make? Is the Blasphemy challenge promoting hatred, inciting violence, etc? Does it have nothing of value or intrigue to offer anyone?
Note what I said about Sevrin's comments: there's nothing to take away from them. We lose absolutely nothing by telling him that he is not welcome to spend half an hour lying about Latinos in order to dehumanize them.
'Slippery slope' is a bullshit argument. Just because it may be extreme to protect absolutely every act of speech does not somehow mean that protection of speech entirely must vanish. Consider: I could re-write your entire post here, using the same function I just used to post this rebuttal. Nobody (other than you, and anyone who previously read the post, obviously) would know. If I started to alter people's posts like that, should that be protected? It's a form of speech, afterall. Or, what if I just started topics that were nothing but defamatory lies and insults about you? Should that be protected as well?
Free speech, like any other law or chartered right, has a beneficial role and purpose: however, like any contruct, it also has it's flaws and weaknesses. I really dig free speech; I have a pretty big stake in it, afterall, given that I intend to perhaps make writing a profession. I also think we should be realistic about it (and other codifications), however, and consider where it's application is appropriate and where it is not.
I live outside of Boston, where Jay Severin spends most of his time ranting on WTKK 96.9. In between his hatred of 'criminaliens' and 'Dumbocrats', the only thing he likes to talk about is Katie Couric's cleavage and how he has a fetish for Asian women.
The guy's a pinhead who equates Obama's presidency with Khruschev, who thinks that any attempt to help the poor is welfare and that the solution to the world's problems is to cut taxes and let the free market reign.
He's no different from Michael Weiner, I mean, Savage or Laura Ingraham or Rush Limbaugh. Just another blowhard.
"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."
-BHG
Bump to make a point.
(See Alison's post)
So he's on the radio because people love to hate him? Is this what I'm reading?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Why didn't you just type in another post?
Anyway
And that isn't considered hate speech to Arabs/Muslims because......?
You said that the first ammendment only applies to government. It sure does. Private corporations can censor all they want. Sapient can delete any post he wants.
However, censoring something/deleting a post just because a bunch of complaints come in is madness.
If Sapient gives into the complainers, he's not running the site, the complainers are.
It's Jay's radio show, he can run it as he wants, nobody has to listen to it.
Well, going by your logic he should if he wants to uphold to your standards. If, however he does not, then no, he won't.
If he does, he is no longer controlling the site, the complainers are.
This is why I brought up Palestine, to show that you are promoting violence towards a disputed terrortory.
We tell him more by changing the dail, so his ratings go down.
It would be dishonest and prickish, but I can do nothing to stop you.
I don't have to post here. If it happens, I can just leave the site and find another one that doesn't do that.
You see? It works out. If you edit everybody's post, nobody would post here for fear of you doing it to them. Then you'll just be waiting for new users, then word gets out, and you're site is getting no traffic.
Yes, Kevin. It is protected.
Kevin, simply censoring people won't get them to change.
If somebody cannot express themselves freely, then dialogue is useless. How are we to quell racism/bigotry, if we don't know who the racist/bigots are? Simply censoring them isn't going to affect them. If we however have dialogue with them, then they may just change their minds or somebody listening to the conversation may think twice about their racism/bigotry.
Like I mention, several of your comments could get you publicaly boycotted. My comments can get me boycotted.
I get offended by a lot of things, doesn't mean they should be censored.
Jay Sevrin is not being 'censored' if they decide to fire him. He is losing his employment.
And, no offense to Sapient, but as I'm sure he is aware: the 'complainers' (re: the public) do, de facto, run the website. Sapient pays to keep it up, but as you later allude, his website is only as good as the traffic it recieves.
...So, the question then becomes:
If nobody were to come to Sapient's website or listen to Sevrin's radio show anyway, why keep either around? (Admittedly, that's perhaps more of a pragmatic business matter than a matter of ethics).
...But it hasn't worked. You had to leave, remember?
And what about circumstances where you cannot simply 'leave' or change the channel? You're oversimplifying things.
But to what extent? Or is it simply always my right, no matter how far I take it? I'm fairly certain that you'd agree that, somewhere, my freedom of speech can quite easily start to run rather roughly against your right to privacy and well being. This is an extreme example, but what about someone who makes a blog about you with clear sexual innuendo, starts stalking you with a camera and posting your pictures to it, writes-up erotic fantasy stories involving him and yourself, etc? Would be fine by you?
Again, why are you interested in universal protection of free speech? What purpose does it serve to protect someone's right to say whatever they like just for the sake of protecting it?
How does dialogue become meaningless after we've told people that they will be held accountable for attempting to dehumanize ethnicities? You're right - it won't change them. It will, however, remove their vehicles for doing harm. We have plenty of examples from history of the damage done by a roaring propaganda mill that espouses discrimination of minorities; it's odd to me that we have decided not to recognize, with our laws, what we've been shown.
It's also important to note that I'm not talking about telling Sevrin that he cannot run a radio show or make controversial remarks on that show, or that he cannot go to the bar and then ham it up with his friends about the evil Mexicans coming to steal his job and give him the flu. I'm saying that he should have to adhere to a standard of discourse when talking to the public - one that recognizes that there is a line, somewhere (and we can - and I hope we get to - argue about where that line might be), and that crossing that line may mean that you lose your job.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
No, he's on the radio because Massachusetts is a very progressive and left-leaning state. Therefore, Jay Severin appeals to the 20% or so within earshot who think that gays are bad, taxes are evil, and the government is out to get you.
He's a latter-day dipshit with an aluminum foil hat.
"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."
-BHG
It doesn't do squat if and when it's not enforced.
If the radio station decides to fire him, or refuses to air his show, then that's their perogative.
However, if they decide to keep him that is also their perogative.
They can base their decision on anything they want. If Sapient wants to use public opinion as a deciding factor, then he can do so.
If he doesn't, then nobody should force him.
But I decided to come back, nobody forced me.
Such as?
An example that I can think of is that if you're riding in a car with somebody. But still, you can ask them to change the channel, or call them out on it.
Yes, if it goes against privacy, such as if you post my address.
To hammer this point home, a line for the end of free speech ends when you begin to violate somebody's privacy.
I would be EXTREMELY creeped out and call him a perverted lunatic, but I can't do anything about it.
That won't really do anything against my privacy.
That would be stalking which is illegal.
Because people could easily turn it against me or you.
But they'll just spread their propagonda other ways. He could use his web-site and do a radio show streaming from there etc.... People already know about him.
If, however, we get him over his bigotry, then it will end that way.
Kevin, you're right, there can be and is a line. That line is determined by the employer, and can base it on anything they want.
The radio station can very well decide, that Jay's remarks are too bigoted and idiotic and that they will lose ratings so they can him.The station owners may, themselves, be offended so they fire him.
However, the station being FORCED to can him, is what I'm arguing against, just like if the radio station was FORCED to keep him.
Feel free to e-mail your opinions into the station or to his show. But, don't try to make your e-mail a legal notice.
For the record, according to wikipedia he was suspended indefinetly as of April 30th
Another record, I propose the lines for free speech as follows:
Violating privacy
"Joe lives at 123 Seasame street"
Stalking which is illegal as above.
Violent threats
"Kill all [insert race/religion/nationality etc..]."
This should be considered a death threat which is illegal and dealt as such.
Hi Kevin...you make a valid point (as always), but I would counter that he would not have been fired if it were not for 3rd party interaction... Had his employer heard his rant, and fired him *before* there was any complaints because he violated *their* standards...then I would have no problem with it..
I only have a problem when the special interest groups decide who is allowed to say what...
I am doing a segment on Jay Severin on my show this evening... I would love to keep typing...but I am really short on time...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
^ This
Except I don't think Kevin always makes valid points and I don't have a show
My first impulse was to agree with this. Yes, free speech is important.
But isn't his 'speech' like yelling fire in crowded theater when there is no fire? Creating a panic and hysteria possible leading to discrimination and violence against Mexicans or anyone perceived to be Mexican? This kind of 'speech' is not protected by the first amendment.
Where do we draw the line between just being a blowhard and being a danger to society? Can Mexicans sue him and his employer in civil court for defamation?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Rich why don't you give us the details of your show; maybe some of us would like to tune in via the internet and give it a listen.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Seconded!
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Click on the link in his sig then click "the show"
Actually it isn't. Defamatory lies about an individual would fall under (in Kevin's hypothetical scenario) libel. That is not protected. Statements that incite violence are also not protected. There certainly are limits to free speech.
Rill
www.unlearntheshow.com ...we open up with Jay Severin...which to be honest...was not our best stuff...we had some audio problems and it took me until our second break to get going...but if you can stick through the awfulness... I talk about a subway Tunnel in NYC that is a haven for religious zealotry...and I give a shout out to this site...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com