Sometimes karma moves fast--transphobic radio hosts in Rochester, NY

[Godhumor]

So recently Rochester introduced health benefits for trans-gendered public employees that includes things like hormone replacement therapy, gender reassignment surgery and psychological services. A morning show on 98.9 hosted by "Kimberly and Beck" responded yesterday by having a 12 minute diatribe on trans-individuals that was just incredibly ugly.

When people complained, Kimberly took to Twitter to claim her right to Freedom of Speech.

What happened next was just incredible. A quick timeline:

Morning - offending segment on radio

Afternoon - Backlash begins. Host take to Twitter.

Evening - Kimberly and Beck suspended indefinitely

This morning - Kimberly and Beck fired

The parent corp posted the following:

"This morning Entercom fired Kimberly and Beck effective immediately. Their hateful comments against the transgender community do not represent our station or our company. We deeply apologize to the transgender community, the community of Rochester, and anyone else who was offended by their hateful comments. We are proud of our past work on behalf of the local LGBT community and we remain committed to that partnership."

Sue Munn Vice-President/General Manager Entercom Rochester


Sometimes the proper response is quick in coming. You can read the whole story and listen to the offending segment at:

http://www.towleroad.com/2014/05/rochfired.html

[winter is coming]

1. Good on the company for firing them, and for doing it so promptly. n/t

[Not Me]

2. I lived in this progressive city for some time.

Things like this don't happen in Rochester, and when they do, they are dealt with quickly.

[Godhumor]

6. I was raised in Rochester

Glad to see its progressive tendencies continue.

[Aristus]

3. 'Freedom of Speech' doesn't mean you won't get your worthless ass fired

by a conscientious employer!

Good for the radio station.

Too fucking bad for the haters.

Good riddance.

[Shandris]

11. I keep seeing this said...

...and while I don't support one word of their hateful diatribe, we'd better hope this country isn't really on a rightward swing, huh. Otherwise this -will- come back to hurt us.

And given that, historically, our voters are the ones with -fewer- votes rather than greater, this is all the more likely to cost us.

Social shaming is a stupid idea to get behind.

[cleanhippie]

20. It's one thing to hold a personal view, it's another to espouse that view while at work in the name

of one's employer.

Social shaming, as used in this instance, is the best medicine to be had.

[Shandris]

25. Totally disagree.

If it's a problem with 'speaking in the employers name', then it will happen without all the constant tweets and calls for people to be fired. Since that isn't what happened, then its quite clear it isn't anything to do with speaking in the employer's name.

Social shaming is never and can never be the best medicine. Imagine if, right now, every single person who had spoken out against, say, corporate welfare were to be fired because of 'speaking in the employers name'. We'd come unglued about it and rightfully so.

To be fair, I can see the intent behind it and, fwiw, I do agree with the intent. But this is one of those tools that is simply too powerful, too destructive to be unleashed. It's great when the narrative is ours, but given that our fight is generally things that the narrative isn't for, we're handing our enemies the keys to our own destruction and crowing about how good it is. It's shortsighted imo.

[cleanhippie]

26. They were on the air, doing the job their employer pays them to do.

And they did it in a way that the employer didn't care for. And it is the employers right to terminate an employee for doing a shitty job, no?

The social shaming, as you put it, is just customer feedback. They were paid to entertain the public, and the public let them and their employer know just how they felt about it. Much like customer comments at a restaurant. If an employer is getting bombarded by customer complaints about an employee for poor performance, that employee is likely to be terminated.


Keep in mind, these folks' job was to be the public face of their company, to represent their company on the public airwaves.What they stated was for the public, and the backlash came from the public. It's not a personal matter.

[Shandris]

27. It's always so very easily explainable.

I'm sure the 'feedback' had -nothing- whatsoever to do with it; the company just couldn't stand to hear them go on like that.

Well, I hope you're as understanding when it starts to happen back to us, because I sure as hell won't be. I never claimed it was a personal matter (because that ventures into silly 'first amendment' horsepoo, which isn't my concern at all), but I don't see this as a good thing. Everyone knows it was and is social shaming; the only thing that remains to be seen is what will happen when we're on the receiving end of it.

We got rid of the Scarlet Letter for a reason, but somehow that reason seems to have been lost in time.

[cleanhippie]

28. What what starts to happen back at us?

If a Liberal on-air personality did something this offensive, I would be first in line to give that public feedback, AKA public shaming. Wouldn't you?

[Shandris]

30. I think you're misinterpreting the scenario.

No liberal talk-show host would say something this offensive. But the thing is, it hasn't always -been- offensive. That's relatively recent.

This very same conversation, ten years ago, would have been perfectly fine. But what if it had been someone sticking up for LGBT ten years ago? Cue up the exact same excuses, "public face of the company", "it was a public backlash", "something so offensive, social shaming HAD to be done...". Only now (as in, in the example) we're the ones getting destroyed by it.

Had this kind of social shaming been acceptable 10 years ago, would LGBT rights have ever gotten off the ground? Highly unlikely, because you'd lose your job for talking about it! So wonderful, the narrative goes our way at the moment and we're safe. But what about the next cause that we pick up? Will it be as socially acceptable as LGBT is now? Probably not, because we tend to espouse causes most people don't care about. Only this time, since we've unleashed this social shaming trend, it's going to come down on US, not THEM. And our righteous cause may well flounder for a generation while we slowly fight through all the losses from this weapon we've unleashed that seemed so very good at the time.

It's like the Patriot Act. Conservatives loved it...when they had a conservative president. Now you can't find a one who supports it. What changed? The politic changed. That's the one constant -- the politic will always change.

[cleanhippie]

31. Sigh.

Lets just agree to disagree. If you cannot see my point by now, I don't think repeating myself will help.

[Shandris]

34. I'm fine to accept agree to disagree; I can only point out the things that make me...

...nervous, the things I've seen and experienced. I wasn't saying I didn't 'get' your point of view, I do. I just disagree that it's best. But that's okay, too...we're allowed to disagree. The real point is, ultimately we're both trying to do what we think is best, even if we have different ideas on how some of that may turn out.

I would be much more nervous if everyone agreed with everyone else about the definition of 'freedom'. Disagreements are one of the ways I know I'm not among conservatives!

[Tsiyu]

54. You have a warped view of how things work

This can't be "turned against us" and believing it could be is either concern trolling or severe paranoia.

The hosts started the shaming, and reveled in their own ugliness. They are entitled to have their opinion, but they don't have the right not to be fired if they are offensive to their employer's clients.

i.e. you can't work in retail or medicine or ANY field and call women "sluts" or use racial epithets ( although this is your right to do on your own time, no matter how ill-advised ) and expect that the complaints and/or loss of business will not lead to your eventual termination.

It is way past time to start shaming the cretins among us.

I abhor the cowardice of the timid, the wishy washy, trembling man or woman who will not speak up when wrongs are done, who is too afraid of their image or precious status to speak out for the victimized and the weak and the marginalized.

I find them to be no more than cowards, who won't even fight to help themselves, let alone anyone else or the community in which they live.

You can sit placidly by, chewing the cud, scared out of your wits about some imaginary future backlash of persecution if you wish. But don't you dare tell other people it's "wrong" to call pigs what they are: pigs.

[Shandris]

55. Yes, that's exactly what I said. That we should all sit by and no one should say anything.

Oh wait, no it isn't. That's the words you put in my mouth either through intentional dishonesty, an abject inability to read, sheer meanness, or because you know I don't have a cadre of friends who will report the post.

Bravo.

Now if you'd like to discuss what I actually said sometime, I'd be okay with that.

[Tsiyu]

58. I read what you said

basically "OhNOES! Keep the powder dry! Don't ever call someone on their hideous speech against a minority group or it could backfire on us.!1111!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!1111!!!!



If I interpreted that wrong, why don't you stop beating around the bush in your posts and say what you really mean? Because the above is the message I got out of it.

[Shandris]

60. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to write much clearer than that.

Whether that's my fault or not is debatable but ultimately irrelevant; it is what it is. But I don't see how you could -possibly- read 'Dont ever point out terrible things someone said' out of what I said. It's not even remotely close.

[cleanhippie]

68. "It is way past time to start shaming the cretins among us. "

Why this concept is difficult for some to comprehend, I don't know.

[Tsiyu]

73. Fear of losing their status and comfort

is my best guess.

And many are taught that they should not make waves, they should just be an acquiescing part of the herd.

In times like, these, we all need to "Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights"

[Gravitycollapse]

39. As I already said, it's interesting watching "progressives" support transphobia...

Interesting but not surprising.

Your argument, oddly enough, is a conservative one used by cornered right-wingers trying to justify hate speech.

[Shandris]

40. Wait. Let me get this straight.

You...think I'm supporting...transphobia.

There's irony, and then there's "Oh my god, the amount of irony in this statement is enough to make a person cry". Suffice to say you're not -just- wrong, you're -so- wrong as to be a near textbook definition of "Utterly, completely wrong in every possible sense of the word".

Now, you were saying something about "Not surprising?" And do extrapolate on this 'conservative argument'. Given that my entire family almost is conservative, I'm surprised I don't know it.

[Gravitycollapse]

50. Yes, I see it all the time. Big left wing people all of a sudden lose it...

Over trans folk. It's actually still relatively okay among the left to be bigoted against this class. And it is especially okay to ignore them when people treat them like shit.

If these worthless disc jockies were all over the radio using epithets against people of color or women or gay men and women, and mocking them for being ugly, you and many others wouldn't hesitate at all to "shame" them. But because we're talking about the trans community, all of a sudden you're too worried about the rights of bigots and morons to care about the victims of the rhetorical abuse.

I don't care about your progressive credentials. They amount to the "all my best friends are ______" counter claims that every cornered individual tries to throw out.

[Shandris]

51. You have no idea what I would and would not do in any given...

...but that's alright.

I'm editing an overly antagonistic post here, so I'll leave it at this: I'm sorry you feel that way. You're wrong about me, but that's both okay and apparently something that's simply going to happen.

Take care.

[Gravitycollapse]

53. "I'm sorry you feel that way." - Are you, though? Probably not.

Give me sincerity and straightforwardness over fake apologies and equivocation any day of the week.

[Shandris]

56. It is a bad thing that you feel that way, yes. You, like another poster, completely...

...misrepresent me and apparently don't have the slightest idea where I'm coming from. Yah, I'd say that's something that isn't good.

Am I -apologizing- because I've been misunderstood and/or misrepresented? No. I don't apologize because someone else thinks I may be wrong, or accuses me of something inane like 'concern trolling' or 'using rightwing arguments' or 'must just hate trans people' or whatever the misrepresentation of the hour is. I'm sorry that the misunderstanding has occurred, but I've tried to make it right. Others want to keep insisting that I've done something wrong.

I won't beg to be forgiven for standing up for people who have been hurt by others who like shaming as a tool. Just because you haven't seen someone suffer from it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, no matter how much invective or snark or whatever is hurled my direction.

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. I think you're misinterpreting it

commercial radio is a business. If you're getting the wrong kind of publicity and potentially alienating advertisers because of the comments of on-air personalities? You cut them loose. And I also think you're very wrong about "the politics will always change". Sure, things change. And I fully expect that at some point within the next few decades bigotry against LGBT people will become as socially unacceptable as racism. (If the city of Rochester had announced that it was increasing its minority hiring quota, and these people had made racist comments on-air about it, would you be making the same arguments?)

[Shandris]

46. I would have made the same comments (and probably received many of the same...

...accusations), yes. It's -certainly- not because it's LGBT-related that I commented at all, but because I don't like social shaming as a tool.

That aside, you may be right about misinterpreting. It's the speed at which it happened that makes me think it was more backlash than corporate responsibility; had it taken another day or something I wouldn't have given it a second thought. I just don't like the thought of a big group being able to supplant people's opinions so quickly, so efficiently. If the company really were upset about it, placed them on leave, had a meeting or three or something...you know, something that showed it really was a company atmosphere (or the time requisite for an actual boycott to show effect, like in the olden days through advertisers), I wouldn't bat an eye. That's -justice-. But if its just to shut up a feeding frenzy on Twitter...there's too much potential for damage there. It's that difference -- the 'time and investigation/outcome/determination' difference -- that makes me much more nervous in this case.

I hope in my wordiness, what I mean is clear.

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. Except if there are a lot of negative comments...

on Twitter and Facebook and online petition sites from local residents? People who are potential customers of the advertisers whose money supports the station, and who may now be reconsidering their advertising buy on that station? That's the sort of thing management takes notice of.

[Shandris]

48. I'm far more inclined to trust Facebook than Twitter comments.

Twitter has that 'easy to impersonate' problem that, while Facebook technically has it also, takes a lot more time and effort to set up. I don't think FB would make me nearly as uncomfortable either. But yah, those kinds of things management definitely takes notice of and should.

[BrotherIvan]

29. We've ducked too often because of the idea "they'll do it to us"

Democrats in Congress claim the same thing every day, for example, changing the rules of the filibuster. We keep mum because we're afraid when the tide turns, the rwnjs will be mean to us. Newsflash: the wingers never play fair, they always play dirty. They will never treat a liberal point of view fairly. They try to out scream everyone now, when they are in the minority. So why play nice?

Then there is the idea that right is right. It's not political and it's not expedient. Bigots should be shamed and outed every single time. That's how you show they are wrong in their beliefs, their speech, their action. When someone is spreading hate, it's much more important to stop it than worry about retaliation.

I'm very glad that all the people who spoke out against hate did not take your point of view.

[cleanhippie]

32. "Bigots should be shamed and outed every single time." EXACTLY!

Why that seems to be so difficult for some to understand is beyond me.

[BrotherIvan]

38. Yes, I think the point is being missed

That the LGBTQ community got their rights not by shutting up but by speaking up. Seems rather obvious and simple.

[Shandris]

33. Do NOT confuse 'speaking out against hate' and social shaming.

They're not related. I've spoke out against hate all my life, and I will -not- listen to someone tell me that my point of view speaks against pointing out hate. It doesn't.

[BrotherIvan]

35. If there's an iota of difference I fail to see it

That was just a lot of people speaking out, but some how you're saying that's bad. They lost their jobs because their job depends on listeners & advertisers. But more importantly, they lost their jobs because they are hateful bigots. I have absolutely no problem with that.

[Shandris]

36. To be perfectly fair, it a very nuanced view. I have no problem with them losing their jobs...

...for being bigots either.

My guess is you've never seen someone destroyed because of social shaming (especially falsely-placed social shaming). Well I have. And I won't watch it again without a fight, a warning, -something-.

[BrotherIvan]

41. I understand that you don't want to see people hurt for the wrong reasons

For too long, racists, bigots, and religious zealots have hurt good people. Thankfully in this case these people were shamed for the right reason. It shows that equality is now winning in this country. With all the bad things going on, there is some hope in that.

[Shandris]

44. Thank you. Honestly...thank you very much. You're completely right that these...

...people have hurt so many for so long, and I'm very glad equality is finally showing good signs. Sometimes I just don't word things well (I blame my family life in a lot of ways for my wordiness, but that's neither here nor there), but you spell it out well for me.

[BrotherIvan]

49. I'm glad we came to understanding

It doesn't happen often, and I admit to be as stubborn as anyone most times. It's hard in a message board to convey what one truly means sometimes. Thanks for sticking with it because it taught me to "listen" more closely.

[Shandris]

52. And thank you as well.

It is so very hard on these kinds of forums sometimes isn't it?! I know its far too easy to snap-judge, and the environment and lack of actual voice makes it easier even still. But it's always good to watch it work the way it's meant to, I swear I live for those moments sometimes.

[Gravitycollapse]

37. Your argument is that we should not tell people they're wrong...

Because they may tell us we're wrong. Which, if I'm being totally honest, is unfettered stupidity.

It's always interesting to watch "progressives" come out of the woodwork to get behind transphobia because trans people are one of the few groups left who are still hated in mass by people on the political left.

[Shandris]

42. So this is that 'conservative argument' that you accused me of upthread?

And I'll say again...the amount of irony you show in this post as well as the other one is...beyond staggering.

[Tsiyu]

59. You want people to applaud you for being "nervous" over shaming bigots?

I'd rather lose my job for speaking up about something I believe in. If someone wants to shame me, have at it!

And if someone says or does something to hurt others, you better believe I will shame the asshole.

You claim it is irresponsible and premature to have shamed these obvious hateful bigots? How long do you wait to shame a bigot?


If you see a kid getting beat in the street, do you not rush out and shame the bigger kid out of fear you'll get shamed yourself for wearing pink polka dot shirts?

This is your message: " Let bigots run their mouths, don't call them on it because I might get shamed and lose my job, too!"


ALL IT TAKES FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL IS FOR GOOD PEOPLE TO DO NOTHING

Bigots need to be put in their place IMMEDIATELY, not months later when you finally decide to screw up your courage or when you don't think you will lose anything.

[Shandris]

61. You continue to try to ascribe cowardice to what I'm saying...

...and you continue to be wrong.

I can see at this point that nothing I say is going to matter to you. You've 'interpreted' what I wrote and are now arguing against it. It is literally the definition of a strawman argument.

What will you do when your rush to shame someone...hurts someone who was innocent? How will you make up for the person whose life was destroyed because you couldn't wait two or three days to make sure everything you heard was what actually happened? Or that the person 'reporting' it isn't someone under a false name? Or any of the other tiny things that can go wrong in a fast-information fast-turnaround fast-consumption society?

What words will you use to comfort them, hrm? "I thought I was doing good"? Oh, how about "Sorry, but my pride won't let me make sure I have my information right". Maybe "Hey, you hafta break a few eggs if you're gunna be first to claim credit for calling out bigots. Better luck next time."

That no one has considered the possibility of this kind of thing happening is what makes it all the more disgusting. Because it's not like this hasn't happened before. You speak to me of minority groups and how -you're- the one defending them. I'll tell you about the days after 9/11 when no one had the time to make sure they got their information right because they just HAD to 'call out' them there 'terrorists'. And that's just one example.

When you need the backing of 6,000 other angry people to do your 'calling out', you don't come across as someone fighting for the right. You come across as a cheap bully.

[Tsiyu]

62. Talk about your failed debate strategy

False equivalence is claiming one thing is very much like something else that is in no way the same.

Is there some doubt here that these two evil worms were spewing bigotry? How much proof do you need? Did you hear what they were saying?

How can anyone shaming them be "falsely shaming the poor things, Awwwwwwww?"

SERIOUSLY? You're saying we should wait a few days to make sure they really said those things? Like maybe we should make sure aliens didn't take over their studio and they were bound with duct tape in a closet at the time these statements are made?

Is there some reason you doubt that these two lower life forms said what is recorded?

Sentient humans know it was these sick pieces of human bigotry. There's no investigation that needs to be done.

They were not falsely shamed nor is there any need to make them out to be victims.

THEY ARE THE BULLIES, not me. Just because cowardice disgusts me, does not mean I am bullying you. I didn't ask you to do anything differently than wait until you feel it's safe to come outside and face the world, even if I think that's what's wrong with this country - too many scaredy cats afraid to speak up for the least of these.

You, however, ARE telling people what they should do, and using a false equivalency to do so. That is disingenuous at best, fake and patronizing at worst.

[Shandris]

63. *sigh* I never said that these two didn't deserve it. In fact, I -explicitly- said...

...that they did. So, yet again, you continue to ascribe things I didn't say to me. I was clearly talking, from my very first post in the thread throughout the entirety of every single post I've made in it, about the concept of social shaming as a whole. This one circumstance was nothing more than a springboard to address the topic as a whole, and I'm glad they're fired, again, as I have already posted. The entire topic of social shaming as a whole that I addressed had little to nothing to do with them in particular.

So whatever you think is a 'failed debating strategy' or 'false equivalency' or whatever...meh. I certainly didn't say you were bullying ME because I don't feel bullied by you at all. The context of that portion of the previous post was clearly referring to how it comes across when it takes a large number of people to feel 'safe' in 'calling out' people (read: large scale social shaming). I feel completely misunderstood, but that happens (and depressingly often, for someone who goes to such great pains to qualify what I say as I try to).

[Tsiyu]

64. Perhaps you might have had more success making that an OP

in a separate thread.

You did, upthread, question the validity of shaming these specific people. Your claim was that things should have been left to run their course so that the employer made the call, and so that it was not perceived to be done by angry hordes shaming them. You did make it specific to this situation, but again, I think you see how well that went over.

Perhaps you could make your own thread about this topic so that it is not viewed as your judgment on the actions taken by the public in this case.

Use some examples where there was false shaming.

But you still won't get most of us to stop shaming the obvious bigots. Why? Because it works.

And if standing up for the least of these costs me a job, a home, whatever, I am willing to pay the price.

However, if you feel false public shaming is a real problem, start a discussion about it. I know there are some here who will agree with you and you may feel more understood.

Peace.

[Shandris]

65. You may well be right about starting it in my own thread...

...but experience has shown me that my threads get little to no attention. And I guess I'm alright with that; I do what little I can. If all I accomplish is making someone slow down for just a second and make sure facts are facts, I've done more good than I could have hoped. And that's my only stake in this entire political arena -- to do some good.

But the main reason I drop one last post in here is to address the 'upthread' part. I did indeed say that I would have felt more comfortable if it had been slower, more of a 'run its course' thing. But I wasn't saying that in the context of 'because I agree with them' or 'because its about them', but in the context of 'the speed of it is what set off my large-scale shaming monitor', whereas the slower variant wouldn't have really drawn any comment at all from me because it wouldn't have hit one of my Hot Topic Buttons. I apologize if that wasn't made clear -- I do often admit to being overly wordy at times and it seems that makes some of my posts harder to read the way I intend them to.

As you rightly say, peace.

[sendero]

67. "social shaming"...

... nonsense. there are any number of things you could say on the air that would cost you your job. their only mistake was they didn't realize this was one of them.

I don't feel a bit sorry for them in fact the sooner we get all flavors of just hate-filled non-information off of the airwaves the better.

[LanternWaste]

72. It's part of the historical and social process known as acculturation.

"we'd better hope this country isn't really on a rightward swing, huh. Otherwise this -will- come back to hurt us..."

They already have a history of doing so. It's not if they would, it's more "remember when they did?" E.g., the Dixie Chicks, the Girl Scouts of America, Ben & Jerry's, France, etc.


"Social shaming is a stupid idea to get behind..."
It's part of the historical and social process known as acculturation.

[Louisiana1976]

4. It would really be karmic if Kimberly and Beck were replaced by someone from the

LGBT community.

[bullwinkle428]

5. To continue the timeline:

Tomorrow - "Kimberly & Beck" become the latest victims du jour and darlings of the RW-media, featured by guest appearances on multiple Fox News shows.

Place a decent-sized wager on Sarah Palin tossing out some word salad on her Facebook page!

[m-lekktor]

45. you nailed it!

[colsohlibgal]

7. Do Unto Others

People have a right to be who they are, whatever that is. Plus - the people who react the most vehemently about this stuff - self loathing quite possibly.

[GeorgeGist]

8. Apparently no one in management ...

listens to The Breakfast Buzz on WBZA.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

9. I'm in Rich. I know of those two but have never listened.

We have a few morning jock. Straps. I call that crap "BigDickRadio". They live on mocking throse "low in testosterone".

I'm really glad these two jerks got what was coming to them!!!

I wish they all would get what they deserve for how they mock women. Phone games pranking women, using sexualized humiliation. But that crap always gets a pass. (Ok, I haven't listened to any of these jerks lately--if they've cleaned up their act, let me know. But if there had ever been a reaction like this to misogyny, --with firings and public apologies-- I'm pretty sure I would have heard about it.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Good corp action,

karma has none to do with this. They can read demographics and local market

Though I am betting these two will be paraded as another example of hate from the left.

(And we really need to get away from magical thinking)

[Ex Lurker]

12. Getting fired comes with the territory in radio

For cause, like this, or just because the management wants to make a change. They'll be back on the air somewhere withinin six months.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

13. By tomorrow

Right wing fundraising campaign claiming 1st Amendment violation underway

[11 Bravo]

14. Wingnut dipshits who wouldn't know the 1st Amendment if it bit them on the ass ...

begin foaming at the mouth in 3 ... 2 .. 1 ...

[pangaia]

15. I live near Rochester.

This city has very long historical connections to Women's Suffrage, the Underground Railroad since the 1830s, and support of equal rights in general...

We also have Nick Tahoe's garbage plate but, hey can't win 'em all.

:&gt

[951-Riverside]

16. ...Not anymore

[IMG][/IMG]

[mountain grammy]

17. When they're sitting in jail, I'll be protesting for their free speech, but fired?

Good riddance. I know people fired for a whole lot less. Offend your boss, get fired. That's usually how that works.

[marble falls]

18. Well said!

[d_legendary1]

19. How long till these guys work for cheap channel radio?

And get on some right wing station and get paid to spew hate? Remember Juan Williams?

[3catwoman3]

21. Good on my...

...hometown!

[sakabatou]

22. I'm sure they'll find work at Fox "News"

Or some right-wing radio station.

[riqster]

23. Free speech does not mean you can violate your contract.

I went 15 years not trash-talking Microsoft at work, because of a stipulation in my then contract. Had I said what I thought, I could have been fired.

All those yahoos who love the "right to work" and "at will" states should think about this type of situation, that goes hand-in-hand with employer-dominated paradigms.

[Initech]

24. Bigotry and assholishness do not serve any purpose in a civilized society.

Good on the radio station!

[Mrdrboi]

57. Wow That was awesomely fast. Glad those fuckheads are gone.

These Fuckheads really dont understand Freedom of Speech at all. You can say all that stupid bigoted bullshit all you want. BUT!!! That doesnt mean there arnt going to be consequences. Its all about Public image at those places.

[Jamastiene]

66. Props to Entercom for that.

I wish more companies would start doing something about the hate that is spread on a lot of radio shows, especially when they are spreading hideous misinformation. That is wrong.

[packman]

69. The radio station knew what crap they hired

They should fine themselves, if such a thing is possible. Can't understand radio stations, TV, etc. that hire these people and then are "surprised" as to what they express. Reminds me of the old story of the guy who nursed a frozen deadly snake back to health and then, when it bit him, thought it was an ungrateful animal. It's their nature.
I heard these two on the radio a while back and thought they sucked then and were trying very hard to be controversial about some bullshit thing.

[catbyte]

70. I wonder which idiot bagger will whine about their First Amendment rights being violated.

Good work, Entercom Rochester!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. Right Wing Hate Radio is sooooo last century.