I'm so tired of authors harping on whether this was a literal 1st Amendment issue or not. Of course it wasn't literally a 1st Amendment issue. What people meant was that the firing went against the spirit of the 1st Amendment, which is the right to speak your mind without fear of being crucified for it.
It wasn't the government that prosecuted him for what he said, it was a gang of PC vigilantes and scandal mongering opportunists, and it wasn't the government who meted out his punishment, it was his employer under (extremely little) pressure from that mob. So yes, it wasn't literally a 1st Amendment issue, not technically, but the same principle was violated.
The worst part of this is that if the government was prosecuting Ant for his speech he would at least have been entitled to a fair trial, but because it was a pitchfork-waving mob roused by a two-bit gossip rag who went after him he didn't even get that.
I hope some day the same thing happens to everyone who wished for it to happen to Ant.
It's ridiculous how many people think they need to explain the 1st Amendment, when they are the ones not understanding that free speech is an ideal that wasn't invented by the US a few hundred years ago. Yes, the 1st Amendment only protects you from the government censoring your speech, but the idea of free speech is that no one should be censoring people. These people like to say if you say something that bothers people you have to suffer the consequences, but the whole point is to protect unpopular speech, if people can only say what is popular or they will be punished that is missing the entire point.
These people like to say if you say something that bothers people you have to suffer the consequences, but the whole point is to protect unpopular speech, if people can only say what is popular or they will be punished that is missing the entire point.
You are a stupid fucking dunce. Let's say you're in the market to buy a car. You go to a dealership, they have a good price, and everything is cool - until the salesman says that your face reminds him of the runny shit his dog took this morning.
Are you still gonna give him your money? Why not? Free speech, dood? Fuck, who cares if you don't like it, no consequences for unpopular speech - you should still give him your business!
No, in your example the correct analogy would be if he said that to you, then you attempted to stop other people from being able to buy a car from that dealership, but it is still a bad analogy. You don't have to listen to Opie and Anthony if you don't like what he says, but if you attempt to stop them from being able to do it, or stop other people from being able to listen you are attempting to censor them. People are free to consume a product of not, but we are talking about infringing on other peoples' right to do so. All you need to do is look up the definition of censorship or free speech.
8 comments
5 rumpumpumpum 2014-07-21
I'm so tired of authors harping on whether this was a literal 1st Amendment issue or not. Of course it wasn't literally a 1st Amendment issue. What people meant was that the firing went against the spirit of the 1st Amendment, which is the right to speak your mind without fear of being crucified for it.
It wasn't the government that prosecuted him for what he said, it was a gang of PC vigilantes and scandal mongering opportunists, and it wasn't the government who meted out his punishment, it was his employer under (extremely little) pressure from that mob. So yes, it wasn't literally a 1st Amendment issue, not technically, but the same principle was violated.
The worst part of this is that if the government was prosecuting Ant for his speech he would at least have been entitled to a fair trial, but because it was a pitchfork-waving mob roused by a two-bit gossip rag who went after him he didn't even get that.
I hope some day the same thing happens to everyone who wished for it to happen to Ant.
0 Scumbag_Reddit_ 2014-07-21
"I hope some day the same thing happens to everyone who wished for it to happen to Ant."
Don't we all.
3 Shitstache52 2014-07-21
Sounds like the logic that SJW and other PC speech nazis use in order to justify the jihadi crusades that they launch when they go after people.
It's a fucking pathetic mindset to have, if you don't like what someone says change the channel.
1 [deleted] 2014-07-21
[deleted]
1 Spokker 2014-07-21
Free speech and first amendment are not the same thing.
People can advocate for free speech independent of the first amendment.
First amendment applies to government, but free speech can apply to anything you control.
The truth is that very few people want free speech when they cannot control the circumstances of it. Look at Internet forums for answers.
0 untouchedURL 2014-07-21
Here is a non-mobile link: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/18/johnson-opie-anthony-fans-get-a-lesson-on-the-firs/?page=all
Sourcecode | How am I doing?
0 whatisthishere 2014-07-21
It's ridiculous how many people think they need to explain the 1st Amendment, when they are the ones not understanding that free speech is an ideal that wasn't invented by the US a few hundred years ago. Yes, the 1st Amendment only protects you from the government censoring your speech, but the idea of free speech is that no one should be censoring people. These people like to say if you say something that bothers people you have to suffer the consequences, but the whole point is to protect unpopular speech, if people can only say what is popular or they will be punished that is missing the entire point.
0 SuckBucket 2014-07-21
You are a stupid fucking dunce. Let's say you're in the market to buy a car. You go to a dealership, they have a good price, and everything is cool - until the salesman says that your face reminds him of the runny shit his dog took this morning.
Are you still gonna give him your money? Why not? Free speech, dood? Fuck, who cares if you don't like it, no consequences for unpopular speech - you should still give him your business!
0 whatisthishere 2014-07-21
No, in your example the correct analogy would be if he said that to you, then you attempted to stop other people from being able to buy a car from that dealership, but it is still a bad analogy. You don't have to listen to Opie and Anthony if you don't like what he says, but if you attempt to stop them from being able to do it, or stop other people from being able to listen you are attempting to censor them. People are free to consume a product of not, but we are talking about infringing on other peoples' right to do so. All you need to do is look up the definition of censorship or free speech.
-2 rumpumpumpum 2014-07-21
Who canceled their subscription because of what Ant said, Einstein?