Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
the public/private distinctions that occupy much of thie debate are correct, but at the same time, it seems that while corporations have the right to hire and fire, a consequence of this is that corporations can also act to suppress freedom of speech and folk react to it by going along with the suppression because it is legally permissable for a corporate entity to do what it likes as if in the doing there are no broader implications. well that is horsepucky. that's right, i said horse pucky. this is suppression of freedom of speech.
|
Disagree. It's not suppression of speech, it's removal of a medium for speech. And that's an important distinction because while one has a right to speak, one does not have a right to amplification. Unless Imus had a contract - one not voided by his comments - then it isn't and shouldn't be in his hands whether or not he gets use of corporate property. Such a decision belongs in the hands of the corporation, the owner of the physical or non-physical property in question.
To argue that corporations can't end business arrangements for any reason - even for reasons that leave a bad taste in your mouth and mine - is cow doody. Yeah, I said it.