Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I don't think that Al Sharpton is so much clamoring to stifle free speech, but rather to get someone fired for saying something stupid in the course of doing their job. To be fair, they aren't exactly the same thing.
|
This is key. I think a fair amount of the confusion/argument in this thread comes from an unintended blurring of this distinction - either on the part of the speaker or the listener or both.
That said, in this case at least, I'm not a big fan of either action. Obviously, I'm not favoring the stifling of free speech - I'm not sure
anyone in this thread supports that.
But I also don't like the is-legal and should-be-legal action of trying to get him fired, because I don't see a useful point to it. Not many are actually supporting what Imus said, he's being disciplined, and he himself has at least publicly recognized the wrongness of what he said. Society didn't approve. And even for those who do support it - typically in the South Parkesque "either all offensive remarks are okay or none are" mindset - they're not going to alter their thoughts based on whether he gets suspended or put off the air permanently.
What would a firing acheive, other than retribution? What would be the use of such a firing that negative publicity and a temporary suspension couldn't provide?
I could be missing something, but so far it just looks like petty revenge to me.