Anthony from Opie & Anthony shitcanned

[slag]

Spike Lee has been doing it forever.

[Dim Bulb]

as you well know

Spike Lee has been doing it forever.

The first amendment says, basically, "rock and roll." You have every right to ferret out egregious comments by left wing kooks and to complain about them all you want and to decry whatever media outlets you wish for not covering these kooks' comments sufficiently. And they have every right to make those statements. Same is true for right wing kooks too. Have at it. None of these kooks on either side though, can justifiably claim that their first amendment rights are being abridged when someone reacts negatively to their comments. That's just wrong. The first amendment applies both ways, allowing everyone to be equally kooky in the private sphere. I guess by that argument, it even allows people to claim that their first amendment rights are being abridged when they're not, but that seems a bit ignorant to me.

One thing I would point out, though: If the media isn't sufficiently covering these matters, how is it that you know about them? Better search engine?

DB

[J_Cuz31]

when people on the left make stupid/racists comments they tend to get completely ignored by the media.

Tell that to Phil Donahue and Bill Maher.

[TerpEagle]

The false equivalency is that when people on the left make stupid/racists comments they tend to get completely ignored by the media - the only outcry is from the right. Oh and add Al Sharpton and Melissa Harris-Perry to the list.

You're either missing the point or willfully ignoring it.

I'm not talking about who says what stupid or racist thing.

I'm talking about the ignorant people who think that saying whatever you like means you are free of consequences.

If Al Sharpton has been reprimanded for saying something and someone then said his 1st Amendment rights were being violated - that person is as ignorant as Dr. Laura, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, etc.

So stop trying to change the argument. People that don't understand the 1st Amendment are ignorant.

[Riccardo]

OK I've got it

So the outrage isn't a public person making racists comments without consequence, the outrage is people making racist comments and suffering consequences, then claiming they have their first amendment right to say whatever they want (which is true, but they can also be fired for utilizing that right)? Duly noted.

[slag]

Actually, I've seen this Opie/Anthony shit covered on the local Long Island tv station, in addition to every newspaper, every television station, and on the radio since it broke and up to and including today.

I cannot remember when I've seen Spike Lee taken to task that long or even at all sometimes.

I find out about stuff generally way after it happened, such as in editorial from a particular sportswriter I follow or, yes, when I go looking.

Alec Baldwin got front page play here in NYC in the NY Post, but was gone in a couple of days.

I don't give a fuck who says what, and know the difference between free speech and what an employer can use as the basis for terminating employment.

But I have to say that the Duck Dynasty guy got way more play for saying some Biblical interpretation that derided gays than Alec Baldwin got for allegedly calling a photographer a "cocksucking faggot."

I wonder how long that would have been in the news if say ... Rick Perry said it.

[TerpEagle]

So the outrage isn't a public person making racists comments without consequence, the outrage is people making racist comments and suffering consequences, then claiming they have their first amendment right to say whatever they want (which is true, but they can also be fired for utilizing that right)? Duly noted.

Yes, I find it outrageous that people who claim that 1st Amendment rights are being violated don't have the first clue what they're talking about - especially when it's elected and/or people trying to be elected officials that are making the claims. Maybe they need to re-examine their pocket Constitutions.

I am not outraged that employers and/or other people simply exercise their 1st Amendment rights by agreeing or disagreeing with someone saying something stupid. I'm actually glad, it helps me form a more educated opinion about these people/groups/etc. based on their actions for a given circumstance.

But yes, these people had a right to say whatever they like as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others. And even if it didn't infringe on the rights of others, everyone else is allowed respond as they see fit.

If you want to see where the 1st Amendment actually was bordering on violation due to someone's public statements, look at Brendon Ayanbadejo who spoke out for gay marriage which resulted in a Maryland State Delegate writing the Ravens to tell them to shut him up. THAT is outrageous.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ab91_blog.html

And - before you load up your "burn" - the delegate is a Democrat from my county - luckily he's retiring so I won't have to waste time trying to vote him out.

[TerpEagle]

Actually, I've seen this Opie/Anthony shit covered on the local Long Island tv station, in addition to every newspaper, every television station, and on the radio since it broke and up to and including today.

I cannot remember when I've seen Spike Lee taken to task that long or even at all sometimes.

I find out about stuff generally way after it happened, such as in editorial from a particular sportswriter I follow or, yes, when I go looking.

Alec Baldwin got front page play here in NYC in the NY Post, but was gone in a couple of days.

I don't give a fuck who says what, and know the difference between free speech and what an employer can use as the basis for terminating employment.

But I have to say that the Duck Dynasty guy got way more play for saying some Biblical interpretation that derided gays than Alec Baldwin got for allegedly calling a photographer a "cocksucking faggot."

I wonder how long that would have been in the news if say ... Rick Perry said it.

FYI, Baldwin was fired for saying what he did. What's Phil doing nowadays?

[slag]

No he wasn't ... he was fired because the show sucked and got shit ratings.

EDITED TO ADD: The opposite of which is why the Duck guy only got a time out.

[slag]

PS - You're the dope using some zany blog as the basis for your free speech snarky comments.

I betcha I know more about the ins and outs of free speech than you do.

[TerpEagle]

No he wasn't ... he was fired because the show sucked and got shit ratings.

Its demise was expedited by his comments. He was suspended and then they just cancelled it.

Meanwhile, where's Phil? Did he even miss an episode?

[slag]

Who the fuck is Phil?

[TerpEagle]

PS - You're the dope using some zany blog as the basis for your free speech snarky comments.

I betcha I know more about the ins and outs of free speech than you do.

Well you're the lawyer. I hope they taught you that.

Am I wrong to say that being fired for making offensive public comments isn't a violation and a government official trying to coerce a business into silencing and employee just might be?

[TerpEagle]

Who the fuck is Phil?

The Duck Dynasty guy. Phil Robertson. I thought you'd know your reference.

[slag]

Actually, you generally don't need any reason to fire people.