Pan:
1) What do you mean by allow? Even in free speech cases, which this is not, prior restraint is not acceptable.
2) Sharpton the "Civil Rights Activist" and Sharpton the Reverend are the same guy. In that guy's eyes, Mormons don't believe in God. I doubt this comes as a surprise to Donny and Marie Osmond, however fresh their faces are. Frankly, I don't see this as any different than if he had been talking about scientologist, bahai, jainist, hindu, or sikh politicians. Just because you think that Mormonism and Baptist are of a kind doesn't make it so, nor does it make Sharpton think so.
3) It's not really OK or not OK for Sharpton OR Imus to "hurt people". However, it is something that happens. Depending on the substance and context of the alleged hurt, society pushes back. Apparently this pseudo-hurt (my words, not yours) rates lower than Imus' comments. In my personal opinion, this is because of the nature of the commercial interests at play. Advertisers will naturally push back harder than factional supporters (who are the types of people who fund Sharpton). It seems that in their view, getting him more attention is mostly a good thing. This is hardly the most hurtful or outrageous thing Al Sharpton has don.
4) I'm not sure if you're calling me (or people who think as I do) hypocritical or Al Sharpton. Since I'm not Al Sharpton, I suspect this means that your brush may be a tad wide.
You know how Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? That's kind of what I am getting at here. These guys get to say what they want, and then they get to suffer the consequences when people hear it.
I think equating the two situations at hand is sloppy thinking.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
|