Originally Posted By Dabob2 Just to be clear, this isn't a first amendment issue. The first amendment is meant for the citizen vs. the government. Not a citizen vs. his private employer. I happen to think NPR overreacted in this case, but if someone went on the air and advocated, say, shooting Muslims at the airport first and asking questions later, their employer (Fox, MSNBC, NPR, CNN, or whoever) would be under no first amendment compunction to continue their employment. That's not "policing," that's their prerogative.
Originally Posted By Mr X Weeeeeeeeeeeellll, not so fast Dabob. I'm assuming you're referring to freedom of speech here and I would tend to agree, but there's that OTHER part of the first amendment (it has five parts, for the O'Donnell challenged out there ) about the press. Which wouldn't enter into things either if we were talking independent organizations like G.E. or News Corp, but isn't NPR a GOVERNMENT sort of entity. Or at least partially funded by the gov? In that case, I do wonder whether or not the guy who got canned might not be able to argue a 1st amendment bias in terms of freedom of the press, that a government entity can't stifle his journalistic opinings elsewhere by threatening his job with them. Not that I assume he'll pursue it, since he's landed in perfectly cushy fashion on FOX's "news" desk.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It gets some gov't funding (but primarily its listeners and foundations) but is not a gov't entity.
Originally Posted By hopemax NPR gets no direct public funding, 1% of its funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, and 1% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The rest of their funding is via programming fees, corporate sponsors and private grants. In the 70's NPR received much more government funding, but it hasn't been set up that way since the mid 80's.
Originally Posted By dshyates The the individual Public Broadcasting stations recieve about 40% of thier funding from the Gov't.
Originally Posted By Labuda "<<Scary stuff. Glenn Beck needs to not be on the air.>> Whether it's Beck, Olbermann or Williams you may disagree with them but it is their right have their voices heard. We cannot be policing what others say or ask for them to be off the air just because we disagree with them." How about because he incites violence and blatanty lies? THAT is why he needs to be off the air.
Originally Posted By Labuda "In the case of Glenn Beck, he's lost tons of advertisers who have decided they don't really want their brand associated with his style of rhetoric. " That is good to hear, 2oony. Thanks for the info.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If it's listeners wouldn't that be taxpayers?> Taxpayers who voluntarily donate to it. When US taxpaying citizens donate to, say, a church, we don't say that church is "taxpayer-funded," do we?
Originally Posted By DAR <<How about because he incites violence and blatanty lies? THAT is why he needs to be off the air.>> Free speech can't just apply to what you like to hear.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Again, free speech as defined by the constitution has nothing to do with an employer/employee situation. Free speech means I can say "the President is a poopy head" (or, for that matter, the President is a "secret Muslim") and I can't be jailed for it. It does not mean I can march into my boss's office, call HIM a poopy head and add in a few choice words about his mother, and then not expect consequences or whine about "free speech" when he fires me. Fox is free to employ Beck as long as they like. But if he ever says something that even they consider over the line and he's fired, it will have nothing to do with the first amendment.
Originally Posted By SuperDry How do you disagree? Specifically, do you think that if Beck got fired by Fox for something he said, that it would be a First Amendment violation?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***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*** (emphasis mine) The amendment details what the GOVERNMENT is prevented from doing, nothing more. When people go around blabbering about companies or individuals "taking away my free speech rights!", they are revealing their ignorance.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "36 DAR Sun 10/24/2010 9:55p I disagree" Then you're just simply wrong on this one. That's not what free speech/first amendment is about.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Then you're just simply wrong on this one. That's not what free speech/first amendment is about.<< This is correct. When one runs a cable channel or holds a broadcast license, it is he, not the people who work for him, with the free speech right. (To the extent permitted by FCC regulation anyway.) That free speech right includes the right to tell the non-license holders heard on the station to take a hike. This right, by the way, is absolute for licensed broadcast TV and radio. A station owner can legally stop something from being broadcast *for any reason,* regardless of contractual obligations to run the material. This was not always the case. But I understand conservatives never really cared for The Fairness Doctrine. ;-)
