While we’re on the subject, can I include the idiots who shout “TREASON!” every time someone disagrees with them? They’ve clearly never read the Constitution they love to wrap themselves in.
Hey, I wrote an email to MS-NBC to voice my complaints after seeing what Arnett said…maybe I got him fired, and not the government.
Yes, as we saw in the “Johnny Walker” Lindh case, it is very difficult to prove, or even bring a charge, of treason. Arnett, from what I’ve read, voluntarily expressed the opinion that the coalition efforts had “failed,” in a televised broadcast of an interview with foreign press that he voluntarily consented to. This could be construed as giving aid & comfort to the enemy in a time of war. And there are certainly at least 2 witnesses that he said it. What I don’t know is whether that statement was taken out of context, although I’ve heard nothing to indicate that was the case. As has been said elsewhere, there are lots of other possible mitigating factors. I don’t think those words are treasonous in and of themselves. You or I can express any opinion we want of Bill Clinton, George Bush, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Ms. Rice, or anyone else, which is as it should be. Of corse, we can also call Peter Arnett, or a violent “peace” activist, of being an idiot, too.
It seems to me that Bricker and his cronies are missing the forest for the trees in this thread.
The First Amendment and the case doctrine that has grown up around it only apply to government entities, this is largely true. But Bricker is misconstruing the arguments made by people who are leery of how quickly NBC and NG ditched Arnett, and Moore’s speech. Saying that an action made by a private individual is contrary to the First Amendment means something very different when stated out of the context of a courtroom.
In a courtroom, the First Amendment is a defense against any person who’s legitimate speech is being forbidden. THIS INCLUDES PRIVATE ENTITIES. See New York Times v. Sullivan. In this case, a southern state offical got pissed at the New York Times because it published “defamatory” statements against him when it said the police in the south were racist, and so implied (very, very teniously- this case was pure politics) that Sullivan, in charge of the police, was racist. The court ruled, in part, that the First Amendment barred this sort of suit.
The idea is that when the government’s courts are used to punish by private entities, the First Amendment certainly does protect individuals from private repression of speech. There are even laws against prohibiting people from using your forum to display their messages - for instance, it would not be legal to refuse to hire news anchors because they are black or muslim.
“Ok, fine.” Says Bricker. “But we’re not in court, and no one is going to sue these people. So the First Amendment doesnt really apply here and anyone who says it does is an idiot.” This is an incredibly banal argument. Breaker is saying that the First Amendment has no legal force outside of the courtroom, and to a certain extent, this is true. But the same can be said of the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION. No part of the Constitution applies, as a legal doctrine, until someone brings suit against someone else- be one party the government or a private entity. If you break the law and no one prosecutes, you’re home free.
It doesn’t really do to say that the 1st Amendment applies differently to gov’t and private individuals because when the government acts, you know they are breaking the law, either. There are so many exceptions, loopholes, and qualifications to the 1st Amendment that when the government supresses something, it isn’t any more clear from a legal standpoint if the supressed could sustain a legal defense than if the supression were carried out by a private actor.
When people argue about something being contrary to the First Amendment in the context of the Arnett example, they are really referring to the historical background and goals of the amendment being undermined. Courts say, and people generally agree, that the goal of the First Amendment is to ensure a free marketplace of ideas. Consider how Arnett’s firing fits into this.
Media conglomerates are growing massive, to the point where relatively few people have a dictatorial say about what can be published. They have an interest in coming off objective, to be sure, but only to the extent that alternatives like the internet exist to expose subjectivity. And some news outlets (FOX, for example) seem to revel in their subjectivity. When it comes to something like a foreign war, only a huge media machine like the major networks can afford to get us the updated and constant info we crave.
So what does it mean for the free marketplace of ideas when most news comes from a few sources, and these sources become the only avenue for some types of news? It means that we must be wary about how the people in charge of these conglomerates use their power over what we see and hear. When they begin firing employees for stating, to another news station, in their capacity as a private individual, statements contrary to the warm and fuzzy feeling President Bush is desperately trying to fix on the war effort, people have a good reason to be worried.
Do you really want the news you hear to be controlled by a few rich people who will fire their underlings if they voice an opinion contrary to what is popular in their mind or with thier audience, when they are the only source for such news?
-C
That’s certainly a legitimate question.
And notice how you manage to pose it without recourse to the inapplicable First Amendment!
Now, you may contend that when people mentioned the First Amendment, they simply meant the generic ideals, and not the actual First Amendment.
I don’t buy it. And if this is what was meant, it’s a poor way of phrasing the issue, since it allows people such as me to deflect the legitimate inquiry into this morass. Far more effective, it seems, to simply ask the question you did.
- Rick
I’d say the profusion of blogs, online sites like drudgereport, and (not the least of it) message boards like this pretty much make that a moot point. 20 years ago, there was more truth to the idea that the only people with free speech owned printing presses. Nowadays, sort of cheap shot, no?
As for the rest, it’s semantical. When folks assert their “1st amendment rights!” they’re simply wrong the vast majority of the time. When people say, “the ability to speak freely is one of the cornerstones of this country,” they’re right. They’d even be right to add “as evidenced by the first amendment and demonstrated by the precedent of our courts.” What they’re wrong about is to assert that their desire to flap their pie hole, or their desire for certain others to do so, is “protected by the first amendment” when it’s usually not.
In a nutshell, you’re pretty much violently agreeing with the overall view here, which is that we all like and value the idea in this country that you can say what you like. That’s the forest that nobody’s missing, despite what you seem to think. Some of us merely object to the constant whiny assertion of “1st amendment!” in a knee-jerk (and wrong) way.
But that’s just my opinion, “largely” and “to a certain extent.”
First, I have seen many people stating something is a violation of the First Amendment because they actually (incorrectly) believe it is a violation of the First Amendment. And for those who really mean they don’t like the corporate control of news they can use the phrase “I don’t like the corporate control of the news” rather than “that violates the First Amendment.” The first phrase is a legitimate opinion, the second a wholly inaccurate statement.
But the thrust of your statement is exactly what I mean. You state that people are referring to “the historical background and goals of the amendment being undermined.” I’d like to see a cite for this proposition. The first word of the amendment is “Congress”. They could have phrased it otherwise if their intent was to restrain private businesses. While some common law has implicated private businesses, the state action doctrine is fundamentally sound. If it ain’t the government, it ain’t a First Amendment violation.
Now, people can keep saying (wrongly) that X violates the First Amendment or they can simply state their opinion that X is a bad policy for a private company if that is what they truly mean. That would certainly reduce misunderstandings.
If our war plan is compromised by an idiot reporter saying we’ve failed on Iraqi state television, don’t you think we’re already in serious trouble? Honestly?
Thank you for this trenchant observation, which has exactly zero to do with the subject of this thread.
In rebuttal of your point, in the same spirit, I will point out that 21 points are necessary to win at ping pong.
- Rick
I can only hope that someday I can argue this coherently.
However, I’d just like to add on my gripe. As a prelaw student who’s just starting to understand the way these things work in undergrad ConLaw courses, let me just say how unbelievably irritating it is when people SAY “unconstitutional” and MEAN “mildly inoffensive.”
Now, this is spotty, because I don’t necessarily know what I’m talking about, but my understanding (similar to what was recently highlighted in the Is Scalia Nuts? thread) is that there’s no constitutional right to be married. Therefore, there’s no way that a statute that allows only straight people to get married is unconstitutional! I know if you’re gay or a lesbian, you’ll find this offensive, and I personally think it’s wrong, but it’s not… fucking… unconstitutional!
I do, however, know that I am not violating your constitutional rights when I’m reffing your wrestling match and I call you for an illegal hold!
It is NOT your constitutional right to vote anywhere you damn well please!
And, for GOD’S sake, quit telling me that telling you to shut up violates your First Amendment rights!
Ugh.
You’ve all agreed with my third point (while denying that is what people actually mean when they yell about the first amendment) while igoring the other two. Please look at them more closely.
In elaboration on point 3…
What really worries me is the absolute bullshit I hear streaming out of the news tonight, where pundits and newscaster are arrogantly calling for a Proffessor at Columbia to be terminated for telling students some enflaming anti-war propogranda. (It was pretty severe.) This news station, predictably, started blasting universities in general for being elitist and anti-american. This is a direct extention of the insidious socail disease that was also responsible for the Arnett situation.
I shiver to think of what other countries began their decent into dark ages by attacking centers of learning and silencing dissent through fingers-in-the-ears cultural hatred. THIS is why people claim the First Amendment is violated in cases like Arnetts. They might have the legal application wrong, but I doubt many of you know all the wrinkles of the First Amendment doctrine either. They intimately know that the First Amendment stands as a bullwark for learning, understanding, and tolerence. When those ideals are attacked, they describe it in terms of the First Amendment.
-C
Maximum C, I have no great desire to get involved in this debate, but I can flag two strong problems with your first argument: The First Amendment affects only the Federal government, and by extension through the Fourteenth, State and local governments. That’s why it begins “Congress shall make no law…”
As a person, I cannot exert myself in such a way as to completely prohibit you from expressing yourself in any place at any time. I have every right to prohibit you from expressing yourself in a way I do not approve of in a medium or location under my control – you may not stand on my front lawn, or feel yourself entitled to post on my website, and rave about how I’m oppressing your First Amendment rights; that’s trespassing. But you’re more than welcome to go down the street, or open up your own website, and do it somewhere else.
Second, the action in Times v Sullivan had little or nothing to do with repression of freedom of speech – the issue was to what extent a newspaper accepting an advertisment which turned out to be inaccurate was culpable in a suit for libel – a civil suit. (Sullivan was a local commissioner, as it happened, but that had only a tangential effect on the decision of the case.)
How can we be expected to listen to someone so ignorant and ignoramical as to reference the winning score of a ping pong game while utterly failing to mention the “win by two” rule? Go back to Russia!
Not to hijack this thread but SCOTUS has indeed recognized a constitutional right to marry. See Loving v Virginia 388 US 1 (1967), Zablocki v Redhail 434 US 374 (1978) and Turner v Safley 482 US 78 (1987). Refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry while allowing mixed-sex couples to do so does indeed implicate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection IMHO. While SCOTUS has not reached this conclusion, the Supreme Court of Vermont has (albeit under an equal protection analysis of the state rather than the federal constitution).
So, in defense of learning, understanding and “tolerence” (which is quickly becoming the most over-used word in the English language, only lagging behind EXTREME!) these people seek to defend stupid statements by incorrectly invoking the 1st Amendment? Perhaps some more learning and understanding is required.
Calling someone a moron because he acted like a moron is not a cause for concern. Now, if that professor had said something of actual intellectual worth, and was subsequently called a moron, I’d be concerned. Until then, I’d let the small-minded moron sit out the rest of his life in forced retirement. Hope he enjoys his gold watch.
Such as the President, Ashcroft, and the rest of the boys? :rolleyes:
SPOOFE: At what point did FOX News become the arbiter of what is moronic and what isn’t? Are you prepared to say that anyone who publicly expresses distaste for what our troops are doing is a “moron” and will “get what is coming to them”?
Polycarp: Times v. Sullivan was very much about the First Amendment, only here it was invoked as a DEFENSE against a libel suit. The amendment works because Sullivan was using state power (in the form of the courts) to suppress information. But this argument can be expanded, and has been. Any public employee terminated for protected speech can seek redress. It is true, as I said, that Arnett cannot claim damages under the 1st, but the OP was blatently WRONG when it implies that private action never gives rise to 1st Amendment issues.
In addition, I believe Arnett would have a variety of other claims against his employer, though I dont have time to look it up now.
Ott: It was my understanding that Turner v. Safely dealt with the first amendment rights of prisoners, not with marital rights. I dont see a need for reporter cites in an online forum, either. Must still be in law school 
-C
Otto of course can defend himself, but WTF is wrong with a cite you putz? You’ve been here less than a month and you want to tell people how to post? Cites make it a hell of a lot easier to find cases at findlaw and some of the other free legal sites on line.
Shit on a stick, he got fired because his bosses didn’t like what he said, no 1st amendment issues involved.
He had a contract presumably, and was terminated.
Why the fuck is this such an issue?