Slim-Fast trims Whoopi from ads

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
And slimfast's customers are still free to stop purchasing product while she works there.

Yes they are, but aren't you again[/i] raising the stakes?

Raising the stakes? If a company does something the consumer does not like, the consumer does not have to buy from them(whether is company issues a disclaimer or not).

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Raising the stakes? If a company does something the consumer does not like, the consumer does not have to buy from them(whether is company issues a disclaimer or not).

Yes I know they do not have to buy from them. Again, I've said over and over that everyone is acting within their rights but I'm asking why there's an escalation beyond words? If you have a problem with what someone is saying do you punch them in the face? No, of course not, unless you're a total ass. Instead, you give 'em a piece of your mind. They're only words after all. Furthermore, why take it out on some unrelated 3rd-party? If I don't like what you're saying to me, do I start boycotting your employer's offices? I mean I certainly could, but isn't that taking it too far?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Raising the stakes? If a company does something the consumer does not like, the consumer does not have to buy from them(whether is company issues a disclaimer or not).

Yes I know they do not have to buy from them. Again, I've said over and over that everyone is acting within their rights but I'm asking why there's an escalation beyond words? If you have a problem with what someone is saying do you punch them in the face? No, of course not, unless you're a total ass. Instead, you give 'em a piece of your mind. They're only words after all. Furthermore, why take it out on some unrelated 3rd-party? If I don't like what you're saying to me, do I start boycotting your employer's offices? I mean I certainly could, but isn't that taking it too far?

Because in this instance, they are not an unrelated 3rd party.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Because in this instance, they are not an unrelated 3rd party.

Well, as far as I know, Slim-Fast had absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic fund-raiser in question. Perhaps you can illuminate me on what the connection is precisely. Do you seriously feel that spokesman (or by extension an employee) represents their employer 24/7/365?

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So seriously, are these "conservative groups and GOP supporters" simply unable to take a joke? I mean, as much as I personally don't think she's funny, she is supposedly a comedianne. Furthermore, I don't understand the concept that somehow Whoopi is a spokesperson for Slim-Fast 24/7. Obviously, this was a private fund raising event and had nothing whatsoever to do with Slim-Fast or their products.

Like I said, it seems like yet another campaign to silence critics of the current administration. The idea that there can be a penalty for free speech only serves to chill free speech. If you have to censor yourself 24/7 because your employer or your government (or over-zealous supporters of your government) can levy penalties on you, then you're not really free to say what you wish.

It really bothers me.

That's a ridiculous argument. If I went around telling everyone in your mother's neighborhood that she's a crack-whore do you think I should suffer no consequences then for defaming her? Or what if I yell BOMB!!! in a crowded theater? If someone gets hurt or even trampled to death, do I still suffer no consequences?

Whoopi has free speech, she can say whatever she likes. She just can't say it with impunity in the public arena when she is a high-profile representative of company like Slimfast. The same thing happened to Rosie O'Donnell when she chose to bring her politics regarding firearms into her talk show. Kmart ultimately pulled the plug on her because of public dissent. The same thing happened to Trent Lott when he made his comments about Strom Thurmond.

The reality is, speech DOES have consequences, and it always has. These companies are responsible for making a profit. If one of their spokespeople makes some comments that offends a lot of their customers then they would be stupid to continue using that person as a representative of their company.

That's life.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Because in this instance, they are not an unrelated 3rd party.

Well, as far as I know, Slim-Fast had absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic fund-raiser in question. Perhaps you can illuminate me on what the connection is precisely. Do you seriously feel that spokesman (or by extension an employee) represents their employer 24/7/365?

Yes I do. IF that spokeman alienates the customer base, they are not a spokesman worth having.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla
That's a ridiculous argument. If I went around telling everyone in your mother's neighborhood that she's a crack-whore do you think I should suffer no consequences then for defaming her?

If someone intentionally slanders someone and it's not within the context of a joke made by a comedianne, then yes there's a problem. Of course Whoopi IS a comedienne AND she was making a joke. So I guess we should all boycott Leno, Letterman and O'Brien for making jokes at the President's expense? Ridiculous! But that's what you're suggesting. Jesus Christ, it's a freakin' joke, lighten up.

Or what if I yell BOMB!!! in a crowded theater? If someone gets hurt or even trampled to death, do I still suffer no consequences?

Ahhh yes, the classic exception to free speech -- endangering other people's lives. Can you explain how that might apply here?

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: csf
Besides, as was stated, a good counter-example was Limbaugh getting kicked off ESPN for his percieved "racist" comments? Why was there no indignation there? Oh yeah, because it's only a chilling effect when people on your side lose.

Was there an organized liberal protest of ESPN?

Blame the liberals for not organizing. I for one would love it if the organized Conservative Christians who persistantly write letters to congressmen opposing abortion, drug laws, and other such topics were counterbalanced by some organized leftists.

You're the ones to blame here for not effectively managing and energizing your base.

And if memory serves, the media stoked the flames of the Limbaugh controversy. I don't think there was enough time passed after the comment was uttered for them organize anything if they could.

You think that there are no liberal groups which do the same thing. Let's take moveon.org for example, just check out this link:

Unfair and Unbalanced

Or what about the Govenator's recent comment characterizing some California legislators as "girly men"?

Arnold calls foes 'girly-men'

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: hokiezilla
That's a ridiculous argument. If I went around telling everyone in your mother's neighborhood that she's a crack-whore do you think I should suffer no consequences then for defaming her?

If someone intentionally slanders someone and it's not within the context of a joke made by a comedianne, then yes there's a problem. Of course Whoopi IS a comedienne AND she was making a joke. So I guess we should all boycott Leno, Letterman and O'Brien for making jokes at the President's expense? Ridiculous! But that's what you're suggesting. Jesus Christ, it's a freakin' joke, lighten up.

Or what if I yell BOMB!!! in a crowded theater? If someone gets hurt or even trampled to death, do I still suffer no consequences?

Ahhh yes, the classic exception to free speech -- endangering other people's lives. Can you explain how that might apply here?

My point, which you artfully avoided, is that speech has consequences. It matters little if she was joking or dead serious. She became a liability to the company she represented. If this was an isolated occurance with Whoopi I might share your opinion.

The fact is, Whoopi has made A LOT of ridiculous comments dating all the way back to the Reagan administration. I'm sure those comments have and do appeal to some people. However, it doesn't appeal to a LOT of people. Like I said, it's business. If you'll notice, the vast majority of businesses do not affiliate themselves politically.

Whoopi needs to put a leash on her tongue if she wants to rake in the large green from MAINSTREAM endorsement contracts.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla
You think that there are no liberal groups which do the same thing. Let's take moveon.org for example, just check out this link:

Unfair and Unbalanced

Or what about the Govenator's recent comment characterizing some California legislators as "girly men"?

Arnold calls foes 'girly-men'

Well (A) MoveOn.org is targetting a cable channel with misrepresentation, not trying to punish an individual for speaking their mind. Hardly a free speech issue. And, (B) What about Arnie? Did he get punished for his speech? Frankly, I thought it was funny. Some pussy legislators got their panties in a bunch over it, but did Arnie get fired? Or did anything happen to him whatsoever? No, of course not.

Again, your examples don't really work here.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla
My point, which you artfully avoided, is that speech has consequences. It matters little if she was joking or dead serious. She became a liability to the company she represented. If this was an isolated occurance with Whoopi I might share your opinion.

No, your point appears to be that slander and speech that endangered people's lives has consequences. Of course they do, but neither have anything to do with this particular incident.