Rosanne

[Dave70968]

So your rights to speak as you please on your private time must be restricted by your employer?
That's ok?
I think most of us have stated some issues on this forum that our employers may not agree with in their policies. Your OK with firing all of them for doing so?

Yup. Their property, their choice.

Is it a good idea? Probably not...but I won't argue against their rights to do so.

 

[Dave70968]

Yup. Their property, their choice. (P.S.: nobody said must; try may. If I reflect badly upon them, I'd support their right to do something about it.)

Is it a good idea? Probably not...but I won't argue against their rights to do so.

 

[dennishoddy]

if they presumably voluntarily signed the same free speech limiting contracts 'll Roseanne signed then yes. Should tridiot be able to talk about his specific patients?

Two different things your talking about there. One is mandated by federal law and the other by Contract if there was one, and we don't know what the contract may have said so it's not even a point to discuss.

 

[caojyn]

One is mandated by federal law

fair enough

and the other by Contract if there was one,

lol sure there's a chance there was no contract [

and we don't know what the contract may have said so it's not even a point to discuss.

http://popculture.com/tv-shows/2018...ts-provisions-fire-stars-offending-community/
well... We have a fairly good idea
``According to a report by The Blast, the contracts that actors signed for the reboot included a clause stating the wide range of things they could be fired over.

Roseanne actors could be fired if the “Artist at any time commits any act or omission constituting a felony, a misdemeanor or other violation of criminal law, an intentional tort, reckless conduct, gross negligence or other malfeasance." They could also be let for incurring “Public disrepute or humiliation, contempt, scandal or ridicule” that “insults or offends the community or any substantial group thereof".

 

[dennishoddy]

Nope.

She's not in jail, not being fined. She has no right to use ABC's broadcasting facilities to spread her message. She's free to say whatever she wants; she's just not entitled to a platform for it.

Is ABC being biased? Sure--but it's their network. Ownership conveys certain privileges.

So what you're saying is that my examples of two comedians that have network shows on TV as well as the hags on the view that express their opinion about Trump readily and without repercussion, have tacit approval of the networks to trash our President?
Yet a differing opinion delivers the axe to another comedian that does not fit the narrative of the liberal left wing networks.
I get it. Hypocrisy of the left.
We aren't talking law here, it's all hypocrisy. Not what's fair and balanced, Hypocrisy. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Dave70968]

So what you're saying is that my examples of two comedians that have network shows on TV as well as the hags on the view that express their opinion about Trump readily and without repercussion, have tacit approval of the networks to trash our President?
Yet a differing opinion delivers the axe to another comedian that does not fit the narrative of the liberal left wing networks.
I get it. Hypocrisy of the left.
We aren't talking law here, it's all hypocrisy. Not what's fair and balanced, Hypocrisy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Where do you find any duty for them to be fair and balanced?

 

[dennishoddy]

Nope.

She's not in jail, not being fined. She has no right to use ABC's broadcasting facilities to spread her message. She's free to say whatever she wants; she's just not entitled to a platform for it.

Is ABC being biased? Sure--but it's their network. Ownership conveys certain privileges.

She used twitter. She did not use ABC's broadcasting facilities to spread her message.

 

[caojyn]

[QUOTE="dennishoddy, post: 3120012] Not what's fair and balanced, Hypocrisy. Nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]
Should tv companies be forced to have content they don't agree with?

 

[Dave70968]

She still reflected badly upon them. ABC has no duty to give her a public platform, and chose not to do so when she made them look bad.

A much more interesting question is whether the other cast and crew have a case against her for getting the show cancelled through no fault of their own.

 

[dennishoddy]

fair enough lol sure there's a chance there was no contract [

http://popculture.com/tv-shows/2018...ts-provisions-fire-stars-offending-community/
well... We have a fairly good idea
``According to a report by The Blast, the contracts that actors signed for the reboot included a clause stating the wide range of things they could be fired over.

Roseanne actors could be fired if the “Artist at any time commits any act or omission constituting a felony, a misdemeanor or other violation of criminal law, an intentional tort, reckless conduct, gross negligence or other malfeasance." They could also be let for incurring “Public disrepute or humiliation, contempt, scandal or ridicule” that “insults or offends the community or any substantial group thereof".

Do the hags on the View and the network awards shows that have evolved into Trump bashing contests have the same "insults or offends the community clause" ? It certainly offends millions of conservative folks as the awards show programs have reached a historical low in ratings.
Let me state it one more time. Hypocrisy of the liberal left.