‘Stop word police!’: Glenn Beck defends Paula Deen’s right to speak

Glenn Beck isn’t defending the comments that contributed to Paula Deen’s exit from Food Network, but he is defending her right to free speech. And just to prove he means it, Beck reiterated his belief that even Bill Maher should have the right to be Bill Maher.

  • bossmanham

    Yay. I made Twitchy!

    Success!

    • thetreyman

      yes you did.

  • Hawkstrat

    Deen has the right to say what she wants, and the Food Network has the right to can her. I wouldn’t employ her either.

    • Hiraghm

      I wouldn’t watch Food Network.

      • BigSky1970

        I have never watched her or the Food Network.

  • Richard J Sunkle

    This cracker agrees with Beck.

    • AmericanMom

      The word she said is in top-selling rap music and is used by many blacks every single day. For white to use it, however, is verboten. The Obama regime is currently looking for gay lingo for some reason. Ethnic and agenda talk will always be used.

  • Steve_J

    Soon we will be talking only in letters then not at all.

    • Cliicki

      Sad and clear. Great post.

  • CDUB

    I’m lost. She said it twenty years ago. The top 5 rap songs say it 10 times.
    She was fired, why?

    • aegean1

      Yeah, I was gonna say, anyone that listens to rap music voluntarily has no room to judge Deen.

    • Saint_Zero

      She’s white and they wanted her gone. End of story. If they liked her she’d still be there.

      • Guest

        I don’t watch Food Channel often, but it seems like all the hosts are white already.

        • TocksNedlog

          The depth of your research astounds.

        • Saint_Zero

          should have said “old”. Race on brain. :)

    • ObamaFail

      She unwittingly committed the worst offense you can make in this day and age. She was white in the 21st century.

      • Bathing Suit Area

        Yeah, we’re so oppressed.

  • TJ

    Famous Quote: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    By her being fired, has not her right to say it been infringed. The 1st amendment is not only for government but everything. Firing someone for saying a word and having an opinion is no different than firing someone who comes out as gay.

    Now if they have reasons such as low rating and contact violations that will be better reason for her show to be cancelled. Did she violate a clause of her contract that said that if something like this was to comes out, her contract can be void or not renewed. Will she just be get a new contract in a few months and be back to filming by January.

    • Harry A

      Firstly, Paula Deen hasn’t been fired, her contract was not renewed. Secondly, you can be assured that there was a some clause that talked about public image that would have enabled them to fire her if a scandal was to break out.

      However, the deeper issue is your incorrect belief that by firing her they are infringing on her first amendment rights. The first amendment offers you no protection from being fired for saying something stupid if your employer is a private entity.

      • TJ

        Are we sure about that 1st ad. If she said something pro-gay marriage (which is probably already is for) and then they released her under some public image clause for that, the outrage against the food network would be loud and the public mob would want her to have her contract renewed without delay.

        If someone can not say something that is not stupid but their employer and the PC police thinks is it and dismiss them for it, what is the 1st amendment for anyways then. If someone told their employer they needed time off to attend a tea party and they where fired because of their involvement they would have a wrongful dismissal claim and the employer can not say private entity. Same if someone said they need time off to attend a KKK rally. They can’t dismiss them because of it. All they can do is shun them until they quit or reevaluate their opinion on both sided if be it.

        • Harry A

          I am positive. You are very wrong with what you think the first amendment can protect, I would not suggest you try and test it. The first amendment can stop the government from persecuting you but it can NOT force people to do business with you. If you tell your employer you need time off work because you are attending a Ku Klux Klan meeting and they fire you because of it you will have no legal recourse.

          There are protected grounds on which you can not be fired, for example you can not be fired because you are a woman. Having a religion is also a protected class so you can’t be fired for being christian/jewish/muslism/athiest etc. However people who use racial epithets are not a protected class, and again first amendment can not protect you from a private employer firing you.

          • TJ

            What about the the teacher in Ohio who won a lawsuit of nearly $200,000 who alleged she was fired after school officials learned she became pregnant through artificial insemination.

            Was that not her 1st amendment right to get pregnant and not have to worry about getting fired even if she was a teacher at a catholic school and that was against church teachings.Or the gay teacher who is outed to then be fired for it. She has not legal recourse.

            Or on the other hand one works at a public school and is fired because she says homosexuality is abomination before god.

            Yes all cases are of school and government but why would the same laws not apply to public companies against discrimination. Discrimination against thoughts and opinion is on the same level as discrimination against sexual ordination and race.

          • Harry A

            In the Ohio case the jury found that she had been discriminated on one of the protected grounds. Most likely against her religion, or lack there of in choosing to have a child out of wedlock. These are grounds on which you can sue for discrimination, again in Paula Deen’s case she doesn’t have any grounds on which to sue. Her use of racial epithets doesn’t put her under any legal protection or in a protected class.

            Private employers are not allowed to discriminate against you when it comes to your civil rights, which are very different from your first amendment rights.

          • Hiraghm

            She didn’t use racial epithets. She testified that she had used one in the distant past.

          • Elaine

            I am SO sick of the ‘RACE’ conversation. My God. Thanks Obama, we’re back to where we were, when, 50 years ago?

          • TocksNedlog

            Well, he DID promise to “remake America”.

            Ta-da!!!

          • Adam Wright

            All I have to say about Obama is YOU ALL voted for him.

          • John (it true me am)

            That’s selective reading. Remember this is the context of a current hostile work environment suit that it was brought up, and she has been very cagey about her handling of it(did you see how crazy edited that video she released was?). I find it very, very hard to believe that she used the word in the distant past and that somehow her single utterance 20 years ago came into play in a lawsuit today. It’s much more likely she simply was trying to make a PR apology while not admitting anything relevant to her current case that could be used against her.
            In short: There is no way in hell this came up without her using it on a regular basis in the present.

          • Hiraghm

            Nonsense. You can’t point to one person who can definitively claim I’ve used the “n-word” in the past decade, although I freely admit to not only having used it 20 years ago, but I used it 47 times in as many seconds after I read about Deen’s persecution. Of course, there was no one here to hear me use it… to demand I not use a word when no one will be offended by it is… (whisper it)… thought control.

          • John (it true me am)

            Wow. You just strawmanned the hell out of this. Saying you can’t use the word is not the point in the slightest, in fact I’ve made it quite clear I fully support people’s right to use the word. The issue here specifically in these few posts is your claim she simply “used the word in the distant past”. I pointed out why that is logically absurd considering the context it came up was during a hostile work environment suit in the *present*. Nothing more, nothing less.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Was that not her 1st amendment right to get pregnant

            What???????

          • TJ

            What is it called when your employer says you have no right to have an baby as it is against your employer’s religious doctrine, if it not for the 1st. Could it be the 14th, the one that the right to have an abortion falls under. Right to have a baby.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            What is it called when your employer says you have no right to have an baby as it is against your empoyer’s religious doctrine

            Show me the employment contract stating that.

            if it not for the 1st.

            So, since the 1st states that “CONGRESS shall make no law”…the lady was employed by Fed-dot-gov? I *really* want to see the employment contract stating the employer’s ‘religious doctrine’, now… got a link?

            Could it be the 14th, the one that the right to have an abortion falls under. Right to have a baby.

            Cite for that ‘right to have a baby’? Don’t recall seeing that amendment.

          • TJ

            Teacher sued for being fired after she got pregnant and won.

            http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18728602-jury-sides-with-teacher-fired-by-catholic-school-after-artificial-insemination?lite

            Some would say right to a baby falls under pursuit of happiness

          • TocksNedlog

            Yet another thing that’s not in the Constitution. Ya know, it wouldn’t kill you to actually read the thing.

          • Hiraghm

            Have you read the 9th Amendment?

          • TocksNedlog

            No, I haven’t. Congratulations, you’ve exposed my fraud. Any other person reading what I wrote would recognize that I was chastising Trevor for mixing up the Declaration with the Constitution, but you saw through all that and got right down to the heart of the matter: The right to pursue happiness is one of the non-enumerated rights retained by the people.
            Thanks for the lesson.

          • Hiraghm

            Sorry, but I’m always going to oppose arguments which assert that unless a right is enumerated in the Constitution, we don’t have it.

          • TocksNedlog

            You can keep apologizing because I have NEVER said that citizens don’t have a constitutional right to have babies.

          • TocksNedlog

            You can keep apologizing because I have NEVER said that citizens don’t have a constitutional right to have babies.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Good for her! Got something that ties it back to the federal government, in re: 1st Amendment?

            Some would say right to a baby falls under pursuit of happiness

            If that were the case, then Roe v. Wade would have been held as unconstitutional. Abortions would be unconstitutional.

            There is no “right” to a baby, and *pursuit* of happiness doesn’t mean *guaranteed happiness*.

          • Hiraghm

            Many employment contracts have “morals clauses” in them.

            And check the 9th Amendment. It’s listed right there.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Many employment contracts have “morals clauses” in them.

            Which rolls right back around to “don’t do anything to embarrass the company”.

            And check the 9th Amendment. It’s listed right there

            Except that it’s not, until such time as a case argued on that point hits the Supremes and gets incorporated to the states via the 14th.

            Any cites to court cases using that argument?

            For that matter, still waiting on that proof to your claim that the 2nd is a restriction on everyone and not just fed-gov.

          • Hiraghm

            It’s listed right there in the 9th Amendment. Let me spell it out for you…

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            Which part of that are you incapable of comprehending?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Except that it’s not, until such time as a case argued on that point
            hits the Supremes and gets incorporated to the states via the 14th.

            What part of that are YOU incapable of understanding? By your logic, O-care is completely constitutional – after all, the Dems are claiming healthcare is a *right*.

          • 3seven77

            My reaction was exactly the same. Right to get pregnant? I guess it’s in the same amendment with the right to have an abortion after you get pregnant.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Well, that’s what trevor and hiraghm seem to think.

          • Hiraghm

            Hiraghm thinks its the 9th Amendment right to get pregnant.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Hiraghm thinks that the 2nd amendment is a restriction upon everyone and not the gov’t, too.

            We can’t help it if Hiraghm doesn’t understand what he’s bloviating about.

          • TocksNedlog

            That “1st amendment right to get pregnant”, is it the part that’s written in invisible ink?

          • Hiraghm

            That would be the 9th Amendment right to get pregnant.

          • TocksNedlog

            Why are you telling this to me? Tell Trevor!

        • John (it true me am)

          You can’t compare using slurs with taking a political position to begin with. Someone getting fired for being, say, pro-life would be discriminatory against a belief. Someone getting fired for using racial slurs is not discriminatory in the slightest, there is no belief or stance inherently involved, just poor word choice.

      • Hiraghm

        Employers should not have powers that government and individual citizens have. Period. End of argument.

        • TocksNedlog

          Another “companies aren’t people” argument? Ugh.

          • Hiraghm

            No; governments aren’t people either.
            I’m not talking about rights, I’m talking about power.

            We don’t let government discriminate, we don’t let individuals discriminate, why should we let companies discriminate?

            If the government prosecuted or sued her for what she said, they wouldn’t get anywhere. If another individual did, they wouldn’t get anywhere. Yet, the company is allowed to punish her for her speech with no repercussions.

            She should be able to sue them for wrongful termination of the contract unless they can show where she actually has cost them.

          • TocksNedlog

            [1] “No; governments aren’t people either. I’m not talking about rights, I’m talking about power.”
            — I saw what you wrote; if you think I misunderstood it, perhaps that’s because you wrote “Employers should not have powers that government and individual citizens have,” when you meant to write “Employers should not have powers that government and individual citizens DON’T have”?

            “We don’t let government discriminate, we don’t let individuals discriminate, why should we let companies discriminate?”
            — A white person working in a government job who goes around saying “N*gger this, n*gger that, n*gger the other thing,” is NOT going to get fired? Sure.
            An individual is NOT allowed to tell a friend “I’m not going to be friends with you anymore because of how you talk about black people”? Uh-huh.

          • TocksNedlog

            [1] “No; governments aren’t people either. I’m not talking about rights, I’m talking about power.”
            — I saw what you wrote; if you think I misunderstood it, perhaps that’s because you wrote “Employers should not have powers that government and individual citizens have,” when you meant to write “Employers should not have powers that government and individual citizens DON’T have”?

            “We don’t let government discriminate, we don’t let individuals discriminate, why should we let companies discriminate?”
            — A white person working in a government job who goes around saying “N*gger this, n*gger that, n*gger the other thing,” is NOT going to get fired? Sure.
            An individual is NOT allowed to tell a friend “I’m not going to be friends with you anymore because of how you talk about black people”? Uh-huh.

          • TocksNedlog

            [2] “If the government prosecuted or sued her for what she said, they wouldn’t get anywhere.”
            — Because what she said is not against the law, and because she doesn’t work for the government.

            “If another individual did, they wouldn’t get anywhere.”
            — Uh, ‘if’? You do realize that the ONLY reason this story is in the news is because an individual is suing her, right? A suit that may very well be decided in favor of the plaintiff, by the way.

            “Yet, the company is allowed to punish her for her speech with no repercussions.”
            — You are so close to an epiphany on this one, the excitement is palpable!

          • TocksNedlog

            [2] “If the government prosecuted or sued her for what she said, they wouldn’t get anywhere.”
            — Because what she said is not against the law, and because she doesn’t work for the government.

            “If another individual did, they wouldn’t get anywhere.”
            — Uh, ‘if’? You do realize that the ONLY reason this story is in the news is because an individual is suing her, right? A suit that may very well be decided in favor of the plaintiff, by the way.

            “Yet, the company is allowed to punish her for her speech with no repercussions.”
            — You are so close to an epiphany on this one, the excitement is palpable!

          • TocksNedlog

            [3] Now, which amendment was it in the Bill of Rights that are you so fond of referencing? Oh yes, the 9th. Let’s read together, shall we?
            “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Sounds like businesses enjoy rights that the government does not, such as the right to terminate an employee or not renew an employee’s contract.
            Oh, but you said you weren’t talking about rights, you were talking about power. Hmmm . . .
            10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

          • TocksNedlog

            [3] Now, which amendment was it in the Bill of Rights that are you so fond of referencing? Oh yes, the 9th. Let’s read together, shall we?
            “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Sounds like businesses enjoy rights that the government does not, such as the right to terminate an employee or not renew an employee’s contract.
            Oh, but you said you weren’t talking about rights, you were talking about power. Hmmm . . .
            10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

          • TocksNedlog

            [4] So, when you write “Employers should not have powers that government and individual citizens have. Period. End of argument,” are you arguing that employers are not people, and therefore do not enjoy 10th Amendment protection; or are you arguing against the 10th Amendment itself, as by definition it grants individuals and companies power that government does not have? or are you arguing in favor of Congress using the Commerce Clause as an excuse to regulate within an incredibly narrow scope when an employee can be fired?

          • TocksNedlog

            [4] So, when you write “Employers should not have powers that government and individual citizens have. Period. End of argument,” are you arguing that employers are not people, and therefore do not enjoy 10th Amendment protection; or are you arguing against the 10th Amendment itself, as by definition it grants individuals and companies power that government does not have? or are you arguing in favor of Congress using the Commerce Clause as an excuse to regulate within an incredibly narrow scope when an employee can be fired?

          • TocksNedlog

            [5] “She should be able to sue them for wrongful termination of the contract unless they can show where she actually has cost them.”
            — Apparently, the answer to my last question is ‘Yes’. Also, you have now shown for the 2nd time that you don’t even know and/or have not bothered to learn the particulars of Deen’s situation. Her contract has not been terminated; it is coming to an end and her employer is choosing not to renew it. Their statement reads: “Food Network will not renew Paula Deen’s contract when it expires at the end of this month.” They give no reason; and, because they are NOT prematurely terminating an existing contract, are under no obligation whatsoever to provide a reason.

    • mike_in_kosovo

      The 1st amendment is not only for government by everything.

      Where do you get that from?

      CONGRESS shall make no law…”

      • TJ

        Some how only special people and government employes have 1st amendment right to say what ever they want and not risk losing their jobs. But someone in the private company will get fired or not have their contract renewed if they say an opinion or word that is against the PC police.

        Just because there is no law, does not stop discrimination on political thought which can get you fired. So what if Paula used the word, she should not have been fired and could sue because it was a factor in her not getting her contract renewed under discrimination.

        • Harry A

          I think you’re confused between your 1st Amendment Rights and your Civil Rights. The Food Network has not denied Paula Deen her 1st Amendment right, she as just as free today to use whatever word she wants to describe people as she was yesterday. What can not happen is the government can not throw her in jail, which would be denying her her right to free speech, under normal circumstances. (However if you are deemed to be using hate speech or trying to incite violence etc you can be put in jail).

          If someone is discriminated against its different from having their rights denied. Protected classes from discrimination are Race, Color, Gender, Religion, Disability, National Origin, Age, Familial Status, Disability, Veterans and Genetic Information. Now here’s where I could be wrong (and I’m sure another commenter can correct me) but if what happened to you doesn’t fall under one of those categories than what happened to you isn’t discrimination. If that were the case than every jerk in the world can who has been fired for being a jerk would call it discrimination. You can’t go around just saying what ever you want with repercussion, the constitution gives you no such right.

          • Hiraghm

            (However if you are deemed to be using hate speech or trying to incite violence etc you can be put in jail).

            Not Constitutionally, you can’t. Holmes was full of crap and Wilson’s little judicial lapdog. I hope he’s burning a turd in purgatory for the precedent he set.

            “inter armes, silent leges” – in the face of force, the law is slient.

          • Harry A

            What ever the Supreme Court of the day decides is constitutional is what is constitutional. Since they last decided that speaking in such a way that incites violences or meets the requisites of hate speech than that is constitutional.

            You will note than for many years the supreme court determined that “separate but equal” was constitutional, and it was the law of the land. And that with one decision, in Brown v. Board of Education they deemed it not not constitutional, and then right away segregated schools were unconstitutional. Your reading and interpretation of how the constitution should read has no bearing on the determination of the constitutionality of anything.

          • Hiraghm

            Nope, sorry, SCOTUS didn’t write the Constitution, the Founding Fathers did. It means what they said it means, and anyone who deviates from that, especially SCOTUS, invites armed rebellion.

            I am not obligated to stand by a contract that the other side chooses to redefine to their advantage.

        • mike_in_kosovo

          Some how only special people and government employes have 1st amendment right to say what ever they want and not risk losing their jobs.

          Um…no. That’s not how it works. They get away with it due to politics or power, not due to your misunderstanding of how the BOR works.

          Deen got fired because her words, even though years past, embarrassed the employer and the sponsors. That’s it.

          • TJ

            She got fired because the internet mob made them fire her to buckle under political concreteness and word police. It is their right to fire her but still does not make it right.

          • TocksNedlog

            That’s your opinion, and that’s fine. Hopefully, you realize that that’s all there is to it, and that there really is no legal angle to this.

          • TJ

            The only thing that can come from this is to stop the word police and just because you don’t like what someone said does not mean they don’t have a right to say it. Even if it gets your fired but the internet mob should not have a say in that firing and people should stand to not fire her.

          • TocksNedlog

            You’re right, there should be a law outlawing Internet mobs.

          • TJ

            No laws needed just companies with spines not to buckle to it.

          • Hiraghm

            There’s a whole lot more going on in our society than the letter of the law. Lots of words are banned from public usage, although there is no law banning them.

          • TocksNedlog

            Are you talking about words that are ‘banned’ by people mutually maintaining standards of common decency?
            Welcome to polite society.

          • Hiraghm

            No, I’m talkinga bout words that are ‘banned’ because bullies and grievance-mongers proclaim them as exceptional.

            When “redneck” is considered perfectly okay to use openly, publicly, but I have to say “n-word” because the grievance-mongers proclaim a certain race to be more sensitive than another, it’s not a ‘standard of common decency’ at work, but thought control.

            Considering how rude, vulgar and amoral modern society has become, you suggest a laughable standard for ‘polite society’.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            That’s correct.

          • BigSky1970

            OK, so Food Network buckled under some sort of pressure. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the so-called “internet mob” tried to get Rush Limbaugh off the radio and failed. Why? Premiere Networks stood by Rush’s comment about Sandra Fluke and Rush didn’t see any need to apologize. Why should anyone apologize for stating truth? Paula Deen said something that cost her her contract with Food Network and Food Network sought to not renew her contract. Want to send Food Network a message? Boycott their channel.

          • Hiraghm

            They didn’t embarrass anybody. They triggered the PC reflex of the entertainment industry (or hell, business in general) to pander to the grievance mongers instead of telling them, “you don’t have to buy our product”. Money whores; the only companies that succeed these days.

          • BigSky1970

            And in the case of Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a sl*t, his syndicator stood by Rush, rather than terminate their relationship with him. Even under the pressure from people trying to get Rush fired and his advertisers shamed. He still has a job and she doesn’t. Food Network just handled their situation differently. I don’t entirely agree with it, but it is what it is.

        • TocksNedlog

          In her deposition for THAT lawsuit she should say “Those Food Network n*ggers were discriminating against me!” If the judge has any sense of humor whatsoever, he will see the irony and award Paula a huuuuuge settlement, don’tcha think?

          • Bathing Suit Area

            Great plan. Let us know how that works out the next time you get fired.

        • Hiraghm

          That’s because our corporate model today is feudalistic. It must be changed if we are to remain free. I sell my skill, industry and services to my employer, on a limited basis; I do not sell my life.

        • BigSky1970

          She can’t sue. She was not discriminated against, nor were her 1st Amendment or civil rights violated. The Food Network is within it’s rights not to renew her contract. That’s the nature of show business.

          • TJ

            After a night sleep I agree they had the right to fire her but that still does not make it right.

          • BigSky1970

            It’s not our business to tell Food Network how to hire and fire people. They’re a private company.

          • TJ

            Yes it is not a general “our” business but neither should it be the PC police and twitter lynch mob who make them do it under threat to boycotts of sponsors.

          • BigSky1970

            So we should deny them their rights to redress?

      • BigSky1970

        The Constitution reigns in government power. It doesn’t excuse it away. It gives power to the individual.

        • mike_in_kosovo

          Exactly…

  • sodakhic

    We took out the Dixie Chicks. I guess Food network can take out Deen. Maybe she’ll start her own network.

    • doowleb

      Except Deen is a Democrat supported…NOT Republican.

  • Emily B

    I’m sorry but…..what exactly did she say that was worth all this?? I read the transcript and all she admits to is having said that word in her lifetime. Is everyone saying they’ve never EVER used a derogatory word for anyone ever? In their entire life?? Come on people. If that’s the case, then lock me up.

    • Hiraghm

      I used the “N-word” about 47 times in as many seconds yesterday, after reading the Paula Deen story. I was by myself, in my home, about the last place we have left where we can be politically incorrect.

      Did I mean any hostility by it? You betcha! To those that think it’s “okay” to tell dumb blonde jokes, to those who think it’s okay to make fun of and belittle “rednecks”, to all those who pretend that the “n-word” carries some more magic than any other word and therefore must be forbidden.

      There are females out there, and I fear Ms Malkin is one, who are attempting the same thing with the b-word reference to a female dog. I will not cooperate. It’s an insult like any other. Grow a thicker skin. Same goes for the “q-word”.

      • GrindingMills

        What is the “q-word”?

        • John (it true me am)

          Queer is the only one that comes to mind but I’m not sure it’s even considered offensive?

          • GrindingMills

            Yeah, queer isn’t all that offensive. It’s got to be something else.

          • san rafael blue

            If you see yourself as Queer, and don’t mind wearing that label in public, then, no, Queer isn’t “all that offensive”, but if YOU DON’T see yourself as Queer or have not consented to being outed, then Yes!
            That description is still quite potent in it’s power to change the way people see you( for better or worse) in a way that can never be Unchanged. Not everybody reacts to that term with the contrived enthusiasm of a Today Show co-host.

  • Stephen L. Hall

    People are too quick to try to score legal/constitutional points on essentially a social issue. So, she said something offensive years ago. People say offensive things to me all the time. Get over it and move on with your life.

    As far as a cooking show goes, they have a cooking show with a curse word in the title. They obviously aren’t that sensitive to breaches of civility.

    • TocksNedlog

      Well, this should be amusing. WHAT show is that?

      • Stephen L. Hall

        Can’t say, I was raised not to use such words. Although I do consider “vegetarian” to be a curse word too.

        • TocksNedlog

          I’m not asking you to type out a curse word, I’m asking you to identify the show title. Try this: type out the title with the curse word in all-asterisks (or just put a dash in its place if you don’t want to show how many letters are in it). GO!

          • Stephen L. Hall

            Nadia G’s B******’ Kitchen . . . although that may be the cooking channel not the food network, they are side by side on my satellite.

          • TocksNedlog

            Thank you for responding. The Cooking Channel is owned by the same company that owns 70% of Food Network, so it’s essentially the same entity.
            Now, while it may be considered a crude use of language, “bitchin'” isn’t a curse word; it’s a slang term that means “awesome” or “excellent” or — to use a more genteel slang term — “cool”.
            While I will grant that its origin in a word that some consider profane may make it uncomfortable to see or hear, in my worldview calling something ‘great’ is pretty much the opposite of uttering a curse.

          • Stephen L. Hall

            That is the same rationalizing self-justification that rappers use to justify using that same word wherein they condemn a white person for speaking. The vulgarity remains as a social construct of the meaning of a word, not the intended meaning of the speaker. To say the the use of the word “bitchin'” isn’t a curse word is the same as saying that a person expressing approval through the phrase “F*ckin’-A” isn’t cursing. It just does not stand up to scrutiny and merely justifies vulgarity.

            So, you are incorrect, “bitchin'” is curse word, it is just not being used for an insulting purpose, but merely for the shock value of the vulgarity.

            I mean we really don’t need to get into the history of profane/secular vs. sacred, or the true meaning of the Latin word vulgar.

          • TocksNedlog

            “That is the same rationalizing self-justification that rappers use to justify using that same word wherein they condemn a white person for speaking.”
            — Well, this should be fun. Please cite some examples of what you’re talking about.

          • Stephen L. Hall

            “IF you consider the word . . . to be a curse word.” Moral relativism & subjective reality . . . that’s your attempt at argument? So are you saying that Ms. Deen did not say anything bad because she didn’t mean anything by it?

            “To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead.” — Thomas Paine.

          • TocksNedlog

            — I do NOT engage in moral relativism. I make distinctions between things that are different.
            — Paula Deen DID say something bad.
            — I have NEVER said otherwise.
            — If you want to drop your false accusation that the Food Network people “obviously aren’t that sensitive to breaches of civility,” then I promise to never bring it up again.

          • TocksNedlog

            She DID say something bad, and — by her own admission — she DID mean something by it. She has not claimed otherwise, and neither have I.

          • Stephen L. Hall

            “IF you consider the word . . . to be a curse word.” Moral relativism & subjective reality . . . that’s your attempt at argument? So are you saying that Ms. Deen did not say anything bad because she didn’t mean anything by it?

            “To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead.” — Thomas Paine.

          • TocksNedlog

            “The vulgarity remains as a social construct of the meaning of a word, not the intended meaning of the speaker.”
            — And the speaker’s intent doesn’t determine the meaning of the word because WHY? And what is the meaning of the word, anyway?
            From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
            bitching (adj.)
            also bitchen, “good,” teen/surfer slang attested from 1950s, apparently from bitch (v.) in some inverted sense. Meaning “complaining” is by 1945, U.S. armed services.

            “To say [that] the use of the word “bitchin'” isn’t a curse word is the same as saying that a person expressing approval through the phrase “F*ckin’-A” isn’t cursing.”
            — IF you consider the word “bitching” to be a curse word.

          • TocksNedlog

            “The vulgarity remains as a social construct of the meaning of a word, not the intended meaning of the speaker.”
            — And the speaker’s intent doesn’t determine the meaning of the word because WHY? And what is the meaning of the word, anyway?
            From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
            bitching (adj.)
            also bitchen, “good,” teen/surfer slang attested from 1950s, apparently from bitch (v.) in some inverted sense. Meaning “complaining” is by 1945, U.S. armed services.

            “To say [that] the use of the word “bitchin'” isn’t a curse word is the same as saying that a person expressing approval through the phrase “F*ckin’-A” isn’t cursing.”
            — IF you consider the word “bitching” to be a curse word.

          • TocksNedlog

            “So, you are incorrect, “bitchin'” is curse word, it is just not being used for an insulting purpose, but merely for the shock value of the vulgarity.”
            — Wait a second, I thought the intended meaning of the speaker didn’t matter(?) So confusing. Anyway, you are (shocka!) wrong about the word being used in this context for the purpose of ‘shock value’; it’s being used to make the show appear hip & cool & lighthearted.

          • TocksNedlog

            “So, you are incorrect, “bitchin'” is curse word, it is just not being used for an insulting purpose, but merely for the shock value of the vulgarity.”
            — Wait a second, I thought the intended meaning of the speaker didn’t matter(?) So confusing. Anyway, you are (shocka!) wrong about the word being used in this context for the purpose of ‘shock value’; it’s being used to make the show appear hip & cool & lighthearted.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            I love how right wingers have still after all these years never been able to understand context.

  • James Rose

    All of you who believe you have the right to determine what other can say need to be aware of what you say. As they say “Be careful of what you ask for, you just may get it”.

  • Ṩụẹ

    There’s only one side that’s held to such a high standard of tolerance. The other side screams for it but never lives it.

  • TocksNedlog

    Glenn makes sense — most of the time. But this time . . .
    Nobody has been ‘silenced’.
    There is no actual “word police”; we all face consequences for our actions, and expressing our views is a form of action. If Beck’s point is to encourage those that are calling for Deen and Maher to suffer consequences in the marketplace to chill out, then really, WHO is the one that’s trying to suppress speech here?

    • Hiraghm

      The hell there isn’t “word police”. The list of words you can’t say gets longer every day. Yes, SOME of us face consequences for our actions, unless we’re cronies of the Obama administration or foolish mortgage lenders or corrupt auto manufacturers & associated unions.

      Beck isn’t trying to surpress speech, but action. It’s one thing to say, “you shouldn’t say that, I disagree with it.” It’s quite another to say, “I’m going to use my influence to force you to conform to my beliefs, which revolve around pandering to the grievance mongers”.

      This is no different than the “consequences” of a conservative attempting to make a speech and being assaulted to discourage the speech someone hates.

      It stems from the flawed, feudal model of employment we have these days. What she says or does on her time is her business. What she says or does as a representative of Food Network is theirs. She is selling them the minutes of her time, the product of her industry and the result of her creativity, she did NOT sell herself into slavery. Oh… the… irony…

      • TocksNedlog

        “The list of words you can’t say gets longer every day.”
        — By all means, please share some of the recent entries to this list of words that have real-world consequences. GO!

        Beck isn’t trying to surpress speech, but action. It’s one thing to say, “you shouldn’t say that, I disagree with it.” It’s quite another to say, “I’m going to use my influence to force you to conform to my beliefs, which revolve around pandering to the grievance mongers”.
        — Paula Deen has been forced to conform to someone else’s beliefs, has she?

        This is no different than the “consequences” of a conservative attempting to make a speech and being assaulted to discourage the speech someone hates.
        — Well, except for the part where it’s a false analogy.

      • TocksNedlog

        Gee, what a SHOCKA! that you couldn’t come up with a single word that’s been added to that ‘list’.

    • Stephen L. Hall

      “Word Police” is a self-appointed office, as are all PC Jihadists.

  • Steve

    Not everything that is wrong is necessarily illegal. I would agree that what is happening to her is wrong. Her life is being destroyed for saying a word. Meanwhile, violent criminals like Chris Brown will be forgiven quickly.

    It’s sort of like what happened to the actor Ron Silver. He was a former Al Gore supporter who did a 180 and became a Bush supporter in 2004. He spoke at the Republican convention. After that, nobody in showbiz would work with him. His life was ruined for talking and then he died years later.

    What happened was wrong but not illegal. The people in showbiz have a twisted sense of morality. You can be a violent criminal or sexual predator and they will look the other way but say a bad word or support a political figure they hate and your career is over.

    Unfortunately, that’s the risk in working in that industry. It sucks but those are the breaks. Very wrong but not illegal.

    • Hiraghm

      So then, it’s up to the public to put a stop to this kind of persecution. Seek out and buy Paula Deen products, don’t watch food network, or write to their sponsors and tell them you won’t buy their products because they promote censorship.

      • TocksNedlog

        Sure hope those sponsors are prepared for the FLOOD of letters coming their way!

  • thomas moore

    At the VERY least Deen should be fired for being a complete idiot.

    • stuckinIL4now

      If that’s the case, then the list for being fired for being a complete idiot is a very very very long list.

  • John (it true me am)

    Eh. I’m not sure there has been anything out of line with the handling of this. She most certainly had every right to say what she did and do so without facing criminal or violent repurcussions or censorship, but freedom of speech goes both ways and also extends to civilian response such as Food Network’s decision to drop her. It’s certainly not a decision I would make or support, but it was their right to make it.

    I find it difficult to scrounge up much sympathy for Deen. It was such a stupid, stupid thing to say(and was not limited to twenty years ago as some are claiming) this is almost a case of television Darwinism.

  • JonInVa

    Nobody is concerned that they may be next to be “fired” some 30 or 40 years after uttering some words that, back then, were as common, as the word “the”?

    I can see any company pulling a self-righteous play and firing somebody for a remark they uttered TODAY. But from the distant past and without any context or proof that it continues today? Ridiculous. It makes the assertion that ALL people who identify with the South are by definition still utterly and completely racist.

    I guess so long as its considered “art”, it’s perfectly acceptable to use certain words daily and in abundance. But dare utter them in the privacy of your own home decades ago and the entire world comes to a screeching stop. I, for one, am positive that at least 90% of every American over the age of 40 has uttered something in their past deemed politically correct today. But they aren’t a well-known celebrity who can be brought crashing down in the interest of furthering the speech-stifling agenda of the left.

  • Jim Evans

    Deen got fired; and Chicago Teacher’s union untouched after talking about “rich white guys” that ruin education. DOUBLE STANDARD. And, rappers using N-word should be fired. Some people r more equal than others!

    • TocksNedlog

      If “rich white guys” is an insult, then I would like to be insulted, please!

      • Jim Evans

        If you’re rich enough you can say what you want. But what about the other billions? Do they have to put their tongue between their teeth all day?

  • BigSky1970

    Funny how people go crazy over what Paula Deen said, yet they have no problems watching a movie like “Django Unchained”.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      What do you see as being wrong about Django?

    • john gill

      Thats a ridiculous comparison……

    • Secede

      That’s because only Whites can be racists. Didn’t you know that ?

      • TocksNedlog

        I know that, because Chris Matthews told me so.

  • Frustrated Teacher

    The truth of the matter is that the PC police have taken our right to say what we think in this country. I believe everyone has the right to be offended, but that doesn’t give them the right to shut up their offender. We have grown SUCH a thin skin in this world. I have been called all sorts of things in my life….be tough enough for someone to disagree with you. Be secure enough not to be bothered by what others think of you (or call you).

  • Spasmolytic

    The liberal obsession with political correctness has reached such a point of absurdity that a persons comments can ruin their life. Liberals are more forgiving of a pervert like Anthony Weiner than someone who says something which offends them. Of Coarse only republicans are held to this standard.

    • john gill

      Beacause, only republicans say racist things lol….and Weiner did lose his job,.,….Stop defending this crazy old red neck lady..she works for a company…and that company has the right to fire anbody, who they see as unfit to market their product…..In most jobs in this world,you would get fired for that type of behavior…

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Is Paula Deen’s life really ruined? I’d still swap my bank balance for hers. I’d probably keep my arteries though.

  • Sua Sponte

    Political correctness is always a good safe harbor for the stupid or uninformed….

  • Secede

    So much for the First Amendment ! ( “let’s just snip that baby out of there snip ..snip…Ooops! Accidentally cut out the 2nd Amendment too !”)
    Barack Obama

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Food Network have free speech too, they can air or not who they want to.

  • Sara Nichols

    Glenn is very right about this. Paula should of not have used that word but she has a right to say it. Defend Speech, stop hate.

    • Sara Nichols

      Who is the freak that voted my comment down?

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Who tried to stop her saying it? Has she been arrested?

  • Hiraghm

    Actually, you CAN shout fire in a crowded auditorium, according to Holmes… provided there IS a fire.

    Holmes was wrong though, and I find it amusing you use that example as an exception.

    You can shout “fire!” in a crowded theater where there is no fire. If everyone leaves in an orderly fashion, or if you’re ignored… no harm, no foul. If, on the other hand, people are trampled, property destroyed, you are liable for that harm.

    This is the subtle difference between crime prevention and crime punishment.

  • John (it true me am)

    Wow, you took the fire in a crowded theater thing a bit too literally. It’s just a succient example of potential for grievous physical harm versus protected content of speech.

  • TocksNedlog

    That comment might go over well . . .

    in a thread that is actually about the First Amendment.