I know there’s already been a fair amount of discussion on this topic, but I appreciate Masnick’s takes on 1A issues. I thought this commentary did a good job focusing on how the government threatened individual parties involved to obtain this outcome, which to me is a significant factor in separating this from other firings.
I generally believe in the marketplace of ideas, and if a network doesn’t want to carry a particular voice, they are within their own 1A rights to fire people. I think this case clearly crosses the line into government censorship via direct threat.
I generally believe in the marketplace of ideas, and if a network doesn’t want to carry a particular voice, they are within their own 1A rights to fire people. I think this case clearly crosses the line into government censorship via direct threat.