It's damage control. She offended a huge portion of viewers and they don't want a boycott. If she actually had talent she'd be able to make a joke without insulting the bulk of the people paying her wage. Still hard to believe she won an award for anything.
So who called it hate speech? On 9/11/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay - yeah, I've got the same bug up my ass as usual... but still: > > Apparently Kathy Griffin won an Emmy for something. Fine. > > Now her acceptance speech is being censored during the broadcast because she > made some comments about Jesus and God. Specifically: > > "A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to > know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Suck it, Jesus. > This award is my god now." > > Tactless, crude, in-your-face - sure. That does seem to describe Kathy > Giffin. However the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights claims > that this is "hate speech". The called it "obscene and blasphemous." It's > a hugely powerful, hugely privileged majority playing the beset minority > card... made all the more ridiculous since Griffin is herself Catholic. > > She spoke, they responded - that's the way it works. However the Academy > has bowed to the pressure. They've announced that "Kathy Griffin's > offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast." Of course there's > nothing in her statements that would HAVE to be censored (she has a foul > mouth but she constrained herself here). > > One part of me says: "Sure - it's there damn show. They should do it how > they like." At the same time I'm truly struggling to see how this works: > she's a brash, in-your-face comic. She's being AWARDED by this academy for > those very features (the show for which she won is a reality show after > all). > > So she's being punished for EXACTLY THE SAME BEHAVIOR that won her the award > in the first place! > > I can also see no way in which her comments could be construed as "hate > speech": she was either speaking about her personal opinion of an abstract > figure or specifically about a single individual. She either mocked an > imaginary figurehead or a specific individual - there was nothing even > approaching comments about a group or class. In addition she herself is a > member of the class claiming to have been attacked. > > I've got no problem with the group criticizing her speech. I've actually > got no real problem with the actual censorship - again, it's their show. > > It's completely hypocritical. They clap her on the back tell her she's > great then she does what she's always done and they slap her in the face for > it. Cowards. > > Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion is delivering applications solutions at at top companies around the world in government. Find out how and where now http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=finder&productID=1522&loc=en_us Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:242210 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
