The first amendment offers no legal protections; but I would argue that the First Amendment does represent certain ideals. People should be able to engage in political speech without undue harm coming to them. Free-lance censorship isn't much better than government censorship, in my opinion.

Bryant

and get fired.

Support birth control for women and your boss is a neanderthal, get fired. Try to form a union and they don't like it and get fired.

State publicly on the internet that Mitt Romney is a fucking tool and your boss does not like it and you will get fired.

Because we have no real rights. Not really. So what the fuck are we fighting for in this country anyway?

He said stupid things.

He got punished for his speech. He was fired. He'll have a hard time working as a op/ed writer again. Perhaps as any kind of writer. Certainly no more invited talks.

"Because we have no real rights. Not really."

Do you *really* consider the consequences Derbyshire is facing for his speech an injustice?

It's speech you find hateful, malicious, and terrible.

Now in that case, it's not necessarily an injustice (I think he will probably find other sites willing to publish him; sites that find the National Review dangerously accomadating and liberal). Nobody has a guaranteed right to publication/being broadcast.

But I think the person you were responding to had a point.

Bryant

But I see it has a legal definition - i.e. the person making the statement knows it to be false or issued it with reckless disregard for the truth. I do support reasonable protections against libel and the like.

Bryant

they aren't familiar with case law that interprets what is free speech and which situations qualify (limit) its application. Best known examples are the prohibition against shouting "Fire!" in a theatre, inciting riot, defamation/slander, etc.

was falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. If there were in fact a fire, having it called to people's attention would be a lifesaver.

Whoops . . . .

That being said: I'm not sure why professional athletes get in trouble for their opinions. I'm not sure why anyone should care what they think. I'm also not sure why they're considered role models, but that's a different topic

I had an argument with a liberal friend on this issue when the Dixie Chicks controversy arose. She kept insisting that the whole thing was a "First Amendment" and "freedom of speech" issue.

I explained that "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from criticism." Now, violent threats, acts of violence, etc., that is not protected "criticism," but part of the privilege of having free speech is the duty to stand up for things you say, even if they might be unpopular.

Hell, if the First Amendment said what Ozzie Guillen's defenders think it said, there would be virtually no internet message boards!

first, there's the LEGAL 1st amendment -- as you describe, congress shall make no law, which doesn't apply here.

second, there's the CULTURAL 1st amendment -- the spirit of free speech, which is a social tolerance of diverse views and a culture of letting people speak their minds without being overly punished or completely shunned from society.

finally, there's the 1st amendment rights (both legal and cultural) of those who LISTEN to the original speaking. they have a right to react and respond, in particular, by disagreeing, possibly in strong terms.


all cultures have topics of speech that are acceptable, others that are met with disagreement with respect, others that are met with various levels of disapproval, and others that are met with various levels of social punishment, and finally others that are met with various levels of legal punishment.

the legal 1st amendment says we should have a strong bias for a small range for speech that is met with legal punishment.

the spirit of the 1st amendment in american society is to have a strong bias to have a large range for "disagreement with respect", but that doesn't mean that the more negative responses don't exist.

There's additional complexity:
1. What was written.
2. Your interpretation of what was written.
3. The author.
4. The publisher/venue.

no one is required to provide you with a platform to spread whatever message you want, no one is required to listen to you speak.

The First Amendment covers all of the basis because it prevents the government from blocking speech in a wide array of ways, which gives diverse views the opportunity to be heard, but it does not guarantee that diverse views will be heard, nor does it insulate those view from criticism.

So say something folks don't like, you might get fired, or banned, or blocked, or not given another opportunity (or first opportunity) to express your views publically in the manner you like, and that doesn't violate any "cultural first amendment" either.

over the course of our history, the idea of free speech as a "good thing" has evolved. yes, the constitution doesn't prevent rampant intolerance of diverse views and opinions. absent a contract, generally, you can get fired for rooting for the wrong team, wearing yellow, or saying "gesundheit" instead of "bless you". the constitution and the law protects your free speech from government punishment, not from private or social punishment.

that said, there is a clear and strong bias in this culture of this country to object to even non-governmental punishment for free speech. this is why people feel free to speak their minds, and this is why people object when they get punished for it, EVEN if the punishment is private or social rather than governmental. the ideal of free speech and tolerance for others' views has a strong history in america.

the constitution has nothing to say about this, but it's a clear feature of american society.

who come here from a country with no freedom of speech, the same one that my parents came from no less, yet they insist on shutting up anybody who doesn't agree with them. I've lived here in Miami most of my life and let me tell you that if the right-wing Cubans here had their way, Ozzie would be in front of a firing-squad right now. And i'm not exaggerating.

by removing him from AFN for example? (and I'm all for doing that by the way).

I agree with Bill Maher on this issue. If you don't agree with someone, just tune them off. I personally have never liked this idea of making people "go away" just because they say stupid shit. If Cuban-American right-wingers don't like Guillen, then don't go to his games. But this shit about trying to get him fired and making his life hell is insane. I just don't like it when either side does it.

I'm totally with him accepting 5 games and putting it behind him. I totally understand your point of view on this. Personally Ozzie isn't exactly known as Mr. Media tact so seeing him say something totally WTF why go there is not shocking and if Miami didn't want this type of press they probably should have hired one of the countless bland non-quotable ex-managers out there. People seem to be reacting like the guy gave a 30 minute lecture on the benefits of communist rule instead of a couple off hand goofy statements that seem to indicate Ozzie isn't particularly a great source for deep geopolitical philosophical thought. Which people probably would have guessed before hand anyways.

We are told from the time we are small children that we have "a right to freedom of speech", when the amendment actually says that THE GOVERNMENT cannot restrict freedom of speech, so it is perfectly legal for a store owner to throw out a customer who is calling other customers racial slurs.

Just because you have the constitutional right to burn the flag does not mean that others cannot criticize you for doing so.

Criticizing a flag burner is not in and of itself a violation of anyone's free speech. I have heard some people imply otherwise.