Free Speech
Recently there was a sports commentator who was fired for making a comment about carribean baseball players. Story Here. The guy was suspended for awhile first and all the media was bitching that the punishment wasn't harsh enough, and eventually the guy was fired. So I did a little google search for "comments" and "fired", and I came up with 5,490,000 results.
Let me make a quick point. I understand that almost all of the cases are between an employer and employee and not government or politically linked, but my point is the same.
I always thought that free speech was protected by the 1st ammendment. Actually it says "Congress shall make no law....,or abridging the freedom of speech." I suppose it is withing the corporations legal right to fire for any reason. It seems to me that more and more people are intolerant of other peoples opinions. While I might disagree with his comments, I don't think he should be punished. I think the guy was pissed because his team is doing poorly and was just blowing off some steam. That is beside the point. The point is that everyone is entitiled to his/her opinion and they should be able to voice that opinion without fear of repercussions. More and more political correctness is getting in the way of free speech. In theory I should be able to say whatever I want to regardless of who it may offend. I should be able to speak my mind openly. I believe these freedoms are being slowly eroded away, not only by corporate america, but also by our government.
posted by Vernarial @ 9:07 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I agree more than I disagree, but, as usual, the disagreeing is a lot more interesting.
The fun thing about these sorts of issues, is, #1 having a strong opinion, and #2 seeing the other side of the issue. Sometimes we just want to express number 1. Which I completely respect. As of this moment, I feel srongly that the other side of the issue deserves to be explored, especially in response to both your statements Vern as well as Dr. Avery comments.
I agree that if a person has an opinion then that person should be able to express it without fear of being punished by a government. But if a person says something that is contentious, innapropriate, a lie, whathaveyou, then that person will undoubtedly face some consequences. There will always be instances in which something is said which warrants some sort of punishment or response. Sexual harrassment in the work place, for example. "Fighting words" (supreme court's language) is another example. You can't expect to keep a job if you're picking fights with customers. Racist remarks are contentious enough to warrant an appropriate response. Yes, political correctness can be retarded if taken too far, but on the other hand, without a certain sensitivity towards the feelings of our fellow men, could we call ourselves civilized...we'd be rude, crude, and dumb. Who would refer to a black person as "nigger" these days? You'd ("you" in a general sense) be a complete dumbass to argue that back in the 1850s "nigger" was a totally acceptable word. Thats swell, but guess what, its 2005. You'd also not demonstrate much brilliance by pointing out that some blacks refer to themselves as "niggas", arguing that it should be ok for you to use the term as well. Logic in this example is trumped by common sense. Common sense tells us that, clearly, a white person shouldn't refer to blacks as "niggers", especially in the company of blacks. Fuck logic in this case. Its a cover or excuse for racist feelings.
Vern, you rightly recognized that employers are not the government. Business owners also have a right to fire and hire at their own discretion. But, as with the case of free speech, there are limitations placed on the sort of discrimination businesses are allowed to get away with. As things stand now, I think employers have the upper hand. People can be fired for many different reasons, even insignificant ones. But there is a body of law/precedent that protects certain minorities, including women. The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution to protect distinct groups of people who have been discriminated against historically. So, if you're a woman or a minority, and you are fired for reasons that don't seem fair, you can hire a lawyer and take your ex-boss to court, where you have a good chance of taking him for everything he's worth.
I'm not sure what legal rights the average white male has when it comes to being unjustly fired. I don't know the specific details of the case you cited Vern, but it sounds as if his comment was especially offensive to many customers-not to mention, perhaps, his bosses-so, given that the commentator is hired to bring in more customers, he clearly failed miserably at his job, and for these reasons, his boss may have had adequate justification for firing him. Politicians are fired all the time for saying the wrong thing.
The most interesting point to make about all of this is the crux at the heart of all constitutional law, and that is; how far does government go to protect the rights of a minority when the majority has an interest in not allowing those rights to be excercised. Like, do we want someone displaying pornography in front of a school? Why can't a person smoke marijuana when it might be regarded as a form of expression? Should a person be allowed to yell fire in theater without being punished? Should a person be allowed to lie about another person so that that other person's career or life is ruined? Basically, I'm restating some of the issues that we discussed in my constitutional law class. They are not cut and dry at all.
I'm a liberal with a libertarian bent, but I recognize that certain limits on our freedoms, in extreme cases, are necessary for a good ordered/mannered society, as well as to ensure that democracy isn't completely trumped by a system of rigid individual rights. And before readers become too up in arms about this, keep in mind that the constitution does not eloborate a great deal about our rights. There is plenty of lines that have to be drawn by the supreme court...not based so much on any strict definition of a constitutional term, but on a balance of reasonableness...which essentially keeps our constitution "living" through a body of precedent and ongoing Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Dr. Avery, your statements sound very over-the-top to me. I get what your saying, but I don't think that it is at all justified. Sure, societal norms prevent people from saying words like nigger, or talking about fucking their mothers, or whatever, but how can you reasonably imply that there is some sort of conscious effort by a specific entity to "engineer" our language. This idea is so "1984" that I can't give it any credit other than to think that the appeal/power of that book and its ideas has led some people to become paranoid of government beyond reason. The english language is vast. The ways in which we can express ourselves through the written word are limitless. There are hundreds of cultures and ideologies that are healthy and alive in the U.S. The fact is, you can express what you want. The fact remains, that in every society, there are going to be things that are offensive to a majority of people. There are "norms". There are customs and manners. These are what might compel a person to not speak exactly what they are feeling. Don't blame a government, or shadow liberal agenda, or who-knows-what-the-fuck...if there is anything to blame for restricting people's freedom of expression, its ignorance--a lack of education, illiteracy, and closemindedness--all things liberals try to combat through public schools and a liberal/liberal arts education.
I agree with your very important point about limiting ideas... The way I see it, a large segment of our society is ignorant enough to be led about by what it is told, and by the phraseology used by those in the media, etc. ("Your either with us or against us", "War on terror", everything)
Per your example though, its not as if those two phrases significantly prevented people from thinking for themselves. And its not as if a person could not explain how they supported the troops and opposed the war. In fact, that sentiment, of supporting the troops and opposing the war was an early and oft repeated sentiment of the anti-war set. There was NO serious adjustment to the english language or the American consciousness with the adoption of those two slogans. And this example definately does not provide any basis for your wild argument that our "rights of communication" are slowly being encroached upon. If anything, the example is more akin to a lame campaign tactic, something cooked up by the mad doctor himself, Karl Rove, but something halfway intelligent people could easily see through and bypass.
On the contrary, thanks to modern technology, there are more avenues for expression than ever before. The communication universe is so vast that it is ridiculous to assert that a measly government can reign it all in. Like our own universe, the communication universe is expanding rapidly (cheesy!).
I agree that media conglomerations/monopolies are not ideal. Still, choices exist. And the choices for news and entertainment sources increase by the day.
Dr Avery, your focus/concern on examples in which freedoms are being encroached is well intended but obsessive and far too narrow. Your language reminds me too much of Timothy McVea or his militia brethren. While I say do not stop doing what you can to see to the preservation of your constitutional rights, I'd have you think for a moment about the progress this country has made in its standards of freedom for all-over the last 200 years, mainly the last 100 years, and especially in the last 50 years. If anything, the trend is towards greater freedom.
That said, you may share my concern over a federal government that is becoming far richer, expansive, and powerful than the constitution had planned. Esp in regards to the power and importance of the presidency.
Arguing "freedom of speech!" at the workplace isn't valid. As much as I might maintain social libertarian viewpoints, I have to face reality and understand that under an employer-employee relationship, "freedom of speech" doesn't mean anything.
If I am, say, a radio comentator and some radio station is paying me money to project my voice into the public sphere about a certain topic and I exceed the limits of my job description and articulate racist or other hate statements, and there is a public outcry, it would be more than justified for the radio station to decide to not pay me anymore. No one is saying that I can't say racist or other hate statements, they are simply not interested in paying me while I articulate hate statements over the airwaves.
While it's obvious that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, I wonder whether people delude themselves into thinking that simple because they have the right to state their opinions, that they are free.
I can jump around stating my opinions all I want, but what if no one's listening, or what if everyone just thinks I'm wacko. How much value is there to freedom of speech if it doesn't mean anything?
Ah...amature philosophy...it's hard to stop. Even I digress.
Hi! So...I stopped reading Josh's post after noticing his repeated use of the "N" word, which made my body twitch and confulse uncomfortably. Still haven't read it through and through because he keeps using THAT WORD but I read enough to realize that my previous comment was basically a concise version of his. Nyuk, nyuk.
But I put the N word in quotes dear... The quotes will protect your ears from harm. The quotes will guide you through the shadow of the valley of death... ok, that's weird. anyway.
Quotes do not shield my EYES from SEEING that word which you, MY PARTNER, have articulated over and over and over onto the internet.
I know that people can go a little bananas with the whole "PC" thing. But, you know, there's something to be said for just trying to be mindful of offensive language.
Post a Comment
<< Home