Juan Williams fired

[HankD]

NPR fired Juan Wlliams for remarks made on FOX News.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737


HankD

 

[Scarlett O.]

Williams responded: "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

A black man citing that he gets nervous when he is on a plane and sees traditional Muslims dressed in traditional attire. There may be a lot of people who feel that way. Even some traditional Muslims themselves. Who knows? But it has to run through people's minds. It's only been 9 years.

Late Wednesday night, NPR issued a statement praising Williams as a valuable contributor but saying it had given him notice that it is severing his contract. "His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR," the statement read.

Undermined his credibility as a news analyst?

Ah, freedom of speech. Only afforded to those who think like the machine tells you to think.

 

[Steven2006]

Ah, freedom of speech. Only afforded to those who think like the machine tells you to think.

I don't think they should have fired him, but this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I don't think they should have fired him, but this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Well Steven, he wasn't free to speak without losing job because he spoke freely.

What was this about?

 

[Steven2006]

Well Steven, he wasn't free to speak without losing job because he spoke freely.

What was this about?

Freedom of speech is the right to speak without government interference. It has nothing to do with private employment. He was free to say whatever he wanted to, his employer has the right to set certain standards that their employees must comply with.

If the government would have threatened him for what he had said you would have a point about freedom of speech.

"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."

.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Freedom of speech is the right to speak without government interference. It has nothing to do with private employment. He was free to say whatever he wanted to, his employer has the right to set certain standards that their employees must comply with.

If the government would have threatened him for what he had said you would have a point about freedom of speech.

But since NPR gets funding from the government both directly and indirectly, it is the government that has limited his free speech rights. They have said that he has opinions they don't want others to hear.

 

[Steven2006]

But since NPR gets funding from the government both directly and indirectly, it is the government that has limited his free speech rights. They have said that he has opinions they don't want others to hear.

I guess a court would have to decide that. I view it as he is free from any law to say what he wants. He is not in any legal trouble for saying what he did, so his freedom is still intact.

I want to clarify, I think it was a bad decision for them to fire him, I just don't see it as a freedom of speech issue.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I guess a court would have to decide that. I view it as he is free from any law to say what he wants. He is not in any legal trouble for saying what he did, so his freedom is still intact.

I want to clarify, I think it was a bad decision for them to fire him, I just don't see it as a freedom of speech issue.

But if you take away his right to earn a living - at least on NPR - you are taking away his right to speak. I understand that you believe that it was a wrong decision. I am not certain that it is a free speech issue either, but NPR seemingly only allows poltically correct regular commentators.

I think it was probably more about Williams involvement with Fox news and their political slant, which is certainly not to their liking.

 

[Steven2006]

I would also add, that I don't know what NPR's policy was, or even if their was one in place that applies here. I don't know if there is any precedent withing NPR for something similar, or if there were any memos or warning in the past about this to their employees. What does all that mean? IMO if Juan Williams has a gripe it might very well be for wrongful termination based on if he in fact did or didn't do something wrong according to NPR's policies. But it still isn't a freedom of speech issue.

 

[Scarlett O.]

NPR IS funded to a small degree BY the federal government. It's probably less than 5% or 8%, but they are funded nonetheless. So part of his salary, albeit a small degree, is funded by the federal government.

I taught civics and American history. I know what the first amendment says. But you don't have to be standing on the steps of the Capitol Building to be speaking to, for, about, in concert, against, the government.

Juan Williams was not fired because he defied a policy of not saying anything bad about Muslims. He was fired because his views were opposite of that of the present administration and the politically correct left who is IN CHARGE of the government at this time.

And they are a mouthpiece for the present administration.

They fired Juan Williams because he said that specifically on the Bill O'Reilly programs and FOX news and they do not wish to be associated with them. I'm not a supporter of Bill O'Reilly. I personally think he is a narcissistic fruitloop.

They support the Westboro Baptist Church in their freedom of speech to protest at soldier's funerals. Fred Phelps and his crazy crew aren't protesting or speaking out against the government. They are USING the funeral of a U.S. soldier to speak out against homosexuality.

I'll be RIGHT BACK with that link.

 

[Steven2006]

But if you take away his right to earn a living - at least on NPR - you are taking away his right to speak. I understand that you believe that it was a wrong decision. I am not certain that it is a free speech issue either, but NPR seemingly only allows poltically correct regular commentators.

"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."

I don't see where the right to earn a living from a specific employer applies to the wording of our freedom of speech rights.

I think it was probably more about Williams involvement with Fox news and their political slant, which is certainly not to their liking.

I think you could very well be right, and depending on the wording of his contract with NPR, and the wording of their policy for employment he might have a legal case for wrongful termination. But he still is in no legal trouble because of what he said, he is very free to say it over and over again if he chooses.

 

[Steven2006]

NPR IS funded to a small degree BY the federal government. It's probably less than 5% or 8%, but they are funded nonetheless. So part of his salary, albeit a small degree, is funded by the federal government.

I taught civics and American history. I know what the first amendment says. But you don't have to be standing on the steps of the Capitol Building to be speaking to, for, about, in concert, against, the government.

Juan Williams was not fired because he defied a policy of not saying anything bad about Muslims. He was fired because his views were opposite of that of the present administration and the politically correct left who is IN CHARGE of the government at this time.

And they are a mouthpiece for the present administration.

They fired Juan Williams because he said that specifically on the Bill O'Reilly programs and FOX news and they do not wish to be associated with them. I'm not a supporter of Bill O'Reilly. I personally think he is a narcissistic fruitloop.

They support the Westboro Baptist Church in their freedom of speech to protest at soldier's funerals. Fred Phelps and his crazy crew aren't protesting or speaking out against the government. They are USING the funeral of a U.S. soldier to speak out against homosexuality.

I'll be RIGHT BACK with that link.

They don't employ Phelps, and they aren't saying Williams doesn't have the right to say anything. What they are saying he can't represent them while doing so. He still has the freedom to say it.

 

[Steven2006]

Let me ask this. If after 9-11 someone that worked in the white house directly under president Bush said publicly that he thought that we (USA) were responsible for the attack and was fired for that view, would you feel that his freedom of speech had been taken from him?

 

[Scarlett O.]

From http://www.vpr.net/npr/130357711/

Free-Speech Advocates Back Church

Phelps and his church are backed in this case by a wide variety of conservative and liberal law professors, by every major media organization in the country, including NPR, and by the American Civil Liberties Union. All deplore his message but defend his right to say even odious things.
"The First Amendment really was designed to protect a debate at the fringes," says ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro. "You don't need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with, because that speech will be tolerated. You need a First Amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable or outrageous or offensive -- because that is when the majority will wield its power to censor or suppress, and we have a First Amendment to prevent the government from doing that."

From http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripe...ps-side-with-westboro-baptist-church-1.111300

While not defending the Westboro Baptist Church’s actions, 22 organizations took the church’s side in a "friend of the court" brief filed Wednesday with the Supreme Court.

They argue that speech cannot be deemed too offensive to be protected by the First Amendment. But the crux of the media organization’s argument seems to be that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Snyder’s father, it will open the door to allowing people to sue news organizations for coverage and commentary that they don’t like.
The news organizations that signed onto the brief are:

• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
• ALM Media LLC
• The American Society of News Editors
• The Associated Press
• The Association of American Publishers Inc.
• Bloomberg LP
• The Citizen Media Law Project
• Dow Jones & Company Inc.
• The E.W. Scripps Company
• The First Amendment Coalition
• The First Amendment Project
• The Hearst Corporation
• The Media Institute
• The National Press Club
• The National Press Photographers Association
• The New York Times Company
• Newspaper Association of America
• Newspaper Guild –CWA
• NPR Inc.
• The Radio Television Digital News Association
• The Society of Professional Journalists
• Tribune Company

So, while NPR hates the "Thank God for a dead soldier" speech and other homophobic hate speech at funerals, they will defend their right to say it because they don't want to be sued by anyone in the private sector for saying something that that might be construed as offensive.

And Juan Williams can't say that Muslims in traditional clothing on a plane make him nervous sometimes.

I'd like to see the policy in Juan's contract that say, "Thou canst not say anything about the clothing of Muslims and it's connection with your nervous system."

I'd like to see the policy that even comes close.

 

[Steven2006]

From http://www.vpr.net/npr/130357711/



From http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripe...ps-side-with-westboro-baptist-church-1.111300



So, while NPR hates the "Thank God for a dead soldier" speech and other homophobic hate speech at funerals, they will defend their right to say it because they don't want to be sued by anyone in the private sector for saying something that that might be construed as offensive.

And Juan Williams can't say that Muslims in traditional clothing on a plane make him nervous sometimes.

I'd like to see the policy in Juan's contract that say, "Thou canst not say anything about the clothing of Muslims and it's connection with your nervous system."

I'd like to see the policy that even comes close.

NPR doesn't employ Phelps and if they had at one point I am sure he would have been fired a long time ago, but still free to say what he chooses.

As far as what their policy says or doesn't say. I have addressed this already. He may have a case against them for wrongful termination. That still has nothing to do with whether he has the right in this country to say what he did. His right is still intact to do so.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Let me ask this. If after 9-11 someone that worked in the white house directly under president Bush said publicly that he thought that we (USA) were responsible for the attack and was fired for that view, would you feel that his freedom of speech had been taken from him?

Yes, I would. (You are probably going to come along and tell that this really happened :laugh

People say things all of the time in the heat of the moment and even on camera that they regret later. But if this hypothetical person publicly and in opposition to his boss, the president, continued in that which he KNEW was defiance of his boss's authority, then he could be fired.

Why couldn't NPR have chastised Juan Williams and explained to him that if he continued in supporting this concept that was not politically correct in THEIR viewpoint, then he would be fired. What he said was sooooooo benign that I don't see how there COULD be a policy that prevented him from saying that. But I don't know. Maybe there was.

I just feel that they fired him rashly because his viewpoint was given on a conservative station and was opposed to the liberal administation which they support and are supported by financially.

 

[Steven2006]

Yes, I would. (You are probably going to come along and tell that this really happned :laugh

No, ha ha, just made it up. But is still wouldn't be a freedom of speech issue :laugh:

Why couldn't NPR have chastised Juan Williams and explained to him that if he continued in supporting this concept that was not politically correct in THEIR viewpoint, then he would be fired. What he said was sooooooo benign that I don't see how there COULD be a policy that prevented him from saying that. But I don't know. Maybe there was.

I just feel that they fired him rashly because his viewpoint was given on a conservative station and was opposed to the liberal administation which they support and are supported by financially.

I agree with all you said, but all those things would apply to wrongful termination, and a potential civil case, not his freedom of speech.

I have an appointment so I have to leave for now. Here is you homework :laugh:




"Congress shall make no law .......abridging the freedom of speech,...."


Explain to me how the above has happened to him.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Let me ask this. If after 9-11 someone that worked in the white house directly under president Bush said publicly that he thought that we (USA) were responsible for the attack and was fired for that view, would you feel that his freedom of speech had been taken from him?

Actually, a Presidential advisor serves at the pleasure of the president. He can be terminated for almost any cause. He is not hired to give his opinion if it differs from the President. That is an understanding that anyone who is hired by any administration understands. Of course, that person would immediately be hired by almost all of the main street media people and given a multi-million dollar advance on a book deal. :tear:

The analogy breaks down because Williams was hired to express opinion and report news. Opinion is what he gave.

Like I said earlier, I am not certain that his 1st amendment rights have been abridged. His firing says more about NPR than about free speech rights.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I have an appointment so I have to leave for now. Here is you homework :laugh:




"Congress shall make no law .......abridging the freedom of speech,...."


Explain to me how the above has happened to him.

Oh no we have a CTB wannabe. :laugh:

 

[Scarlett O.]

I have an appointment so I have to leave for now. Here is you homework :laugh:




"Congress shall make no law .......abridging the freedom of speech,...."


Explain to me how the above has happened to him.

Do I have to turn my homework in on paper? :flower:

No, there is nothing about Congress and laws and Juan Williams.

There is also nothing about Congress and laws and the Snyder/Phelps case.

It's just two private individuals who are are hostile odds with each other over what one of them said to the other.

CASE AT A GLANCE​

Albert Snyder, father of Matthew Snyder, a Marine killed in Iraq, obtained a $5 million tort damages award from a minister and church that protested against societal tolerance towards homosexuals and the moral decay of American society by picketing at Matthew’s funeral and posting material on the church website. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in setting aside that verdict as a violation of the minister and church’s First Amendment free speech rights.​

This may squeak by as a "right to peaceably assemble" part of the First Amendment, but it certainly isn't about Fred Phelps free speech as far as "Congress making no law prohibiting......" Congress isn't involved here. It's just two private citizens angry with each other. Mr. Snyder sued and won and Fred Phelps thinks that violated his free speech.​

Well, Congress certainly didn't make a law against what he said.​

Apparently the Supreme Court thinks it is possibly about free speech or else they wouldn't be hearing the appeal.​

The American Bar Association thinks it's about free speech. Look at their link under "Freedom of Speech Week" and famous court cases.​

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/nationalfreedomofspeechweek/home.shtml#supreme​

And the National Public Radio and 21 other media organizations also believe this case between Mr. Snyder and Mr. Phelps is about the violation of freedom speech (I listed those above).​

I understand exactly what you are saying in your interpretation of the First Amendment.​

But where do we draw the line? Defamatory speech, incitement speech, and lots of other types of speeches have already been deemed to be against the law. But we say Congress (governments) can make no law....or at least some lawyers interpret that to mean you can say what you darn well please at anytime.​

And what Juan Williams said was not for incitement, for defamation, nor was it seditious. Those things being against the law.​

One would think that the issue wouldn't be so vague.

So, if a private citizen hurting the feelings of another private citizen and getting sued for it IS an issue of freedom of speech, why isn't the private citizen voicing a benign opinion while not on the clock and losing his job over it not an issue of freedom of speech?

I truly understand everything that you say. I just am being a tad ornery this afternoon.

​