 |
|
yavoon
|
|
the fact is you prolly have no interpretation of the first amendmant. u just have your own beliefs which you are parading around under the guise of the bill of rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
Arnett and Madonna both require popular support to do 'their job'. Without it... they are just another guy or girl.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
so ur saying american public opinion is denying madonna her freedom of speech? wow. I think one of the problems is that those ppl are expressing THEIR freedom of speech. and madonna's convictions obviously weren't strong enough.
no1 sed freedom of speech has to be unhindered. u give u a right to say it, but we aren't gna demand that everyone take it nicely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
only if they are linked to national distribution... and that requires popular support.
No popular support, no product sales/advertising sales.
No product sales/advertising sales, no distribution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
He was fired not arrested. The first amendment doesn't mean that what you say won't have consequences. The Hollywood bunch have already figured that out.
Regarding his ability to go to court, you just can't comment on that without having the contract in front of you. I'm sure the network has protections in the fine print that allow them to take this action. If he had made a racist comment, the screams for his dismissal would have been even louder. When you're in the media, you have to be careful what you say. It goes with the job.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG
quote:
and that requires popular support |
and what happened to respect for the different opinion? |
different opinion doesn't pay well, in their line of work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG
is that supposed to be a sign of an open, free democracy? |
its a sign of a free-economy... a capitalist society... which is THE modern form of democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
the ppl we are talking about rely on popular support. they are in the entertainment industry. I know u journalists groan being part of the entertainment industry.
thats why "they sacrifice their careers." its not a universal statement its just a byproduct of the place in which they earn thei rmoney.
and to be quite frank lotsa ppl w/ radical opinions make lotsa money. so its ont like the US acts in concert to supppress every dissenter by not buying their products or watching their show.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
so ur saying its immoral to not buy a dixie chicks album because u dislike their views? or are u saying its immoral to react as a corporation to ppl not buying ur product?
I dont know which side ur insinuating is immoral.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
the public has every right to base their commercial purchase decisions on any basis that they wish. That is the basis of a capitalist society.
Declaring that some form of decision is less valid, infringes the publics freedom... which is far more serious than infringing one persons freedom.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:27
|
|
yavoon, you Constitutional Scholar, you...
Its called Freedom of the Press. I thought that might ring a bell. First Amendment, US Constitution...
Here's a excerpt from
An Unfettered Press
Constitutional Protection
by Robert S. Peck (Staff Director of the American Bar Association Commission on Public Understanding About the Law, and an expert on constitutional law.)
quote:
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote in 1918: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market....That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution."
By expressing one's opinions, individuals are free to use reason and logic to win supporters. The expressions may sometimes be unreasonable and illogical, but it is not, the Constitution says, the responsibility of government to make that determination. The expressions must be permitted so people may judge the truth.
All American politicians, including such revered figures as founders -- and later presidents -- George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, have felt the sting of the press. In the U.S. constitutional system, the press occupies special ground, calling upon government officials to account for their actions and publicizing their failures so that voters may better judge them. Despite the ill treatment he received from the press of the 18th and early 19th centuries, Jefferson had no doubt of its importance. "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government," he wrote in 1802, "I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
A free press, as guaranteed in the First Amendment, plays a watchdog function in a democratic society: bringing people the information they need to exercise independent judgment in electing public officials who favor policies the people support. James Madison, who is regarded as the "Father of the U.S. Constitution" and was the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or perhaps both." A free press is thus an essential part of a democratic society; it enables the people to make informed choices.
The heavy presumption against censorship, which the Supreme Court acted upon in the Pentagon papers case, protects more than newspapers. When the Bill of Rights (comprising the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was ratified, no one could anticipate the diversity of 20th-century communications. Radio, television, and computerized communications were beyond even the most vivid imaginations in 1791, when the First Amendment was added to the Constitution. Still, the concept of a free press has been applied to all these forms of communication. Broadcasters have First Amendment rights but, because the frequency spectrum is limited and people do not have equal access to the broadcast medium, their right of free expression is not identical to that of published or spoken communication. Broadcasters are considered public trustees of the airwaves and must serve the people -- for example, by carrying a certain amount of programming devoted to news and public issues. |
Virtually all writers on constitutional freedoms express their belief that the media should be free from coercion by those in positions of power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
why should they just be judged on their music? they certainly dont sell themselves on just their music. they sell their ideals, they sell their ass, they sell their sense of fashion. so why the hell do I have to go around and be blind to it when it DOESN'T help them.
and beyond that. its completely inane to place restrictions on the decision making process of consumers. u must be some ridiculous socialist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
so which company is gna pay to keep arnette employed so they can lose money? which part of the democratic process is that?
so is arnette because of his opinion now guarenteed work cuz we're all afraid that if we dont pay for him to express his opinions we are denying his freedom of speech? that is such a ludicrous ideal.
ur right in that the nations media is only as objective as the populace demands. but as long as its a public company there is no other way to do it.
and freedom of press is often reffered to as opposed to a gov't censorship, not that against a public company acting in its own interests.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
This isn't about Peter Arnetts freedom of speech, its his employment.
Nothing that NBC did violated Peters first amendment rights. He said it... and thats fine. Some people disliked that he did, and ultimately, he was fired.
No amount of repeating '1st amendment rights' will change the fact that this is an employment issue, and that NBC and NG are free to hire and fire him, as they wish.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2003 00:29
I like the ironic humour of that site. Have you been watching Michael Moore or what?
expect to try a New Zealander in Baghdad for treason? 
|