Yep, Free Speech is neither equivalent to -- nor limited to -- the First Amendment. It's not a gift from Thomas Jefferson, but an inherent right of all humans regardless of where they happen to live. So it's up to us humans to see the value in trying to maximize the right for each other.
Unfortunately Americans aren't always interested in protecting the speech of disagreeable persons, especially when the mob mentality takes over. I've fallen for it myself.
A main part of that principle/ideal is protecting unpopular speech, popular speech doesn't need protection, so the argument they are making is truly missing the point. This is why they think they need to explain to people that the 1st amendment only applies to legal ramifications, everyone understands that, but they are missing the actual intention of freedom of speech. This isn't a matter of people not liking him, so they choose not to listen, they never consumed what he produced in the first place, the boycotting stuff tends to be an attempt to shut people, and stop other people from being able to consume the product, that truly is trying to squelch opinions you disagree with, not just choosing to ignore it.
Speaking of flying over heads, you say "marketplace of ideas". One unpopular idea that modern society goes out of its way to reject is racism. Anthony revealed that it's not a bit or exaggeration he does for the show--he is genuinely racist.
You can rant about "SJW types" if it makes you feel better, but a national radio host with Anthony's views about blacks doesn't deserve a cushy radio job, and society has the right to express that.
He made the point that it's about freedom of speech as a principle.
Then you say:
society has the right to express that.
referring to the people who pushed for Ant to be fired.
We're not talking about rights we're talking about the principle of freedom of expression. Those people would probably all claim that they believed in freedom of expression but they don't.
Why would they try to stop me from hearing a racist's opinions?
a national radio host with Anthony's views about blacks doesn't deserve a cushy radio job
The only reason Anthony had "a cushy radio job" was because enough of "society" was willing to pay to hear his "views about blacks." That's how a free-market economy operates.
SJWs try to censor his views because, if I'm being honest, his ideas are bigoted. The important take-away is that expressing such thoughts is not illegal.
SJWs (e.g. you) are bothered by Ant's words the way I'm bothered by the guy flipping unregistered firearms. I can get the gun-peddler arrested, but the SJW is frustrated that he can't do the same to Ant, so he cries until Ant loses his job.
TL;DR: Ant would deserve to lose his job only if the marginal revenue created via employment falls below the costs of employing a racist personality (i.e. his fans canceling their subscriptions due to his tweets).
Unfortunately we're living in the most temperamental socio-political climate our country has seen since the 1860s.
If Ant didn't deserve a job in radio he wouldn't have made millions doing it. The whole point of being a radio host is to be entertaining and while you may vehemently disagree with everything Anthony has said, you can't say he hasn't been entertaining.
Do you know how hard it is to be successful in radio? Even just for a few years? To be one of the best in the business for two whole decades is mostly unheard of. Only a handful of people have been able to do it, and all of them (unlike Anthony) went to years of school and had to trudge for years in shit markets before they had any kind of success. Anthony showed up out of nowhere with no education and was a success without any kind of radio background. The only people of this era to be more successful are Limbaugh and Stern. That should be absolutely impossible to do, but Anthony did it.
You can hate everything that comes out of his mouth, but he's such a rare talent you're being dishonest with yourself if you say you don't respect that on some level.
I think there's a lot more racists in this country then you think. It's quite a growing set of ideas -- and to brush off off ideas of racism as undeserving is just a dick move.
Society ain't got shit to say. If ant does podcast you guys won't be able to touch ant anymore. Much like the no agenda show with adam curry the libtards and conservtards can't get a podcast canned. Ant can go donation model and you PC pukes can't do fuck about it.
I pulled it out of my ass of course. However, I think you're in the minority for wanting to listen to Gregg and Jim. Jim is hilarious as are many of the comedian guests, but there's not enough to carry a show for four hours a day, five days a week.
neither is an unprompted ant, if you look at shows where they have no guests or an interesting topic to talk on and on about the show peters out, hence the whole trope about it being mediocre for the last while.
i really was getting sick of ant's racial rants anyway. way too serious and angry and BORING. i have no desire to listen to an edgier rush limbaugh everyday. i like the show for the comics and the freaks, not for the opportunity to hear ant's opinion on black people. i'd honestly rather listen to opie tell kid stories or jim talking about science than ant talking about race. it's unlistenable to me.
and i mean, how can people read the shit he said and not realize that those things don't fly when you're working in a corporate environment, down the hall from shade 45? "they're not people"?! jesus, man. go do a podcast about your right to be racist or whatever, but i really don't give a fuck. would love if this means we get more comics on the show to help get opie and jim to (at least) october.
"People listening" meaning people who hear the rant, which means non-fans and Sirius as well. As an O&A fan I'm supporting Anthony in this but he did shoot his mouth off in a way everyone (else) could hear.
The call really comes down to Sirius. They've been on O&A's case for years and hassled the guys constantly. It's infuriating because they probably did this without a second thought. But whenever there's a controversy like this or Duck Dynasty or Imus or whatever, the fate is ultimately up to whether the provider/network is willing to hold out or cut out. Sirius never liked O&A and the guys never liked Sirius. They weighed the pros/cons of keeping them on and decided to cut it. They didn't want the bad press. A&E on the other hand weighed the pros/cons and realized that Dynasty was a huge cash cow with an audience that, not surprisingly, would stick with the show even after that.
We know Anthony isn't a racist. Unfortunately, we're not the ones they have to convince. Sirius doesn't want to risk protests or boycotts or hate mail. It's a greedy, pussy move by Sirius and they're not even letting him defend himself before passing judgment.
No one who was offended by his twitter rant was a follower of his or a listener. This "offensive" rant was disseminated by the liberal media who used it as a rallying cry to get him punished. Most of the people who came after him with scorn and outrage never would have been "offended" or even subjected to anything he said if not for the hypocritical news outlets like Gawker etc who used it for clickbait and their own agenda of silencing those they disagree with.
Youre clearly a fucking moron and there is no point in continuing. I'll allow you to have the last word you desperately seek. It will no doubt be something retarded. Some more im rubber youre glue material that you love maybe. Ta.
I normally like XKCD, but I'm not a fan of this particular one. I hate how the same people that freaked out when radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks in '03 are now trying to get everybody else fired for saying dumb things.
I hate how the same people that freaked out when radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks in '03 are now trying to get everybody else fired for saying dumb things.
I'd counter by saying the same people who demanded radio stations stop playing the Dixie Chicks are now freaking out when one of their own has to deal with the consequences of shooting his mouth off.
They said back then that free speech comes with the responsibility to deal with the consequences.
Of course, the Chicks just said one sentence on stage. Ant went on a (drunken?) tirade on Twitter. Right wingers thought the former was worth death threats and destroyed careers, but the latter is now a "free speech" issue?
How about both are a free speech issue? Why not defend speech on both sides instead of justifying stuff on your side and demonizing the other side. Your whole left-winger vs. right-winger mindset is part of the problem, MAAAAAAAN!
Thing is, Ant didn't lose his freedom of speech. He lost his job. Nobody has a right to a radio show, and judging by his Twitter feed Cumia is still very much free to speak his mind. So the idea floating around here that he's some sort of fucking martyr or victim is ridiculous.
Thing is, the threat of losing your job is a threat to free speech, which limits it. People used to get fired for being pro-gay marriage. Their 1st amendment wasn't violated, but their freedom of speech was. It's not an issue of rights. It is an issue of free speech.
I agree with you. Sirius XM is well within their legal right to fire Anthony. But the point you're missing is that freedom of speech goes beyond rights and the constitution. It is a principle worth fighting for because once OnA is gone, there won't be many places where open speech and true political incorrectness is protected and promoted.
Comedy is getting fucking lame right now, because everyone is afraid to speak their mind and the hipster crowd is winning the battle on what is considered funny and what is considered offensive. Ant's a racist with a lot of problems, but he is also a genuinely hilarious and intelligent guy who I enjoyed listening to. Satellite Radio was supposed to be a home for edgy, uncensored comedy. Now the only place for real uncensored content is the internet, and hopefully it stays that way. But don't be surprised to see internet content get censored next, at least on the professional level.
It is a principle worth fighting for because once OnA is gone, there won't be many places where open speech and true political incorrectness is protected and promoted.
The folks from Westboro Baptist Church are a great example of "true political incorrectness," but while they are protected (usually by lots of cops) while they're protesting, they don't have the right to be "promoted." They get to stand there with their signs outside a military funeral, but a shit ton of bikers also have the right to show up and counter their bullshit.
The Klan has the right to march down the street in a Jewish neighborhood, but they don't have the right not to be yelled at for doing it.
Racism and bigotry and public idiocy are protected, but free speech doesn't mean we are required as a society to have a certain level of offensive speech, nor does it mean we are required to hold up such speech as important or worthy of praise.
As for what is funny, there's no rule in comedy which says "the most offensive is always the best." If it was, Michael Richards would be selling out arenas.
This is the dumbest fucking comic ever. "Free Speech" is not only the 1st Amendment. Liberals are attacking speech without using the government. They are still anti-speech.
the employer would have kept him if whiney bloggers and sjw didn't actively try to get him fired...people like you went OUT OF YOUR WAY to get a guy fired that they probably didn't even listen to in the first place
No, sometimes people disagree with you. And what? they don't get to voice their opinion? So its ok for Ant, but wrong for people who stand up for what they think is right? Sometimes you are outvoted. too bad, suck it up buttercup.
No, banning him from the internet would be anti-freespeech. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Sometimes people think you are in the wrong. Tough shit.
uh no. going after a man's livelihood for something he said is anti-free speech. imposing consequences on speech is anti-speech by definition. you're obviously not a fan anyway so fuck off.
You mean a job? you want handouts to pick UP shit you dump on the sidewalk. PICK UP YOUR OWN MESS. FREE MARKET BABY. FUCK YOUR ENTITLEMENTS. No one wants that. SOMETIMES YOU'RE FIRED FOR BEING RETARDED. Fuck Anthony.
Listen you ass. It's not a Right to Free Speech issue. It is a free speech issue. Getting fired for saying something benign (no threats, no definite racism) is a threat to Free Speech. It would be a rights issue if Ant got thrown in jail. But that doesn't make it not a Free Speech issue. Firing an old man for complaining on twitter about being assaulted by a hooker is a threat to free speech. How free would your speech be if you got fired for saying "I support gay marriage" or "I don't support gay marriage" on twitter? Fuck I'd rather go to jail for a week than lose my job if I had the choice.
Also take this faggot comic and shove it up your ass. Some preachy nerd that thinks he understands the world drawing stick figures, why the fuck is he scripture to you fags.
I'm going to give you a list of shit you can't talk about, or you'll lose your job. Say "I think blacks should be able to vote" and you get fired. Now I'm not violating your right to speech as given by the 1st amendment. I am attacking your free speech. Do you understand the difference now, you dense fuck?
This has no effect on your 1st amendment. Explain to me how that affects your freedom of expression.
I'm going to give you a list of shit you can't talk about, or you'll lose your job. Say "I think blacks should be able to vote" and you get fired. Now I'm not violating your right to speech as given by the 1st amendment. I am attacking your free speech. Do you understand the difference now, you dense fuck?
I'm sorry you seem to think your off-handed anecdote comports to mass social opinion.
And yes, there WAS a time when this was actually true...but its not any more.
Anthony can go start his own radio station in his garage.
I'm sorry you fail to understand what an analogy is. I'm also sorry that you fail to understand that the content of the opinion is irrelevant to the offense to his freedom of speech. In the analogy I switched the opinion to illustrate that firing someone for a benign opinion is deleterious to free speech. I have a feeling you're not in the top 16% huh?
No, it isn't. If the government was trying to arrest him it would be, but a business can do whatever they want.
Also take this faggot comic and shove it up your ass. Some preachy nerd that thinks he understands the world drawing stick figures, why the fuck is he scripture to you fags.
How mature. Of course the homophobe is sticking up for the racist.
Free Speech issues are not exclusive to government intervention. If the government was inhibiting his free speech it would be a First Amendment issue. I'm saying its a free speech issue. The first amendment is what prohibits the government from impeding your free speech. That doesn't mean the government is the only body capable of doing so anyway. One's free speech can also be hindered by fellow citizens.
And considering your inability to grasp that nuance, I also don't expect you to understand the context and intent that illustrated what form of "faggot" I was using.
Free Speech issues are not exclusive to government intervention. If the government was inhibiting his free speech it would be a First Amendment issue. I'm saying its a free speech issue. The first amendment is what prohibits the government from impeding your free speech. That doesn't mean the government is the only body capable of doing so anyway. One's free speech can also be hindered by fellow citizens.
No one inhibited his free speech. He excercised his free speech with his backwards, 1800's views while Sirius exercised theirs and fired him.
And considering your inability to grasp that nuance, I also don't expect you to understand the context and intent that illustrated what form of "faggot" I was using.
Go back to gawker you fag.
Please enlighten me what context your use of "fag" is where it is not homophobic. Please keep in mind that you also told him to
The threat of termination based on the expression of benign opinions is a huge inhibition of any persons free speech.
And only gay people like things in their butts now? I happened to know for a fact that many straight people enjoy shoving things in their butts. Maybe you should stop stereotyping gay people you pig.
The threat of termination based on the expression of benign opinions is a huge inhibition of any persons free speech.
Yeah, let's feel bad for that poor, poor racist. He only tried to take a creepshot of a woman, then tweeted:
I told them to back the fuck off, this wasn't their show. The cunt then punched me again. Seems white boys don't hit back. Lucky savage.
Wish a cop was around. Although she said she'd tell them I sexually harassed her. Lying cunt. I hope she gets shot in her ass fuck face. Ugh
They aren't people.
Im fucking livid. If I was an illegal savage I'd have shot her. The I are violence in her was so predictable. I hope she gets killed.
>And only gay people like things in their butts now? I happened to know for a fact that many straight people enjoy shoving things in their butts. Maybe you should stop stereotyping gay people you pig.
I'm more talking about the fact that you called Randal Monroe a faggot. You have still not told me how that is not homophobic.
"The people listening" What? All this outrage is being caused by losers that DON'T listen and never would have. Why are they allowed to tell me I can't listen anymore?
He was taking creepy shots of women at night then tried to pass it off as a city scape. I'm not buying it.
He posted other pics of women he randomly took pics of.
He looks like a creeper himself
a woman who thought he was being a pervert (this is times square) thought he was doing something disgusting and called him out on it. AND instead of deescalating the situation decides to call the woman a "nigger." GREAT move there.
"Creepy" and "pervert" are your opinions - and in my opinion THEY WERE NOT creepy. He did not try to shoot upskirt or down their shirt. He took photos from about 15 feet away casually. That's NOT creepy. It's perfectly normal action-based portrait photography.
You that fucking stupid? "Called him out on it"? You mean assaulted him? And I you're making shit up anyway. And Times Square has people taking photos every fucking second all through the night, it's a fucking tourist attraction.
Also the pictures were nice shots of people in public. What is creepy here? He had other photos of Time Square and they looked good.
They don't dislike his comments, they don't care. He's been Ant for years and they didn't care. They only care now because they are afraid of the heat, so they buckle. But they don't actually care.
The point is if they stood strong everything would be fine, just because there are people who don't like a product doesn't mean they get to cancel it for other people. In a perfect world only if you actually offend your employer you get fired, but in this world they are extorted by folks who got their panties in a bunch.
Right, and the way to deal with a woman hitting you is not losing your mind on twitter, and saying things like:
I told them to back the fuck off, this wasn't their show. The cunt then punched me again. Seems white boys don't hit back. Lucky savage.
Wish a cop was around. Although she said she'd tell them I sexually harassed her. Lying cunt. I hope she gets shot in her ass fuck face. Ugh
They aren't people.
Im fucking livid. If I was an illegal savage I'd have shot her. The I are violence in her was so predictable. I hope she gets killed.
Grab her wrists, walk and or run away. Don't act like a 13 year old. Besides, he already was the dickhead in the situation, he was the one taking a picture of her ass.
No. Just fucking stop. You're dismantling society with this train of thinking. The only acceptable thing for anyone to say in all of this is "It is inappropriate to strike someone for taking your picture in a public place. It is in appropriate to fire someone for venting when they were struck in a public place."
Whether or not he's a racist doesn't change the fact that someone hit him in a context that didn't call for violence.
How many drops of water are in a wave? How many bricks in a building? You're on the problem end and you're refusing to stop contributing it.
He's been getting paid to say that shit for close to 15 years. The public outcry should be against all the people who hired him. SiriusXM should be culled for putting men like him and Howard Stern on platforms where they can be heard. Since its not like Ant suddenly decided to be racist.
And remember the Jena 6? They were the bad guys because despite all the implication of a redneck putting a noose in a tree has, it's an empty threat and violence just makes everyone look at the situation and say,"he's got a point." She did a great disservice to her people and everything I've seen has used his quote of "there's a deeper cultural problem with blacks that if anyone addresses they're a racist" as evidence that he's a racist. It's like they saw the word black then start screeching and clawing at their eyes.
It is. All references to "free speech" aren't government-restrction-related. It would be correct to say "This is still not a First Amendment issue".
A company can support the concept of "free speech" meaning the tolerance of ideas one disagrees with, etc. Or, as it this case, it can not support it. It's not a First Amendment issue but it's a free speech issue.
it's the fact that all these little sjw pussies outrage is phony, which is visible to any honest person on an almost biological level. it's the fact that these coward tyrants ruined a good thing for a lot of people, and really fucked up someone's life, all for a few days of self righteous mental masturbation.
No, it's not phony. People in modern society genuinely reject racist assholes. Anthony's views definitely weren't a "good thing for a lot of people"--his crazy politics since Obama's election have been a drag on the show. It was becoming obvious that his racism wasn't just a tongue-in-cheek joke anymore.
I can't prove that it's phony and you can't prove that it isn't. To me, getting offended on behalf of a group you don't belong to is not human nature even if ideally it would be. people "reject racist assholes" because racism nowadays is taught to be child-molester tier unacceptable. Being angry and viewing people as savages, though not right, is an understandable reaction to living in a country where said people are very, very prone to crime compared to other races. Wanting a host of a show you don't listen to fired for saying a no no is self indulgent garbage. If it were exclusively black sites calling for his firing, it wouldn't bother me nearly as much because I can believe that black people would be genuinely pissed at him.
Also, I wasn't referring to anthony's tiring, repetitive, racial ramblings as "a good thing". I meant that the show itself is a good thing, good in spite of his views.
People like to feel outrage so that they feel like they belong to something. If they really cared about the issues they're so "outraged" about then they'd take steps to try and educate and get Ant some "help". But instead they go on a witch hunt with the sole purpose of getting him fired and once it's done they forget about him and move on. They just want to silence the voices of dissent rather than try and get another one on their side. Their aim is to hurt and they don't care about the repercussions. He was attacked and he was pissed off and venting on Twitter. Doesn't matter if the content was PC or not, he was just venting. He didn't fight back against her or ever flash his weapon. He just went home and started blasting the cunt on twitter and got a little carried away. The internet made it a big deal. They are the ones that spread what he said around the internet. When Ant is on twitter he's just preaching to the converted. His fans. They weren't the ones offended. The people that got him fired are people that probably haven't even listened to the show once.
Dude was a racist cunt and got what he deserved. Im glad the SJW got him in their sights and moved on. Leave that shit trash on the side of the road where he belongs. I thought the show was funny, but Ant was a racist cunt and society evolved past him. He shouldnt have been an idiot.
There is no freedom of speech. There never has been, there never will be. There has only been survival of the fittest. You make a dumb mistake, you get fucked. He made a dumb mistake, he got fucked. Good riddance. Next.
There is no next you fucking moron. The show is done. Enjoy the Opie and Jimmy show(maybe?). 4 hours of music breaks and tranny jokes. Terrible. But you faggots got him fired and now you can move on to the next thing to be fake outraged about.
Nah im not. Im just pissed and venting and I guess that is manifesting as trolling this board. I loved that show, there never was one like it and probably won't be one in my lifetime. He could have been a racist or he could have been a loud idiot, but not both at the same time. Fuck his idiot ass for letting this happen, and for burning everyone on the show. I always hated his racism, but fuck if he just kept it to himself it woulda been fine. But noooooope had to go screaming it into the mic for two straight days. Bah. Whatever the show will be fine or at least I will just keep telling myself that.
That applies to everything in the constitution. It's a prohibitive documents which limits the powers of what the GOV can do to you. This is not a first amendment issue. But this is a free speech issue.
It's a great comic if you live in Mayberry with the things you say effecting the interpersonal dynamics of your small town, but what this comic is implying is -- "You had an angry tirade on Twitter, and now you're going to have to deal with angry comments and a potential loss of followers." But that is naive. This is not what happens. This is not what's happening to Anthony and this is not what happens to anyone in a post-Internet world.
This comic assumes people are reasonable; people are not reasonable. A fan of O&A or not, the consequences Anthony has faced far outweigh his actions. There are people profiting by exacerbating this debacle, and therefor have no responsibility to provide a reasoned response. Gawker Media literally pays their staff based on page views, and believe it or not, dummies do click ads on these gossip sites.
I mean, Jesus Christ -- if you're simple enough to read the naive crayon-scribblings of Lindy West, you're going to click on a "YOU WON AN IPAD" ad.
The same exact machine that brought down Ant is the one trying to control language while profiting from it, and it will continue to try and control speech in the name of political correctness. I am not defending what Ant said or did -- he handled it like shit -- but we cannot sit here and pretend the vultures preying on insignificant events to give simpletons something to talk about is anything but an injustice.
So in that sense... "Joseph McCarthy's black list, wasn't a free speech issue - he was just keeping tabs on who had certain views, and they were not allowed to work in 'some' industries if they held, or were thought to hold those abhorrent views" ??
Edit: I understand the idea that using "the government" for your means , is something that lefty morons are clamping on to as the "only wrong way of accusing someone of thought crime"
... If they think "government" is the only power that can be abused - then their "moron" stamp has been sealed and approved
Hollywood studios were the ones who did the actual blacklisting. While it began because of federal pressure, the studios themselves continued the practice for over a decade. It was still in effect 3 years after McCarthy died.
If private film studios do not hire certain people for their political views, that does not violate the First Amendment. Yet it's a clear limit on speech and ideas.
I understand , like I have said elsewhere; The irony is that the Right used the government to ban thoughts (communism) , but now the Left are using corporations and the media tools they provide to establish their politically correct moral law.
Edit: too add; Given how big corporations have become, I don't see it as any less a misuse of power - to wield corporate power, rather than governmental power - the result is the same, people are robbed of their livelihood because power-hungry left wingers want to control what can and cannot be thought, just as much as their right wing counterpart morons.
When people say free speech they're not talking about the law or the constitution, they're talking about the the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Anthony wasn't ranting on the radio show, and he wasn't using an official SIRIUS twitter account. That was his account with his name on it. He was not representing the company in any way so it's bullshit to justify his firing by saying he was.
Then whoever hears about it exercises THEIR free speech by not buying from a bigot. Unless you live in Buttfuck, Alabama and then everyone is cool with it, but then sucks for you for living in buttfuck alabama.
What are you talking about? The show is a subscription service, you have to pay extra charge on top of a subscription to Sirius. Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to it.
Im just saying free speech is a two way street. Ant wants to use his free speech to blast black people? Sirius uses its free speech to fire a liability. Nobody gets arrested as per constitution and all is right with the world. Oh except for the racist bigots, they're pissed, but who the fuck cares about them. Nobody that's who, because they'll all eventually die off and the world keeps on spinnin'.
All firing people does is piss people off and drive it underground and reinforce people beliefs, they go from middle of road racist to full blown "gas the kikes" racist, and then they have kids they pass it on to.
It's not a violation of the first amendment but it's still related to free speech. A minority of people who don't listen to the show forced a private company to censor the show for people who do listen to it. They have removed the decision for me to decide if I should listen to the show or not.
I don't think the people pushing for Ant's firing believe in freedom of expression.
I don't think it was really the minority on Twitter that wanted him fired. I think SiriusXM had it out for O&A, Anthony especially, for a while now, and Ant finally took them over the edge. They are a company, and hold the right to fire anyone who they don't wish to represent them.
Why is it okay for Anthony to say racist things, but it is not okay for people to voice their opinions in opposition? What makes one thing free speech and the other unfree speech?
And no one forced Sirius to do anything. Sirius is run by businessmen; they care about money, not political correctness. It just happens that a racist rant severely damages the image of your company, and as such it damages the bottom line. See what happened to Glenn Beck on Fox. It's not like the people that advertise gold and catheters and diabetes equipment actually give a fuck about Glenn's opinions; they give a fuck about what the people that know Glenn's opinions will buy.
They didn't just voice their opinions in opposition, they tried to get him fired and cheered when he was.
They did force them to, everyone knew that sirius would fire them if this snowballed in the media and built up to be a big enough story - for the exact reasons you stated. That's what I meant by "forced". They didn't really force them to , yeah, but everyone knows that the company would act like that. It was deliberate and they knew it would work, I mean.
It's going to sound weird in this context to say this, but I don't think it matters at all that people asked for him to be fired. That's still an opinion. It's different if you like, send in death threats, that's not legitimate speech, but why is it not okay to say "Anthony is a big meanie and he should lose his job"? Why do you think that's less valid speech than "I hope a home boy beats her [the woman who assaulted him] to death"?
edit: Like, I feel if the black CEO of a company did his best Louis Farrakhan impression, and said "White people are the devil and should be killed", people would be calling for his firing or resignation, and very few people would jump on the "but it's free speech" train. Is it only private companies this conception of free speech applies to? If Bill DeBlasio did a sudden heel turn, called a press conference, and said "The jew is a cancer on society", would it be wrong for people to call for his firing?
I'm not sure if I know what you mean, but you said it was a free speech issue, and seemed to point to people calling for him to be fired as a threat to free speech, which I tried to point out to you was contradictory. But if you don't think it's a free speech issue, then I won't argue the point with you because I agree.
edit: and I'd just like to make it clear that there's no way to view this situation where Sirius XM's managment aren't total fucking hypocrites. They let him go on about eugenics and shit when it was convenient for them.
The people calling for him to be fired don't understand or believe in real freedom of expression (the idea not the right under the constitution or whatever). I think they would all say they did. It's a free speech issue in that they think they understand it but they don't.
Why is it contradictory? How do you not get this?
I am not challenging their right to say it in any way. I'm criticizing what they believe.
It's a free speech issue because the topic is free speech. I never said they don't have the right to say anything. I never said they don't have the right to boycott/trash Ant until he gets fired. Nothing like that.
I am only criticizing what they believe as I think they have a warped view about what freedom of expression is and it is harmful to freedom of expression generally.
Maybe you think that "free speech issue" means they may/may not have a right to say it and that's the debate. Well that is not what I mean.
It is related to the topic of freedom of expression.
Just because Ant retweets some dummies doesn't mean "NEARLY EVERYBODY ON TWITTER".
That's as dumb as the outrage implying that all O&A fans are racists (which is completely being implied). You can't look at a handful of opinions and use it as confirmation bias. You need to be smarter than that.
XKCD is shit. "Hmm...I don't know how to be funny so I'll just draw stick figures talking and in the last panel one of them will mention Linux or Bilbo and that'll be the joke!" Then virgin nerds read it and say "I know who Bilbo is! They wouldn't mention Bilbo in Garfield! This comic is great!"
Xkcd is probably the greatest webcomic on the internet if you're into philosophy, math or computer science. I guess it's shit if you listen to the radio for 4 hours a day.
XKCD is a high brow comic for intellectuals like me
It's not by the way. The only people who think XKCD is clever are pretentious college kids. It's a preachy soapbox for an arrogant and talentless STEM major so that other arrogant and talentless hacks like you can flock there and pat each other on the back about how clever your brand of humour is.
Also there is no excuse for the "art". It's literally five lines and a circle away from being some whiteknight faggots tumblr.
I guess I just don't understand your hatred for it. You don't have to like it, but boy are you passionate about it. I'm a professional software developer who enjoys xkcd. Sorry for hurting your feelings.
You didn't hurt my feelings. It's a shit comic for faggots.
Yet I clearly don't have a problem with shit because I love O&A
And I clearly don't have a problem with faggots because I frequent this site
So I guess it's just you and your awful comic I have a problem with. Also, don't worry about hurting my feelings. This is a fucking image and text board, there is literally nothing you could do to hurt my feelings
They don't give a damn about what Anthony said. I can tell you the exact tweets that got him fired. The ones where he wished her dead. And the ones where he went on about having a gun. In that situation basically they had to fire him. Because A. It was a random encounter. B. Itseems he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about Blacks. C. Given the situation if this happened again in the future and someone gets shot Sirius gets sued for not handling it when there were signs. You can say what you want. Yes, He was angry, he got attacked, all of that. But the fact no police were called his animosity in general for whole groups of people coupled with the fact he's running around armed. If you had to answer to a board and stockholders you would have pulled the rope too. People need to calm the fuck down and act like adults. The man has said some of the most vile shit even on the air, no one cared or fired him. But add that with gunplay and yes, you'll get fired.
It is so backwards that in the fifties conservatives used the government to impeach people and put them on black lists -- but now the left is using corporations to do the same thing, making everybody cower to some sort of Oprah Winfrey sanctioned morality.
The lefties are soooo happy to spurt this nonsensical idea that if people hold taboo views, there is nothing wrong with attacking their livelyhood, "and that it has nothing to do with free speech".
I don't know who I hate more, the moronic right, or moronic left.
serious question guys: whatever happened to: "we're sorry our employee chose to voice his/her opinion however the views of our employee are not necessarily the views of the employer?"
If anything, it's more of a chilling effect in the US. People don't want to speak honestly out of fear of repercussions (usually economic rather than legal; job firings) so we're creating a culture with no open discussions, and everyone is lying to save face. That being said, props to Ant for sticking to his...values.
It's a de facto freedom of speech issue. If your freedom of speech is tied to your employment, and a Twitter/Gawker/Tumblr mob completely steamrolls you, you don't have freedom of speech in practice.
Yeah, yeah, fucker, we all know it's protection against government action. You're so fucking brilliant.
Even then, I expect European style hate speech laws to be enacted within the decade.
that is such bullshit...the spirit of the 1st amendment is for unpopular speech to be protected...sorry that the people have now become the governments bi proxy thugs but it's the same thing...losing your livelihood because of something you said NOT ON THE JOB is tantamount to a jail sentence...so stop justifying your bad behavior of being a rat and a reactionary fool...yes technically the government didn't punish Anthony, you did their job for them
One thing I have heard ad nauseum is that this is not censorship because the government didn’t do it. I don't understand why so many people say this. It doesn't have to be government censorship to be censorship. If anyone silences anyone because what they said pissed someone off, they censored them. It may not be illegal or a first ammendment issue, but it is censorship. Moreover, we live in a country where corporations run everything and have the government at their beck and call and vice verca. The two are fucking each other in the fetid cunt all day long. So in that world it doesn't really matter who wielded the axe.
I’ve also heard people say that XM was merely excerizing their right to take these guys off the air because they objected to what was said on their service.
The idea that this company is suspending O and A because they are concerned or offended by what they said is a joke. It's just not the case. they suspended them because other people were offended and applied pressure. I know this because I have been on their show numerous times and MUCH worse things were said about all kinds of people, women and men.
the reason this became an issue is because XM and Sirrius are trying to merge. That merger needs Federal approval and it's on thin ice because it's clearly a monopoly. They need the Feds to ignore this fact and let them merge so that some rich people will become richer and their subscribers will have to buy new radios. The Fed has been saying int he hearings that they are concerned about sattelite radio running without restrictions or regulations. These assholes at Sirrius and XM are actually going to prove here that they are going to listen when the government wants their content changed simply so they can make money on a stock deal. They are selling out cellestial radio freedom for money. THAT is what is at stake here. Now, you may say "Well I don't care because they will only ever censor this one show for this one reason that is something i enjoy sayign I object to. Of course they will NEVER misuse this channel of influence once it's been opened. The virus from this will never jump from XM to HBO or podcasting or the internet or blogging. No way.” That’s you talking. And you are wrong.
There's no machine. Stop believing the hype. They're weeks away from walking away from Sirius anyway. Ant just gets to walk away arousing the fanbase and getting to be somewhat a martyr. It's brilliant. Not so much he's played all of you, but it's a great way to leave a job he was already going to leave.
This. And now I'd put money Ant getting major money to do conservative talk radio or something. He'll be fine, Opie will be fine. The one really get screwed here is Jimmy, I think.
Today we don't need the government to shut down people's speech, we shut it down with angry mobs. We say "If you say something we disagree with, we'll have you punished."
And it works because this country is full of cunts with no integrity.
American's love to talk about freedom and rights, and how they apply to every form of situation. Clear and simple, Sirius is a corporation and decided to fire someone because they felt it was harming their brand. Workers rights? Maybe, depending on his contract. Freedom of speech, gimme a break. This millionaire isn't fired from life.
this is horseshit, IT IS A FREE SPEECH issue, the issue is that a company should respect and protect free speech for everyones benefit, not that they can't terminate the employment, of course legally they likely can (to be seen, he will lawyer up), but they shouldn't want to for SPOKEN WORDS, it is absolutely a free speech issue and shows how little it is valued.
Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, without consequences. They can't be legal consequences thanks to the first amendment, but that doesn't cover public reaction and corporate reaction. Sirius, even though they're a bunch of lightweights, can fire someone because of what they say. Anything that could damage the company's reputation or openly instigate controversy is fair game for a lay off. Most entertainers have, in their contracts, small clauses that cover how they can't make the company look bad or risk immediate termination.
The first amendment protects us from legal/state consequences, but it won't protect our jobs from private sector consequences.
Thing is, Ant didn't lose his freedom of speech. He lost his job. Nobody has a right to a radio show, and judging by his Twitter feed Cumia is still very much free to speak his mind. So the idea floating around here that he's some sort of fucking martyr or victim is ridiculous.
uh no. going after a man's livelihood for something he said is anti-free speech. imposing consequences on speech is anti-speech by definition. you're obviously not a fan anyway so fuck off.
191 comments
41 [deleted] 2014-07-04
[deleted]
18 TexansAndMavericks 2014-07-04
In case anyone else is wondering.... Social Justice Warrior
19 Moh7 2014-07-04
Further clarification: Sissy faggots
2 ikenjake 2014-07-04
You realize there are gay fans of this show too?
-1 ig0tworms 2014-07-04
Okay faggot whats next
0 ikenjake 2014-07-04
lel, you're pathetic
-5 fingerrockets 2014-07-04
thanks I trying to figure that out all i could think was "Single Jewish Whore"?
2 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Sarah Jessica... Warker?
9 NitratePrint 2014-07-04
Yep, Free Speech is neither equivalent to -- nor limited to -- the First Amendment. It's not a gift from Thomas Jefferson, but an inherent right of all humans regardless of where they happen to live. So it's up to us humans to see the value in trying to maximize the right for each other.
Unfortunately Americans aren't always interested in protecting the speech of disagreeable persons, especially when the mob mentality takes over. I've fallen for it myself.
6 whatisthishere 2014-07-04
A main part of that principle/ideal is protecting unpopular speech, popular speech doesn't need protection, so the argument they are making is truly missing the point. This is why they think they need to explain to people that the 1st amendment only applies to legal ramifications, everyone understands that, but they are missing the actual intention of freedom of speech. This isn't a matter of people not liking him, so they choose not to listen, they never consumed what he produced in the first place, the boycotting stuff tends to be an attempt to shut people, and stop other people from being able to consume the product, that truly is trying to squelch opinions you disagree with, not just choosing to ignore it.
1 ThePittWolf 2014-07-04
Bc they don't think. They just feel man.
-18 bonch 2014-07-04
Speaking of flying over heads, you say "marketplace of ideas". One unpopular idea that modern society goes out of its way to reject is racism. Anthony revealed that it's not a bit or exaggeration he does for the show--he is genuinely racist.
You can rant about "SJW types" if it makes you feel better, but a national radio host with Anthony's views about blacks doesn't deserve a cushy radio job, and society has the right to express that.
16 Slippery_Slope_Guy 2014-07-04
Because he has an opinion that you disagree with? FUCK YOU.
11 derpbtc 2014-07-04
He made the point that it's about freedom of speech as a principle.
Then you say:
referring to the people who pushed for Ant to be fired.
We're not talking about rights we're talking about the principle of freedom of expression. Those people would probably all claim that they believed in freedom of expression but they don't.
Why would they try to stop me from hearing a racist's opinions?
4 fingerrockets 2014-07-04
ok so why is Al Sharpton still on the air?
3 Happy_ScrappyHeroPup 2014-07-04
The only reason Anthony had "a cushy radio job" was because enough of "society" was willing to pay to hear his "views about blacks." That's how a free-market economy operates.
SJWs try to censor his views because, if I'm being honest, his ideas are bigoted. The important take-away is that expressing such thoughts is not illegal.
SJWs (e.g. you) are bothered by Ant's words the way I'm bothered by the guy flipping unregistered firearms. I can get the gun-peddler arrested, but the SJW is frustrated that he can't do the same to Ant, so he cries until Ant loses his job.
TL;DR: Ant would deserve to lose his job only if the marginal revenue created via employment falls below the costs of employing a racist personality (i.e. his fans canceling their subscriptions due to his tweets).
Unfortunately we're living in the most temperamental socio-political climate our country has seen since the 1860s.
2 tehjarvis 2014-07-04
If Ant didn't deserve a job in radio he wouldn't have made millions doing it. The whole point of being a radio host is to be entertaining and while you may vehemently disagree with everything Anthony has said, you can't say he hasn't been entertaining.
Do you know how hard it is to be successful in radio? Even just for a few years? To be one of the best in the business for two whole decades is mostly unheard of. Only a handful of people have been able to do it, and all of them (unlike Anthony) went to years of school and had to trudge for years in shit markets before they had any kind of success. Anthony showed up out of nowhere with no education and was a success without any kind of radio background. The only people of this era to be more successful are Limbaugh and Stern. That should be absolutely impossible to do, but Anthony did it.
You can hate everything that comes out of his mouth, but he's such a rare talent you're being dishonest with yourself if you say you don't respect that on some level.
2 sillypig69 2014-07-04
I think there's a lot more racists in this country then you think. It's quite a growing set of ideas -- and to brush off off ideas of racism as undeserving is just a dick move.
2 jexton80 2014-07-04
Society ain't got shit to say. If ant does podcast you guys won't be able to touch ant anymore. Much like the no agenda show with adam curry the libtards and conservtards can't get a podcast canned. Ant can go donation model and you PC pukes can't do fuck about it.
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
[deleted]
35 Slippery_Slope_Guy 2014-07-04
Nope. 95% of listeners listen mainly for Anthony. This was done by non-listeners.
1 apalehorse 2014-07-04
How'd you come up with the 95% number? I listen mostly for Jim and the comic guests. I think a lot of us will still listen without Anthony.
1 Slippery_Slope_Guy 2014-07-04
I pulled it out of my ass of course. However, I think you're in the minority for wanting to listen to Gregg and Jim. Jim is hilarious as are many of the comedian guests, but there's not enough to carry a show for four hours a day, five days a week.
1 zippitii 2014-07-04
neither is an unprompted ant, if you look at shows where they have no guests or an interesting topic to talk on and on about the show peters out, hence the whole trope about it being mediocre for the last while.
0 goshdarnyou 2014-07-04
i really was getting sick of ant's racial rants anyway. way too serious and angry and BORING. i have no desire to listen to an edgier rush limbaugh everyday. i like the show for the comics and the freaks, not for the opportunity to hear ant's opinion on black people. i'd honestly rather listen to opie tell kid stories or jim talking about science than ant talking about race. it's unlistenable to me.
and i mean, how can people read the shit he said and not realize that those things don't fly when you're working in a corporate environment, down the hall from shade 45? "they're not people"?! jesus, man. go do a podcast about your right to be racist or whatever, but i really don't give a fuck. would love if this means we get more comics on the show to help get opie and jim to (at least) october.
-6 dylanbob5 2014-07-04
"People listening" meaning people who hear the rant, which means non-fans and Sirius as well. As an O&A fan I'm supporting Anthony in this but he did shoot his mouth off in a way everyone (else) could hear.
The call really comes down to Sirius. They've been on O&A's case for years and hassled the guys constantly. It's infuriating because they probably did this without a second thought. But whenever there's a controversy like this or Duck Dynasty or Imus or whatever, the fate is ultimately up to whether the provider/network is willing to hold out or cut out. Sirius never liked O&A and the guys never liked Sirius. They weighed the pros/cons of keeping them on and decided to cut it. They didn't want the bad press. A&E on the other hand weighed the pros/cons and realized that Dynasty was a huge cash cow with an audience that, not surprisingly, would stick with the show even after that.
We know Anthony isn't a racist. Unfortunately, we're not the ones they have to convince. Sirius doesn't want to risk protests or boycotts or hate mail. It's a greedy, pussy move by Sirius and they're not even letting him defend himself before passing judgment.
3 regis69 2014-07-04
No one who was offended by his twitter rant was a follower of his or a listener. This "offensive" rant was disseminated by the liberal media who used it as a rallying cry to get him punished. Most of the people who came after him with scorn and outrage never would have been "offended" or even subjected to anything he said if not for the hypocritical news outlets like Gawker etc who used it for clickbait and their own agenda of silencing those they disagree with.
24 balderoonus 2014-07-04
No, its an issue of choice and my choice is not to pay Sirus XM anymore money
-1 TicTokCroc 2014-07-04
Nobody cares about you.
-9 ApeRobot 2014-07-04
And they wont even know youre gone.
6 balderoonus 2014-07-04
a bit like your apostrophe
-6 ApeRobot 2014-07-04
Oh so we're gonna bring up my lack of punctuation but not include a period? I see you dummy.
5 balderoonus 2014-07-04
I bet you proof-read that post a few times, tee hee.
-2 ApeRobot 2014-07-04
You just get fucking dumber as we go, is that it?
1 balderoonus 2014-07-04
Yes, I lose an IQ point everytime I throat fuck your mum.
1 ApeRobot 2014-07-04
Mom jokes are hip
1 balderoonus 2014-07-04
Just like the word 'hip'. You truely are a fucking spastic, aren't you?
1 ApeRobot 2014-07-04
Youre clearly a fucking moron and there is no point in continuing. I'll allow you to have the last word you desperately seek. It will no doubt be something retarded. Some more im rubber youre glue material that you love maybe. Ta.
1 balderoonus 2014-07-04
What solace can you take from your capitulation? Let me tell you; none
20 auspicious_coconut 2014-07-04
I normally like XKCD, but I'm not a fan of this particular one. I hate how the same people that freaked out when radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks in '03 are now trying to get everybody else fired for saying dumb things.
5 gogojack 2014-07-04
I'd counter by saying the same people who demanded radio stations stop playing the Dixie Chicks are now freaking out when one of their own has to deal with the consequences of shooting his mouth off.
They said back then that free speech comes with the responsibility to deal with the consequences.
Of course, the Chicks just said one sentence on stage. Ant went on a (drunken?) tirade on Twitter. Right wingers thought the former was worth death threats and destroyed careers, but the latter is now a "free speech" issue?
12 schmoegreene 2014-07-04
How about both are a free speech issue? Why not defend speech on both sides instead of justifying stuff on your side and demonizing the other side. Your whole left-winger vs. right-winger mindset is part of the problem, MAAAAAAAN!
0 gogojack 2014-07-04
Thing is, Ant didn't lose his freedom of speech. He lost his job. Nobody has a right to a radio show, and judging by his Twitter feed Cumia is still very much free to speak his mind. So the idea floating around here that he's some sort of fucking martyr or victim is ridiculous.
9 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Thing is, the threat of losing your job is a threat to free speech, which limits it. People used to get fired for being pro-gay marriage. Their 1st amendment wasn't violated, but their freedom of speech was. It's not an issue of rights. It is an issue of free speech.
6 schmoegreene 2014-07-04
I agree with you. Sirius XM is well within their legal right to fire Anthony. But the point you're missing is that freedom of speech goes beyond rights and the constitution. It is a principle worth fighting for because once OnA is gone, there won't be many places where open speech and true political incorrectness is protected and promoted.
Comedy is getting fucking lame right now, because everyone is afraid to speak their mind and the hipster crowd is winning the battle on what is considered funny and what is considered offensive. Ant's a racist with a lot of problems, but he is also a genuinely hilarious and intelligent guy who I enjoyed listening to. Satellite Radio was supposed to be a home for edgy, uncensored comedy. Now the only place for real uncensored content is the internet, and hopefully it stays that way. But don't be surprised to see internet content get censored next, at least on the professional level.
-3 gogojack 2014-07-04
The folks from Westboro Baptist Church are a great example of "true political incorrectness," but while they are protected (usually by lots of cops) while they're protesting, they don't have the right to be "promoted." They get to stand there with their signs outside a military funeral, but a shit ton of bikers also have the right to show up and counter their bullshit.
The Klan has the right to march down the street in a Jewish neighborhood, but they don't have the right not to be yelled at for doing it.
Racism and bigotry and public idiocy are protected, but free speech doesn't mean we are required as a society to have a certain level of offensive speech, nor does it mean we are required to hold up such speech as important or worthy of praise.
As for what is funny, there's no rule in comedy which says "the most offensive is always the best." If it was, Michael Richards would be selling out arenas.
3 thenewloon 2014-07-04
his job was his speech gogo
-1 gogojack 2014-07-04
No, it wasn't. His job was his job. He is still free to speak, just not in front of a microphone owned by Sirius/XM.
-3 ApeRobot 2014-07-04
Not a fan because it doesnt help your argument for Anthony? Haha.
19 [deleted] 2014-07-04
[deleted]
6 NefariousBanana 2014-07-04
or "that doesn't mean we don't have the right to keep you from enjoying it"
-2 bonch 2014-07-04
He ruined his own life. It's his fault he's not coming back.
9 fingerrockets 2014-07-04
Hardly ruined if he wants he will just do what Adam Carolla has done and become untouchable to cry babies like you.
17 [deleted] 2014-07-04
This is the dumbest fucking comic ever. "Free Speech" is not only the 1st Amendment. Liberals are attacking speech without using the government. They are still anti-speech.
-4 Sexy_korean 2014-07-04
The employer doesn't have to keep them if they think they are being assholes.
Like seriously, free market means if you are coming across in a way the makes you a liability, boss can fire you for being an asshole.
You are basically asking for special rules in which companies can not choose who represents them. What are you some kind of communist?
8 thenewloon 2014-07-04
the employer would have kept him if whiney bloggers and sjw didn't actively try to get him fired...people like you went OUT OF YOUR WAY to get a guy fired that they probably didn't even listen to in the first place
-1 Effremmongolian 2014-07-04
No, sometimes people disagree with you. And what? they don't get to voice their opinion? So its ok for Ant, but wrong for people who stand up for what they think is right? Sometimes you are outvoted. too bad, suck it up buttercup.
6 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Who is saying the employer has to keep him? All I am saying is having him fired for speech is anti-free speech.
-2 Sexy_korean 2014-07-04
No, banning him from the internet would be anti-freespeech. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Sometimes people think you are in the wrong. Tough shit.
5 [deleted] 2014-07-04
uh no. going after a man's livelihood for something he said is anti-free speech. imposing consequences on speech is anti-speech by definition. you're obviously not a fan anyway so fuck off.
0 Sexy_korean 2014-07-04
You mean a job? you want handouts to pick UP shit you dump on the sidewalk. PICK UP YOUR OWN MESS. FREE MARKET BABY. FUCK YOUR ENTITLEMENTS. No one wants that. SOMETIMES YOU'RE FIRED FOR BEING RETARDED. Fuck Anthony.
17 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Listen you ass. It's not a Right to Free Speech issue. It is a free speech issue. Getting fired for saying something benign (no threats, no definite racism) is a threat to Free Speech. It would be a rights issue if Ant got thrown in jail. But that doesn't make it not a Free Speech issue. Firing an old man for complaining on twitter about being assaulted by a hooker is a threat to free speech. How free would your speech be if you got fired for saying "I support gay marriage" or "I don't support gay marriage" on twitter? Fuck I'd rather go to jail for a week than lose my job if I had the choice.
Also take this faggot comic and shove it up your ass. Some preachy nerd that thinks he understands the world drawing stick figures, why the fuck is he scripture to you fags.
-5 [deleted] 2014-07-04
What obligation does Sirius have to employ him?
10 [deleted] 2014-07-04
It's not about rights or obligations you fuck. That doesn't mean its not about free speech.
-9 [deleted] 2014-07-04
He HAS free speech...at home on his couch in front of his twitter page.
7 [deleted] 2014-07-04
I'm going to give you a list of shit you can't talk about, or you'll lose your job. Say "I think blacks should be able to vote" and you get fired. Now I'm not violating your right to speech as given by the 1st amendment. I am attacking your free speech. Do you understand the difference now, you dense fuck?
This has no effect on your 1st amendment. Explain to me how that affects your freedom of expression.
-3 [deleted] 2014-07-04
I'm sorry you seem to think your off-handed anecdote comports to mass social opinion.
And yes, there WAS a time when this was actually true...but its not any more.
Anthony can go start his own radio station in his garage.
2 [deleted] 2014-07-04
I'm sorry you fail to understand what an analogy is. I'm also sorry that you fail to understand that the content of the opinion is irrelevant to the offense to his freedom of speech. In the analogy I switched the opinion to illustrate that firing someone for a benign opinion is deleterious to free speech. I have a feeling you're not in the top 16% huh?
7 LilConner2005 2014-07-04
What obligation do I have to not call you a cunt?
-5 TempusThales 2014-07-04
No, it isn't. If the government was trying to arrest him it would be, but a business can do whatever they want.
How mature. Of course the homophobe is sticking up for the racist.
3 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Free Speech issues are not exclusive to government intervention. If the government was inhibiting his free speech it would be a First Amendment issue. I'm saying its a free speech issue. The first amendment is what prohibits the government from impeding your free speech. That doesn't mean the government is the only body capable of doing so anyway. One's free speech can also be hindered by fellow citizens.
And considering your inability to grasp that nuance, I also don't expect you to understand the context and intent that illustrated what form of "faggot" I was using.
Go back to gawker you fag.
-3 TempusThales 2014-07-04
No one inhibited his free speech. He excercised his free speech with his backwards, 1800's views while Sirius exercised theirs and fired him.
Please enlighten me what context your use of "fag" is where it is not homophobic. Please keep in mind that you also told him to
5 [deleted] 2014-07-04
The threat of termination based on the expression of benign opinions is a huge inhibition of any persons free speech.
And only gay people like things in their butts now? I happened to know for a fact that many straight people enjoy shoving things in their butts. Maybe you should stop stereotyping gay people you pig.
-2 TempusThales 2014-07-04
Yeah, let's feel bad for that poor, poor racist. He only tried to take a creepshot of a woman, then tweeted:
>And only gay people like things in their butts now? I happened to know for a fact that many straight people enjoy shoving things in their butts. Maybe you should stop stereotyping gay people you pig.
I'm more talking about the fact that you called Randal Monroe a faggot. You have still not told me how that is not homophobic.
3 [deleted] 2014-07-04
See, you've lost the argument so now instead of making a point you are just saying "why should I care about his free speech, he's a bad guy!"
Also Randal Monroe is a faggot. I know nothing about his sexuality.
-1 TempusThales 2014-07-04
Yeah, there is zero reason arguing with someone that uses free speech for bigoted views.
3 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Could say the same to you.
15 Pale_Pen15 2014-07-04
"The people listening" What? All this outrage is being caused by losers that DON'T listen and never would have. Why are they allowed to tell me I can't listen anymore?
14 [deleted] 2014-07-04
tyranny of the majority is often times worse then tyranny of government
28 oafangirl 2014-07-04
except in this case the majority doesnt give a care so its really the tyranny of a small busybody minority.........
2 fingerrockets 2014-07-04
yup probably not even 1% of the voting population of the US.
5 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Tyranny??? LOL.
WHY CANT I CALL BLACK PEOPLE THE N-WORD AND TAKE RANDOM PICS OF WOMEN AT NIGHT?!
10 Sudley 2014-07-04
You should be able to do both of those things.
4 TempusThales 2014-07-04
He can do whatever he wants, he'll just get his racist ass fired.
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
He isn't being prevented from doing so...he can't do it on Sirius Radio though.
He can start his own podcast and snap away tonight in Times Square if he wants
5 tehjarvis 2014-07-04
He didn't do that on Sirius. He was fired for things that happened completely off air.
4 Sudley 2014-07-04
What is peoples problem with him taking pictures in public? I just don't get it.
-8 [deleted] 2014-07-04
He was taking creepy shots of women at night then tried to pass it off as a city scape. I'm not buying it.
He posted other pics of women he randomly took pics of.
He looks like a creeper himself
a woman who thought he was being a pervert (this is times square) thought he was doing something disgusting and called him out on it. AND instead of deescalating the situation decides to call the woman a "nigger." GREAT move there.
9 jp1758 2014-07-04
nope. Assaulted him
8 GoFudgeUrself 2014-07-04
"Creepy" and "pervert" are your opinions - and in my opinion THEY WERE NOT creepy. He did not try to shoot upskirt or down their shirt. He took photos from about 15 feet away casually. That's NOT creepy. It's perfectly normal action-based portrait photography.
-2 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Look, Ant is hardly a fucking saint, and to be perfectly honest, him taking creepshots is not exactly an act that is completely out of his wheelhouse.
And your opinion really doesnt mean shit. They aren't pictures of you.
5 [deleted] 2014-07-04
You that fucking stupid? "Called him out on it"? You mean assaulted him? And I you're making shit up anyway. And Times Square has people taking photos every fucking second all through the night, it's a fucking tourist attraction.
Also the pictures were nice shots of people in public. What is creepy here? He had other photos of Time Square and they looked good.
-1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Oh really? The re-drawing of the narrative around this is hilarious.
https://twitter.com/AnthonyCumia/status/484876039345041409
Who's telling what other random pics he took of women that night.
2 [deleted] 2014-07-04
That's a really good picture of a woman on a sidewalk.
2 thenewloon 2014-07-04
he didn't do it on the radio
0 [deleted] 2014-07-04
So?
0 Sexy_korean 2014-07-04
The employer thinks he is being an asshole. He can fire him if he wants.
5 Sudley 2014-07-04
They don't dislike his comments, they don't care. He's been Ant for years and they didn't care. They only care now because they are afraid of the heat, so they buckle. But they don't actually care.
0 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Why is this argument trotted out as if its supposed to change anything?
Some people ARE offended by that sort of behavior.
3 Sudley 2014-07-04
The point is if they stood strong everything would be fine, just because there are people who don't like a product doesn't mean they get to cancel it for other people. In a perfect world only if you actually offend your employer you get fired, but in this world they are extorted by folks who got their panties in a bunch.
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Funny how its a free speech issue when he can call a woman he harassed every racial word under the sun.
Go crawl back to your mothers basement. I think the hot pocket is done.
2 Sudley 2014-07-04
Its funny how you complain about racial slurs when you named yourself one. And I only eat pizza rolls by the way.
1 Sexy_korean 2014-07-04
"EHHH I'M JUST A VAGINA!"
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
[deleted]
7 Safety_Dancer 2014-07-04
That's a mighty fine strawman you got there.
Sure would change your tune if you got assaulted and then fired after the fact.
-4 TempusThales 2014-07-04
Assaulted by a skinny woman, how horrible. Just walk away and not start screaming racial epithets.
4 Safety_Dancer 2014-07-04
Assault isn't about damage done. It's intent. A 90 lbs. man hitting a woman twice his size gets thrown in jail forever.
-1 TempusThales 2014-07-04
Right, and the way to deal with a woman hitting you is not losing your mind on twitter, and saying things like:
Grab her wrists, walk and or run away. Don't act like a 13 year old. Besides, he already was the dickhead in the situation, he was the one taking a picture of her ass.
2 Safety_Dancer 2014-07-04
No. Just fucking stop. You're dismantling society with this train of thinking. The only acceptable thing for anyone to say in all of this is "It is inappropriate to strike someone for taking your picture in a public place. It is in appropriate to fire someone for venting when they were struck in a public place."
Whether or not he's a racist doesn't change the fact that someone hit him in a context that didn't call for violence.
0 TempusThales 2014-07-04
Holy shit, I didn't know I literally had the power to dismantle society. I guess I'm a ta'veren then.
I agree with that, but when you start calling all black people savages and that they aren't people, you've opened up a brand new can of worms.
2 Safety_Dancer 2014-07-04
How many drops of water are in a wave? How many bricks in a building? You're on the problem end and you're refusing to stop contributing it.
He's been getting paid to say that shit for close to 15 years. The public outcry should be against all the people who hired him. SiriusXM should be culled for putting men like him and Howard Stern on platforms where they can be heard. Since its not like Ant suddenly decided to be racist.
And remember the Jena 6? They were the bad guys because despite all the implication of a redneck putting a noose in a tree has, it's an empty threat and violence just makes everyone look at the situation and say,"he's got a point." She did a great disservice to her people and everything I've seen has used his quote of "there's a deeper cultural problem with blacks that if anyone addresses they're a racist" as evidence that he's a racist. It's like they saw the word black then start screeching and clawing at their eyes.
1 TempusThales 2014-07-04
What is the problem exactly and why am I literally the anti-christ?
At least it finally bit his ass.
Nope.
Did you even read the tweets? Here, I'll post them again.
This isn't any he said, she said stuff, the guy tweeted that out. The guy is a racist.
2 jp1758 2014-07-04
What is so offensive about him taking pictures
0 TempusThales 2014-07-04
Because creepshots are harassing.
2 thenewloon 2014-07-04
umm...you can...that's not illegal
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Sure. He can now do it comfortably at home on his twitter page and he can roam the streets indefinitely with all the free time he now has.
-3 bonch 2014-07-04
Yeah, it sure is "tyrannical" that the guy who revealed himself as a genuine racist doesn't get to keep his job as national radio host.
14 kevin_k 2014-07-04
It is. All references to "free speech" aren't government-restrction-related. It would be correct to say "This is still not a First Amendment issue".
A company can support the concept of "free speech" meaning the tolerance of ideas one disagrees with, etc. Or, as it this case, it can not support it. It's not a First Amendment issue but it's a free speech issue.
11 RealRockTV 2014-07-04
it's the fact that all these little sjw pussies outrage is phony, which is visible to any honest person on an almost biological level. it's the fact that these coward tyrants ruined a good thing for a lot of people, and really fucked up someone's life, all for a few days of self righteous mental masturbation.
-6 bonch 2014-07-04
No, it's not phony. People in modern society genuinely reject racist assholes. Anthony's views definitely weren't a "good thing for a lot of people"--his crazy politics since Obama's election have been a drag on the show. It was becoming obvious that his racism wasn't just a tongue-in-cheek joke anymore.
10 Slippery_Slope_Guy 2014-07-04
Here's an idea. Go fuck yourself.
6 RealRockTV 2014-07-04
I can't prove that it's phony and you can't prove that it isn't. To me, getting offended on behalf of a group you don't belong to is not human nature even if ideally it would be. people "reject racist assholes" because racism nowadays is taught to be child-molester tier unacceptable. Being angry and viewing people as savages, though not right, is an understandable reaction to living in a country where said people are very, very prone to crime compared to other races. Wanting a host of a show you don't listen to fired for saying a no no is self indulgent garbage. If it were exclusively black sites calling for his firing, it wouldn't bother me nearly as much because I can believe that black people would be genuinely pissed at him.
Also, I wasn't referring to anthony's tiring, repetitive, racial ramblings as "a good thing". I meant that the show itself is a good thing, good in spite of his views.
5 CowsAreCurious 2014-07-04
People like to feel outrage so that they feel like they belong to something. If they really cared about the issues they're so "outraged" about then they'd take steps to try and educate and get Ant some "help". But instead they go on a witch hunt with the sole purpose of getting him fired and once it's done they forget about him and move on. They just want to silence the voices of dissent rather than try and get another one on their side. Their aim is to hurt and they don't care about the repercussions. He was attacked and he was pissed off and venting on Twitter. Doesn't matter if the content was PC or not, he was just venting. He didn't fight back against her or ever flash his weapon. He just went home and started blasting the cunt on twitter and got a little carried away. The internet made it a big deal. They are the ones that spread what he said around the internet. When Ant is on twitter he's just preaching to the converted. His fans. They weren't the ones offended. The people that got him fired are people that probably haven't even listened to the show once.
0 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Dude was a racist cunt and got what he deserved. Im glad the SJW got him in their sights and moved on. Leave that shit trash on the side of the road where he belongs. I thought the show was funny, but Ant was a racist cunt and society evolved past him. He shouldnt have been an idiot. There is no freedom of speech. There never has been, there never will be. There has only been survival of the fittest. You make a dumb mistake, you get fucked. He made a dumb mistake, he got fucked. Good riddance. Next.
0 CowsAreCurious 2014-07-04
There is no next you fucking moron. The show is done. Enjoy the Opie and Jimmy show(maybe?). 4 hours of music breaks and tranny jokes. Terrible. But you faggots got him fired and now you can move on to the next thing to be fake outraged about.
0 [deleted] 2014-07-04
It was a victory for free speech today. Sirius got to exercise it's right to free speech by firing his dumb ass.
But seriously the show will be fine. Opie and the guest carried that show anyways.
1 CowsAreCurious 2014-07-04
Stupid me, I didn't realize you were trolling.
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Nah im not. Im just pissed and venting and I guess that is manifesting as trolling this board. I loved that show, there never was one like it and probably won't be one in my lifetime. He could have been a racist or he could have been a loud idiot, but not both at the same time. Fuck his idiot ass for letting this happen, and for burning everyone on the show. I always hated his racism, but fuck if he just kept it to himself it woulda been fine. But noooooope had to go screaming it into the mic for two straight days. Bah. Whatever the show will be fine or at least I will just keep telling myself that.
2 CowsAreCurious 2014-07-04
No I get that. I'm super pissed too. I really wish he would've just kept his fucking mouth shut.
1 thenewloon 2014-07-04
so stop listening and go away quietly...why trash the room on your way out?
11 OpieAnthony456 2014-07-04
That applies to everything in the constitution. It's a prohibitive documents which limits the powers of what the GOV can do to you. This is not a first amendment issue. But this is a free speech issue.
-7 bonch 2014-07-04
Haha. You have no idea what you're talking about.
9 fingerrockets 2014-07-04
How do you feel about Hobby Lobby or Chick fil a's business practices?
5 OpieAnthony456 2014-07-04
Really? I'm a recent Law School grad, so probably and a hella of a lot more than you.
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
[deleted]
11 Risergy 2014-07-04
It's a great comic if you live in Mayberry with the things you say effecting the interpersonal dynamics of your small town, but what this comic is implying is -- "You had an angry tirade on Twitter, and now you're going to have to deal with angry comments and a potential loss of followers." But that is naive. This is not what happens. This is not what's happening to Anthony and this is not what happens to anyone in a post-Internet world.
This comic assumes people are reasonable; people are not reasonable. A fan of O&A or not, the consequences Anthony has faced far outweigh his actions. There are people profiting by exacerbating this debacle, and therefor have no responsibility to provide a reasoned response. Gawker Media literally pays their staff based on page views, and believe it or not, dummies do click ads on these gossip sites.
I mean, Jesus Christ -- if you're simple enough to read the naive crayon-scribblings of Lindy West, you're going to click on a "YOU WON AN IPAD" ad.
The same exact machine that brought down Ant is the one trying to control language while profiting from it, and it will continue to try and control speech in the name of political correctness. I am not defending what Ant said or did -- he handled it like shit -- but we cannot sit here and pretend the vultures preying on insignificant events to give simpletons something to talk about is anything but an injustice.
10 JoeDonJackson 2014-07-04
So in that sense... "Joseph McCarthy's black list, wasn't a free speech issue - he was just keeping tabs on who had certain views, and they were not allowed to work in 'some' industries if they held, or were thought to hold those abhorrent views" ??
Edit: I understand the idea that using "the government" for your means , is something that lefty morons are clamping on to as the "only wrong way of accusing someone of thought crime"
... If they think "government" is the only power that can be abused - then their "moron" stamp has been sealed and approved
0 Goatisme 2014-07-04
Joseph McCarthy was using the power of the Federal Government. Therefore making it a First Amendment issue
5 NitratePrint 2014-07-04
Hollywood studios were the ones who did the actual blacklisting. While it began because of federal pressure, the studios themselves continued the practice for over a decade. It was still in effect 3 years after McCarthy died.
If private film studios do not hire certain people for their political views, that does not violate the First Amendment. Yet it's a clear limit on speech and ideas.
1 JoeDonJackson 2014-07-04
I understand , like I have said elsewhere; The irony is that the Right used the government to ban thoughts (communism) , but now the Left are using corporations and the media tools they provide to establish their politically correct moral law.
Edit: too add; Given how big corporations have become, I don't see it as any less a misuse of power - to wield corporate power, rather than governmental power - the result is the same, people are robbed of their livelihood because power-hungry left wingers want to control what can and cannot be thought, just as much as their right wing counterpart morons.
8 Leftwinghippie 2014-07-04
When people say free speech they're not talking about the law or the constitution, they're talking about the the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Anthony wasn't ranting on the radio show, and he wasn't using an official SIRIUS twitter account. That was his account with his name on it. He was not representing the company in any way so it's bullshit to justify his firing by saying he was.
-4 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Sirius is exercising it's free speech by firing his loud, racist, stupid ass.
2 Leftwinghippie 2014-07-04
I'm going to exercise my free speech by firing every gay rights supporter working for me. Let's see how well that turns out.
0 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Then whoever hears about it exercises THEIR free speech by not buying from a bigot. Unless you live in Buttfuck, Alabama and then everyone is cool with it, but then sucks for you for living in buttfuck alabama.
2 Leftwinghippie 2014-07-04
What are you talking about? The show is a subscription service, you have to pay extra charge on top of a subscription to Sirius. Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to it.
0 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Im just saying free speech is a two way street. Ant wants to use his free speech to blast black people? Sirius uses its free speech to fire a liability. Nobody gets arrested as per constitution and all is right with the world. Oh except for the racist bigots, they're pissed, but who the fuck cares about them. Nobody that's who, because they'll all eventually die off and the world keeps on spinnin'.
2 Leftwinghippie 2014-07-04
Bill Burr had a great bit about this on his podcast starting at 1:16:45.
http://www.billburr.com/podcast/monday-morning-podcast-6-9-14
All firing people does is piss people off and drive it underground and reinforce people beliefs, they go from middle of road racist to full blown "gas the kikes" racist, and then they have kids they pass it on to.
6 GoFudgeUrself 2014-07-04
No one said it is. It's a sensitivity issue.
19 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Fucking nearly everybody on Twitter that's an Anthony fan said it. It's making O&A fans look really, really stupid.
8 derpbtc 2014-07-04
It's not a violation of the first amendment but it's still related to free speech. A minority of people who don't listen to the show forced a private company to censor the show for people who do listen to it. They have removed the decision for me to decide if I should listen to the show or not.
I don't think the people pushing for Ant's firing believe in freedom of expression.
All of them would say that they do.
That's the issue.
0 glaubs 2014-07-04
I don't think it was really the minority on Twitter that wanted him fired. I think SiriusXM had it out for O&A, Anthony especially, for a while now, and Ant finally took them over the edge. They are a company, and hold the right to fire anyone who they don't wish to represent them.
4 derpbtc 2014-07-04
Why do people insist on mentioning they have a right to do something, can we not discuss whether or not it's shitty/dishonest etc
-3 [deleted] 2014-07-04
Why is it okay for Anthony to say racist things, but it is not okay for people to voice their opinions in opposition? What makes one thing free speech and the other unfree speech?
And no one forced Sirius to do anything. Sirius is run by businessmen; they care about money, not political correctness. It just happens that a racist rant severely damages the image of your company, and as such it damages the bottom line. See what happened to Glenn Beck on Fox. It's not like the people that advertise gold and catheters and diabetes equipment actually give a fuck about Glenn's opinions; they give a fuck about what the people that know Glenn's opinions will buy.
4 derpbtc 2014-07-04
They didn't just voice their opinions in opposition, they tried to get him fired and cheered when he was.
They did force them to, everyone knew that sirius would fire them if this snowballed in the media and built up to be a big enough story - for the exact reasons you stated. That's what I meant by "forced". They didn't really force them to , yeah, but everyone knows that the company would act like that. It was deliberate and they knew it would work, I mean.
2 [deleted] 2014-07-04
It's going to sound weird in this context to say this, but I don't think it matters at all that people asked for him to be fired. That's still an opinion. It's different if you like, send in death threats, that's not legitimate speech, but why is it not okay to say "Anthony is a big meanie and he should lose his job"? Why do you think that's less valid speech than "I hope a home boy beats her [the woman who assaulted him] to death"?
edit: Like, I feel if the black CEO of a company did his best Louis Farrakhan impression, and said "White people are the devil and should be killed", people would be calling for his firing or resignation, and very few people would jump on the "but it's free speech" train. Is it only private companies this conception of free speech applies to? If Bill DeBlasio did a sudden heel turn, called a press conference, and said "The jew is a cancer on society", would it be wrong for people to call for his firing?
0 derpbtc 2014-07-04
I'm not talking about their acts of expressing their ideas. I'm talking about the ideas themselves. Their speech isn't less valid that his.
I was criticizing their beliefs and actions not their speech.
I have the exact same opinion of someone who thought Anthony should be fired and someone who thought Anthony should be fired + expressed that opinion.
Do you know what I mean ?
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
I'm not sure if I know what you mean, but you said it was a free speech issue, and seemed to point to people calling for him to be fired as a threat to free speech, which I tried to point out to you was contradictory. But if you don't think it's a free speech issue, then I won't argue the point with you because I agree.
edit: and I'd just like to make it clear that there's no way to view this situation where Sirius XM's managment aren't total fucking hypocrites. They let him go on about eugenics and shit when it was convenient for them.
1 derpbtc 2014-07-04
The people calling for him to be fired don't understand or believe in real freedom of expression (the idea not the right under the constitution or whatever). I think they would all say they did. It's a free speech issue in that they think they understand it but they don't.
Why is it contradictory? How do you not get this?
I am not challenging their right to say it in any way. I'm criticizing what they believe.
It's a free speech issue because the topic is free speech. I never said they don't have the right to say anything. I never said they don't have the right to boycott/trash Ant until he gets fired. Nothing like that.
I am only criticizing what they believe as I think they have a warped view about what freedom of expression is and it is harmful to freedom of expression generally.
Maybe you think that "free speech issue" means they may/may not have a right to say it and that's the debate. Well that is not what I mean.
It is related to the topic of freedom of expression.
-2 weenus 2014-07-04
Really? Did you poll all of twitter?
Just because Ant retweets some dummies doesn't mean "NEARLY EVERYBODY ON TWITTER".
That's as dumb as the outrage implying that all O&A fans are racists (which is completely being implied). You can't look at a handful of opinions and use it as confirmation bias. You need to be smarter than that.
-2 bonch 2014-07-04
Practically everyone defending him on Twitter did, actually. A lot of people love to cite the 1st Amendment without even knowing what it does.
5 Harpa 2014-07-04
Please don't post xkcd here. Or anywhere for that matter.
-12 DoctorSauce 2014-07-04
Fuck you, xkcd is amazing. I don't agree with this one though. (Edit: a bunch of morons you guys are)
1 tehjarvis 2014-07-04
XKCD is shit. "Hmm...I don't know how to be funny so I'll just draw stick figures talking and in the last panel one of them will mention Linux or Bilbo and that'll be the joke!" Then virgin nerds read it and say "I know who Bilbo is! They wouldn't mention Bilbo in Garfield! This comic is great!"
-3 DoctorSauce 2014-07-04
Xkcd is probably the greatest webcomic on the internet if you're into philosophy, math or computer science. I guess it's shit if you listen to the radio for 4 hours a day.
Shower me with downvotes.
2 Bomyknocka 2014-07-04
It's not by the way. The only people who think XKCD is clever are pretentious college kids. It's a preachy soapbox for an arrogant and talentless STEM major so that other arrogant and talentless hacks like you can flock there and pat each other on the back about how clever your brand of humour is.
Also there is no excuse for the "art". It's literally five lines and a circle away from being some whiteknight faggots tumblr.
0 DoctorSauce 2014-07-04
I guess I just don't understand your hatred for it. You don't have to like it, but boy are you passionate about it. I'm a professional software developer who enjoys xkcd. Sorry for hurting your feelings.
0 Bomyknocka 2014-07-04
You didn't hurt my feelings. It's a shit comic for faggots.
Yet I clearly don't have a problem with shit because I love O&A
And I clearly don't have a problem with faggots because I frequent this site
So I guess it's just you and your awful comic I have a problem with. Also, don't worry about hurting my feelings. This is a fucking image and text board, there is literally nothing you could do to hurt my feelings
-2 RTardicus 2014-07-04
If you're "into" math and computer science then you're a fucking faggot.
1 DoctorSauce 2014-07-04
This comment is so painfully ignorant that I'm questioning my decision to revisit this subreddit. You're a cancer to the human race.
4 BruceMittman 2014-07-04
They don't give a damn about what Anthony said. I can tell you the exact tweets that got him fired. The ones where he wished her dead. And the ones where he went on about having a gun. In that situation basically they had to fire him. Because A. It was a random encounter. B. Itseems he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about Blacks. C. Given the situation if this happened again in the future and someone gets shot Sirius gets sued for not handling it when there were signs. You can say what you want. Yes, He was angry, he got attacked, all of that. But the fact no police were called his animosity in general for whole groups of people coupled with the fact he's running around armed. If you had to answer to a board and stockholders you would have pulled the rope too. People need to calm the fuck down and act like adults. The man has said some of the most vile shit even on the air, no one cared or fired him. But add that with gunplay and yes, you'll get fired.
3 [deleted] 2014-07-04
What's that?
3 JoeDonJackson 2014-07-04
It is so backwards that in the fifties conservatives used the government to impeach people and put them on black lists -- but now the left is using corporations to do the same thing, making everybody cower to some sort of Oprah Winfrey sanctioned morality.
The lefties are soooo happy to spurt this nonsensical idea that if people hold taboo views, there is nothing wrong with attacking their livelyhood, "and that it has nothing to do with free speech".
I don't know who I hate more, the moronic right, or moronic left.
3 EdgarsTeethAreDry 2014-07-04
Why the fuck is this in comic form? The illustrations add nothing.
3 ksilva86 2014-07-04
serious question guys: whatever happened to: "we're sorry our employee chose to voice his/her opinion however the views of our employee are not necessarily the views of the employer?"
2 VeritablyClean 2014-07-04
If anything, it's more of a chilling effect in the US. People don't want to speak honestly out of fear of repercussions (usually economic rather than legal; job firings) so we're creating a culture with no open discussions, and everyone is lying to save face. That being said, props to Ant for sticking to his...values.
2 Spokker 2014-07-04
It's a de facto freedom of speech issue. If your freedom of speech is tied to your employment, and a Twitter/Gawker/Tumblr mob completely steamrolls you, you don't have freedom of speech in practice.
Yeah, yeah, fucker, we all know it's protection against government action. You're so fucking brilliant.
Even then, I expect European style hate speech laws to be enacted within the decade.
1 Selfstyledwanker 2014-07-04
"Even then, I expect European style hate speech laws to be enacted within the decade."
This.
2 thenewloon 2014-07-04
that is such bullshit...the spirit of the 1st amendment is for unpopular speech to be protected...sorry that the people have now become the governments bi proxy thugs but it's the same thing...losing your livelihood because of something you said NOT ON THE JOB is tantamount to a jail sentence...so stop justifying your bad behavior of being a rat and a reactionary fool...yes technically the government didn't punish Anthony, you did their job for them
2 cabaretcabaret 2014-07-04
Because we need reminding.
"Hey guys, this cartoon/comedian's bit has already settled this issue. Discussion over guys"
2 Spokker 2014-07-04
Louis CK from 2007.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070521203043/http://www.louisck.com/welcomeit.htm
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
He would be in jail if that Revolutionary War thing never happened. He may soon find himself on the 'banned from the UK' list.
1 [deleted] 2014-07-04
[deleted]
1 BruceMittman 2014-07-04
There's no machine. Stop believing the hype. They're weeks away from walking away from Sirius anyway. Ant just gets to walk away arousing the fanbase and getting to be somewhat a martyr. It's brilliant. Not so much he's played all of you, but it's a great way to leave a job he was already going to leave.
1 tibber2 2014-07-04
This. And now I'd put money Ant getting major money to do conservative talk radio or something. He'll be fine, Opie will be fine. The one really get screwed here is Jimmy, I think.
1 regis69 2014-07-04
Today we don't need the government to shut down people's speech, we shut it down with angry mobs. We say "If you say something we disagree with, we'll have you punished." And it works because this country is full of cunts with no integrity.
1 account9211 2014-07-04
"Unpopular speech needs the least protection" -reddit
1 caveman660 2014-07-04
It isn't the people listening to the show that wanted him out. Its those cunts who got pissy at the cake stomp video. Fuck every one of them.
1 TedsEmporiumEmporium 2014-07-04
It's not a First Amendment issue, but it's still unfortunate that we as a society don't respect the spirit of Free Speech.
1 LarkSquire 2014-07-04
Except that it isn't people who listen that want him fired.
0 bonch 2014-07-04
Prepare to get downvoted into oblivion.
0 finbarwaterford 2014-07-04
American's love to talk about freedom and rights, and how they apply to every form of situation. Clear and simple, Sirius is a corporation and decided to fire someone because they felt it was harming their brand. Workers rights? Maybe, depending on his contract. Freedom of speech, gimme a break. This millionaire isn't fired from life.
0 davelaws 2014-07-04
Wait... So, it's not illegal for a publicly traded company to fire someone for calling an entire race of people savages?
0 TempusThales 2014-07-04
Nah bro, it's my god given right to call someone a nigger cuntrag.
-1 telemecanique 2014-07-04
this is horseshit, IT IS A FREE SPEECH issue, the issue is that a company should respect and protect free speech for everyones benefit, not that they can't terminate the employment, of course legally they likely can (to be seen, he will lawyer up), but they shouldn't want to for SPOKEN WORDS, it is absolutely a free speech issue and shows how little it is valued.
2 Heff228 2014-07-04
The only thing you can really do is push for racists to be a protected class that can't be discriminated against. Good luck.
-1 TyroneBrawley 2014-07-04
Lindy West is here to straighten this out too.
https://twitter.com/thelindywest
-1 josnton 2014-07-04
Losing your job from a private company isn't a freedom of speech issue.
If they don't want to host views that they disagree with, it's their choice not to.
If you join a company, you have to abide by the company's rules and restrictions, end of.
-2 dylanbob5 2014-07-04
Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, without consequences. They can't be legal consequences thanks to the first amendment, but that doesn't cover public reaction and corporate reaction. Sirius, even though they're a bunch of lightweights, can fire someone because of what they say. Anything that could damage the company's reputation or openly instigate controversy is fair game for a lay off. Most entertainers have, in their contracts, small clauses that cover how they can't make the company look bad or risk immediate termination.
The first amendment protects us from legal/state consequences, but it won't protect our jobs from private sector consequences.
7 Safety_Dancer 2014-07-04
That's a mighty fine strawman you got there.
Sure would change your tune if you got assaulted and then fired after the fact.
10 Sudley 2014-07-04
You should be able to do both of those things.
2 jp1758 2014-07-04
What is so offensive about him taking pictures
10 [deleted] 2014-07-04
It's not about rights or obligations you fuck. That doesn't mean its not about free speech.
7 LilConner2005 2014-07-04
What obligation do I have to not call you a cunt?
0 gogojack 2014-07-04
Thing is, Ant didn't lose his freedom of speech. He lost his job. Nobody has a right to a radio show, and judging by his Twitter feed Cumia is still very much free to speak his mind. So the idea floating around here that he's some sort of fucking martyr or victim is ridiculous.
-9 [deleted] 2014-07-04
He HAS free speech...at home on his couch in front of his twitter page.
3 [deleted] 2014-07-04
What's that?
2 thenewloon 2014-07-04
umm...you can...that's not illegal
5 [deleted] 2014-07-04
uh no. going after a man's livelihood for something he said is anti-free speech. imposing consequences on speech is anti-speech by definition. you're obviously not a fan anyway so fuck off.
-2 ApeRobot 2014-07-04
You just get fucking dumber as we go, is that it?
0 TempusThales 2014-07-04
Holy shit, I didn't know I literally had the power to dismantle society. I guess I'm a ta'veren then.
I agree with that, but when you start calling all black people savages and that they aren't people, you've opened up a brand new can of worms.