Defend Free Speech

[Figleaf]

Even if you dissagree with what she is saying you must acknowledge that there is a significant number of people who do agree with her including many structural engineers, others from the top of the establishment such as ex sentors, ex congressmen,ex generals, ex intelligence heads, and top physicists. It is arrogant and silly to say that what she is saying makes her a nutcase.

I've argued this in other threads. Groupthink is very very intense amongst professional groups,

Do you mean more so than other groups?

[guyser]

she may suffer the imposition of a private economic sanction from her employer. The interesting question then, is to what extent should the state consider protecting free speech from private economic sanction.

Absolutely none. Not now, not ever.

They own the show, they own the airways she spouts across , and since she is an employee she cannot say whatever she wants.

What they should do is move her. Switch her up for Don Imus. Transfer one moron for another. No wait, that wont work.

[geoffrey]

The interesting question then, is to what extent should the state consider protecting free speech from private economic sanction.

Not the State's business. If people want to talk, then they deal with the consequences of their actions, good or bad.

I've argued this in other threads. Groupthink is very very intense amongst professional groups,

Do you mean more so than other groups?

Yup.

[Figleaf]

The interesting question then, is to what extent should the state consider protecting free speech from private economic sanction.

Not the State's business. If people want to talk, then they deal with the consequences of their actions, good or bad.

But presumably we protect this freedom because we value it. Why shouldn't that value extend to protection from economic or social coercion?

I've argued this in other threads. Groupthink is very very intense amongst professional groups,

Do you mean more so than other groups?

Yup.

I'm dubious. But it may be simply a difference in definng 'professional groups'.

[ScottSA]

But presumably we protect this freedom because we value it. Why shouldn't that value extend to protection from economic or social coercion?

Because to protect it in that way is to curb the freedom of the other folks. I know your first inclination is to get the government involved, but why not just keep the government out of it?

[M.Dancer]

Regardless of the side anyone takes here, you have failed to convince me that the right to free speech is at risk here.

There is a bit of an interesting question here though ... while there seems to be no state action or any illegality* from other parties directed at O'Donnell in this case, she may suffer the imposition of a private economic sanction from her employer. The interesting question then, is to what extent should the state consider protecting free speech from private economic sanction.

(*Then again, there is a tort of inducing breach of contract. If someone calls for someone to be fired, are they inducing breach?)

How would you prohibit the boycott?

The way this works, I the uber outraged consumer boycott the sponsors of whatever show it is that irks me and those who share my disdain. Then the sponsors sensing plunging sales and yards of bad press urge the show to dump the offending behemoth or they will spend their promotional dollars elsewhere..........

......how is this any different in the mechanics than the producers noticing a decline in viewership as legions of coach potatoes repulsed by the pork chop face of Rosie go away, and the producers terminate the sow's contract.

[M.Dancer]

she may suffer the imposition of a private economic sanction from her employer. The interesting question then, is to what extent should the state consider protecting free speech from private economic sanction.

Absolutely none. Not now, not ever.

They own the show, they own the airways she spouts across , and since she is an employee she cannot say whatever she wants.

What they should do is move her. Switch her up for Don Imus. Transfer one moron for another. No wait, that wont work.

As a business, they should see if she has an audience. If ratings rise, let her rant. If viewers are turned off by her antics, fire her.

[guyser]

As a business, they should see if she has an audience. If ratings rise, let her rant. If viewers are turned off by her antics, fire her.

Normally I would agree. But this one goes beyond that. Much like Imus has ratings worthy of keeping him on, he wont be back after the two week suspension .(I suspect)

Rosie might get moved simply by the affiliates putting pressure on the parent company. (damn , is it NBC ABC CBS?) They may demand , in the face of advertiser revolt, to push for her ousting. Couple that with Baba Wawa being the Exec Producer with a reputation (lame as it is now) to uphold and frankly numbers may be the last thing anyone looks at , ok, maybe not the last ...how about penultimate?

Now if ratings are the basis for keeping or firing her , then hire me !! I would have that dish Elizabeth just give her a quick slap upside the head. That could be a PPV ratings winner right there.

[Figleaf]

But presumably we protect this freedom because we value it. Why shouldn't that value extend to protection from economic or social coercion?

Because to protect it in that way is to curb the freedom of the other folks. I know your first inclination is to get the government involved, but why not just keep the government out of it?

You know, Scott, it's just plain tiresome to have you shooting crapshit like "I know your first inclination is to get the government involved" into every discussion.

The fact is, it's not my first inclination. In fact, I usually advocate free markets. I'm trying to have an interesting discussion here about a point of policy and it just drains the friggin' life out of things to have to respond to dilatory imputations whose purpose seems to be solely to satisfy your need to vent aggression.

If you want to participate in the discussion, it would be better for you to attempt to respond to the issue by perhaps answering the question I posed. Or to actually make the argument to support your obvious kneejerk impulse to "just keep the government out".

I'm sure you consider yourself a real brainiac. Why not try to show it?

[Figleaf]

How would you prohibit the boycott?

I acknowledge your point. I don't think there's a practical way to insulate a celebrity from the economic consequences of not being popular.

I'm thinking more about cases where the economic consequence is imposed by an employer, or a contracting party and is based not on the market/economic factors, but on say a political difference.

[M.Dancer]

As a business, they should see if she has an audience. If ratings rise, let her rant. If viewers are turned off by her antics, fire her.

Normally I would agree. But this one goes beyond that. Much like Imus has ratings worthy of keeping him on, he wont be back after the two week suspension .(I suspect)

I wasn't aware that Rosie's ravings were racist......so I suspoect they are two different birds

[ScottSA]

You know, Scott, it's just plain tiresome to have you shooting crapshit like "I know your first inclination is to get the government involved" into every discussion.

The fact is, it's not my first inclination. In fact, I usually advocate free markets. I'm trying to have an interesting discussion here about a point of policy and it just drains the friggin' life out of things to have to respond to dilatory imputations whose purpose seems to be solely to satisfy your need to vent aggression.

If you want to participate in the discussion, it would be better for you to attempt to respond to the issue by perhaps answering the question I posed. Or to actually make the argument to support your obvious kneejerk impulse to "just keep the government out".

I'm sure you consider yourself a real brainiac. Why not try to show it?

Y'know Figgy, you probably don't even realize that you instinctively look to government as the solutioon to all problems, but you do, of course, like any self-identified leftist. It's no intellectual shame, and in fact it's a correlary necessity for a leftist to lean on government; how else would you solve the social ills you abhor? You prove it in this thread where you call for protection against "social and economic coercion". You may not even put two and two together to figure out that indeed this IS calling for government intervention...of COURSE it is...who else is going to "prevent" it?

Of course in a later post you seem to realize your stumble and mumble something about "political difference", but that makes not an iota of difference really...someone has to do all this protecting, and guess who that will be?

Anyway, I'm sorry you can't keep track of the implications of your political philosophy, but don't take it out on me. Well fine...report me...the government oops I mean the leadership of the board may protect you from imagined abuse.

[sharkman]

I wasn't aware that Rosie's ravings were racist......so I suspoect they are two different birds

I would suggest, that although she is a lesbian and militantly guards against any slights against gays, those of Chinese decent (and apparently blacks, by her defense of free speech yesterday in regards to Imus) can blow it out their collective ear.

[M.Dancer]

I wasn't aware that Rosie's ravings were racist......so I suspoect they are two different birds

I would suggest, that although she is a lesbian and militantly guards against any slights against gays, those of Chinese decent (and apparently blacks, by her defense of free speech yesterday in regards to Imus) can blow it out their collective ear.

I'm sorry but my commodore 64 doesn't have sound.....

[stignasty]

I don't see her right to speak being violated here, and I find the plea to "sign the petition" to be a disingenuous attempt to build support for the content of the message, and not the right to speak it.

Dead on. That should be the last word here.

[guyser]

I wasn't aware that Rosie's ravings were racist......so I suspoect they are two different birds

They were not and I never said they were.

I was talking about what people say and the ratings co-relation.

[M.Dancer]

No but you said ....

Normally I would agree. But this one goes beyond that. Much like Imus has ratings worthy of keeping him on, he wont be back after the two week suspension .(I suspect)

As I understand it, Imus was uttering racist remarks. If he is suspended, it will be an FCC ruling. Rosie is uttering stupidity, which if you wacth ameican TV, is not covere by the FCC

[guyser]

As I understand it, Imus was uttering racist remarks. If he is suspended, it will be an FCC ruling. Rosie is uttering stupidity, which if you wacth ameican TV, is not covere by the FCC

The FCC covers both radio and TV. It was the idiots at the FCC that was outraged at Janet Jackson and laid the subsequent fines.

Imus was suspended by his own radio station.

[Figleaf]

You know, Scott, it's just plain tiresome to have you shooting crapshit like "I know your first inclination is to get the government involved" into every discussion.

The fact is, it's not my first inclination. In fact, I usually advocate free markets. I'm trying to have an interesting discussion here about a point of policy and it just drains the friggin' life out of things to have to respond to dilatory imputations whose purpose seems to be solely to satisfy your need to vent aggression.

If you want to participate in the discussion, it would be better for you to attempt to respond to the issue by perhaps answering the question I posed. Or to actually make the argument to support your obvious kneejerk impulse to "just keep the government out".

I'm sure you consider yourself a real brainiac. Why not try to show it?

Y'know Figgy, you probably don't even realize that you instinctively look to government as the solutioon to all problems, but you do, of course, like any self-identified leftist.

You would be so much safer to avoid unfounded assumptions. I am not a self identified leftist. I'm a rational centrist. So, in fact, I do not instinctively look to government. My post here has nothing to do with instinctively looking to government. It has to do with whether free speech should be protected from a certain type/source of censorship.

You prove it in this thread where you call for protection against "social and economic coercion".

???

I haven't called for it. I've raised it as an issue for discussion. You have a very strange view of things.