perfidy

BH, I recall a post not too long ago in which you criticized NPR Michigan for firing an on-air employee who supported the war against Iraq and criticized NPR's coverage. You asserted that the dismissal of the pro-war employee constituted a violation of free speech. Now it seems that you're supporting HBO in their decision not to air an Oliver Stone documentary on Castro. Why is this not a violation of Stone's free speech?

If you believe that HBO is a corporation with the legal rights to restrict what it airs, you're right. But if you also argue that NPR is truly, as the name implies, public, then I wish to point out that it's only public in that it is supported with voluntary donations rather than advertising dollars. NPR, similar to HBO, also has the right to decide who works for them. Thus, I'm seeing an inconsistency here.

Free Speech is a thorny issue. The Supreme Court ruled that free speech is not absolute; you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. There are laws against slander, libel, and terroristic threats. Broadcast corporations decide what they air and what they don't. I submit that NPR was engaging in the same kind of decision as HBO when NPR dismissed their Michigan employee for espousing strong opinions on a highly controversial issue. According to NPR, they have a policy that the on-air folks not do that. NPR chose to dismiss an on-air employee who broke their rules. HBO decided not to air a documentary on Castro for reasons unspecified in your post. I'll respect the decisions of both HBO and NPR as entirely legal, and outside the bounds of free speech protection.