I just heard a self-proclaimed media expert bemoan the re-institution of the fairness doctrine, and how that would crimp free speech rights. An example he used was Don Imus, who paid for stupid remarks about a women's basketball team with his job. He said that it was wrong for Imus to lose his job because that impinged his right to free speech.
I agree that Imus is free to continue to spout stupid remarks. But I also have the right to ignore him (as I've done all my life) and his employer has a right to terminate him if they're not happy with his work. For that reason, I believe there is a degree of self-censorship: Members of the media want to distinguish themselves, but not so greatly that they'd lose access to people or get sanctioned / fired.
Which gets back to my question: For a legal standpoint, is there a free speech rights distinction between individuals and members of the media?
Also, please feel free to constructively critique my thoughts of self-censorship.
I agree that Imus is free to continue to spout stupid remarks. But I also have the right to ignore him (as I've done all my life) and his employer has a right to terminate him if they're not happy with his work. For that reason, I believe there is a degree of self-censorship: Members of the media want to distinguish themselves, but not so greatly that they'd lose access to people or get sanctioned / fired.
Which gets back to my question: For a legal standpoint, is there a free speech rights distinction between individuals and members of the media?
Also, please feel free to constructively critique my thoughts of self-censorship.