| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spurlock issues a Durbin-esque apology
A Durbin-esque “I apologize if you were offended, but I’m not sorry for what I said” non-apology apology was issued today by “Super Size Me” filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, who utilized his right to free speech via irresponsible and uncalled for comments. First, the comments:
HORSHAM, Pa. – Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock gave a profanity-laced, politically incorrect speech to several hundred high school students, and not everyone was lovin’ it.
Spurlock, who ate nothing but McDonald’s meals for 30 days to make his Oscar-nominated 2004 documentary “Super Size Me,” spoke at Hatboro-Horsham High School in suburban Philadelphia during its first-ever Health and Wellness Fair.
In his hourlong presentation before 700 students, Spurlock joked about the intelligence of McDonald’s employees, using an Indian accent as he imitated a cashier trying to figure out how to ring up a Quarter Pounder. He also joked about “retarded kids in the back wearing helmets” and teachers smoking pot in the balcony.
The reaction:
There actually were special education students in the back row. Teachers led them out during the hourlong presentation.
“If you put the whole package together, the use of the F-word and poking fun at teachers and the comments about special-needs students, it just wasn’t appropriate,” Superintendent William Lessa said.
[...]
Senior Emily Wible said she did not like the jokes about the mentally retarded. “I work with special-needs kids,” she said.
The more disappointing reactions:
Most students laughed, gave Spurlock a standing ovation and mobbed him for autographs.
[...]
Juliane Wertley, a senior, said Spurlock was “awesome” and had him autograph a McDonald’s Happy Meal box she brought. He wrote “Unhappy Meal” and “Don’t Eat This.”
Spurlock’s initial response:
“The greatest lesson those kids learned today was the importance of free speech,” he said. “I didn’t talk to them the way most lecturers do and bore them. I made an unaccessible topic accessible and left the room with more friends than enemies.”
[...]
Spurlock said that shortly before his appearance, he was told not to talk about McDonald’s because a board member of the education association owns a franchise. The director of the Hatboro-Horsham Education Foundation, which sponsored the appearance, did not return phone calls seeking comment on Spurlock’s claim.
“To think I’m going to give in to that type of censorship is unbelievable,” Spurlock said.
Unapologetic then, and unapologetic now … if you read between the lines. Fast forward to today:
“It is never my intent to insult or demean anyone — and I understand how some of my remarks may have offended some in attendance and if you feel they did, then I am deeply sorry,” he wrote in “A Letter of Explanation,” posted last weekend on his blog.
Translation: I’m not sorry for what I said, but I’m sorry if you were offended by it.
Interesting how he used the freedom of speech to justify his comments. He apparently doesn’t realize, as I’ve repeatedly stated here, that it is not about the right to say something but instead whether or not its right to say, a point echoed in this opinion piece:
As a lawyer and a former reporter, I’m all for the First Amendment. But there is a difference between what we have a right to say and what we should say. The First Amendment promises that, with a few exceptions, the government cannot stifle our desire to say what we want when we want to say it. That does not, however, mean that we should feel compelled to say whatever might pop into our heads. The government shouldn’t filter our speech, but sometimes we should. Sometimes good judgment requires it.
Did Spurlock have a right to poke fun at drug use and at persons with disabilities? He did. Should he have? I don’t think so. I wasn’t in the audience for the speech, but I’ll bet Spurlock a large order of french fries that his vulgarity and attempts at humor didn’t teach the young people in his audience anything worth learning – except, perhaps, that eating fast food for a month may have longer-lasting effects than Spurlock’s documentary suggested.
With freedom comes responsiblity. Mr. Spurlock apparently has yet to figure that out.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
12 Responses to “Spurlock issues a Durbin-esque apology”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
I’m happy that liberals feel free to say the stuff they say. They help identify themselves.
His colaim to fme is a rediculous movie he made about McDonalds?
Why was he invited to speak again?
Whats his special message? Don’t eat McD’s?
He is going to talk to them like someone they can relate to? How about talking to them like an adult? Do you think employeers these kids will soon be approaching for interviews are going to talk to them like ’someone they can relate to’?
How about talking to them like an adult; show them how to be adults and how adults talk. They are learning how to be adults. You want to de-evolve yourself back into a teen while giving some kind of ’special’ talk to students for what, making a rediculous movie?
His message could’ve been about personal responsibility. Don’t choose to eat McDonalds (or Wendy’s or popcorn or ice cream or eggs and bacon or beer or pizza or fast chinese food with all the oil) every meal for 30 days.
But he acts like we don’t have a choice. He acts like we don’t have free will to be personally responsible. I can’t understand that message and don’t know how he could’ve made one dime for his non-efforts.
How about he makes a movie where for 30 days straight he CHOOSES to say irresponsible things about every type of person. See what happens to his stress level and his conscience and how much anger people feel towards him, etc. Choosing irresponsibility is his trademark I guess.
Well he probably shouldn’t have made the crack about special needs kids but the rest of it was fine IMHO. Profanity has become (and should become a more acceptable form of communication) Shoot they’re teenagers.
Not in my school for my kids.
Acceptable for you but not for me. It isn’t necessary. It’s choosing to be personally irresponsible and force that on my kids.
The vulgarities were wrong. Not the place for that garbage. Seems he’s still a High Scooler: “ooOOooo, cool, Morgan! Now say ‘F**k’! Heheheee!”
He has yet to explain how eating the McD’s salads is bad. Still waiting for that.
He’s a putz. A First Order Putz. And it’s amazing what Schools think is appropriate for assemblies these days.
Using profanity shows a distinct lack of intelligence. It pegs you as a dullard or worse.
An intelligent human being can use a dictionary or thesaurus when you need to describe some things or some actions in more powerful words.
Link
Seems he needs a good sound editor.
Tommy using profanity in everyday conversation just shows a lack of vocabulary skills (Ignorance of the English language) and it is not an acceptable form of communication unless you live in a gutter. Does anyone have a right not to be offended “NO” but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use a little discretion when giving a speech. This is a good example of celebrity worship it’s a shame that more people will know who wins “American Idol” and couldn’t name there senators. What should we expect from Government Indoctrination Centers also known as Public Schools where the main agenda is liberal thinking? Did I say “Liberal and Thinking” now that is an oxymoron!
I agree with sanity, and I referred to Cheney as a stupid, idiot, pantywaste, punk the day he cursed in Congress at Reid. Peace
I’ll be frank.. I already had it in for this guy 2 years ago when he derided Mcd’s. Not only do I like the burgers, but Mcd’s is one of the most amazing & fascinating corporate stories in the world, invented the fast food restaurant amongst a litany of other things we take for granted. Any guy who derides something that gives so much sheer joy to children around the world for his own personal benefit is the grinch in my eyes.
The whole thing boils down to freedom of choice.
People have freedom of choice here, they can CHOOSE to pay money and BUY whatever they wish to eat.
No one forces them to do it.
It is not overly expensive and most seem good to eat.
His claim to fame is eating fast food for 30 days?
I don’t know who is more moronic, him for doing it or the school for inviting him to speak on his stupidity.
I await his next movie smoking crack for 30 days….