In 2007, when referring to his son's black girlfriend, Monique Shinnery, Chapman was taped using strong language including the word "nigger". Chapman and his son, Tucker, are both white. [7] This audiotape had been obtained by the National Enquirer and has lead civil rights leaders to call for a cancellation of the program. [8]
Late on October 31st, A&E's parent company A&E Networks announced that they have suspended production of the series for the time being[9];
� A&E has just learned of the story released by the National Enquirer concerning Duane Dog Chapman. We take this matter very seriously. Pending an investigation, we have suspended production on the series. When the inquiry is concluded we will take appropriate action.
�
-From Wikipedia.com
Hmm, instead of letting people decide if they want to watch the show anymore, A&E just takes it off the air. I don't like this at all, it reminds me way too much of the Don Imus situation. Is this what happens now after that event?
It's their network and their prerogative to decide the programming.
Yeah I realize that, but you know that they were facing pressure. A&E really didn't have a choice here. They keep the show on the air, then civil rights groups attack the show and A&E, then advertizers pull out to avoid the negative reputation. What choice do regular people have on this?
source: http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/01/the-dog-apologizes/
I am deeply disappointed in myself for speaking out of anger to my son and using such a hateful term in a private phone conversation.
Obviously someone was snooping around Dog's place. Apparently saying "nigger" is gonna get you in more trouble than loitering around someone's house trying to make money off of anything they say or do.
phattonez wrote:Yeah I realize that, but you know that they were facing pressure. A&E really didn't have a choice here. They keep the show on the air, then civil rights groups attack the show and A&E, then advertizers pull out to avoid the negative reputation. What choice do regular people have on this?
If you want to see this kind of stuff on TV then apply the same amount of pressure that the civil rights group did. If you don't want to take the time then maybe you don't care enough.
^^It's not that I like the show, I don't care if it's off the air or not, but I don't think that this is a good reason for it to go off the air.
He he *dry laugh* Yeah, free speech is bull. Oh, sure you can say whatever you want...as long as it doesn't offend some racial/sexual/classial minority.
i.e, you can badmouth white, male middle class people. Anyone else and your not being sensitive to their feelings.
And you can't insult any religion. Majority or not.
I would be angry, not really threatened, but I don't think he should lose his show because civil liberties groups put the pressure on. Let people decide if they still want to watch the show.
phattonez wrote:
Hmm, instead of letting people decide if they want to watch the show anymore, A&E just takes it off the air. I don't like this at all, it reminds me way too much of the Don Imus situation. Is this what happens now after that event?
Not the same at all. What's-his-face bounty hunter guy was having a private conversation on the phone. He wasn't on the radio, publicly referring to a basketball team as a bunch of "nappy headed hoes".
^^I'm not saying that it's the same, but this is an implication of that. Ever since then, people on TV and Radio have been held on a pedestal and they can no longer say anything that is offensive. Tim Allen sold cocaine, and he was a big star for years. Isn't that worse than using the n-word?
His son is the one who leaked the tape that started this whole mess.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071102/ap_en_ce/people_duane_chapman_15
The whole thing is pretty messed up. While I hate seeing people use the n-word, there are other things that he could be doing that are much worse than this.
Of course, you can go to Comedy Central and watch the Chappelle special at least once a month, in which he says 'nigger' no less than 7 times in the first fifteen minutes. But Dog, white-trash Bounty Hunter, says it in anger in a private conversation, and he must issue a public apology or lose his job.
Attacking the organization who leaked said private conversation would be 'avoiding the real issue'. The real real issue is, Dog had his Freedom of Speech violated. His conversation was between himself and his son, not the Nat'l Enquirer, not the public.
In the recorded conversation he repeatedly said something along the lines of "We cuss all the time off-camera. We say nigger and other shit, especially when joking around with our clients. I don't want to have my job put into jeopardy by this woman. I don't want her around." (Not a direct quote)
If the word itself is at fault (from niger meaning 'black'😉 then why in the hell is it perpetuated? If the word is so vile and offensive, why do people still use it at all? You don't see many white, blonde germans joking around the mall calling each other 'nazis'.
Rainman wrote:If you want to see this kind of stuff on TV then apply the same amount of pressure that the civil rights group did. If you don't want to take the time then maybe you don't care enough.
People who stand up for white males are generally branded as racists themselves. Too many are lumped in with organizations of real intolerence (3 k's come to mind).
As my sig suggests, every person is entitled to an opinion, not an audience. Dog was given an audience he didn't want, and is being persecuted for an opinion.
Wait, isn't the national enquirer known for posting false news stories?
Anarchy_Balsac wrote:Wait, isn't the national enquirer known for posting false news stories?
But a lot of what they get is real, and this one is real.
Well my opinion is this, the network has a right to ban his show for whatever reason they so please. It isn't like he's been banned from making or publishing his show, he just can't do it on networks that don't want him. He's probably got enough money to host a website for his cult followers to watch it if he really wants to continue it(and he can make money off of those who would be willing to advertise on it).
Personally, if it were my network, I'd ban him too, but I'd do so even if it meant losing viewers because I loath people who are racist. Basically, I'm saying I feel the network did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. The have the right to do that though. I would have a problem however, if the government had intervened and banned his show though.
punkonjunk1024 wrote:I hate n***** too, but I hate him more, so goooo n*****.
Was this comment really necessary?
Anyways, the point is that his son got pissed off and let a private phone conversation become public, therefore violating Dog's personal privacy. Apparently there is nothing wrong with that as long as someone profits and there's a scandal that comes from it. I mean christ, he wasn't in the middle of Harlem or in a church screaming about 'niggers' now was he? Who gives a fuck what people say in their own private time. It's called PRIVATE TIME for a reason.
I understand your point. My thing is I don't like racists at all, whether they only show themselves to be racist in private conversations or not.
Anarchy_Balsac wrote:I understand your point. My thing is I don't like racists at all, whether they only show themselves to be racist in private conversations or not.
You have a right to be racist as much as you have a right to believe in universalism. As long as you're not violent, you're fully within your rights.
BTW: So could the dad sue his son over this?
phattonez wrote:You have a right to be racist as much as you have a right to believe in universalism. As long as you're not violent, you're fully within your rights.
Correct, and you also have a right to hate racists. Keep in mind this is a privately owned TV station saying they don't wish to air his show, not the government saying it can no longer be produced.
phattonez wrote:BTW: So could the dad sue his son over this?
Not under any doctrine which I am aware of. It does not fall under defamation since it is true. And the son had the right to voice his anger at what his dad said.
But his privacy was violated. I wouldn't expect anyone to record what I say when I call unless I have full knowledge of it.
I'm pretty sure that if you do anything like that (unless you've been given the right by the courts) you can sue. Something like that is not admissible in court, so . . . we need a lawyer here.
I know police can't, but I believe private citizens can. I will admit though that I am not 100% sure on the latter.
Ummm, if he was being wiretapped without his knowledge, he could sucessfully sue whoever it was doing it. However, no case against the TV station would work. They are perfectly at rights to drop his show if theres some aspect of his personality they don't further wish to endorse.
The station did nothing illegal, as much as I hate what they did, they are fine. The son has no right to let that into the public, and it would be inadmissible in court. I really detest not only that he betrayed his father's trust but did something illegal.
I don't see why you insist on the "inadmissible in court" thing, if something isn't admissible as evidence in court, it does not mean that it is something which private citizens can not legally do. It only means police can not hope to use it as evidence against you, which is irrelevant anyway since no crime was committed.
Lilith wrote:I love how people keep finding smaller and smaller angles to be slightly irritated and defensive about instead of just dropping a subject when they've been proven wrong.
This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.
He was angry, in his own home, and he used a racial slur in an argument with his good-for-nothing son. Now his show is out. Do I care? Not really. However, I still have a great deal of respect for the guy, especially after what he did in Mexico.
As for the lawsuit question, if he can prove that the tabloid misrepresented him, and that said misrepresentation led to a loss of income (which it obviously did), then he may have a defamation case in civil court. The jury's still out on whether he should sue in England!!!