Jemele Hill & ESPN

[Matt_Crimson]

(09-13-2017, 11:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah, ESPN doesn't care.  Everyone who thinks free speech is a good idea should care though.

Wait, the white house  is taking away free speech?

[GMDino]

(09-16-2017, 10:10 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Wait, the white house  is taking away free speech?

Nah.  They can't do that.  But it should still concern people that the President's spokesperson called for the firing of a citizen because of remarks made about the President.

[Matt_Crimson]

(09-16-2017, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: Nah.  They can't do that.  But it should still concern people that the President's spokesperson called for the firing of a citizen because of remarks made about the President.

Why is that concerning? She accused him of being a white supremacist.

[GMDino]

(09-16-2017, 12:19 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Why is that concerning? She accused him of being a white supremacist.

Government officials should not call for the firing of private individuals over what they say.

Free speech.

Just like no one called for Trump to be fired from NBC while he said all kids of false things about President Obama.

Pretty clear.

[Matt_Crimson]

(09-16-2017, 12:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: Government officials should not call for the firing of private individuals over what they say.

Free speech.

Just like no one called for Trump to be fired from NBC while he said all kids of false things about President Obama.

Pretty clear.

Still dont see the concern. They're not limiting free speech. They said she should be fired based on ESPN's model. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-16-2017, 12:42 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Still dont see the concern. They're not limiting free speech. They said she should be fired based on ESPN's model. 

The line between private opinion and public policy gets muddled with high ranking government officials, especially in the case of the chief executor of the laws of the US. 

It's best to not even respond, it's below the office. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2017, 12:42 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Still dont see the concern. They're not limiting free speech. They said she should be fired based on ESPN's model. 

If the government says/does anything that would cause repercussions for someone exercising their rights to free expression, that can be seen as an infringement of their civil liberties. Not even joking, this person could have a case against the administration in court if she were fired, and even a conservative court would likely award damages.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-16-2017, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If the government says/does anything that would cause repercussions for someone exercising their rights to free expression, that can be seen as an infringement of their civil liberties. Not even joking, this person could have a case against the administration in court if she were fired, and even a conservative court would likely award damages.

Except free speech doesn't cover libel or slander, though. Hence why it's a crime according to our laws and people are constantly suing and getting huge settlements over it. (See Melania Trump's case against the person who wrote that she was a high-end escort.)

He could turn around and take her to court saying that her calling him a white supremacist damages his businesses. They would likely award damages, and they'd be greater than hers.

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2017, 03:54 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except free speech doesn't cover libel or slander, though. Hence why it's a crime according to our laws and people are constantly suing and getting huge settlements over it. (See Melania Trump's case against the person who wrote that she was a high-end escort.)

He could turn around and take her to court saying that her calling him a white supremacist damages his businesses. They would likely award damages, and they'd be greater than hers.

Because Trump is a public figure, the statements must be proven to be actual malice. That means that is must be proven that Jemele Hill knows for a fact that Trump is not a white supremacist and that it was done with disregard for whether it was false or not. We could argue that this was a factual statement (opinions can't be defamation, legally), but if Jemele believes that Trump is a white supremacist based on information at hand, then there is no way to meet the bar that is in place regarding defamation of public figures.

[Matt_Crimson]

(09-16-2017, 12:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The line between private opinion and public policy gets muddled with high ranking government officials, especially in the case of the chief executor of the laws of the US. 

It's best to not even respond, it's below the office. 

I think that's a subjective area.

In my opinion, if an American citizen, especially one that is employed by a company as prominent as ESPN and whose job revolves around opinion pieces wants to make accusations towards the White House or more specifically the POTUS, then the White House should be able to respond.

To me, responding isn't below the office. I think personal attacks like calling people fat, ugly, stupid, etc....like Trump has done before is below the office. If Jemele was just saying little petty things like Trump is a cheetoh, fat ass, whatever.... then yeah I'd say responding to that would be below the office. But what Jemele did was accuse the POTUS of being a white supremacist, which is a very serious accusation to throw at the leader of a nation. If she's willing to make those kinds of accusations and put herself out there like that then she deserves to be told she should be fired if that's the White Houses opinion. It's fair game to me.

If ESPN ultimately decided to fire her then that would be on ESPN for "limiting" her free speech, but as we already know free speech does not entirely extend to the workplace and so ESPN would be out of the woods on that one. Some may argue that the White House could "influence" such decisions by placing their opinion on it. But sharing an opinion on whether someone should be fired for what they said and actually making laws to prevent people from saying what she said are two entirely separate things and so I see no concern. If the Trump administration said they were going to try and shut down ESPN or something like that for not firing her, then I'd definitely say we have a problem.

But as far as I can tell, Jemele accused the president of being a white supremacist and the White House responded. And their response was in relation to a question they were asked by reporters. It's not like the White House had some special session put together just to address Jemele Hill and have her fired. To me this was obviously a bait question by the media to blow things out of proportion and it worked.

[BmorePat87]

(09-16-2017, 07:29 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I think that's a subjective area.

In my opinion, if an American citizen, especially one that is employed by a company as prominent as ESPN and whose job revolves around opinion pieces wants to make accusations towards the White House or more specifically the POTUS, then the White House should be able to respond.

To me, responding isn't below the office. I think personal attacks like calling people fat, ugly, stupid, etc....like Trump has done before is below the office. If Jemele was just saying little petty things like Trump is a cheetoh, fat ass, whatever.... then yeah I'd say responding to that would be below the office. But what Jemele did was accuse the POTUS of being a white supremacist, which is a very serious accusation to throw at the leader of a nation. If she's willing to make those kinds of accusations and put herself out there like that then she deserves to be told she should be fired if that's the White Houses opinion. It's fair game to me.

If ESPN ultimately decided to fire her then that would be on ESPN for "limiting" her free speech, but as we already know free speech does not entirely extend to the workplace and so ESPN would be out of the woods on that one. Some may argue that the White House could "influence" such decisions by placing their opinion on it. But sharing an opinion on whether someone should be fired for what they said and actually making laws to prevent people from saying what she said are two entirely separate things and so I see no concern. If the Trump administration said they were going to try and shut down ESPN or something like that for not firing her, then I'd definitely say we have a problem.

But as far as I can tell, Jemele accused the president of being a white supremacist and the White House responded. And their response was in relation to a question they were asked by reporters. It's not like the White House had some special session put together just to address Jemele Hill and have her fired. To me this was obviously a bait question by the media to blow things out of proportion and it worked.

It certainly is subjective which is why I stopped short of calling it an encroachment of her rights. Further calls for retaliation of her speech or any sort of calls for agencies to look into other aspects of her life would start to make it more of an issue, but that hasn't happened. 

I just see it like this. She's an anchor on a failing program on ESPN and, like you suggested, the media used her twitter rant to shoot a gotcha question to Huckabee Sanders. The best respond would have been to say that the White House doesn't concern itself with issues like that. Would have shot it down instead of keeping it afloat. 

[JustWinBaby]

(09-16-2017, 06:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That means that is must be proven that Jemele Hill knows for a fact that Trump is not a white supremacist and that it was done with disregard for whether it was false or not.

I'm not sure the standard is quite that high.  But it doesn't matter, because good luck proving harm when talking about Teflon Don.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-16-2017, 12:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: Government officials should not call for the firing of private individuals over what they say.

It's just stupid, in general, because that's a rabbit hole you don't want to go down having to repeatedly comment on whether someone should or shouldn't be fired any time it's national news.  Not to mention, if I were a business owner I don't think Trump's advice is something I'd consider.

If it's not a matter of public policy, or something that will shape public policy, I don't really care about the personal/private opinions of the POTUS.  It means no more or less than your opinion, UNLESS there is actual policy/law behind it.  So I don't think, for example, Obama should comment on Michael Brown, until the DOJ comes into consideration and then it's appropriate because now we're talking policy/action.

[*bfine32*]

My view of this issue is she is allowed to say what she wishes. If the company accepts this type of behavior then the free market will sort it out. As long as she did not advocate violence toward POTUS, she can say what she wants.

Likewise I have no problem when the White House says she should be fired when asked their opinion of the matter.

The next time I watch a full episode of her show will be the first time.

[*michaelsean*]

Did they actually call for her firing? I heard he call it a fireable offense.

[GMDino]

There's one of these for every notable person upset with people calling Trump racist. pic.twitter.com/yyjTRNh0wT

— David Weiner (@daweiner) September 17, 2017

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2017, 08:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My view of this issue is she is allowed to say what she wishes. If the company accepts this type of behavior then the free market will sort it out. As long as she did not advocate violence toward POTUS, she can say what she wants.

Likewise I have no problem when the White House says she should be fired when asked their opinion of the matter.

The next time I watch a full episode of her show will be the first time.

There really doesn't need to be a post in this thread after this one.

[GMDino]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-biographer-david-cay-johnston-the-president-is-the-embodiment-of-being-a-racist/

Quote:Trump Biographer David Cay Johnston: The President ‘Is the Embodiment of Being a Racist’

In the wake of ESPN host Jemele Hill’s description of President Donald Trump as a “white supremacist,” there has been a decent amount of media discussion focused on the merits of Hill’s assertion, with some straight up asking why her remarks are controversial since they seem accurate.



During this morning’s broadcast of MSNBC’s AM Joy, Trump biographer David Cay Johnston weighed in on this topic as well as Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville. And the way Johnston sees it, Hill’s label for Trump seems apt.

“He is a racist,’ he told host Joy Reid. “He’s been the subject of judicial administrative hearings about this. He’s made awful comments over the years.”


Johnston continued, bringing up the White House press secretary calling on Hill to be fired: “He is the embodiment of being a racist just as Miss Huckabee Sanders’ comments the other day are the embodiment of censorship and should have upset every single American who has even a modest amount of respect for our Constitution.”


“Wow,” Reid said in response.


The MSNBC host went on to ask Johnston about the inevitable pushback from Trump supporters who will say Trump has black friends and defenders, causing Johnston to reply that Barack Obama’selection didn’t end racism in America and that segregationist Strom Thurmond fathered a black child.


Watch the clip above, via MSNBC.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-19-2017, 07:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-biographer-david-cay-johnston-the-president-is-the-embodiment-of-being-a-racist/

I wonder if anyone realizes that hyperbole like this;

Quote:“He is the embodiment of being a racist just as Miss Huckabee Sanders’ comments the other day are the embodiment of censorship and should have upset every single American who has even a modest amount of respect for our Constitution.”

turns off far more people than it converts.  Essentially, these kind of statements only salve the concerns of people like GMDino who already believe this crap anyways.  It's as utterly boring as it is predictable. 

[*michaelsean*]

Quote:That's one of the more outrageous comments that anyone could make and certainly something that I think is a fireable offense by ESPN.”

Not calling on her to be fired.