We moved!

and update your bookmarks.

We're hanging out at our old Blogspot. whatabouroutdaughters.com is down :(

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

First Amendment Hypocrites Part IV,

Whew Folks! We finally made it to the end of our four-part series, “The First Amendment Hypocrites.” In Part One, I pointed out that the First Amendment protects us from guv'ment restriction of speech, not criticism form others. In part two, I pointed out that this blog has never advocated government restriction of speech that I find degrading to Black women. In part three, I argued that people like DL Hughley and the Dean of the Russell Simmons School of Obfuscation and Redirection who hide behind the First Amendment every time they face criticism are COWARDS!If this is your first time reading the series, you should read this post first so you will know why I am addressing D.L. Hughley . I started this series because some people “ironically” implied that the “protesters” should be quiet because of Mr. Hughley’s First Amendment right to shuck and jive on the backs of young Black women. And now, the conclusion of “ The First Amendment Hypocrites”……

Explain to me how you can defend Hughley’s right to express himself in the pursuit of financial gain, but criticize protesters for expressing their dissent. I am pretty confident that the speech the founding generation was seeking to protect was more like the speech of the protesters than that of Hughley.

If anything, the First Amendment speech of the protesters ought to be more protected than Hughley’s. Hughley’s speech was commercial. He wasn’t doing it to speak out against tyranny, oppression, guv’ment malfeasance, inequity or injustice. He was on the Tonight Show as part of his JOB. He’s getting paid to shuck and jive.

The protesters weren’t being paid to march out in the cold and rain (literally) for hours. They didn’t charge admission. They weren’t promoting a struggling TV show. In some ways the protesters were practicing free speech in its purest and most sacred form(IMHO). They were on a street corner expressing their outrage not on a cushy couch on a Hollywood soundstage.

In conclusion, to all of the well-meaning folks who feel conflicted because they don’t like what Hughley, Hip Hop, and popular culture are saying about Black women, but don’t want to criticize them for fear of violating First Amendment principles, hopefully this series clears you conscience. You are free to boycott, criticize, and protest Hughley, Hip Hop, or anybody else guilt-free. If you should feel guilty about anything, you should feel guilty for not exercising your First Amendment right to call them on their crap.

Whew I am through people. Can y’all believe I wrote all that on my lunch break. Apparently I had a lot to say. Ya think? We gon’ take a a seven day hiatus from mentioning “D.L. Hughley” for the next week. This I do VOW!

What Do You Think?
ON a lighter note, tell me what you think about this PSA for a movie called " What Black Men Think." I found it at a site called Black Male Appreciation. The next time you hear Russell Simmons say that prison, pimping and misogyny are a "REFLECTION" of Black society, scream "LIAR" at the TV like a banshee. ( No. really. don't. do. that.) But seriously, there ought to be a drinking game for how many times Hip Hop apologists use the words "reflection" and "society."