Roseanne Barr off the air

Fudbucker said:
Do you think that has racist connotations?
Click to expand...

Interesting question, and one I hope our correspondent who uses it so frequently will "weigh in," as they say.

One recalls the Gorilla Hun episodes from WWI and WWII propaganda, does one not?
 
The Big Dog said:
Interesting question, and one I hope our correspondent who uses it so frequently will "weigh in," as they say.

One recalls the Gorilla Hun episodes from WWI and WWII propaganda, does one not?
Click to expand...

No, I'd never had of that before. I googled "Gorilla hun" and got 650 results and it asked me if I meant "gorilla hub".

Link?
 
johnny karate said:
Will you actually be making the argument that this is in fact a free speech issue?

Or are you just going to offer vague assertions?
Click to expand...

Free speech is at issue here, yes. Obviously. How can anyone say otherwise? Roseanne is being punished for speech, so yes, it's a free speech issue. Unambiguously.

I'm not a free speech absolutist, and free speech isn't the only issue at play here, so recognizing that this is in part a free speech issue doesn't determine what one thinks is an appropriate response to her speech. But if one cares about free speech, one should at least consider the implications of a response on free speech, even if one decides that it is a lesser concern than other factors.
 
Ziggurat said:
Free speech is at issue here, yes. Obviously. How can anyone say otherwise? Roseanne is being punished for speech, so yes, it's a free speech issue. Unambiguously.

I'm not a free speech absolutist, and free speech isn't the only issue at play here, so recognizing that this is in part a free speech issue doesn't determine what one thinks is an appropriate response to her speech. But if one cares about free speech, one should at least consider the implications of a response on free speech, even if one decides that it is a lesser concern than other factors.
Click to expand...

She is not being punished.Choosing to not voluntarily associate with someone is not punishing them.
 
"Wealthy famous woman loses tv show, will be replaced by some other show."

Oh the horror. To put this in the proper perspective, call me when she's tortured to death at a town event and has her extremities chopped off and cut up to be kept as souvenirs, for whistling at some dude, then we can talk about something actually awful, and not just losing something she's not entitled to have in the first place.

ETA: or to add a modern context - tell me when she's stabbed for holding hands with another woman. Or chased down and murdered for walking down the street in the arbitrarily-defined "wrong" clothes. Or beaten dragged to jail for "disrespect".
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
She is not being punished.Choosing to not voluntarily associate with someone is not punishing them.
Click to expand...

Semantic quibbles. They took actions which have intended negative consequences to her because of her speech. That affects her free speech, regardless of whether you want to call it punishment or not.
 
Mumbles said:
"Wealthy famous woman loses tv show, will be replaced by some other show."

Oh the horror. To put this in the proper perspective, call me when she's tortured to death at a town event and has her extremities chopped off and cut up to be kept as souvenirs, for whistling at some dude, then we can talk about something actually awful.
Click to expand...

That's a strange threshold for when something merits objection.
 
Ziggurat said:
Semantic quibbles. They took actions which have intended negative consequences to her because of her speech. That affects her free speech, regardless of whether you want to call it punishment or not.
Click to expand...

I don't think they intend any negative consequences for her. I don't know if the network cares if another channel picks up the show. They don't want to be in business with her.
 
The Big Dog said:
Certainly:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...brute'_WWI_propaganda_poster_(US_version).jpg

Here is another historical view https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/28/irish-apes-tactics-of-de-humanization/
Click to expand...

Well, the Irish one is somewhat topical, but since Trump is not Irish, nor was his supposed "irishness" the reason why the comparison was made, nor do the Irish deal with systemic racism anymore, I'm not seeing the relevance here.

Care to elaborate?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't think they intend any negative consequences for her. I don't know if the network cares if another channel picks up the show. They don't want to be in business with her.
Click to expand...

They intended the consequences which are negative, and known to be. It wasn't accidental. Whether they intended the consequences to be negative doesn't really change the incentive structure this creates.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't think they intend any negative consequences for her.
Click to expand...
One way that ABC could show that they don't intend any negative consequences for her is to continue to pay her. Loss of income is a negative consequence and they could prevent that by paying her as if she were still working. It's perfect. She is not shown on their network and she faces nothing negative.

Right?
 
William Parcher said:
One way that ABC could show that they don't intend any negative consequences for her is to continue to pay her. Loss of income is a negative consequence and they could prevent that by paying her as if she were still working. It's perfect. She is not shown on their network and she faces nothing negative.

Right?
Click to expand...

That would still involve continued association.

ETA: also, they didn't pay her.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes when a person says something, others respond in a way that the speaker would not have preferred.

Freedom of speech entails a freedom of reaction. Otherwise, what would be the point?
 
Fudbucker said:
Well, the Irish one is somewhat topical, but since Trump is not Irish, nor was his supposed "irishness" the reason why the comparison was made, nor do the Irish deal with systemic racism anymore, I'm not seeing the relevance here.

Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Not really, I thought the linked article explained it pretty well, plus we were awaiting input from posters who compare Trump to Orangutans, were we not?
 
Ziggurat said:
That's a strange threshold for when something merits objection.
Click to expand...

Yeah, imagine that a claim of harm involve actual harm...

Here's the thing - all of these guys have contracts saying that they can lose their job if they cause too much public offense. It can be crimes, it can be bigoted tweets. Barr likely ran afoul of her contract, just like everyone with an ounce of sense knew she would. ABC decided it was no longer worth the effort to defend her bigotry, so she's gone.

And folks like me shrugged and discussed the risks of giving a scorpion a ride across a river on your back.
 
Ziggurat said:
Semantic quibbles. They took actions which have intended negative consequences to her because of her speech. That affects her free speech, regardless of whether you want to call it punishment or not.
Click to expand...


Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. She used her speech to make racist remarks, and ABC used their freedom of association, and likely the terms of her contract, to disassociate themselves from her in the most effective manner they had.

And since no one ever seems to remember this fact when making the "free speech" argument, the US Constitutional protections on freedom of expression and association only apply to government restrictions, not to private businesses or organizations, they can restrict all the speech and association they want within their purview as long as doing so does not fall afoul of anti-discrimination laws.

She has the right to free speech, but she does not have the right to demand that someone else provide a platform for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom