This issue concerns both federalism and our first amendment rights. Jemele Hill, a host on ESPN, recently posted a tweet accusing President Trump of being “ignorant” and “offensive,” and also claimed that “his rise is a direct result of white supremacy”. The white house quickly fired back, and the current White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that Hill should be fired for such slanderous comments against the president.
Although ESPN has publicly denied any connection to hill’s comments, they do not appear to have any plant to discipline her, and the issue gets tricky as soon as ESPN trying to take action against Hill. The network has its headquarters in Connecticut. Like all other states, the first amendment has already gone through the process of incorporation in Connecticut. Connecticut, however, has gone even farther beyond the rights guaranteed by the first amendment. They have a General Statute that prohibits any company, public or private, from disciplining or discharging employees based exercising their free speech. This piece of legislation is unique to Connecticut and is not part of our federal law, it also protects Hill from losing her job because of her comments about Trump. In Connecticut, the protection of free speech goes beyond the rights provided by the first amendment.
One of the purposes of the first amendments was to protect citizens against punishment from speaking their mind when it came to political matters. This helps or democracy stay strong as citizens are not afraid to share their opinions on our current government. I believe that Hill’s comments were completely justified, and she should not be fired from her job at ESPN or disciplined. Even so, there were probably more respectful ways that Hill could have carried her point across. I believe that in this incredibly heated political environment it is important to remain respectful and level-headed. If we do this, we will be able to have more effective discussions between people with different viewpoints.
- Do you think Hill’s actions and comments were justified?
- Should Hill be punished her her speech?
- Do you think that Connecticut’s further legislation further protecting its citizens freedom of speech is fair and just?
4 comments:
Journalists are in a tricky position. It is hard to remember that journalists' lives do not revolve around the companies they work for, although we often remember them that way. Thus, when they share personal opinions, they do not represent the company, and media organizations should not regulate what their journalists say, unless they already have rules against it. For example, NPR forbids their employees from donating to political campaigns. It's just a general norm that journalists are held to a higher standard of what they can and cannot say because people put their trust in the media to convey the objective truth. I don't believe that Hill's comments were particularly scandalous, so I don't believe they are grounds to fire her. Also, I think it's admirable that Connecticut grants its citizens more rights of free speech and won't let them get fired for it. Realistically, if a company really wanted to fire an employee for saying something terrible, I'm sure they could find other reasons why.
Like Tori mentioned, what Hill actually said wasn't necessarily a big deal. People criticize our president all the time, especially on TV, so Hill wasn't out of line in that regard. However, the fact that she expressed a political opinion on live TV puts ESPN in an awkward position. While she Constitutionally had every right to say what she did, ESPN has different protocol. Company president John Skipper reminded employees Friday that, "ESPN is about sports. It is not a political organization." While, theoretically, Hill's comments should not reflect the opinion of the ESPN, the fact of the matter is that ESPN, in addition to Hill, has taken a significant amount of heat the past week. But while they may not necessarily be happy with her, they have no grounds to punish her, as she expressed a widely-held opinion. She ought not to be punished, but ESPN will definitely be sending out some memos telling employees to not do what Hill did.
I don't believe that Hill's comments were enough for her to be disciplined or fired from ESPN. Though some may see them as controversial, they don't hurt anyone. Many people believe ESPN anchors should just focus on sports and not mix politics with their network and though this idea could be argued, legally it isn't the case. In the NY Times article about Hill's comments, a Connecticut lawyer states that the law in the state prohibits action taken on Hill since she, "was speaking about an important issue of public concern... and the statute was intended to protect people who say things just like what she said". In all, Hill's comments were justified because she was using her platform to address a political viewpoint and she isn't abusing her first amendment rights. Along with that I do believe that Connecticut's law is fair because it won't protect those that say things that are unjustifiable.
Hill should be able to express her political opinions freely without having to face repercussions. The first amendment protects her from speaking out against the government, therefore just as Zack mentioned it really shouldn't be this big of a deal. Given that Hill has a larger and more diverse platform as a ESPN host, she was bound to receive a lot of feedback, good and bad. Although Hill is by all means able to speak out in any way she wants to, many who are upset with Hill's words are now tying her political views with ESPN's. This is wrong and should in no way put her career at risk.
Post a Comment