What a great example of free speech. A radio station has decided what they want aired and what they determine as appropriate and are allowed to take action to achieve that. They have the right to free speech and use that to hire and fire anyone they want as an exercise in that right. They won’t be made to allow what they consider objectionable opinions to be broadcast on their platform. Free speech in action. (Inb4 “muh 1st ammemunt rites”.)
Downvoting because your sarcasm is obvious. You misconstrue free speech, with business. This is a business. They are free to not hire people who push content they find objectionable.
If this guy was out on the street in his own free time spouting this crap and NOT on the air and not in an official capacity, then I may agree that it’s a free speech issue.
I think they’re just pointing out a corporation firing someone for what they said is not an infringement of the first amendment since that only applies to the government?
My sarcasm is obvious but you still missed the point. This is just as valid an argument as the knuckledraggers will come up with. That is to say, not valid. This has nothing to do with free speech or any amendment. This is as hollow a take as anything the bearded, athletic sunglasses wearing mouth breathers come up with as evidenced by my parenthetical comment.
I’m going to upvote your comment because this isn’t reddit and we should encourage discussion, not downvote opinions we don’t agree with or understand.
What a great example of free speech. A radio station has decided what they want aired and what they determine as appropriate and are allowed to take action to achieve that. They have the right to free speech and use that to hire and fire anyone they want as an exercise in that right. They won’t be made to allow what they consider objectionable opinions to be broadcast on their platform. Free speech in action. (Inb4 “muh 1st ammemunt rites”.)
Bob bless America.
Downvoting because your sarcasm is obvious. You misconstrue free speech, with business. This is a business. They are free to not hire people who push content they find objectionable.
If this guy was out on the street in his own free time spouting this crap and NOT on the air and not in an official capacity, then I may agree that it’s a free speech issue.
I think they’re just pointing out a corporation firing someone for what they said is not an infringement of the first amendment since that only applies to the government?
Unclear, but they clarified it was sarcasm, so all good.
I didn’t take their comment as sarcasm, just a bit snarky…I think you’re both on the same page here
My sarcasm is obvious but you still missed the point. This is just as valid an argument as the knuckledraggers will come up with. That is to say, not valid. This has nothing to do with free speech or any amendment. This is as hollow a take as anything the bearded, athletic sunglasses wearing mouth breathers come up with as evidenced by my parenthetical comment. I’m going to upvote your comment because this isn’t reddit and we should encourage discussion, not downvote opinions we don’t agree with or understand.
Clarified if sarcasm. I’ll somehow struggle through the downvoted and still live.
I would argue it’s a freedom of association thing.