What freedom of speech isn't

[debgeisler]

This morning, singer Hank Williams opened his mouth on Fox and compared Obama with Hitler. Or at least sort of.

ESPN, which has used one of Hank Williams' songs for the last 20 years to open its "Monday Night Football" show, has pulled the song, indicating that Mr. Williams' reference made it unhappy and it no longer wished to be connected with him.

This is not a violation of Mr. Williams' rights to free speech.

Free speech means you can speak: you may make your political opinions (and many others) public without Congress deciding that it wishes to pass legislation against your right to free speech. Has the federal government regulated citizens' free speech? Yes. Is this a violation of the First Amendment? In general, yes. The SCotUS has clarified some acceptable restrictions (e.g., time, place, or manner limitations) on the exercise of free speech, but the Court hates prior restraint.

Laws which serve the function of censoring or restraining a person's exercise of their free expression (save only those based, in a content-neutral way, on time, place, or manner of the speech) are uniformly found unconstitutional. While a city may prevent someone from announcing their opinion at 4 a.m. on a loudspeaker, it cannot prevent a person from making that opinion known unless there is an over-riding state interest in doing so. The Court is pretty damned picky about what that would entail.

No one in the government is stopping Mr. Williams from saying what he wishes.

Further, ESPN is not stopping Mr. Williams from saying what he wishes.

ESPN is just saying that Mr. Williams must accept the consequences for what he said - and that one of those consequences is that ESPN no longer wishes to do business with him.

No matter how much people want to squawk about their "free speech rights," they seem to foolishly believe that businesses must allow those who they employ or whose work they use to shoot off their mouths any old time without consequence. That is absolutely not true.

You play; you pay. Get over it.

Comments

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Abso-damn'-lutely. Freedom of speech does not mean that you are absolved from all possible consequences of your speech.

[jbriggs.livejournal.com]

Hear! Hear! The Constitution limits Government, not non-government entities.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Yes, I am frequently surprised at how many people seem not to understand that the Constitution applies to government actions.

[dalesql.livejournal.com]

Freedom of speech does not absolve you from responsibility for your speech.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Exactly! It's like that nitwit who accused ConFrancisco of violating his free-speech rights because we refused to run his ads or give him programming time for his diatribe against Robert Sacks. If he wanted to walk around on the public sidewalk outside the convention center picketing the place for his one-man crusade, we couldn't have stopped him, but what he was doing didn't fall into any of the protected classes, and we told him, "No, we're not violating your rights; just because we're tax-exempt doesn't mean we're a government agency."

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

After the Hugo Awards at N4, we had a disgruntled fan post a screed about one of our winners on the N4 blog. I had our webmaster delete it. He posted it again. We deleted it again.

He sent snarky email about his "right to free speech." I replied that he could say all he wanted on a public street, but not on our web site about one of our honored winners.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Ah, right, him. I never saw the comment, but I heard about it. You did the right thing, but I am of course biased.

He could have published his comments on his own "press," but as you so rightly noted, he didn't have the right to use someone else's press for his views.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

He was a jackass. And there was no way I would let him mar the joy of a Hugo winner so that he could spew his bilge on our site. No way.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Hmm. If he'd made his objectionable remarks on ESPN, then the consequences of firing him would have naturally followed. But his song didn't contain his remarks on Obama. It makes me uncomfortable if the "consequences" are to punish him economically and by boycott for an unrelated action. Whether it's freedom of speech is beside the point; what it is, is censorship.

If I decided to terminate my contracts with anyone whose views I found objectionable, I'd either have to spend all my time researching them (is my plumber contributing to right-wing nut candidates?), which is unfeasible, or else pull them only if they became matters of public fuss, which is hypocritical.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

It makes me uncomfortable if the "consequences" are to punish him economically and by boycott for an unrelated action. Whether it's freedom of speech is beside the point; what it is, is censorship.

It's not censorship not to want your brand associated with objectionable statements. The song is very much associated with MNF and its accompanying footage shows Hank Williams Jr.

If I decided to terminate my contracts with anyone whose views I found objectionable, I'd either have to spend all my time researching them (is my plumber contributing to right-wing nut candidates?), which is unfeasible, or else pull them only if they became matters of public fuss, which is hypocritical.

There is a middle ground between having to research the backgrounds of contractors and only refusing to hire them if a matter becomes high profile, which is the view becoming known to you in some way. Most people who overheard their plumber making blatant racist or anti-Semitic remarks, for example, would probably be unlikely to employ them again.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

It's not censorship not to want your brand associated with objectionable statements.

What if the brand were a conservative network whose owners thought homosexuality to be immoral, and they pulled a regular song because the singer had come out, in some other forum, as gay? Would that be OK?

... which is the view becoming known to you in some way. Most people who overheard [insert objectionable idea here] would probably be unlikely to employ them again.

Which is exactly why gay people spent decades trembling fearfully in the closet.

Maybe you really don't think there'd be anything wrong with that. But most liberals would. I would. I really don't want to discover that the moral principles being upheld depend on the nature of the opinion being expressed, but I fear that I'm going to.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

I don't think your analogy holds: being gay is what you *are*, whereas people have options about their opinions and what they say.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

That's a distinction without a difference. Being a homosexual is something you are. Coming out as one is something you say, and it expresses an opinion: the opinion is that homosexuality is OK and that that to live as one openly, if that's what you are, is admirable. I share those opinions. But there are other people who consider those opinions immoral. If they own tv networks, do they not have the right to dismiss, in the way that ESPN dismissed Hank Williams, the work of those who are advocating opinions they consider immoral?

I'm uncomfortable with an unequivocal "yes" answer to that question. People should be able to live their outside lives without fear of economic retaliation for their opinions unrelated to the work they're being employed for. But I also believe that shoe fits both feet.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

But there are other people who consider those opinions immoral. If they own tv networks, do they not have the right to dismiss, in the way that ESPN dismissed Hank Williams, the work of those who are advocating opinions they consider immoral?

First, ESPN did not "dismiss" Hank Williams. They said they would no longer use the video of his song and him performing it to introduce their show.

Mr. Williams made a public statement that could bring harm to ESPN's image, since ESPN used his work and him as part of its Monday Night Football lead-in. ESPN does not take sides on political issues or politicians (unless it is asked to referee a basketball game in which the president is playing).

ESPN has every right to choose to change the lead-in for its show and to stop paying Mr. Williams royalties. While they would run afoul of federal laws if they were to fire an employee because the employee was a woman or hispanic or black...they can choose to fire or to stop broadcasting something from someone on the basis of his being an asshole.

"Asshole" is not a suspect classification.

And, finally, ESPN makes its money from advertising. If someone affiliated with a network makes a big enough stink, then advertisers begin to leave. If they leave, all of their lovely money leaves. They then either have to bite the bullet and go under, or they bite the bullet and get rid of the offender.

That's why Fox got rid of Glenn Beck. And that's why ESPN cut the cord with Hank Williams.

The right to free speech =/ the right to a platform in someone else's business.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

ESPN did not "dismiss" Hank Williams.

That is a quibble. My understanding is that his song had been a regular feature of their show for years. The week he makes his remark, it's gone. That's a unilateral termination of a standing contract.

Mr. Williams made a public statement that could bring harm to ESPN's image ... ESPN does not take sides on political issues or politicians

So nobody who's part of ESPN's image - announcers or whatever - may take public positions on political issues at all, at risk of their contracts? If your second sentence above is relevant at all, that's what it means.

ESPN has every right to choose to change the lead-in for its show and to stop paying Mr. Williams royalties.

Disingenuous again. It's transparently obvious that they dumped it not because they didn't want to use the song any more, but because they disliked what he said. Whether it's illegal is not really the point, because usually liberals protest, or at least express dismay at, the abrupt unilateral dismissal of individuals for expressing outside personal political views, instead of making tough remarks like "must accept the consequences" and "get over it." That's usually what right-wingers say, and it's that kind of dismissive heartlessness that's the first thing that comes to mind when we say what's repellent about them.

ESPN makes its money from advertising.

They didn't even wait for a drumbeat of protest from advertisers.

That's why Fox got rid of Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck was dismissed after a long drumbeat of protest from advertisers, and he was dismissed for things he said on Fox, in the course of the job he was employed by Fox to do. None of these points was true of Williams. (And furthermore, many noted Fox's hypocrisy at the time, as the job Beck was employed by Fox to do was actually to annoy liberals, which he did for years, spectacularly. Suddenly when he went far enough to annoy advertisers, out he went.)

The right to free speech =/ the right to a platform in someone else's business.

If the right to keep your standing platform is dependent on your not saying anything in public anywhere that your employer might not like, that's as chilling an effect on free speech as anything legally admissible that I can imagine.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

I'm seeing that you have a personal view of what "free speech" and "censorship" mean, that you are fairly dogmatic in that view, and that a discussion here will result in no change in your views or agreement between the two of us. So I'll spare us both the need to respond again.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

My point is that the views of "free speech" and "censorship" I'm expressing are the standard, ordinary views that liberals express when it's a liberal's ox that's being gored. I'm trying to assure myself that liberals don't suddenly take the right-wing attitude to this when the shoe is on the other foot, but I'm receiving no confidence on that score.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

If the right to keep your standing platform is dependent on your not saying anything in public anywhere that your employer might not like, that's as chilling an effect on free speech as anything legally admissible that I can imagine.

That is and has been, for as long as I have been aware, the case. There are very, very few causes for which an employer cannot fire one. In the absence of a contract or union agreement, etc., to the contrary, an employer can fire anyone for any reason, or no reason. The sole exception I am aware of is that one cannot be fired on the basis of membership in one of the "protected classes."

[calimac.livejournal.com]

It may be legal, but it's morally offensive. And it's usually protested against, very strongly, on moral grounds. To hear liberals say "his free speech wasn't violated" or "get over it" or "he was rude to our president and he paid the price" (gee whiz, would anybody on the left of Dick Cheney have said that about somebody who suffered for criticizing W.?) gives me a sense of vertigo, like all my friends have suddenly turned into monsters.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

His free speech wasn't violated. "Free speech" is a constitutional concept, and the government was not involved in this action.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

This is what I was calling disingenuous. If you're holding up a sign, and a bunch of thugs beat you up for it, is it really only a violation of your free speech if the thugs are cops? Most people, most of the time, know better than that, and they only retreat into this weird formal legal definition of "free speech" when they don't like the speech.

I'm reminded of the signs at airports assuring you that no-one is required to go through the metal detector. Of course, if you refuse, you can't board the plane, but that, they pretend, has nothing to do with it.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

"I'm uncomfortable with an unequivocal "yes" answer to that question." "Yes" meaning, "Yes, they have a right to dismiss." Got a little tangled in my rhetoric there.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Whether it's freedom of speech is beside the point; what it is, is censorship.

That's a strange definition of "censorship" you've got there. ESPN stopped using Williams's song. They didn't in any way block the publication (in whatever media) of his remarks about the president.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Actually, the strange definition of censorship is ESPN's. His song didn't say anything about Obama.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

You are the one who cried "censorship" and therefore implied a definition. ESPN severed ties with a contractor who was the "face" of their brand and whose publicly expressed political views they feared would hurt their brand. Are you saying that it is wrong for businesses to do that?

[calimac.livejournal.com]

What did they delete his song for? Not because they'd just decided they didn't want the song any more for reasons relating to the song. It's because they disapproved of what he said elsewhere and wished to deny him a forum to speak (to say something totally different and unrelated, and furthermore which was prerecorded and unchanging, so he wasn't going to surprise them). If that's not media-outlet censorship, then nothing is.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Hank Williams has been the "face" of Monday Night Football. It isn't just his song--he himself is shown when it is played. He is strongly identified with it. ESPN did not want to be identified with him.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a little late for that. They can't erase him retroactively, and acting as if they have is part of the hypocrisy.

[lisa-marli.livejournal.com]

Hank Jr was rude to our president and he paid the price. ESPN can hire and fire at will. Get over it.
If this had been someone complaining about Bush Jr, the Right Wing would be demanding their head for being Unpatriotic.
I always ask "What would you have done if this was said of Bush Jr". They hate that line of reasoning.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I'm a liberal; I'll ask that question. And the answer is: some country music performer was rude to Bush Jr. It was the Dixie Chicks. They were very rude. He may have deserved it, but they were rude. I don't think they were fired by anybody, but they were boycotted and loudly denounced by those who disagreed with a) their opinion; b) their right to express it.

I don't recall anybody on the left actually saying that the Chicks' critics had no right to respond that way, but the reaction was held up as an example of the intolerance and general boorishness of the right. There was a whole documentary film to that effect. Are we of the left to fall into the same trap?

I find it regrettable to say "he paid the price" when the price is his job, for expressing his opinions, reprehensible (though not criminal) as they may be. Liberals are supposed to support workers' rights, including the right not to be fired arbitrarily for expressing your opinions. The fact that Hank will not go broke from this is beside the point.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

The Dixie Chicks had their own economic problems as a result of the statement by Maines. People didn't go to their concerts. They lost some sponsorship work. And it is quite likely that the ACM choice of top entertainer one year was a deliberate slap at them. They were *country* performers, and most of the country singing side of things was very pro-Bush.

And *yes*, businesses that might have considered using DC music or performances as part of their advertising of public campaigns were perfectly within their rights to disconnect from DC.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I don't know what you thought about it at the time. But most liberals said things like, "What jerks the country-music fans are, for getting so het up about an honest political opinion," rather than, "Boy, it was really stupid of the Dixie Chicks to annoy their base."

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I didn't say either one. I said, "The Dixie Chicks had the guts to express their views, and certainly were smart enough to know that they would lose fans and perhaps bookings."

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I didn't know what you said, either. But I wasn't addressing you, and in any case your views in general are more distinctive and unpredictable than I've found Deb's to be. (That's not an insult to Deb. It's just that I've found her to be, like myself, a standard model liberal in many respects, while you are truly sui generis.)

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Do you believe, then, that a business owner must retain the services of a spokeperson, or someone who is the "face" of the brand, no matter how much the business is (or believes it will be) hurt by things the person says or does?

I hope you protested Charlie Sheen's being fired from Two and a Half Men.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I couldn't follow what was going on with anything I read about Charlie Sheen. But the impression I got is that he was fired for general derangement. Williams's remarks were offensive and ridiculous, but not deranged.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

So firing someone for making deranged remarks is OK, but firing someone for making offensive remarks is not? (One would think that the person might not be responsible for their actions in the former case, but they are in the latter.)

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Well, if they're not responsible for their actions, then they're completely unpredictable. Hank Williams realized that he'd gone too far, and tried to walk back his remarks. That may not be enough, but he clearly feels a sense of responsibility.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

And you didn't answer my question: Do you believe, then, that a business owner must retain the services of a spokeperson, or someone who is the "face" of the brand, no matter how much the business is (or believes it will be) hurt by things the person says or does?

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I think there's a line, and where political opinions are concerned that line is very clear: it's advocating treason, rebellion, or criminal acts like assassination. (And if it's the last of these, the FBI or Secret Service gets called.) Hank didn't do any of these things. He was just very very rude about a president whose policies he really dislikes. I want the same right to express the same opinions about some other president without being fired. (Actually, I don't think I have those rights, so I put my possibly contentious political posts friends-only.)

What I'm really looking for, though, is not a line, but a consistency on the part of onlookers. If they think it's justified to treat Hank this way, would they think the same way if it's a conservative network firing someone for an outside liberal opinion? When something like that happens, the usual liberal reaction (not necessarily yours, but the usual) is indignation and outrage. This time, though, I'm seeing lots of "tough luck" cold-heartedness, including from at least one "bleeding-heart liberal" (neither you nor Deb) whom I've known for decades and who has never spoken in such terms or with such a character in my presence before.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

When something like that happens, the usual liberal reaction (not necessarily yours, but the usual) is indignation and outrage.

I would like some examples of businesses of any kind (not necessarily conservative, as ESPN is not necessarily liberal) severing a business association with someone for making outrageous statements about a conservative politician, and liberals responding with indignation and outrage.

Fans don't count. It has to be a business severing a business association.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I don't keep them in my back pocket. It's an ordinary, usual event, and happens all the time. When I come across an example, I'll forward it, but I don't know how to dig them out on request. (The obvious Google searches for things like this would be worse than useless.)

[calimac.livejournal.com]

All right, I knew I wouldn't have to wait too long. Here's just the latest case of a situation like Hank Williams with the politics reversed, and liberals reacted with outrage. It's that of Lisa Simeone, an outside contractor (as Williams was for ESPN) with NPR for a radio show about opera. This had nothing to do with her offense, which was to be a spokesperson for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Here's James Fallows (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/well-good-for-wdav/247102/), former Carter speechwriter, rejoicing that the termination appears to have been cancelled, and he writes, "I would say the same thing if it turned out that the Car Talk guys were also spokesmen for the Tea Party." As far as I can tell on a quick search, though, he didn't write anything about Hank Williams at all.

Google Simeone and I'm sure you'll find many other liberal comments on the outrageousness of her termination; I'd already seen several, and this was just the one I happened to be reading when it hit me that it was what you were challenging me to produce. As I may have said before, this happens all the time, and liberals don't say, "Tough; business associations can be severed at will for any reason."