Anthony from Opie & Anthony shitcanned

[TerpEagle]

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

So. To be clear. Its not a violation of free speech?

[slag]

I just call him the Duck guy ... and, as indicated in my edit, the reason he only got a time out and Alec got shitcanned is pretty clearly the ratings difference in their shows.

I also understand Alec was being a general pain in the ass and they were probably dancing in the MSNBC offices when the story broke.

[slag]

To fire someone?

Are you serious?

[slag]

PS - my guess is that (unlike most people) he had a contract, so they probably did need a reason to fire him and used kind of morals clause to do it ... but I don't know for sure.

[TerpEagle]

I just call him the Duck guy ... and, as indicated in my edit, the reason he only got a time out and Alec got shitcanned is pretty clearly the ratings difference in their shows.

I also understand Alec was being a general pain in the ass and they were probably dancing in the MSNBC offices when the story broke.

So behavior can have consequences (or not) without rights being violated?

Or did the liberals trample poor Alec's (Baldwin) rights?

[TerpEagle]

PS - my guess is that (unlike most people) he had a contract, so they probably did need a reason to fire him and used kind of morals clause to do it ... but I don't know for sure.

So were his 1st Amendment rights violated?

[slag]

Can it already ... or are you suggesting that I'm Joe the blogger?

[slag]

Don't really know ... some states have local statutes that cover wrongful termination for exercising free speech.

It's a complicated question and I don't know enough facts, but it's not likely with a private employer and statements that I'm pretty sure didn't qualify as a matter of public concern.

[Dim Bulb]

I was wondering that too

Don't really know ... some states have local statutes that cover wrongful termination for exercising free speech.

It's a complicated question and I don't know enough facts, but it's not likely with a private employer and statements that I'm pretty sure didn't qualify as a matter of public concern.

I guess the Supreme Court has incorporated state actions and even municipal actions into the first amendment, hasn't it? Otherwise I don't suppose we'd have all those stupid Christmas putz stories every year. Yes, I said "putz"
which is different than "platz."

[slag]

Actually, I think the bigger issue is whether a State Constitution provides more rights.

Most of them track the same numbers in their amendments and, as you know, they can provide wider rights (but not reduce any federal constitutional right).

[Dim Bulb]

yeah, I've been arguing so much about pre-emption lately...

Actually, I think the bigger issue is whether a State Constitution provides more rights.

Most of them track the same numbers in their amendments and, as you know, they can provide wider rights (but not reduce any federal constitutional right).

...that I'm sick of my own arguments. I've even thrown some Commerce Clause action at some state laws/regulations too. The only thing that works is the first amendment stuff.

[Eagle In Ohio]

There really shouldn't be any argument here

Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences that come from the words you say. What he said on Twitter would have gotten 95% of the people in this country fired. The problem with these "shock jocks" is that they don't know how to turn it off. They have to be in shock mode all the time, and sometimes it comes back to bite them in the ass. This is one of those times.

[Riccardo]

Fair enough

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 assume you are also outraged at President Obama's need to re-examine his pocket constitution, on multiple issues.

[TerpEagle]

I assume you are also outraged at President Obama's need to re-examine his pocket constitution, on multiple issues.

I'm not pleased by it, nor am I surprised or naive to expect anything less. Electing a President is simply choosing which person/party gets to wield excessive executive power.

I'm not ready to resort to rage-filled anarcho-capitalism over it, though.

[Eagle In Ohio]

Didn't your boy Bush

I assume you are also outraged at President Obama's need to re-examine his pocket constitution, on multiple issues.

Use executive orders 291 times during his presidency ?