CBS Producer Fired For Comparing....

[Questioninggeller]

Well, I guess you can't have an opinion if you're in the media and the masses don't like your opinion.

CBS Producer Fired For Comparing The Mood In America To That Of Germans Who Helped Hitler's Rise To Power

'Hitler' Exec Producer Fired Over Remarks
Thu, Apr 10, 2003 10:36 AM PDT

LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - The executive producer of a CBS miniseries about Adolf Hitler's rise to power has been fired after giving an interview in which he compared the current mood of Americans to that of the Germans who helped Hitler rise to power.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Gernon was fired Sunday (April 6) from Alliance Atlantis, the production company making "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" for CBS. He had worked there 11 years and was head of the firm's long-form programming division.

Neither Gernon nor Alliance Atlantis is commenting on the matter.

"Hitler" has caused controversy ever since CBS announced its intentions last summer. In an interview with TV Guide about the four-hour film, scheduled for May, Gernon compares many Americans' acceptance of a war in Iraq to the fearful climate in post-World War I Germany, of which Hitler took advantage to become its ruler.

"It basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole nation into war," Gernon said in the interview. "I can't think of a better time to examine this history than now."

Gernon's remarks reportedly didn't go over well at CBS, which has tried very hard to frame "Hitler" as a historical piece that in no way sensationalizes or offers excuses for Hitler's actions.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2845.htm

[corplinx]

Typical. Without directly saying so, he implies the ashcroft/bush anti-civil liberties meme (without proof of course) and thereby compares the administration to hitler.

At least he was more clever than to just make a sign with bush's face on it and paint a hitler mustache.

[EvilYeti]

Comparing post 9-11 America to post WWI Germany displays such a complete and total lack of judgement that CBS is more than justified in firing the guy, regardless of politics.

[Jon_in_london]

Land of the free.......?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Land of the free.......?

Free to quit, free to be fired.

[CFLarsen]

"It basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole nation into war," Gernon said in the interview. "I can't think of a better time to examine this history than now."

He is wrong. There were a lot more to Hitler's rise than just an entire nation gripped by fear. Take the lost war, the deplorable economy, the anti-semitism, the need for an omnipotent leader...all decisive factors in Hitler's rise to power. We see none of this in the US today.

Should he be fired? No. That's his view, and - even though I consider it to be wrong - he is free to have it. By broadcasting it, he creates a healthy debate on the nature of the "rise of evil".

Heck, somebody might learn something!! :)

[iain]

I love the way that people are jumping on a second-hand report of what he said to judge him.

I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of this case and, anyway, my 20thC. German history is far to rusty to make a judgement.

But I do know a few things. People's real views are often misstated in interviews. Sometimes they just don't explain things very well; sometimes the reporter misrepresents things to get a better story; sometimes things just get made up.

This is then an article reporting an interview so there is further possibility of things being taken out of context or misrepresented.

To make a sensible judgement based on the information in the linked article is surely not possible.

On top of all that, the guy deserves a fair hearing before being condemned. He may even have some good points to make.

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Comparing post 9-11 America to post WWI Germany displays such a complete and total lack of judgement that CBS is more than justified in firing the guy, regardless of politics.
There is one similarity I can think of. Some americans are fine with the government getting increased rights to interfere with an individual's private life. The argument is sometimes that americans should be free to live without fear. In Germany, back in the days, there was a sentiment; free to starve. Many Germans thought that Hitler's totalitarian regime was a far sight better than the free democracy they were living in, as Hitler promised food, while Weimar promised freedom. Germans were tired of being free to starve, so they (well, some anyways) chose to be oppressed but full.

I'm not saying this is a direct parallell, it obviously isn't, but there are similarities; the population, or at least vocal parts of it, is willing to part with freedoms in return for some sort of security. In Germany's case it was the security of nutrition, in the US it's the security from terrorism.

No, I don't think Bush is the next Hitler, nor do I belive any part of the current administration is fascist.

edited to remove a really stupid footnote

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by corplinx


Free to quit, free to be fired.

:rolleyes:

[shemp]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Land of the free.......?

And "Homo the Brave" (he was Geronimo's "close friend").

[Incitatus]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Land of the free.......?

Land of privately held business.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Land of the free.......?
The media is privately owned in the US. A private company can hire & fire at will, if you do something that conflicts w/ the company's goals or business strategy (such as not pissing off a large percentage of the viewers the company relies on) expect to pay the consequences. This producer is now free to say whatever stupid thing he wants w/o fear of reprisal.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Land of the free.......?
And to clarify this further for all the non-US contributors to this list, the US Constitution, unless it specifically says otherwise (ex. racial or sex discrimination) only applies to the gov't. There is no such thing as freedom of speech in the private sector.
Edited to acknoweledge that race an sex discrimination in private businesses is prohibited by acts of Congress, not the Constitution. I shouldn't post so early in the AM.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by WildCat

The media is privately owned in the US. A private company can hire & fire at will, if you do something that conflicts w/ the company's goals or business strategy (such as not pissing off a large percentage of the viewers the company relies on) expect to pay the consequences. This producer is now free to say whatever stupid thing he wants w/o fear of reprisal.

Point taken. Its not a government policy.

I still think its bollocks though, and it does do great damage vis a vis- the perception of the US abandoning all those great values that our countries (used to?) share while sinking depper into hysterical fear and paranoia.

Just a thought.

[Smalso]

Just another of the liberal left-wing controlled media persecuting someone whose remarks might be contrued as critical of the Bush administration.

Huh?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Smalso
Just another of the liberal left-wing controlled media persecuting someone whose remarks might be contrued as critical of the Bush administration.

Huh?

You're assuming that he was fired for criticising the president without considering the possibility (as was raised above) that he was fired for potentially pissing off viewers and sponsors.

It's much more likely that it has more to do with economics than with politics. Even a liberal has to appreciate the dollars that keep him on the air, right? ;)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Smalso
Just another of the liberal left-wing controlled media persecuting someone whose remarks might be contrued as critical of the Bush administration.

Huh?
The vast media conspiracy is to deep and complex to be understood by us for now, it will all become apparent about the time of the Planet X pole shift. :D
Actually, the mainstream media is neither right nor left wing, just fickle.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx


Free to quit, free to be fired.

Did you know that in France when a corporation hires someone they can't fire them forever after that? That is how communist France is now and that's why France's economy has sunk to a level lower than even the state of California.

JK

[Incitatus]

Originally posted by WildCat

The vast media conspiracy is to deep and complex to be understood by us for now, it will all become apparent about the time of the Planet X pole shift. :D
Actually, the mainstream media is neither right nor left wing, just fickle.

It is neither right nor leftt wing, just greedy.

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Land of the free.......?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Free to quit, free to be fired.


Free to get on with his life. It is possible that in many other countries on our fair planet that this man would find himself in jail.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


He is wrong. There were a lot more to Hitler's rise than just an entire nation gripped by fear. Take the lost war, the deplorable economy, the anti-semitism, the need for an omnipotent leader...all decisive factors in Hitler's rise to power. We see none of this in the US today.

Should he be fired? No. That's his view, and - even though I consider it to be wrong - he is free to have it. By broadcasting it, he creates a healthy debate on the nature of the "rise of evil".

Heck, somebody might learn something!! :)

Ahhh...we couldn't have that!! :D

Claus, you're right of course...but the really salient fact is that the media is a corporation that depends upon the sale of advertisements for it's income. Employing a guy that pisses off the masses is just not good business sense is it? This is where capitalism fails. We need the media to be independent of government....but then again, in the interests of getting the best quality product, we also need it to be independent of us, the consumer.

Luckily we not only export the news...CNN, etc....we also import the news BBC etc.... I think the fellow in question is sincere in his opinion, and it took guts to say it and lose his job over it. But it wasn't very smart of him eh?

-z

[corplinx]

He can do all of his hitler comparisons on a blog or on a street corner on a soapbox. Its still a free country.

[iain]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Did you know that in France when a corporation hires someone they can't fire them forever after that? That is how communist France is now and that's why France's economy has sunk to a level lower than even the state of California.

JK Did you know that this is completely untrue?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Ahhh...we couldn't have that!! :D

Claus, you're right of course...but the really salient fact is that the media is a corporation that depends upon the sale of advertisements for it's income. Employing a guy that pisses off the masses is just not good business sense is it? This is where capitalism fails. We need the media to be independent of government....but then again, in the interests of getting the best quality product, we also need it to be independent of us, the consumer.
-z I totally agree.

And I wish I am wrong, but I really can't see how the media can be independent - the money has to come from somewhere. Does anyone have examples of truly independent media? :confused:

[Incitatus]

Originally posted by iain
Did you know that this is completely untrue?

Do they have the concept of "at will" employment? That means, in essence, that there is no contract and that one can leave or be fired at will.

[Smalso]

jocko: It's much more likely that it has more to do with economics than with politics. Even a liberal has to appreciate the dollars that keep him on the air, right?

Bingo!




Incitatus:
Actually, the mainstream media is neither right nor left wing, just fickle.

Bingo again.

rikzilla: Claus, you're right of course...but the really salient fact is that the media is a corporation that depends upon the sale of advertisements for it's income. Employing a guy that pisses off the masses is just not good business sense is it? This is where capitalism fails. We need the media to be independent of government....but then again, in the interests of getting the best quality product, we also need it to be independent of us, the consumer.

Bingo yet again.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Claus, you're right of course...

Thank you! You forgot "as always"... :D

Originally posted by rikzilla
I think the fellow in question is sincere in his opinion, and it took guts to say it and lose his job over it. But it wasn't very smart of him eh?

No, but sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do... :)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Poor sod.

The problem is that there are parallels worth drawing. The 9/11 hijackings have had a similar effect to the Reichstag fire, similar tactics of fear have been used to restrict civil rights, and dissidents have been labeled traitors in a similar way. Plus there has been a convenient war with a completely uninvolved nation, paralleling the invasion of Poland.

However, none of this necessarily implies that the USA wants to massacre dissidents and unwanted ethnicities, or that GWB is a crazed ex-painter.

The useful parallels, which are if nothing else historically interesting, are very easily swamped by all the other aspects of the Nazi era which are not parallel. So we get incidents like this, where experienced professionals get sacked for pointing out the bleeding obvious. :mad:

[Baker]

It’s along the same line as the backlash the Dixie chicks are facing radio stations fearing the loss of listeners banned the playing of their music.
Some people or trying to ignore that aspect of it and calling it taking away free speech.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I guess if he is not allowed to say what he feels without being fired then others across the world will have to help Americans out by exercising their own free speech and posting news untainted by the same type of economic control.

Can I suggest that Americans worried about the problem of free speech in their own country can look at www.guardian.co.uk for a news organisation freely discussing a wide range of matters, including the state of the American press and the amount of money American companies pay to buy their politicians and their president. They can also see the amount of money certain companies have paid George W Bush and his administration and how many contracts those companies have since been 'awarded' to 'rebuild' Iraq.

I also note that the 'coalition' radio and tv programmes being transmitted into Iraq make no mention of the fact that the 'coalition' supplied Saddam Hussein with many of the weapons he used to subjugate and kill his people. I wonder why not?

Surely the Iraqi people are entitled to all the benefits of a truly free western media now they have been liberated or are they only to be allowed a different type of propaganda.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I guess if he is not allowed to say what he feels without being fired then others across the world will have to help Americans out by exercising their own free speech and posting news untainted by the same type of economic control. The above demands some questions.

Where do you stand on the following who "hypothetically" ;) were fired.

1.) A sports commentator speaking about black athletes being superior because of slavery?

2.) A journalist speaking at Bob Jones University?

3.) A journalist who wrote an article endorsing white supremacists?

4.) A talk show host who said some controversial things about homosexuality?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
The above demands some questions.

Always demanding demanding. Oi vey.
Where do you stand on the following who "hypothetically" were fired.

1.) A sports commentator speaking about black athletes being superior because of slavery?

2.) A journalist speaking at Bob Jones University?

3.) A journalist who wrote an article endorsing white supremacists?

4.) A talk show host who said some controversial things about homosexuality?.
On number 1/ I would like to know if there was any reliable basis on which he/she made that statement. That I cannot think of one at the moment doesn't automatically preclude the possibility that the sports commentator may have some data, possibly of a genetic nature, that I had not seen. In the light of being willing to change my mind if a new set of reliable data appeared then I would want to ask him/her about the basis for his views. If she/he was unable to support the views with valid data and it was apparent that those views were merely unthinkingly racist then I would take what disciplinary measures were allowed under his/her contract after considering the context, which you have not supplied for any of the hypothetical situations, including the who, what, when, where and why of all sides.
In relation to 2/ I vaguely remember hearing that Bob Jones University has dubious credentials but in the absence of any further information at this time I am unable to make any comment except to say that journalists speak to all sorts of dubious characters and in dubious places in the course of their work all the time such as in prisons and to Saddam Hussein before he 'fled'. US and UK political and administrative officials have spoken to terrorists and sold them weapons so it would have to have something bizarrely strange about the university (such as it being a front for the KU Klux Klan for example) for anyone to be sacked for merely speaking at it. They may for instance may have been bringing a message of goodness and tolerance or even an anti-gun message and not a message of bigotry and intolerance. Even in the UK we don't sack people merely for speaking at loony right wing institutions. More context is needed.
In relation to number 3 if she/he was writing in a White Supremecist magazine then as her/his editor presumably I would not be surprised. Again it depends on what was said, where it was said, i.e. the whole context. The mere fact of holding White Supremacist views does no of itself suggest that anyone should be sacked but if they were to try to peddle racially aggravated and illegal messages then as a responsible broacaster/media boss I would take a very dim view and prevent them from using my station/paper to broadcast his message. Was that what the guy who lost his job was doing? Something illegal? In relation to number 4 again I have no context or sufficient information to comment. If she/he suggested that all gays were child molesters then that would be damaging for being factually incorrect and possibly an incitement to public disorder. I would not want any of my hosts to say anything they knew to be factually incorrect or likely to incite hatred. I would invoke the contractual remedies as approporiate depending on the who, what, when, why of the case.

I would have thought that it would only have been polite for you to have answered your own questions before demanding that others do what you didn't. Can I also 'demand' that you answer the self same questions and recommend the www.guardian.co.uk site to you for a fairly unbiased world view.

[Baker]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I guess if he is not allowed to say what he feels without being fired then others across the world will have to help Americans out by exercising their own free speech and posting news untainted by the same type of economic control.


When Peter Arnett first parroted the false claims on Iraqi television CBS tried to justify his remarks but under public presser, he was fired.
It’s the same situation with Gernon the TV networks require viewers to keep it running.
I have never bought the notion that losing ones job from a comment is in violation of free speech the networks have right to decide what is said and not commented on their networks.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I guess if he is not allowed to say what he feels without being fired then others across the world will have to help Americans out by exercising their own free speech and posting news untainted by the same type of economic control.

RandFan
The above demands some questions.

E.J.Armstrong
Always demanding demanding. Oi vey. I demanded nothing, your post is what demanded the questions. Or should I have said "raised". I like "begged the question" but that is not technicaly correct.

On number 1/ I would like to know if there was any reliable basis on which he/she made that statement. What possible difference could it make. Should people be "allowed to say what they feel without being fired?"

Your response (see first paragraph) would seem to suggest that they should.

Am I wrong?

That I cannot think of one at the moment doesn't automatically preclude the possibility that the sports commentator may have some data, possibly of a genetic nature, that I had not seen. In the light of being willing to change my mind if a new set of reliable data appeared then I would want to ask him/her about the basis for his views. If she/he was unable to support the views with valid data and it was apparent that those views were merely unthinkingly racist then I would take what disciplinary measures were allowed under his/her contract after considering the context, which you have not supplied for any of the hypothetical situations, including the who, what, when, where and why of all sides. Whoa nellie, what is all of this about data. What about freedom of expression?

...by exercising their own free speech and posting news untainted by the same type of economic control.

In relation to 2/ I vaguely remember hearing that Bob Jones University has dubious credentials but in the absence of any further information at this time I am unable to make any comment except to say that journalists speak to all sorts of dubious characters and in dubious places in the course of their work all the time such as in prisons and to Saddam Hussein before he 'fled'. US and UK political and administrative officials have spoken to terrorists and sold them weapons so it would have to have something bizarrely strange about the university (such as it being a front for the KU Klux Klan for example) for anyone to be sacked for merely speaking at it. They may for instance may have been bringing a message of goodness and tolerance or even an anti-gun message and not a message of bigotry and intolerance. Even in the UK we don't sack people merely for speaking at loony right wing institutions. [b]More context is needed. Why? Your paragraph does not say anything about context. It only addresses the right of someone to say what he/she "feels".

In relation to number 3 if she/he was writing in a White Supremecist magazine then as her/his editor presumably I would not be surprised. Again it depends on what was said, where it was said, i.e. the whole context. The mere fact of holding White Supremacist views does no of itself suggest that anyone should be sacked but if they were to try to peddle racially aggravated and illegal messages then as a responsible broacaster/media boss I would take a very dim view and prevent them from using my station/paper to broadcast his message. That is not what I said was it. I said a journalist advocating white supremecy. No breaking of laws no illicit activity just advocating white supremecy.

In relation to number 4 again I have no context or sufficient information to comment. If she/he suggested that all gays were child molesters NO.

...then that would be damaging for being factually incorrect and possibly an incitement to public disorder. No.

I would not want any of my hosts to say anything they knew to be factually incorrect or likely to incite hatred. To incite hatred? This is nonsense. It is vague and subject to interpetation. The example that started this conversation could easily fall under such broad and vague wording.

Factually incorect? Did OJ wear the Bruno Mali shoes or not? Some experts say yes some say no. Factually incorect can be in the eye of the beholder.

I would have thought that it would only have been polite for you to have answered your own questions before demanding that others do what you didn't. There was a reason I did not answer the questions. I wanted to see to what degree if any there were any logical inconsistencies. Thank you.

FWIW my answers are known to anyone who has read my responses to any "free speech" issues. I believe in Free Speech absolutely and don't like that this guy or any of the ones on the list would be penalized for speaking out. I have found few who truly believe in free speech. The vast majority of people look for reasons not to support free speech in given circumstances (thank you for affirming this).

Can I also 'demand' that you answer the self same questions. I have answered them at length in many threads. I attended the Mapplethorp exhibit and watched "last temptation of christ" because I believe in free speech. I disliked the exhibit and hated the movie and wold not have gone exept I believed it was important. I have actively spoken out against boycotts of Dr. Laura (whom I persoanlly dislike), Larry Elder, the Dixie chicks and others. I believe that a peson who supports Free Speech support it accross the board.

Calling for boycotts is protected speech and private companies who fire people because it might hurt the image of the company are protected and are in their right to do so. However I have a right to speak out against such actions and I do so always without making excuses or taking inconsistent stands. I find very few who stand up for those on the left and right. I am one of those people. Anyone who has read my remarks about speech can have no question about my stance. Now we know were you stand. Thank you for yoru response.

Edited because my connection died and I didn't even know that my post had gone through. I thought that I had hit preview when it died.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Always demanding demanding. Oi vey.

On number 1/ I would like to know if there was any reliable basis on which he/she made that statement.

Im not sure if this is true or not, but this is the explanation I was given. Not all slaves were allowed to breed. Some owners would only let the strongest slaves breed. However, I'm not sure slavery went on long enough to justify the claim. Im no geneticist. I guess you would have to prove that the practice was widespread enough and went on for enough generations to affect the overall genepool.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Always demanding demanding. Oi vey.

On number 1/ I would like to know if there was any reliable basis on which he/she made that statement. That I cannot think of one at the moment doesn't automatically preclude the possibility that the sports commentator may have some data, possibly of a genetic nature, that I had not seen. In the light of being willing to change my mind if a new set of reliable data appeared then I would want to ask him/her about the basis for his views. If she/he was unable to support the views with valid data and it was apparent that those views were merely unthinkingly racist then I would take what disciplinary measures were allowed under his/her contract after considering the context, which you have not supplied for any of the hypothetical situations, including the who, what, when, where and why of all sides.
In relation to 2/ I vaguely remember hearing that Bob Jones University has dubious credentials but in the absence of any further information at this time I am unable to make any comment except to say that journalists speak to all sorts of dubious characters and in dubious places in the course of their work all the time such as in prisons and to Saddam Hussein before he 'fled'. US and UK political and administrative officials have spoken to terrorists and sold them weapons so it would have to have something bizarrely strange about the university (such as it being a front for the KU Klux Klan for example) for anyone to be sacked for merely speaking at it. They may for instance may have been bringing a message of goodness and tolerance or even an anti-gun message and not a message of bigotry and intolerance. Even in the UK we don't sack people merely for speaking at loony right wing institutions. More context is needed.
In relation to number 3 if she/he was writing in a White Supremecist magazine then as her/his editor presumably I would not be surprised. Again it depends on what was said, where it was said, i.e. the whole context. The mere fact of holding White Supremacist views does no of itself suggest that anyone should be sacked but if they were to try to peddle racially aggravated and illegal messages then as a responsible broacaster/media boss I would take a very dim view and prevent them from using my station/paper to broadcast his message. Was that what the guy who lost his job was doing? Something illegal? In relation to number 4 again I have no context or sufficient information to comment. If she/he suggested that all gays were child molesters then that would be damaging for being factually incorrect and possibly an incitement to public disorder. I would not want any of my hosts to say anything they knew to be factually incorrect or likely to incite hatred. I would invoke the contractual remedies as approporiate depending on the who, what, when, why of the case.

I would have thought that it would only have been polite for you to have answered your own questions before demanding that others do what you didn't. Can I also 'demand' that you answer the self same questions and recommend the www.guardian.co.uk site to you for a fairly unbiased world view.

[Fade]

I'd really like to know exactly what he said, and in what context. As stated earlier, it's often difficult to determine what a person meant by listening to how their words are reported.

[Smalso]

by RandFan:
FWIW my answers are known to anyone who has read my responses to any "free speech" issues. I believe in Free Speech absolutely and don't like that this guy or any of the ones on the list would be penalized for speaking out. I have found few who truly believe in free speech. The vast majority of people look for reasons not to support free speech in given circumstances (thank you for affirming this).

I'll have to hand you that one. I know of no other person on this forum who has consistantly defended free speech and expression as much as RandFan--except possibly myself.:D RandFan is a Bush man through and through and a staunch and unapoligetic Republican; but I have read several of his posts in which he fumed at the administration for what appeared to be an attempt to restrict these rights.

I can see the need for an employer to exercise a certain amount of control over employees while on the job. This one is entitled to the same right. But employees have rights, too. If I were this guy's boss, I would be in a hell of a fix. On the one hand, I would be morally obligated to grant him free speech and defend his right to have and express an opinion. On the other, I would also have to be aware of my obligation to owners and stockholders to keep sponsers and viewers. It's easy to sit here pecking at a keypad and say I would do this or that. Reality, however, is most of the time a mule with a longer tail.

edit: I have purposely not engaged in commenting on the truth or merits of what the man said. I feel it is not relevant to this particular topic.

[Fade]

But employees have rights, too.

Employees only have the rights (as far as the business they work for is concerned) that are contained in their contract. If they do not have a contract, then they can be fired at the whim of their employer.

Free speech, as much as some would want you to believe, is not about saying whatever you want whenever you want. Free speech, in reality, is only really concerned with the things the government can (or more accurately, can't) do to you for saying certain things.

The concept of absolute free speech without consequence is naieve.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
by RandFan:


I'll have to hand you that one. I know of no other person on this forum who has consistantly defended free speech and expression as much as RandFan--except possibly myself.:D RandFan is a Bush man through and through and a staunch and unapoligetic Republican; but I have read several of his posts in which he fumed at the administration for what appeared to be an attempt to restrict these rights.

I can see the need for an employer to exercise a certain amount of control over employees while on the job. This one is entitled to the same right. But employees have rights, too. If I were this guy's boss, I would be in a hell of a fix. On the one hand, I would be morally obligated to grant him free speech and defend his right to have and express an opinion. On the other, I would also have to be aware of my obligation to owners and stockholders to keep sponsers and viewers. It's easy to sit here pecking at a keypad and say I would do this or that. Reality, however, is most of the time a mule with a longer tail.

edit: I have purposely not engaged in commenting on the truth or merits of what the man said. I feel it is not relevant to this particular topic. Thanks Smalso, there is always outrage when we believe our views are being thretened. We turn to the 1st amendment when it suits our needs when we should be logically consistent and support the 1st amendment in all circumstances.

And for what its worth. I consider myself a libertarian. I support a women's right to choose. I want the drug war ended NOW. I also have some liberal ideas. I.e. I support the minimum wage and would like to see it tied to inflation. My conservative friends think I take that position just to have some reason to piss them off but I really do whole heartedly support it. But that is another thread.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Fade
Free speech, as much as some would want you to believe, is not about saying whatever you want whenever you want. Free speech, in reality, is only really concerned with the things the government can (or more accurately, can't) do to you for saying certain things. I agree. But there is an underlying purpose or "spirit" of free speech that trandsends government institution. Free "expression" is healthy for a free society. If a segment of society could curtail free expression without using the government then it would have the same net effect. It is not the letter of the law that is important but the spirit of it.

Of course it is a fine line. Calling for boycotts and attempts to intimidate advertisers and others is in and of itself a protected form of free speech.

But we have a right and a responsibility to speak up and speak out when we believe that such bullying tactics are used to curtail free speech. When the religious right called for boycotts against Ellen or Last Temptation of Christ or Stop the Church they were with in their right to do so. But it was encumbant upon those of us who truly believe in free speech to speak out against the call for boycotts.

The concept of absolute free speech without consequence is naieve. You are of course absolutely right. I can only encourage people to open their minds and hearts to hear the message and judge it for themselves and not seek to curtail others from hearing the message.

If people want to boycott the Dixie Chicks that is their right. I can remind people that boycotts on the radio will serve no purpose and that the best answer to bad speech is more speech.

RandFan

[RandFan]

Something funny happened on the way to the forum. To my text that is. It disapeared. It should have looked like the following.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
...and recommend the www.guardian.co.uk site to you for a fairly unbiased world view. ??? Let's see, I read L.A times (http://www.latimes.com), Fox News (http://www.fox.com), and the Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com) daily. I also read LA Weekly (http://www.laweekly.com/), Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.com/news/NW-front_Front.asp) and Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/) Not to mention that I watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox News and that I listen to NPR, Rush Limbaugh, KNX news and other assorted news and talk shows. Personaly I believe that truth can only be found by accessing as much as possible from as many sources as possible.

Do you believe that truth can only be obtained from the Guardian?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Smalso
Just another of the liberal left-wing controlled media persecuting someone whose remarks might be contrued as critical of the Bush administration.

Huh?

If there is a large out cry from their viewers, they do.
Not counting the fact that there was no credibility to the story.

[Smalso]

Fade:
Employees only have the rights (as far as the business they work for is concerned) that are contained in their contract. If they do not have a contract, then they can be fired at the whim of their employer.

You are correct with the exception of race, sex, and other conditions covered by law, which I believe you understand. At-will employees are just that: at the will of the employer, with the statutory exceptions which apply to hiring, too.

RandFan: I agree. But there is an underlying purpose or "spirit" of free speech that trandsends government institution. Free "expression" is healthy for a free society. If a segment of society could curtail free expression without using the government then it would have the same net effect. It is not the letter of the law that is important but the spirit of it.

That's the way I see it. I have always had the view that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are those (some of them) that are granted to people by virtue of their being human beings. We are fortunate that we are protected from government interference with the exercise of these rights. I do not necessarily believe that the employer in this case had the right to fire the employee if his purpose was to punish him for expressing his views. He certainly had the power to do so, but, in the long run, he may have done more harm than good.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFanI demanded nothing, your post is what demanded the questions. Or should I have said "raised". I like "begged the question" but that is not technicaly correct.
I am glad that you feel my post has been imbued with a life of its own.What possible difference could it make. Should people be "allowed to say what they feel without being fired?"

Your response (see first paragraph) would seem to suggest that they should.

Am I wrong?
"
Clearly they should be allowed to say what is relevant and correct in the context that allowed it. For example if they were presenting a programme within which the observation was germaine. If there is a valid scientific basis for what they said then it would be silly to fire them if and they would be entitled to mucho dinarii from an industrial tribunal. Your example was essentially context free. I think context is important. You don't apparently. Whoa nellie, what is all of this about data. What about freedom of expression? Forgive me but you seem to be on a different topic. Please explain your comment. What exactly is it you wish to say about freedom of expression here?Why? Your paragraph does not say anything about context. It only addresses the right of someone to say what he/she "feels". Forgive me but your cryptic comments are unclear to me. Wich paragraph are you talking about? How does your comment relate to anything I said?That is not what I said was it. I said a journalist advocating white supremecy. No breaking of laws no illicit activity just advocating white supremecy. Please note that I prefaced my point with the word 'if' as you asked a context free question. Please provide some more information so that we can ge this discussion onto a rational level.NO. What exactly are you saying no to here RandFan? I have no idea at all. I took your demands for answers seriously and answered all your questions directly and this is all you reply with. I have absolutely no idea what you are saying no to so perhaps you could give me clue? After all you asked the context free questions. No. Can I respectfully point out that simple negation is not debate. You have to give the other party a clue as to the reason for the monosylabic response of no and most importantly which aspect of ther reply you are disagreeing with. That is if you want to engage in a debate. At the moment I really have no idea on what basis you demanded answers. To incite hatred? This is nonsense. It is vague and subject to interpetation. The example that started this conversation could easily fall under such broad and vague wording.

Factually incorect? Did OJ wear the Bruno Mali shoes or not? Some experts say yes some say no. Factually incorect can be in the eye of the beholder.
. Inciting hatred happens to a specific offense in the UK. Is this really the substance of your argument in reply to your demands for answers. That I have had the temerity to use vague wording in my reply. Is this an exam RandFan and I am failing to live up to your high standards? You appear to have a difficulty with people who answer your questions for some unknown reason I haven't been able to fathom out yet. The cryptic nature of your comments is simply inpenetratable to me I am afraid.There was a reason I did not answer the questions. I wanted to see to what degree if any there were any logical inconsistencies. Thank you.

FWIW my answers are known to anyone who has read my responses to any "free speech" issues. I believe in Free Speech absolutely and don't like that this guy or any of the ones on the list would be penalized for speaking out. I have found few who truly believe in free speech. The vast majority of people look for reasons not to support free speech in given circumstances (thank you for affirming this).
. Well I hope that you are happy wth your detective work because I have no idea if I passed your test and frankly care less.What list? I had no idea what your opinion was on free speech yet for some strange reason I get the idea that you seem to believe that I should. Possibly I misinterpret you here but I am floundering as to the point of all of this and am not clear what the point was of that little homily was nor what FWIW means. Possibly I am a naughty boy for not previously knowing of your opinion or for not answering as I should and that I should be sent to bed for being in some unspecified way inconsistent.

I posted a comment on the topic of the thread and you demanded answers and appear to be engaged in an exercise of limited interest and with what result I have yet to find out. I think you have an issue with others thinking differently and not in accord with your 'wishes'.I have answered them at length in many threads. I attended the Mapplethorp exhibit and watched "last temptation of christ" because I believe in free speech. I disliked the exhibit and hated the movie and wold not have gone exept I believed it was important. I have actively spoken out against boycotts of Dr. Laura (whom I persoanlly dislike), Larry Elder, the Dixie chicks and others. I believe that a peson who supports Free Speech support it accross the board.

Calling for boycotts is protected speech and private companies who fire people because it might hurt the image of the company are protected and are in their right to do so. However I have a right to speak out against such actions and I do so always without making excuses or taking inconsistent stands. I find very few who stand up for those on the left and right. I am one of those people. Anyone who has read my remarks about speech can have no question about my stance. Now we know were you stand. Thank you for yoru response.

Edited because my connection died and I didn't even know that my post had gone through. I thought that I had hit preview when it died..
It seems that I was right. Please I beg forgiveness for not knowing your opinion on this matter as I clearly should. It is a shocking lapse on my part not to have researched your opinion before putting a post on a thread you were on with no reference to you in it.

Why anyone should however think that the Maplethorpe exhibition was shocking I have no idea unless they were religious. I do believe that most American cities have hard core porn in many different venues.

How this relates to my comments on the topic of the thread I have no idea.

I am afraid that I do have doubts about where you stand so would like to take the opportunity to ask a couple of questions so I can clarify your views. I am sure that you will be happy to answer them. I am very happy to say that my own answers would be no, no, yes, no as I believe that there has to be mutually acceptable limits to freedom of expression in any society.

1/ Would you allow hard core porn to be shown in primary schools (5-11 years) if the film makers demanded it?
2/ Would you allow videos of the execution by electric chair to be shown to all local schools and on public television if the person involved requested it?
3/ Would you allow people to publish all the information concerning the way in which all American companies and Donald Rumsfeld were involved in the sale of WOMD to Iraq and for that information to be published across the world?
4/ Would you allow all military information acquired by the US and its allies, including all the intelligence nuclear weapons, and the latest military technology to be published worldwide?

[Incitatus]

Originally posted by Smalso
Fade:


You are correct with the exception of race, sex, and other conditions covered by law, which I believe you understand. At-will employees are just that: at the will of the employer, with the statutory exceptions which apply to hiring, too.

.

Almost. The employee can also leave when the want. The at will refers to both sides.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
Do you believe that truth can only be obtained from the Guardian?
No. I don't believe I stated anywhere that the Guardian was the only source of truth or even the only source of largely unbiased news and analysis. Life is not as simple as that. It regularly gets awards for its online coverage though which is why I recommended it. Why they even have commentators from across the political spectrum therein.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I think context is important. You don't apparently. Forgive me but you seem to be on a different topic. Please explain your comment. What exactly is it you wish to say about freedom of expression here? Context? There is only one issue that could possibly give any additional context and that is the possible illegality of any of their activities. I gave no specifics to indicate that the individuals were involved in anything illegal. You are simply making something complex that does not need to be complex. If you were honestly concerned about the possible illegality of the activities of the individuals in the examples you could have simply said "If they were fired and absent any illegality I would object that they were not allowed to say what they feel without being fired."

That's all, no detailed speeches containing a bunch of "what ifs", no searching for ways to justify non-support.

Forgive me but your cryptic comments are unclear to me. Wich paragraph are you talking about? How does your comment relate to anything I said? Please note that I prefaced my point with the word 'if' as you asked a context free question. Your initial response to my questions were just a lot of equivocation. The questions were simple and straight forward. I did not stutter, nor was any "context" required. Any person who truly believes in free speech has but one requirement, the absence of anything illegal. No need to ramble on about possible illegality. I support free speech so long as it is not illegal, PERIOD.

Why unnecessarily add that which is not there or not needed? The parsimonious answer to all of the questions is "absent anything illegal I support their right to say what they feel and would object to the firing of the individuals." This would provide a logically consistent stand with your original statement and would not appear to equivocate. I think it reasonable to be suspect of the introduction of unnecessary complexity.

I took your demands for answers seriously... I did not demand anything.

This is a great example of your insincerity. I have already explained why I did not demand anything. When I first read your claim that I had "demanded" something I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained how I didn't demand anything yet you insist in engaging in this silly lie.

...and answered all your questions directly and this is all you reply with. Your definition of "direct" is obviously different than mine.

Look, you suggested that the rest of the world take action on behalf of the CBS Producer who was fired because he was "not allowed to say what he feels without being fired". Such a statement would seem to indicate that you feel pretty strongly about free expression. Yet when a simple question is asked about others facing similar treatment for saying what they felt there were suddenly exceptions and conditions. Why? Why not just demonstrate a commitment to free speech? State that you would not support them if any of their activities were shown to be illegal but lacking any evidence to illegality you would unequivocally oppose any action that would curtail their free speech. How is the introduction of unnecessarily detailed minutiae "direct"?

Inciting hatred happens to a specific offense in the UK. My apologies. Such a distinction is worth spit in the United States. It would not pass muster in the vast majority of Appeals courts in the US and of course The US Supreme Court would waste little time overturning any decision based upon such vague and broad terminology.

That I have had the temerity to use vague wording in my reply. Overly broad and vague is critical in the United States. Many statutes have been overturned on such. As I said "inciting hatred" has no specific meaning, it means whatever the local magistrate wants it to mean.

Here in the United States the National Organization for Women has routinely accused Hustler and other men's magazines for "inciting hatred". Rush Limbaugh has been accused of "inciting hatred" Based on that wording many books, movies, this forum and other works of expression could easily fall under such ridiculously vague and broad wording.

I posted a comment on the topic of the thread and you demanded answers You don't pay attention too well do you. I will say it again, I demanded no such thing. Go back and read my post.

The above demands some questions. Please note that I did not say "demands some answers". Those are words that you are putting into my mouth.

Which raises (demands) another question, why do you continue to state this falsehood?

Please note that I could have said "demands another question" or "begs the question" but "begs" is technically incorect, please see Petitio principii (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging). You see I am not demanding that you answer I am stating that your behavior causes me to go hmmmm....

But you already know that don't you? You are not stupid and I explained in a previous post that I was using a figure of speech and made no demand on you to answer anything.

Why anyone should however think that the Maplethorpe exhibition was shocking I have no idea unless they were religious. I have no idea either, that has nothing to do with my post. Many people wanted to boycott the exhibit, I went because I thought boycotts were bad ideas. Do you really not get this?

1/ Would you allow hard core porn to be shown in primary schools (5-11 years) if the film makers demanded it?
2/ Would you allow videos of the execution by electric chair to be shown to all local schools and on public television if the person involved requested it?
3/ Would you allow people to publish all the information concerning the way in which all American companies and Donald Rumsfeld were involved in the sale of WOMD to Iraq and for that information to be published across the world?
4/ Would you allow all military information acquired by the US and its allies, including all the intelligence nuclear weapons, and the latest military technology to be published worldwide? Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Being a free speech advocate I find it very easy to answer such questions.

#1 and #4 of your examples are on their face currently illegal (unlike my examples). However I would entertain any request to challenge the legality of #1 and #4 of the examples you give. But I would require a compelling reason to consider supporting a change to the legal status of those two examples. There are valid reasons why some speech is prohibited. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Absent a compelling reason I would not support any speech demonstrably shown to be illegal. I know of no compelling reason why they should be made legal.

I know of no laws that would prohibit #2 and #3. In the event that there are rules or laws to prevent them then I believe that there are compelling reasons to remove any such prohibitions.

E.J. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't find you sincere. Maybe it is true what you say and I just don't communicate in a way that you can understand. That said I will allow it as a possibility. I find that much of what you write is simply for the purpose of gainsaying. It is obvious that you ignore what I say (claiming that I demanded something when I have shown clearly that I demanded no such thing) and feign confusion at my responses.

I can't find any reason to engage you since you won't respond in a meaningful manner. It seems only fair that I read your rebuttal to this post. After that I don't intend to converse with you. Why don't we then put each other on our ignore lists, ok?

[E.J.Armstrong]

[I]originally posted by RandFan[/I
Context? There is only one issue that could possibly give any additional context and that is the possible illegality of any of their activities. I gave no specifics to indicate that the individuals were involved in anything illegal. You are simply making something complex that does not need to be complex. If you were honestly concerned about the possible illegality of the activities of the individuals in the examples you could have simply said "If they were fired and absent any illegality I would object that they were not allowed to say what they feel without being fired."

So now you have introduced the context of legality as a requirement for supporting free speech. Well, in my search for the context you omitted from your questions, one of my objects was to search for legality and you originally dismissed my point about incitement to hatred, which specifically was concerned with legality. Is there, perhaps one law for you and one law for others?

If legality is indeed a precondition for assessing free speech then you do not have such a clear stance on the matter as you seemed to want to imply with your context free questions and your dismisal of my own attempts, albeit poor perhaps, to identify context.

If the context of legality is a requirement for you on what basis did you claim 'I believe that a peson who supports Free Speech support it accross the board.' without immediately adding the rider of legality? Once again you impugn my honesty when you are not happy with a response. That seems to be a trait of yours and an unhappy one to say the least. Can I just suggest that when you have an opinion, that does not of itself make that opinion correct or make others who hold different opinions necessarily wrong or dishonest in some way. Your initial response to my questions were just a lot of equivocation. The questions were simple and straight forward. I did not stutter, nor was any "context" required. Any person who truly believes in free speech has but one requirement, the absence of anything illegal. No need to ramble on about possible illegality. I support free speech so long as it is not illegal, PERIOD.

Why unnecessarily add that which is not there or not needed? The parsimonious answer to all of the questions is "absent anything illegal I support their right to say what they feel and would object to the firing of the individuals." This would provide a logically consistent stand with your original statement and would not appear to equivocate. I think it reasonable to be suspect of the introduction of unnecessary complexity.. You asked a series of questions without context. I tried to provide some, which when I do it is equivocation but for some reason not when you do the same thing. Interesting.
You indicate that the questions were simple and that no context was required before answering them. In the very next sentence you state that some context is in fact required before freedom of speech can be assessed by you - namely the context of legality.
Now either you need context or you don't. It seems that you do in fact require some.

I can see that your position is not as clear cut as you like to imply. You stated that you will support free speech so long as it is not illegal PERIOD (capitals again- my note). In Zimbabwe it is illegal to make critical comments of the office of the President. If we take your statment at face value then in Zaibabwe you would not support making critical comments about the office of President because they would be illegal under the law of Zimbabwe. Is that correct or do you need to introduce more context/'equivocation' RandFan?

The fact that I put some context in my answers merely shows that I believe that context is important and does not invalidate my original post. You yourself have just told me that context is important before your support for freedom of speech can be established. QED.

I was not aware of your views on free speech before and as such took your responses at face value. Some of them were too cryptic to understand without the context you subsequently provided.

I did not demand anything.

This is a great example of your insincerity. I have already explained why I did not demand anything. When I first read your claim that I had "demanded" something I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained how I didn't demand anything yet you insist in engaging in this silly lie With respect, what you actually said was as follows
'...your post is what demanded the questions. Or should I have said "raised". I like "begged the question" but that is not technicaly correct.'

Here we have you stating that my post is what demanded questions (I do believe that it was you who actually formulated and asked the questions in your own terms rather than my post!)and you offering alternatives but not actually withdrawing the word 'demanded.' If you are not careful with your own words then perhaps you should not expect others to be careful with theirs as shown later. Perhaps you should not imply people are liars or insincere without actually checking what you said yourself first. Otherwise you just make your self look silly. Your definition of "direct" is obviously different than mine.

Look, you suggested that the rest of the world take action on behalf of the CBS Producer who was fired because he was "not allowed to say what he feels without being fired". Such a statement would seem to indicate that you feel pretty strongly about free expression. Yet when a simple question is asked about others facing similar treatment for saying what they felt there were suddenly exceptions and conditions. Why? Why not just demonstrate a commitment to free speech? State that you would not support them if any of their activities were shown to be illegal but lacking any evidence to illegality you would unequivocally oppose any action that would curtail their free speech. How is the introduction of unnecessarily detailed minutiae "direct"?
.This demonstrates your own insincerity in debating. I actually suggested that the world might help Americans out. Not the producer. Hey ho.
I would also point out that there is no inconsistency in my position because it does not stop me from considering some individual cases to be wrongly handled. Most things are not always black and white as I have demonstrated at the top of this post when you found the need for a bit of context not present in your original questions. My apologies. Such a distinction is worth spit in the United States. It would not pass muster in the vast majority of Appeals courts in the US and of course The US Supreme Court would waste little time overturning any decision based upon such vague and broad terminology. Normally we would say not worth spit. The fact that US laws are not fully up to date on issues of incitement to hatred is irrelevant. The UK laws relating to inciting hatred in various forms have been adequately draughted unless you know otherwise of course. Do you? You accepted the need for context despite berating me for suggesing that context matters. It seems that your views on freedom of speech are not as simple as originally claimed.Overly broad and vague is critical in the United States. Many statutes have been overturned on such. As I said "inciting hatred" has no specific meaning, it means whatever the local magistrate wants it to mean.

Here in the United States the National Organization for Women has routinely accused Hustler and other men's magazines for "inciting hatred". Rush Limbaugh has been accused of "inciting hatred" Based on that wording many books, movies, this forum and other works of expression could easily fall under such ridiculously vague and broad wording.. Are you again suggesting that the UK laws have not got adequate definitions in them of the meaning of tems used in them? Please justify your claim if you are. Simply because US legislators are producing inadequate statutes does not mean that other states are making the same mistakes. have no idea either, that has nothing to do with my post. Many people wanted to boycott the exhibit, I went because I thought boycotts were bad ideas. Do you really not get this? Now that you have explained it I get it. Until you explained it, no, I hadn't got it. QED. I had not studied all of of the extensive RandFan oeuvre - mercifully.There are valid reasons why some speech is prohibited I think that says it all. There is context then. You do not support free speech in a context free scenario because there are reasons why you would not do so. That you have different reasons to me is of not much importance because the real point is that you do not support free speech across the board without context. QED. See Zimbabwean example also.

Can I just suggest that when I explain myself you might accept that I mean what I say even if you disagree with what I say.

You are not such a lonely figure then RandFan. You are just like the rest of us in recognising that context is important when assessing issues of free speech. That your ideas of what is relevent may or may not accord with mine is unimportant. You find the need for context like all the others. Welcome to the contextual world.
...feign confusion at my responsesI think that also says it all about your attitude to those who disagree with you. You resort very easily to ad hominen attacks. You seemed to expect that I should know about your views on free speech when I did not and I believe that I have demonstrated that your views are not as clear cut as you originally tried to make out - just like eveyone else. Unless you explain your views it is not possible for people to guess what they are. I do not pretend to be Uri Geller.

You seem to find it difficult to accept things I say without suggesting that I have agendas or feigning misunderstanding or am being dishonest. I think as a consequence that you have a problem relating to what others say to you. I find you patronising, snide, aggressive, prone to making unwarranted claims and unable easily to accept logical points made in debate, as you appear also to find me. So be it. You can of course do as you wish. I will do as I wish.

[RandFan]

As promised I read your response, the entire response.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You seem to find it difficult to accept things I say without suggesting that I have agendas or feigning misunderstanding or am being dishonest. I think as a consequence that you have a problem relating to what others say to you. I find you patronising, snide, aggressive, prone to making unwarranted claims and unable easily to accept logical points made in debate, as you appear also to find me. So be it. You can of course do as you wish. I will do as I wish. That's nice. Good Bye.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFanThat's nice. Good Bye.

Goodbye.