Opie & Anthony: Is Free Speech Truly at Risk?
If you are unfamiliar with the Opie & Anthony saga, suffice to say that they are a radio show aired on XM, they said some less than tasteful things on the air, and they have been suspended. What was said, who said it, and where it was said is really not important. What is important is that there has been a small uproar over censorship and the violation of Opie & Anthony’s freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
But the problem with that is there has been no violation of the First Amendment. As I read through the editorials that have been written, it is abundantly clear that there is a complete lack of understanding of what protections are granted. Unfortunately, that does not speak well of our educational system if the products of that system cannot even understand something so fundamental to America as the Bill of Rights.
Case in point - one Germain Lussier writing for recordonline.com and the Times Herald-Record:
Though no official action has been taken on Opie and Anthony over the statement (which, incidentally, only aired on XM, a world free from regulation by the Federal Communications Commission and where listeners pay for the privilege to hear O&A), the half-informed public outrage is enough to give pause.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution tells us that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.â€
Responsible or irresponsible, appealing or unappealing, funny or unfunny, Imus, JV and Elvis and Opie and Anthony are within their rights to broadcast hurtful language.
Otherwise, the American soldiers who have died fighting to defend the freedom of this country aren’t defending the freedom of speech – just the freedom to say things that don’t hurt other people’s feelings.
- quoted from Commentary: Free Speech? The Opie and Anthony, Imus, JV and Elvis saga
Mr. Lussier is correct on a single point here. Opie and Anthony are within their rights to broadcast hurtful language. The point he completely missed is that their employer is also within their rights to terminate their employment for that same language.
No right of free speech has been infringed. The FCC has not restricted their broadcast, nor has any other government agency as far as I am aware.
The First Amendment does not say that freedom of speech comes with freedom from consequences. It does not restrict anyone except government, and it does not guarantee a soap box on which to stand. “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech” is abundantly clear and straightforward. There shall be no laws made by the federal government restricting an individual’s right of speech. Since 1791, we have made some stretches on how we interpret this phrase, but no precedent can be made guaranteeing an individual’s right to a location in which to exercise that freedom of speech.
Simply put, Lussier is incorrect in his assumption that Opie and Anthony’s employer must let them be allowed to say whatever they want on their show, even if it is not in concert with the will of the employer. Nowhere is that kind of right protected. While they may have the freedom to say what they want, they do not have freedom from consequences.
I can grant that author of “The logic of censorship” some slack, since I do not believe they are American. I do not say this with any kind of American-centric arrogance, but merely because they are not a product of America’s education system where they would have no excuse for not fully understanding our own Bill of Rights. And he’s not too far off-base (not as far as Lussier).
So why is XM punishing its own hosts? Because the FCC still has indirect power over satellite radio content: it can block mergers, and XM has proposed exactly that with its only real competitor, Sirius. No one wants to offend federal regulators with billions of dollars at stake.
True, but also consider the fact that there are advertising dollars at stake. And advertising dollars do not come from sponsors that feel the medium does not have any control over their talent.
But that’s not really the point. The point is that the employer has every right in this case to do as they see fit. There is no government pressure to comply in this case - that would be an infringement of the 1st Amendment. This is an employer exercising control over their product and instituting consequences.
We can’t censor everything based on the lowest common denominator of sensitivity. This applies to conservative thought, liberal thought or completely non-political thought. You don’t need the concept of freedom of speech to protect pleasant speech, you need it to protect speech that might be and is offensive to some.[ read it here ]
This is not a case of censorship or freedom of speech. It’s not a case of decency, whether we might offend someone, or even political correctness. This is a case of an employer exercising their right to say, “This is my radio station, and while I hired you for your juvenile antics and crazy, over-the-top material, you took it too far this time. I’m letting you go.”
It’s just that simple.
Comments
Leave a Reply
![[Valid RSS]](/wp-images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
