Should political cartoonists be free to draw whatever they want?

[tridim]

Or should they only draw what their bosses demand?

I'm asking because I've seen hundreds of cartoons this primary season that would certainly be considered more shocking and controversial than anything Randi Rhodes has said on or off the air.

This censorship stuff is serious business, and we must expose it now before it becomes so bad that nobody feels free to speak their minds for fear of losing their job. Censoring political speech is as unAmerican as it gets.

[Dr. Strange]

1. They should be free to draw whatever they want.

And their bosses should be free to hire or fire them based on what they draw.

[tridim]

2. So a Republican boss should be able to fire a Democratic cartoonist..

Just because he disagrees politically?

[Dr. Strange]

4. Personally, I would say yes.

Although it would be bad business and would undermine the credibility of the paper, I think they should be free to do something stupid like that.

[TexasObserver]

3. Yes, the artist is free to draw as he/she pleases, and ...

... and the employer is free to hire and fire as it pleases.

I don't care one way or the other about the Randi Rhodes controversy. If you are against her suspension, you can and should let the owner of the station hear your disdain, and punish their advertisers as you see fit. Everyone is free to do as they each determine is best for them, including you.

[tridim]

5. I'm against any form of censoring political speech.

Cartoonist and radio hosts are hired specifically to give their opinions, not to say or draw what the management demands.

Are you fine with a Republican boss firing a cartoonist just because he/she is a Democrat?

[TexasObserver]

6. I'm fine with political commentators of any kind being hired or fired.

They are employees. They are free to market themselves however they wish.

I suggest that your statement that you are against any form of censorship of political speech is likely untrue. Do you oppose such censorship at DU? Do you favor allowing any post at DU, no matter what its political bent?

There's no difference between the ability of DU mods and admins to control speech here, and the ability of the owners of Air America to control speech there.

Should Micheal Savage be on cable news? The decision not to allow him on cable news is one with which I agree, and it is a form of censorship of political speech. The fact is that all privately owned media concerns engage in some form of censorship of political speech, whether it is reining in Randi Rhodes, not hiring Michael Savage, or not allowing one to write FUCK FUCK FUCK in his Op Ed piece.

[tridim]

7. DU can do whatever it wants regarding censorship, it's a moderated forum.

It's not my call. Comparing an online forum like DU to an employer is really beyond the scope of my post. DU has rules, while employers can't discriminate based on age, race, sexual orientation, and I assumed until yesterday, political orientation.

I donate to DU so I can have a soapbox to exercise my free speech.

[TexasObserver]

10. DU and Air America are free to set the standards they wish because they're privately owned.

The owners of both enterprises are free to control the speech which occurs at their media outlets, and free to change those rules any time they please. It is the right of private ownership of a media concern.

Free speech is the ability to say it, not the ability to have it heard on any media of one's choosing.

Your concern seems to be about the ability of Air America to control what you would consider to be artistic freedom. You are free to punish Air America as you see fit for disageeing with you, including organizing against them, turning them off, or taking the fight to their advertising base.

I don't listen to Randi Rhodes because I find her annoying, irrespective of the political content. I exercise my right to listen to radio I want to listen to, just as you do. However, I cannot dictate to Air America who they should have on air, other than by voting with my ears.

You avoided the point that all media exercise some form of censorship on content. You are using a specific radio talker you like to generalize about free speech, when free speech is not the issue at all. The issue is whether a privately owned enterprise has the ability to control the speech on the medium it controls. On that issue, I have no problem finding that the radio station ownership can pull anyone they want, any time, for any reason. If Ms. Rhodes has a contract, they have to pay her, but they don't have to allow her on the radio to say whatever pops into her head on a given day.

[tridim]

12. Randi was hired by AAR for her talent and her opinions.

And apparently suspended for the same reasons. :crazy:

I guess I'm just naive about what Progressive radio is. If AAR's idea of Progressive radio is to model it after Rush's show then Randi should get the hell out while she has the chance. Nova-M allows their talent to say exactly what they want to say.

[TexasObserver]

13. I don't disagree with anything she said ...

... if I understand the gist of the material for which she was suspended. She's right. They're whores, as that term is commonly used and understood in politics. It's a perfectly good word, and all the shrieking and fake outrage over it are asinine and contrived.

But to me this issue is whether they SHOULD limit her speech, not whether they CAN.

I don't find speech offensive as a general proposition. I find actions offensive. Sending soldiers off to die in a war for economic and political gain offends me. Showing the corpses does not offend me. Hiding the corpses does offend me. Talking about the war does not offend me. Hiding the truth of the war offends me. Actions offend me, words do not. Ah, I see it's time for me to go fuck myself.

[Zachstar]

8. Those cartoons are not only protected by several rulings and laws..

They also make big ratings. So they arent at risk.

[damntexdem]

9. Yes, they ARE free to draw what they want.

Whether or not they get published is a separate question.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

11. More controversial than f**king whore?

I haven't seen many of those kinds of cartoons around here.
Not even Ted Rall.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community