Does the First Amendment guarantee platforms for free speech?

That is, does the lack of venue or position from which to project one's free speech detract from the overall guaranteed right or physical ability to exercise it?

Only lack of will.

For example, if a news commentator is fired for his or her views, is it censorship? Is it an infringement on their free speech?

If so, wouldn't it imply that certain people with positions of influence are entitled to greater levels of free speech and public access to said free speech?

I would hope not. As I understand the First Amendment, it only establishes protection for a bare minimum threshold. Hence camapaign financing can be limited and religious organizations stifled politically.

In short, the First Amendment, in my view, is agnostic to the extent of one's ability to make their free speech heard. Methods by which protected free speech is exercised can be argued, but burning a flag in the middle of the desert where nobody can see is the same as burning a flag during a 60 minute primetime ad buy on the major networks. Both are protected, but the latter isn't guaranteed in terms of access.

In reality. The revolution will not be televised.

It doesn't apply to news organizations; such organizations are free to fire their commentators because of their opinions. It would hurt the credibility of the news organization (and maybe to some extent the news profession), but it would not violate the first amendment. Similarly, if a news organization wanted to ban an advertisement, it would not violate the first amendment.

However, if the government were to make a law banning a specific type of ad (such as your flag burning example), that would be in tension with the first amendment and would be much more heavily scrutinized by the courts.

the Government will not and is prohibited from interfering or punishing you for your speech.

It does not protect you from other people opinions. Meaning you are free to call your boss an asshole, and the government cannot do anything about it, you boss however can fire your ass with absolutely no problem.

So in your example, "if a news commentator is fired for his or her views, is it censorship? Is it an infringement on their free speech?"

Only if the Government was involved in the firing. If the owner did it, because he did not want those views shout from business then it is not a 1st amendment violation.

"If so, wouldn't it imply that certain people with positions of influence are entitled to greater levels of free speech and public access to said free speech?"

No, There are no levels, you only have free speech or you don't, there is no right to have others listen to you. If others in positions of influence have better access, it is likely they are better speakers or better at presenting their message to get others to listen. There is a reason the Presidency is often called a "Bully Pulpit". The president has unlimited access to media coverage.

"Methods by which protected free speech is exercised can be argued, but burning a flag in the middle of the desert where nobody can see is the same as burning a flag during a 60 minute prime time ad buy on the major networks. Both are protected, but the latter isn't guaranteed in terms of access."

Again, all the Bill of rights does is protect you from your Government, it does allow you to impose your speech on other people, or but does force others to have to listen to you or for someone to give you a venue from which to pour forth you opinion. The same with the whole Dixie Chicks outrage a few years ago, they had a right to say what they wanted, and the radio stations had a right to not play their music. It is only a Free Speech violation if the Government sought, or encouraged that boycott.

""If so, wouldn't it imply that certain people with positions of influence are entitled to greater levels of free speech and public access to said free speech?"

No, There are no levels, you only have free speech or you don't, there is no right to have others listen to you. If others in positions of influence have better access, it is likely they are better speakers or better at presenting their message to get others to listen. There is a reason the Presidency is often called a "Bully Pulpit". The president has unlimited access to media coverage.""

Of course there are greater levels. Those who have the power & money to promote ideas, including those of our president, have the instruments of control via mass media. The notion of "better ideas" have nothing to do with what ideas are broadcast over the corporate media, rather, the ideas broadcast reflect one or a combination of two things; that is, "what do I agree with", and/or, "what will make me money.

Government can have a hand in promoting free speech on the publicly owned airwaves by regulating access to allow a diversity of opinion on those publicly owned airwaves but, currently, it does not.

By the way, the Bill of Rights does not protect us from our government. Rather, for the most part, it protects us from each other.

... rulings on consolidation of media ownership, it's a wonder there's anything out there besides sports, wingnut motormouths, televangelists and other fundie loons groveling for money, business programming equating unregulated capitalism with democracy and celebrity worship. Come to think of it, there really isn't...

Thanks to a 30-year frenzy of mergers and acquisitions, wink-and-nod FCC "oversight" and Congressional unwillingness to invoke existing anti-trust law, the American marketplace of ideas is now ruled by six massive conglomerates that control about 90 percent of the mass media content most of us see, hear and read: News Corp.; GE; CBS; Time Warner; Disney; and Viacom.

So what? Well, for one thing, a significant majority of news, entertainment and information US audiences see is vetted for its support of status quo corporate values and purged of "dangerous" unconventional narratives – perhaps regarding the threat to independent thought posed by media consolidation.

For example, NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the world's largest armaments manufacturers in 2006 and among the six largest media conglomerates. Is it reasonable to expect NBC to report critically on the status and duration of the Iraq occupation? Or is it predictable that NBC's occupation coverage will tell us that the "surge" is working, that US troop deaths are down, that the Iraqi puppet regime is gaining traction and, if we can hang on for another decade, things should turn out hunky-dory.

And that's OK; since war is the optimum business condition for many industries – banks, weapons makers, raw materials suppliers, machine tool makers and so on – GE looks to sell many billions of dollars more of its killing machinery, all the while telling Americans via NBC how peace is just 10 or so years down the road.

Among other insults, this explains why John Stossel is a network star while Bill Moyers is on PBS.

Point being, while there are no First Amendment guarantees that each POV will have its own soapbox, the feds have made active and passive decisions that limit normal people's access to their own airwaves. So GE gets an entire TV network; the peace movement gets local cable access at 3:00 in the morning. Corporate news and analysis gets hours and hours of coverage each week. It's even got its own network (CNBC). Labor, on the other hand, is only covered when there's a strike that cuts into various corporate bottom lines.

I submit this didn't happen by accident.


sf

I submit that I agree with you submittal.

Would that be a problem?

Does free speech need to be enabled or simply protected?