On the First Amendment of the Constitutionwulfgar_toy_guyApril 13 2007, 18:24:02 UTC
It is written as: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It specifying the goverment cannot do prohibit or abridge the freedorm of by action or law.
Doesn't mean GE can't do it.
The most interesting thing I've heard about this was from the president of MSNBC who said that after asking other about it, he was faced with a recurring question: If MSNBC has a code of decency/action, why aren't they enforcing it? That led to Imus being fired.
Re: On the First Amendment of the Constitutionjestr_April 13 2007, 20:36:51 UTC
I understand that as stated in the 4th paragraph of my post. But the sword cuts both ways, back in the day a company could refuse to hire a person because they were black, but now that's illegal because it infringes on a persons liberty. Howard Stern was censored by the FAA, not because he was racist, but because he was "indecent". Incidentally I find it amusing that the FAA would censor someone for being indecent, but don't say a peep when someone is racist/sexist.
Amendment I of the constitution may only as worded apply to the government not establishing laws to supress these things. But the Bill of Rights goes so far as to make it socially unacceptable and in may cases illegal to discriminate against someone based on religion, ethnicity, etc. That ABSOLUTELY has something to do with the hiring and firing practices of companies.
So I think my point still stands (unless I missed something).
Re: On the First Amendment of the Constitutionjestr_April 13 2007, 20:43:04 UTC
Incidentally I think the reason the FAA responded to the critisism's of Stern was because the complaints came from christians and white middle class soccer moms. When it's blacks and minorities making the stink, they keep thier mouth shut.
Of course they weren't asked to step in, but this just proves that they respond mostly to reactions from social-conservatives and not to any internally consistant standard of "decency". Fucking hypocrites.
But I do give the people involved in taking Imus down big kudo's for confronting him directly rather than running to the FAA. That's pretty
I fully support the right to free speech and accept all the utter shit that goes along with it. However, I feel that, if a company is paying salary, broadcast time, equipment, whatever, they have some rights to protect themselves from an employee's misbehavior. It's a little different in context, but companies have employees hire non-disclosure contracts all the time, limiting what they can say because it may harm the business.
My real hope is that some day a comment like the one in question won't actually upset people, and only reflect poorly on the speaker's intelligence. Some day...
I understand that, and in principle I think you're right. As posted above there are obviously some limits on what a company can do in regards to hiring and firing. In this case I think it was a just firing, as I said Imus is an asshole and he deserved what he got. All the same, I'm still a little uncomfortable with the idea.
In defence of what happened, I'm aware of just how raw the subject is. I don't actually think that any of the rights individuals involved in taking Imus down don't support his right to free speech. Blacks, and women in general have been treated like shit in this country and I think the few victories that they get in this regard they richly deserve.
It's gone from fighting for the right to be equal to limiting what's acceptable to say in public. While I hate what was said, I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of what's going on.
Is it possible that that uncomfortable feeling is your "slippery slope" danger sense going off? While it should not be, this case could be used as a precedent for future limitations of real freedoms. I don't know of this Imus guy, but it sounds like he's a racist ass. But if he were to go out and buy his own radio equipment and broadcast his show on his dime, more power to him, that's freedom of speech. But using someone else's money, resources, and image puts you in their hands. I'm not saying that it's not censorship, but if CBS et al is footing the bill, shouldn't they have that choice after the fact? I do not condone abject censorship of employees. But take it on a case by case basis.
You're right, the concept of decency is a gapping maw created by the vagueries of personal perspective and lifestyle choice and is incredibly unstable ground for lawmaking. And yes, the FCC, like the Comics Code Authority, is a joke.
Comments 8
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It specifying the goverment cannot do prohibit or abridge the freedorm of by action or law.
Doesn't mean GE can't do it.
The most interesting thing I've heard about this was from the president of MSNBC who said that after asking other about it, he was faced with a recurring question: If MSNBC has a code of decency/action, why aren't they enforcing it? That led to Imus being fired.
Reply
Amendment I of the constitution may only as worded apply to the government not establishing laws to supress these things. But the Bill of Rights goes so far as to make it socially unacceptable and in may cases illegal to discriminate against someone based on religion, ethnicity, etc. That ABSOLUTELY has something to do with the hiring and firing practices of companies.
So I think my point still stands (unless I missed something).
Reply
Of course they weren't asked to step in, but this just proves that they respond mostly to reactions from social-conservatives and not to any internally consistant standard of "decency". Fucking hypocrites.
But I do give the people involved in taking Imus down big kudo's for confronting him directly rather than running to the FAA. That's pretty
Reply
Reply
My real hope is that some day a comment like the one in question won't actually upset people, and only reflect poorly on the speaker's intelligence. Some day...
Reply
In defence of what happened, I'm aware of just how raw the subject is. I don't actually think that any of the rights individuals involved in taking Imus down don't support his right to free speech. Blacks, and women in general have been treated like shit in this country and I think the few victories that they get in this regard they richly deserve.
It's gone from fighting for the right to be equal to limiting what's acceptable to say in public. While I hate what was said, I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of what's going on.
Reply
You're right, the concept of decency is a gapping maw created by the vagueries of personal perspective and lifestyle choice and is incredibly unstable ground for lawmaking. And yes, the FCC, like the Comics Code Authority, is a joke.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment