Skip to main content

ESPN Reporter suspension

"Prior Restraint is such a severe form of censorship that any form of it, even now, evokes feelings of distrust in many citizens, legislators, and jurists in England and the United States." (T&H, 244) This quote from the book really stuck out to me throughout the whole 9th Chapter because of how much that same censorship is going on now with the trump administration. In an article from the New York Times, they talk about the suspension of Jemele Hill, an ESPN commentator, for her tweets against the President of the U.S. and for the coach of the Dallas Cowboys. Trump in several tweets suggested she be fired, thus censoring her and her opinions.

New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/sports/football/jemele-hill-suspended-espn.html

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 25, 2017 at 11:36 PM

    I just saw this story on the news earlier this week. I think in the midst of all of the things going on in the NFL regarding social justice and the President, this is a fairly inappropriate move to make by ESPN. These opinions are necessary and I completely understand why the public would take this as a shady decision and see it as untrustworthy. Do you think that this was a good decision by ESPN? Do you think that this reporters opinions were harmful to society, or rather a productive insight into a intricate issue? I think that it is important to hear people out, no matter their opinions. It is productive to learn about where people come from and why they think that way. By shutting people out, we are just being ignorant to society.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 26, 2017 at 7:11 AM

    I found this story to be really interesting for quite a few reasons. The first of which is that Jemele HIll is a black woman who is in a field dominated by primarily men. That creates a very interesting context for her message. The second part of this story is that she actually apologized for her comments stating that ESPN had every right to suspend her. The important part thing to note here is that she was suspended for violating ESPN's social media policy and that's important because companies as we know can have their own rules for what their employees can and cannot post. Overall, I felt like Jemele HIll's tweets were not that outlandish and certainly didn't deserve a suspension. However, with that being said I also can see how they would violate a social media policy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousOctober 26, 2017 at 7:15 AM

    I agree that prior restraint does evoke feelings of distrust from citizens about our government. Its a forming of putting a cap on freedom of speech. I don't understand how someone could have the power to ban or stop someone from reporting or using their right to free speech in order to report back to their communities or citizens of the United States. I don't understand how the President of the United States would have the power to do something like this.
    This reminds me of when Donald Trump was not letting certain news outlets report inside the white house. He didn't like the way they were making him look, so he banned them from coming into the white house. I feel like this also would cross over into freedom of the press. The press is one of the only things that will keep our country free, as it holds people, especially powerful officials, reliable. It is crazy to me that Donal Trump was allowed to stop them from reporting on things happening in the white house, and current events taking place. This is a right to citizens to be able to know what is going on.

    Farhi, Paul. CNN, New York Times, other media barred from White House briefing. n.d. .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 26, 2017 at 7:16 AM

      ^^^^^^^
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-new-york-times-other-media-barred-from-white-house-briefing/2017/02/24/4c22f542-fad5-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.604fe1973422

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more