Randi Rhodes thinks KO's thing is contract-related. We'll see. nt

[gateley]

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. So does Malloy

and this afternoon Norman Goldman pointed out that there were some things that stunk to hell

[hlthe2b]

2. How so?

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Malloy went into his own experience

with the media and Norman mentioned the inconsistencies in the treatment of different on air personalities. He also said he'd advise KO to lawyer up.

[gateley]

5. For being so old, I sure am naive - I usually believe things at their face value.

I'll probably learn my lesson on my death bed.

Anyway, they're insiders so I'm certainly not discounting their opinions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I've had my own, shall we say adventures. with two very small

publishing companies.

My experience, they will take advantage every day of the week and twice on sunday. That is the way they are.

[Matariki]

3. I'll bet it's a personality clash issue.

At least as opposed to his political leanings.

[Liquorice]

4. It seems like some sort of stunt to me. It sure is getting them a lot of attention. nt

[glinda]

8. Maybe

[JDPriestly]

9. It is contract-related as I understand it.

The question remains: is an employment contract that requires a person to relinquish the basic right of free speech enforceable or is it against such an important public policy that it is not legal and therefore is not enforceable?

Again, here is the problem: if corporations have a First Amendment right to donate money and also the right to deprive their employees of the employees' First Amendment rights via the employment contract, where are we?

What is to stop other employers from restricting the First Amendment rights of their employees through a sentence in an employment manual or a contract? Our entire democracy could be brought to a standstill if Keith cannot have the right to exercise his First Amendment right to donate money. At least that is how I see it.

Could Target do the same thing with its employees? How about Home Depot?

MSNBC could argue that Keith is a newscaster. But what difference does that make? Can newscasters be required to give up their First Amendment rights? Why should that be permitted? If a newscaster can be required to give up the First Amendment right to donate money to candidates in elections, can't the newscaster also be required to give up all other First Amendment rights? What good is a newscaster who simply vocalizes the political views of his corporate employer?

Shouldn't newscasters, more than any other voters, have the right to speak from and donate from their consciences?

Or is the news simply another corporate ad?

We know that the actors in advertisement videos are just speaking a script, and we know that newscasters for the most part just read a script. But shouldn't the newscasters have some right to speak their personal minds? How can we trust them if they are just corporate mouthpieces? At the point that a newscaster is a corporate mouthpiece, he has no social value.

That's my opinion, MSNBC.