His free speech was never infringed. He can say what he wants and not be prosecuted for it. Whether or not he has a job isn’t covered by the First Amendment.
Despite being an “entertainment” show, satirical media is still media, and covered by the First. These shows still rely on that protection against lawsuits, and have been exhonerated with the same defence, Cobert in particular. If you could prove government interference in this case, I’d say there was a pretty good basis for a court case based on freedom of the press, which is the corollary of free speech.
“Free speech” doesn’t entitle you to dictate policy over privately held companies. We spent four years trying to convince Trumpers of this. Be smarter.
That a poor comparison since on x the moderations is about random citizen and not paid employee doing a work for a company that a the end of the day is free to choose how to spent her money
However, the “pros” ultimately won out because, according to sources close to the network, “The Late Show” was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position.
source
For the same freedom of speech reasons that we’re applying to Colbert. That jerkwad is just as entitled to lie as they are to tell the truth, and it’s up to everyone else to call them out on it.
However, the “pros” ultimately won out because, according to sources close to the network, “The Late Show” was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position.
source
Ask Stephen Colbert about the US’ vaunted “free speech”.
His free speech was never infringed. He can say what he wants and not be prosecuted for it. Whether or not he has a job isn’t covered by the First Amendment.
Despite being an “entertainment” show, satirical media is still media, and covered by the First. These shows still rely on that protection against lawsuits, and have been exhonerated with the same defence, Cobert in particular. If you could prove government interference in this case, I’d say there was a pretty good basis for a court case based on freedom of the press, which is the corollary of free speech.
Colbert didn’t go to prison, not really a good argument.
There are many ways to suppress speech.
“Free speech” doesn’t entitle you to dictate policy over privately held companies. We spent four years trying to convince Trumpers of this. Be smarter.
Like axing a show that didn’t make money ?
That a poor comparison since on x the moderations is about random citizen and not paid employee doing a work for a company that a the end of the day is free to choose how to spent her money
It did make loads of money though? Why do you get to just push blatant lies?
how much ? cause the cost is high too. anyway
For the same freedom of speech reasons that we’re applying to Colbert. That jerkwad is just as entitled to lie as they are to tell the truth, and it’s up to everyone else to call them out on it.
Can someone explain why a post in favour of free speech is being downvoted on lemmy ?
Even if that were true, which it isn’t, what business does the president have even mentioning it much less making a demand?
Trump unloads in late-night rants threatening to prosecute news networks, Beyonce, Oprah and Kamala Harris
I’m sure Colbert’s on the list somewhere.
You are on my list. So what? Neither of you are in prison.
Oh so the thing that HASN’T HAPPENED is your counterargument?
Why is this downvoted? It correctly point out what “free speech” actually means.
It’s a visceral reaction, my guess. It’s exactly the same argument that right wingers used when oreilly, carlson, etc got canceled.
Not paying someone millions for saying stuff on TV is not infringing on free speech, now apparently it’s leftists turn to not understand it.