Boycott Steven Cohen

I am a Chelsea fan and on the day of the Hillsborough disaster I was being subjected to Police brutality at an away game at Leicester. I was beaten up and placed in a mobile cell. I lived to tell the tale. The Hillsborough 96 did not. Cohen, the English Police Force, the Tory Government and The Sun all blamed the fans. The rest of the UK population knew where the blame lay. Cohen was totally incorrect in his views and also naive with his intent. He has paid the price. He in know way represents the views of Chelsea fans.
This was a tragedy for all English football fans that should never be forgotten.

being from the UK i listened to the narcisstist on an irish chat radio show.I am actually feeling sorry for him.second thoughts not. he was embarressing .Well done mel connor and alstair

I got a riddle-" What Ship Never Docks in the city of Liverpool?" Answer- The Premiership! Another year, another season without a trophy. You scousers have bigger fish to fry than Steve Cohen. Cheers

Have more respect for your country.Cohen is an embarressment to your contry

The dead cant sue you f..k wit.But if your trying to lick steves arse your barking up the wrong tree.Cohen your a liar a proven liar.So sue me if im wrong .Thot not your a sad piece of shit that embroiles your family in this .how sad .

Bud says...
Certainly, boycotts are also free speech. But merely b/c boycotts exist, does not justify their existence. If that were true, then I'd have to support all boycotts. Since that is not the case, like anything else, I can support a boycott in one instance and not in the other.

And I do not expect people to support it merely on the basis that it exists. I expect people to support it because it's the right thing to do.

Bud says...
WSD was, in one format or another, effectively a 7 year venture. In its most recent form, WSD ran 5 days a week, 2 hrs a day, for almost 365 days a year. Of course, I cannot provide you exact figures, but by any reasonable estimation, the amount of time Cohen spent addressing Hillsborough at all had to be well less than 1%. The amount of time Cohen made his controversial remarks would have to be even less. Even the clips the boycotters supply as evidence are generally 10 min clips where the bulk of the discussion is completely non-related to Hillsborough; with a short seconds-long clip somewhere in the expanse making the remark deemed controversial or offensive.

So just because what he said only made up a small percentage of what was broadcast, that is somehow meant to make it less objectionable? I'm really struggling to see your logic here - mainly because it doesn't exist. When Ron Atkinson called Marcel Desailly a 'fucking lazy thick nigger" just because it was an isolated incident it does not make it excusable - some things are (excuse the pun) black and white, wrong or right.

In the case of Cohen and his comments, it doesn't matter that he only said it a few times, what matters is that he said it at all - especially in such a premeditated fashion, with such awareness of the offence it would cause.

Bud says...
You are depicting WSD as existing merely as a conduit to spout hateful rhetoric against the 96 victims.

No I'm not, that's something you've just completely made up. What I *am* doing is taking issue with Cohen's disgusting and unfounded allegations that the victims of Hillsborough were the perpetrators.

Bud says...
So without even addressing the substance of the statements in question, the scope and scale of your depictions of WSD as this mechanism of hate and lies are grossly misleading, ignorant, and dishonest.

Again, you've completely made this up. (Is it naive of me to expect anything less?) I've never depicted WSD as anything, I've never even made much mention of WSD, as my focus has always been purely on Cohen, but nevermind.

Bud says...
What we have is mere minutes worth of commentary that you do not like due in part to your partisan loyalties/sensibilities which have no real relevance in the US.

No, as I said before it's not a matter of like/dislike, I find it morally objectionable that he should dishonour the memory of the dead to an audience of millions, and I believe the sanctity of human life to be a universal thing - not something that stops at the US border.

Bud says...
Much of your post belies your anti-American stereotypes. The main culprit is this notion that Americans are these cowering children specifically when it comes to the topic of football that are incapable of responsibly ingesting new information. For starters, your reference to our lack of knowledge regarding Hillsborough actually cuts in a far different manner than you're asserting...rather than working towards accepting as fact what Cohen says, it actually works to outright disregard it. In other words, most WSD listeners heard the comments and went right on about their business.

Again with the making stuff up. "Anti-American"? You are paranoid and delusional. I merely made the point that as most Americans have no real reason to know the background and history of Hillsborough (something you yourself agree with) then there is no reason for them not to take Cohen's lies at face value and accept them as truth. This is not to suggest that they are somehow incapable of researching it for themselves and finding out the truth, but being as they have little or no vested interest in the subject, why would they bother?

Look - if you can't refute my arguments sensibly, then please don't resort to making shit up to try and make yourself feel better.

The bottom line is this: I think that honouring the memory of the dead is more important than a football show and you think otherwise. Let's leave it at that before you feel the need to invent more 'arguments'

hell cohhens

Bud says...
Sports/entertainment -

This is a sports/entertainment venue. Of course, within that venue, people say offensive things. However, since LFC so proudly hearkens back to boycotts of the past ro justify this one, perhaps we should examine them. In the past, boycotts used to have tangible benefits with very tangible grievances beyond just being "offended"...like for example, the protection of the right to vote, the right to interstate travel free from racial discrimination, the right to equal protection of the law, etc. To suggest or imply that your grievance in being offended about Cohen's statements about an English football tragedy are even remotely comparable is disrespectful to the great organizers of boycotts in the past.

I happen to be of the camp that modern boycotters have perverted the original purpose of the mechanism so as abuse it for mere personal, arbitrary benefit. That applies to all backgrounds, ideologies, and venues as well. This boycott would fall into that category.

American stereotypes -

Much of your post belies your anti-American stereotypes. The main culprit is this notion that Americans are these cowering children specifically when it comes to the topic of football that are incapable of responsibly ingesting new information. For starters, your reference to our lack of knowledge regarding Hillsborough actually cuts in a far different manner than you're asserting...rather than working towards accepting as fact what Cohen says, it actually works to outright disregard it. In other words, most WSD listeners heard the comments and went right on about their business.

And for those few who were interested, they repeatedly came on here and other venues to demonstrate that despite your stereotypes, they very responsibly researched the topic and came to their own conclusions like the responsible adults that they are.

Your paternal instincts that make you feel entitled to meddle in our sports/entertainment pursuits based in part out of your sense of elitism towards the sport are noted, but rejected outright. We can take care of ourselves and rest assured, the "risks" that you've cited are unfounded, further undermining the merit of the boycott.

I couldn't agree with you more about the boycotts. These LFC supporters act as if Cohen's comments were a civil rights violation or something. It's completely ridiculous. I did, however, suggest that they sue Cohen for libel and the only response was "there are a lot of factors that go into making that decision." Guess what? This entire campaign was utter crap.

Willy You on drugs.I think you will find Chelsea fans are the anti semitic(it seems you no nothing about Chelseas fans history of anti semitic chants).Plus do you not listen to the news.Cohen will not be sitting down wit h Cohen .As you are well aware they want nothing to do with him.Says it all when the club you support disowns you.(does he still support Chelsea or has he returned to th spurs fold or who was it before that,yep think it was Arsenal).

When is Cohen going to apoligise to WSD former listeners for letting his hatred of Liverpool Fc and there fans get in the way of doing his job.He rants at anti seitism.So why does he support Chelsea ,a club whose supporters have one of the worst track records for anti semetic chants.Even Chelsea FC did not want to be associated with that piece of scum.Threats no evidence provided.Well what do you expect from the proven liar.If you Americans think Cohens show was good.God help you you must be desperate for a footy station.He was awful.Pure drivel vile bitter hatred.Reminds me kind of Hitler when you think about it.
Alaistar,Connor Tony New Mexico take a bow.

you all are twats

SR -

I am not arguing against your RIGHT to boycott. As you'll note, I was referring to an "unspoken rule." Nonetheless, the references to boycotts as a mechanism of free speech do warrant a response.

Certainly, boycotts are also free speech. But merely b/c boycotts exist, does not justify their existence. If that were true, then I'd have to support all boycotts. Since that is not the case, like anything else, I can support a boycott in one instance and not in the other.

As to that point, there are several reasons distinguishing your boycott from what I would consider boycotts of some merit...

Misleading -

There's several misleading aspects to your argument. An increasingly popular (due to technology), yet misleading, tactic (often used in politics) is to scan the vast library of material that a would-be target has amassed, pick out material which supports your position, condense that material together, and then present it as a cohesive message, thus distorting the actual reality of the entire library of work. Your lot have done just that with Cohen.

WSD was, in one format or another, effectively a 7 year venture. In its most recent form, WSD ran 5 days a week, 2 hrs a day, for almost 365 days a year. Of course, I cannot provide you exact figures, but by any reasonable estimation, the amount of time Cohen spent addressing Hillsborough at all had to be well less than 1%. The amount of time Cohen made his controversial remarks would have to be even less. Even the clips the boycotters supply as evidence are generally 10 min clips where the bulk of the discussion is completely non-related to Hillsborough; with a short seconds-long clip somewhere in the expanse making the remark deemed controversial or offensive.

You are depicting WSD as existing merely as a conduit to spout hateful rhetoric against the 96 victims. If that were true, in fact, I'd actually see more merit to the boycott. Unfortunately for you, this couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, LFC fans zeroed in on what, at best, amounts to mere MINUTES (only if you strung the few seconds-long blurbs together) of commentary you find offensive out of the approximately 3,600 HOURS (plus or minus) of material that WSD and its related ventures amassed.

So without even addressing the substance of the statements in question, the scope and scale of your depictions of WSD as this mechanism of hate and lies are grossly misleading, ignorant, and dishonest. What we have is mere minutes worth of commentary that you do not like due in part to your partisan loyalties/sensibilities which have no real relevance in the US.

Sports/entertainment -

This is a sports/entertainment venue. Of course, within that venue, people say offensive things. However, since LFC so proudly hearkens back to boycotts of the past ro justify this one, perhaps we should examine them. In the past, boycotts used to have tangible benefits with very tangible grievances beyond just being "offended"...like for example, the protection of the right to vote, the right to interstate travel free from racial discrimination, the right to equal protection of the law, etc. To suggest or imply that your grievance in being offended about Cohen's statements about an English football tragedy are even remotely comparable is disrespectful to the great organizers of boycotts in the past.

I happen to be of the camp that modern boycotters have perverted the original purpose of the mechanism so as abuse it for mere personal, arbitrary benefit. That applies to all backgrounds, ideologies, and venues as well. This boycott would fall into that category.

American stereotypes -

Much of your post belies your anti-American stereotypes. The main culprit is this notion that Americans are these cowering children specifically when it comes to the topic of football that are incapable of responsibly ingesting new information. For starters, your reference to our lack of knowledge regarding Hillsborough actually cuts in a far different manner than you're asserting...rather than working towards accepting as fact what Cohen says, it actually works to outright disregard it. In other words, most WSD listeners heard the comments and went right on about their business.

And for those few who were interested, they repeatedly came on here and other venues to demonstrate that despite your stereotypes, they very responsibly researched the topic and came to their own conclusions like the responsible adults that they are.

Your paternal instincts that make you feel entitled to meddle in our sports/entertainment pursuits based in part out of your sense of elitism towards the sport are noted, but rejected outright. We can take care of ourselves and rest assured, the "risks" that you've cited are unfounded, further undermining the merit of the boycott.

AlastairCairns says...
The idea that we failed, when we comprehensively achieved our objectives, in a relatively short period of time, seems a bit strange. If Cohen does indeed move to a subscription model, the claims of "if you don't like what he's saying, don't" will finally have some worth in line with the fact that third parties won't be indirectly funding his pulpit.

Stated aim - "The goal of this campaign is quite simply to get Mr. Cohen off the airwaves permanently."

Is Steven Cohen off the airwaves? No. His new show starts today.

FAIL.

It's as simple as that Alastair.

Furthermore, the main organizer, Connor Brennan, has stated quite clearly that LFCNY will not boycott any future projects of Steven Cohen. It's a clean slate. So if Steven decides to bring on board sponsors in the future (and I understand that's the plan), he STILL won't be boycotted.

I fail to see how you view this as a victory unless you completely shift your own goalposts....which is what you're doing.

You have failed also, to answer my question. asked repeatedly, as to WHY the sudden change of heart from CB and LFCNY?

Bud says...
There's a certain harmony with that principle that allows everyone to pursue their own interests even if others don't like it. So, even if there's an Everton fan that hates Liverpool and a Liverpool fan that hates Everton, generally, neither seeks to force the removal of the other.

Of course not, as should be the case. However, to suggest that there is some sort of parity between the two situations is deliberately avoiding the context - 'obscure ancient tragedy' or not, what we are talking about here is not some kind of partisan rivalry - we're talking about a sustained campaign of vitriol and lies, broadcast nationwide to an audience of millions of people, who knowing no better would have no reason not to take these lies at face value, serving to perpetuate this vile and offensive myth even further. And let us just remind ourselves, we are talking about 96 human lives here - men, women and children that never came home that day and are still, 20 years on, having their memory defiled and debased for no particular reason other than what?

In fact, this is what I'd really like to know - why did he even bother? There was absolutely no need - as you've said, it's hardly as if anyone in America gave a shit about what happened, he already knew that it was wrong having already been forced to issue an apology, so really - what was the point?

I mean, if you're going to talk about costs and benefits then please by all means try and explain how this was ever going to benefit anybody, and how could it have ever resulted in anything but painful costs to all parties involved.

As a Liverpool fan, naturally I hate Manchester United, and in more recent years Chelsea. From what I can gather this Cohen was a Chelsea fan - and had his opinion been no more grave than "Liverpool are a bunch of has-beens, cheats and bottlers" then I would have bristled at the suggestion but accepted it as part of the normal standard of banter that is to be accepted between rival fans.

However, what he said went beyond banter and beyond the boundary of common decency. Had he said similar things about the Munich air disaster I would have exactly the same viewpoint - there are things in this world that are bigger than football. Sadly it seems several people here are lacking the necessary perspective to see that.

Somebody made the point earlier that it's not like he's denying the Holocaust, but if we were to extrapolate your argument to it's logical conclusion then eventually it would reach a point where it said that was ok. Because ultimately, what is Holocaust denial? Well, it's A) factually incorrect; B) massively offensive to the survivors and families of the dead; and C) a vehicle for encouraging prejudice. The claim - stated as fact - that the victims of Hillsborough were responsible for what happened to them, whilst on a much smaller scale, is fundamentally these same three principles in action.

Any right-minded individual knows without question that the former is wrong beyond measure, so it seems astonishing to me that people are queuing up to defend the latter. Whether you knew these people or not, whether they have any relevance to you or not, surely the sanctity of human life should carry enough weight in itself that the situation dictates a modicum of respect be paid.

You would think, at least. Sadly not. It seems the overwhelming response is "Fuck 'em if they're dead, what am I supposed to listen to now!"

If that's the way it is, then I doubt anything I can say will change people's opinion on that - they're obviously happy to hold that stance and have no crisis of conscience about that. Fair enough, but don't expect other people to say "Hey, you know what, that's okay - you go right ahead"

For me personally it goes beyond 'liking' and 'disliking' something - I find it morally objectionable, and whilst I agree with the principle of free speech, I also agree with the principle of free and democratic protest. Both have been exercised in this instance, and in my opinion Cohen abused his right to free speech, abused the position he was in and as such has been held accountable for his words, and rightly so. That's democracy in action.

Bud says...
LFC chose to upset this balance, and for that, they are scum.

And you're calling my rhetoric "hyperbolic-laced"? Scum? Wow, that radio show must have really meant a lot to you hey?

Bud says...
This is perhaps the most salient point of the debate...

Certainly, you've made your point quite clear that, not being personal to you, you do not care about my personal interest in the WSD or the broader American soccer community. Likewise, not being personal to me, I do not care about your personal feelings regarding Hillsborough or Liverpool FC.

In fact, seeing as we don't even know each other, neither one of us really even cares that the other exists. That is, in fact, the general status of life for the most part.

We all have our personal interests. Often times, those interests have a certain animus with each other. But there's an unspoken principle, particularily when those interests are relatively benign (like sports), that keeps this in balance:

I do not interfere with your interests. You do not interfere with mine.

There's a certain harmony with that principle that allows everyone to pursue their own interests even if others don't like it. So, even if there's an Everton fan that hates Liverpool and a Liverpool fan that hates Everton, generally, neither seeks to force the removal of the other.

LFC chose to upset this balance, and for that, they are scum.

Don't mischaracterize his point. He said he found one thing more worthy of care than a football show. You can't extend this to mean he doesn't care about a football show, and certainly can't extend it to his caring about the US soccer community. The repeated attempts to make WSD metonymically related to the US soccer community, is just lazy logic, made even more ironic given the criticism Cohen has endured from that same community for various reasons.

The whole point is that Cohen was interfering with his stated interests, by repeatedly saying what he said.

Even in this very post you display all the reasons in both tone and content, that you are ill suited to mediate any sort of dispute. Sawyer's neutrality wouldn't be an issue if he hadn't tried to claim it.

I hardly think the unsolicited, discouraged ad hominems on a blog or forum are equal in reach to the claims of a broadcaster, nor are they within my control. And of course the terms of negotiation changed as the boycott dynamically progressed, because Cohen decided to connect alleged, unsubstantiated anti semitism and violent tactics with a number of organizations, and companies, including the LFCNY which was a large part of the organization of the boycott. Cease fire negotiations extend beyond the nature of the original conflict. Your attempt to minimize these allegations with your Mascherano example is dishonest.

Of course we wouldn't give up a position of leverage without concessions. The fact that they weren't met doesn't mean there is stubbornness. Personally from my point of view, negotiations weren't ever going to be fruitful, because those in discussion simply weren't the correct people. The third parties that entered in, made some claim on neutrality, which isn't born out in fact, and their approach to some sort of mediated settlement, when initially stymied, instead lead to ad hominems and polarization. For whatever reason that frustration occurred, the fact that someone attempting to mediate something instead inflamed it is evidence that they were ill suited, and that perhaps mediation was an abortive prospect from the off.

Compromise was considered, I know because it was discussed on our end. If compromise wasn't considered, why would we even enter into negotiations by making stipulations? The fact that discussions didn't progress beyond that betrays a collective lack of creativity and trust.

Of course you can claim that establishing economic consequence to a certain action is punitive. From a certain perspective that's quite simply a banal fact.

At any rate, this discussion has pretty much run it's course, it's becoming intractable and pointless. I will be taking down much of this website shortly. We achieved the aims we set out to. Aims are always fluid with means, one attempts to achieve the best success possible in a dynamic situation. The idea that we failed, when we comprehensively achieved our objectives, in a relatively short period of time, seems a bit strange. If Cohen does indeed move to a subscription model, the claims of "if you don't like what he's saying, don't" will finally have some worth in line with the fact that third parties won't be indirectly funding his pulpit.

SR says...
As is your right. Like I said before, you may think that the burgeoning soccer community in the US is a higher priority than honouring the memory of the dead, that's your prerogative. In fairness, as you've pointed out, Hillsborough doesn't have any relevance to you and so on a personal level if that's your opinion then you are entitled to that.

We too are entitled to ours, as we are entitled to raise objections to what we see as an unnecessary vilification of innocent victims. Sadly this has been at the expense of your soccer community, but as this has no relevance to me on a personal level then my priorities lay with the families and survivors of the tragedy.

This is perhaps the most salient point of the debate...

Certainly, you've made your point quite clear that, not being personal to you, you do not care about my personal interest in the WSD or the broader American soccer community. Likewise, not being personal to me, I do not care about your personal feelings regarding Hillsborough or Liverpool FC.

In fact, seeing as we don't even know each other, neither one of us really even cares that the other exists. That is, in fact, the general status of life for the most part.

We all have our personal interests. Often times, those interests have a certain animus with each other. But there's an unspoken principle, particularily when those interests are relatively benign (like sports), that keeps this in balance:

I do not interfere with your interests. You do not interfere with mine.

There's a certain harmony with that principle that allows everyone to pursue their own interests even if others don't like it. So, even if there's an Everton fan that hates Liverpool and a Liverpool fan that hates Everton, generally, neither seeks to force the removal of the other.

LFC chose to upset this balance, and for that, they are scum.

boycottstevencohen says...
I can't really answer this question thoroughly, because I wasn't involved in those "negotiations". I do know enough to state we didn't consider that these proposals for compromise didn't agree to any demands that we thought neccesary regarding providing proof of accusations of behavior by those on our side, and they were also fairly suspicious, as though originally neutrality was claimed, it became abundantly clear that those negotiating were not doing so in good faith as neutral parties, but instead were indeed friends of Cohen. There is an understandable lack of trust there, which wasn't aided when those negotiating began to make ad hominem attacks and the like. When this sort of thing happens with those you are negotiating with, negotiations have broken down, and given that we believed the boycott was having success, what would be our motivation to negotiate without assurances or meeting us, even half way, on any of the stipulations/assurances we wanted?

It is wrong to say compromise wasn't considered though, correspondence concerning compromise went nowhere.

Well, I was involved in the aborted attempts at negotiation, and I can tell you that your version of events is disingenuous at best.

Firstly, it was painfully obvious that the demand for evidence regarding the slurs against the boycotters was a deliberate ploy to block negotiations. According to this website and comments made by the boycott organizers, this boycott was about Hillsborough and nothing else. Introducing a perpetually growing list of grievances against Steven and expanding the scope of the boycott was transparently an obstructionist move. I mean, whatever next? ?We will not negotiate with Steven, until he retracts the slur that Mashcherano is not the captain of Argentina?. Gimme a break.

Secondly, what on earth difference does it make whether Mark Sawyer was a friend of Cohen's or not? That has no bearing whatsoever on either sides ability to discuss the substance. You make it sound like nuclear arms talks. In any case, Mark never claimed to be neutral, he simply tried to establish a bridge, by letting you know that he strongly disagreed with Steven about Hillsborough, but was opposed to the tactics of the boycott. A fairly neutral position in my opinion.

Finally, the idea that YOUR side was put off by ad hominem attacks is laughable. Mark Sawyer was eviscerated in several blogs and forums by the boycott side. His academic credentials were questioned and mocked all simply in an attempt to justify your intransigence.

The real reason for all this is, as you say (and at least you are honest about it now)? ?given that we believed the boycott was having success, what would be our motivation to negotiate?.

It is not wrong to say compromise wasn't considered. It simply wasn't. It was dismissed out of hand from the beginning, for absolutely absurd and childish reasons, including the insistence by Mel Abshier that we self-identify a "grave error" in our proposal, because he refused to just tell us what it was. It was pathetic.

In any case, none of this addresses my question about why we have arrived where we are now. What has changed in the 8 weeks since we proposed that Steven take a break, before coming back with a clean slate, that now sees you unilaterally come to exactly the same conclusion?

Why did Steven and his new wife and kids have to go through 8 unnecessary weeks of stalking and intimidation (regardless of whether you condemned that or not), when this could have ended back in July?

Does the current situation make any sense to you? Why has a boycott with a stated aim of getting Steven off the airwaves permanently, been wound up with a promise not to boycott any future shows hosted by Steven?

How do you not conclude, in the light of this, that persecuting Steven for 5 months to no appreciable end, was a huge waste of time and effort?

How does a neutral observer not conclude that while you portrayed this as a righteous fight for the truth, you really did this as an act of vindictiveness simply to punish Steven?

Jerry says...
I want to know why everyone involved in this boycott refused to even consider a compromise proposal from around two months ago, but all of a sudden, you've pretty much let Steven off the hook, with no explanation.

I can't really answer this question thoroughly, because I wasn't involved in those "negotiations". I do know enough to state we didn't consider that these proposals for compromise didn't agree to any demands that we thought neccesary regarding providing proof of accusations of behavior by those on our side, and they were also fairly suspicious, as though originally neutrality was claimed, it became abundantly clear that those negotiating were not doing so in good faith as neutral parties, but instead were indeed friends of Cohen. There is an understandable lack of trust there, which wasn't aided when those negotiating began to make ad hominem attacks and the like. When this sort of thing happens with those you are negotiating with, negotiations have broken down, and given that we believed the boycott was having success, what would be our motivation to negotiate without assurances or meeting us, even half way, on any of the stipulations/assurances we wanted?

It is wrong to say compromise wasn't considered though, correspondence concerning compromise went nowhere.