Richard Sandomir offers us a truly remarkable bit of weaselly reporting — he really takes contrived “balance” to brave new heights with this one…
ESPN said Thursday that it was its decision to end a long association with Williams, but he disputed that on his Web site: “After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made my decision. By pulling my opening Oct. 3, you (ESPN) stepped on the toes of the First Amendment freedom of speech, so therefore me, my song and all my rowdy friends are out of here. It’s been a great run.”
Williams may not be right about his First Amendment rights being violated …
But, really, who are we to say? Maybe the First Amendment does guarantee right-wing country singers the right to a TV contract. Perhaps the right to say offensive shit without people taking offense is enshrined in our Constitution. Who knows? It’s super-complicated!
This only gets better, because Sandomir, rather than, say, reading the 45 words of the First Amendment to determine if it pertains to “Congress” or “Sports Networks,” seeks out an expert opinion, and boy does he find a good one.
Bruce W. Sanford, a First Amendment expert at the law firm Baker Hostetler, said he “wouldn’t pounce too hard on him for not being a constitutional lawyer.”
“He seems to be saying that ESPN is discouraging his freedom of speech, which it certainly is,” Sanford said. “But it is entitled to do so as a private company which does not have to use a tone-deaf politico to sing into its kickoffs.”
Now, I don’t know if Bruce W. Sanford is the dumbest First Amendment expert in the country or, as I suspect, Sandomir used a quote that makes him seem that way. But I do know that statement is incoherent — in order for ESPN to ‘discourage his freedom of speech,’ the network would have to encourage the government to limit it. As far as it goes, I’m sure the network is quite happy that Williams is free to say whatever he wants, no matter how moronic or whiskey-drenched it might be. They’re not happy to associate their brand with that speech, however, which has absolutely nothing in the world to do with anyone’s “rights.”
The funny thing is that this “balance” may well be a product of the right’s decades-long campaign to paint the New York Times as hopelessly biased to the left — you know, they’re exercising an abundance of caution — but it’s never going to change anyone’s mind.
[HT: Oliver Willis]
- 1 on Working at a Big 8 Peace Firm, a Look Back
- http://www.voiceblog.jp/reeiiruly/ on Working at a Big 8 Peace Firm, a Look Back
- nike sneaker bot on David Dayen’s 20 questions for Obama
- tridnevna dieta on David Dayen’s 20 questions for Obama
- oakley holbrook sunglasses prescriptions on Follow-up: Tea Party rebelling on “defunding ObamaCare”
"The world is a rigged game"
Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone: “Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world’s largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behavior that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess. Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world’s largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.”
On winning and values
So, right-wingers, you want a society where families are stable, where everybody looks like you and shares your Christian faith, and where the government pretty much stays out of your business? It’s not in some Randian fantasy, it’s right here in the USA.
Category CloudActivism Americans Barack Obama Blogging Budget Bush II Administration Business Capitalism Class Warfare Congress Conservatives Corporatism Corruption Democracy Democrats Dirty Hippies Economy Education Elections Extremism Government Greed Health Care Jobs Journalism labor Media messaging Obama Administration Politics Progressives Religious Right Reproductive Rights Republicans Satire Social Security Taxation Tea Party Uncategorized Unions US Politics Violence Wall Street Wealth Wisconsin