Whether or not this falls under the domain of free speech is a different debate altogether. Or, maybe, it is the debate altogether. For those not in the loop, Opie and Anthony have been (according to fansite wackbag.com) fired from XM radio.
Now, despite my obvious objection to violence against women, I am a vehement supporter of freedom a speech no matter how vulgar. This point especially, is one that stirs conflicted feelings. Certainly, I have reason to detest those that would subjugate and abuse women, be they my friends, my wife, or my family. At the same time, this country was founded on the idea that unpopular speech should be protected. In this particular circumstance, this speech deals with dis empowerment, some men genuinely degrade women while others can relate to the sense of powerlessness in society they face in a society where women are equal if not a privileged group.
I have seen many women abused, and literally oppressed and the very thought of it makes me sick. Similarly, I have seen women take advantage of their privileged status to belittle men. Fair enough. Regardless, men of today should not be paying for the sins of their fathers. Both men and women need to learn to respect each other more and intimidating either sex into hiding away their frustrations is no help to anyone.
In college I faced a similar argument from a brilliant and fair woman who felt that a list comparing women to dogs was too offensive for publication. While I agreed that the list was offensive it was obvious the impetus for the publication was a sincere frustration and confusion relating to women at a school where women were in a severe minority(read privileged status). I stand now as I stand then, men and women should be free to say what they like. Hopefully, the consequence of such speech will be honest dialog. My Alma Mater, influenced by this brilliant co-student, decided that the dialog needed to be separated and controlled. In my mind, this essentially maintained the status quo. In the end though, it didn't matter, political acrimony trumped to marketplace of ideas. Some men still treated women like crap, many men were still treated terribly by women.
Personally, I would have loved to see the talented, gifted women of our school put to shame the frustrated frat boys and misogynists. Unfortunately, in my mind at least, they choose not to acknowledge the feelings on the other side of the table, ignoring them instead and starting their own self-involved dialog. The policy of our piss-ant paper was to not execute editorial judgment over article submitted by "authors" responding to a deadline. I remember clearly bringing the issues that ultimately brought down our paper to the print shop. I remember thinking that the issue and article were crap, but I wasn't an editor..I just believed in the power of the press. After all, the article in question was 2 authored lines followed by an internet forward. I also remember thinking that, if anyone cared, perhaps men and women would talk about the relationship between the sexes on campus. Instead, nearly 10 years later, nothing has changed, but there is a group of self-important humanities women talking amongst themselves about their unprivileged status in society and there is one less free speech publication in the upper midwest.
So it goes with Opie and Anthony. O & A were a tough sell to me. Honestly, I wasn't a huge fan when I lived in Philly back in 2002. Sex for Sam really creeped me out. I wondered how they were getting away with it. Of course, eventually, they didn't.
I finally caught O&A again when they returned to FM in Grand Rapids, MI on WKLQ. Somehow, O&A and I had both grown up while maintaining our penchant for immature humor. O&A seemed perfectly aware of the low-browness of their humor. They were OK with it,so was I. What made everything funny was how the humor itself was so disconnected from reality. That leads us into "Homeless Charlie" I heard the bit on replay, on XM, and felt that the humor in the situation was completely due to the absurdity. The man making the comments was a homeless man, he felt powerless. Charlie may have felt empowered but they didn't change the reality of his situation. In that way, I don't feel his comments were any more offensive than a black man using the "n" word. Similarly, any person in an oppressed/underprivileged situation using offensive language to feel empowered. That's what you do, you use language to feel empowered. It's a liberal idea.
O & A were simply reacting the to Charlie's situation, they weren't cheering him on. Similarly, by publishing the "10 ways dogs are better than women" in a college free speech publication I was only validating one man's feelings, not giving credence to his ideas. It just so happens that what homeless Charlie had to say was so outrageous it was funny and undeniably offensive. So what? Listeners tune in to O and A to be offended. Condi, Laura, the queen and their supporters weren't listening. These comments were projected at an idea, not at individuals.
I've canceled my XM and won't be tuning back in without a sincere apology, waiving of any "activation fees" and some serious ass-kissing.
O and A are welcome to $5-10/month if they want to pull of a subscription podcast. Keep talking free speech, stay funny, and I'll be there.
