I’m not one for wild, lyrical ranting about goat-felching and the like, so please recall your favorite invectives and consider them incorporated by reference.
I am amazed at the number of ignorant posters - or, possibly, idiotic posters - that come along and offer up some version of this sentiment:
Somehow, the First Amendment’s guarantee against government censorship of speech has magically expanded, in this poster’s mind, to become a talisman against any action that curtails anyone’s speech.
Some variety of this nonsense is offered at least weekly - outraged poster points to a private entity of some kind exercising editorial control of some kind, and bemoans the fact that the First Amendment is being flouted. Less often, the same sort of woeful confusion befalls the Fourth Amendment, as some private entity conducts an intrusive search.
The Constitution does not protect you from ME. If I own a newspaper, I decide what’s written in it, and the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee you any rights to publish your views in it. If I run a message board, I decide what’s written on it, and the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee you any rights to publish your views on it. If I own a television station or a network, then I etc etc etc.
Get it?
Stop whining about the First Amendment unless you’re complaining about government action.
Well, from what I’ve been reading, it seems Arnett was fired NOT because his bosses took exception to what he said, but because of external pressure from… the government. In point of fact, his employers supported Arnett’s views up until pressure was applied.
Lemme go get some cites so no one calls me names. Back in a few.
This is from today’s story, and it’s referencing a separate incident, but “pressure from the Pentagon” certainly implies that it was the government, and not CNN, that took exception to Arnett’s allegations there.
NBC initially made this statement about this incident:
Now it seems NBC is not so happy with Arnett’s allegations. Why? It seems to me that NBC must have had some external pressure to change their position.
First of all, there is not one shred of evidence (other, apparently, than “it seems to you”) that there was any governmental pressure in this case.
Secondly, in the sarin case, the pressure from the Pentagon was for CNN to correct the facts of their story. Arnett made a claim that was simply untrue. It is not a violation of the First Amendment for the government to strongly deny a lie, especially a lie that imputes criminal action to government officials.
In any case, the OP point still stands. It’s like whenever someone like Michael Moore gets blasted and then someone jumps in to defend him using the First Amendment. That whole argument just doesn’t make any sense, as the people blasting him are private entities. You have the right to say anything you like, other private entities have the right to take action/say something in response, and the First Amendment doesn’t matter at all unless the government is involved.
Congrats! You’re demonstrating both the first amendment misunderstanding the OP cites AND shoddy support at the SAME TIME! The Govt. telling a network that they object to a report they claim is untrue is very different from the govt. shutting him down. Especially when there’s a LOT of indication that he was knowingly full of shit and the Govt. was quite correct in demanding he be held accountable for his actions:
As for the second quote, I’m gonna guess the “external pressure” which you’re assuming (i.e. it’s not in the cite but your personal conclusion) more likely came from advertisers and viewers than the ‘evil empire’ government.
I have heard an AWFUL lot of folks 'round the water cooler today (from all over the spectrum) who are PO’d at Arnett to the point of not choosing to watch a network that has him on. That alone is just as plausible a reason for the network dumping him as some nefarious government plot.
Just want to point out that I don’t think that LifeOnWry is making the constitutional mistake - just a mistake of fact.
In other words, if the government did threaten NBC with arrests, unfavorable licensing treatment, or similar extra-legal tactics, then that WOULD be skirting the First Amendment. From what I gather of LifeOnWry’s comments, he or she is positing just that.
So there’s no constitutional mistake – just a leap of logic that makes Fonzie’s jump over the shark look like a kid’s hopscotch game.
Exactly.
Things that would be First Amendment violations:
The government decides it doesn’t like the New York Times editorial policy, raids the place and smashes the presses.
Michael Moore gets arrested for calling GWB an idiot.
Rush Limbaugh gets arrested for calling Clinton an idiot.
NOT examples of First Amendment violation:
A government official says “I don’t particularly like your editorial policy.”
You decide not to go to any Michael Moore movies.
The local movie theater decides not to show Michael Moore movies because attendance is poor.
You decide not to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
A radio station decides not to carry Limbaugh’s show because ratings are dropping.
The school board suspends publication of the student newspaper. (School Board pays for and thus owns the publication.)
The local newspaper decides not to print your letter to the editor.
The local newspaper decides not to print any letters criticizing the Mayor. (Less than open journalism, but within their rights under the 1st Amendment).
A newspaper (or t.v. station or whatever) decides it will not accept a paid ad for a massage parlor.
I refuse to permit a local politician to put a sign on my lawn.
A newspaper decides not to print any news that differs from their editorial policy. (Again, not good journalism, but within their rights.)
Someone decides to buy (or not buy) a product because he likes (or doesn’t like) its spokesperson.
Commercial enterprise fires its spokesperson because they are losing business due to the above.
A library or bookstore decides it will not buy a particular book for any reason, including controversial content, political leanings, or whatever.
A publisher decides not to publish a particular book or type of book for whatever reason.
And on, and on.
Sorry to run on; this happens to be something that I find really irritating.
Here is an un-litigated, First Amendment issue just waiting for some eager U.S. Constitutional Lawyer:
A big conglomerate happens to have a division with a broadcast network and news bureau. An employee of this networks makes some unfavorable statements about the government or does something else that make the government unhappy. The government expresses its displeasure by refusing to contract with other divisions of the conglomerate.
The government has the legal right to select contractors based on a number of factors besides competitive bid. It could use the complicated Federal Procurement Regulations to free out the ultimate parent entity. For example, General Electric plastics, jet engines, nuclear weapon systems, etc. may no longer conform to “spec” or could be deemed to have manufacturing defects.
Bricker: I didn’t take that meaning from the post, but agree that if the government calls up CNN and says “You know that broadcasting license you need to stay in business? Ponder its upcoming renewal while you think about whether to keep Mr. Arnett employed…” then we can talk about some first amendment involement. Also agree that this idea and reality are not keeping company at the present…
Anyhow, I too find this issue irritating and stupid. But true “ignorance” is simple to fix by informing. It’s when I suspect WILLFUL ignorance that I get my hackles really up – it’s just too convenient for the whiny fucktards to cry “I have 1st amendment rights” anytime someone points out that what they’ve said is stupid, inappropriate, wrong or simply merits disagreement. It becomes a convenient shroud to cloak the real meaning: “Agree with whatever we say or you’re wrong!”
I have an example of a situation that ACTUALLY might involve 1st rights, but since this ain’t GD, I think I’ll just keep it in reserve for when this issue comes up there.
For large contract awards, the government’s selection process is subject to intense scrutiny - every contractor that bid and didn’t win will be looking for a way to protest the award.
In order to shield itself from work-stopping protests, selection often involves blind evaluation: the panel of evaluators must evaluate a particular portion of the technical proposal without knowing which bidder it came from.
I suppose it might be possible to subvert this – but that would mean that dozens, if not hundreds, of people would be in league with the conspiracy… not exactly fertile ground for keeping a secret.
And I dispute the idea that the FAR permits the government to award anything other than small 8(a)-type set-asides without relying on competitive bids. I agree that they have a right to award based on other than cost alone – they may set a “best value” standard an award to a higher-cost contractor if that contractor’s proposal represents the overall best value to the government - but that decision, based on OMB A-109 and its progeny, still requires competitive proposals; the government could not award to a competitor with less than best value.
I have always found it helpful to keep in mind that the first amendment exists to protect the “marketplace of ideas”. E.g., free speech or press is allowed so that the good people of our country can decide among themselves which ideas they want to accept or reject. In the same way that a crappy or overpriced product will fail, so will a bad idea, absent artificial government interference.
So, when a bunch of people get together and say they will boycott NBC until they take Ellen DeGeneres off the air, I may believe that they are ignorant half-wits, but they are merely participating in the marketplace of ideas. Since neither they nor NBC is the U.S. government, they can’t violate the first amendment. They can just make their opposition known.
Most of what you said made sense, but you lost me here. The press has a right to be wrong. If Arnett got his story wrong about what the US government did, then they’d be quite correct in requesting a retraction, a correction, whatever.
But they would not be correct in demanding anything; if they are in position to demand on the basis of legal (if factually incorrect) speech, then that gets into squidgy territory vis-a-vis the First Amendment.
And while the government is free to express its unhappiness, it’s not got the right, as I understand it, to insist that a media outlet get its facts straight. (If they had that power, Rush Limbaugh and a bunch of wannabes would have been off the air ages ago. Every cloud has its silver lining. ;))
I would love for people to have announced a boycott of NBC until Ellen Degeneres was taken off the air. Her first show was on ABC and her second on CBS.
First, let me clarify one thing. In responding to the OP, I was not defending Arnett’s actions. Bricker said that as a private company, NBC was not violating Arnett’s first amendment rights.
My point was that NBC did not fire Arnett for his actions, and in fact stood behind what he said. They (like CNN earlier) changed their minds after pressure was applied from the government. Said pressure may have been as simple as saying “Hey, NBC, your idiot reporter got it all wrong” or as complex as DrLizardo’s thinly veiled threat description. Either way, government involvement in squelching a journalist is reason to question first amendment violation.
My personal feeling is that Arnett, knowing Iraqi TV is government controlled (he is considered an “expert”) should not have given the interview in the first place. What he said in the interview (and I have not been able to find a transcript in which the questions have been translated into English) COULD possibly be construed as providing aid to the enemy in wartime. I would worry less about first amendment violations than treason, if I were Arnett.
(PS: DrLizardo - I’ve been wrong before, and probably will be again many times. Doesn’t bother me…you live, you learn.)
Preach it, Bricker. I tacked on a brief rant about this issue in this thread.
The number of spurious First Amendment arguments is simply stunning. And when it’s pointed out that it’s not a First Amendment violation a number of people just try to come up with some sort of “logical construct” to prove it is a violation, despite the caselaw and the fucking text of the Constitution.
Nope. Add another hashmark under your “I was wrong” column.
“Hey, NBC, your idiot reporter got it wrong,” in no way implicates the First Amendment. It has no force of law, so it does not violate the plain language of the amendment, and there is not one shred of case law to support this nutso interpretation.
The government is absolutely entitled to respond to inaccurate news with the correct version.
Any authority to the contrary, besides your own mind, you’d like to offer would be much appreciated.