Posted on 05/30/2018 9:09:46 AM PDT by reaganaut1
ABC had every right to dump her, and political correctness was not involved. In case you haven’t heard, Roseanne Barr did something really awful and stupid on Tuesday morning.
In a now-deleted tweet, Barr made a racist comment about former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, saying that she was like the “Muslim brotherhood and Planet of the Apes had a baby.” A matter of hours later, her hit ABC sitcom was canceled.
There’s no denying that what Barr said was racist, or that she was dumb for having said it. She has since apologized, and has probably also reached the conclusion that it wasn’t worth it. In all honesty, I’ve never understood why people aren’t more careful on social media. I’ve always sarcastically said that the best thing about Twitter is that not only do you not get paid for your tweets, but you can also get fired for them. It really is one of the more idiotic ways to ruin a career, and I can never make sense of it whenever it happens.
But what’s done is done, and there’s no turning back. She was fired, and she deserved to be fired. Her comment was racist and unacceptable, and I would not want someone who had made that kind of comment representing my company, either. It really seems that simple to me, but oddly enough, I’ve actually seen some conservatives defending her — saying that her firing is an example of the rampant political correctness that flies in the face of free speech — and honestly, this is something that I just can’t understand.
First of all, this is in no way a free-speech or First Amendment issue. The First Amendment protects us from facing consequences from the government over our speech, not consequences from our peers or our employers.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Of course it is deniable. When you say something negative about a non-Caucasian, it is not automatically racist. If the comment was not based on race, it was not racist. In this case, the comment was based on the targets background and appearance, neither of which were race based.
Why does Rosanne get roasted for one bad joke for which she has apologized? Michelle Wolf said some truly heinous things about Sarah Huckabee-Sanders and she was applauded for it. Wolf has bragged about her verbal cruelty and never apologized.
Cancelling a #1 show, which brings in millions?
This is ABC cutting their own throat with their policy of "political correctness uber alles"
Who cares? Bush ain't black. There has never been a long-standing insulting comparison of apes and white people. I'm sorry, but any halfway intelligent person knows better than to compare blacks with apes.
A couple of generations ago saying anything that pissed off the HUAC or the American Legion would get you fired and any TV or movie you were working on would disassociate themselves from you. My professors were almost all still bitter about the blacklists of the anti-communist era, and the left is still all about payback.
Maybe her life and not just her livelihood was threatened.
Jarret was the one who spoke of payback.
We know their side kills for payback.
Do you have any idea how much Black Panther took in at the box office? Over $1.3 billion. With two sequels in the works plus Star Wars plus everything else then anything that might jeopardize them isn't worth the cost. So far as Disney is concerned the few million Roseanne brings in through ABC is chump change compared to the hit their other projects might take from a boycott.
Why was it wrong?
” you cannot call someone of African descent a monkey... EVER. Anyone asking why, is shamefully and woefully ignorant of our history, which includes making fun of African people by portraying them as apes”
And that is reality. Anyone who doesn’t ‘get it’ is like someone complaining that they can’t march through Compton in a Klan outfit- technically you can, but you will get zero sympathy for the consequences. Lots of things in society I don’t like; some left, some right; lots of things I can’t say or do without losing my job. BFD.
This is not about a paycheck, this is about a production contract for services.
In any case, a person contracting does not have a right to falsely pin a contractee with libelous charges. What Iger and Redstone did was to slander Barr. If they had terminated her pending contract for cause and remained silent, that would have been different. As it stands now she may, but probably won’t, sue them.
A business needs to defend its bottom line. If they terminate a contract based on a perception that the contract can adversely affect their bottom line, then they need to say the standard boilerplate line:
“Our contract with Ms. Barr is under review/rescinded. We have no further comment.”
Instead, Iger and Redstone, both repulsive liberal democrats kissing up to liberal elites, felt the need to not only terminate her contract but to stick it to her good and hard.
In my accounting, Iger and Redstone need to be driven from the field, shamed and ridiculed, never to be allowed back to carry on their diatribes. Do they have free speech too? Of course, they do but they have no right to slander. They had the right to terminate her for cause. They had no right to besmirch her in public.
The F*** it isn't! And of course this drivel comes from National Review.
So what, Black panther did great, Solo in the Star Wars franchise is lucky to break even, and with Roseanne's firing they have pissed off a lot of people with their double standard of keeping Joy Behar and Jimmy Kimmel on their payroll.
You must have been a never Trumper, you have the same mentality.
I'm sure they feel that they didn't piss off as many people keeping them as the would have pissed off by keeping Roseanne.
You must have been a never Trumper, you have the same mentality.
Because I can see through the BS and spot what Disney is really concerned about? I wouldn't have put that down as a never Trumper attribute.
Trump won, get over it.
This is where I am at now too. The era of Obama has given me "racism" fatigue.
> “No it isn’t. Your employer is not obligated to respect your rights to free speech.”
Iger is not her employer. She’s a corporation, not an employee. She’s worth more than $80 million.
Iger and Redstone have the right to terminate her contract according to the terms of the contract. All such contracts have boilerplate provisions that pertain to cancellation for cause, for issues that bring discredit, etc.
But she has the right to Free Speech.
And Iger/Redstone have the right to terminate her, But they don’t have the right to slander her. Their slander causes damage to her corporation. It’s actionable.
She would sue them because what she said is not racist. They said in the press that her comments were racist, No they were not. The Planet of the Apes has main characters that are White Apes, the film is not a racist film. The film’s theme is that the apes in the film were incapable of rendering justice, similar to Islam. Her statement could be construed as anti-Islamic, but not racist.
My bet is she won’t sue them because she doesn’t need them. They need her more than she needs them. Their enterprise is dying, their brands are dying. Barr is rich beyond what most Americans can even dream. She has and will continue to have a fine life. Her contract termination is actually a blessing because of the contract’s principals who are out of touch, biased and bigoted. Eventually, with persons like Iger and Redstone, there would have been a bumping of heads. That it happened sooner is not surprising.
The individual making that public statement irritated the boss and got fired for it. She is free to make that statement again today if she likes. I do not think it inappropriate to insist on the same standards for the NFL. And I agree with the others here who have pointed out the double standard.
I regard the broadcasting industry in a different light. Their wealth and power was built on a government provided monopoly of a public asset (airwaves) and so they are not just someone's business, they are of vital importance to the well being of the nation.
The nation cannot allow restrictions of speech to exist on systems of mass communications. Our system of elections depends on hearing differing opinions to arrive at our electoral decisions, and an ability to censor one side of the political debate is effectively election tampering in my opinion.
The very purpose for which the founders included "freedom of speech" in the US constitution will be rendered null and void if we allow communications companies to exercise veto power over speech they don't like.
Our very system of governance is being threatened here, and I ask that people be perceptive enough to see it.
I’ve seen her referred to more as a lizard or a ferret, rather than an ape.
Censoring dissident speech through the control of the public airwaves looks very much like a "free speech" issue to me.
ABC cancelled their business relationship with her over her comments. That's business, and not a First Amendment issue.
But she has the right to Free Speech.
And she exercised that right without the government taking any steps to prevent her, though right about now she might be wishing that they had.
And Iger/Redstone have the right to terminate her, But they don’t have the right to slander her. Their slander causes damage to her corporation. It’s actionable.
Then sue them. But she has to be able to prove that what Iger/Redstone said was false and that they knew it was false when they said it. How do you think she'll be able to prove that?
She would sue them because what she said is not racist.
In her opinion and yours perhaps. But it'd be interesting to see her try and convince a jury of that.
My bet is she won’t sue them because she doesn’t need them.
I don't think she'll sue them either, but not for the same reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.