Does the First Amendment apply to things one says as an employee of a business, and thus provide protection from being fired?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I understand your point about being an employee and honestly I don't know how 1st Amendment applies to radio. I think that having a job that pays you to speak probably is a bit different than the average employee conversation in the break room, but even with that I think it would be pathetic if you got fired from any job for that statement. It seems to me that being a talk radio station that they should allow him to say what he wants as long as it is not outside the law. I listened to Howard Stern make jokes about Columbine tragedy just after the event here in CO and he didn't lose his job. If the things this guys says make enough people angry then market forces will cause his removal.

I just think it is scary and pathetic that a comment like this can result in being fired and the management of that station is weak for giving in to CAIR. I haven't read there was an overall outcry against his statement by the general public, just CAIR. This is hyper sensitive PC reaction only because it was directed at Islam.

Please read the article you linked to. Then read your posts. You missed quite a few pieces of the puzzle.

Well I did read the article and I am not sure what pieces you are talking about. The pieces are talks show host made comments on his show, CAIR took offense to comments, CAIR pressures radio station, Radio station demands apology, Host rightly says FU, station fires host. What did I miss?

No--it doesn't. As one professor I had stated--"You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to a job."

If you bring embarrassment on your employer from things you say while on the payroll (or even off in some cases)--you can be fired. Just ask Jimmy the Greek and Rush Limbaugh.

It was a rhetorical question, but thanks.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

just out of curiosity, do you believe in the content of his statement?

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

What I believe doesn't have anything to do with this issue. I do believe that he has the right to say it, just like Stern had the right to make his incendiary comments. I also believe that tri_bri2 and Ken are right when they say he has no right to the job but I think this comment was a long way from grounds for firing.

Your question highlights my point that this is not about what he said or his right to say it but about the fact he said something about Islam.

Understood. I was just trying to agree with you for once!

I think this comment was a long way from grounds for firing

jeez, if that's a long way, how far would he have to go to get fired in your opinion? it seems pretty inflamatory to me and does not seem to serve any valid purpose. if you owned the station, would you allow you hosts to make outlandish statements against racial, religious and ethnic groups without firing them?

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

5280 = Brian



I see the same complete lack of logic in his debating style.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

I don't disagree it was inflamatory, we agree 100%. My issue is that he was only fired because CAIR pressured the station. If I was the owner of the station I would tell CAIR that I understand the issue they have raised but that I am not going to fire him for it. If what he said angers enough people he will lose his job through financial pressures because advertisers will complain. If you can't keep advertisers because you shoot your mouth off then you lose your job.

I don't disagree with you on the content of the statement, my issue is he was only fired (at least from what I have read) because one special interest group pressured them to do it. There have been many hosts who say stuff on the edge and in the end the market weeds out the ones that are over the line.

Excellent post. As someone who has attacked me in the past because you disagree with me I am not sure I care too much what you think and generally see your style of debate as an ongoing troll as evidenced in this post.

This part:
"WMAL president and general manager Chris Berry told the industry publication Radio & Records: "Some of Michael's statements about Islam went over the line — and this isn't the first time that he has been reprimanded for insensitive language and comments. I asked Michael for an on-air acknowledgement that some of his remarks were overly broad and inexplicably he refused.""

This wasn't his first reprimand for on air comments.

No I got that piece, and I can't speak to those since they don't provide any detail to the comments or the history. It just makes me wonder why they didn't fire him before? They fired him this time because CAIR pressured them to and that is just seems weak to me. I don't think we should fire every person who says things we don't like.

I don't think we should fire every person who says things we don't like.


What about a person who denies the holocaust on the radio? What about a person who says that GW Bush is a crossdressing homosexual? What about a person who says that Christians are hate-filled fascists? Would you really be outraged if these persons got fired? I doubt it...

---

_______________________________________________

Let's look at MattinSF threat should they fire Pat? As I stated above, Howard Stern said some crappy things after Columbine and my buddy Ward Churchill says some really crappy stuff but you can't just go around firing people who you disagree with. Why do you think that is ok? Do I like what these people say? No!

In the same way I don't think they should fire that Ahole Churchill for what he said they shouldn't fire this guy.

he refused to apologize for calling Islam "a terrorist organization."

C'mon. You can justify that? Will the next supported statement be that Catholicism is a "pedophile organization"?

Conservative radio host Michael Graham

Doesn't sound too conservative to me. Sounds like he says whatever he wants without thinking. Oh wait conservative in this regard means Republican?

If I was the owner of the station I would tell CAIR that I understand the issue they have raised but that I am not going to fire him for it. If what he said angers enough people he will lose his job through financial pressures because advertisers will complain. If you can't keep advertisers because you shoot your mouth off then you lose your job.

Meanwhile your financial source is gone (advertisers), and company name is drug through the mud ... all too keep someone that said something stupid that could do little else but offend a large number of people. Can I work for you?

Howard Stern's employers look at what revenue he brought to the table v. the risks and decided he was worth it.

--------------------------------

Free speech doesn't mean "consequence free".

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

you can't just go around firing people who you disagree with. Why do you think that is ok?

Why the hell not? If I owned a radio station, I wouldnt pay people to say stupid and hate-filled crap on the air. Let them find another media to express their 1st Amendment rights.

---

_______________________________________________

wow, I don't know how many ways to say it I am not justifying or defending what he said, I simply state that it is dangerous to fire people because we don't like what they say and because a group pressures you to.

Meanwhile your financial source is gone (advertisers), and company name is drug through the mud ... all too keep someone that said something stupid that could do little else but offend a large number of people. Can I work for you? First, I haven't read anything that shows his comments were causing them to lose advertisers, just that CAIR raised an issue. How do you know that he isn't a profitable time slot? I don't know either but it is just your assumption he was losing advertisers.

Howard Stern's employers look at what revenue he brought to the table v. the risks and decided he was worth it. And that makes it right? I am confused, this guy was fired based on the fact he offended people, no one has said anything about his profitability, just that what he said was offensive so if you apply the same standard then Stern should have been canned because what he said was offensive.

Ok

I simply state that it is dangerous to fire people because we don't like what they say and because a group pressures you to.

Certainly it is dangerous to fire people becuase you don't like what they say. Firing someone for expressing a differing view, and fire someone because they slandered millions of people by referring to Islam as a "terrorist organization" are two COMPLETELY different things.

This is not a hard decision, nor complicated matter.

What's preventing a group of Islamic people from filing a class action lawsuit against the station?

As someone else pointed out, it's not the first time he said offensive things. Again, drastically offensive comments and differing viewpoints are two different things.

The station weighs the pros and cons, and makes a decision. If the guy has enough following, he'll be right back on a new radio station. Isn't that how it works? One man's trash is another man's treasure?

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

they slandered millions of people by referring to Islam as a "terrorist organization" are two COMPLETELY different things. I didn't hear the show but taking the statement as it stands I don't see this as a slander of millions. I see this statement as being focused on the leaders of the religion and the structure, but again I don't have the context.

What's preventing a group of Islamic people from filing a class action lawsuit against the station? for what?

What is funny is that the reaction to his statements by CAIR and the radio station have resulted in them being published way beyond the reach of his local show.

Certainly it is dangerous to fire people becuase you don't like what they say.

Why is it dangerous? There isn't exactly a sharp line between "don't like what they say" and "offensive"

What's preventing a group of Islamic people from filing a class action lawsuit against the station?

They'd never win it, that's not the issue.



The station weighs the pros and cons, and makes a decision.

Basically that's it. They wanted to have a conservative talk show host, not a rabid Michael Savage clone. So they fired the guy. Maybe another station wants that kind of commentary and will hire him..

---

_______________________________________________

You're not very bright are you?

First...the dude is a radio talk show host...he is paid by his employers to talk....if he talks badly or if they don't like his show they can fire him....same way if a firefighter puts out fires badly he can get the sack. His employers obviously don't like the content of his show, therefore he got fired.

His employers can fire him because they disagree with him. The first amendment does not protect your status as a radio host. He is still free to spout his hate speech on a soapbox on the street corner, he just no longer has another person's radio station to do it with. see the difference?

Howard Stern is a shock jock, he is paid by his employers to shock people, hence his penchant for tasteless and inappropriate conversation. When he says something shocking about Columbine his employers make more money and he gets a riase.

As for Pat Robertson, he's a multi-millionaire courtesy of the stupid people who send him money every month. He owns his TV station so nobody is going to fire him.

He should be arrested though for inciting violence. He should also have his broadcasting lisence revoked. He is using the public airwaves to call for the murder of another human being....what else do you have to do to get your lisence pulled?

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Except for civil rights laws, employment contracts, unions and other laws affecting terms of employment, you can be fired for just about any reason, or for no reason.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

yeah Steve, I am clear on that. My argument isn't about legality of the firing. I know you are free to be fired for any reason

Well then I guess I don't understand you point. They guy said something the station wanted him to apologize for, and he refused. Seems like they had every reason to let him go.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

"just out of curiosity, do you believe in the content of his statement? "

There's no real clear yes or no clear cut answer.

But his statement does have more truth to it than many care to admit and many others even realize. Study the basics of the religion and the way it's religious leaders interpret it and look at where almost all this terrorism is coming from and his statement, while may not be all encompassing isn't that far from the truth either.

The sooner everyone realizes this the more understanding of the nature of the threat can be understood, which leads to better comprehension of what measures may be needed.

"The sooner everyone realizes this the more understanding of the nature of the threat can be understood, which leads to better comprehension of what measures may be needed."

Like genocide?

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

kangaroo, you're Hindu, aren't you? Either Hindu or a Catholic from South East Asia.

My point is the ONLY reason he got fired was because of CAIR, which has issues of its own. For the record here is the full context of what he said:

"Because of the mix of Islamic theology that - rightly or wrongly - is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and reclaim their religion."

I don't think you should get fired for that and I wouldn't apologize for it either. His statement is right on the money.

I think that's an oversimplification. Perhaps CAIR was the catalyst. But he got fired because he refused to apologize as he was ordered to do by his superiors.

If I insult a co-worker, and my boss tells me I'm fired if I don't apologize, and I refuse, I can hardly argue that it's unfair. Same thing here. Boss decided he needed to apologize. He refused. Case closed.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

it is simplified but that is the boiled down issue. Would you apologize for something you said if you felt it was correct? Would you apologize if you felt the request was fueled by pressure from an outside group like CAIR?

The analogy isn't the same but regardless he does have to live with his choice not to apologize and I am sure he knew that when he refused to do it.

It's not the ONLY reason he got fired - as has been pointed out already, he had been previously reprimanded for insensitive comments.

---

_______________________________________________

Just curious, did you read the full text of what he said? I posted it above and that comment is not enough to warrant being fired, it was not the comment but the pressure from CAIR that got him fired. If you want to believe it was not I am ok with that.

I read the text.

I posted it above and that comment is not enough to warrant being fired


Says you

it was not the comment but the pressure from CAIR that got him fired

Says you

And what caused him to be reprimanded in the past?

---

_______________________________________________

Again, if you think he should be fired for that comment then fine, I am obviously a minority on this board on this point. I don't think what he said was wrong or near grounds for firing. That aside, I don't know what he was reprimanded for in the past and I don't even know it would matter.

I don't think what he said was wrong or near grounds for firing.

Hold on a minute, way up in this thread I asked you if you were supporting the content of what he said and you denied it, now you're saying you don't think what he said is wrong! If Islam as a whole is "a terrorist state", then do you also advocate a war in Islam in general??? Should all who practice Islam be considered to be enemies of the U.S.???

So basically this thread is about your support of anti-Islamic rhetoric. That is profoundly sad.

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

wow nice jump! What I said above, to be clear, is that my opinion of what he said didn't matter and that remains true.

First, I haven't called Islam a terrorist state.

Second, I don't (nor did he) advocate a war on Islam

Third, I didn't say (nor did he) anything about everyone who practices Islam being enemies of the US. Read below "if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and reclaim their religion"

Read the comment again and try to climb down off the wall...

Because of the mix of Islamic theology that - rightly or wrongly - is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and reclaim their religion."

Now, I would not have called it a terrorist organization with a broad brush like he did, but his points are well made. Those who practice Islam have lost control of it to these people and it has become a center point of their causes.

I am not anti Islam.

He said: Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization

You said: I don't think what he said was wrong, and then: I would not have called it a terrorist organization with a broad brush like he did, but his points are well made. Those who practice Islam have lost control of it to these people and it has become a center point of their causes.

I would make the case that your statements are bigoted, stereotyping hate speech. When the Catholic members of the IRA were engaged in terrorist acts in the UK, did you make statements like the ones above against all Catholics? There are millions, if not billions, of people in the world who practice Islam. You may not know a single one, but please try to refrain from lumping them all together with the terrorists.

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

GJS, I know you will not believe me but I will state it anyway. I am not lumping all of them together. I totally see that there are people practicing a religion they believe in and hold dear and that the same religion is being used as a catalyst for a certain group with in the religion. I am not anti Islam in general but I am against the versions that some people are teaching / following. I am very concerned that the people who are using it to justify their violence seem to be much louder and have more of a grip on the future of the religion.

This is exactly why I didn't answer your question above because I knew you would make it about me and it is not.

I'm not sure I believe that anymore.

---

_______________________________________________

Partial Genocide a-la Hiroshima and Nagasaki may not be that unrealistic. Let's say a few more 911's or even something similar on a nucleur scale. How do you combat an in grain mentality in so many? Good news is that the Democratic leaders sincerely do not want this and the tolerance is pretty high.

You may think this is harsh, but reverse situation, given the chance do you think them terrorists would even hesitate for a moment?

I certainly hope these Fundamentalists will diminish and not expand in numbers and determination and that Muslims as a whole can underatand that it is not Muslims and Ignorant Infedels despite what their religion says because if they don't change they may be unwittinly drawing themselves to such an end.

Haris you're off base. I am neither of any of the race or religions you are guessing. Yes I do reside in SE Asia for now and have been for the last 15 years and I am planning on returning to OZ. I come from from a Christian upbringing, mother is Methodist, attended school in an Anglican private boarding school.

Really have no liking for any institutionalized religion and seeing what's going around the world and comparing the mentalities of those from different religions which is all around me, I must say that my most unfavourite is Islam. My dislike of the mentality that this religion brings has absolutely nothing to do with ... because I am of this religion I don't accept that religion. This if you've seen some of my posts is the very thing I really dislike about religion, any religion as a whole ie the way religions cause divisiveness and conflict amongst mankind.

Well, cough, cough, perhaps some tolerance of the intolerant is called for, but a radio station has some public responsibilities, including regulatory ones, that individuals don't "enjoy".

If Graham had opined that all WASPS were Nazis, or that all Blacks were thieves, or all Jews were greedy, or all Poles stupid, would you have felt as sympathetic? I mean, lad, you've bothered to post a message in a public forum about THIS alleged abuse of free speech when so many other abuses are extant and readily available. Would we be errant if we conclude from this post that you think the comment has some merit?

Where and when you take a stand matters.

FWIW, I wouldn't have fired this fellow for his comment, but I also wouldn't have hired such a bonehead in the first place.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

1) "Because of the mix of Islamic theology that - rightly or wrongly - is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization."

Thing is the Koran is an exact photocopy of the one that is in heaven and has no room for interpretation only blind obedience word verbatim.

2) "It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and reclaim their religion."

From my interaction with Muslims even my modernized buddies, superbike racers and cyclists some I have known from years ago, I get the impression that the vast MAJORITY of Muslims are actually very empathetic toward the cause of the terrorists and are quite happy about 911 and other terrorist incidents. I find myself avoiding Muslims who previously I felt to be fairly close friends. As induividuals I still love them to bits but under the Muslim influence that is so much part of them I see very different persons. Religion in it's all powerful influence is craziness....literally a kind of mental disease that clouds one's judgement and shapes one's ideas deeply.

Robert, I am not sure what your point is regarding "my stand". In the end, what happens to this guy doesn't mean much to me personally, my life will go on. Sorry if I missed your point but the purpose was not to "take a stand" but to discuss it. It has been interesting to me to read most of the replies and read why they think he is wrong.

As for your statement about if he had opined that all WASPS were Nazis etc. I would ask you to go back and read the quote again. Please notice that he didn't say one word about all Muslims being anything, in fact he explicity refers to "violent radicals ". What he did do was make a comment about the current state of Islam as an organization. This, to me, is the same as people calling the Catholic church out for the pedophile scandal, there was no insinuation that all Catholics are pedophiles but rather the church was doing a horrible job of handling the situation and his quote is the same.

FWIW, I wouldn't have fired this fellow for his comment, but I also wouldn't have hired such a bonehead in the first place. This is an interesting point. I wonder what his reputation was when they hired him? I wonder if they knew he was likely to make controversial statements and hired him for that purpose? Maybe they liked his style and the revenue it created until they got a call from CAIR?

"Religion in it's all powerful influence is craziness....literally a kind of mental disease that clouds one's judgement and shapes one's ideas deeply. "

I aqree with that, and I think it's valid for all the religions.

"I would make the case that your statements are bigoted, stereotyping hate speech. When the Catholic members of the IRA were engaged in terrorist acts in the UK, did you make statements like the ones above against all Catholics? There are millions, if not billions, of people in the world who practice Islam. You may not know a single one, but please try to refrain from lumping them all together with the terrorists."

The IRA Catholics are a very secular group. Islam based terrorism has widespread support in the religion itself and Islamic population and in the mentality it instills in Muslims as a whole.

2 educated and articulate Arab Muslims that I observed being interviewed on TV over the last few days ..

Representative of Arab Nations to USA said that the root problem is that there is not a single Religious leader, from the prominent to the one's in the local Mosques that he has come across who has the ability or the motivation to interpret Islam in such a way as to be able to intergrate with modern society. Obviously as a Muslim he cannot admit to any short comings in the religion itself. But being an educated man with some foresight and powers of observation he points to the problems of interpretation but has no solution to the problem which he falls just short of openly admitting. The implications are obvious though.

Professor of Muslim studies UCLA, interviewed on a predominantly Muslim audience channel where I'm at claims that the problem is that too many religious leaders are not qualified to teach and interpret Islam in it's proper form. In it's original proper form, there would be no danger of incitement of terrorism and such. I wonder if this is not just rhetoric to make non Muslims believe that it is an interpretation problem and not the premise of the religion itself. With great concern he says that Genocidal measures should be avoided at all costs. It is almost as if he can see that a situation may come that this may end up being a real possibility.

Here was a chubby, sweaty bearded Arab man. But this guy when he spoke was captivating. He spoke with great articulation, made his interesting points powerfully with perfect clarity; one of the best speakers I can remember listening to.

I feel that listening to intellectual Muslims speak (vast majority of the World's Muslim population are not educated except in the fundamental teachings of Islam which they are very well schooled) are very inciteful and give even greater insight to the profundity of the problem and confirmation to our own suspicians ... my own at least....especially when they reluctantly, indirect as it may be to admit to the basic problems of the religion and how it's related to terrorist incitement. Who better to know than the creme de la creme of the educated intellectuals within the Islamic community itself.

"I aqree with that, and I think it's valid for all the religions."

Absolutely. But problem is there is one religion right now that is in the limelight, through too many occurences, as a threat to the rest outside of the religion and even to those within it's own faith. This religion seriously needs an extreme makeover.

5280:

Ok, I accept that you weren't taking a stand by raising this one example of speech being stifled. My fear was that you might be banging this drum because you feel all Muslims are terrorists or bad or whatever.

It may not have been just the call from CAIR, but their fear their license renewal might be in jeopardy if they allowed such inflammatory rhetoric. One would have to know the thinking of management, a set of facts outside our ken.

Best regards-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank