1st Amendment question....

[TOhioLiberal]

Hi all!

I am having a discussion with a RW'er on a local board.
The topic is Whoopi Goldberg being fired by Slim-fast

The text of his message is this:
'Whoopie Goldberg got fired from slim-fast because of her obscene Bush Bash. Before all you libs start screaming free speech the fact is the first amendment limits government (congress) not private entities.'

So is the first amendment just about limiting government? It's been a couple of decades since Civics class.

first amemdment:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

anybody?

[swag]

1. "Free Speech" is irrelevant, and so is the Whoopi speech

Tell the guy that the Whoopi shit is irrelevant. Ask him why 890 US soldiers have died in Iraq, when even the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee has found the administration's case for war completely wanting.

Ask him how a fiscal conservative could support "borrow and spend" and the record-shattering deficits of the Bush administration and Republican Congress.

[TOhioLiberal]

5. He's one of the true believers...

...sees no problem with the changing reasons behind the war. To him it is straight 'Violating UN sanctions' reason for war. The rest is irrelevant. Also hates the UN...Go figure :shrug:

[unblock]

2. technically, that's correct

though in practice, it's not so simple.

first, the first amendment actually does extent to state governments as well.

second, public companies and places of commerce are not quite as free as private clubs to do things like stifle free speech. however, they are far more free to stifle free speech than the government is.

in whoopi's case, companies are generally free to fire people at will or to terminate contracts with other companies (if permitted in the contract). the only real restrictions are that you can't fire for the very specific reasons of sex, race, religion, or national origin.

other than those restrictions, companies can fire you because they don't like what you said, they don't like your cologne, they don't like your haircut, or simply because it's friday. only unions and employment contracts can prevent those kinds of things.

[unblock]

3. having said all this about the *law*,

i should say that the bill of rights isn't just a set of restrictions on the government's ability to oppress. it embodies values that we as a society hold dear.

so, while a company may have the legal right to fire somebody for objectionable speech, it does violate a core value of our society, and as such, companies should strive to avoid firing based on such speech alone.

[TOhioLiberal]

7. I'll bring it up...

..although I'm probably beating my head against the wall (metephorically speaking, that is.)

[fryguy]

4. in a word - he's right...

in order for something to violate the first amendment right, there must first be found government action i s involved. now that doesn't mean that it has to be the government itself acting, there are ways in which private entities assume the air of government and thereby their action may be considered governmental in nature sufficient to envoke the first amendement.

however slimfast certainly has none of the necessary criteria. they are wholly a private entity with no relation to the government. their action may violate contract law (depending on what the agreement between them and whoopi said), but doesn't impinge any first amendment protection. she was free to say what she wanted/ in fact, there is nothing to indicate she was prevented from saying anything by anybody. slimfasts action was, therefore, merely a business decision free from any entanglement with the constitution.

as much as i hate to say it, but the RWer in this case is right. whoopi said what she wanted to and now, becuase slimfast caved in to political pressure by the GOP, she's out of a contract. but there's no first amendment issue here.

[TOhioLiberal]

8. Thanks for the reply...

I think I'll get the 'discussion' back on track by saying it ain't a 1st amendment issue. Probably get called a flip-flopper.

Maybe I'll say 'you're right' first and REALLY confuse the guy....

[fryguy]

13. imho - its not worth discussing

the GOP is trying to make an issue where there isn't one. so what that a comedian poked fun at the president, or even used disparaging language in doing so. its not like she told the guy to go f**k himself while they were standing on the floor of the senate or anything, or pointed to a member of the press corps and said into a live microphone what a sc*mbag (or a**hole, i don't recall exactly) the guy is.

[TOhioLiberal]

15. Yep...

you're right of course. Probably my best bet would be to suck it up and get to the point of 'why is it important?' His head will probably explode...

[misanthrope]

20. What I want to know...

...is how the individuals that killed Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner in Philadelphia MS (1964) were each prosecuted for violating the civil rights of the murder victims.

Neither the state or any agency were charged, the men were. Doesn't this set precedent for individual responsibility in regard to violation of the Bill of Rights?

[merh]

6. Whoopass (jon stewart referred to her this way on his show)

would have signed a contract and that contract probably contained a decency clause which basically said that if Whoopi said anything that was harmful to Slim Fast or that brought disgrace or bad publicity to the company, the contract would be terminated and her services no longer required.

First Amendment does not protect her if she had this type of clause in her contract.

And yes, this is just a distraction. Tell the freepers that the bush comment was not as bad as cheney's fu remark to a senator on the floor of the senate. bush vs. f'u - easy call. Bush flipped off teenagers from his bus yesterday (what a guy) Whoopi += Non-issue

lies about WMD's
failure to protect nation from 9/11 terrorists
890 dead
cuts to military salaries
cuts to the VA hospitals
cuts to military benefits
economy sucks
largest deficit ever
unemployment (true unemployment) at 9.6 % or more

Those are some of the real issues

[TOhioLiberal]

9. Whoop-ass...I like that!

the guys and gals on this board have all drank the kool-aid. Total Bush* supporters.

Speaking of Cheney...they all gave him a pass for that F#ck off comment. Spanked their little asses by pointing out that Kerry was pretty much dragged through the mud for his website having the 'f-bomb' on it.

Ah, well..back to the trenches...

[MalachiConstant]

10. if your RW friend is so keen on freedom of expression,

perhaps you could ask what cheney told leahy. or ask why bush recently flipped off two kids. or just bring up and incident involving the patriot act for that matter. there's just soooo much material to go on. as a side note, you should probably ask why when asked, wolfowitz did not know how many US soldiers died overseas.

[TOhioLiberal]

12. Well ...

he's not my friend. Just someone I'm arguing with.
Good points you've brought up. Do you think his head'll explode? :evilgrin:

[MalachiConstant]

19. that's one way

to solve the right-wing surplus

[MalachiConstant]

11. oh,

i heard that while on campaign bush was introduced by dennis miller. and miller made some homophobic remarks about edwards and kerry.

[merh]

16. Yeah, but do you think any liberal is going to call MSNBC and

say, kick him off the network because he said nasty things about K/E? They probably gave him a raise or another chimp!

Denise Miller should marry Ann Coulter and they should form their own neo-con community and have wonderfully angry neo-con children that blow up birds and frogs for fun. (imho)

[rustydog]

14. The constitution expressly forbids Government from limiting speech

Any company can refuse to use someone as a spokesman. Especially when Those Jesus-quoting, God-fearing reigh wingers start e-mailing and phoning in threats to never buy their product again. (Whatever happened to "love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc)

Bush can't ultimately get away with his free-speech zones, A police officer can't restrict your speech (He swore to uphold and defend the constitution) your city council can't, etc...

Byt private business can tell you to shut your trap, or else and get away with it.

[TOhioLiberal]

17. Thanks for the replies...

I appreciate the input. Right now I need to go to bed, but feel free to continue the discussion. I'll check back in the A.M.

[fryguy]

18. glad to have helped

[bowens43]

21. Yes, it's just about limiting government.

The Constitution places limitations on the powers of the government but not just Congress. THe 14th Amendment applies the protections of the Constitution to the states.