Follow up on that.

Some really good stuff out there. A few high points I did not hit, most of which I'm drawing from others' comments, but not all.

1) Yes, there has been an awful lot of attention to this, crowding out other issues of importance. My having posted on it reflects my agreement that it's interesting and important, but having seen the explosion of coverage, I do agree with the call for perspective.

2) Yes, I also agree that the implicit internalized rejection of self in response to white standards of beauty figured in this; that to me does not shift the blame at all, but it does point out that developing an independence of thought and embracing what others seek to stigmatize can be an effective defense if you're lucky enough to be able to do it.

3) This is a good example of how free speech means being able to say what you want via the network you own; hence NBC and CBS got a chance to exercise their free speech by letting Don Imus find some other venue. Free speech purists might have demanded something other than Imus' termination, true, so as not to chill people in his position, but this speech struck me as weak in hallmarks for protectedness, Imus has been relatively privileged, and the demand for a penalty seems pretty inevitable. It would be better to enact a durable and viewpoint-neutral standard for on-air speech conduct than to get rid of a person.

4) I am generally accepting of a humor defense for what otherwise might be considred hate speech, provided the humor succeeds in achieving some redeeming value and particularly if the joke is intended to be on the bigots and not on the disenfranchised. It should be one of a series of factors considered in evaluating how bad a comment is.

5) Some have tried to shift the attention to rappers. Some very smart people rightly acknowledge that hip hop has its horrible side that should be addressed; on the other hand, the ploy of justifying us-on-them bigotry by pointing to them-on-them bigotry is tired and disingenuous coming from most of its advocates. Beyond that, a most of rap is pretty benign compared to the worst it has to offer. When Nelly sings, "won't you hos come out and play, now?" he's talking about...hos. When Will Smith affects a bad-ass persona, bragging about his sexual exploits, you know it's just silly : Jada's not gonna stand for it. When Slick Rick gives us "Women Lose Weight," it would be horribly misogynistic if it weren't so funny. The defense in the previous paragraph applies.

6) Several of these points can be summarized together in the series of factors suggested above which provide an estimate of how bad something is. There is precedent in the law for identifying lists of factors that distinguish, for example, threats, which are unprotected performative speech, from mere expression, which is protected. It's easy to think what some of the factors should be that should be considered, for example, in employment harassment policies. I would suggest:

(a) The comment targets a specific individual or small group, as opposed to an entire protected class. This is because the attack in the first instance is apt to be felt more personally.

(b) The target or targets are not merely members of a protected class which is attacked, such as women or AfricanAmericans, but represent, or are closely associated with the broader group. This would include a role model, advocate, or spokesperson for a group, or a person whose group membership is especially salient. Such association assists in assuring that the attack is felt by an entire group.

(c) The individual is a private rather than general-purpose public figure, who has not courted or invited the kind of attention represented by the remark.

(d) The individual is vulnerable, either because young, experiencing hard times, not rich or powerful, or is at a point in their venture where there is much at stake.

(e) The individual’s targeted classification is not shared with the attacker, especially if the comment is directed by a member of a dominant group toward a member of a less-dominant group. This is because comments from without are an expression of power and implicitly threatening, because they are more hurtful, and because criticism of a group's internal handling of its identity tends to blame the victim, interfere with the group's internal autonomy, and suffocates the defensive project of defanging hurtful antagonistic speech.

(f) The comment is clear in its meaning and in its hostility, or else exploits a well defined mechanism of ambiuguity or code which resists policing.

(g) The comment is made more forceful by its being explicit or graphic, protracted, repeated, detailed, or especially loud, course, or profane.

(h) The comment is made directly to the target, or to people with power over the target, or to others whose respect or support is important to the target.

(i) The comment exceeds the background degree of ignorance or hostility ordinarily transmitted within the environment it reflects, and tends to advocate or promote (or lessen resistance to) a degredation of standards.

(j) The comment lacks legitimate purpose, or redeeming value, which would includes humor, artistic merit, comment on matters of social concern, academic or educational discussion, deliberative processes, or, to a lesser extent, communication for any legitimate purpose, including expression of strong emotion.