UES Eateries Accused Of Racism For Not Delivering To Harlem
Citibank To Charge All Accounts That Drop Below $1,500
Bronx Teacher Suspended For Assigning Story On Masturbation
GoCaGa, BoHo, iTri, And Other New Neighborhood Names
NY Post Finds One Man Who Sides With Fort Hood Shooter
The Reggae Carifest set to happen at Randall's Island this Saturday may get the plug pulled. amNewYork reports that Power 105 withdrew its sponsorship in response to two artists on the bill having anti-gay language in their songs. The artists, Buju Banton and Bounty Killer, have a history of inflammatory lyrics. Banton's song "Boom Bye Bye" speaks of burning and shooting gay men, while Bounty Killer's song "Another Level" suggests drowning them. The Dancehall reggae artists are part of a long history that genre has in advocating anti-gay violence.
GLAAD's Rashad Robinson stated: "Buju Banton and Bounty Killer continue to perform songs with virulently homophobic lyrics that in some cases support the murder of gay people. It is unacceptable for Clear Channel, the concert promoters, and the other sponsors to provide these performers with a platform to promote messages that put lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in harm's way." Clear Channel owns Power 105 and did in fact withdraw its support Wednesday after receiving a call from GLAAD.
The organization is encouraging other sponsors to withdraw, but if the show goes on, concert-goers, organizers and performers should expect to be met by gay-rights activists who are still planning on protesting.
Photo of "Gay Pride mocking Jamaican hate singers" via IndyMedia UK.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
well that pretty much pulls every dancehall artist ever.
"shot da batty bwoy" is by far the most offensive song though.
They shouldn't leave their shitty island.
This "music" is pure trash with or without the hateful lyrics that most english speaking people can't even understand.
It says right in the Constitution that you have the right not to be offended and the right for everyone to be nice to you. I think it's also a crime to be mean, but I have to check.
GLAAD's attempting to silence these guys through censorship, and it's stupid, no matter what the politics of the offensive content is.
Excellent news. Enough is enough with the homophobic and anti-woman performers.
#4 GLAAD is actually using market forces to influence what is played in the city. They are not proposing any laws or sponsoring any legislation. They are just encouraging sponsors to think about who they are backing. Its a little thing called free speech.
@4: It's not censorship -- GLAAD is just using its economic & PR muscle to get action. It would be censorship if they attempted to get a law passed barring hate speech.
I'm not sure if I agree with their campaign against these artists but I think its definitely a reasonable response to music encouraging people to kill others for being LGBT.
Attempting to silence the expression of others based on its content is censorship no matter how it is done. Ask Rudy Guiliani - all he did was remove funding from the Brooklyn Museum, so that's not censorship either right?
@8: They're still ALLOWED to perform: They're just not getting Clear Channel's money to do it.
If the fans/performers feel strongly about getting their message out they should consider finding alternate sources of funding.
Orchestrating a campaign to intimidate people out of providing funding for art (even commercial art) involving expression that one considers offensive is censorship. It is just as wrong coming from the left or right.
Can I assume everyone defending GLAAD's use of "economic and PR muscle" also supported Clear Channel's utilization of same against the Dixie Chicks?
#11, The Dixie Chicks were critical of the President, but they never said anything about doing him physical harm. You really can't compare that situation to this one.
@11: Bad example.
http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1167&p=hidden
MYTH: Clear Channel radio stations banned air-play of the Dixie Chicks after political comments.
* FACT: The radio company that banned the Dixie Chicks was Cumulus Media, not Clear Channel. That company also hosted the CD-smashing ceremony outside its Atlanta, Ga. headquarters, during which bulldozers crushed the group's CDs. Simon Renshaw, the Dixie Chicks' manager, told the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in July that Clear Channel Communications did not ban the group's music and had received a "bad rap."
yes, #11 i supported clear channel's decision re the dixie chicks, which is why i went out & bought all of their cds (they won a grammy, btw)
it's free speech any way you slice it. but it's not censorship because it wasn't by the government, which is why #8's example is just an example of ignorance of the law. he should get together with #4 & actually read the constitution. see Mike D's comment.
sorry #10, artists are not automatically entitled to funding. if people supported their murder-music so much they wouldn't need sponsors would they?
#11: Can I assume that you see no distinction between saying that you are ashamed that the president of your country is from your state, and calling for the killing of people based on their sexual preference?
At some point free speech becomes hate speech and surely incitement to murder gay people would qualify? Clear Channel is just a business. In Dixie Chicks case it responded to the (hysterical) country music buying market. I don't even think it was necessarily that political. In this case I find it hard to believe they are catering to the interests of the gays... would be nice to imagine, but I would think it's more like they don't want to fund artists that are essentially publicly advocating murder. I don't think it's a valid comparison.
I am against censorship and legislating against these lyrics. I don't even think it would help to reduce homophobia. But I am glad there's a vocal opposition to them.
Silencing speech that you find offensive is just a terrible idea on all fronts, even if by private actors. The solution to offensive speech is a counterargument, not silencing it.
If you think "hate speech" is somehow OK to be restricted (as opposed to I guess "happy speech" or something?) then I have nothing to say to you except I assume you voted for Bush?
Content-based restrictions on speech are never OK. Hating someone is allowed in this country, as is expressing such hatred verbally.
# 10 ---Orchestrating a campaign to intimidate people out of providing funding for art (even commercial art) involving expression that one considers offensive is censorship.---
But organizing a campaign to kill people who you don't like is OK.
Thanks for clearing that up!
#16- The station just decided they didn't want to associate themselves with homophobic artists. That's their choice, and a pretty wise one. Conflating it with government-enforced censorship is just sloppy.
i agree with being allowed to say whatever you want but hate speech is hate speech. saying how being gay is not OK is one thing, to say that you want to shoot them is quite another.
and yes, they can say whatever they want, but don't expect to have any sponsors.
I am OK with that system.
This isn't just hate speech; their lyrics are intended to incite killing and violence, which, by the way, works well in Jamaica (check the news).
Anyway, Jamaican citizens aren't granted the rights under our constitution anyway.
The Censoring in this country is ridiculous ! Who gives them the right to censor an based on what they view as offensive ? If you don't like the lyrics then don't go too the shows, Don't purchase the albums, Don't listen to the stations that broadcast their music ! Don't misunderstand me on this, I'm not defending these Artist intentions, Just the right to express themselves the way they see fit . If Ur going to Censor these Artist, Then start Censoring all forms of hate being broadcast . That means, Sex on T.V., All references on the radio, That means no mention of Violence in any context should be broadcast ! That's the proper way to Censor ! Bunch of Dumb-Fucks ! Posted by; "Still Not Amused"
The station decided this only after being threatened by GLAAD.
I think #21 should be censored until he learns how to spell and punctuate properly.
This isn't even censorship, so keep your kneejerk reactions at home.
Why don't you get a login "Still Not Amused?" It's an honest question -- I'm not trying to pick a fight. You just seem to post a lot and it seems like it would speed things up.
ON TOPIC: I'm not entirely sure this music isn't akin "to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre." It MIGHT not qualify for free speech protections, as it promotes imminent lawless action. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio.
I'm always stunned when I hear people saying that we should never call for >anyoneanything
And actually, these cries of censorship only seem to surface when it comes to hate speech directed at gays. Then, people are all concerned about "protecting" this hate speech. Sorry, if someone incites people to attack and kill anyone, I'm there trying to get them to stop or to get them removed from bill.
What can GLAAD threaten Clear Channel with? A boycott from people who think promoting violent, homophobic speech is not ok? Is there something wrong with that? Something unfair? If Clear Channel wants to profit from homophobia, they should have to take responsibility for it.
(Full post - sorry.)
I'm always stunned when I hear people saying that we should never call for anyone to stop saying anything. Free speech is not about the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Yes, the government should not pass laws restricting speech, no matter how offensive. But do was all stand back and say nothing if someone calls for the lynching of Blacks, the extermination of Jews, or the murder of gays? Not buying a ticket is not enough - we must actively speak out against this kind of hate.
And actually, these cries of censorship only seem to surface when it comes to hate speech directed at gays. Then, people are all concerned about "protecting" this hate speech. Sorry, if someone incites people to attack and kill anyone, I'm there trying to get them to stop or to get them removed from bill.
Even if this speech were protected (and it probably is), what is the government supposed to do to protect it? Force Clear Channel to pay for it?
This is not a freedom of speech issue.
OK, Still Not Amused, here's a hypothetical for you. Rather than talking to Clear Channel, GLAAD just does a media campaign - "Just a heads up, folks, these two artists who are going to be at Reggae Carifest write songs that advocate violence against gay people. If you don't want to support that, don't go to the show." The evening news runs stories on it because they love that kind of thing.
Would that be cool with you? Or does GLAAD just not have the right to criticize these acts at all.
Now, Clear Channel sees this story and say "Jeez, we are going to lose some ticket sales because of these two acts (who are only a small part of the festival.) Let's fire them." Fair or not? Censorship?
Anyway, in rereading the story it seems that right now nothings been censored at all. A sponsor was talked into withdrawing (which happens all the time) but the show is still on.
isnt it always these homophobes that go home and take it up the butt from their donkey?
this happens whenever buju banton plays a show in nyc... haven't promoters learned yet?
I hope they die in a hurricane.
Well "Mike D", Because, I don't want an Account with Gotamist ! (Have you ever noticed just how dirty this place is ? I mean seriously, Have you ever had issues connecting to Gothamist in the past?) I like posting my brand of "Common-Sense" Anonymously dude . As far as the story goes, It is a form of Censorship whether the Promoters were "Talked into" dropping these acts OR not . I'm sure you all have gripes with different types of music and choose not to listen to them . The question here is, Why can't organizations like (Glaad, and all the other's) encourage those for whom support their cause to do the same ! That would be the Professionals way of handling a problem . It's called "Class", Instead they stoop to the level of the aggressor . Posted by; "Still Not Amused"
OK "bklyd", Ur about [40]% correct . The Issue with Groups like "GLAAD" is they tend to go overboard with what they view as "Fighting for the equality of (In this case) Gay folk ! They had a fool-proof plan of Harassment in store for Clear Channel . To the credit of Clear Channel's "Spin Doctor's" , They caught on to it and acted accordingly . (In what they believed would send a message of but tolerance and Equality) Don't forget this is the same Company that sponsored "The Smack Fest" a couple of years ago , So this shouldn't be a stretch for them . (Lol, I remember that from both the radio , and the video footage on-line) Posted by; "Still Not Amused"
It seems to me that if you REALLY want to solve a problem then you strike at the ROOT of it not the leaves and fruits! The ROOT of the Jamaican anti-gay philosophy as well as most of the culture is based around none other than the "HOLY BIBLE" within the text of this book is a passage that states:
"...and if a man lay with a man as he lay with a women than they shall BOTH be put to DEATH for they have forfited their lives..." Now that is pretty violent! And when they say put to death, they meant mostly by stoning! (bludgeoning with large rocks) Now this can still up to this day be found in every HOLY BIBLE in the world.
So it seems to me that OUTRAGE and GLAAD are picking on the little guys. Why dont they take on THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? Hmmmmm.....maybe because the Vatican is so powerful and influential that it could crush them before the Pope said "AMEN"
The Jamaican artists are the little guys in the BIG picture.
IF YOU WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.....DO IT AT THE ROOT FROM WHERE IT COMES!
It seems to me that if you REALLY want to solve a problem then you strike at the ROOT of it not the leaves and fruits! The ROOT of the Jamaican anti-gay philosophy as well as most of the culture is based around none other than the "HOLY BIBLE" within the text of this book is a passage that states:
"...and if a man lay with a man as he lay with a women than they shall BOTH be put to DEATH for they have forfited their lives..." Now that is pretty violent! And when they say put to death, they meant mostly by stoning! (bludgeoning with large rocks) Now this can still up to this day be found in every HOLY BIBLE in the world.
So it seems to me that OUTRAGE and GLAAD are picking on the little guys. Why dont they take on THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? Hmmmmm.....maybe because the Vatican is so powerful and influential that it could crush them before the Pope said "AMEN"
The Jamaican artists are the little guys in the BIG picture.
IF YOU WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.....DO IT AT THE ROOT FROM WHERE IT COMES!