controversy, or if she fears suit for defamation

       If the advertisers and irate listeners are complaining to the FCC, and the FCC is planning to fine her, her company, or the license holder, or prohibit her from future uses of the N word on the air, then there would be a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment, of course, does not protect “obscene” speech (sorry Howard Stern) but it does protect “indecent” speech and “profane” speech, and “political” speech. Presumably her use of the N word would fall in one of these latter caterories.

      Regulation is permitted and post speech penalties are permitted but prior restraint almost never. So whenever the FCC steps into the picture, there are always First Amendment issues.

    Another exception would be if she defamed the caller by her use of the word and the caller sues for defamation. Here the court system and the law become involved and the First Amendment will affect the burden of proof imposed on the plaintiff.

My embarrassing truth

I buried the second decorated multiple war veteran(POW to boot)last year. They both allowed the 'serial numbers' to remain on their forearms to remind them of worse times.

They were/are still the driving forces behind many of my beliefs/opinions. They fought, and sacrificed, for our(citizens)right to speak our minds. While they always claimed that they didn't fight for the right of hate speech, one of those men NEVER evolved beyond the use of terms like nigger and coon. Very embarrassing indeed. But he still put his life on the line for the likes of Dr. Laura to have at it verbally.

I rarely cater to much of Dr. Laura's bulldurham. She is self-righteous at the least. There are Supreme Court rulings regarding hate speech being, or not being, protected by law. I don't remember what the say.

the court of public opinions. See, when you are a broadcaster of any type, your uttering must pass the court of public opinion. After all, it is rating and advertising based business and you are under contract to the broadcasting company.

One can complain about PC but, broadcasting is still business and businesses generally don't want piss off their customers.

As far as 1st amendment is concerned, there are no violations, she said what she said, she decided to leave on her own and if she didn't leave, her employer is within their right not renew her contract.

So, the entire debate becomes pointless.

There is governmental and societal.  By the first, I mean the power of government, ultimately exercised by the police.  By the second, I mean society will not allow it in the sense that if you say something, people don't have to associate with you, buy your products, or otherwise support you. The first is censoring. The second is censursing. The state does the first. Individuals - sometimes collectively - do the second

The First Amendment prohibits cesnsorship by the State.  California cannot shut down the L.A. Times for an offensive, stupid, inaccurate editorial or news item.  The paper can print what it wants and the governor can use it for toilet paper if he wants, but that is it.

On the other hand, I do not have to buy the paper, and I can tell my friends not to.  (Don't get me wrong. THis is an example. I do subscribe, at times regretfully, to the rag.)

A college newpaper has "the right" to run the ad.  However, readers have the right to boycott. Also, the "right" TO run the ad means it has the choice NOT to run the ad.  They make the choice. They live with the consequences.  As long as the State does not penalize them, it is not a First Amendment issue.

With that said, this was a general description.  There are always exceptions. But this is the basic framework.

She used to be on a local radio station and I was glad when she was gone ..Couldn't stand her voice, or her ridiculous advice, and if I was in my car I turned her off within a few minutes.
I agree 100% with what she said in this matter of dispute.
 http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008120045

You can please some of the people all of the time.
You can please all of the people some of the time.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
However, you can piss off everyone all of the time.
No that's an acheivable goal.

Maybe Dr. Laura  just trying to succede.

I don' know what she said or the context, but it sounds like a publicity stunt.

Here's what an expert said on Yahoo news.

Note that Sarah Palin once again shows she has no clue about key issues. She is perhaps the most unqualified candidate for high office in U.S. history.(sorry, can't resist taking a swipe at such a nitwit)


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_pl3441

people confuse legal rights with with moral rights. ground zero in new york is a perfect example. just because you have a legal right dosent mean you should or shouldnt do or say something. thats choice.