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 ...
But we digress...
” 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. “
Come on, now. I’ve read many of your posts, some I agree with and some I disagree with, but with the end of the broadcast airwaves this argument is invalid.
The freedom of the press is limited to those that own one. I do *NOT* want government, at any level, in any way, for any reason nor within any context to tell any ‘content provider’ what then can or cannot say. That goes for Facebook, Fox, Pinterest, HBO or any other medium other than the publicly owned electromagnetic waves.
Sure, when we had a limited spectrum of radio and TV it made sense that since monopolies were the only way to make them useable that they be treated as a commons of sort, but Google, Facebook and cable channels are under no more obligation, legal or moral, to even acknowledge content they don’t care to than FR is to present the Marxist side of discussions about Venezuela.
I personally oppose pretty much any censorship when done by any entity of the state, and for exactly the reasons you explicate well, but if I create a channel of communications and you (directly or indirectly) pay for it then I can and will darned well ‘cast what I wish and the devil take anyone who thinks I need to present an opposing viewpoint.
Respectfully
I respectfully disagree.
If I built Twitter or the next big social media tool, I have no obligation to provide free speech. If I am a company that will end up wasting millions to defend a contract employee’s stupid speech, I should be free to fire that person.
The Constitution covers government. It has nothing (well, very little to do) with capitalism.
I like Roseanne. I thought her show was funny. But, ABC can hire or fire whomever they want, for whatever reason.
What I would “like to see” is irrelevant, unless I am a shareholder.
Well if there is not a double standard at ESPN and ABC, explain the hiring, once again, of Keith Olberman. I have seen some of his tweets and if that is a standard then he can’t be there along with a number of other people.
“Parent(s)? Not true.”
That’s not what Wiki says.
The first one was good. The rest of the first round ranged from amusing to back-of-the room trivia. You have not missed much.
You are forgiven. Ha ha.
Oh look, Phil D still trying to figure out how to post on a computer.
Who do you suppose Lincoln's backers were?
But they were far outnumbered by millions of everyday Americans—people who weren't "getting rich on slave money"—who were willing to send hundreds of thousands of their sons and fathers to die fighting the South
I was just thinking about this aspect earlier today. Abraham Lincoln manipulated events so that he could get family to turn against family; To get brother killing brother. How can that be anything but evil?
For what were each side fighting? Well one side was fighting because they were being invaded by people who intended to force them to Obey Washington DC. The Other side was fighting because Washington DC ordered them to enforce their control on people who did not want it.
Abraham Lincoln could have decided that nobody was going to fight against their family to keep control over people who wanted to be separate, but he decided to pit family against family to gain control over a people whom he first tried to bribe with further protections for slavery, and then sent force to subdue them. (Sumter War expedition)
and fight for the Righteous Cause of ending Slavery...
And which could not have been ended by any legal means at that time. I have also come to realize that ending it was more about breaking the power base of the South than it was about any concern for the people themselves.
Slaves were just props for the power grab.
What is the fun in doing otherwise? I personally think that every topic is connected with every other. It is a human trait to lump things into categories and pretend they are separate things when in fact all is connected to all else.
Racist, but accurate.
‘Their comments were out of bounds, wholly unnecessary.’
Maybe, but they did...
‘Instead, they sought to punish, to damage her brand.’
again, likely so but it’s hard to see how someone who has acknowledged her error in judgement and apologized for it would feel entitled to a slander redress...
Oh really?
They did not have the right to claim she’s a racist which she is not. By going out of bounds to call her a racist, they slandered her and damaged her brand.
They say she is, she says she is not. I'll look forward to seeing her try and prove her point in court.
She has causes of action against them but in my view, she won’t do anything against them because she doesn’t need them.
She can sue if she wants. But again she has to prove that Disney deliberately lied. Since who is racist and who is not seems to be a matter of opinion then it's hard to see how she proves her case.
She doesn’t have to prove that they knew what was said was false. It’s not about intention. It’s about damage. If you rear-end my car, I don’t need to show you knew before you did it that it was wrong to do it. I just show estimated damages.
Damage to your car is pretty cut and dried. Whether or not someone is racist is pretty open to interpretation.
It’s easy for her to show that her comments were not racist. As has been posted numerous times, the ape main characters in the Planet of the Apes were white.
How do you know Barr was referring to the movie and not the book?
A jury could see that easily.
I look forward to Barr proving you right.
You've already got that. By requiring a license to use the finite number of channels available, the government has forced all communications traffic into those available.
By giving control to some, they have removed it from others, effectively telling those outside the monopoly what they can not say on their channels.
That goes for Facebook, Fox, Pinterest, HBO or any other medium other than the publicly owned electromagnetic waves.
The government effectively owns the internet infrastructure. It's the same as "airwaves". That's why it's disposition falls under the FCC. (Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission.)
Sure, when we had a limited spectrum of radio and TV it made sense that since monopolies were the only way to make them useable that they be treated as a commons of sort, but Google, Facebook and cable channels are under no more obligation, legal or moral, to even acknowledge content they don’t care to than FR is to present the Marxist side of discussions about Venezuela.
And ponder for a moment, what happens when it is owned by one entity. What of "freedom of speech" then? Can our public be informed when "Mega-Corp" controls all communications and censors communications they don't like?
I don't think many of you have thought this through. We are heading into a very dangerous area here. The lines between government control of speech and pseudo government control of speech have been blurred.
I personally oppose pretty much any censorship when done by any entity of the state, and for exactly the reasons you explicate well, but if I create a channel of communications and you (directly or indirectly) pay for it then I can and will darned well ‘cast what I wish and the devil take anyone who thinks I need to present an opposing viewpoint.
What do you think of a private corporation buying up all the air, and then deciding which people may breath?
Respectfully
And to you as well.
‘Oh look, Phil D still trying to figure out how to post on a computer’
ha ha ha...
‘Slaves were just props for the power grab.’
quoting Alexander Stephens again...?
If ape comparisons are racist, can we use lizard comparisons?
You are correct. Her parents must be the whitest blacks ever though. She looks whiter than an Italian. I am darker than her, and I am German.
It’s not about her, it’s about them.
She’s been thrown in their fire and she wants out. What she’s doing now is not important.
Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) also was throwing in the towel at one point.
Worse attacks occurred to Tommy in the UK except they were much more severe yet he remained tough and defiant. The leftists in the UK could not break him so they went after his wife who was six months pregnant but she was also tough. Then when they finally forced him to a plea deal for a crime he did not commit, they asked him at the end of his sentence just before he was getting out to go free, he said he needed a break and he wouldn’t talk about Islam anymore. He was worried about what they would do to his family. They had succeeded in breaking him.
So what happened to him? The left in the UK continued attacking him, ruining his life, ruining all his businesses, everything. So he came to the realization that he would soon be dead, as they were plotting to murder him and had already tried on several occasions. Finally, he got over his fear of death and went back out reporting on Radical Islam.
So it is with Barr. She was thrown into the fire and she’s had enough, she wants to go back to her world of peace, tranquility. No one can’t blame her. It may happen that she gets her courage back. We will see but it doesn’t matter because it’s not about her anymore. It’s about them and what they do.
I’ll be honest with you, You’re not helping yourself here. Your acumen is not matched to the level of discussion you’re trying to carry on.
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.