The comparison between Ant & Richman is a stretch at best. Richman is a "G-rated" celeb from the Travel Channel, so when a guy with a more "wholesome" image does something out of line, it damages HIS personal brand. Anthony is clearly not some wholesome, family friendly, G-rated celeb... he's quite the opposite. He's specifically known for his "shocking" personality, which often is "offensive", but that's exactly what he's been paid to be for 20 years!!! Yet this article neglects to mention those finer points.
The article loves to downplay the "free speech" angle since it's siriusXM firing him, and not the government. But that doesn't change the fact that this firing, and all others like it (apologies too!) further contribute to the death of free speech in today's society. Sure, the government may not be the ones censoring speech, but when the media and private companies all jump on the fake outrage bandwagon then free speech might as well be a thing of the past. People may not be going to prison for their words, but more and more people are losing their careers, money, and their livelihoods over simple WORDS. So yeah, it's not exactly free when everyone has to worry about employers, potential employers, special interest groups, and the future (because all those people like to dig up the past).
It was a biased article with zero research. Had they done ANY research, they'd have known Ant has said much worse ON AIR (and even on twitter) over the years... but that would have contradicted their own article and all this new fake outrage.
But Free Speech was never meant to enforce what private corporations did, it only protects you from the governments actions, just like the rest of the constitution does. Sirius XM, like a lot of companies, appear to retain a right to terminate someone for any reason, even for things they say.
If you wanted a different system, then you'd need to get ride of corporations rights of self determination and management. Because the same right that protects them from being told what to say and not say by the government, also allows them to ignore the protections offered to people by governments.
So unless you made corporate america sign a constitution all on their own to compel them to legally give a fair reason to fire someone, any discussion of rights is simply a theoretical exercise to begin with.
The government doesn't have to step in to confirm who you are and what you value. Free speech is a value that people can have. SiriusXM is not a company that values that. The government doesn't have anything to do with this.
Because that's the way the constitution was written, and the constitution is the only document that actually gives you any sort of free speech right in the first place. The default assumption of any society is that any right not given to you by the government, or action the government is compelled to do, simply doesn't exist in the discussion.
There is no authority or power in just a belief people have. There has to be some institution or force willing to give backing to such a belief to make it even come close to a right, and even then, should a more powerful force or organization deem you as being wrong, and the government doesn;t do anything about it, then you are simply wrong.
Without the government, you don't have rights, because rights only exist in a system where there is a punishment for "violating" rights and a system that can enforce "rights".
You can have values and morals that aren't based in law. Honesty is only legally required in certain situations yet its something people tend to respect highly.
Values and morals are worthless without any sort of authority behind them, especially if the law doesn't back you up when you stand behind those morals and values, then you're fucked on all sides.
Personal codes of conduct and morality are all fine and good for an individual, but have a situation where there's more then one person involved, and the whole thing comes flying apart at the seams. Suddenly someone finds what you believe to be counter to what they believe, and no authority to say which is better. So folks settle it the way they have for thousands of years, they beat each other senseless until the other person relents.
Your feel good moral compass doesn't mean dick, if you don't have the approval or authority to enforce it on others. It just as meaningless as trying to argue something based on levels of enjoyment, or favorite colors, or what name they think sounds good. It's wishy washy bullshit that doesn't hold up at all and has no worth outside of that one persons opinion.
I'm not saying private corporations don't have a right to do what they want. I'm just saying that all these companies caving into fake outrage is setting a bad precedent. It's all incredibly hypocritical.
Shit... O&A have talked about this a million times, and Jimmy could say it better than me. Every week it's something new where companies are caving in over a few "offended" people's cries. People's past words, current opinions, political views, vehicle names, and even sports team names are all being held hostage by this offensiveness movement.
You say that, as if private corporations don't ever just do things out of bad precedents and fully commit to hypocrisy. They don't need to be consistent, or moral, that's never been within their goals, and getting rustled jimmies about it now, is a bit late.
Ha, yeah, companies aren't exactly highly regarded or the most ethical. But believe me, these jimmies have been rustled for a long time... which is just one more reason I loved O&A.
They were one of the ONLY places where all this bullshit was discussed openly. It's more than one company making a shitty hypocritical decision, it's this politically correct movement in society where everyone is offended or outraged over things that don't matter... WORDS.
Its more a culture of extreme acceptance of corporate power that's the problem. If companies didn't have the right to fire someone without due process or reason, then most of these firings or cancellations wouldn't be happening period.
I can't bring myself to hate at the PC advocates for essentially taking advantage of a loophole that the corporate world loves and will fight tooth and nail to retain. If other ideas of what should and shouldn't be accepted were truly viable, their advocates would have found an exploit to gain a foothold as well, but didn't. More content with complaining then finding ways to improve their influence like the PC crowd did.
Well, I guess I'm the minority... I hate this PC world and all the overbearing acceptance that comes with it. It's contributing to the death of free speech, making this country even more litigious, and dumbing down the country in the process.
It seems as if the less educated, or overly religious parts of society (minority) are the ones complaining, where as the intelligent people could care less about some celebrity's opinions or some sports mascot. THIS is the problem... the media, private companies, and in some cases the government are all catering to these small groups of "outraged" people, meanwhile 99% of the rest of the world doesn't care.
With so many great quotes on the topic, I've always been partial to Stephen Fry's:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
Bottom line, this is the ultimate problem with the whole apology culture: "If we demand a career death penalty for every interesting but volatile personality, we are demanding a more boring world". I wish young gawking whatshisname and the unintelligent feminist got that...
14 comments
2 Jared_from_SUBWAY 2014-07-07
Disagree... not a decent read.
The comparison between Ant & Richman is a stretch at best. Richman is a "G-rated" celeb from the Travel Channel, so when a guy with a more "wholesome" image does something out of line, it damages HIS personal brand. Anthony is clearly not some wholesome, family friendly, G-rated celeb... he's quite the opposite. He's specifically known for his "shocking" personality, which often is "offensive", but that's exactly what he's been paid to be for 20 years!!! Yet this article neglects to mention those finer points.
The article loves to downplay the "free speech" angle since it's siriusXM firing him, and not the government. But that doesn't change the fact that this firing, and all others like it (apologies too!) further contribute to the death of free speech in today's society. Sure, the government may not be the ones censoring speech, but when the media and private companies all jump on the fake outrage bandwagon then free speech might as well be a thing of the past. People may not be going to prison for their words, but more and more people are losing their careers, money, and their livelihoods over simple WORDS. So yeah, it's not exactly free when everyone has to worry about employers, potential employers, special interest groups, and the future (because all those people like to dig up the past).
1 Produceher 2014-07-07
But it brings home the point that Anthony knew better.
1 Jared_from_SUBWAY 2014-07-07
Not really.
It was a biased article with zero research. Had they done ANY research, they'd have known Ant has said much worse ON AIR (and even on twitter) over the years... but that would have contradicted their own article and all this new fake outrage.
0 JensaaraiBronitarian 2014-07-07
But Free Speech was never meant to enforce what private corporations did, it only protects you from the governments actions, just like the rest of the constitution does. Sirius XM, like a lot of companies, appear to retain a right to terminate someone for any reason, even for things they say.
If you wanted a different system, then you'd need to get ride of corporations rights of self determination and management. Because the same right that protects them from being told what to say and not say by the government, also allows them to ignore the protections offered to people by governments.
So unless you made corporate america sign a constitution all on their own to compel them to legally give a fair reason to fire someone, any discussion of rights is simply a theoretical exercise to begin with.
1 wowbagger88 2014-07-07
Why is it always about government intervention?
The government doesn't have to step in to confirm who you are and what you value. Free speech is a value that people can have. SiriusXM is not a company that values that. The government doesn't have anything to do with this.
1 JensaaraiBronitarian 2014-07-07
Because that's the way the constitution was written, and the constitution is the only document that actually gives you any sort of free speech right in the first place. The default assumption of any society is that any right not given to you by the government, or action the government is compelled to do, simply doesn't exist in the discussion.
There is no authority or power in just a belief people have. There has to be some institution or force willing to give backing to such a belief to make it even come close to a right, and even then, should a more powerful force or organization deem you as being wrong, and the government doesn;t do anything about it, then you are simply wrong.
Without the government, you don't have rights, because rights only exist in a system where there is a punishment for "violating" rights and a system that can enforce "rights".
1 wowbagger88 2014-07-07
I'm not a libertarian, but I have to ask...
Do you pray to a picture of the president?
You can have values and morals that aren't based in law. Honesty is only legally required in certain situations yet its something people tend to respect highly.
1 JensaaraiBronitarian 2014-07-07
Values and morals are worthless without any sort of authority behind them, especially if the law doesn't back you up when you stand behind those morals and values, then you're fucked on all sides.
Personal codes of conduct and morality are all fine and good for an individual, but have a situation where there's more then one person involved, and the whole thing comes flying apart at the seams. Suddenly someone finds what you believe to be counter to what they believe, and no authority to say which is better. So folks settle it the way they have for thousands of years, they beat each other senseless until the other person relents.
Your feel good moral compass doesn't mean dick, if you don't have the approval or authority to enforce it on others. It just as meaningless as trying to argue something based on levels of enjoyment, or favorite colors, or what name they think sounds good. It's wishy washy bullshit that doesn't hold up at all and has no worth outside of that one persons opinion.
1 Jared_from_SUBWAY 2014-07-07
I'm not saying private corporations don't have a right to do what they want. I'm just saying that all these companies caving into fake outrage is setting a bad precedent. It's all incredibly hypocritical.
Shit... O&A have talked about this a million times, and Jimmy could say it better than me. Every week it's something new where companies are caving in over a few "offended" people's cries. People's past words, current opinions, political views, vehicle names, and even sports team names are all being held hostage by this offensiveness movement.
1 JensaaraiBronitarian 2014-07-07
You say that, as if private corporations don't ever just do things out of bad precedents and fully commit to hypocrisy. They don't need to be consistent, or moral, that's never been within their goals, and getting rustled jimmies about it now, is a bit late.
1 Jared_from_SUBWAY 2014-07-07
Ha, yeah, companies aren't exactly highly regarded or the most ethical. But believe me, these jimmies have been rustled for a long time... which is just one more reason I loved O&A.
They were one of the ONLY places where all this bullshit was discussed openly. It's more than one company making a shitty hypocritical decision, it's this politically correct movement in society where everyone is offended or outraged over things that don't matter... WORDS.
1 JensaaraiBronitarian 2014-07-07
Its more a culture of extreme acceptance of corporate power that's the problem. If companies didn't have the right to fire someone without due process or reason, then most of these firings or cancellations wouldn't be happening period.
I can't bring myself to hate at the PC advocates for essentially taking advantage of a loophole that the corporate world loves and will fight tooth and nail to retain. If other ideas of what should and shouldn't be accepted were truly viable, their advocates would have found an exploit to gain a foothold as well, but didn't. More content with complaining then finding ways to improve their influence like the PC crowd did.
And this is the result.
1 Jared_from_SUBWAY 2014-07-07
Well, I guess I'm the minority... I hate this PC world and all the overbearing acceptance that comes with it. It's contributing to the death of free speech, making this country even more litigious, and dumbing down the country in the process.
It seems as if the less educated, or overly religious parts of society (minority) are the ones complaining, where as the intelligent people could care less about some celebrity's opinions or some sports mascot. THIS is the problem... the media, private companies, and in some cases the government are all catering to these small groups of "outraged" people, meanwhile 99% of the rest of the world doesn't care.
With so many great quotes on the topic, I've always been partial to Stephen Fry's:
2 triit 2014-07-07
Bottom line, this is the ultimate problem with the whole apology culture: "If we demand a career death penalty for every interesting but volatile personality, we are demanding a more boring world". I wish young gawking whatshisname and the unintelligent feminist got that...