Trident said:
How is this a First Amendment issue? Whoopi is free to say anything she likes. The makers of Slim-Fast are free to use whomever they like as a spokesperson. Had she been arrested afterward, you would have a good case for violation of free speech, but she wasn't. Same for Linda Rondstadt. The audience expressed their first ammendment rights by booing and walking out. Freedom of speech does not mean that everything you say is free from consequence.
If that were the case, where was the outrage when Rush Limbaugh was fired from ESPN for his Donovan McNabb comments? He said something stupid on the air & ESPN canned him. Was his first ammendment right infringed upon because there was a negative consequence for him?
Mike
Good questions Mike.
First let me say that my comment about the First Amendment to the Constitution is asked in a far more broad manner than just these two incidents in the entertainment world. I feel the current political climate is putting increasing pressure on those who might voice dissent, whether it be in the form of 'Free Press', 'Free Speech', 'Freedom of Religion' and 'Freedom of Assembly'. If one voices a minority opinion, and is then branded as a traitor, or unpatriotic, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy or in some other way ostracized, I propose there is a lessening in effectiveness for the First Amendment.
Now, let's turn to your thoughts. You are correct Whoopi is allowed to say anything she wants. She is also free to associate with whomever she wishes to associate. Further, the far right spin machine is able to say whatever they wish to say, specifically about Whoopi's comments at a private party. The problem arises when the spin machine (New York Post - Fox News - Drudge, et al) begin to attack the 'mainstream' media for not covering the story. When the major news networks are now describing an 'obscenity laced riff' at a Democratic Fundraiser (a minority function), can you not see how free speech is being quieted? Soon, only the most courageous might say "Let's keep Bush where it belongs, and that is not the White House".
Next, you addressed Slim-Fast terminating her contract. To a certain extent, Slim-Fast can have any spokesperson they wish, again here, you are correct. However, once they have entered into a legal agreement with a spokesperson, there are contractual obligations that must be met. Contracts like these often have a 'Morals' clause which the company can use to terminate the contract in the event of the spokesperson receiving bad press. So, Slim-Fast certainly has the right to invoke the Morals clause when Rupert Murdoch's business ventures start spinning a story about an 'obscenity laced riff'. Except, that Uni-Lever, the parent company of Slim-Fast has a written company policy stating that all employees may associate with whomever they wish. Well, apparently not.
Turning to Linda Ronstadt, the Aladdin Hotel, and the audience at the show last week. The worst culprit in this event is the Aladdin Hotel. When Ms. Ronstadt completed her show, she was escorted out of the building without even being able to return to the dressing room. While I don't know, it is quite probable that her performance contract included rooms for her and those members in her performance group, these were apparently denied after the incident.
I am not proposing that Freedom of Speech be without consequence. I know that with great Freedom comes Great Responsibility. But do you think that suggesting that an audience go see a movie should require the same pledge of life, fortune and sacred honor as our Declaration of Independence from England?
Lastly, it may be a semantic issue, and then again it may not; but, Rush Limbaugh resigned from ESPN. Now, it may be that had he not resigned, that ESPN would have fired him, but the comparison does not equate to Ms. Goldbergs dismissal from Slim-Fast, or Ms. Ronstadt's removal from the Aladdin.
If dissent is quieted, then there is no Freedom of Speech. If we, as citizens, stand by and do nothing as the voices of dissent are quieted, we are contributing to the loss of the principles that created this nation. To stand by idly, giving up those ideas that make us American is dangerous. I would suggest you ask your question in the affirmative, rather than the negative; How are we going to protect those who speak in dissent?
Going out on a limb here .... some have wondered how Hitler was able to gain control in Germany in the 30's. It wasn't as if one day Germany awoke under a Nazi regime bent on global conquest. It was a process that changed the country over time. I am further reminded of the Star Trek episode 'The Drumhead', where Worf was put on trial for his beliefs. At the conclusion of the episode, Picard reminded Worf that 'Constant Vigilance' is one of the obligations of a free society.
Thanks for contributing, and listening.
Longwindedly, Mike
artyon: 
