Replies

Humm, I don't recall ANYBODY in the media taking this position when baseball's John Rocker got hounded into an suspention for his Sports Illustrated comments and almost lost his job.

The key word in that sentence is "almost".

Or, when Dr. Laura got hounded off television by the gay rights organizations.

Dr. Laura is no longer on television because of poor ratings and for no other reason. If people had watched, she'd still be on.

From your home page.....

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever. " - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

I probably fit in the 'obscurity' class, but when do (did) you become 'Glorious?'

"The key word in that sentence is "almost"

Just as this professor has not lost his job either. There were many more people calling for Rocker to be fired than there have been for this professor. I don't recall anyone in the media trying to defend Rocker's freedom of speech or disagreeing with those who wanted him fired. My point still stands.

So, This "reporter" should not have made these comments until the professor got fired? It seems to me he has not been fired yet (i.e., he has not even "almost" lost his job). Therefore, people calling for him to be fired is not censorship, just as people calling for the ouster of John Rocker was not cencorship.

Does this "reporter" then believe that I can come to work and call asian-americans "gooks" and not be fired? After all, I have a free-speech right to say unpopular things, and there should be a law that I cannot be fired for saying such things. Of course, my employer could be continually sued for not stopping me, but the free-speech law would not allow them to fire or discipline me. This is brilliant. I geuss I could walk up to the president of the company and call him an **shole and be protected by the free-speech job guarantee law. What a wonderful world this would be.

Or, as I would surmise, does the reporter believe that only certain opinions should be protected with this free-speech job-guarantee law? I.e., he and his liberal friends would decide what speech deserves the job-guarantee protection. I wonder.