'Roseanne' fans call for Bill Maher to be fired after he joked Trump is part orangutan

One was a joke about a lunatic conspiracy theorist, the other was a racist joke.

 

Yes, there was indeed a frivolous lawsuit in which Trump, not for the first time, thought he could attack the first amendment.

 

My favorite headline in this whole debacle:
"Ambien maker to Roseanne: Racism is not a side effect of our drug"

"Continued use of this product may result in dizziness, high blood-pressure, headaches, and racism"....said no drug warning label ever!

Ambien is now becoming as convenient of an excuse for failure as "GOD" is! "Well, I guess god didn't want me to pass that class"....instead of taking personal responsibility for not studying! People blame Ambien or some invisible man (who is also racist, by the way, in the Bible) who lives up in the sky somewhere. I'm surprised that HILLARY hasn't added Ambien or god to her extensive list of pathetic excuses: http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-cli...a-and-bernie-sanders-her-election-loss-685971

If she was honest: "My husband is a sex-pervert - nobody wants that perv back in the White House, and our marriage is seen as a mere political-arrangement, had something to do with my unprecedented election loss to the only President in American history who had never once been elected (not even to a dog-catcher position!) or worked in the government (including the military) ever before."

 

Why are you OK with her being fired for what she said?

 

Equivocate all you will. Maher has never been accountable for his use of the same joke. No? And his is only one of so many jokes. Kimmel makes a living doing this, nightly. All protected, first amendment stuff. Except when it was Roseann. Then, censorship is justified, right? Perhaps you can point to the legal standard that dictates the language we can now use.

 

Depends. Are they doing it to ridicule donald, or to negatively vilify or ridicule a race or group.

In my experience, orangutans are not traditionally used to villify or ridicule white folk.

 

So, Rosanne should sue Disney? Because they punished her for her first amendment rights, right?

 

If you cannot see the difference between Rossane's statement and Maher's, you are part of the problem.

 

She can sue all she wants. If she can find a lawyer ignorant enough to take such a case.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Because, as has been explained a hundred times to the racists in here, calling a black person an ape has a very sick historical connotation going back to when blacks were viewed as monkeys, and nothing more.

It does NOT have the same connotation as calling a white person an ape because there is no awful historical connection.

But racist will ALWAYS make an excuse for making racist statements.

YES, some people (racists) DID view blacks as monkeys and apes.

Whether they were right or wrong isn't the issue, the issue IS that blacks have a history of being called apes....it's like lynching has a special connotation for blacks.



But racist will ALWAYS make an excuse for making racist statements.

 

Orange is the new black.

 

Because they aren't the same joke. And the first amendment has nothing to do with whether or not someone decides to give you a platform. It has nothing to do with legal standards. Your right to free speech doesn't not entitle you to someone else's bullhorn or soapbox. Roseanne no longer having a show is no more a violation of her right to free speech than the fact that I don't have a show on ABC is a violation of mine. Her rights aren't being violated. Neither were Maher's when he was let go for his 9/11 comments.

 

Based on your posts. Your not even close to a high position. You’re currently as low as the gutter.

 

What's dishonest and transparent is an MSM that constantly produces blatant anti-white articles while crying about someone being referred to as a monkey.

 

Obviously, you are missing the point here. Offensive language isn't illegal, is it? Even racist language isn't illegal is it? If it were, how many of those on the left who have ranted about those who they disagree with being white supremacists would have to get fired? Likely all of them, given your "part of the problem" standard. No?

The standard you are struggling to articulate here is what actually is allowable as speech. You would create an artificial bubble that allows those that are offended to use the law to dictate to those who offend or otherwise disagree with them to be cast out, or censored. If you cannot see the danger to that, I'd suggest that that is a real problem for you.

 

No. The first amendment guarantees you free speech. It doesn't give you the right to use someone else's platform if they no longer want to work with you.

 

It IS ok to insult people. But if you do it with racism people get more upset...rightfully so.

 

I remember too. It was pretty funny. It showed what an insecure, immature, obnoxious bully donald is.

 

ABC said it was over the top, it was, she was fired. Even she admits it was. Why are you OK with her being fired?

 

What would be an example of an anti-white article?

 

Call me Honkey, Cotton-eyed Joe.

 

You can defend Bill, I think both Roseanne and Maher's comments were offensive. We're better than that.

 

So, you believe that your standard then substitutes for the actual law here? Frightening.

 

Yes, both were offensive. They were both insults. The whole ****ing point of insults is to offend people.

However, Roseanne’s insult was racist while Maher’s was not.

 

OK