General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]whopis01
(3,510 posts)You appear to be laboring under the false assumption that I was defending the OP. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion.
I also noticed that you changed the basis of the argument from earlier your posts where appeared that the "freedom of speech" argument applied to the right of Fox News to broadcast and the OP violating that freedom by shutting it down and preventing others from watching it. As you said, "To silence legal speech simply because you don't like it is most definitely not a liberal value.".
Now you are implying that the OP was invoking the first amendment in the act of protest against Fox News and that some would argue that vandalism and related conduct are covered under the first amendment.
I just wanted to be clear because you seemed to think I was defending the actions taken by the OP - specifically you claimed that was "hardly an enthusiastic defense". I was in no way defending her actions, and I believe if you were to re-read what I posted that you would find it obvious that I was not. I was merely pointing out that this is not a first amendment issue.
Even arguing it as the "spirit of the first amendment", really falls apart when you look too far into it. At least in my opinion. Here is why;
It is not clear from the post who was putting on Fox News. It could have been the employer or it could have been another employee.
In the scenario where the employer is the one wanting to watch Fox News, you claimed that the owner of the TV had the right to decide what was on it. "However, it was her employer's television, therefore they determined what to watch, and they have an absolute right to watch Fox, MSNBC, ESPN, PBS or anything else they choose. If your the boss, you can set the channel." Clearly you believe that their right to watch what they want to watch stems from their ownership of the TV and their position as the boss, not from any first amendment right.
And then there is the scenario where it was another employee (assuming the employer had no opinion on the subject). You could have two people where they each want to watch a different channel. If the OP succeeds and makes sure that it isn't on Fox, then they are the one violating the spirit of the first amendment. However if the other person succeeds, then the shoe is on the other foot. Either way you end up with one broadcast or the other being shut down and having their first amendment rights violated. At best you cycle back and forth, time sharing who is getting violated and who isn't.