jersey guys?

[robaustin]

Rob, you are an insecure bully of the worst order, and it is you who needs to learn to take control of your own thoughts.

Jerrold

Why am I an insecure bully? Just wondering really. We can have disagreeing viewpoints, but why are you saying this?

Curiousity gets the best of me.....

--*Rob

 

[jerrold]

Rob, you are an insecure bully of the worst order, and it is you who needs to learn to take control of your own thoughts.

Jerrold

Why am I an insecure bully? Just wondering really. We can have disagreeing viewpoints, but why are you saying this?

Curiousity gets the best of me.....

--*Rob

Your preferred method of dealing with things that you don't like, or which make you uncomfortable, is to squash them or force them out of existence. You would seem willing to do this even at the expense of greater principles, such as freedom of speech and expression, even when there is no tangible proof of harm to the supposed "victims" that you claim to be trying to protect.

Additionally, your attempts to cloak your viewpoint under the false guise of the "need to bring people together" is transparent. Clearly, it is just not enough for you to be free to have or express your point of view. Rather, you would see fit to think for everyone else as well, and those who are not in line are obviously "naive". You speak of "the line" as if you are solely responsible for drawing it.

In the context of a free society, that, sir, makes you a bully.

I do not know why you are insecure. That question would be better posed to a mental health professional.

Jerrold

 

[SoulCrusher]

Empowering the FCC, firing Don Imus over the use of 3 words, cracking down on The Jersey Guys for discussing government corruption ... what the hell is going on here? Did I wake up only to wind up in Singapore? Last time I checked, we have Articles in the Constitution entitling all Americans to free speech, yet these days we have all these people (both Democrats and Republicans) that want to take it away from us. If you don't like hearing others voice their opinions, go somewhere else where speaking out against governing officials is grounds for flogging. Either that, or just turn off the radio and go watch Pat Robertson or read The Bible if it offends you so much.

It is a tremendous disappointment seeing what I love most about this country going down the drain. First the gradual loss of civil liberties, now those trying to eliminate freedom of speech. What's next - video cameras on the roads tracking our every move? Oh, that's right - the government has already started doing that.

 

[robaustin]

Your preferred method of dealing with things that you don't like, or which make you uncomfortable, is to squash them or force them out of existence. You would seem willing to do this even at the expense of greater principles, such as freedom of speech and expression, even when there is no tangible proof of harm to the supposed "victims" that you claim to be trying to protect.

Additionally, your attempts to cloak your viewpoint under the false guise of the "need to bring people together" is transparent. Clearly, it is just not enough for you to be free to have or express your point of view. Rather, you would see fit to think for everyone else as well, and those who are not in line are obviously "naive". You speak of "the line" as if you are solely responsible for drawing it.

In the context of a free society, that, sir, makes you a bully.

I do not know why you are insecure. That question would be better posed to a mental health professional.

Jerrold

Jerrold,

You speak as if you know me personally. I spoke of these things as my opinion of where I stand on them, but feel free to interpret my views as blanket statements if you wish.

As for being insecure, you just admitted you did not know why you said that, which makes you a bully for name calling.

--*Rob

 

[jerrold]

Your preferred method of dealing with things that you don't like, or which make you uncomfortable, is to squash them or force them out of existence. You would seem willing to do this even at the expense of greater principles, such as freedom of speech and expression, even when there is no tangible proof of harm to the supposed "victims" that you claim to be trying to protect.

Additionally, your attempts to cloak your viewpoint under the false guise of the "need to bring people together" is transparent. Clearly, it is just not enough for you to be free to have or express your point of view. Rather, you would see fit to think for everyone else as well, and those who are not in line are obviously "naive". You speak of "the line" as if you are solely responsible for drawing it.
In the context of a free society, that, sir, makes you a bully.

I do not know why you are insecure. That question would be better posed to a mental health professional.

Jerrold

Jerrold,

You speak as if you know me personally. I spoke of these things as my opinion of where I stand on them, but feel free to interpret my views as blanket statements if you wish.

As for being insecure, you just admitted you did not know why you said that, which makes you a bully for name calling.

--*Rob

I don't need to know you personally to recognize that you represent a threat to my country and my freedoms, based on your writings here (which, incidentally, confirm your insecurity by virtue of the fact that two guys on the radio can upset you so much that you have to rant about them on a message board).

Maybe I should expand a bit on my previous post so that you'll understand.

It's pretty obvious that you don't like the Jersey Guys.

Fine. Guess what? I'm not much of a fan of them, either.
Nor have I been a fan of Imus, O&A, Greaseman, or any of the other radio personalities that you could name who have
been unreasonably fired, censured, or otherwise excoriated at some point in their careers.

The big difference between you and a lot of other folks is that you would apparently have no problem
forcing these people to hush up, just because YOU don't like what they have to say, even if it means sacrificing a freedom that has always been considered greater than any of our individual preferences.

You offer none of the proof of harm to the so-called "victims" of the so-called offenses of these radio personalities.
Why is that? Could it be because there is none? Could it be because nobody really gets hurt in these situations?

This goes well beyond simply having "differing opinions", Rob, and you know it.

Then again, maybe you don't know it. Maybe it won't hit you until it eventually comes around to you,
and you realize that the freedoms that you have been fighting against all along WERE also your own.

I can't take this as lightly as simply having a differing opinion... not anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, you, Sharpton, Jackson, and all the rest of the insecure bullies who try to
squash free speech on the radio are anti-American, anti-freedom enemies of the rest of us.

But, please, go ahead and have your opinions... even if they are potentially damaging to your own welfare.

If there is ever a "War On Political Correctness", somebody please draft me.

Jerrold

 

[robaustin]

Empowering the FCC, firing Don Imus over the use of 3 words, cracking down on The Jersey Guys for discussing government corruption ... what the hell is going on here? Did I wake up only to wind up in Singapore? Last time I checked, we have Articles in the Constitution entitling all Americans to free speech, yet these days we have all these people (both Democrats and Republicans) that want to take it away from us. If you don't like hearing others voice their opinions, go somewhere else where speaking out against governing officials is grounds for flogging. Either that, or just turn off the radio and go watch Pat Robertson or read The Bible if it offends you so much.

It is a tremendous disappointment seeing what I love most about this country going down the drain. First the gradual loss of civil liberties, now those trying to eliminate freedom of speech. What's next - video cameras on the roads tracking our every move? Oh, that's right - the government has already started doing that.

It's funny you bring up Imus in this context - because I actually don't like that CBS fired him, but I also understand that it was a business decision. When people bring these things up as free speech issues - I remind them to read the constitution - the Imus situation as well as the Jersey Guys one is not an issue of free speech. Should the station find that keeping the Jersey Guys on is detrimental to their financial well being, they will fire them. I personally the station may be witnessing the beginning of this, but I could be wrong.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. You can say whatever you want, and the government can't do anything about it if you criticize them. But in saying whatever you want - you have to take responsibility for your words. Let me ask you this - if we have the freedom to say whatever we want, why do we have laws regarding to libel or slander? If the Jersey Guys saying what they did, caused true harm it would be the same as yelling "Fire" in that crowded theater and having someone get hurt being trampled - and if that happened and it could be proved then the Jersey Guys would have to take responsibility. In my mind - they walk pretty close to that line, maybe in others' minds they aren't as close to the line.

I do think the State Police acted inappropriately as well, and they are now taking responsibility for their "freedom of speech" - the consequences of which have not fully played out yet.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, and be free of consequences.

--*Rob

 

[robaustin]

For the record - I never said I advocated their firing, I expressed my opinion that it is possible that the station might start seeing them as a liability, rather than an asset due to the fact that what they said started losing the station advertising dollars. If the station keeps them on - it's because it is good business for them to do so. I also never said the FCC should get involved either. I think you really misinterpreted what I said.

As for why I'm posting here - it's fun, it's a good way to debate a topic with people who are also interested in media and radio, nothing more. I'm not "ranting about them" - I'm debating the marketability of their show. I note that you too Jerrold, continue to debate with me - so if I am to take what you say about me, and apply it to you, that would logically lead to the question of why you continue to debate with ME because obviously what I say means something to you, or else you would have dropped the topic or not even responded to me.

--*Rob

 

[jerrold]

For the record - I never said I advocated their firing, I expressed my opinion that it is possible that the station might start seeing them as a liability, rather than an asset due to the fact that what they said started losing the station advertising dollars. If the station keeps them on - it's because it is good business for them to do so. I also never said the FCC should get involved either. I think you really misinterpreted what I said.

As for why I'm posting here - it's fun, it's a good way to debate a topic with people who are also interested in media and radio, nothing more. I'm not "ranting about them" - I'm debating the marketability of their show. I note that you too Jerrold, continue to debate with me - so if I am to take what you say about me, and apply it to you, that would logically lead to the question of why you continue to debate with ME because obviously what I say means something to you, or else you would have dropped the topic or not even responded to me.

--*Rob

Marketability? That wasn't the "issue" for you a few hours ago...

"The issue is the fact that they continue to promote an attitude of stereotype and hate - in a day and age when we need to bring people together - not incite them to action in a racist manner."

What does that have to do with marketability, Rob?

Nice try.

I'm only continuing this debate with you because your lack of concern for this country's freedom at the expense of your own personal agenda deserves to be kept in the light, so that people do not, for one moment, lose sight of the fact that as long as you and others feel the way you do, you are enemies to American freedom.

Jerrold

 

[chrisdebello]

Well, all of these latest events have helped me see the light! This week on my radio show rather than talking about meaningful thought provoking subjects I'll just play it safe so we don't get protests in front of the building, state troopers riding up behind us or forum posters twisting everything that we do.

I think I'll start with the growing pattern of marigolds. No, can't do that. People with alergies will sue because they can't take part.

Maybe I'll have a candy making expert on. Whoops! That'll make diabetics mad.

I could talk with a car mechanic about getting vehicles ready for summer but then people with DUI's who can't drive will say I'm discriminating against them.

Maybe a segment on Mexican food? No way! I'm white! That'll never work.

Get the picture gang?

 

[jerrold]

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, and be free of consequences.

--*Rob

No argument here - but I don't see this statement as being particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Of course all actions should (and usually do) come with consequences.

The problem arises when one or more people decide that the consequences should occur prior to the speech, in a pre-emptive manner.

Radio is not a free-for-all. There are FCC regulations involving the use of obscenity, and the like.
This is what really defines the "line" that some of us are so fond of talking about crossing or coming close to crossing.

As long as those rules are observed, there is no reason to curtail the actions of shock jocks who are acting legally and are merely performing the duties which they were hired to perform.

The trade-off is that we all have to endure things that we don't personally like - epithets, stereotypes, insults, racism, sexism, bigotry, and strong opinions. Can't stomach it? Turn it off. You are free to not listen. No one is forcing you either way.

That is as it should be. In a free society, the line should not be drawn by Rob Austin, Al Sharpton, or Jerrold.
If you disagree, you then effectively become the arbiter of "the line", and a threat to everyone else's freedom.

So, what happens when Rob gets his way ... see Chris's post above for an illustration.

Now, we open the door to a whole slew of imaginary victims of imaginary crimes. You find yourself stepping on eggshells every time you open your mouth, because who knows who will be offended by the next thing that comes out of your mouth. Now, I can't talk about certain things because Rob doesn't like them.

It doesn't matter if most of my listeners can think for themselves, are not offended, and have the ability to discern radio created for entertainment/shock value from true hate speech or damaging behavior. If the afternoon guys are talking about "La Cuca Gotcha", and you are Hispanic but not offended, then there must be something wrong with you. You are naive or otherwise out of touch, because Rob Austin said so.

I don't want to be offended by something just because Rob or somebody else has decided that I should be. That should not happen in a free society. That is why the Rob Austin point of view is more than just an innocent opinion. It is a dangerous threat to American freedom.

Jerrold

 

[robaustin]

I don't want to be offended by something just because Rob or somebody else has decided that I should be. That should not happen in a free society. That is why the Rob Austin point of view is more than just an innocent opinion. It is a dangerous threat to American freedom.

Jerrold

Jerrold,

Thank you for your opinion. It would be more effective if you did not use my name specifically in your example, because it comes off as a personal attack. However, it is valid and to be respected.

Thank you again.

--*Rob

 

[jerrold]

It would be more effective if you did not use my name specifically in your example, because it comes off as a personal attack.

How so?

 

[jerrold]

You're not getting off the hook that easily, Rob.

You have been asked to supply proof that anyone has been permanently damaged by the words or actions of any of the radio
personalities mentioned here. So far, you have provided none.

You make strong statements in this forum about what should and should not be allowed on the radio and in a free society in general, yet
you offer nothing of value to substantiate your opinions.

Your empty thanks and weak attempt to turn this around by claiming that I am attacking you personally is nothing more than a diversion
from the reality that your own stance has no basis in reason.

Your mindset remains a threat to my freedom and the freedom of Americans everywhere. THAT is the real attack.

If that hurts your feelings, go call the waaaaahhhhhmbulance.

Come up with something of substance, and I'll be happy to continue the discussion, or perhaps even revise my own stance on the issue.

Somehow, I don't think you will be able to do it.

Jerrold

 

[robaustin]

Jerrold,

On that point (of proof of anyone being hurt), you are correct. I concede the debate. You have won.

We could go around and around in circles for a long time. We will never agree.

--*Rob

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

The bottom line is that Davey Jones perpetrated one of the most blatant and despicable examples of ABUSE OF POWER in the history of Law Enforcement. This is not about who Carton "offends" on the air. This is about a mentally unstable rogue cop who should be stripped of his badge immediately and should pay for this for the rest of his life.

Lets see...what exactly was his intention of giving out Carton's home address and license plate number? As Mr. Jones said, it was just to show that Carton is a "phoney" Jersey Guy because he lives in Pennsylvania. Okay, you couldn't just SAY that?? You needed to hold up a posterboard with the specific street address??

Everyone knows that there are a lot of people out there who would like to see harm done to Carton. Its safe to say he has gotten quite a few death threats over the past few years due to other controversies. This Union Chief KNOWS this. He KNOWS that Carton ALREADY has a bullseye on him. What this sick man did was basically say "hey everyone, if anyone is interested in knowing where Craig Carton lives, here is his address". What was his desired outcome? That people would send fruit baskets and cold cut platters to the home?? Quite the contrary. What he attempted to accomplish was to give the green light to other nutcases to go get their "revenge" on Craig. Davey Jones did it to intimidate and to put genuine fear into a family. Its despicable and if other public officials either try to justify his actions or try taking the low road they will lose any credibility they may have left.

 

[mondoradio]

Agreed. If the troopers were worried about their reputation, this move by their union leader only serves to further turn the public sentiment against the troopers. If I were them, I'd get this guy outta there and start some immediate spin control.

Say what you want about Carton, he's not the one who wrote about a ticket blitz on a website, he's just the one who was talking about it. That's his job, and without him and other watchdog types like him, how many other corruptions would slip under the radar?

 

[eatspaste]

Say what you want about Carton, he's not the one who wrote about a ticket blitz on a website, he's just the one who was talking about it. That's his job, and without him and other watchdog types like him, how many other corruptions would slip under the radar?

NJBA getting involved now: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/08/ap3697550.html

 

[transistor_man]

Say what you want about Carton, he's not the one who wrote about a ticket blitz on a website, he's just the one who was talking about it. That's his job, and without him and other watchdog types like him, how many other corruptions would slip under the radar?

What a joke. Carton is a shock jock, certainly not a watchdog type. His job is to get ratings, and that means throwing anyone he can under the bus to cause controversy and to stir the pot.

 

[iimutt]

While I admit I am not a fan of Craig Carton, I completely agree with him regarding his comments about Davy Jones. The comments I have heard have been some attempt to be fair to him while at the same time criticizing him for releasing Craig's personal info.

What exactly was this genius thinking? Has Craig's family wronged him? Why is it okay to put the family in harms way?

Based on what Mr Jones said in his press conference, it is clear that the man has anger management issues and needs conflict resolution training. Such a man is a loose cannon and is dangerous to be in a position of power.

 

[mondoradio]

What a joke. Carton is a shock jock, certainly not a watchdog type. His job is to get ratings, and that means throwing anyone he can under the bus to cause controversy and to stir the pot.

Of course he's trying to get ratings, but in this case, he's also doing the people of New Jersey a very important service. With the demise of local news on radio and decrease in newspaper readership, there are fewer people holding people in power accountable. Carton's subject manor may not always be so newsworthy, but in this case, he was dead on.