a layman's explanation of "free speech", as it relates to the current Imus situation.

[Lerkfish]

Many people misinterpret and misunderstand the first amendment, and the framers themselves
could not have anticipated future usage, but, in a practical nutshell, here it is
in laymen's terms, the right of "free speech"....

You have, within limitations, the right to free speech.

That doesn't mean you have the right to say anything you wish on someone else's board, or network or radio station.
but rather you have the right to speak freely on your *own* board, as that is
owned by you, and as publisher, you can publish as you wish.

However, be prepared to defend yourself in a court of law if necessary, if anything you
say can be considered defamatory, slanderous, libelous or inciting to violence.

Further, your right to free speech cannot occlude another's right...
as an extreme example, you cannot come onto a Jewish antidefamation League
message board or newspaper and spout Aryan brotherhood hate messages against Jews,
or place ads with such. You cannot
force them to carry such messages on their board or paper to "protect" your free speech.
You can, however, start your own Aryan brotherhood board, but even
then, the above limitations apply.

The misperception many have is that an internet message board or the airwaves is "free" for open discussion,
but in fact, whatever remains is there at the largesse of the owner of said board or media outlet.
They have the ultimate right to delete or ban or hire or fire whatever or whoever they wish.
For example, at a newspaper, just because an advertiser has the money,
and wishes to advertise a local nudie bar, the publisher can still refuse to
run the ad if it so desires, or require that photos of nude dancers cannot be depicted.
That is the publisher's right to do so.

Where the first amendment comes in, in theory, is to protect the press from
being strongarmed by government to not publish certain truths or be induced
to publish what it knows not to be true under governmental pressure.

Therefore, it IS a first amendment question if you want to start a porn site,
and you are protected, within limits. However, if you come onto someone else's board or television station
and feel you must post profanity, and they decide they DON"T want that, they are perfectly within their rights
to do so, and you actually have NO rights to expect your message to remain.

[peacetalksforall]

1. Well said. A DU recommendation - I believe mods who delete

someone's message should include a link to this member's contribution that is parked somewhere on the site.

That is, after it is vetted by admin and with input from members.

I think it might serve to sooth raw feelings, probably generated because of defecient knowledge, misinterpretation, lack of awareness. There is a feeling of policing sometimes. After a person takes the time to write something that takes a little time and the result goes poof, there is resentment (unless, perhaps, the writer did it purposely).


DU - please consider linking this to deleted messages for practical and softening purposes.

(With permission of the writer.)

[Lerkfish]

4. thanks, you'd have my permission.

[peacetalksforall]

2. Kick

[NormanYorkstein]

3. excellent, and one more point about public airwaves

The airwaves belong to the public, and media companies are granted a license to broadcast over those airwaves. It's the public's right to revoke those licenses if we don't like what the broadcaster is doing. That's different than hard copy press, the internet, cable, and satellite radio.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Here's how it works.

If you have a job, and some black females customers walk in, and you call them "nappy headed hoes," your boss has the right to fire you from that job.

[BurtWorm]

6. According to the USSC, your boss has the obligation to take some action

to prevent you from engaging in more hate speech.

http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/queerlaw/msg02856.html

On-the-Job Slurs Not Free Speech

By RICHARD CARELLI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Rejecting a free-speech appeal from the nation's
second-largest car rental company, the Supreme Court today refused to let
an Avis employee use ethnic epithets at his San Francisco International
Airport job.

The justices left intact a ruling in which the California Supreme Court
said an Avis Rent a Car service station manager who harassed co-workers
with bigoted words could be ordered to stop using such language at work in
the future.

Today's action, taken over Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent, set no
national precedent. But it left standing a decision Avis lawyers said
gives California judges "astounding'' new power to impose prior restraints
on speech.

The challenged ruling "obliterates fundamental free-speech guarantees,
concluding that racially offensive speech is constitutionally unprotected
and can be banned in advance in the workplace,'' the Avis lawyers said.

The Avis appeal did not challenge a jury's finding that both Avis and
station manager John Lawrence illegally discriminated against Hispanics
employed as drivers to move rental cars between parking lots and check-in
and service areas.

The company and Lawrence had been sued by 17 Hispanic employees in 1993.
The lawsuit said Lawrence's treatment of them - constantly calling them
vulgar and derogatory names based on their ethnicity and lack of English
skills - violated the state Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The lawsuit accused Avis of doing nothing to stop Lawrence.

Click here to go back to the main forums.

[Lerkfish]

7. self-kick, and thanks everyone

[spooky3]

8. this is great; thank you!