Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Imus Loses Radio Show « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 4 5 6

cyberdude557

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11834
Offline
#75 : April 14, 2007, 04:18:55 PM

So lets just say an employee on their day off participates in a Ku Klux Klan rally and their face is shown on a TV news broadcast. The man's boss is watching TV and sees the employee at the rally. But this employee never makes any racist remarks while on the job, does this corporation still have a right to fire that person?

The Supreme Court does not provide much because the rulings are all over the place when it comes to the 1st amendment. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but some courts say schools do not have a right to enforce a dress code that prohibits a student's freedom of speech. I posted a story on here a few days ago of where a court ruled that the school has no right to suspend a student for criticizing the school's policy on the internet. Would it make any difference if the student was doing this on school property or from school computers? Nope. Keep in mind also that there are several court rulings that say that schools and corporations have to operate by the same rules under the law. So corporations have to abide by the 14th amendment for example, just like the schools. Why would the first amendment be different?

It is obvious to me that we are getting into the business of firing radio hosts because they expressed their opinions. You can argue about the legalities all you want, but speech is being suppressed no matter how you want to look at it. People rely on their jobs for food, water, shelter, and healthcare. If you are threatning to take that away based on their personal opinions....that is suppression of speech. Where is the line going to be drawn? Yesturday I listened to several radio hosts and every one of them asked the question, "Am I next?" Not because of something racist, but because of their political beliefs. What if they say something that angers a bunch of people, this creates a boycott and the network loses money. That network then has a right to fire that person? These people were hired SPECIFICALLY to give their opinions on the radio. And yes, many times they are going to say things that some people are not going to like. So I ask again, where is the line going to be drawn?

Or how about Rosie O'Donnell? She goes on rants that the US government is only in the mid-east because of oil. Notice how when this was going on, everyone was crying for Rosie to be fired because it was "hurting the war effort." What if a few sponsors decided to pull out because of that comment? Would it be within the rights of the network to fire her for those opinions?
What you all have been telling me is that the government has no right to infringe on free speech, but you think it is perfectly acceptable for society to limit speech. I say that is wrong and flies completely in the face of what our founding fathers believed America should be about. I do not trust society, the government, or corporations with that authority. I just don't.

klb55

****
Starter

Posts : 639
Offline
#76 : April 14, 2007, 05:18:40 PM

Speech can be restricted or censored in the workplace.  People don't have the right to free speech at work.  It is really that simple.  You can tell your employees they are not allowed to speak at all or restrict what they can speak about i.e. business matters.  Florida is a at-will state.  An employer can fire you for any reason assuming they are not breaking the law.  Imagine what it would be like if you had it your way.  Employees everywhere could just speak at will and the employer would have to tolerate it.  Go to any workplace and employees are already running their mouths too much instead of working.  Also, radio personalities have contracts.  I can guarantee that CBS didn't violate the contract between itself and Imus.  This is my last response because you're mixing up several issues.  Also, you are clearly set in this position because it couldn't be more clear that this is not a freedom of speech issue.  It is an employer's right to can someone issue. 

cyberdude557

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11834
Offline
#77 : April 14, 2007, 06:04:43 PM

Speech can be restricted or censored in the workplace. People don't have the right to free speech at work. It is really that simple. You can tell your employees they are not allowed to speak at all or restrict what they can speak about i.e. business matters. Florida is a at-will state. An employer can fire you for any reason assuming they are not breaking the law. Imagine what it would be like if you had it your way. Employees everywhere could just speak at will and the employer would have to tolerate it. Go to any workplace and employees are already running their mouths too much instead of working. Also, radio personalities have contracts. I can guarantee that CBS didn't violate the contract between itself and Imus. This is my last response because you're mixing up several issues. Also, you are clearly set in this position because it couldn't be more clear that this is not a freedom of speech issue. It is an employer's right to can someone issue.

Well, I disagree. I just don't view it that way.
There is a court case going through the works of the 9th circuit out in San Francisco concerning free expression in the workplace. A person was fired because of tattoos and body piercings. The company fired them because they didn't want that to be part of their image. Well the employee has filed a lawsuit and a federal judge stated that the company violated the employees 1st amendment rights. The decision is currently being appealed to the 9th Circuit. So we will see what the outcome of this is in a year or so.

And there doesn't appear to be any fairness in the Imus issue either. You got the rap artists mouthing off all sorts of slurs against race and women and no one cares.
Or how about when Dusty Baker made this quote about black athletes: ""It's easier for most Latin guys and it's easier for most minority people because most of us come from heat. You don't find too many brothers in New Hampshire and Maine and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. ... We were brought over here for the heat, right? Isn't that history? Weren't we brought over because we could take the heat?" He didn't get fired for those comments. What if a white guy said that?

Just like yesturday, me and a coworker were discussing this and his statement was, "Oh, but black people can say those words?"

CNN did a poll and found only 31% of white people view Don Imus as a racist after making that comment and 57% of whites did NOT think he should have been fired. On the flip side, over 54% of blacks think he is racist and only 40% of blacks thought Imus should keep his job.
The poll shows that we still have a society that is very volitile on race relations. And different races view this issue very, very differently. Pretty obvious that society has not advanced much from the 60s. As soon as a debate like this flares up, everyone's gloves come off and the whole debate sinks right back to square one.

klb55

****
Starter

Posts : 639
Offline
#78 : April 14, 2007, 11:09:05 PM

Speech can be restricted or censored in the workplace. People don't have the right to free speech at work. It is really that simple. You can tell your employees they are not allowed to speak at all or restrict what they can speak about i.e. business matters. Florida is a at-will state. An employer can fire you for any reason assuming they are not breaking the law. Imagine what it would be like if you had it your way. Employees everywhere could just speak at will and the employer would have to tolerate it. Go to any workplace and employees are already running their mouths too much instead of working. Also, radio personalities have contracts. I can guarantee that CBS didn't violate the contract between itself and Imus. This is my last response because you're mixing up several issues. Also, you are clearly set in this position because it couldn't be more clear that this is not a freedom of speech issue. It is an employer's right to can someone issue.

Well, I disagree. I just don't view it that way.
There is a court case going through the works of the 9th circuit out in San Francisco concerning free expression in the workplace. A person was fired because of tattoos and body piercings. The company fired them because they didn't want that to be part of their image. Well the employee has filed a lawsuit and a federal judge stated that the company violated the employees 1st amendment rights. The decision is currently being appealed to the 9th Circuit. So we will see what the outcome of this is in a year or so.

And there doesn't appear to be any fairness in the Imus issue either. You got the rap artists mouthing off all sorts of slurs against race and women and no one cares.
Or how about when Dusty Baker made this quote about black athletes: ""It's easier for most Latin guys and it's easier for most minority people because most of us come from heat. You don't find too many brothers in New Hampshire and Maine and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. ... We were brought over here for the heat, right? Isn't that history? Weren't we brought over because we could take the heat?" He didn't get fired for those comments. What if a white guy said that?

Just like yesturday, me and a coworker were discussing this and his statement was, "Oh, but black people can say those words?"

CNN did a poll and found only 31% of white people view Don Imus as a racist after making that comment and 57% of whites did NOT think he should have been fired. On the flip side, over 54% of blacks think he is racist and only 40% of blacks thought Imus should keep his job.
The poll shows that we still have a society that is very volitile on race relations. And different races view this issue very, very differently. Pretty obvious that society has not advanced much from the 60s. As soon as a debate like this flares up, everyone's gloves come off and the whole debate sinks right back to square one.

I'll be interested in the 9th circuit's decision.  Nothing surprises me when it comes to that bunch.  It will get appealed and the Supreme Court will side with a business being able to define its image.  Why anyone thinks an employee should be able to portray any image they see fit while at work is beyond me.  I agree that there is a double standard when it comes to certain words.  People need to stop being so hyper-sensitive about words.  It is a sign of weakness.  The difference in the stats is about 20 percentage points.  It doesn't surprise me.  I'm surprised the difference isn't greater

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28861
Offline
#79 : April 15, 2007, 12:14:20 AM

Rosie's case is different because The View has added 600,000 viewers since she was added to the show.

Also, nobody in their right mind agrees that the girls were nappy headed, hos...

But millions of Americans agree with Rosie and her 9/11 questions. And if those people watch the
show and buy the products that are shown during The View, then Rosie will not be going anywhere
any time soon.

bucpimpin

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1857
Offline
#80 : April 15, 2007, 09:48:31 AM

Just an FYI...

Imus was poking fun at the slang that occurs nowadays.. For those older than 35 in here that might not get it

Adoringly the younger crowd uses the term **CENSORED** to refer to their homeboys of any race and the term Ho to refer to their girl's.. It's part of hip-hop culture and it wont stop.. So I wish older media would quit with the outrage over words anyone in the ''public eye '' use because its all about the actions. (for the record I think IMUS it un-listenable).. Im just tired of the fear of offending someone.. Who cares who is offended and when.. Just dont listen.


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28861
Offline
#81 : April 15, 2007, 10:39:30 AM

We don't listen.

Ho has negative connotations too. Go read the Snoop Dogg explanation about what Hos are.

JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#82 : April 15, 2007, 11:10:02 AM

http://st-louis.aolsportsblog.com/2007/04/12/snoop-dogg-dont-compare-me-to-don-imus/

"[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC."


~Snoopy Dogg...

This comment is incredible. Snoop chooses to degrade the poorest and most uneducated of the black communities. I wonder if Al and Jesse will be upset about "old-ass white men" comment. I highly doubt it. People who are constantly waiting to be offended and continually blame their race for everything will never get ahead.



What's even more incredible is that one of the board members actually thought highly enough about "snoop dogg's" opinion that he used it as an argument as if snoop was some authority on anything.   LOL!   

In my opinion, this is a major problem in the usa.   Guys like "snoop dogg" seem to think a double standard is ok.   It's not.   He doesn't want an "old ass white man" calling girls "nappy headed ho's", but it's ok for him to do it?   Please.   I don't care if he's calling basketball players or girls from the hood that name.  If he doesn't want to hear it from others, he shouldn't be using it himself.   

Of all people in the world who would be considered to be "nappy headed", I would likely put snoop dogg at the top of that list.   That guy's hair may be the worst I've ever seen on any human.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28861
Offline
#83 : April 16, 2007, 01:59:33 AM

What's even more incredible is that one of the board members actually thought highly enough about "snoop dogg's" opinion that he used it as an argument as if snoop was some authority on anything.   LOL!   

No, what's even more incredible is that I have to actually explain this to you.

Note to posters (especially Java): Just because I post a quote by somebody, does not mean
I agree with said quote. Snoop's quote is garbage. I thought that would be pretty obvious
to all who read his words. Didn't think I needed to explain that. But apparently I was
wrong.

JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#84 : April 16, 2007, 03:18:05 AM

Snoop's quote is garbage. I thought that would be pretty obvious
to all who read his words.

I agree with that.   I'm still not sure why you posted it in the first place though.

coolhandluke

****
Starter

Posts : 271
Offline
#85 : April 16, 2007, 07:11:02 AM

According to Snoop Dog, does that make "IAN BECKLES" a Nappy Headed Sports Radio Jock???

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28861
Offline
#86 : April 16, 2007, 08:32:50 AM

Snoop's quote is garbage. I thought that would be pretty obvious
to all who read his words.

I agree with that.   I'm still not sure why you posted it in the first place though.

Because people were referring to rap repeatedly and I saw his quote. Not much
more to it.

karen anderson

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#87 : April 16, 2007, 08:35:13 AM

According to Snoop Dog, does that make "IAN BECKLES" a Nappy Headed Sports Radio Jock???
I'm pretty sure he's bald.

coolhandluke

****
Starter

Posts : 271
Offline
#88 : April 16, 2007, 08:48:01 AM

Then he would be an EX Nappy headed Radio Jock..
gotta love Snoop Dog!!!

T

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4695
Offline
#89 : April 17, 2007, 12:42:55 AM

Who cares I never heard of this old viagra popping redneck racist before all this started.

Page: 1 ... 4 5 6
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Imus Loses Radio Show « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools