Juan Williams FIRED: NPR Sacks Analyst Over Fox News

[cory777]

Source: Huffington Post

NPR announced late on Wednesday night that it has terminated the contract of longtime analyst Juan Williams over his comments on Fox News that, when he is on a plane with Muslims, "I get nervous."

NPR's media reporter David Folkenflik broke the news on Twitter.

Williams' comments came during a discussion with Bill O'Reilly on Monday's "O'Reilly Factor." O'Reilly asked Williams if he had been in the wrong during his now-infamous appearance on "The View" last week. (There, O'Reilly's statement that "Muslims killed us on 9/11" caused Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg to walk off the set in anger.)

Williams replied that he thought O'Reilly had, in fact, been right. He continued:

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/juan-williams-fired-npr_n_770901.html

---

Alternative Breaking News http://activistnews.blogspot.com/

[Turborama]

1. I have been keeping an eye on O'Lielly's show for the past week and saw that.

They obviously really got under O'Lielly's skin as he's still going on and on and on and on and on about what happened on The View.

[la la]

2. maybe faux

will now hire juan full time! he and bob bechtel(sp?) are slimy tongued losers when they appear on faux, losers in 'liberal clothing'

and yes, i've been forcing myself to watch at least a bit of oliely lately, too, he's on a real rant-run with the ladies of the view --tonight, the 'body-languange' expert he has on, pretty much called him out---she won't be back much either---;>0

[stlsaxman]

24. Don't forget Mara Lyinsombitch...

[Kolesar]

36. Cokie Boggs Roberts ... eom

[stlsaxman]

54. though she looks like a preying mantis, i call her Cokie The Clown...

"Cokie The Preying Mantis" doesn't have that ring to it.

[otohara]

190. She's Been Disappeared

on This Week since Christiana took over!

Yeah!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

217. she was spotted locally

in the greater Chi Town area, giving a speech on how she succeeded in her profession, and just how brilliant she be.
No, I did NOT attend.

[Kolesar]

220. That would be the second time that "This Week" replaced her

She came back the time before--like a wart.

[mazzarro]

232. +1

That beats them all!

[disndat]

101. Don't cry for Juan.

He will probably get a nice paying job with Faux Noose which he was probably looking for all along. Also, he is bitter, like Clarence Thomas, because J.W. got himself in hot water over a similar sexual harassment charge.

[SemperEadem]

298. you know what?

I don't doubt it. He gives me the creeps.

[defendandprotect]

319. True ... I was just posting that ... and as I recall the stories about him ....

and this was a long time ago, but as I recall it, one of the female writers

at the newspaper also suggested that he had either attempted to access material

she was working on or had succeeded?

[John Kerry VonErich]

6. It's a ratings bonanza.

Media tennis. Lets see what The View chicks say, then we'll watch O'Reilly for a response and so forth.

[BonnieJW]

92. OK, I'm not taking credit for this, but

when I saw the article on HuffPo with Juan's latest comment, I emailed NPR and told them I have been a listener for 30 years. I wake up to Morning Edition and drive home to All Things Considered. Sometimes I think I should donate and pay my way, but then I hear about Juan Williams latest bigot remark and reconsider. I sent them the link to the HuffPo article. Then I said that until NPR rids itself of "reporters" like Juan Williams and Mara Liason, they will not get any monetary support from me. This morning I saw Juan was fired. I am going to flatter myself for one hour and believe I had something to do with it.

[barbtries]

160. you did.

something. :)

i still have to write to tell them why i won't be donating for their little fund drive. not until they report the news as opposed to making it.

i never catch the people's names though - i think that's why i haven't done it yet. this morning on the way to work they had someone who travels with the president (i think) discussing about how an aide to PO "spun" some news into a partisan attack. shit like that just burns me up. republicans just say things, democrats "spin." and this is supposed to be reporting???

[Turborama]

188. Good one! I think you most certainly would have played a part in it

Even if you weren't the only person who wrote in and complained, I reckon the fact that you did would have added weight to their decision. :thumbsup:

:yourock:

I missed the HuffPo article you mention, which one was it?

[defendandprotect]

321. Good for you for standing against these "reporters" ......

glad this happened --

NPR should never have hired this guy given his background --

And how in the heck does NPR rationalize sharing a reporter with Faux news???


:)

[BrklynLiberal]

322. My exact sentiments as well.....

I had one of those "sustaining" donations that they deduct every month. I cancelled it after one of their crypto-RW reporters presented a totally one-sided report on the feelings about the "Ground Zero Mosque"..and I think it was JW himself who did it.

[Hulk]

3. Adios Juan...don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out....

Juan...the token fool on the propaganda network has further lost what little credibility he ever had. Glad to see him go. Trying to play both sides against the middle seldom pays off in this world.

[Frank Booth]

4. This was way past due.

It drove me nuts how we was the "independent" political analyst for Weekend Edition (which sucks by the way, even with Williams gone). His bitter, anti-progressive agenda wasn't very well disguised.

[Sherman A1]

25. Precisely

Way, way past due!

[Roland99]

39. +1

[boppers]

5. What, are they wearing Crescent arm-bands or something?

"if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims"

Muslim garb?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

[dotymed]

9. Do you "get nervous"

when you see the Amish?

[tclambert]

18. I personally would get very nervous if I saw Amish people on an airplane.

[Demeter]

20. Only If They Were the Pilots, I Think

[Kolesar]

109. LOL

that's a lot to expect from somebody with only an eighth grade education

[dotymed]

32. Many of them drive,

use electricity, etc...but I have never seen one on an airplane. lol, It would probably make me nervous too. Just because it would be a rarity. I wouldn't consider them as terrorists....lol

[Harry Monroe]

35. I get very nervous when I see Whit e Male Christians entering or exiting office buildings

After all, it was one of "those" who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City.

[roxiejules]

89. McVeigh claimed to be agnostic

"Science is my religion", he said. He did not attend church.

Wasn't he driven to violence by his extreme hatred of the government, not religion?

[John Q. Citizen]

222. He was associated with the white Christian separatists movements.

All of them are extremely anti-government. You know, the wackos who take religion extremely seriously and do stuff like he did, or like those other religious wackos do.

It's the same all over. Different religion, same wackos.

[roxiejules]

335. What Chrisitan group was McVeigh associated with?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/29/profile.mcveigh/

His only known affiliations are as a registered Republican in his New York days, and as a member of the National Rifle Association while he was in the Army.

Although both Arizona and Michigan are host to militant anti-tax, anti-government, survivalist and racist groups, there is no evidence that he ever belonged to any extremist groups. A former roommate said that McVeigh would panic at the prospect of the government taking away peoples' guns, but that he was not a racist and was basically indifferent to racial matters.


http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/mcveigh/okcaug98.htm

McVeigh said he began harboring anti-government feelings during the Gulf War. In 1998, while in prison, McVeigh wrote an essay that criticized US foreign policy towards Iraq as being hypocritical:

"The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons (“weapons of mass destruction”) – mainly because they have used them in the past. Well, if that’s the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) — with respect to Iraq’s (real) war with and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran? If Saddam is such a demon and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of “mass destruction” — like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above. The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction." - Timothy McVeigh

[burnsei sensei]

238. He did not do his terrorism in God's name,

nor in the name of any religion.
His crime was secular, done for secular reasons and for secular ends.
End of story.

[provis99]

267. and the 911 bombers didn't do it for Allah.

So what's your point?

[herbm]

273. EXACTLY RIGHT ON, I've wanted to say this and couldn't find the words. THANKYOU, THANKYOU, THANKYOU

[burnsei sensei]

294. If not for Allah, then who or what?

If you are a religious person, can there be any better cause for dying than the dictate of your god?
Their deaths were not vain in their eyes.
Why did they choose to both kill and die?

[ensemble]

323. good question...

Well, at least some of them didn't seem very religious at all.
What are the chances we get a real investigation of their identities, motives, and financing?

[roxiejules]

343. Isn't a fatwa religious?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html


On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, along with three other Islamist leaders, co-signed and issued a fatwa (binding religious edict) calling on Muslims to kill Americans and their allies where they can, when they can.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

[defendandprotect]

325. McVeigh also claimed "Army had implanted a chip in his buttocks to track him"....

Colonel David Hackworth, an Army veteran who interviewed McVeigh for Newsweek, concluded that McVeigh was suffering from a "postwar hangover." "I've seen countless veterans, including myself, stumble home after the high-noon excitement of the killing fields, missing their battle buddies and the unique dangers and sense of purpose," wrote Hackworth. "Many lose themselves forever."<187>

Although such symptoms may be seen as a delayed reaction syndrome resulting from the stress of battle, they are also common symptoms of mind-control. The subject of mind-control or hypnosis often seems emotionally spent, as though he had been through a harrowing ordeal.

While visiting friends in Decker, Michigan, McVeigh complained that the Army had implanted him with a miniature subcutaneous transmitter, so that they could keep track of him.<188> He complained that it left an unexplained scar on his buttocks and was painful to sit on.<189>

To the public, unfamiliar with the bewildering lexicon of government mind-control research, such a claim may appear as the obvious rantings of a paranoiac. But is it?

Miniaturized telemetrics have been part of an ongoing project by the military and various intelligence agencies to test the effectiveness of tracking soldiers on the battlefield. The miniature implantable telemetric device was declassified long ago. As far back as 1968, Dr. Stuart Mackay, in his textbook entitled Bio-Medical Telemetry, reported, "Among the many telemetry instruments being used today, are miniature radio transmitters that can be swallowed, carried externally, or surgically implanted in man or animal. They permit the simultaneous study of behavior and physiological functioning.…"<190>

Dr. Carl Sanders, one of the developers of the Intelligence Manned Interface (IMI) biochip, maintains, "We used this with military personnel in the Iraq War where they were actually tracked using this particular type of device."<191>

It is also interesting to note that the Calspan Advanced Technology Center in Buffalo (Calspan ATC), where McVeigh worked, is engaged in microscopic electronic engineering of the kind applicable to telemetrics.<192> Calspan was founded in 1946 as Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, which included the "Fund for the Study of Human Ecology," a CIA conduit for mind-control experiments by émigré Nazi scientists .

According to mind-control researcher Alex Constantine, "Calspan places much research emphasis on bioengineering and artificial intelligence (Calspan pioneered in the field in the 1950s)." In his article, "The Good Soldier," Constantine states:

Human tracking and monitoring technology are well within Calspan's sphere of pursuits. The company is instrumental in REDCAP, an Air Force electronic warfare system that winds through every Department of Defense facility in the country. A Pentagon release explains that REDCAP "is used to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic-combat hardware, techniques, tactics and concepts." The system "includes closed-loop radar and data links at RF manned data fusion and weapons control posts." One Patriot computer news board reported that a disembodied, rumbling, low-frequency hum had been heard across the country the week of the bombing. Past hums in Taos, NM, Eugene and Medford, OR, Timmons, Ontario and Bristol, UK were most definitely (despite specious official denials) attuned to the brain's auditory pathways….

The Air Force is among Calspan's leading clients, and Eglin AFB has farmed key personnel to the company. The grating irony — recalling McVeigh's contention he'd been implanted with a telemetry chip — is that the Instrumentation Technology Branch of Eglin Air Force Base is currently engaged in the tracking of mammals with subminiature telemetry devices. According to an Air Force press release, the biotelemetry chip transmits on the upper S-band (2318 to 2398 MHz), with up to 120 digital channels.

There is nothing secret about the biotelemetry chip. Ads for commercial versions of the device have appeared in national publications. Time magazine ran an ad for an implantable pet transceiver in its June 26, 1995 issue — ironically enough — opposite an article about a militia leader who was warning about the coming New World Order. While monitoring animals has been an unclassified scientific pursuit for decades, the monitoring of humans has been a highly classified project which is but a subset of the Pentagon's "nonlethal" arsenal. As Constantine notes, "the dystopian implications were explored by Defense News for March 20, 1995:

Naval Research Lab Attempts To Meld Neurons And Chips: Studies May Produce Army of "Zombies."

... MORE HERE ...

http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt_02.htm

[MedicalAdmin]

144. Not to mention of any gathering of 3 or more white males.

Strange fruit, baby. It wasn't the latino's who did that.

[Ter]

357. The difference is McVeigh didn't do it in the name of Christianity

He didn't mention religion at all, he clearly did it because he was anti-government. He was also agnostic.

[slackmaster]

141. Me too! Where there are Amish, there are usually horses.

I really wouldn't want to be on a plane with horses in the cabin.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

218. With Juan, that means horses' asses.

[herbm]

274. And horse patooty, too!

[WatchWhatISay]

254. I would be nervous of them if I were traveling with my dogs

Since they are notorious puppy-millers

[mochajava666]

258. I have had it with those Monkey-Fightin' Shakers on

this Monday-to-Friday plane!

[Deep13]

67. I'd be afraid that they'd raise a barn on the airplane. nt

[jonthebru]

210. I'd be terrified

Because that would mean I am a long way from home.
And because I might slip on the horse pooh.
Frankly, I was in a small Minnesota town a few years a go and found out there are Somali refugees living there and accepted by the people. They went about town wearing traditional dress and no one was bothered at all. But that is Minnesota. A very real part of The UNITED States.

[Uncle Joe]

221. I would get nervous if I saw snakes on an airplane.

I heard it was a terrible movie and I would be wondering how the hell did I get in here, it must have happened during a blackout!?:scared:

[The Wizard]

16. Were the guys who

hijacked planes on 9-11-01 dressed in Muslim attire?

[Kolesar]

37. NO KIDDING

Pardon the caps

[TheeHazelnut]

7. Good riddance...

He was totally empty-headed and vapid when I first encountered him as the host of NPR's "Talk of the Nation." Then in his appearances on Fox News (which I only get through the clips on Media Matters) he has gone from mediocre to evil tool. Now he will join Fox full time, I'm sure. Would not be surprised if he turns this into lucrative speaking gigs and maybe even a right-wing-publishing imprint book denouncing NPR.

[mazzarro]

11. +1

[mediaman007]

14. Wouldn't it be surprising if FOX has no use for him because he is out at NPR?

They wanted Williams because he brought the NPR (liberal) label with him. Without the connection his value plummeted.

[eyepaddle]

69. I think that is a good question, and one worth watching.

I'd suspect that Fox will keep him around so that he can bellyache about liberal meanies running him out of town a la Bernie Goldberg.

[eyepaddle]

66. I was wondering if anybody else remembered his horrid performance on

Talk of the Nation.

I missed the show that got him booted off of that gig (apparently his fawning was WAAAYYYYYYY too obvious to miss once, but I may be mistaken).

But his general uselessness had driven me away from that show weeks earlier.

[mrs_p]

271. i thought he was on just for a year while the other

dude was off broadcasting baseball games or writing a baseball book or something along those lines. but my memory is iffy on that...

[stevebreeze]

72. in one interview with a person friend of his John Feinstein, he was described as

"more right then left" by Feinstein. I thought that described Williams well. The only issue he ever took a liberal bent on is race.

[dotymed]

8. Chimpy

Made it his mission to stack NPR just like he and Daddy did to the SCOTUS.

[Bragi]

64. So it's Bush's fault?

Have I got this straight:

1. Bush packed the NPR with a right-wing board;

2. An NPR commentator expresses a controversial viewpoint generally associated with the right-wing;

3. The network run by the Bush-appointed board then fires the commentator for expressing a viewpoint associated with the right.

I'm unclear as to your point.

[MedicalAdmin]

154. Follow the time line.

NPR was actually pretty fair and balanced until the RW got their diapers in a twist and decided that it wasn't. Then chimpy stacked the board with RW stooges. Then they find, hire, and/or promote as many RW appologist as they can of which Juan Williams is only one.

WIlliams fucks up and says shit that causes a LOT of formerly loyal supporters (you know - the public that actually pays most of those idiots salaries - FYI NPR gets very little public support) like me to call and write and tell them EXACTLY why we are no longer sending them money or listening until they regain their balance. Further Chimpy is no longer in office and even the stupidest RWinger can see that his loyalty was always first, formost and only to himself. They see the bus a comin' up the street and they are positioning themselves to not get tossed under it.

NPR is just now starting to move back the way they should present the news. The fact is that public media was created to give voice to those who don't have a voice in traditional private corporate media. The fact that Chimpy and his minions were detirmined to make NPR into Faux Lite tells me everything I need to know about how important a real independant media is for democracy.

I hope this helps with your understanding.

[1gobluedem]

215. Bush packed the CPB board

Not NPR. Not the same thing.

[MedicalAdmin]

344. No. CPB only funds part of NPR

Its Linda like when omw of the billionaire boys club sends money to charity; they tie strings and conditions to the funds.

And yes CPB had conditions when el chimpy took over. He, and his appointees were all about ideology, or don't you remember the DOJ etc..?

[BoneDaddy]

236. You are asking some of the people at DU

to make a cogent argument?

[Hubert Flottz]

10. FOX Anal-ists

Full of shit and unbalanced.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. that's about 10 years too late

Williams has been given a prime spot to poison the NPR airwaves with his Fauxness for way too long.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. One hopes that Mara Liasson will be on her way too.

[Bragi]

46. Let's fire everyone there with a non-liberal viewpoint

Let's fire everyone who disagrees with us so we can have balanced commentary on NPR.

/sarcasm

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Mara Liasson is supposed to be a journalist

Thanks for the sanctimony, but it's not her role on NPR to spout any political position, liberal or otherwise.

She's a fucking shill for Rupert Murdoch, not a journalist, and I would have expected you to understand the difference.

[Bragi]

68. She's a commentator, not a reporter

I don't listen to her much, and I probably disagree with of her views on just about everything, but she is listed and identified as a political commentator and pundit, not a news reporter. She is expected to express her views.

[Steerpike]

80. her and williams are dishonest sacks of shit

they "pretend" to be liberal commentators...but in reality they are right wing shills...they dissemble and deflect on important issues that should be getting focus and detailed.
By taking slots that are meant for progressives they manage to muzzle liberal ideas and solutions...they are intellectual criminals...

[Bragi]

95. "Intellectual criminals" !!!

My, there's a rich concept to explore.

So should people who pretend to be of one thing, but are another, be put in prison for their "intellectual criminal" behaviour?

[Steerpike]

98. nope

they should be shunned and reviled...and so you are a major defender of conservative shills? how do you defend that? what kind of acceptable metaphor can you use to describe your defense of these slugs?

[Bragi]

99. I don't defend their views or even watch them much

I do defend their right to free speech, however.

(Is it only me that sees great irony in having to explain and defend the bedrock democratic principle of free speech on a discussion board called "Democratic Underground"?)

[Steerpike]

111. they do not have the right to jack shit

that is why juan was fired! do you even know what you what you are talking about? the gov did not shut these pieholes down...

[Bragi]

120. It is censorship pure and simple

So do you think firing someone for expressing a controversial viewpoint is a reaffirmation of the importance of free and open debate?

It is a warning from the top to other NPR people not to express viewpoints on this matter that might reflect the anxieties of a large portion of Americans.

The firing will also, sadly, confirm the views of many that a fair and open debate on their concerns won't be happening in the mainstream media anytime soon.

Which won't end the debate, of course. It will just confine it to venues and fora dominated by the right, with the left continuing to demand censorship of opposing viewpoints, while claiming that everyone who disagrees with them is an unhinged, right-wing racist.

And so goes civil discourse in America...

[Steerpike]

125. civil discourse?

people who believe that juan cokie or mara are contributing to "civil discourse" are deluded...they are not participating in the forum of free speech...they are the part of the propaganda fascist machine, designed to keep the people in their place. propoganda is the way these pigs herd cats. and persons that give them solace in the name of philosophy are blind to the evil they have accomplished over the years and the harm they have done to this nation.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

365. +1

Well said.

[MinM]

132. Do you actually know what Censorship means, Bragi?

When Juan Williams gets arrested for expressing his opinions, you'll have a point.

BTW Bragi: Why are Fox, NPR, and all other media outlets "Censoring" you? :sarcasm:

[Bragi]

139. Yeah, I know what it means

Free speech is a robust concept. While it includes First Amendment rights, it goes well beyond that.

See, for example: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861595798/censorship.html

Firing someone for expressing an offensive viewpoint may, or may not, constitute a violation of their First Amendment rights, but it is still censorship nonetheless.

[MinM]

148. Bragi: Why are Fox, NPR, and all other media outlets "Censoring" you?

Is it Censorship if Fox News hires you but NPR decides not to?

:patriot: Stop the "Censorship" :rant:

[1gobluedem]

216. I work for an NPR affiliate

By making those remarks, Juan Williams violated the terms of his contract. Following is an excerpt from a letter from NPR's president (bold is mine):

"First, a critical distinction has been lost in this debate. NPR News analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts.

Second, this isn’t the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan’s public comments. Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan has continued to violate this principal (sic).

Third, these specific comments (and others made in the past), are inconsistent with NPR’s ethics code, which applies to all journalists (including contracted analysts):

“In appearing on TV or other media . . . NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows . . . that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.”

More fundamentally, “In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.”

Unfortunately, Juan’s comments on Fox violated our standards as well as our values and offended many in doing so.

We’re profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week. Juan’s comments were made Monday night and we did not feel it would be responsible to delay this action.

This was a tough decision and we appreciate your support."

[Turborama]

226. Excellent insight which should be an OP in its own right!!!

Thanks a lot for sharing. :thumbsup:

Please PM me if you do post it as an OP and I'll pop in and give it a comment and rec.

[sabrina 1]

252. So they have warned him before? Bigotry is not easy to

control so I guess he couldn't do it. I never liked him and rarely bothered to read him.

But now that he's free of his contract with NPR which apparently kept this bigotry in check, I'm sure we'll see the real Juan emerge, probably on Fox News. That's where all the bigots and convicted felons end up.
Good riddance, now maybe they can replace him with someone like Van Jones, or Cenk maybe.

[slackmaster]

264. Thanks for the explanation. It makes a lot of sense.

He violated the contract, so he's toast.

[Turborama]

270. Thanks for posting it as an OP, it is required reading for those who still don't get it (link)

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9361586

[SemperEadem]

303. If Juan signed his name to that contract, then he deserves to be fired

for violating it.

Stupid ass.

[MedicalAdmin]

164. Censorship is when the GOVERNMENT shuts down discourse.

What you are talking about is an organization reacting to great public outcry by their membership over JW bullshit. I support public media, but I stopped sending checks to NPR over a year ago and I let them know why. I support our local MPR station, the college station, Pacifica, etc. But NPR gets not a single sous from me until they stop trying to be Faux Lite and get back to their stated mandate.

JW was only the first POS to go I hope.

[Bragi]

170. No it is NOT!

You are thinking about First Amendment rights, which protect Americans against censorship by government.

Censorship, however, is a bigger concept, and embraces more than just the violation of First Amendment rights.

For example, this is from encarta:

Definition of censorship:

1. suppression of published or broadcast material: the suppression of all or part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security

2. suppression of something objectionable: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable

3. ancient Roman office: the office, authority, or term of an ancient Roman censor

4. psychiatry suppression of memories: the suppression of potentially harmful memories, ideas, or desires from the conscious mind

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861595798/censorship.html

People can be legally censored, as in the case with Williams. I've never suggested otherwise. My point is that I think the left should not support let alone applaud gratuitous censorship of viewpoints with which we disagree.

Why? One big reason is because what goes around, comes around.

[Steerpike]

176. ha!

It is the mandate of NPR's business model to suppress lies, discourage fear mongering and deseminate fact based news stories...it is not censorship for them to fire Juan....becouse he is a lieing, fear mongering, asswipe...

and you are absolutely correct...what goes around...comes around

[burnsei sensei]

242. I've always thought that

censorship is something that tampers with expression itself.
A book, speech, or other communication can be censored.
Juan Williams has not been censored, he has been silenced as far as NPR is concerned.
Works are censored.
People are silenced-- either by the sword or by the pen.

[nashville_brook]

338. you are wrong. it's not censorship. it was his J-O-B to adhere to standards and practices...

he couldn't do that, so he (whaaaaaaaaaaaa!) has to give up ONE of his high-paying, high-profile pundit jobs.

cry me a river. this is not censorship.

[backtomn]

195. Correct me if I am wrong, but.....

National PUBLIC Radio is PUBLICLY funded.......unlike FOX, CNN, etc.

[meeshrox]

324. I saw this on another thread today, where the funding comes from...

Less than 2% of the funding for NPR comes from federal government sources...not sure what you mean by public funding other than government money or public donations...

Here is a breakdown, with the most coming from local radio stations that carry NPR and private sponsors.

http://www.npr.org/about/support/

I took this from another thread I read earlier today, thanks to Wickerman for posting this first!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4583000

[MedicalAdmin]

345. Surely you are not equating NPR with the government, are you?

[Daemonaquila]

173. That's racism, not a "controversial viewpoint."

It's long past time to dump the ACLU viewpoint that defends the right to hate speech. Bravo NPR. Employers, especially media, should have no problem firing anyone who spouts off racist, anti-gay, anti-religious, etc. drivel. Until people get a backbone and stand up to it, the murders, suicides, cross burnings, and such will continue unabated.

[eilen]

275. The statement from the his boss

basically said that his role is to provide a venue to reflect on others' analysis of current events and how they draw their conclusions and opinions thereof, not make news with his own personal opinions (which apparently he has been doing with some frequency). I think enabling a rascist on a political advocacy channel that pretends to be "news" (much like the 700 Club) was the straw that sent the pink slip home. Since he was there a guest representing an NPR broadcast journalist, maybe he could have instead reflected and deferred his own opinion, maybe link that with the recent comment a prominent candidate made referring that Hispanics look like Asians (doesn't Billo think that offensive?). But that would require he do his job and be professional instead of sharing his snowflake xenophobia.

[MedicalAdmin]

162. Free speech? Puhlease.

I accord them the right to speak on a street corner. But not an a network that is mandated to give voice to those who are underrepresented in most media.

Or are you honestly saying that the RW swill they spout is underrepresented in MSM? You can't possibly be drinking THAT much so early in the morning, can you?

[SemperEadem]

304. exactly

1. it wasn't the government who cut him off and that's what the constitution covers.
2. He signed his name to a contract that spelled out what was acceptable behavior for the people they put on the air. He willingly, willfully and of his own volition VIOLATED the terms of his contract NUMEROUS times and has been given YEARS of rope with which to hang himself marvelously like he did on Monday.
3. He only has a right to free speech: not dissemination/broadcast/cablecast of said speech. He can go stand on Massachusetts and North Capitol along with the dude who is out there every day ranting about his money and have all the free speech his little heart desires. The government isn't going to stop him. But NPR is a public company and it can set rules for the behavior of its employees. Don't believe me? Go do some similar mess on your job for years and see what happens.


Know what you're talking about before opening your mouth and exposing your ignorance.

[Abq_Sarah]

310. It's not just you

But then again, this is the silly season.

[nashville_brook]

337. "free speech" doesn't mean Juan Williams has a god-given right to be an NPR commentator

[rtw]

231. Let's criminalize disagreement now

Oh yes, yes, yes. Let's criminalize disagreement now. Good grief. /s

(Just for clarification, I'm agreeing with you that it's ridiculous.)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

119. So who exactly are the "right-wing commentators" on NPR?

Or is it assumed that all commentators on NPR should be liberal, and therefore it's an affront to our sensibilities when a couple are actually secret right-wingers?

You tell me, because my parents have that damn station on all day and I don't know how they don't fall asleep listening to it.

[MedicalAdmin]

165. First of all no one mentioned is just a commentator.

Second of all, RTFF.

Third of all, they don't have to be "liberal" but I would settle for being "journalists." RW, Mara and Cokie parrot the same talking points that Rush does. They provide no insight, no analysis, no understanding. Quite the opposite. They supply disinformation.

I don't care about opinon, I want facts and analysis of those facts. What we get in the US is opinon and it is sickening to see the same disease infect NPR.

[Doctor_J]

234. Secret right-wingers? I don't know about that

Juan Williams, Cokie Roberts, and Mara Liasson are proud, unapologetic right-wingers, and NPR often has guests from right-wing think tanks

[nashville_brook]

339. David Brooks, for one -- but more importantly, do you need RW talking points to stay awake?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

363. Nah, I just listen to Ed Schultz to stay awake

....and Thom Hartmann, although I guess people hate him here too because he has some right wingers on.

[alcibiades_mystery]

133. Bullshit...she's listed as a "national political CORRESPONDENT"

She is listed as a reporter providing coverage, and introduced that way.

Don't make up stupid and easily disproved LIES.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1930401

Mara Liasson is the national political correspondent for NPR. Her reports can be heard regularly on NPR's award-winning newsmagazines All Things Considered and Morning Edition. Liasson provides extensive coverage of politics and policy from Washington, DC — focusing on the White House and Congress — and also reports on political trends beyond the Beltway.

[RZM]

171. I've never heard Liasson put her personal views out there much on NPR or Fox

Granted, I don't follow her particularly closely, but I've seen her a fair amount over the years. To me she seems pretty reasonable. Is your beef with her really because of what she says, or because of who her employers are?

[rurallib]

70. It is not the non-liberal view. It is pushing the fucking right wing lies

I have no problem when they deal with truth.

[Bragi]

78. And you get to define "truth" I presume

I have a problem with right-wing lies as well. However, the solution isn't curtailing free speech, the solution is using free speech to debunk those lies.

[Myrina]

94. +10

Thank you.

[verges]

117. Where? How?

The popular opinion of NPR is that it leans left!!

[rurallib]

Uh no. But it is not hard to tell when Williams distorts facts.

NPR is a product like toothpaste is a product. Or religion for that matter. FOXnews is a product.
Those who make the product have the right to decide how that product is made.
The free speech part comes in when there is a diversity across the medium, not necessarily at one manufacturer.

I doubt the Catholic Church should house an atheist wing, or a Muslim wing.
When I turn on NPR (which is becoming less and less frequent) I expect some level of credibility. Putting on someone who has an agenda and distorts facts to support that agenda surely hurts their credibility.
Please send your concerns about free speech to Fox, or ABC or Clear Channel or Cumulus .......

[MedicalAdmin]

167. I agree.

And now that Juan is off to the propoganda network (Faux), then they can hire someone who will start doing that.

If Bill Moyers wasn't still alive, he'd be spinning in his grave. And if Murrow was still alive he'd be having an aneurysm after listening to JW.

[Psephos]

251. Well said.

You're taking a lot of abuse in this thread for upholding one of the most liberal of all principles. Thank you.

So many forget that the only speech that actually needs protection is speech we don't like. There is a practical, as well as principled argument for open discourse: as you mentioned up-thread, what goes around, comes around. Some of that will be coming around in about two weeks.

I believe that liberal ideas and progressive arguments are stronger and more appealing than what wingnuts offer, and it grinds me to hear illiberal "progressives" trying to snuff out the clash of ideas before it can happen. Smells like fear to me.

[MedicalAdmin]

159. You clearly don't get it.

Public media was created with a federal mandate to provide a voice for those in our society who have no voice. NPR has a mandate to do that. That mandate doesn't include repeating the talking points of wall street or the heritage foundation or the koch brothers.

Unless you actually think that the billionaires boys club needs more air time for their treasonous opinions or actions. If you do there is a very nice blog that will love your participation. Perhaps Stormfront or Freeperville.

[Bragi]

172. You miss the point

But then again, your ad hominem closing line insult makes your point well.

Anyone who disagrees with you is clearly a Nazi.

On that foundation I'm sure we can build a terrific dialogue, and reach out to those we need to persuade.

[MedicalAdmin]

346. I never called you a Nazi .

I might refer to you as a good German had you lived in germany about 70 years ago. For now I will content myself with thinking of you as an enabler.

[efhmc]

200. Being a racist is not having a different point of view, it is

a biased way of looking at life.

[marshall]

278. The Keeper in Star Trek's "The Cage" said it best:

Wrong thinking is punishable. Right thinking will be as quickly rewarded. You will find it an effective combination.

[on point]

15. About time!

I've been ever so tired of hearing him introduced as correspondent for NPR, as if this makes him a centrist on Fox Propaganda shows by giving him 'liberal' camouflage.

[RoccoR5955]

17. GOOD RIDDANCE TO BAD RUBBISH!

Glad to see him go. NPR has been getting too far to the right over the past few years. Hopefully, this is a the beginning of the end of this. I hope that NPR can get back to their impartial reporting. I enjoyed it much more than the biased CONservative spin on the news.

And Juan, don't let the door hit ya, where the good lord splits ya!
Have fun at the Fox Propaganda Network!

[TexasObserver]

19. recommend

[mwb970]

21. I've been sick of Williams for years and years.

He acts like he's one of Us, but whenever he speaks it sounds like Them. He belongs on the Fox "News" payroll with the other right-wing nutjobs and suck-ups.

So, mission accomplished! Next target: Cokie Roberts and her totally content-free "analyses" that currently waste air time on NPR.

[Sherman A1]

26. Agreed

[yellowwood]

22. Well, I guess I have to contribute some money to them.

I've wondered for a long time why NPR put up with a Fox panelist.

Yea!

But I just read some comments saying that DU members sometimes watch O'Reilly. Why? What kind of masochistic behavior is that?

[Doctor_J]

29. I wouldn't do that

they're still overrun with wingers.

We have Duers who are addicted hate radio, Fox "News", Morning Intern Killer, Murdoch Journal, NRA newsletter, and every other bit of fascist propaganda. Then they come here and post it, claiming that they're doing us a favor. Here is an example, right in this thread

they suffer from a form of mental illness.

[harun]

293. NPR is all wingers now. They were taken over a couple years ago.

And I agree about the DU'rs who can't kick their addictions to the propagandist's.

[stlsaxman]

23. YAYYYY!!!

:toast: :bounce: :crazy: :think: :nopity: :hurts: :hi: :thumbsup: :kick: :fistbump: :headbang: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :rofl: :spray: :patriot: :woohoo: :fistbump: :headbang: :hi: :thumbsup: :think: :toast: :bounce: :party: :wow: :pals: :fistbump: :applause: :rofl: :woohoo: :spray:

[Bragi]

40. Three cheers for censorship!!!

[stlsaxman]

61. wha- they don't have censorship in Canada???

besides Juan will get his job back when Rupert, Roger and the Koch brothers buy up The Corporation For Public Broadcasting.

[Bragi]

75. We have dreadful, bad censorship

We have a conservative government that does its best to censor viewpoints with which it disagrees. I oppose this censorship.

However, unlike a lot of people here, I also oppose censorship of people legally expressing right-wing views.

So if NPR fired someone tomorrow for speaking out strongly in favour of Obama on a controversial issue, do you think people here would be cheering them on?

[stlsaxman]

135. When was the last time you heard anyone on NPR saying ANYTHING in favor of Obama???

Every article begins with the words "The failure of the Obama Presidency..."

NPR is the "liberal bureau" of FOX/News Corporation.

... and WE in the US suffer from dreadful corporate censorship all the time.

[Turborama]

187. He wasn't fired for "expressing right-wing views" exactly, he was fired for blatant Islamophobia

To save you the time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia

-

[oberliner]

205. And yet you questioned Rick Sanchez being fired for his comments

Was that not blatant antisemitism?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4561189#4561268

[Turborama]

212. I was only going by what was in the article in the OP at the time

Strange that you remember my reply from nearly 3 weeks ago but didn't take part in that thread.

[oberliner]

233. Ok - fair enough

I just think it is interesting to observe the different reactions to these two incidents. Your responses provide a good illustration of those differences.

[Turborama]

239. My responses do not illustrate what you're looking for

Seems like you're trying to pin me on one side versus another. I was seeking some clarity when I asked that question in that thread you continuously insist on bringing up. Just so we're clear, I thoroughly abhor bigotry in whatever shape or form it comes in.

[Deep13]

71. He can still say whatever he wants.

But there is no legal right to be employed by NPR. NPR has a right to employ people who won't alienate part of its audience or say stupid things.

[Bragi]

79. Really?

So you are in favour of allowing a range of opinions to be expressed, as long as it doesn't alienate anyone, or sound stupid to you, in which case, you're fine with that viewpoint being suppressed?

[Deep13]

83. His viewpoint is not being suppressed.

Again, he has the exact same right to say what he wants on the radio that you or I do.

Anyway, it's not like the right wing point of view is unrepresented in American media.

[Bragi]

114. So you expecting a robust debate soon on radical Islamicism?

I'm not, because it is clear that any robust discussion of radical Islamicism is pretty well verboten in mainstream American political discourse.

This doesn't mean the debate isn't happening, it just means it isn't happening on mainstream media.

Nor, I would argue, is it looking like this debate will include viewpoints from the progressive left, since we're generally in favour of censoring views on this topic that we don't like.

[MedicalAdmin]

169. You sure get a hard on about censorship.

Projecting? Or do you really think that you can get by with the bogus inference that lot's of members of DU support censorship? Puhlease.

This forum exists to post stories that don't get much airplay and to comment on the little discussed aspects of stories that do get airplay. Are you serious in your claim that we are all about censoring views that we don't like?

We are serious about challenging views we don't agree with and arriving at rational realistic long term systemic solutions to problems in our society. But somehow you think that makes us Stalin's censoring corp. Christ on a Harley - get back on the meds.

[backtomn]

198. That is irrelevant

Those other media outlets are not financed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and citizen donors. If PUBLIC radio is not going to try to be balanced, then we have a problem.

Juan was one of the good guys. Yes, he was on FOX, but bringing a progressive voice to the debate. This is a loss for our side...plain and simple. It is a shame that hatred won't let us realize it.

[glitch]

104. Silly conflation.

No one is censoring Williams, he's free to say whatever he wants. Just not as a paid commentator on NPR.
From your other comments on this thread you should also research the distinction between propaganda and free speech.

Propaganda may be cheap but it's not free.

[Bragi]

123. Wrong. My concern is this:

I am appalled at the enthusiastic support continually expressed here for just about any suppression of viewpoints we don't like, or we think are potentially offensive to others.

[newspeak]

184. well, I have mixed feelings about free speech

I think anyone has the right to voice their opinion--I mean my boss told me his father greatly admired Hitler and would get on his soapbox every week in a park in LA and espouse his views on Hitler (before war was declared). However, I think of the mass propaganda assault by Hitler and his mouthpiece, Julian Steicher, promoting hate and fear against jews, gays, labor advocates and anyone who disagreed with their agenda. And, then there is the hate radio driven genocide in Rwanda.

Our media is totally controlled by corporate masters who have their own agenda, who "catapult the propaganda" for their own needs. And, I believe one and all are republican. "The liberal media is as liberal as their right wing corporate masters allow them to be."

I don't mind seeing or hearing worthy opponents debating the issues; however, it seems what we got now is those sitting around agreeing about the same issue or a milk toast opposition.

When it comes to pushing an agenda of ignorance and fear with little or no opposition, I think of Rwanda and Germany.

[eyepaddle]

204. Dude, seriously, take a look around DU and ask yourself:

"Does everybody here agree on everything all the time?"

Especially on high post-count, high view threads.This place may be a lot of things (possibly psychotic for example) but one thing it isn't is an echo chamber.

[MedicalAdmin]

168. Uh Oh. Mrs Jones.

Your bloomers are showing. And they are truly colored.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

359. Boo fucking hoo.

[baldguy]

27. What took them so long?

[Doctor_J]

28. There are still DUers who think that Juan is one of us

No wonder we're in such deep shit.

[Bragi]

42. Some of us still support the principle of free speech

But clearly we are increasingly in the minority here.

[Doctor_J]

57. Some of us don't think that tax dollars should support fascist propaganda

though we are increasingly in the minority among the Fox news addicts here.

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. +1000

Your interlocutor doing the usual weepy martyrdom routine rather than dealing with the real issue.

[Bragi]

81. Can you cite the part of the Williams transcript that is fascist propaganda?

[glitch]

116. All of his transcripts over all the years, really?

:rofl:

NPR may actually FINALLY be returning to a higher standard of journalism, please don't discourage them by defending Williams.

[Bragi]

122. You sound like a Stalinist

Every purge of the newsrooms under Stalin was justified as "a higher standard of journalism."

[devilgrrl]

126. You're the one saying that you don't listen to NPR - so how would you know?

:+

[Bragi]

130. I read the transcript /nt

[devilgrrl]

179. Oh well, saying stupid shit will get you trouble. Boo Hoo Juan Williams.

:cry:

[burnsei sensei]

243. Yes. And students of Cold War history

are attentive and if they have any conscience, they will point this out.

[Vinnie From Indy]

213. Your responses are a monument to idiocy!

Your stab at self-identifying yourself as a "free speech" warrior is laughable becuase you have no real understanding of the concept.

You write:

"People can be legally censored, as in the case with Williams. I've never suggested otherwise. My point is that I think the left should not support let alone applaud gratuitous censorship of viewpoints with which we disagree."

This passage shows quite clearly that your understanding of what happened to Williams is fundamentally flawed. Williams was fired for making hateful, bigoted comments. His opportunity and ability to express his views has in no way been curtailed by anyone. He simply will not be able to use NPR's facilities to amplify his silly, bigoted views.

Also, you state quite clearly "My point is that I think the left should not support let alone applaud gratuitous censorship of viewpoints with which we disagree."

So, based on this idea one would imagine you would be perfectly OK with shows on NPR like "Cooking with the Klan" or "The NAMBLA Discussion Hour". These people have viewpoints too and based on your arguments obviously NPR is censoring them by not allowing them to use the NPR network to disseminate their opinions. One must ask you if there are any boundaries in regard to speech that an employer can erect within their own business without tripping your free speech alarms.

In short, your free speech martyr schtick is quite funny.
Cheers!

[devilgrrl]

227. +1,000,000,000

Juan Williams is free to state what he did and NPR is free to dismiss him if they have an issue with it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

362. Hey, Bragi, you're in very good company. Look:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4583000#4583534

[orbitalman]

30. Tough Cookies !! n/t

[still_one]

31. This should come as no surprise since the MSM has been telling us for years to be afraid /nt

[mod mom]

33. Just think, if he didn't watch FAUX "News" he might not of been so fearful & could have kept his job

Good riddance shill!

[Bragi]

34. On the apparently huge appetite for censorship here

I find it disturbing how little support there is on this board for anything resembling the exercise of free speech with which we disagree.

Personally, I don't share Williams' overall anxiety about Muslims, but the fact is that the spread of radical politicized Islamicism is very much a contemporary issue and concern not just with Fox news viewers, but with many Americans, Euros, etc.

So this fellow Williams makes what seem to be some quite very mild statements reflecting this anxiety, and he gets sacked by what is supposed to be a "public broadcaster". And people here cheer on those who wielded the ax to censor this legal expression of free speech on a matter of public interest?

Seriously, if this board is reflective of those of us on the left and center-left part of the political spectrum, and I believe it is to some extent, then it's no wonder that the right wing in America and elsewhere virtually owns the debate on free speech.

Because of our apparent proclivity for supporting censorship of speech we don't like, we basically have nothing useful to contribute to that important debate. So the right wing, and the racists, get to conduct the debate virtually unopposed.

(If you need evidence of our irrelevance to free speech discussions, just do a search for "Molly Norris" on google. It will quickly become apparent that the right wing are about the only ones who have spoken out against those who have forced her into hiding because of her perfectly legal exercise of her first amendment rights.)

[yellowwood]

41. No Censorship Here

As far as I'm concerned, Williams can say whatever he wants to on Fox News. I don't watch it. From what I've seen, he is just reflecting the usual "Fox News" viewpoint.

So interesting that he feels uneasy about being on a plane with people dressed as a Muslims--
"But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

So I wouldn't even try to censor the Fox News propaganda.

But I listen to NPR. And I'm glad that they at jettisoning this kind of thinking. Certainly NPR has the right to choose the employees who reflect a non-biased viewpoint.

And that's why I love NPR.

[Bragi]

44. non-biased = views I agree with

So Williams gets fired for expressing a viewpoint with which you disagree, and that means it isn't censorship?

I'd say that pretty well puts you in the mainstream on this board.

[LanternWaste]

102. Or maybe he simply got fired for not

"So Williams gets fired for expressing a viewpoint with which you disagree,..."

Or maybe he simply got fired for not expressing the will of the network's target demographics. Seems like standard showbiz to me... but I can quite easily understand how an over dramatizing of both the reasons and the agenda behind it would be more fun.

[Ineeda]

51. The difference is

that when you're a news broadcaster/commentator, your personal feelings and personal fears are not appropriate for the platform, especially when spewing bigotry.

[Bragi]

59. He's a commentator, not a reporter

He is supposed to express his opinions.

That's what commentators/analysts/columnists/etc. are supposed to do.

[Ineeda]

96. I don't agree -- he can express his opinions about the news, sure

but not about his feelings and fears. There's a huge difference.

[SemperEadem]

307. No, you are wrong. His personal opinions have no place

in a news environment period.

That is freakin' remedial journalism 001; he may not express his personal opinion without a disclaimer that he is presenting his own views and that his views don't necessarily reflect the views of the station.

NPR is a news environment--that much is clear from the missive from his bosses. You are confusing/conflating opinions shows with news programming and there is a universe of difference between the two. Learn it.

[Ineeda]

309. Good point. Sorry you had to be rude to make it. n/t

[SemperEadem]

312. build a bridge and get over it.

your bff's aren't here.

[Ineeda]

314. LOL

insert middle finger smilie here.

[SemperEadem]

306. this! True true true

Williams was fired for violating the terms of his employment contract.

He has no "right" to that job. He has no entitlement to violate his employment contract and not face the consequences.

[Deep13]

87. I'll give a shit about Williams' "right" to talk on the radio...

...when I have a right to talk on the radio. And when I can say whatever I want without getting fired, I'll care if right wing hacks like Williams can.

[glitch]

121. You really need to learn more about what censorship is. People on this thread have been trying to

teach you, please actually read the responses to your repeated posts on censorship.

According to your logic NPR could hire Glen Beck, because he is entitled to free speech too. But NPR is a professional NEWS organization, and yes their COMMENTATORS are required a level of professional standards as well as their journalists.

Juan Williams with his latest comment showed he lacked those standards and was insufficiently professional for a paid position at NPR. You may disagree with them but it is still in no way CENSORSHIP.

[Pacifist Patriot]

124. I'll stick my neck out and agree with you.

For the most part.

How can we challenge what people say if we don't allow them the opportunity to say it?

Tough call. I think media outlets should be able to decide standards of behavior and speech from their analysts and commentators. He is, after all, free to shop his obnoxious opinions elsewhere. Being National PUBLIC radio, makes it a bit trickier though.

I also think we're all safer when people can express themselves so we know where they stand. Silence is more frightening to me than opinions with which I disagree.

As for Williams and O'Reilly? Mark Twain hit the nail on the head when he said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." These gentlemen prove it daily, sometimes syllable by syllable.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

360. Why don't you go have your hissy fit at a site where it will be more appreciated?

Like, say, Free Republic. They'll receive you with open arms. Because, you know, they hate those vile leftists and are therefore lovers of freedom and infinitely righteous. Like you.

[Kind of Blue]

38. Bye Juan and take Mara with you.

KnR

[Bragi]

48. Editorial balance = no conservative viewpoints? /nt

[eyepaddle]

63. Well, at least it equals no dishonest shills. nt

[Kind of Blue]

74. Thank you for beating me to it.

I don't know how one could ask that question in regard to two absolute Fox News "fair and balanced" commentators, especially one who has just outright stated his fear of other Americans. Coming from our African-American backgrounds, Williams should at the very least be able to understand the feeling of "other."

Furthermore, NPR has other Republican commentators and they need to put them in the spotlight a little more.

[MedicalAdmin]

174. I nominate you for the most red herrings ever created on a single thread in DU.

Honestly, could you toss up any more fish, false analogies, or blind logic alleys.

We get it, you support free speech and you also believe that this means that no one can be fired ever for any reason from any news organization anywhere on the planet or they are being censored. And anyone who disagrees with you is a Stalinist.

That is, pardon me, nuts. And completely in violation with the rights accorded organizations to run themselves according to their stated principles and guidelines. Or don't you believe in that part of free speech.

[Turborama]

225. Seconded n/t

[RetroLounge]

313. Hey Bragi

Juan got hired by Fox News today for a 3 year multi-million dollar contract

So you'll still be able to see him.

So just how is he being censored?

RL

[oberliner]

43. Reaction to this vs. Reaction to Sanchez firing somewhat different?

Does anyone notice any differences between the perception of these two events on DU?

[Cirque du So-What]

45. Perception schmerception!

Why pussyfoot around? Just come out with it already! What, in thy mind, dost thou have anyway?

[oberliner]

84. I didn't want to ask a leading question or prejudge anyone's response

My observation is that some DUers thought Sanchez ought not to have been fired and that there was maybe a bit of an overreaction to his remarks.

[Bragi]

47. DU usually supports censorship of non-liberal viewpoints

I can't remember a case where DU posters generally opposed censorship of anyone with whom we generally disagree.

[PassingFair]

62. Does "non-liberal" viewpoint equate to bigoted, biased fear mongering?

Then NO, I don't support non-liberal NEWS reporters.

[Bragi]

82. If what Williams said is "bigoted, biased fear mongering" then...

If what Williams said is considered "bigoted, biased fear-mongering" then there really can be no open debate on radical Islamicism in America that reflects the views and concerns of a huge part of the American population.

So how do think that will work out?

[PassingFair]

90. He was talking about brown skinned people on an airplane.

Not radical Islamicism.

Really, would it have been OK for Brian Williams to say that?

[Bragi]

105. No, he was not talking about skin colour or citizenship

He was talking about people he might see on an airplane who are dressed (as is their right) in a manner than clearly self-identifies them as practicing and/or devout Muslims. Show me where the transcript suggests otherwise.

[PassingFair]

110. Are you scared of muslins?

This does NOT scare me:



Any more than THIS:

[Bragi]

115. I already said I wasn't afraid of Muslims, I am supporting free speech /nt

[PassingFair]

118. So you think any news person should be able to say anything?

Should stations be allowed to shitcan people like
Imus with his "nappy headed hoes" comments?

[Bragi]

128. I see little comparison between the two incidents

Imus was being deliberately and aggressively offensive. If his employer wants to take him off the air, fine with me. The transcript shows, however, that Williams was trying to go out of his way to express a concern without being offensive.

Do I care if his employer wants to take him off the air for saying what he said?

Yeah, I do care, not because I care about Williams, but because this firing is a warning to everyone that NPR will not be part of any robust debate on Islamacism in America, or at least any debate that includes all relevant viewpoints, however respectfully they may be expressed.

[PassingFair]

131. Imus claims he was just making a joke.

Some people feel scared and uncomfortable around
gay people, should those "feelings" be part of
a "robust debate" on gayness in America?

By a newscaster?

They should save this kind of fearmongering opinion
for OPINION shows like Bill Maher's.

[totodeinhere]

237. News organizations should have the right to maintain certain standards among employees.

It is not a violation of free speech. Free speech is a concept which protects us from government censorship. As far as I know Williams was able to say what he said and the feds did not come and get him. So his free speech rights were not violated.

[joeglow3]

235. I saw nothing wrong with what he said

I think he recognized that it is not rational and not something you should act upon. He appeared to merely admit to a weakness (i.e. his instinct of potential fear). Now, if he said that his feelings are rational and everyone fitting that mold should be rounded up, I agree with the decision. But simply sharing an instictual feeling he has but does NOT act upon is hardly an offense to fire someone over.

[Turborama]

201. Are you still trying to work out if you're Islamaphobic or not?

What Williams said: "when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Here's a commonly understood definition of Islamophobia: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia">Prejudice against, or an irrational fear of Islam or Muslims"

Williams was clearly speaking on live TV as an Islamophobe, which by definition is behaving in a bigoted, biased and fearmongering way.

When you say:

"If what Williams said is considered "bigoted, biased fear-mongering" then there really can be no open debate on radical Islamicism in America that reflects the views and concerns of a huge part of the American population."

...are you really suggesting that blatant Islamophobia is a prerequisite to having an "open debate" about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam">criticism of Islam and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islamism">criticism of Islamism in America?

BTW How much "radical Islamicism" is actually going on in America today?

[DeadEyeDyck]

331. What if Juan had said

"When I take my seat on a plane and see some yokel in a Texas 10 gallon hat, an NRA button and a bible under his arm, I pray that he is not going to be sitting next to me."?

Is that an opinion we could not tolerate?

[wmbrew0206]

88. Don't worry, your point has been made and I think it is reasonable.

If an NPR commentator had been fired over saying that 9/11 was an inside job this board would have more than a few posters screaming "CENSORSHIP!"

[Steerpike]

129. personally

i enjoy it when people who lie about politics or economics or espouse racist viewpoints get fired from networks that publicly pride themselves on honesty and inclusion...

[fascisthunter]

138. that's a bullshit claim attacking all of us here

back it up now

[Bragi]

143. I should back up what?

I can recall debates here where censorship was enthusiastically supported to supress views we disagreed with.

Like this one. And the debate on Terry Jones. And even the debate (such as it was) on Molly Norris.

So you show me a debate that took place here where the prevailing view was to oppose censorship against someone who said something with which we as leftists generally disagree?

[fascisthunter]

149. your perversion of what censorship is pretty plain to see here

I've been here for a while now, and you are full of it. I think you have a problem with progressives and liberals in general so get it all out and stop wasting bandwidth. Oh... there is no "we". Nice try though.. I do not see your views as progressive or liberal, and I have read your posts.

[Bragi]

157. Perversion!

That's bordering on the humourous.

Have a nice day.

[Kind of Blue]

207. I can. I remember we came down hard on Harry Reid

for saying Pres. Obama's success was due to his "light-skinned" appearance and "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Came down hard on Vice Pres. Biden when he said, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy..."

Came down hard on Pres. Clinton when he allegedly said to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in "Game Change," by John Heileman and Mark Halperin, that "a few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee." And again to Kennedy, "the only reason you are endorsing him is because he's black. Let's just be clear."

SOS Clinton's remarks repeated at least twice during the '08 campaign that Obama could not win white working-class votes.

President Obama's "Typical white person" remark.

I remember vigorous debates here on all of these nasty liberal viewpoints.

[Doctor_J]

55. No

[oberliner]

85. Has anyone defended Williams and suggested he should not have been fired?

If so, I may have missed those posts and then my observation would be nullified.

[Bragi]

91. Me

I'm not defending in any detail what he said, but I do not think what he said constitutes a firing offense.

I think what he said was reflective of a the views of a large portion of the population on a matter of importance, and fair comment.

I consider his firing to be an act of censorship, and a warning to anyone who might choose to speak in support of the views of many Americans on the matter.

Finally, and this is what matters most to me, I think the enthusiasm of the left for banishing contrary viewpoints is making us increasingly irrelevant to a lot of critical debates.

We aren't winning converts, we are alienating people we should be reaching out to through open debate.

[oberliner]

93. Have you found common cause with other DUers?

Or have you found yourself to be a minority of one in this opinion?

Also, did you feel the same way about the Sanchez firing?

[Bragi]

103. Yes, I find myself in the minority

As posted above, I find it ironic to have to explain and defend the bedrock democratic right of free speech on a board called "Democratic Underground."

However, I'm far from being a minority of one. As was clear during the Terry Jones fiasco, there are others here who also understand the importance of free speech, and support it.

As for the Sanchez thing, yes, I felt the same way. He said something stupid, as I recall, and CNN over-react to it. An apology from him should have sufficed.

In other words, I agreed with Jon Stewart on this.

[oberliner]

107. Interesting - thanks for sharing your perspective!

The Sanchez incident seemed to have more people on the other side than the Williams incident, but I could be wrong.

[newspeak]

199. it is fearmongering

Like if I said that all communists are suspect because one man allegedly burned the Reichstag. Or, I fear those jews because they are the ones who caused all our economic problems. The next move is to consider the moslems like animals--just like they did the jews. You don't think it could happen? Think again. And, think about those who have been killed because of some of these hate spewing bigots who are given corporate media access to relay their views to some already driven mad populace (or were mad to begin with). The shooting at the UU church, the murder of doctor Tiller, the murder of a progressive radio commentator in Colorado, the fully armed nut in northern california, the guy who intentionally crashed his plane in TX, the armed paranoid man in Ohio-and there are more. You don't think this is fueled by those who are given media access daily to spout bullshite with no opposition? Most of the time, they spout on and on by themselves or have guests that mostly agree with them, usually with little opposition. If there is opposition, like O'lliely likes to do, the mike is lowered or completely cut off.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. I don't give a red cent to NPR or Chicago Public Radio until Mara Liasson follows him out

If I wanted to watch Fox News, I'd watch it. I don't need the barely concealed snark version from fake-ass journalists on my public radio.

If they drag Cokie Roberts and her constant "exasperation" at anything to the left of Curtis LeMay, I'd donate double every month.

NPR is a fucking joke these days.

[Bragi]

52. deleted by author /nt

[anachro1]

53. Morally bankrupt water carrier for Republicans

seeks employment.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

65. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. nt

[handmade34]

73. about time!

[Roy Rolling]

76. Give me a break

Maybe he said a stupid thing but getting fired is an equally impulsive overreaction.

[rurallib]

77. Hope they hire Hannity or maybe Christine O'Donnell to take his place.

[d_r]

86. Juan WIlliams has alwas puzzled me

The first place I remember his name was the "Eyes on the Prize" book for the PBS series, which I liked. I would listen to Talk of the Nation and feel sort of indifferent. I'm not a fox watcher, so I when I saw scenes from that at first I thought he was a token, then I realized I didn't agree with what he was saying. I don't get him.

[rgbecker]

108. Money makes the world go around...Very simple.

[kjackson227]

112. It seems the guy got more extreme over the years...

I remember the years prior to President Obama's presidential candidacy when he did seem "sane" and I actually liked him also, but he has been evolving into a monster for a while now.

[la la]

261. ..and just his 'general' aura lately....

he gets loud...and louder...says 'bill o'reilly' over and over when on the BO show...allows o'reilly to outschitt him, and slinks off, acting like he's a great buddy/pal/confidant of billo---with a schitteatingsmile on his face. he actually disgusts me at times---and i wouldn't go on a plane with him, either.

free speech is one thing--saying stupid off the wall things to stay on billy's good side is another thing.

he's an unintended casualty of o'reilly's arrogant egotism...

[Kolesar]

113. ^Best post on this thread

says me

[slackmaster]

152. His nuanced and varied views on certain subjects don't fit your stereotype

Your profile of what an African-American journalist should think has broken down.

[d_r]

211. I get what your saying

and I'll have to think about that, but I think it isn't so much my stereotype breaking down as him seeming internally inconsistent - but maybe I just haven't paid enough attention for that matter.

[RZM]

182. I think he generally has been something of a token for Fox

Mostly because of his association with the NPR brand and secondly for his race. I listen to a lot of NPR and I rarely hear him on there (granted I don't catch Weekend Edition much, which is where I think he usually hangs out). Years ago I dubbed him 'Captain Obvious' because of his penchant for taking the low-lying fruit on the Special Report panel. His comments on there are usually prefaced by 1-2 minutes of talking about nothing and then culminating in a rather obvious point -- not always, but that was the impression he left on me.

[LisaM]

228. I thought he was dreadful on "Talk of the Nation"

IIRC, WNYC stopped carrying the show because he was so offensive, and that cost him his TOTN gig, because WNYC is a huge market. But he should have lost that job because he was so dismissive of the listeners. Caller after caller would get on the air in 2001 talking about the stolen election and he - I remember as if it were yesterday - would say, "Caller, America is over the election!" He was so wrong and so awful about it. No one who called in was the least bit over it. I'm still not - why should I be, since we were all proved so right about the consequences?

Juan Williams is finally stewing in his own bile. NPR demoted him at the time of the TOTN debacle, and gave him every chance, but to spew out such an unstudied comment really crossed the line. I don't like the idea of NPR commentators also being on Fox (I also wouldn't like it if they were also on CNN or MSNBC as regular employees).

[Turbineguy]

97. I was on a plane

when a man who appeared to be middle-eastern suddenly jumped up and ran to the restroom with his briefcase 10 minutes before we landed.

But not every man who appears to be from the middle-east does that.

[kjackson227]

100. Couldn't have happened to a better person, imho.

I don't care for that Mara woman, either.

[X_Digger]

106. Finally!!

50% of the time he was on NPR, I was grinding my teeth at his thinly-veiled condescension and smugness.

[elias7]

127. Here's some questions...

Where do people's objections lie here?

When JW stated that he gets worried and nervous when he sees people dressed in Muslim-style clothes on airplanes, is the problem that he feels that way? Or is the problem that he expressed how he felt?

As a jew, I remember walking through the arab district of Arles and feeling uneasy. As a white person, I remember taking a wrong turn on the way back from the New Orleans Jazzfest grounds and felt uneasy walking through a rough looking african american neighborhood. So which is a fireable offense...feeling fear or talking about it? Are my feelings justified or not?

Where do we draw the line in ourselves between justifiable fears and unjustifiable prejudice?

Profiling is politically incorrect, but I must believe that TSA takes a much harder look at a young man appearing of middle eastern-descent dressed in Muslim garb than at my Methodist white-haired, white skinned step-mother. And if everyone cannot be searched, which of the two above would you have them choose to more closely inspect if you were about to step on a plane? And if you choose the former, are you guilty of prejudice, profiling, and being governed by irrational fears?

[Bragi]

134. Great questions

"So which is a fireable offense...feeling fear or talking about it? Are my feelings justified or not?

Where do we draw the line in ourselves between justifiable fears and unjustifiable prejudice?"

Might I add this thought: If we ban people from talking openly about fears shared by many -- fears that I may think are justifiable or not -- then the fear doesn't go away. All that happens is that discussion of the fear takes place elsewhere.

In this case, the discussion moves to places, venues, blogs, etc. that are hard-right and racist, where there is no left or centrist perspective at all in the debate.

I think that's where the left's enthusiasm for suppression of contrary viewpoints in this discussion takes us. We become irrelevant.

[Steerpike]

137. those people are blind

when they do not realize that those that control the message can maintain power over the body politic...this is not an excersize in philosophy...it is the way we maintain our freedom...if we have become a slave to the lies of the corporatists then it is our own fault that we live in thrall to the monied elite. i do not believe the lies of the republicans...nor do i accept that it is their right to knowingly deseminate these lies to maintain their grip on my throat.

[MedicalAdmin]

181. Sure - blame the very folks who don't own the networks or blogs.

Have you ever tried posting on a RW blog with an oposing viewpoint. It gets removed in seconds if you even get to post. Try calling into the Rush show or someother RW asshat media show and see how far the "opposing" view gets. You'll get hung up on and they won't even say goodbye.

So please don't try to tell us that because we QUESTION RW opinion and are thankful when a shill like WIlliams gets sacked can be equated to a full throated support of censorship. We, at least, seem to understand that censorship is based in the government suppression.

[newspeak]

189. hey, don't forget O'lliely

turning off mikes or lowering the sound.

[slackmaster]

142. Either he's not allowed to feel that way, or not allowed to disclose his feelings in public

I get nervous at rap concerts because of the misogynist and racially charged lyrics.

Go ahead and fire me.

[RZM]

191. Thank you

This is what discussion should be. Asking the tough questions that force people to think about things they don't want to. My guess is his firing is ostensibly for PC reasons but there could be some behind the scenes stuff we're not being told. Perhaps the powers that be at NPR have seen him as a liability for a while now, as NPR depends on $$ from lefties and center-lefties in their fund drives and this thread shows the opinion some on the left have regarding anyone who works for Fox.

As for his actual comments, they certainly aren't unusual, though they run against the wishful 'one nation, standing united' narrative that's often been the tone that many try to set in discussions of differences in the US post 9-11. Your questions touch on a good point regarding the disconnect between public discourse and the way people really feel about many subjects. This is why PC has been a dirty word is certain circles for so many years now. What's deemed acceptable in public just doesn't match up all that well with what lots of people really think.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

297. Terrorists rely on the element of surprise.

Wearing identifiable Muslim garb wouldn't make any sense. Check out the security photos of Mohammed Atta on 9-11 -- he is wearing "normal" American attire, not anything resembling Muslim garb, because they have to blend in.

[robcon]

136. Political correctness sucks.

If that's what Williams believes, let him say it.

[MinM]

153. Fox News let him say it...

and will continue to let him spew whatever crap he wants to.

[slackmaster]

140. Fired for making an honest disclosure about his personal feelings about something

The Thought Police are gaining more power every day.

[Enrique]

146. public figures like that should NOT be honest about their racist feelings

I'm sure that many politicians and media people have plenty of racist attitudes, but they should not share them, because they are wrong and they hurt people. Muslims have to fly on airplanes like everyone else, they should not be subject to discrimination as they're doing it. If Williams has those racist feelings, he should work on changing himself, and in the meantime do not encourage those feelings.

[slackmaster]

150. Williams isn't a public figure. He's a paid talking head, and an at-will employee.

NPR has every right to fire him for any reason, or for no reason.

[Ineeda]

147. IMO, that's not his job. His job is to comment on NEWS

not his personal feelings and fears.

[slackmaster]

151. People who get paid to comment on news aren't allowed to have personal feelings?

I thought Walter Cronkite put an end to that charade during the Vietnam War.

[Ineeda]

177. Have them, yes. Broadcast them, no.

Cronkite made his opinion about Vietnam clear, yes, but he based his opinion on facts. Juan saying "I'm scared of Muslims on an airplane" is equivalent to saying, "All Muslims are terrorists."

[RZM]

197. That's quite a leap of faith there

Are those really equivalents? Had he expressed unease at Muslims in other contexts, you'd have something -- but expressed his tendency toward unease on airplanes only. Perhaps a better equivalent to his statement is 'All terrorists on planes are Muslims.'

[slackmaster]

206. It sounded to me like a personal admission of weakness

The fact of which is not subject to scrutiny.

[1gobluedem]

219. He was not a commentator on NPR

He was an analyst. Big difference.

[hedgehog]

280. Correction - his job at NPR was to analyze the news, not comment on it.

It's a subtle distinction, but I think it means that his job was to arrange facts in context into a coherent story. For example , reporting X number of people demonstrating against yo-yos, but noting that a much larger number of people don't give a hoot one way or another. That's analysis. Noting that he personally is afraid of yo-yos ever since he was hit on the head by one, and that other people's head could be hit, that's commentary.

[Ineeda]

284. That's true, and reinforces my POV. n/t

[hedgehog]

288. Agreed!

:toast:

[alcibiades_mystery]

192. What if his "honest disclosure of personal feelings" was "I think all women are sluts at heart...

So I get a big fat chubby whenever I sit next to one on a subway!"

Would that be more or less the same? Just an honest disclosure of his personal feelings, yes?

[elias7]

244. Absurd comparison

The suggestion was not that an "honest disclosure of personal feelings" includes any random fear or perversion we might have. You need to be fair.

We're talking about individuals within an identified group responsible for a horrific act. I have seen so many unfair statements about police on DU because of single experiences or anecdotes that people have heard about police brutality. How does the fact that no one questions prejudicial speech regarding the police, yet they're so up in arms about William?

[alcibiades_mystery]

255. It's not absurd at all: his statement is a "random fear or perversion"

Plenty of individuals from various groups have been responsible for "horrific acts." To "feel" afraid of people simply for wearing "Muslim dress" (as if there was such a thing!) is as irrational and stupid and essentially random as general misogyny. Mr. Williams enunciated the very essence of bigotry. Nobody, of course, is going to put him in jail over that.

As for the police, I suspect that any analyst or commentator for NPR (or any other established network) who uttered anything about the police similar to either Mr. Willaims' comments or the comments you're dreaming up here would be shitcanned double-quick.

[elias7]

296. I respectfully disagree

First, with regard to "comments I'm dreaming up", just do a DU search with "police" and pick one that raises questions about police behavior and you'll see plenty of comments that would fit your definition of bigoted.

Fears are irrational, and therefore not stupid and generally not random. His statements were not bigoted. He expressed fear, not hostility or intolerance. There is prejudice expressed but and he did break his contractual obligation to NPR by expressing such an opinion, so I agree with his firing.

As a jew, I remember walking through the arab district of Arles and feeling uneasy. As a white person, I remember taking a wrong turn on the way back from the New Orleans Jazzfest grounds and felt uneasy walking through a rough looking african american neighborhood. So which is a fireable offense...feeling fear or talking about it? Are my feelings justified or not? By your standards, I am a bigot.

[alcibiades_mystery]

301. Yes

You are.

[elias7]

332. You're calling me a bigot for being afraid in an unfamiliar neighborhood?

I am curious how you define bigotry? Having a fear and acting out of that fear are two separate things. Is a woman a bigot if she walks alone down a street at night, sees two young men walking towards her and feels a surge of fear? What if she's been previously assaulted or raped?

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion. (wiki)

Are you sure that's what you want to call me?

[LanternWaste]

248. I have many honest, personal feelings about my co-workers

I have many personal feelings about my co-workers, yet I imagine honestly expressing them may get me fired. I would blame myself for my own stupidity though, rather than some trendy boogey-man.

[patrice]

145. So, Juan, how's it feel to be one of "the little people" who ARE terminated without cause?

It's called "at will" employment and there's NOTHING you can do about losing a job, even when you prove that there was no reason except POLITICS.

The Department of Labor ought to take a census sometime of how many Americans this has happened to.

I'd bet there are some very interesting stories out there. Maybe Juan will report on this in his next assignment.

[slackmaster]

163. I wonder if he'll be able to collect unemployment insurance

This should be interesting.

[barbtries]

155. that helps some.

just the other day i was so pissed at NPR for their far right political reporting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9329827

i never hear anyone claiming that christians attacked us in 1997. the statement is pure racism.

[Doctor_J]

156. Freedom of speech prohibits GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE

in said speech. Those of you who are weeping over the self-loathing Williams losing one of his huge, right-wing paychecks need to remember that. If I were to say to one of my students, "Wow - you're hot. Will you sleep with me?", I would be fired within an hour. the first amendment would prevent me from being prosecuted, but I don't have unlimited free speech rights from those who provide my livelyhood. Juan takes huge amounts of money to be a right-wing Republican liar and propagandist, so he lives with the results.

[slackmaster]

161. I suspect that NPR has been looking for a pretense on which to fire JW for a long time

He finally gave them one.

[Bragi]

178. You miss a big point

This debate isn't about First Amendment rights. It's about censorship, which can be and often is legal.

The question is whether the left should support censorship so as to eliminate viewpoints with which it disagrees.

(See here for a definition of censorship --
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861595798/censorship.html )

[MedicalAdmin]

183. I am a leftist. I don't support censorship.

No one is keeping him from voiceing his racist opinion. They are merely letting him know that one of his streetcorners has decided to bump his ass right across the street.

He is still working, still shilling, and still being a schmuck. How then has he been censored?

[bushmeister0]

185. This isn't censorship.

He said: . . . "When I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

That's unacceptable. WTF kind of pig ignorant racist bull crap is that? Next thing you know, we'll have Radio Rwanda going on here. You can't let someone race bait like that, on public radio of all things. I guess, it's censorship also that got Rick Sanchez fired for saying the Jews run the media?

Gosh, all these politically correct liberals!

And if nothing else, this one sentence says all you need to know about why Williams should have been fired a long time ago.

"NPR ombudswoman Alicia Shepard said . . . that Williams 'tends to speak one way on NPR and another on Fox.'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101021/ts_alt_afp/usmediaradioreligion_20101021061057

Now, there's integrity for you.

[newspeak]

202. To me, he could have said what he said

then made a statement like "muslems are people, like everyone else, some good some bad, and my feelings are just a natural reaction after 9/11." But, he didn't.

[Turborama]

223. +1million!

The radio Rawanda analogy is correct. It appears that it's "censorship" if you agree with him, for the rest of us it's good riddance to a slimy piece of Islamophobic-Reich-Wing shit.

[nashville_brook]

340. no, YOU miss the only point: Standards and Practices (it's a journalism thing...look it up)

[totodeinhere]

240. Williams will have more time to appear on Faux now and will get more exposure than ever before.

It's ironic, but Faux has much higher ratings than any PBS news or public affairs programming.

[nashville_brook]

341. and my donations to NPR will no longer buy his $300 shirts that he wears on Billo's show.

it's a good day.

[totodeinhere]

347. He can buy plenty of shirts with his new $2 million contract with Faux. n/t

[Doctor_J]

354. Indeed. This will be the best career move he ever made

Taking my analogy to this setting, it would be like me getting fired for hitting on co-eds, and landing a job where it was expected that I would sexually harass my students, and that paid a lot better than where I am at now.

[Chakab]

158. What the fuck took them so long?

He should have been shit canned after he referred to Michelle Obama as "Stokley Carmichael in a dress."

[kestrel91316]

166. I'm gonna party!

[felix_numinous]

175. His rhetoric is stuck in the GWB era.

This post 911 bigotry was manufactured to cover up the non investigation into the event. Forcing the public to accept a fake investigation, the lies and propaganda that followed to this day has manipulated a whole faction of the population to share in their delusions, by telling them they were patriots. Propaganda has absorbed people into the lie.

[Scurrilous]

180. Good!

:thumbsup:

[alp227]

186. So will Williams get rehired by Fox News this time?

Seems so. I can't believe he'd say something as stupid as "I get nervous when I see Muslims on a flight". Don't we have enough airport security already??? On the other hand, the underwear bomber wasn't dressed in full Muslim garb, so that makes Williams's comment all the more stupid as not every Muslim (or Muslim terrorist for the matter) dresses with the headscarf and traditional clothing you might see in the Middle East.

Williams has expressed conservative before and sucked it up to VP Cheney about Iraq. On the other hand, he's been seen as pro-Clinton and compared "Don't Tread on Me" flags to Timothy McVeigh.[br />
While a lot of Americans are Islamophobic no doubt about it I do not believe that a radio station serving the public interest and obligated to inform the people properly and accurately can retain someone like Williams. I'm no supporter of religion, but I'm no fan of baseless paranoia and fear-mongering either.

What if Williams had defended a statement like: "Catholics molested children over the past several decades" (regarding the Catholic priest scandals) or "Hispanics join gangs and commit crime" (regarding gangs like Nortenos, Surenos, MS-13, etc.)?

[totodeinhere]

250. He already has a contract with Fox News.

And now after all of the publicity over this incident, he will be more valuable to FNC than ever.

[Milo_Bloom]

193. So tired of the political correct BS.

[jsgindc]

194. FOX won't hire him Full time

Williams has no cred now.

FOX could tote that they had a NPR person on their staff....

Since Williams is no longer on NPR....he serves no purpose for FOX.

[Steerpike]

209. yup

I bet he'll be a contestent on the next, "Dancing with the Stars"! or at the very least "Survivor! Libya!"

[crazyjoe]

305. wrong, fox just offered him $2,000,000 contract

[ElsewheresDaughter]

196. I never liked him...especially after his admitted desires for Condi Rice.....

never understood how he landed on NPR...what were they thinking.

[BlueMTexpat]

203. It's good to see NPR do something right.

Williams has been a waste of time and space for years. His comments in this case were blatantly Islamophobic. In other cases, they have been patent Murdoch-inspired RW talking points.
I would get "nervous" if I were on a plane with JW or Billo. They are both pompous, arrogant and self-serving bastards - peas in a pod.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

208. I dunno ... NPR has really dropped the ball the past seven or eight years.

So I guess I am surprised they finally fired Williams. I believe ten years ago, they wouldn't have allowed him to take the FOX gig to begin with (or released him from his NPR contract if he did). Everybody knows FOX news isn't serious journalism and Williams' association with them tainted NPR.

But NPR has changed the past seven or eight years. They really jumped on board with the march to war, never asking tough questions, not reporting on the hard stories, almost cheerleading.

From news, I expect that - objective journalism that is tough but fair to all sides of a story. I just haven't seen from NPR in a long time, they seem to try to be too nice, too comfortable, not wanting to offend politicians or news makers. I do believe they are more objective than NBC, CBS, AP, etc., but that is a pretty low standard to measure against.

[MissMillie]

214. Can anyone imagine...

Juan William's reaction if people said they'd be nervous in an alley w/ a black person....?

[RZM]

246. I don't know if he'd mind that much

Jesse Jackson's 'footsteps' remark brought down the temperature on that particular issue I think.

[herbm]

224. Its good to get our bigotry out in the light. Its the only way to get rid of it. Closet bigotry

festers and turns people into good Germans who aloow the stone racist to start pograms. For Juan Williams to feel nervous about a people who are publicly who they are is astounding. Like all those white folk who quivered at he guy in Afro with shades and leather jacket. I guess the hurtle to equality consists of a human being under them presenting a vague threat of something fairly undefined. I am shocked and saddened.

All said, I also do not think he bore firing. He does have free speech rights.

[Turborama]

229. He does have free speech rights, but they are irrelevant to this situation

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4582174&mesg_id=4582670

[herbm]

260. He was not speaking for NPR or PRI, NPR already knew of his appearance and job on Fox, he may have

said dumb things but he didn't cross hate or slander. He said certain circumstances cause him to be aware of his situation. Like carnival barkers and games: they make me aware that I might get gypped. Doesn't make all carnies or any one of them a shyster.Going on a plane and seeing or not seeing one group or another does not make me safer or more in danger, crazies come in all manner of dress and nationality. Being aware of my surroundings doesn't make racist. Hanging it on a person and then telling everybody else to do the same - that IS racism. Acting on only suspicion - racism. Noticing someone or something - thats awareness well founded or not. Talking about it is healthy and allows us the opportunity to deal with it outside of fear. Talking about it is free speech and therapeutic - for the speaker and the people who can help talk him down.

Its free speech and his firing was wrong.

[Turborama]

268. You didn't go to the link, did you. It's not about "free speech", he violated NPR's ethics code...

...one too many times. In case you want to check out the OP with details on this in GD, here's the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9361586

Here's the link I posted above again...

Freedom of speech prohibits GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4582174&mesg_id=4582670

[herbm]

295. What ethics code? NPR wanted to restrain his free speech. He did not misrepresent his authority to

speak for NPR and I don't think that it came as a surprise he's fairly conservative. If NPR was surprised he's a conservative, NPR's audience, including me weren't. In fact what he said is pretty much in character with his NPR persona, and Cokie Roberts', and others who have taken at least a mild jog to the right since Sept 11. I think pointing out Williams is a joke in light of some of Cokie's statements on some of the Sunday news shows on commercial stations. The contract is pretext. It is cover for firing Williams. Frankly I disagree with at least 60% of anything he's said. But that doesn't give me the right to censor or censure. If I don't want to hear I change stations or fast forward or go get a snack. As his employer I don't get to fire him without a taint of hypocrisy. And I don't get to pretend I don't know his cant when he's been paid to comment on Fox. F-O-X!!!!! Where is the surprise he wasn't touting a less than conservative agenda in that little fact? Are you surprised? You'd sound like Louis in "Casablanca", "shocked, shocked that there is rightward cant on Fox with Juan Williams!" He's been there for over a year, when did PBS find out? Where was the "ethics" clause then?

Its about free speech and I suspect a load of the dunder expressed on this thread has more to do with his cant than a desire to protect the integrity of NPR. I wish more could be done to balance the political sway on NPR if not to the left a little, how about a more central position. But I do not think firing Williams is a good start. Its about free speech and the right to have an opinion. Even Rush Limpdick gets that right. I just choose not to listen too it very much.

[alcibiades_mystery]

259. You're probably going to get a response from a DUer

who actually thinks that it is not "racism" but simply "learning from experience" to immediately feel fear or concern in the presence of a black dude thusly dressed. Said DUers will generally post 4-8 solid paragraphs of such nonsense, demonstrating how outright racist behavior is simply the innocent response to learned personal experience, and the like.

These fucking bigots just love to argue on this point on this board - it's why the enablers of racist nonsense have inundated this thread representing Mr. Williams' despicable bigotry as simply one "opinion" among others in the public sphere, la di da. Such defenders are usually only defending their own personal feelings in such matters, in any case.

[herbm]

263. His bigotry is not dispicable. Limbaughs is. O'Rielly's is. I think Juan can be talked down. The oth

er have no sense of shame. Or porportion.

[wxgeek7]

230. like it or not

Like it or not, JW said, what probably quite a few Americans feel/deal with, these post 9/11 days. There's this "moment of anxiety", followed (hopefully quickly) by a realization of an irrational thought.

With the last decade's wars in muslim countries, suicide bombings/attempts, death threats, news of possible future attacks, etc, I think it's fairly easy to see why one might have a "moment of anxiety" these days.

[herbm]

279. You are so right. Right after Sept 11, a friend who is one of the most open minded and hearted peopl...

e on the planet who had heard from a crying co-worker that bus had been commandeered by a Muslim who had stabbed a rider and the driver and the bus overturned. He thought it had happened in our town (not knowing it had happened in KY) and when a Arab gentleman with a covered cart with electronics showing in poor English asked him where the food court was(this was before the mall opened), Tommy went to security thinking this was the guy that had commandeered the bus. The police were involved and the Arab was a new merchant with a phone kiosk by the food court. I have never ever teased him about this, he was very disappointed with himself for falling into a racist panic mode when he told me about it.

If Tommy could fall into it, A LOT of us here could, too. Rod Sterling dealt with this issue many times on Twilite Zone. We'll defeat ourselves before any outside force will. It does not take much to make it happen.

[earthlite]

241. I know Juan personally

and Im disgusted by some of the comments on this thread. Feel free to ban me because this thread is a new low for DU

[Turborama]

245. If you know him personally, you should pass this on to him

He's probably received a similar letter already, though: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4582174&mesg_id=4582831

[jsgindc]

256. You saying you know him IS the new low of DU

Go ahead and ban yourself.

[alcibiades_mystery]

257. Your friend is either a bigoted racist asshole

or a shameless, money-grubbing sophist.

Either way, fuck him.

[herbm]

272. There is no reason to leave this thread. Supporting him or not.

No doubt - the firing over free speech (popular or not) was wrong, plain and simple.

[Turborama]

276. He wasn't "fired over free speech"!

What's plain and simple is that he violated NPR's ethics code. As detailed here in a letter from NPR: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9361586

[herbm]

281. He was fired over free speech. He was being interviewed, not commenting and he did not clain to be s

peaking for anyone. The contract may be binding but it is also a prior restaint and it certainly has the feel of pretext all about it. Mr Williams was fired for free speech regardles of the intent or validity of the contract.

[Turborama]

285. Wow, you really are stubborn. He wasn't fired "for free speech." That doesn't even make sense

in English.

You can't get fired "for free speech". You can get fired for saying something freely, I suppose. Again, NPR is NOT the government. You obviously need a reminder of what the 1st Amendment actually says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


No matter how you try and spin it and it doesn't matter how much you don't like it, he was fired for violating NPR's code of ethics, as stated by NPR themselves here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9361586">Re: Juan Williams, from NPR

[herbm]

290. He was fire over free speech, regardless of the contract. What don't you get?

[Turborama]

328. I'm not the one who doesn't get it

You seem to be stuck in this "fire over free speech" thing.

He wasn't working for the government.

Therefore, that term is invalid.

He broke the rules of his employment.

There is no "regardless of the contract".

It's all about what's in his contract with NPR and their ethics code.

[nashville_brook]

342. so, is he as much of a suck-up in person as he is on teevee?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

361. Door, ass, etc.

[elias7]

247. What if "plane" was "white neighborhood" and "muslim" was "cop"?

I have seen so much blanket prejudice against the police in DU based on anger and fear, yet would you all be up in arms about this statement?

"But when I drive through a white neighborhood, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in police garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as policemen, I get worried. I get nervous."

[tinrobot]

249. None of the 9/11 hijackers wore "muslim garb"

Neither did the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, that idiotic Times Square car bomber, or any other person trying to cause damage against the US for Al-Qaeda.

So my take is that people wearing "muslim garb" are actually pretty darn safe, and this man is simply spreading hate and fear.

[budkin]

253. Good... NPR doesn't need Faux News plants in there advancing their agenda

[demigoddess]

262. Yah!!!!! As with Cokie and Mara, you never know if their opinion

is based in republican propaganda or not. Waste of air time if you ask me.

[golfguru]

265. Whatever happened to "Can't we all just get along"?

What happened to tolerance at NPR?

[Ozymanithrax]

266. Juan Williams always showed a overt preference for conservatives...

and Republicans. I am sure he will get a post at Fox news.

[herbm]

282. So what? There are good conservatives. And closet fascist liberals with agendas that would be at

home in any totalitarion system.

[Ozymanithrax]

317. His peference shaded everything he said.

and was partisan where Public radio was supposed to be neutral, not that it was.

Though evoluiton and the universe has a liberal bias, the media tends conservative.

[defendandprotect]

316. Juan Williams was also accused by a number of women of sexual harassment ....

when he worked at one of the Washington, DC newspapers ....

was it Washington Post?

He's just generally a sleaze ...

[Ozymanithrax]

318. I neve heard that...

So it has not colored my thnking of him. It was the types of people he talked to that told me his bias.

[earthlite]

334. Absolute bullshit!

Im a woman and worked him. He is a total gentleman and I never saw or heard anything like that. I know the type that harasses and he is NOT one. I hate to tell you folks but many of you along with NPR are wrong on about this and wrong about Juan. People think this is a victory are fools.

[eyepaddle]

351. No, it isn't.

From the link below:
"By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 2, 1991; 12:01 AM

Washington Post Magazine reporter Juan Williams said yesterday that the newspaper has disciplined him for what he called "wrong" and "inappropriate" verbal conduct toward women staffers and he apologized to his colleagues..."




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/10/21/ST2010102102028.html

[Green_Lantern]

269. bigotry or not it was a dumb statement and brown nosing..

Juan's statement is no different from white people saying that black people make them nervous.

The way he said it wasn't as if it was regrettable.

If he had said he had a knee jerk reaction of nervousness but told himself it was wrong I could understand.

When I see Muslim women covered up I definitely notice but it doesn't make nervous.

[herbm]

283. Free speech is speech without any vetting required past hate, slander, disruption to public safety.

People should not be fired for speaking dumbly. We'd all be looking for work.

[Green_Lantern]

286. well if his views don't reflect the platform of the news agency he

Works for he should be fired.

[herbm]

289. So if my employer is prolife and I am interviewed on tv speaking pro choice, I should be fired?

[eyepaddle]

292. Well, I guess that depends on what sort of ethics policy the employer has in place and

what sort of contracts you have signed.

[herbm]

299. So you believe there is a sliding scale on rights. You and I have more freedom to free speech than

Juan. "Yes, comrade, we are all free, its just that some of us are free-er than others." This is the stuff Orwell was talking about. When totalarian society is made middle class and mundane.

Its funny when the teabagger's boot folks out, but not when publicly supported newsmedia does it.

[eyepaddle]

348. It's called an "ethics policy" and lots of places have them.

In previous jobs I have interacted extensively withthe public and our ethics policy encouraged private political participation--but prohibited political activism while on the clock. Mr Williams' ethics policy prohibited controversial speech/actions in public forums which could tarnish the public perception of his employer. In reading the statement from the NPR ombudsman he has been warned repeatedly.

He wasn't fired for "what he said" he was fired for not following the rules.

Oh, and to answer your subject line question: I didn't have more freedom of speech the Juam Williams--when I was on the clock I hd to keep my opinons to myself, end of story; and since I needed that paycheck each week considerably more keenly than Mr Williams, I couldn't even flirt with ethics violations.

So go ahead and blow your sanctimony out your ass.

Edited: typos.

[Green_Lantern]

350. it depends on your job...

If you work for NARAL and you make anti-abortion statements on Fox News, they have reason to fire you.

If you work for a construction company who's owner is anti-abortion he can't just fire you for being pro-choice.

[U4ikLefty]

364. Uh-oh...you just introduced nuance to a right-winger.

Now you've shaken their foundations.

[harmonicon]

277. YES!

I thought Juan Williams was ok as host of Talk of the Nation, but once he became an analyst it's been almost nothing but right-wing propaganda he spouts on the network. Good riddance.

[Beavker]

287. My Teabagger Boss

Just was talking about this with another Teabagger in my area at work. I hate teabaggers. It was 'his opinion' and he got fired for it...

Why was this idiot even on NPR? Also, being publicly funded as they are (not a privately traded company), NPR can shit can teabaggers if they want. They are liberal by nature. Suck it Juan!

[Thor_MN]

311. That's been the right winger line, "his Opinion", 1st Amendment. He was paid to report, not give

his opinion. Conservatives have been so deluded by the crap on Faux that they no longer understand the difference between objective reporting and propaganda.

[defendandprotect]

291. A sign of life from NPR which should never have hired Juan Williams in the first place....

[Faygo Kid]

300. Lay down with Fox, get up with fleas.

To paraphrase an old saying.

[Odin2005]

302. Now they need to get rid of Cokie Roberts.

[BREMPRO]

308. about time... long ago gave up his objectivity drinking the fox "friends" koolaid n/t

[dharmamarx]

315. Williams should have been fired on 9/14/2001 when he advocated genocide

in this NPR editorial:
"This week, Neil Livingston, an anti-terrorism expert, told me there is only one meaningful response to terrorism. That is to absolutely extinguish the terrorist. That means using nuclear weapons on terrorists in any country that harbors them. Neil’s point was that no precision military response from the U.S. is going to scare off the next terrorist. And putting terrorists on trial won’t do the trick. Like most everyone, I was furious with what the terrorists did. My panic sent me rushing to call my children to make sure they were alive and safe. Despite my non-violent instincts, I found myself reluctantly agreeing with Neil. <. . . . > Maybe anger is distorting my thinking. But ultimately I think there has to be a steep price for this vicious brand of terrorism. There will never again be a minute in America free of the threat of terrorism. Our sense of security is gone. In a new world, where terrorism is a fact of life, the best response is an all-out response that makes the price of terrorism unbearably high for anyone considering terrorism. We’re talking an eye for an eye. It’s a savage calculus, but reasoning with terrorist suicide bombers is futile. There will be a time for mutual understanding -- not now. These are unreasonable times." (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/americatransformed/essays/010914.williamscommentary.html)

Williams bluntly advocated the mass murder of Afghan civilians on the public airwaves; I'm not sure if that's actually a war crime, but at the time, it struck me as Radio Rawanda-esque. Granted because Williams is (like David Brooks) a civilized kind of fascist (the kind whose paid to appear "reasonable") between the ellipses he briefly contemplates "both sides of the story" (the "other side" being that the mass murder is rather naughty), but like a good thug, he always defends the "savage calculus."

[BrklynLiberal]

320. I will not miss that idiot. Let FAUX NOISE use him up.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

330. Fox news has been using him up for years...they have offered him a job and he is happy to take it.

[BrklynLiberal]

358. Sure makes one wonder if that was not his plan all along...

[Ticonderoga]

326. Juan less bell to answer...Juan less egghead to fry.

[PassingFair]

327. I don't guess that they're going to replace him with his twin, Amal....

'Cause when you've seen Juan....

:P

[ElsewheresDaughter]

329. Fox and Murdoch are forming a HUGE counter attack to defund NPR and PBS again....

It's time for us to show our support!

[Major Hogwash]

333. Juan Williams --- Biggest Loser of 2010

Don't get on a plane, be afraid, very afraid, Muslims in Muslim garb.

Fuck you, Juan!!

[Name removed]

336. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Bragi]

349. Conservatives and liberals should both be on NPR, CNN and Fox

The general sentiment here seems to be that it's a fine thing to fire a conservative commentator on NPR, and that NPR should fire any other conservatives they might have on air so that NPR can offer a contrary point of view to what you find on Fox.

I think this would not be a good idea. If we are ever to have anything resembling intelligent political discourse, then we need to have people with different viewpoints engaging with each other in discussion and debate.

If things evolve such that we ends up with one set of news and public affairs outlets conveying only right-wing views, and another expounding only centrist or left-wing views, then the result will not be intelligent debate, it will be further polarization of opinion, with even less possibility of ever reaching anything resembling a consensus on anything (if one can imagine such a thing happening anyway.)

We should remember that liberal democracy is based on the assumption that citizens are intelligent people who, if exposed to a range of viewpoints and to intense debate, can and will use their reason to make up their minds based on what they learn.

If we reject that premise, then I'm not sure exactly where we end up, but the result will not be what we have come to know as a liberal democracy.

[John Q. Citizen]

352. We live in an Empire, not a liberal democacy. That shows you just how bad

the reporting has gotten. They put people like Williams on nightly, but they rarely if ever put on people willing to express what everyone knows but few will say out loud.

We have thousands of bases situated in hundreds of countries around the world.

Juan won't connect the dots for you, and neither will Inskeep, or any of the rest of the media elite.

Sure, Bill Moyers might ask the question, "Is it logically or actually possible for America to be a democratic republic while fighting endless wars and garrisoning troops continually around the globe?" but he's a lone voice relegated to the media wilderness.

So what you have come to know as a liberal democracy appears to me to be a managed democracy, similar in some ways to what we nurtured in Mexico for almost a century. When is Juan going to address that? I'll tell you when; never.

Juan wasn't fired for expressing unpopular views, unfortunately.

What i want to know is what is Muslim garb? i just goggled some photos of people in the most populous Muslim nation and it looks to me as if Juan gets all scared when ever anyone else but himself is flying on a jet.

There are a bunch of Juans on the air, all of 'em pumping out the same message daily. That you are so upset that one was fired is amazing. It's not like his message of US exceptionalism, of fear and loathing and of free market capitalist hegemony is unique.

[Bragi]

356. What bothers me so is this:

I don't disagree with a single sentence you wrote, but I am becoming alarmed at the proclivity of the left in general, and people on DU, to unflinchingly support censorship against those with opposing views.

I don't particularly care so much about Williams getting sacked. It's not a big deal. But I followed the earlier Terry Jones discussions here, and the (almost non-existent) discussion of Molly Norris' plight, and I am shocked at how keen people here are to enthusiastically embrace not just censorship, but even explicit attacks on First Amendment rights.

(And yes, I understand the difference between the concept of censorship, which is what I think people are generally enthusiastic about here, versus violations of First Amendment rights, which are uniquely American, but only protect against censorship by government.)

Hope that clarifies my views a bit. True, liberal democracy may be on life support, but I'm still an advocate for old-fashioned, Enlightenment-style liberal democracy.

[tweetypie]

353. Why was he fire?

Was it because he was a brother?

[Steve20]

355. re

His statement wasnt that extreme.

[RantinRavin]

366. bump

I wonder how the reactions are different....