![nyt opinion roxane gay roseanne nyt opinion roxane gay roseanne](https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/PerryColumn4_11.jpg)
But they have the moral one, especially when their gesture is dignified, considered and silent (even if I also think it’s mistaken) and when the N.F.L.
![nyt opinion roxane gay roseanne nyt opinion roxane gay roseanne](https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/1bb/097/0e6f07686725dad252f5a09efd9ad86f62-15-saint-anything-dessen.rsquare.w700.jpg)
It’s true the players don’t have the legal right. What about the argument that liberals - and, in this case, I - use another double standard when we applaud Barr’s dismissal while defending the rights of football players who take a knee to protest police brutality during the singing of the national anthem? The players, after all, also don’t have unrestricted First Amendment protections while wearing the jerseys and playing in the stadiums of the teams that pay their salaries. The relevant question here is: What’s the “totality” of Barr’s work, at least when it comes to political and racial questions? John Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary magazine, summed it up perfectly when he described Barr as “a boor,” a “notorious believer and propagator of conspiracy theories related to 9/11,” and, in all, “not merely a loose cannon but a MIRVed ICBM ready to go off in all directions at any time.”īarr’s tweet about Jarrett, in other words, wasn’t the odd needle in the haystack. Williamson insists his comments were misunderstood, but that’s another story. In March, I argued that Kevin Williamson, the conservative writer briefly hired by The Atlantic, should be judged by the totality of his work, not by a vile tweet (and, as it later turned out, a discussion on a podcast) in which he seemed to suggest that women who get abortions should be hanged. That the president fails or refuses to appreciate the distinction is the thousandth reminder of his unfitness for office. With his trademark combination of puerile self-pity and fang-toothed nastiness, Donald Trump took to Twitter on Wednesday to denounce Disney’s chairman, Robert Iger, for not apologizing to him for the “HORRIBLE statements made and said about me on ABC.” But he’s the ultimate public figure, whereas Jarrett is a private citizen subjected to unprovoked racial attack by an ABC employee.
#Nyt opinion roxane gay roseanne free#
The University of Chicago president, Robert Zimmer, has made the case that institutions like his, though not strictly subject to the First Amendment, should nonetheless encourage the free and vigorous exchange of ideas for the sake of fostering intellectual excellence. This is not a “free speech” issue - using “free speech” in the broader, less legalistic sense of the term. She’s just not free to do so while getting $250,000 a show from an employer whose reputation she stained and whose values she traduced. Barr’s speech has not been curtailed she remains free to opine (and mostly free to tweet) to her heart’s content.
![nyt opinion roxane gay roseanne nyt opinion roxane gay roseanne](https://www.purdue.edu/uns/images/2017/gay-roxane.jpg)
Constitutional rights are what you’re entitled to in the public sphere, not as an employee of a private corporation. Writing that Obama administration aide Valerie Jarrett was the baby of “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes” violates these in the foulest of ways. There are necessary taboos and essential decencies in every morally healthy society. Of course ABC and its parent company Disney were right to cancel the sitcom “Roseanne” after its eponymous star, Roseanne Barr, wrote a racist tweet.