Update:

Verizon has apparently dropped 1938media’s content from its Vcast service and the distribution deal is off. Some people are happy with the decision while others think it is hypocritical. What do I think? Obviously, Verizon is a private company that gets to do whatever it wants, and this kind of controversy isn’t good for business. But those who argue that this isn’t a free speech issue are making a mistake, I think. It’s easy to stand up and defend speech when we agree with it — harder to do so, but just as important, when we don’t.

Original post:

A video that controversial video-blogger Loren Feldman of 1938media did almost a year ago has come back to haunt him, it seems. Several civil-rights groups and media watchdogs are protesting a decision by telecom giant Verizon to add 1938media’s video clips to its mobile Vcast service, saying Loren’s “TechNigga” clip is demeaning to black people. Project Islamic Hope, for example, has issued a statement demanding that Verizon drop its distribution arrangement with 1938media, which was just announced about a week ago, and other groups including the National Action Network and LA Humanity Foundation are also apparently calling for people to email Verizon and protest.

The video that has Islamic Hope and other groups so upset is one called “TechNigga,” which Loren put together last August. After wondering aloud why there are no black tech bloggers, Loren reappears with a skullcap and some gaudy jewelry, and claims to be the host of a show called TechNigga. He then swigs from a bottle of booze, does a lot of tongue-kissing and face-licking with his girlfriend Michelle Oshen, and then introduces a new Web app called “Ho-Trackr,” which is a mashup with Google Maps that allows prospective johns to locate prostitutes. In a statement, Islamic Hope says that the video “sends a horrible message that Verizon seeks to partner with racists.”

The TechNigga routine (which was actually a series of videos) apparently led to Loren’s distribution deal with Podtech being dissolved, and also caused problems with The Huffington Post — which 1938media was also working with — after founder Arianna Huffington was quoted as saying she was offended by the clip. Loren also said recently that a proposed deal to make videos and write columns for CNET was on hiatus, although it wasn’t clear exactly why. Was the company concerned about possible offensive content, given the TechNigga incident and the series of videos taking shots at social-media guru Shel Israel? Possibly.

On some level, I can understand the protests against Loren. Some of his content is in pretty poor taste. That said, however, a lot of it is also pretty funny. Does it cross a line sometimes, or at least come right up to the line and stick its tongue out, or give the line the finger? Yes. Lots of good comedy does. There are plenty of people who don’t think TechNigga was funny, and for the record, I am one of them. I get the point that Loren was trying to make (or at least I think I do), but to me it just didn’t work. Loren’s friend Prince Campbell — who is black, and considers Loren a friend (as I do) — has said much the same thing.

But does that mean his content shouldn’t be allowed on Verizon’s mobile service? No. I think when it comes to comedy and critical commentary of all kinds — satire or otherwise — we have to offer a lot wider latitude than we might otherwise. Freedom of speech shouldn’t be just a flag that we wave from time to time whenever it suits us. It’s an important principle. Loren should be free to make and distribute his content, and others are free not to watch it. Somehow I doubt that a mega-corporation like Verizon is going to see it that way, however.

About the author

Mathew 2414 posts

I'm a Toronto-based former senior writer with Gigaom and my favorite things to write about are social technology, media and the evolution of online behavior

74 Responses to “Protests over Verizon deal with 1938media”
  1. Written like a typical TechHonkey !

  2. Written like a typical TechHonkey !

  3. M-Dog, the more I hear about this guy, the more I like him.

  4. M-Dog, the more I hear about this guy, the more I like him.

  5. I don't really think his videos should be excluded from a deal because he did some really horrible ones earlier.

    However, I thought the technigga videos were not only in bad taste, I didn't think they were even slightly funny, which is why I stopped watching his videos long before he started playing with puppets.

    I guess I'm not much of a genius, because I just don't see a lot of what Loren does as funny, even though others think he's hysterical. Steve Gillmor considers him a comedic genius. I think he's inconsistent, and resorts to the easy slam to make the joke.

    But that's me. I'm not a fan of humor at others' expense unless the 'other' is a willing participant.

    Beyond that, I will not pay the kind of rates the cell companies want to watch video content that they decide is suitable to cross their network. The big companies are getting greedy with these 'extra charges', and I think it will come back to bite them and their content providers in the days to come.

  6. File under: inevitable.

    And if this news ever goes mainstream I think that everyone outside Web 2.0 and the racial grievance industry will be wondering: Who is Loren Feldman and what is Project Islamic Hope?!?!

  7. You know what, you're right — Loren has the right to say whatever the heck he wasn't about whomever he wants. But he also owns the right to accept the consequences of his actions. Some may argue the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but that's the risk you take when you act before you think.

    Karma.

    • That's a fair point, Shey. Thanks for the comment.

    • Exactly.

      This isn't a discussion of freedom of speech but corporate responsibility and “political correctness.”

      Freedom of speech protects Loren (and all of us) from the government telling us what we can and can't say. Verizon, on the other hand, has every right to censor Loren. They aren't limiting Loren's freedom of speech if they decide not to pay him for his content.

  8. i think it is great that loren has a deal with verizon and that he will reach a wider audience- because then more people can determine for themselves whether or not they consider him funny or not- and if they don't then there can be a greater force that will squash him down to size.
    i personally do not find him funny, nor do i think howard stern is entertaining, but there is a large segment of the population that does – so maybe there is a chance for loren to be appreciated by the same sort of people who like howard, in fact, the technigga video seems like it should be on howard's show, it fit s that whole unenlightened buffoonery perfectly..

    • I think you are mistaking Howard Stern for Don Imus. When Howard uses comedy to exploit current issues he does so not to offend but to pinpoint the errors of a person or group. It is also often quite humorous and intelligent.

      Anyone can put on a wig and gold teeth and act out a stereotype. But can you do it an not be offensive? Thats Imus' problem and that was Feldmans problem.

      That said I think people are overreacting to the video. Poor taste does not mean poor talent. I enjoy the provocative videos, especially in this web world full of awkward geeks.

      • nope i was not confusing Stern for Imus. Imus is just plain terrible, Stern is not funny and is sleazy- that was the reaction i had to techn**** at the time and still. the puppets have been just as sleazy. i dislike “comedy” which is mean spirited and makes fun of other people. that's just negative hating designed to pull someone else down, rather than lifting up the audience. if there's anything our culture needs less of, that is negativity.

  9. Matt, I'm a huge fan of Loren and I hadn't seen the TechNigga video until today. I can see where Loren was trying to go with it, but he really, really, REALLY missed his mark. I also don't by the “social media experiment” bit either, but I digress.

    Does it make him a horrible person? No, I don't think so. An err in judgment perhaps. What the Internet viewing public must understand is that history lives FOREVER on the Internet and just because the content exists and is still viewable by the public doesn't mean that we should judge the content creators each time it surfaces.

    At some time or another, many of us have produced “unfortunate content”. I use the term “content” loosely here. Imagine having half naked drunk cottage pics out there that your “friends” have uploaded, viewable by a prospective employer.

    Maybe the Internet needs a statute of limitations…?

  10. That's exactly right. I care about free speech a lot, but this is anything but a free speech issue. It's not a free speech issue when a sit-com gets canceled because people think it's unfunny or offensive, or because something better comes along. The first amendment applies to the government's actions, not Verizon's. I mean, theoretically I guess, I could make a webcam video tonight in my living room and send it to Verizon, and then blog about the violation of my right to “free speech” when they didn't put it on VCAST. But who would care?

    • I think you're wrong, Nathan — in my view it is a free speech issue, and so is the cancellation of a TV show, or the removal of a CD from sale in a store, or a magazine etc. Just because it didn't involve the government doesn't mean it isn't a freedom of speech issue — free speech gets chipped away at in all sorts of ways.

      • Okay, you got me, in two ways.

        First, let me revise my claim — it's not a freedom-of-speech issue in the same way as it is when your right to express an opinion is legally impaired. It seems to me that there's an enormous difference between placing restrictions on the expression of certain ideas tout court, on the one hand, and the restriction of the venues in which those ideas can be distributed and promulgated, on the other. In this case, Feldman is of course free to continue making all the vile, racist videos he wants, with or without a distribution deal with Verizon, so there's no impairment to his “freedom” in any absolute sense. But you're right, of course, that whenever someone clamps down on the free flow of ideas because of the potential for giving offense, then there is a different sort of free speech issue involved, and we lurch a bit in the direction of greater self-censorship as a society. Point taken. It's a trade-off. Personally, if I were an executive at Verizon, and I were looking at the situation in the wake of these protests, I'd check out the TechNigga videos, and I'd probably say, “This is not a guy we want our company associated with.” Looked at from that perspective, I have a hard time shedding a lot of tears for Feldman. But of course it's all about the bottom line in the end. You can't really expect Verizon, or any other for-profit company, to go to bat for some vlogger's right to express himself at the cost of losing business.

        The other point you make, though, is the comparison to removing CDs from stores. That got me thinking about the differences between different kinds of distribution channels. When I walk into a big record store (yes, that's still what I call them, and yes, I still do frequent them), I have a reasonable expectation that I'll be able to find a representative selection of the music that's “out there.” If one CD among thousands is removed, that smells like censorship to me, and it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. On the other hand, I have no expectation that a TV network is going to make available to me a representative selection of all the video out there — I don't expect to see, for example, foreign-language TV shows, or two-hour-long documentaries. I expect a careful selection of the best stuff that fits the market they're trying to serve. Given that, the absence of one show doesn't seem quite as obnoxious.

        Anyhow, that's just a personal reaction to your comments. Sorry to have gone on so long, but I'm fairly new to this kind of thing.

      • look, i'm at least as hardcore as you are on free speech, mathew. i just don't think it's a free speech issue — as nathan describes in detail, below.

        loren felt like making the videos in the first place, verizon no longer feels like distributing them. i mean, what's the alternative? forcing verizon to pay loren to distribute the vidoes?

        “free speech gets chipped away in all sorts of ways” is just a slippery slope fallacy away from the government rounding all of us free speech advocates up and shipping us off for interrogation in guantanamo.

  11. Okay, I'll bite. Where's it written that just because he has a right to say it, Verizon should distribute it?

    • Verizon already agreed to distribute it, but they may change their minds because of the lobbying described in the post. I just think it would be nice if there were some voices on the other side, that's all.

      • well there were obviously some voices on the other side in order for him to get the deal in the first place hwever the lobby effort is a market force which is responding,; whether or not it will be effective is another matter, “The Last Temptation of Christ” was still aired in theatres.

      • What does that mean? You want people to protest Verizon in favor of carrying the content? Or be outraged because Verizon has reconsidered carrying content from someone that would produce and defend “TechNigga?”

        Seriously, I'm curious. I really don't see where the controversy is here.
        It's not a freedom of speech issue. He is still free to produce whatever content he wants.

  12. This guy should have the right to distribute his crap…uh…content wherever he wants. This is America, for God's sake. He can post it any place he pleases. The point is, nobody else has to.

    I don't understand how it would be a big deal if Verizon sends him along his merry way. It's not like they are preventing him from distributing his racist…uh…radical ideas elsewhere.

    They have not pulled his books of the shelves or removed his CD from the record stores. If there is a huge protest against Verizon carrying his content, why would they want it anyway?

    If you're music is crap and there is no demand for it, are they forced to carry it in a record store? Does a movie theater absolutely have to play your bad movie that nobody really wants to see?

    • Rahsheen, if there was a huge and widespread public protest against
      something, then I would have no problem with someone not carrying it
      in their store or on their service. But I don't like the idea of
      companies like Verizon removing content from someone after protests by
      a couple of lobby groups, based on a single video from someone like
      Loren — a video that was designed to be satirical (whether you think
      it succeeded or not).

      • I actually feel what you are saying, but it could be my ignorance about the particulars of Verizon and exactly what their “deal” was with 1939 Media that still makes me disagree.

        I have never had Verizon, so I have never experienced the beauty that is VCast. My point is that Verizon is a business, which means it's about money. Part of the fact that people give them money is their reputation. If they become associated with some guy that a large number of people feel is an ass…well, that's not good for business.

        This was all over the radio this morning. Everybody and their grandma was calling in saying they would cancel their accounts. We're talking about businesses cancelling, not just individuals. It's unfortunate that this video is old, but somebody dug it up and now this dude's moment of stupidity on the internet could cast a shadow on an entire corporation.

  13. […] Ingram asked if that means his content shouldn’t be allowed on Verizon. But does that mean his content […]

  14. Wow. This is a big issue. I think Loren is funny. I even thought TechNigga was funny. But as a veteran of the Lenny Bruce days, I know that this is not fare for large networks. It's a niche product, and I am amazed Verizon would have even considered it. Companies like Verizon MUST go to the least common denominator. Has nothing to do with free speech. Of course Loren can do this, but he should be signing with The Onion.

    • I think Feldman is more Andrew “Dice” Clay than Lenny Bruce, but, hey, de gustibus non disputandum, right? — Sorry, couldn't resist… I realize the discussion isn't really about him…

  15. Issue over.

    “We regularly review and refresh content on our service, V Cast. Clips from 1938 Media were removed from our service this morning.” — Jan Morris, Verizon spokesperson.

    Personally I don't see it as a free speech issue, either. I wouldn't expect that any yahoo can just shoot some video and expect Verizon to carry it.

    So the Cnet deal's in the dumper, Verizon throws him overboard, and the clock's reading 14:59…

  16. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Immature and tasteless behavior might be popular with cocooned techies that climb over themselves to stroke Feldman in hopes of becoming part of the Feldman/Arrington/Calcanis trifecta – but he sacrificed the mass market.

    I wonder how amusing he would have found “Tech Kyka”…not very considering his reaction to Guy Kawasaki for stating he learned to sell from his Jewish friends in the jewelry industry – which is actually a hat tip if you ask me. If a guy told me he learned the best restaurant management techniques from his Greek friends, I'd be fine with that. It's commerce, it's a good thing.

    The good news, according to him, is that he doesn't care what anybody thinks as long as clients supposedly keep paying him to provide consulting work.

    I personally doubt that. The guy thrives on attention and clearly has aspirations of grandeur that won't be fulfilled outside of the comedy circuit. The only place that might accept his brand of whatever he does.

    Yes, I do agree that his content should be accessible from anywhere, at anytime. Just don't expect corporate America to help push distribution for him on their dime.

    Live by the sword, die by the sword.

  17. […] what’s your opinion? Is the video racist? Should Verizon have stood by Feldman? Tell us in the comments. CrunchBase Information 1938 Media Information provided by […]

  18. […] Built up grief over old Verizon deal with 1938Media. […]

  19. I agree with the freedom of speech argument. But, with that freedom, comes a huge responsibility. If people fail in that responsibility, they should face the consequences. Freedom to hold gun doesn't mean freedom to shoot others. Similarly, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to insult others. I am disappointed with your line of argument.

    • Krishnan, freedom of speech absolutely gives each one of us the right to insult others. We just have to live with the consequences.

      In this case (and this video) I think Loren was foolish and out of line – but I fully support his right to do so.

      Regards,
      George

  20. Couldn't have happened to a nicer fellow. Loren likes to publicly spread his hate on everyone: sometimes it's mildy funny (ALWAYS at someone else's expense), more often than not it's highly obnoxious.

    One moment he's on Shel Israel like a pitball, Andrew Baron of Rocketboom the next second. What an exhausting waste of time it is to gain a rare chuckle or two.

  21. […] know he does so well. The problem, at least for Loren, was that he was too good at it, and wound up losing distribution deals with the Huffington Post as well as the PodTech […]

  22. You wrote… “Loren should be free to make and distribute his content, and others are free not to watch it. Somehow I doubt that a mega-corporation like Verizon is going to see it that way, however.”

    Verizon exercised their right not to be associated with Loren's idea of free speech. Just like “others are free not to watch it,” Verizon is free not to associate themselves with it and the activists are free to protest what they felt was offensive.

    As far as I can see here, everyone has exercised their rights quite effectively.

  23. Verizon didnt do their homework first.

    Who would want to deal with them after this? Not me.

  24. I read on Loren's blog somewhere something about “Michael Arrington was taking on old media publishing, Jason Calacanis was taking on video and Loran was taking on TV”… well Loran I guess TV won but at least you might get a chance to be an intern at TechCrunch.. I hear McDonalds are hiring as well.

    There is no place for racism in the world… pretending that its comedy is like putting lip stick on a pig.. its still a pig and its still raciest.

    There is no place for racism and there is no place for you. Please go away and do something good and stop existing on demeaning other people.

  25. I doubt Feldman was dropped based on a one day protest by small groups yesterday. I imagine that Verizon is finding that outside of the small sphere of webloggers, Feldman really doesn’t have much of a following. Certainly not enough to justify keeping his material when seeing the racist video he created.

    As for freedom of speech, Feldman still has the same forum the rest of us have. If Verizon does not carry my text, does that mean my freedom of speech has been abrogated? No, and neither has Feldman’s. Frankly, I’m amazed that anyone watches any of his stuff, he really isn’t very good.

    But he has gotten some publicity from this event. So have others. Again.

  26. I doubt Feldman was dropped based on a one day protest by small groups yesterday. I imagine that Verizon is finding that outside of the small sphere of webloggers, Feldman really doesn’t have much of a following. Certainly not enough to justify keeping his material when seeing the racist video he created.

    As for freedom of speech, Feldman still has the same forum the rest of us have. If Verizon does not carry my text, does that mean my freedom of speech has been abrogated? No, and neither has Feldman’s. Frankly, I’m amazed that anyone watches any of his stuff, he really isn’t very good.

    But he has gotten some publicity from this event. So have others. Again.

  27. Please don’t compare what happened with Feldman to Lenny Bruce. There is a difference between losing a corporate contract, and being arrested every time you appear on stage.

  28. Please don’t compare what happened with Feldman to Lenny Bruce. There is a difference between losing a corporate contract, and being arrested every time you appear on stage.

  29. […] him problems today. Matthew Ingram captures the latest fallout from that controversy in his post Protests over Verizon deal with 1938media where he […]

  30. […] Verizon se pravdÄ›podobnÄ› zalekl negativní publicity a případných protestů a s Feldmanem se rychle rozloučil. Podle nÄ›kterých sebral rozum do hrsti (shegeeks), podle jiných je to rozhodnutí Å¡patné a pÅ™edstavitelem fanatismu je tu pÅ™edevším Najee Ali (tomtechsblog či Mathew Ingram). […]

  31. That's right. It's a distribution thing. And Loren isn't being put in jal; he is being denied a “cabaret carfd,” which is access to a spcific venue or platfor,. Shelley, you are right. And as for whether Loren is funny. he's really funny some of the time. But he's not a valuable commenter on society like Bruce was, or George Carlin. They excoriated us all, not just one of us.

    • Whoa! This is not being denied a “cabaret card” This is just not getting booked at a particular cabaret. A cabaret card was a New York City government-issued license that was required by anyone working in an establishment that served liquor. Many brilliant artists were denied the ability to work in New York because of drug charges or obscenity charges. (Charlie Parker, Billie Holiday, Lenny Bruce, and Lord Buckley among the most famous).

      As you note, Loren still has his freedom of speech. He can make videos. He can post them. We all can view them. You don't need a 'cabaret card' to work the Internet.

  32. Mathew, since you still maintain that this is a freedom of speech issue: White supremecist groups produce lots of videos mocking minorities. If they send them to Verizon for inclusion in the V Cast network, should Verizon feel obligated to make them available? How about neo-nazi groups? NAMBLA?

  33. Loren is getting more press for getting kicked off of verizon than he got for signing up.

    Do you that's an accident?

    Adding 1938 media was a non-event for Verizon. They do lots of content deals with web video. Verizon media relations only got involved when Loren got booted.

  34. “But does that mean his content shouldn’t be allowed on Verizon’s mobile service? “

    The people who found his content unfunny, racist, and inappropriate exercised their free speech rights by letting a corporation know they wouldn't be customers if they disapproved of the content.

    Loren Feldman's supporters are free to exercise their free speech rights as well, to contact Verizon and let them know they do want his content. As opposed to just visiting all the blog comment sections and accusing everyone who disagrees with them as being “politically correct” or “humourless”.

  35. Maybe Don Imus and Kramer can give Loren some advice !

  36. This isn't “freedom of speech,” which is a Constitutional right, but rather “access to a corporate deal,” which has to be earned. It's a business decision by Verizon.

    Someone at Verizon thought that having 1938media on the roster would earn money for them. Now someone at Verizon has concluded it would be a net loss. That's business.

    Loren's videos are freely accessible on his site and on YouTube. He's still free to make more of them.

    Anyone who thinks this is free speech is what Loren would call, “a dope.”

  37. I read Corvida's post and was trying to remember when Loren had been all pissy about a Jewish stereotype. For anyone who is interested in the link:

    http://www.1938media.com/guy-kawasaki-is-an-ass

  38. I don't think it has anything to do with freedom of speech. Its not like they are censoring him. All they are doing is saying they don't want invest in racist content.

    • But Mark, they and everyone protesting are making their decision based
      on a couple of videos from a year ago — don't you think that's a
      little unfair? Aren't there any of your videos that you feel a little
      uncomfortable about looking back on them? Would you want to lose your
      livelihood because of that? I realize Loren is free to make his
      videos, but he's still suffering from a form of censorship I think.

    • But Mark, they and everyone protesting are making their decision based
      on a couple of videos from a year ago — don't you think that's a
      little unfair? Aren't there any of your videos that you feel a little
      uncomfortable about looking back on them? Would you want to lose your
      livelihood because of that? I realize Loren is free to make his
      videos, but he's still suffering from a form of censorship I think.

    • But Mark, they and everyone protesting are making their decision based
      on a couple of videos from a year ago — don't you think that's a
      little unfair? Aren't there any of your videos that you feel a little
      uncomfortable about looking back on them? Would you want to lose your
      livelihood because of that? I realize Loren is free to make his
      videos, but he's still suffering from a form of censorship I think.

      • censorship is when they throw your ass in prison, or flog you, or kill your family for the stuff you say. getting dropped from a fat sponsorship deal is more like just desserts.

  39. Well said. I think that free speech issues are going to start cropping up left and right as two things happen simultaneously:

    a) bazillions of people start, for the first time since towns were small enough that everyone knew and could talk to everyone, really *using* their right to free speech on the internet and on future systems of digital distribution.

    b) companies and services that have scale and built in audiences (and therefore are focal points for free speech) realize how much leeway they have, and consequently how carefully they have to tread, with what goes up on their services.

    At the end of the day, I agree that free speech has to be free speech whether you think it's funny/agree with it/or hate it, but Shey is right in his comment that Verizon isn't obligated to broadcast something they disagree with.

  40. I am not normally a fan Loren Feldman. I just don’t think he is that funny, but in this case I did think he had it going for him. It is Humour/comedy and that have a tendency to push the limits, and I am sure that it where what Loren indented here.

    And as he himself is saying: ” It’s not insulting an ETHNIC group, but a SOCIAL group, in this case: rappers/ganstas.” I am in a complete agreement with him here, and have a hard time understanding where the racism comes in, or is it just the fact that a white man used the ”N-Word” and that where not social accepted? Well if that is the case then we are not talking about racism but just different standards of what people is ”Allowed” by the social norms to do, and as I said before it is the comedians job to push the limited of that social norm.

    • Ummm… how about the fact that the whole frame of the joke was “what if BLACK guys” ran TechCrucnch – NOT “what if GANGSTAS ran TechCrunch.” He very clearly ascribed a cultural stereotype to an entire race. That is racist, stupid, insensitive, offensive, and radically unfunny.

      • No that is NOT racism. Racism is when an entire race is discriminated against based on there race. 99.9% of all so called Gangster-rapper is black. The whole gangster culture is predominated by black males and females. It might be incentive but it is suddenly not racist. So no he is only describing the predominant perception of that stereotype, and if that happens to be a black man, well how can that be racist??

        • Not sure where you're getting that 99.9% figure, but I would bet that it's probably not quite accurate. In fact I would go so far as to say that the bulk of revenue that the “gangster rap” genre generates comes from suburban white boys. Take a stroll through the halls of almost any American high school and you will get a good look at the color of “gangster culture.”

          As for whether “TechNigga” is racist – maybe, maybe not – but it does display an arrogant amount of racial insensitivity that could very easily be perceived as latent racism. As I said above, he used a negative cultural stereotype to describe “black guys” (his words) – not gangsters. He was effectively calling all black people gangsters.

          Whether or not Feldman feels this way is largely irrelevant – I would tend to think he does NOT. The point is he tried to be controversial (perhaps in the vein of Lenny Bruce) – and because he botched his execution he simply came across as ignorant. And usually ignorance will get you fired – unless you are running for office.

          • I need to correct myself a bit – Feldman did NOT botch his execution – he did exactly what he wanted to do. He wanted to be seen as a racist and he has been. Of course he isn't one (at least he doesn't seem to be one – I don't know him personally). He wanted to make a racist video and he did. Interesting guy.

  41. Free speech over a telecom's private network services? Just because your Mom if great at cutting your hair, does that make it a “free speech” issue that she wasn't allowed on Sheer Genius on Bravo?
    You're just a scumbag offering apologies for some semi-notable Jew racist.

  42. […] fall-out has been dozens and dozens of passionate, well reasoned, and telling posts on both sides of the fence. Some say that Feldman is a genius and others think […]

  43. […] Protests over Verizon deal with 1938media » mathewingram.com/work | “Freedom of speech shouldn’t be just a flag that we wave from time to time whenever it suits us. It’s an important principle. Loren should be free to make and distribute his content, and others are free not to watch it.” (tags: video race free+speech business TCC) […]

  44. who cares what you think?

  45. who cares what you think?

Comments are closed.