Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Kablooie

(18,603 posts)
Tue May 29, 2018, 06:41 PM May 2018

The cancelling of Roseanne WAS about free speech.

Roseanne was free to make abhorrent comments but that does not include freedom from the consequence of her statements.

By cancelling the show, ABC president, Channing Dungey, was exercising her own free speech right, the statement being that she considers Roseanne's comments totally unacceptable.

It really galls me when idiots complain that free speech means there should be no consequences to what people say.
The consequences are someone else's free speech right! It's not a one way street.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,520 posts)
1. Free speech isn't the question at all. It's only where the government is involved
Tue May 29, 2018, 06:48 PM
May 2018

that the issue of the constitutional right to free speech comes up. A private person or entity can restrict the speech of employees or others it contracts with in whatever way it wants, and ABC was responding to the likelihood that its business would be harmed.

JenniferJuniper

(4,507 posts)
2. My employer has the right to fire me if
Tue May 29, 2018, 06:50 PM
May 2018

they don't like what I say to clients.

Roseanne called an African American woman an ape. Yes, that's a firing offense. Times 1000.

WhiskeyGrinder

(22,300 posts)
3. Wha? This had nothing to do with government abridgement of speech, and everything to do with
Tue May 29, 2018, 06:54 PM
May 2018

contract law.

Solly Mack

(90,758 posts)
4. It was more about the spokesperson for a brand becoming too toxic.
Tue May 29, 2018, 06:58 PM
May 2018

Disney doesn't want boycotts.

I'd like to think money wasn't involved in their decision but it probably was the bottomline. RB had gotten away with a lot already.

Disney owns ABC.

 

RandomAccess

(5,210 posts)
5. Nothing whatsoever to do with Free Speech
Tue May 29, 2018, 07:53 PM
May 2018

The Constitutional guarantee to free speech applies only to GOVERNMENTAL attempts to censor, not private organizations or people. Not a free speech issue anywhere around this.

The NFL issue MAY have to do with Constitutional free speech because the NFL owners are apparently trying to placate Trump.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
7. Yup, free speech is free from government interference. Just like DU has no free speech obligations..
Tue May 29, 2018, 08:40 PM
May 2018

ABC has no obligation to host any particular asshole's show.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

jes06c

(114 posts)
8. If right wingers try to make this a free speech issue
Tue May 29, 2018, 09:47 PM
May 2018

Then ask them if they also went to bat for the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against George W. Bush and the Iraq War. I'm willing to bet the people defending Roseanne were the same people calling for a Dixie Chicks boycott.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The cancelling of Roseann...