Soygen wrote:

---

Maligzar wrote:

---

If she was getting paid by ESPN to do this then fine, I've got no problem with their actions.

If she was there for charity, freely giving of her own time, then no I'm sorry but this is bullshit. She has the right as an American to say really stupid things. Just because she's high profile doesn't exempt her from her constitutional right.

(Note: I'm laughing at you.)

You're a chubby jerk.

You still don't understand the whole Free Speech thing, apparently. She has a right, as an American, to avoid being persecuted by the government for things she says. Her employer may do as they seem fit. Especially when she does something on their network that they don't jive with.

Look don't chastize me I perfectly well understand the difference between a right provided to you by the Government and an employer's right to fire you. The fact of the matter is that the founding fathers never intended for corporations to hold so much power over the average individual.

She's a television personality working for a television station that has an image it wants to maintain. It doesn't matter what the venue was, it was in public and I'd be willing to bet her contract stipulates that she will do or say nothing in public that might be construed as being contrary to the image or interests of her employer. It's a clause that's pretty standard for most TV personalities as a save ass measure on the part of the company.

It's the price you pay for that sort of a position...and I'm sure she knows that.

peace,
Aielman

I guess we'll find that out. If she signed a contract like you stipulate then sure, I would have no problem with anything done as long as it's covered within the bounds of that cotnract. I outlined my perspective on the situation in a previous post so I'm not going to repeat it. If she's under contract not to do something like this then fine, if she's not then I have a problem with a corporation taking action against a person for what they do on their own private time.

You're probobly right, since I know my company doesn't let you volunteer without being a representative of it.

It's still an erosion of free speech. No one ever imagined that corporations would have more power than the government. I personally think it's something that we (the people) need to keep our eyes on in the upcoming years. As the government becomes more and more of a joke, someone is going to have to fill the power vacuum and I think it will be corporations.

Soygen wrote:

---

"The fact of the matter is that the founding fathers never intended for corporations to hold so much power over the average individual."

/laugh

Yeah, because she is forced to work for a huge corporation.

You're being intentionally obtuse in order to avoid the obvious point. I imagine it's just an attempt on your behalf to be clever, and not admit that you too are a little concerned with the amount of power which corporations control. There is certainly a lot more fun in posting with a laissez-faire attitude about it.

So if you replace corporation with the word "government" I suppose your reply would be: "Yeah, because she is forced to live in this country."

In today's world we're forced to do a lot of things that were never imagined 200 years ago. No one is holding a gun to your head like back then, but the evils of the world have found more than enough ways to exploit the average person without the need of violence. We are then forced into situations because we have no real other option. Corporations have done a remarkable job of controlling the media, to mold a culture, which is specifically reliant on the services that corporations provide. People go along with it because at first it seems so easy, so quick, give up a little liberty and get a lot of convenience in return. Much like the destruction of our environment (which I know isn't really happening either) corporations have a complete strangle hold over almost every aspect of our lives and they are just continuing to squeeze. By the time most people notice it's already going to be too late.

Physic FormerlyHasRez wrote:

---

free speech != consequence free speech




the founding fathers never intended your right to free speech to not permit consequences.

Yes they did, remove the "you can't yell fire in a crowded place" red herring and yes this is exactly what they meant. Get your soap box, stand on it, speak your mind. I find it sad that as an American you don't recognize this right, and are OK with it being erroded away by corporations and special interest groups.