Hank Williams Jr. in hot water

[Persia]

Hank Williams Jr saw his Monday Night Football jingle pulled by ESPN. Why? Hank Williams Jr. compared President Obama to Adolf Hitler.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/1004/Hank-Williams-Jr.-in-hot-water-for-comparing-Obama-to-Hitler

[+DieChecker]

Hank Williams Jr saw his Monday Night Football jingle pulled by ESPN. Why? Hank Williams Jr. compared President Obama to Adolf Hitler.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/1004/Hank-Williams-Jr.-in-hot-water-for-comparing-Obama-to-Hitler

Yeah. He went too far with his retoric.

[preacherman76]

He didnt call anyone hitler. He made a analogy. This is ridiculas.

[ninjadude]

I guess the Godwin rule applies outside the internet as well.

[aquatus1]

He didnt call anyone hitler. He made a analogy. This is ridiculas.

The article doesn't say he called him Hitler. It says that he compared him to Hitler. Which he did (an "analogy" is a comparison of two things based on their structure or process). It goes on to quote the anchor asking Hank for clarification:

In an interview Monday morning on Fox News' "Fox & Friends," Williams, unprompted, said of Obama's outing on the links with House Speaker John Boehner: "It'd be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu."Asked to clarify, Williams said, "They're the enemy," adding that by "they" he meant Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

Anchor Gretchen Carlson later said to him, "You used the name of one of the most hated people in all of the world to describe, I think, the president." Williams replied, "Well, that is true. But I'm telling you like it is."

There is really no way around it. Not only did he compare Obama to Hitler, he further clarified it by specifically referring to them as the enemy, and then confirming it when the anchor asked him if he meant to used Hitler to describe the president.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

It was a metaphor about contrasting/conflicting ideologies not that Obama is Hitler! Arguably, Obama could be Netanyahu in the metaphor.

He didn't compare him to Hitler. He didn't draw similarities between Hitler and Obama or anything of the sort.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

It was a metaphor about contrasting/conflicting ideologies not that Obama is Hitler! Arguably, Obama could be Netanyahu in the metaphor.

He didn't compare him to Hitler. He didn't draw similarities between Hitler and Obama or anything of the sort.

Dress the cat however you like but if you reread the second paragragh in aquatus1 qoute you will see Mr Williams answered back that he did. So do I believe you or the person which made the quote?

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I would like to think that even though he stated the comparison. And simply thought of that analogy to represent an enemy. Then using hitler may have been simply case of stupidity. LOL on the other hand he did confirm it when asked. If my psych classes may be of interest there is an underlying hatred for Obama that surpasses just an enemy comment. The automatic choice and defense of the specific phrasing tells a lot more than this simply being an impromptu comparison. No it shows that he actually held back what he really means. I suppose I could go on but psychology bores most. So ill stop here.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[grendille]

regardless of why he said it or what he meant it is his right to do so.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

regardless of why he said it or what he meant it is his right to do so.

Absolutely and that his song was pulled from the air because of what he said is the others rights also.

So by your statement this thread is over then?

[grendille]

Absolutely and that his song was pulled from the air because of what he said is the others rights also.

So by your statement this thread is over then?

yep he said it while it may not have been a solid career move, And since he said it must be responsible for the consequences.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

yep he said it while it may not have been a solid career move, And since he said it must be responsible for the consequences.

Not bad grendile I will have to agree with you on this.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Dress the cat however you like but if you reread the second paragragh in aquatus1 qoute you will see Mr Williams answered back that he did. So do I believe you or the person which made the quote?

You mean where he agrees to describing the President as being Hitler? Yeap, can't argue with that. Don't mind me.

[ThePitOfReason]

Hank could care less what anyone thinks it's a waste of time to think different on it. The country is a freaking mess and it's like who cares? But hey lets go hit some golf balls and play the big shots. Think what you want the only way anything is going to change is when someone steps up and speaks out rather it be Hank or someone else. And just so you know he is not the only one stepping up and speaking his mind.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

And calling someone Hitler, inaccurately at that, is going to achieve anything how Pit?

[preacherman76]

The article doesn't say he called him Hitler. It says that he compared him to Hitler. Which he did (an "analogy" is a comparison of two things based on their structure or process). It goes on to quote the anchor asking Hank for clarification:

He didnt compare him to Hitler either. Black is to white as up is to down. Thats a analogy as well. Does that mean you are comparing white to down? Of course not.

There is really no way around it. Not only did he compare Obama to Hitler, he further clarified it by specifically referring to them as the enemy, and then confirming it when the anchor asked him if he meant to used Hitler to describe the president.

0bama is the speakers enemy, politicaly. This isnt rocket science.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

You mean where he agrees to describing the President as being Hitler? Yeap, can't argue with that. Don't mind me.

LOL I have never minded seeing you in the posts wearer OH

See you around buddy

[msmike1]

The only ridiculous thing about any of this mess is that it is even news. So, some people can say what they want and it's free speach, but others can't. Where do you draw the line. So what if he called Obama hitler, which he didn't. How many comparisons were made by democrats about bush being hitler? Too many to count. Who cares!! I am just glad he didn't come out on national T.V. and say I'm Sorry.

Mike

[aquatus1]

You say whatever the heck you want. Free Speech gives you the right to do that.

Dealing with the consequences of your actions is still all on you, however.

[el midgetron]

You say whatever the heck you want. Free Speech gives you the right to do that.

Dealing with the consequences of your actions is still all on you, however.

It might not be that simple. After all, suffering "consequences" implies its not your "right". If he was fired for "free speech" then he had his right to free speech infringed on. However, there is the consideration of his contract with ESPN. I don't know what standards of conduct his contract might include but I suspect ESPN would be more likely to cite his contractual obligations rather than "consequences for excising his right to free speech" as justification for his firing.

I think its a bit of a circus. Hank didn't politicize the show, ESPN did when they asked him a political question.

[acidhead]

I think that Hank's first amendment right was violated by ESPN. Did he offend people? Certainly! Was it wrong to offend people with his choice of words? Absolutely not according to what we, as free people believe in. What he did was made the emotionally unstable people react with anger. Too many people are dumbed down because of prescription drugs like Prozac and Zoloft and have lost their ability to rationally accept the cyborg state they are infected with. I think it's good for society to hear things they don't want to hear without the messenger being punished for something that isn't even a crime to begin with. It's healthy for a free society to grow when we aren't restricted by our free speech through threats from employers who use monetary gains or losses as a weapon of censorship. That alone should be the biggest concern for a free society because it sets a dangerous path of corporate censorship which do do a lot more harm than listening to free people speak their mind.

Edited October 5, 2011 by acidhead

[SilverCougar]

How did they violate his free speech? They didn't tell him he could not say them, they did not sue him for saying them. They have a right as well to pull from their broadcast anything they wish to. Especially if they do not agree/support any views expressed by people they air on their network.

As Aquatus said, he has the right to say what he wishes, however he will have to suffer consequences. The freedom to speech means from consequences *FROM THE GOVERNMENT*. Meaning the Secret Service/police/fbi can not come to Hank Williams Jr. and arrest him for making his analogy. ESPN is a private company and have their own rights to protect their image. Which means they can negate their contract with him and cut all ties. It's not stopping him from saying what he wishes, it's just not supporting them/his views.

I just find it amazingly funny that in one breath they say "Oh why do we give any celebrities any attention and tell us anything about politics" then in the next, asked a celebrity what he thinks about politics! It's like they're purposely being the worlds biggest hypocrites.

[acidhead]

It's perfectly fine for ESPN to censor Hank if they feel he's sending the wrong image their company is trying to portray to their share holders....... this is part of liberty which I defend. Freedom to choose. My concern is that the message Hank was sending wasn't overtly bad when considering the analogy he stated. ESPN should know better... they're in the business of providing competitive sports coverage to an audience that mostly agreed with Hanks analogy that it was a bad moment for the system to have the two enemies high fiveing each other on a golf course while people back home are hurting. It looked real bad. I expect Hank's song to air again next week because their will be a lot of angry NFL fans.

Edited October 5, 2011 by acidhead

[SilverCougar]

It's still their choice to make. Whether you feel they should "know better" or not or if their fans agree with him or not.

Nice 180 from saying they violated his rights to saying it's perfectly fine for them to censor him.

[Travelling Man]

I heard the analogy - and it was quite clear that it was apparently an innocent analogy about two bitter enemies getting together for "fun". To be honest, I have used that same analogy from time to time.

Then I heard the backstory (paragraph II of Aquatus1's post) - and Jr's venom became clear to see. He went BEYOND the analogy to actually equating Obama to Hitler. WAY bad move...

Yeah - I'd can him, too.

Jr's contract for the use of his theme-song is worth about $100,000 or more per year - so this will hurt rather badly.

And regarding the "free speech" argument - this does not extend to employee rights. If I work for McDonalds and go on the air to say that I think that McD's sucks, I can expect to be canned. This goes so far as to extend to places like discussion boards. If I am a member here and start calling Aquatus a big poopyhead, I can expect censure and then bannination if I don't stop. to top it off, my commentary (McD's _OR_ poopyheadedness) may be 100% true and accurate - and I may say it in non-inflammatory words - but it does not promote what either company (and, yes, the U-M boards are considered a company here!) wants to promote.

--And, for those that wish to know - I happen to REALLY like McDonalds (except for their recent changes to their milkshakes) and Aquatus1 has not angererd me nor demonstrated poopyheadedness that I have observed. Biff Splitkins _IS_, however, a big poopyhead, because a post of his made me blow diet cola beverage through my nose. Yeah... he's a poopyhead!

Edited October 6, 2011 by Travelling Man