Roseanne didn't just step in it, she found the highest diving board, assembled an audience of millions and belly flopped in it.
.
Two days later, Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a bad name. "Oh, I'm sorry. Silly old me." I missed the part where she got fired. And, it highlights, AGAIN, the double standard for certain people.
.
There is a way to stop this behavior. In the case of Roseanne, she would have an "intervention" with everyone on that show. They would talk it out. Roseanne leaves, they vote. Keep the show or shut it down. If they keep it, Rosanne will have to do some penance. She'll know what it is and if she doesn't agree, she walks. And she knows, she had a chance to save those jobs, but, her poor self control forfeited her chance.
.
If public personalities get a whiff of public humiliation, with one chance to not to screw up, there might be a better, less course, public discourse.
.
Or, just fire the offender and get a new body.
1
My only disagreement with you in reading this column is that you used the phrase "thousandth reminder" of his unfitness for office. Thousandth? C'mon, he's done far more than that, or were you just writing about this week? I'm sure he'd be upset with such a low-ball figure.
7
I'm beginning to think the knee-jerk apologies for saying something stupid and insulting are as bad, if not worse, than the offending remark. Apologies (in the bygone days) used to be hard-won, a sign that the offender was aware that he/she had caused offense and was genuinely sorry for it. Now they just add to the tactical insincerities and cheap shots that pollute our airwaves and cyber waves. I staunchly defend the First Amendment, but maybe we should think about drawing the line at that inanely named gas leak called Twitter. (Wasn't it invented by Dodo birds?)
2
A brilliant piece. Far too many conservatives can't real racism when it smacks them in the face. Perhaps this is due to too much "low-bar" racism coming at them all the time and they're conditioned to not believe?
2
On the plus side of the debate over football players "taking a knee", perhaps the very best football players should do it and then we would see if the "conservative" protests are real or just hot air.
And, if the players are fired, they are at reduced risk of traumatic brain injury. Win Win.
4
It is clearly confusing for Roseanne and her ilk. When one party has a lock on the Judiciary, the Executive and both Houses of Congress you ought to be able to enjoy your hatred and bigotry with impunity.
When I encounter a Trump supporter I can never figure out why they are not happy when they have everything they could ever want as politics go plus a steady stream of grotesque expressions from their leader.
Enjoy it while you have it folks. I predict that before this is over every American heart will be broken.
6
"There are necessary taboos and essential decencies in every morally healthy society."
So says Bret Stephens, who a couple of weeks ago wrote in defense of Israel soldiers shooting a couple of thousand Palestinian protestors.
But a TV personality tweeting a crude insult about a former presidential aide is more than Bret can abide.
Snipers shooting down protestors -- that's OK, says he.
But Bret draws the line on this tweet by Roseanne -- that he will not stand for.
3
Roseanne does not represent Conservative thought any more than David Duke does but somehow in Liberal circles she does. Is it her cartoon caricature of a Conservative? Progressives have a lot to learn.
1
Thank you ABC and Disney for canceling the Roseanne Barr show and standing up for decency and manners. I am sick of the PC caveat...its just a propaganda complaint tool honed over the years by right wing media and used by racists and bigots who want to demean and dehumanize non white people openly. These same folks will feign outrage and want to shut down speech when one of their own, e.g., Trump or Sara Sanders, are rightfully criticized. I am also sick of the attempt to marginalize commentary and dialogue by calling someone liberal as if that is something to be ashamed of. Now when someone calls me liberal I thank them and say yes I stand with Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman and all the other great liberals who have made the world a better place to live in through their decency, kind words and love for all men and women.
6
"Perhaps the reason Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature is that they so frequently conform to type."
THIS!
2
Rosanne Barr has every right to say what she wants, and to continue to do so - no matter how repugnant and offensive. And of course her employer has every right to fire her. The NFL has every right to fire players who kneel during anthems, but of course segments of the general public, feeling so inclined, have every right to boycott the NFL for doing so. One right does not negate the other. The fact that these actions and reactions are occurring in public changes nothing - both are examples of free speech. If one is willing to say something, it must be assumed that he or she is also willing to accept the consequences of what was said. A fair trade.
3
I would like to see a TV interview with Roseanne where a journalist asks her to specifically comment on her Planet of the Apes remark. I would like to hear Roseanne's specific beliefs about comparing blacks to apes. Let's hear her give voice to this stupidity in no uncertain terms in front of the whole world. May she be unmasked with no reservations in public. Let us publicly draw this line and see who will stand on her side of it.
5
I believe we are looking a word is " decency."
If anyone who lives in a society where decency ends and character assasination starts or slur starts , needs a true eductaion about decency .
2
Basically, there is no right of free speech if you can be deprived of your livelihood for what you say outside of the workplace.
1
Roseanne's original show was a funny, proud assertion of working class values, sometimes self-deprecatory, that America needed. Trump has given the white working class license to express its dark side, and Roseanne was sucked in. Racism has divided the working class since the original Populist movement of the 19th century. Trump is playing to corporate America with his cuts in the business tax and social services, while diverting white workers from their real economic interests by playing to their racism.
10
I think you're the most clear-thinking and articulate conservative out there. I wish there were more of you out there. Having only a single choice for political stripe or party ("liberal" or Democrat) is the reality for thinking Americans, but ideally we'd like to have options to choose from.
3
Network TV Sitcoms are popularity contests, where for the most part, those with a majority of America's eyeballs watching win. ABC/Disney's Management has circumvented the democratic process of TV ratings, the basis of all capitalistic ventures, and the financial well-being of their shareholders over yet unproven fear that "Rosanne" the TV Show was no longer commercially viable or a ratings "winner". They're wrong, they took the easy automatic weapon route to kill free speech when the market place of creative ideas would have, and should have been allowed to function. Now FOX Network or a Cable platform is going to get a very popular show, at the cost of Hundreds of Million$ to Disney/ABC stockholders, and the resurrection of a politically correct, Hollywood Black List exists again, despite "never again", this time for Trump supporters.
2
She has the money to produce her own TV show for her supposedly built-in audience
Nothing is stopping her from testing the marketplace of ideas if she thinks viewers will buy what she’s selling.
8
Over 4000 people may have died in the aftermath of Maria, close to 100% of them because of neglect. Trump didn't send in generators, or food, or competent electricians. Instead, he did a photo op where he distributed rolls of paper towels as if he was shooting baskets and then acted insulted that the media treated him shabbily when they pointed out that his behavior did not match the gravity of the situation. I don't believe he has mentioned it since that day, when he claimed that "only" 16 deaths had occurred. Nope, no Katrina there. Every day with this guy is a Katrina -- and the whole point of his communication strategy is to troll people who disagree with him. We have a man with the maturity of a 12 year-old in charge of the US government and all he does is insult and whine. He calculates off of the double bind: he and his followers love calling those who complain about his behavior "snowflakes" but if people were to ignore him and there are no complaints he would be even more emboldened and commit more egregious acts--like bombing random nations or destroying our alliances--than he already is. Anyone not sickened by him is clueless. He is hurting US farmers because our customers are not hanging around waiting for him to decide what tariffs or on whom--Mexico, Canada and China are all sourcing their needs elsewhere. He is not helping the economy, he will in fact bring it down with his de-regulation and his needless deficit spending. Americans need to get real.
8
Brilliantly written, Mr. Stephens.
2
In reading all this comments about left versus right, etc, Racists, bigots, slurs, liberal versus conservative, it brings the question has anyone had one of the DNA tests done recently ???
Our family's just came back, we are not a pure anything and in today's vernacular could be labeled " European Mutts" obviously during the long trek of migrating from west Africa over the thousands of years, the relatives were having a good time populating civilization ....
Why do we need all this labeling and differences rising to the top of every opinion.... we are all much more similar then we know...in this day each of us could be related to hundred's or thousand's of people just by way of 3 or 5 generation cousins .. why let media, politicians, etc let this name calling prevail.
Stop now... please .....our future depends on it.. word pollution is a problem and could be solved with each of our actions.... we deserve better.... we could self motivate to turn it around of our own accord...
4
It's correct to focus on the "totality" of her image rather than just a single incident...but she was already well-known for this sort of behavior when ABC brought her on and revived her show. It's tempting to ascribe their quick action to "moral principle", but if that's the case, why did they start her show in the first place? Just like the Williamson firing, it's a case of hiring someone who's well-known for their long history making awful remarks, and then acting surprised when they make an awful remark while on the payroll.
4
If we all collectively got punished equally for the stubid things we have said - not one of us would have a job. We live in a time period where technology has made it possible to broadcast almost instantaneously across the globe a comment that would have been better left unsaid. A friend of mine's father once said - "Never pass up the opportunity to keep you mouth shut"
4
The White House is trying to claim an "equivalency" between
Samantha Bee and Roseanne.
Baloney. Roseanne said Valery Jarrett was only half human. Ms. Bee used slang terminology that was demeaning but did not suggest that Ivanka was in any way less than human.
7
Sad to say - very sadly - it *is* a free speech issue inasmuch as Barr wrote independently of her role in that... program. The best defense against her kind of vile use of free speech is to ignore it, and her. That's for the rest of us; not ABC, which used its best available free speech tool: "You're fired. Go away."
1
Modern comedians strive for outrageousness. Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, and Dave Chappelle were and are unquotable in a family newspaper. Even Robin Williams and Johnny Carson could skirt the edges of propriety. Bob Hope's, Red Skelton's, and Jack Benny's TV shows were always family-friendly, though.
Roseanne's angry shtick is an unchained mind and mouth in search of laughs. She stepped in it, but I've heard much worse. Nonetheless, we don't need that stuff round here. We've got enough hate and discontent.
Comedy is basically a cruel enterprise: Let's you and him make fun of him or her or them.
1
I remember seeing the article about Barr reprising her show. There was mention of her earlier show had been sympathetic to poorer people and her role was representative of working class people. It seemed a bit odd as I looked at the picture of Barr with that piece. She was well dressed and no question she had had a nip and tuck or two and was stylishly dressed. My impression was she looked like an older woman belonging to the junior league rather that someone who shopped at dollar stores and Walmart.
Aside from that, I am the product of a working class family and nothing about Roseanne Barr represents what my parents were.
5
"Barr's tweet...wasn't the odd needle in the haystack. It was the last straw."
Love it. Very smartly written and well said.
2
Bravo, spot on, and covers all the bases.
When I worked at Disney Channel years ago, there was a young man who was host of a series, and one night an executive saw him on one of those MTV reality shows, and the young man was partially dressed. By the next afternoon that young man was fired and the series was canceled. Disney is extremely protective of its brand, because it has to be.
If trumpsters don't like being accused of racism, stop acting like racists. If trumpsters are okay with their racism, then "man-up" and "hear it like it is" without all the whining.
8
The author says Roseanne's constitutional rights only apply in the public sphere and not in a private business. Is that true? If that is the case, then do the team owners of the NFL have the right to tell their players they cannot kneel during the national anthem? Anyone know the answer to this?
Unfortunately I think the NFL owners do have that right. You just saw it last week when the NFL announced their no kneeling policy. Whether it can stand up in court is another question.
3
"Anyone know the answer to this?"
Stephens garbled his explanation. Under the US Constitution, *government* cannot constrain speech. However, corporations are not government entities, so they can constrain speech without violating the US Constitution.
2
There was nothing particularly honorable about ABC´s action. It was merely the undoing of the dishonorable act of bringing her back in the first place. When it first came out, I watched exactly one episode of Roseanne. It was all I required to decide I would not want to associate myself with that level of discourse.
1
What is often never mentioned is that the venom that comes out of the Barr's, and the boorishness and divisiveness coming from President Trump, makes it very difficult for the overwhelming number of decent White folks out there!
4
Stephens is right. I personally don't care what Roseanne Barr tweets about one way or another, but I think ABC showed poor corporate judgment by re-starting her show. She's at best a loose cannon, and her fringe political beliefs should have made the Disney parent corporation leery of giving her another platform to throw insults from. I feel sorry for the other actors on her show: they deserve a better lead to work under.
4
perfectly said.
1
Roseanne is a brilliant artist who sometimes expresses herself in tasteless ways. She should be forgiven and welcomed back.
4
Van Gogh is a brilliant artist; Roseanne is a crass, mentally unstable, self-centered "comedian." Puhlease!
3
Fortunately, I have not read, or heard, anyone attempt to compare Barr's TV character to Archie Bunker in All In the Family, magnificently created by Norman Lear and exquisitely performed by Carroll O'Connor. The left vs. right banter between the progressives O'Connor and Rob Reiner illustrated the racism of Archie whose blue collar character felt threatened by African-American neighbors who had become financially more successful than himself. We could see the flaws in Archie's bigotry while his son-in-law attempted to convince Archie the error of his ways — and his thinking.
The stars and producers of All In the Family were all progressive thinkers with a gift for illustrating the flaws of bigotry and racism.
With Barr's character, she played herself; a witless bigot and racist who has demeaned and embarrassed herself — like her mentor, Trump — while appealing to a segment of Trump's voter base — the lizard-brained, white nationalist racists; easily found at the bottom end of the carbon scale.
I, too, am dumbstruck by the decisions made at ABC Enterainment and the parent company, Disney, for choosing Barr's reiteration of an old, and successful sitcom of the 1990s. Her public track record should have sounded the warnings of how she could, and would, besmearch the ABC and Disney brands.
So kudos to those CEOs who chose the moral high ground over profits.
4
Barr is just another no-talent idiot who failed to learn the lesson of the Dixie Chicks: celebrities who air their personal politics in a public forum risk severe ramifications.
To Trump supporters "the virtues of dignity and consideration" are called "political correctness" and are eschewed in their drive to emulate their Master.
2
Excellence in opinion writing again.
3
>>>> "The show was supposed to help explain, and humanize, Trump’s base to a frequently unsympathetic and uncomprehending public. Through her tweet, Barr managed to do so all too well. Perhaps the reason Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature is that they so frequently conform to type."<<<<
That is the core of the problem, in a nutshell, a symptom of the unraveling of America which is upon us via conservative coarseness; millions who cling to "like me" affinity above everything else, including morality and decency and actual truth, and who apparently prefer pugnacity over grace.
2
The larger question is had ABC not cancelled this show, would it have continued to be so popular? What does the answer say about our current state of affairs?
1
Regarding Dungey and Iger acting on moral principle: the revenue opportunity for the franchise had already dropped with the tweet, not the cancellation. Fast forward down the path of ABC not taking action, and advertisers would have passed.
Agreed, Bret - I too want to hear from Trump supporters who don't conform to the broad Trumpian type. I want to hear their logic, I want to know what page they're on in the broadest sense. But far more times than not I see or hear them slipping into type, particularly when cornered by an issue that isn't that easy for them to wriggle out of. If they can't defend their own positions logically and in a collected manner, why do they espouse those positions in the first place? My perception is that to embrace Trumpism is almost invariably to embrace excuse-making.
4
"But far more times than not I see or hear them slipping into type, ..."
You will need to be more specific than that if you are sincerely seeking to understand "their logic".
Bill Maher once mocked Donald Trump's "Birtherism" by alleging that Trump himself was descended from an orangutang. Trump sued Maher for a million dollars, but the suit was thrown out, because Trump, a public figure, was a legitimate object of satire. Maher's HBO series was not cancelled, and there was no suspicion of racism. How could there be? Trump was being satirized as a person with a racist agenda - he alleged Obama was not American but African - NOT as a member of an historically persecuted minority.
Now Trump supporter Roseanne Barr's program is cancelled because of a mean tweet based on a derogatory attitude toward Blacks and Muslims. The Trump crowd cries "foul" because they see this punishment as ideologically biassed: Maher and others can mock Trump with impunity, while Barr cannot mock Jarrett. They see no difference, because they don't recognize the existence of racism. To them, mocking one political figure is the same as mocking any another political figure. Either both are unacceptable or neither is.
As Barr observed in an early episode of "Roseanne," "They're just like us." But of course this quip was sarcastic: Asians and Blacks are NOT, in their view, like white, mid-Western, embattled blue-collar workers. In their twisted view, the victims of bombed-out mosques and police shootings are PRIVILEGED by a double standard, known as "political correctness." To them racism either does not exist, or THEY are its victims.
4
Michelle Wolf was the last straw. Given that, Barr was only being funny.
1
There is a giant difference between stating the truth that Trump's press secretary lies continually---and tweeting a flagrant racist insult that is hurtful and destructive.
I cannot believe you find it "only being funny."
I am simply stunned by your comment.
La La Land indeed.
We don't have to consider Barr's comments in context to justify her firing. Any white person who uses the N word or compares African-Americans to nonhuman primates has crossed a line that makes her unfit for civilized society. The history of both of those words is such that using them comes very close to being a form of assault.
9
We are now paying for the low moral standards of electing a Donald Trump. It's never been the entire fault of the Republican base voter that Donald Trump got elected. 30% of a ginned up base can become a force for any candidate out there. It's the rest that are to blame. It's the type of voter who might have selected a John McCain or Jeff Flake, and either easily or stressfully pulled the lever for Trump. For that faulty judgement we are all paying dearly now in terms of moral deficits.
5
Twitter exposes what lies beneath, forcing people to cram their thoughts into a few words. In Trump's case, Twitter exposes his LIES, and I think Twitter will be his downfall. Sure worked for Rosanne.
1
Do you remember the advertisement for The Clapper? And Roseanne's quasi-mockery sitcom co-opting of that bona fide product's ad from deep in bed?
CLAP-CLAP!
1
Here's a great rule to follow:
If you wouldn't send your tweet to your boss, don't send it at all.
Better yet, as my mom used to say " if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing"
4
Ironic the way all the "compassionate" liberals here who want Roseanne drawn and quartered for ONE tweet about ONE person, post in every day insulting millions of working class whites, seniors, and white men in general. And they don't see their own hypocrisy.
6
But she wasn't insulting one person. She attacks black people, Muslims, Jews, she slanders Huma Abedin, calls George Soros a Nazi - given that Soros is apparently code for "those Jews" on the right it's a neat attempt to shift blame from Nazis to Jews which is Trumpism in a nutshell.
Roseanne is a famous, powerful person like POTUS. Their words matter. They affect the entire body politic. As it is white supremacists, actual Nazis, are now running for office under the Republican banner.
Yet you guys claim that white guys are the victims? Listen to yourselves. It's ridiculous. Never has there been a more entitled and powerful class than white Christian men. In the history of the world let alone the US where black people were enslaved and are still victimized and "the other" is blamed for all your problems.
Shame.
8
True -- add to this long list the daily vicious insulting of Trump, on all TV networks and MSM, from the day he announced his run 3 years ago.
3
Just a small point regarding Mr. Trump’s complaint about not getting an apology from ABC or Mr. Eiger: As a business man/ celebrity/candidate and elected official, Mr. Trump not only refuses to apologize for reprehensible and even criminal behaviors and speech he had committed but has even insisted frequently that apologies are a sign of weakness! If you don’t give them you are not entitled to receive them.
2
Being a conservative apologist, birthed by National Review...Stephens, BRETT, faces many challenges in trying to get things right, so how did he end up here with the majority?
Was it because it's so low class to say a black person is related to apes?
(But isn't that silly, Darwin explained how we are all related to apes back in 1859.)
Or was it Barr's riff on St. Soros, Nazis and Jews?
(I actually love a man who spends over 20 billion trying to make the world a better place. )
Roseanne has come a long way since her Jewish home in Mormon, Utah...but hasn't she always made her way by representing Joe and Jill Sixpack? Being the loud, overweight drunk?
As far as I can see she's just still representing that class from which I hear worse all the time. Haven't TIMES' readers ever driven coast to coast and listened?
Only on the coasts, do I hear the sound of knotting panties. I hear no cries from the heartland for BANISHMENT and guillotines.
Face it, Roseanne and her hit show are as representative of Trump America as border walls and tariffs on imported steel.
My censorship is to never watch her shows. But what disturbs me more is the disturbing trend in America to ever more quickly judge, condemn and jettison people who step out of line.
It reminds me of the way animals mob a designated outcast in the aggression studies by behavioralist Konrad Lorenz.
The spectrum of information, entertainment and toleration in this country is already too narrow-minded.
4
Roseanne deserved to be "judged and jettisoned." Such a targeted racist insult is fully unacceptable. She also had a tweet of her as Hitler baking Jewish people as cookies in the oven. Simply outrageous.
Both are so out of the norm outcast is inevitable and deserved. There is no defense. And blaming it on Ambien is weak. She only apologized because she had to. That screamed out as obvious.
You can cling to your whataboutism, but you are wrong. And insensitive.
1
"... Darwin explained how we are all related to apes back in 1859."
Science has evolved since then. Now "we are all related to" bacteria and lizards too. Google "phylogenetic tree".
2
Spot on.
2
But he’s the ultimate public figure, whereas Jarrett is a private citizen subjected to unprovoked racial attack by an ABC employee.
-----------------------------------------
*Whistle Foul*
OK, stop right there Mr. Stephens.
As a First Amendment scholar, I compliment you, as you were doing fine with the legal issues up to this point.
But you simply cannot argue -- with a straight face -- that Valerie Jarrett is not a public figure for purposes of First Amendment analysis.
Clearly, she is. Do your homework, and revisit your reading on "public figure" as defined in this legal analysis. Nice try though.
You are entitled to your own spin,
but you are not entitled to make up the facts.
The whole argument fails when you understand Valerie Jarrett is a public figure, very open to public criticism in a democratic society. It's healthy to do so, even if you object to the manner delivered. Think principle, and why the law would preference open discourse.
I get it -- understand your spin:
you want the right to call our president an orange orangutan, because it's healthy to criticize our public figures whose policies affect the rest of us (like Ms. Jarrett's jobs and high-profile role). But when such a "racial attack" *cough, cough -- you are a sensitive/dramatic/chivalristic one, aren't you?* occurs to a wealthy white man in a public role that is different than the same language (ape) directed at a black woman?
Bless your heart, you mean well,
but you are not rational or fair.
So there was no history behind the Maher orangutan saga? No attempt to portray Barack Obama as unAmerican and therefore illegitimate? No birther conspiracy nonsense?
Maher was making an analogy in response to Trump's racism but of course that went over your head.
Anyway it became hilarious when Trump sued. Honestly a normal person wouldn't feel the need to "prove" his daddy wasn't an orangutan.
Thank YOU.
Re: Our POTUSA, I would want to like and respect him, but his continuing tweeting is irritating and not applicable to steering our "ship of State".
In addition his refusal to produce any Tax Returns makes it appear that he is hiding something!
Every American can exercise their First Amendment right and protest. But provoking and inciting hate is technically right but morally extremely wrong. Exercising that right comes with a lot of responsibility. To protest with, "silence is golden rule", would prevent a lot of the indiscriminate, irresponsible misuse of that right. A lot of thinking about the consequences is very important.
1
Roseanne was fond of referring to herself as "white trash with money". OK, I'll buy that. Trump fits the same model. It is telling that his butwhatabout hangers-on won't break with him and loudly and forcefully denounce racism and bigotry as expressed by the weak-minded Roseanne Barr. All the Alex Jones and Steve Bannon sycophants seem to clump together in the dank swamp of conspiracy-fueled alt-right nonsense. Good riddance, Rosie. Hopefully. we have heard the last of you and yours. Unfortunately, I have little hope that is true. Stay tuned for the Trumpcapades.
2
Hearing of Ms. Barr's tweet, I was reminded of Pap Finn, Huckleberry's father, the unwashed, racist, alcoholic child-abuser who, coming face-to-face on the sidewalk with a black professor, shoves him out of the way, incredulous that a black man would dare not cede the way. The mores of mid-19th century Missouri allowed the n'er-do-well Pap to abuse the distinguished professor... I can't help but wonder what moral code, what prevailing winds, gave Ms. Barr the license.
1
It makes me crazy when conservative Republicans use patriotism as an excuse to attack NFL players who take a knee during the playing of the national anthem. They get their undies in a bunch at a peaceful protest calling attention to the fact that in America an unarmed black man can be shot and killed by white police officers with impunity. They're enraged over a song and a piece of cloth, but the murder of innocent men whose major crime is the color of their skin---no problem. This is the America we live in today, regressing toward the Jim Crow era of the past, and led by an obnoxious, racist president.
3
"But he’s the ultimate public figure, whereas Jarrett is a private citizen subjected to unprovoked racial attack by an ABC employee" - so I take from this if the tweet had come out 2 yrs ago when Jarrett was employed in the Obama admin, Roseanne wouldn't have been fired.
Do I have that right? Yea sure!
1
Welcome to Trump's America. No matter how ignorant, hateful and indecent you may be there is a place of honor for you in Trump's America. The worse you are the better.
2
Then why is the NY Times reporting that "Disney Acted Swiftly on ‘Roseanne'"? Disney clearly did not.
When did the "president" ever apologize for the nasty comments he made? Recall his brutal attack on Rosie or Carly F? One has to be truly mentally ill to twist a clearly racist statement into a "poor me" tweet. This is not someone who is a leader of a diverse country. Sickness.
3
The same liberals who simultaneously celebrate NFL players’ on-the-clock taking a knee as “free speech” applaud Roseanne’s termination for making precisely the same comparison about Valerie Jarrett that Bill Maher made about Donald Trump, and which countless leftists made about W.
The word “racist” needs a reboot. The whole point of the civil rights movement was “one size fits all”. If it’s acceptable to compare DT to an orangutan and W to a chimp, what's problematic about comparing VJ to an ape? VJ is “private citizen” now? Would Barr's tweet have been acceptable if VJ were still part of the BHO administration?
This is NOT to defend Barr, who is insufferable. It’s merely to point out, for the 8,177th time, leftist double standards. Not respecting NFL players, even though no one ever has a “moral right” to tick off a huge segment of one’s employer’s customer base. (Imagine a Starbucks employee wearing a discrete pro-life pin to her job in NYC and imagine how the tolerant left would react.) But as respecting the definition of “racist”. If one can say it about a “white” guy without upsetting the perpetually offended, then it’s not “racist” to say it about a black guy.
Incidentally, I am not a “Trump supporter”; when he’s right on policy, I support him, just as I did on the few occasions when BHO was right.
But being offensive is not the same thing as being “racist”. If you’re not offended by Maher, you have no right to be offended by Barr.
6
Q: "If it’s acceptable to compare DT to an orangutan and W to a chimp, what's problematic about comparing VJ to an ape?"
A: 400 years of American history.
3
Nightshift backstage online censors missed it--once again:
Oh my, that's scary: "There are necessary taboos and essential decencies in every morally healthy society."
NYT Opinion Kingdom cultural Marxist ethos is "morally healthy"?
Where's Stalin's night forest when you need it? The Politburo's "collective" offended. Disaster. Execute the offender. If not possible--destroy her ability to earn a living.
ABC-Disney the new "collective" free-speech enforcers of America's "morally healthy society"?
1
"It was a joke", "It was taken out of context" , "You are misinterpreting what I said" are some of the lame excuses that people use when they're called out for lies, insensitive comments and their ignorant comments.
Every day the Americans hear these excuses offered by the president's press secretary, his minions who go on TV to defend him and now Rosanne Barr an avid Trump supporter.
How insulting. Do they really think mot Americans are that stupid?
3
So, how easy is it to shut down and shame a racist, conscienceless, cretinous bully?
Let them speak and reveal the darkness they harbor in their rotted souls.
They are a minority, currently in power due to a confluence of evil acts and fluke events, but they can be repudiated by the more-moral majority when sufficiently aroused by the TrumpoRepublican stench that they DO something.
November.
1
Roseanne's twitter page reeks of panic and desperation.
If Roseanne Barr didn't limit her information intake to extremist conspiracy trolls and racist memes she might have noticed the near universal condemnation of her vile racist tweet across the entire legitimate political spectrum, right to left. She crossed a line, make that a chasm, that separates decent people from the racist bottom feeders in our society. Wake up Rosanne. And seek professional help.
2
As I said in the other article here, stop writing about this piece of trash. We dont need to hear anymore about her.! Thank you all.
1
Roseanne has no "right" to being overpaid, or even to any job at all. Just as the racist attorney in NYC has no "right" to his. But the victims of these bigots should have the right to live their lives unmolested by them.
Rosanne is a crazed, racist bigot. I admire ABC for cancelling her show so quickly but why they gave it to her in the first place when she was getting more unhinged/inappropriate/ranting about craziness is questionable.
3
This vile woman is getting so much publicity and she clearly thrives on it. I think it was important that the show was cancelled and that her colleagues reprimanded her. I do not think, however, that the media should continue to focus on her. She is ignorant, bigoted and frankly childish as well. She does not seem to know how to keep her mouth shut but reporters can stop writing about her. Valerie Jarrett deserves respect as do the others that Roseanne Barr continues to direct hate towards so stop printing the garbage!
3
In case you missed it Bret the President praised Roseanne and made a public plea to the NFL and their owners to fire their uppity black players.
Based on the totality of the Presidents "slurs" why the double standard.
Roseanne deserved to be fired but she is low hanging fruit. I can understand why the Alt right supports this vile President. I can't understand why a Neocon like you supports a President that has guaranteed the safety and wealth of a despotic dictator for simply negotiating Nuclear arms reduction when he tears up an agreement that stopped the Iranian Nuclear arms program in its tracks?
2
Call it the "one-bite" rule. How many racist slurs are you permitted before your employer has a (moral) right to fire you? Just one?
Another question: Is there a statute of limitations? And another: Can true contrition wipe one's record clean or must carry the slur around one's neck for the rest of one's life? In that case, who dares to cast the first stone? Big brother and (above all) Big Sister are listening, and in this day and age nothing is ever forgotten. And unlike the Christian God, they have no mercy on sinners.
Take a short break from your reveling in the downfall of another deplorable and think about your personal exposure. Next time it could be your own impulsive remark or bad joke or malapropism that the "wayback machine" retrieves and publishes to the world. If the lynch mob tears you limb from limb, don't say I didn't warn you. It will be poetic justice if your career, family, friendships are destroyed by this unguided missile -- just as M. Guillotin ended up losing his head to the guillotine.
2
The downfall of Roseanne was caused by Roseanne. More than a "bad joke," it is pure ugly racism, stated publicly.
Most sentient humans think about the implications of what they say to people, and what they write.
Are you talking about Trump supporters being a lynch mob? That doesn't sound too good either. Reread your last paragraph. I am surprised it is published.
Roseanne was deplorable. Hillary chose a great word.
2
You write as though your Republican Party and its supreme leader aren't in lockstep with Barr. You, Brooks and Douthat conveniently act righteous about Trump's illegitimate presidency and all of its crudeness but you never ever disown your party.
1
If a black performer was fired for tweeting something nasty about whites, would that be okay?
1
The president says he is owed an apology because ABC has said HORRIBLE (his caps) things about him. Really?
I wonder if Sleazy Adam Schiff, Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, Crooked Hillary, Low Energy Jeb, Crazy Bernie, Slimeball James Comey, MS-13 Lover Nancy Pelosi, Liddle Bob Corker, Cryin' Chuck Schumer, Mr. Magoo, Peepers Rod Rosenstein, Cheatin' Obama, and Pocahontas feel that they might be owed apologies, too?
6
Who does this? What personality developmental delay or self loathing or ego busting insecurity spews forth this tweet diarrhea? What a sick human being she is
1
There is a double standard and sexism here.
Donald Trump twits daily similar/worse messages.
He is our employee--the USA--a billion dollar corporation
ABC canned Roseann, whose quality has been known for over 30 years. They canned her because she was no longer making $ for them.
Why do we not can Trump--he no longer makes $ for us. He makes us the laughing stock of civilized countries, a low bar, but still a bar.
Because we can't just up and can him, alas. We have to wait for the election and pray that we're able to defeat him at the polls, unless he's impeached and removed from office sooner.
1
My sympathies to the cast of the show who stand to suffer big time financially for one moron's racist rant.
Hope they find a good attorney to recoup their losses against her as third party beneficiaries of Ms. Barr's contract with ABC.
2
Years ago, before she was famous, I saw Roseanne Barr do a stand up routine at the Comedy Club in LA. It was an all women's night on the stage and she was by far the funniest one up there. I don't recall any racial slurs or even any inappropriate humor. On the old "Roseanne" show there were many truly funny scenes. It was the only portrayal of a working class family on TV and the writers nailed it, in my opinion.
What a huge fall from the height of good comedy. I will miss the old Roseanne, but the current Roseanne deserves to be silenced.
5
"Perhaps the reason Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature is that they so frequently conform to type."
Very well said despite the unnecessary "Perhaps" Mr. Stephens.
8
Perhaps the reason Barr and Trump are buddies is that they practice the same attention-getting modus operandi: never scruple to employ mendacity and gross exaggeration.
Some decisions are easy.
Being done with Roseanne feels good.
She can retire to Hawaii, wear a moo-moo or whatever those tank covers are called, tweet to her heart's desire.
1
I am a Trump voter. I have a graduate degree, I have many liberal and conservative friends, and I consider myself to be a social liberal and fiscal conservative.
The reason I am a Trump voter is the opposition candidate was totally unacceptable to me.
I get woefully tired of being characterized as some how ignorant and unsophisticated. I never cared much for Rosanne and don’t think any of my close friends or family do either. ABC made the correct decision. Now I await similar actions by the various networks against performers who say terrible things about conservatives. I am not holding my breath.
3
Sorry but if you voted for Trump you voted for the racism, the xenophobia, misogyny, the hatred and those horrible rallies not to mention the obvious assault on truth and decency. You've got to own this.
1
The author quotes a writer who says that Roseanne is "a notorious believer and propogator of conspiracy theories related to 9-11."
A simple online search of "9-11 Truth" shows a vast number of eminent scientists, architects, pilots, engineers, and military and political leaders - along with half the American population, who question or disbelieve the official government version of what happened on 9-11.
Dismissing them all (along with Roseanne or Joy Reid) as pathetic "whack jobs" is lazy and close-minded.
The PBS documentary "Explosive Evidence - Architects and Engineers Speak out About 9-11" at youtube is one of many lines of inquiry.
2
This is the best column I've read on the topic.
1
Barr, like Trump, is a bully. Using her prominence to gang up on the defenseless in the name of the tyrant. What has happened to human decency?
1
Mr. Stephens, you say:
"Perhaps the reason Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature is that they so frequently conform to type.
O.K., that’s much too sweeping a statement. I know Trump supporters who don’t conform to type, and many of them are writers or talking heads."
O.K., Mr. Stephens.
You can't un-ring a bell, and you can't unsay what you just said. You just said the equivalent of "I don't hate X, some of my best friends are X" right after trashing X.
Your comment is bigoted, and in making it you have so clearly conformed to type: an elitist East Coast entitled morally superior pseudo-intellectual.
You are probably still wondering why Trump won. Please look in the mirror.
---- 12:02 pm
3
Apparently Rosanne is a patron of all forms of conspiracy theories. I'm sure many on the political left spectrum float wild conspiracies but it's clear that the bulk of these conspiracy theories originate and thrive within right-wing circles. The latest conspiracy lie promoted and advertised by our president, Fox, and am radio; spygate. This is news, it's fake, but when the president and major news outlets propagate propaganda, guess what it's news and it's as delicious as pizzagate. Why!
1
The U.S. has got to stop making such a big a deal out of insignificant and boorish comments.
3
What I don't understand is the same group of people (middle-America) who are vigorously defending her wanted her GONE after she grabbed her crouch, spit and trashed the National Anthem.
2
Assuming she didn't just fabricate the Ambien thing, I hope she gets help for her substance abuse problem.
Donald Trumpski is the world's second biggest bully (after Putin). One doesn't apologize to bullies. Better to humiliate them.
2
If slurs are bad, please explain to me why the incessant slurs against seniors, especially white seniors, against working class whites and against white men published on NYT daily and repeated throughout media are NEVER challenged. And explain why Oprah Winfrey's statement on BBC that "old white people have to die" is considered acceptable, even though it is very possibly a call to violence against millions of people. Please explain the double standard.
3
Twitter is evil and stupid. It encourages emotional hits over reasoned discourse and allows those who can't think past next week more power than they should have. It needs to be over. All of you who "follow" people on Twitter should quit the platform.
1
In Mr. Stephens' world, the ONE unforgivable sin is supporting the current American President. He already hated Roseanne weeks before her stupid Tweet-while-on-Ambien.
1
While Roseanne Barr has the right to speak her mind and say what she wants, she does NOT have the right to a venue to blast her vile speech or an audience to listen to it. If she wants to stand on a milk crate on a street corner and spout her racist garbage, she has that right. What she can't do is force the rest of us to stop and listen to her.
One other thing. She wasn't funny 20 years ago and she still isn't funny.
good tagline
And to imagine that every trump supporter thought Hillary was a nasty piece of work........
Barr needed to look in a mirror before commenting on the 'lineage' and appearance of another woman.
Not one tweet but the totality of them is a fine point. The athletes who take a knee make a moving and noble display for a few minutes. They are silent and respectful with genuflecting one of the signs of honor for centuries.
The Roseanne tweet encapsulated some of the worst racism in a statement including a jungle animal comparison for black people that goes back centuries, adding in a Muslim insult, alien reference, bestiality slur, one against appearance, etc. Then she attacks the daughter of a previous president and of a presidential nominee as well as a Holocaust survivor who was only 14 at the time.
This is a morality play against the backdrop of a TV show. Instead of a reflection of legitimate political differences, it brought the flash of a spotlight to the glaring, living deep racism and bigotry of Trump supporters.
This won't change. This is who they are, caught in a whirl of ugly bigotry and hatred long past the election. No hit list against the press by Huckabee Sanders, no "It's all about me" whining from the man who has insulted POWs, Gold Star families, the disabled, women and hundreds of others with no apologies or shame, it's the totality of a totalitarian regime based on bigotry.
Strange people. It wouldn't matter except that Nazi style cruelty and harm to children and others is now happening daily.
The only way we can cancel the Donald Show is vote out all Republicans.
5
Ambient should come with a warning that says “If you can’t sleep because of the massive guilt you are barely aware of from actions you take that you know to be wrong but you really crave the attention they get you, Ambien may not be right for you.”
2
Presumably, had Roseanne made a Tweet protesting the shootings of unarmed black men in the back by police, our president, sworn to defend the US Constitution, would have held some rally to scream that she be fired and maybe should even leave the country. But, since her Tweet was a metaphorical shooting in the backs of an unarmed black woman and of Muslims, the only problem Trump saw was the unfairness of it all to himself. What a toad.
2
Roseanne Barr is Roseanne Barr! We expect
off the wall statements from her, or at least we should & we should know she's not going to be PC! Taking her or her show off the air is wrong. People who are offending by her, should not watch the show or follow her on twitter. It's our choice..... that choice should NOT be taken away. I can only assume that ABC & Disney have so much money & power they can afford to cancel a HIT show.
1
I give people the benefit of the doubt, but whenever I hear a Trump supporter (on TV) or in person state their case, out comes the racism, anti-immigration and pure stupidity. And when intelligent people support him it's always about money and power.
5
I enjoy reading Bret's reasoned and articulate "Dr. Jekyll" posts like this one, but I have learned that the nonsensical conservative "Mr. Hyde" will be back soon to infuriate me.
This reminds me of the "ape in heels" comment made about Michelle Obama by those two women in WV. They lost their jobs as Barr lost her job. There need to be consequences for what you say.
3
"Perhaps the reason Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature is that they so frequently conform to type.
O.K., that's much too sweeping a statement."
Well, yes and no. It's important to make a distinction between Trump VOTERS and Trump's current SUPPORTERS. It's my view that anyone who VOTED for Trump gets a pass. After all, Hillary was from the get go an unworthy candidate (I wrote in Bernie), and many Trump voters probably figured Benedict Donald would rise to the occasion once he soaked up the history and solemnity of the Oval Office.
But if you still SUPPORT our con man-in-chief, then there's no getting around this: you are a racist and a fool. There's no justifying Trump's response to Barr's horrible tweet. Trump's bigotry and hatred is now display for all to see. And if you still support him, so is yours.
2
Proposed Robert Iger apology to President Trump:
"Your point is well taken, Mr. President. I am ready to fire a considerable portion of my communications office the moment you declare that you,contrary to our reports, do not believe that neo-Nazis are fine people. Just tweet me when you've made the statement, and these people are gone. As for your consistent questioning of President Obama's birth, yes, we've alluded to that. Did we miss something? Did you at some point stop calling him a Kenyan in front of all white rallies?
"Well, I could go on, but you know the outrageous lies you haven't told and the risible statements you haven't made. Perhaps like 'Roseanne' you could use a time out .
"Listen, I have people I can send by your office who can write you some better stuff than the lies [oh jeez, I am sorry that I wrote that] you pump out like Metamucil every morning. Out here we have professional liars [again, no offense intended] who can write 500 episodes of 'NCIS' that are essentially the same story but keep somnolent rubes watching and, we hope, buying our sponsors' products.
"Donnie, Donnie, Donnie. Nobody could make you up. You are truly an American original, a P.T. Barnum creation blessed by Elmer Gantry. So what if you vilify your own Justice Department and FBI? Do they deserve apologies? Should you resign? We both know the answer to that one.
"Hang tight. Oh, and expect a very lucrative call from the producers of 'Arrested Development.'
"Ciao."
3
The New York Times writes, "Roseanne Barr’s tweet about Jarrett wasn’t the odd needle in the haystack. It was the last straw." Barr teetered on the edge of decency and normalcy for years. Now, finally, her perfectly appropriate name proclaims her deserving sentence: Barr is barred. And OUR great victory -- our great freedom -- is that we don't have to stomach the jerk anymore.
1
If ever there was a straw man argument, it is your example here. Football players taking a knee is hardly the kind of double standard President Trump was tweeting about. And to insist that he is the ultimate public figure doesn't change the accuracy of the President's charge. Many on the left who write here or broadcast have called him a Nazi, a racist, dangerous, and many more. Just this past week the Vice President was labeled, publically, mentally ill because he holds a strong religious faith. Your essay displays, loud and clear, the fake moral superiority the left and this paper, is famous for. And in reality....!
1
What I find most pathetic about this affair is Rosanne's "apology," saying it was a stupid joke in poor taste. Obviously she is sorry because she lost her job over this. But... what is the joke? I don't mean because it's its racist and not funny, but literally how is it a joke? Calling Jarrett ugly? Saying she's an undercover Muslim? (This must be some of that "conservative comedy" that I hear so little about.) In either case, that's the extent of the statement. That's not a joke. A joke has a setup and a punchline, and even in a bad joke you can understand how it was supposed to make you laugh. This has none of that; it's just a spasm.
Rosanne’s tweet wasn’t funny or cute to me. Still don’t understand why she picked VJ, I know who she is, many other people don’t. I think the general discourse has been so debased by MSM and politics in general, that it seems like every day you can say that “celebrity “ should never work again. “Nazi”, “”racist” “dictator “ are used so casually, they lose meaning.
Not just a slur - it was hate speech from a hateful person.
Hopefully Jimmy Kimmel is very careful with his mean tweets shtick - some seem uncomfortably close to the line.
Apology-denier Trump's claim to fame is his own hate speech, hate lies, hate tweets, and hate edicts that his administration carries out at his pleasure. Who else could turn Pocahontas into a slur - and take pleasure in it? Too bad Disney or Native Americans can't sue him. It's long past time to cancel his hateful show.
Is the surrendering to the verdict of an unpopular voter-mob that gave us trump any better than the "verdict of a social-media mob"?
Roseanne explains and humanizes trump's base and asks for our understanding??? Puh-leeze! All Roseanne makes clear about her ilk, whose mission is to dehumanize everyone else, is why the rest of us laughed at in them horror. What is there to understand - their dog whistles? Should we also be sympathetic, understanding and humanize the Hitler base? The supremacist base? The evangelical base seeking to impose their religion on us? No thanks!
4
Well said.
Bret:
I agree with ABS/Disney's decision.
However, you wrote: "Constitutional rights are what you’re entitled to in the public sphere, not as an employee of a private corporation."
Not sure about this logic, Bret, and think you are skating off on thin ice.
For example, isn't everyone who is employed an employee? However, even among employed Americans, do they not deserve 1st Amendment Rights?
As abhorrent as Ms. Barr's comments are, she is entitled the right of free speech, regardless of what she says. However, she bears the responsibility of her speech.
The text of the 1st Ammendment is: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."
There are no qualifications in this text.
The real taboo is your claim that in some situations, people shoulc be deprived 1st Ammendment rights.
Now that's something worth really fighting against.
Daryl
Daryl's Roadside Honor System Vegetable Stand and Dairy Produce
No. There are no constitutional rights against private corporations.
But corporations have constitutional rights. isn't it wonderful.
1
Sure, she is entitled to speak. But that doesn’t mean her employer can’t respond as it sees fit.
1
Are you thinking ABC is a part of Congress?
Or that there was a court case against Barr?
Or that she has been denied her ability to continue to speak?
This is not about the First Amendment. Roseanne Barr has not lost any right. But the freedom of speech does not include the freedom from consequences. If you work for a company, and then start talking about what a miserable employer they are - that is your right to say. And it is their right to choose not to continue to employ you.
1
The comparison to NFL football players isn't quite right. For one, kneeling during the national anthem did effectively end Colin Kaepernick's career. He was severely penalized for what the NFL considered employee misconduct. On the other hand though, the NFL is the one who required employees to be on the field during the national anthem. What if you're not a United States citizen? We play the Canadian anthem at hockey games. Perhaps the NFL's demand on employees was never appropriate in the first place. The resulting compromise where players are allowed to remain in the locker room comes across as a silencing tactic for a practice that never should have existed in the first place.
Roseanne Barr by contrast is not required to maintain a Twitter account. If she goes around making derogatory statements on a public forum, the boss has every right to get upset. Imagine a football player making racial slurs online. They would get fired too.
Like football players, television celebrities are public personas that reflect the entire institution. What you say in private is your own business but public statements reflect the organization. You stow your politics someplace where no one will ever see them. That's the agreement. Those are the rules. Rosanne apparently thought herself too self-important to follow the rules so the show got cancelled. End of story.
The NFL never required players to be on the field for the anthem. The Pittsburgh Steelers didn't take the field for the anthem last season in a failed effort to avoid this debate. The new rule is now codifying that point as the "accepted" means for protest.
The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the NFL League Rulebook. It states:
‘The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.'
Thank you for hitting on the whataboutism that defenders of dishonest and bigoted behavior so predictably trot out.
Another staple of right-wing bigotry (which I've never seen in Mr. Stephens' work) is to demand to know why "good Muslims if there are any don't speak up against the bad ones". Now that the shoe is on the other foot (with Barr, but, more importantly, with Trump), what's with the deafening silence? If Trump's supporters want respect, they should not be countenancing his every lie and libel.
2
ABC/Disney made the right decision here for their business--perhaps if ABC wasn't owned by Disney, which must maintain its "family friendly" image, it might have made a different decision (and there are definitely some networks out there that would probably still pick up the show--and they are free to do so--although it might be tough to find advertisers beyond those who already advertise on Fox News).
While ABC's right to cancel Roseanne's show is similar to the right of the NFL and its owners to discipline football players for kneeling or protesting during the national anthem, the situation is a little different (in some ways that matter, and others that maybe don't). The NFL players are protesting police violence generally, which is an inherently political statement; Barr personally attacked a former political figure with no political/policy message other than a conspiracy theory and racist propaganda. The NFL is a a protected monopoly (players can't just go and play for a competing league, unless you count Arena football or Canadian Football) that does not pay taxes (although the teams/their owners do, the league doesn't), and charges the military for participation at its games; ABC/Disney is a for-profit company that pays taxes and has competitors. In the NFL case, the President also got involved and turned the protests into a wedge issue for political gain, ultimately influencing the team owners' decision, rather than letting them make their own business decision.
YOU ARE BEING PLAYED
Don't comment on Trump; take to task the Republican enablers in Congress.
You can't separate Trump from his blind base; you can separate Republicans seeking re-election from supporting him against an impeachment vote.
1
"The show was supposed to help explain, and humanize, Trump’s base to a frequently unsympathetic and uncomprehending public." If that is true then they are who we thought they were; angry, resentful bigots who spend their days stewing in their resentment at the success of people who don't look like them. Ms. Jarrett, whatever her faults, has never visited harm upon Ms. Barr. If you ask an angry Trump supporter what harm has an immigrant ever visited upon you, they can't come up with one.
The rich and entitled Ms. Barr probably could never come up with anything which Ms. Jarrett did to hurt her or her family. She and her followers are just angry bigots resentful that some people who don't look like her are getting ahead. Hard to reason with people like that.
1
Of course Disney was right to fire her. As Stephens notes, employees of private corporations are free to say whatever they want, but they do not enjoy constitutional protection from employer punishment for that speech.
However, Stephens is being hypocritical when he draws a distinction between this and the NFL protests. In either case, the corporation set standards--which it is totally permitted to do--regarding public conduct. The company is in business and sets rules that it believes protects its business. Pure and simple. It doesn't matter if kneeling during the anthem is considered by some "dignified." (Many--including, it seems, the NBA, which has long banned protest during the anthem--would disagree with Stephens' characterization of kneeling, I'd add, which is the core of the debate.) It isn't any different than ABC and Barr, despite the fact her speech was in my opinion repugnant and NFL players' actions aren't. The issue is: What actions will businesses' tolerate from their employees in the public sphere?
1
Trumpism is “a political movement that is capable of saying and doing anything except look itself in the eye.” Very well said. And also an apt description of the GOP.
1
First, it's nice to see that at least one libertarian actually means it: much of the point of libertarianism is that government stays out of your rights in part to encourage real thought, personal responsibility, and good manners.
It's not that you have a right to scream whatever imbecelic nonsense you like, and then get government protection from some version of a punch in the snoot. Heinlein--often cited as a patron saint--was very clear about this.
But not being a libertarian, what I wonder is a) when did racist drivel become something brilliantly intellectual that I'm expected to take seriously as grounds for debate? b) when'd the Right lose track of the proposition that free speech and civil rights rest on responsibility?
And why am I expected to nod seriously and engage when a pack of suckers who can't come up with a single real insight or bit of thought that was a bad idea by 1864 start chanting the same things, in the same ways, and then crank up the same whining about how picked on they are?
If you want your ideas taken seriously, do the homework and act seriously.
2
Free speech does not mean that you are free to say anything you wish without consequences. And those consequences are not censorship. The consequences are the reactions of others to what's been said. It would be great if celebrities of both the left and the right would get it into their heads that although they may publically express any opinion they wish, they must accept the consequences of having done so. Therefore, when Vanessa Redgrave hoisted up a rifle in support of the Palestinian people she was not "censored," as she put it, when the Boston Symphony, in reaction, canceled her narration appearance. The symphony and its subscribers were expressing their own free speech. Similarly, the Dixie Chicks were free to express their embarrassment for coming from the same state as George Bush, but thousands of their (former) fans were also free to express their displeasure by not buying their records or tickets to their concerts.
You see, when Dan Savage attacks Rick Santorum that is fine. Let's applaud.
You don't get it. People are free to talk trash about anyone. Free in the sense that they won't be thrown in the gulag by the government. Rosanne was fired because her employers didn't want to be associated with someone whose speech runs counter to their values and is bad for their brand. Should ABC or any other company be outlawed from making personnel decisions?
Look at it another way - if your local representative said something really hateful or stupid and he/she was voted out of office in the next term, is the public suppressing his/her free speech? People have the right to say whatever they want, but everyone else is not obligated to listen and go along with it.
If Dan Savage talks trash about Rick Santorum (which I suspect would be actually couched inside some form of critique towards a public figure, and not just a random spasm of insult) then it's up to his publication or employer (if he has one) to make a similar judgement. More often than not people say and do really stupid stuff and get to keep their jobs because their employers are either unaware of or unbothered by it. You may recall that the good (?) people of Fox News who referred to Michelle and Barack Obama's fistbump as a "terrorist fist jab" are still on the air.
All one has to do is visit Barr’s Twitter feed today to see that she continues to express her (inane and unfounded conspiracy theory) thoughts freely. Her First Amendment rights are solidly intact — for better or worse.
I agree with Bret Stephens' POV, whatever the issue is, about 99% of the time, including his views about our current President. But this time, his conflating Barr's outrageously racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett with the views of most Donald Trump supporters, and his calling on Trump supporters to distinguish their views from Barr's overt racism to address their caricaturing by critics, is unfair, unjustified and misguided.
It is one thing to apologize and another thing to be sorry. If someone says "I apologize," it can sound like they're saying it out of obligation or perhaps a wish to not be punished or thought less of. If someone say "I'm sorry," and mean it, it will be better believed. Of course, with her it's a hot combo of bad judgment, bad humor, meanness, and innate racism. Is she sorry she said it or sorry she got caught?
2
Brett, that was too sweeping a statement, and no qualifier is necessary. You've been at the NYT long enough now that to Kool-Aid is coursing through you.
Trump is a challenge to all - even his many supporters - and you simply can't reduce 63 million voters to a caricature. I did not vote for the man but I respect the decision of those that did. The NYT should to.
1
The verbal assault on Muslims, black people and Hispanics stems from and was given viability by Trump early on in his campaign and even before in his questioning of Obama's birthplace. Recall the eloquent speech at the Democratic convention by Khizr Khan, the father of a US gold star soldier who died in combat in Iraq. Right afterward, Trump questioned why Khan's wife remained silent, appealing to a familiar stereotype about the role of women in Islam. There is no level to which he will not descend in his divisive rhetoric. Roseanne is gone from television, but Trump remains on it every day.
2
Never much liked the Roseanne show ever, can count all the episodes I've seen on less than one hand, don't appreciate the idea of nasty insults and put downs as entertainment, acid wit and funny or not, ethically it just rubs me the wrong way, pushing the line of ok or not around like that, so who is suprised here and why and when are we all going to stop baiting and insulting one another to demand we all be treated with dignity and respect both morally and monetarily? You stop shipping jobs overseas for fat stock bonus money and I'll start using proper nouns verbs and punctuation, you leadership losers, and for you ABC, all I can say is FINALLY and ITSABOUTTIME, and NFL your next.
1
Finally some institution has developed a moral backbone. Now, if only Congress could. Roseanne deserved everything she got and her lame excuse about Ambien was ludicrous. It reminded me of the Ritalin excuse for kids shooting up schools.
1
Roseanne should start wearing an authentic "Planet of the Apes"-style Ape costume to all her public appearances for the rest of the year. It would show her penitence (like a medieval hairshirt), demonstrate that she's willing to take as good as she gives, and still be in character comedically.
Of course I doubt any of the cultural critics would ever let her off the hook, no matter how much good will or self-effacement she showed. For most people, her Planet of the Apes comment was just a convenient excuse to go after her. They were looking for a reason to destroy her ever since she announced her political allegiances, and she just couldn't resist giving them a trigger to pull.
1
Roseanne needs intensive mental health therapy...and a long long retirement.
1
I won't miss her for a New York second. Never liked her. I thought she was a boorish, classless, seeker of publicity who butchered the national anthem considerably better than any NFL player taking a knee to protest brutality against black Americans.
Some commenter here called her "a national treasure." Jimmy Carter is a national treasure. So is Robert Redford. So is anyone who advocates for a better world through reason, calm, respect, truth telling, and disregard for personal aggrandizement.
Roseanne Barr is no a treasure. She is is a disgrace.
As Mr. Stevens reminds us, she can say what she wants any place and at anytime but not on the company's nickel and Barr/Conners are one in the same in that respect.
1
What Roseanne Barr managed to do in one tweet is firmly reinforce the stereotypical view of Trump supporters by the anti Trumpers on the left and right as ignorant racist crude crazy conspiracy theorist. In other words mirrors of Trump himself. I am waiting for the professional hate mongers like Coulter and Hannity to weigh in and tell us how Roseanne's first amendment right to spew hate has been violated. Perhaps Coulter will hesitate if she learned anything when she mocked David Hogg for being rejected by some colleges.
I agree wholeheartedly with the firing of Roseanne. However, Bret's point about the NFL is a little muddy. The owners of the NFL teams, just like the owners of the ABC franchise, have a right to fine or fire players who don't follow their rules. It does not matter if the protest is dignified and right, or not. Once the players leave work, and act as regular citizens, they should be able to protest their cause without punishment, as long as they don't violate another's rights, or act in a way that embarrasses the owners.
3
Thank you Mr. Stephens , well done. Unless one is a hermit, we are all public representatives of our partnerships, so to speak: our families, our employers, our non-profits (churches, membership organizations, etc) as well as ourselves. It is sad that many people seem to want to dismiss that fact in their exercise of their freedom of speech, but that's unrealistic. I wince at employers deciding to get into the private lives of their employees, which includes for examples whether a football player or military person has had an incident of domestic violence or other mistakes that seem more in the realm of the criminal justice system than the business of the employer, but on the other hand we all benefit from people having to live up to standards beyond their own, and an ounce of prevention is worth many lbs of cure for ugly things with long lives afterwards (like sexual assault, or environmental pollution, etc). My spouse like to say "take what you want, and pay for it" and Ms. Barr and ABC are paying for it now, as are MeToo people of all political spectrums. What deserves greater focus on the "pay for it side" is the pollution, e.g. carbon emissions, with a 100 year lifespan...the next generation, whose nest we are fouling, isn't here to extract payment for the damages we are creating, and that situation needs to be rectified sooner than later with urgency.
VJ can laugh off Barr; her grandchildren can't laugh off our pollution withour solutions.
2
As much as I detest what she wrote, firing her is probably the wrong thing to do. If there is any hope of bringing people together, is to allow Roseanne to fully correct this. Give her and the people who follow her a path to thinking differently. By firing her, it simply cuts off association and contributes to the polarization of America. There is little redemption, just punishment.
If Roseanne's apology was sincere, have her host a discussion on race including the history of race relations. Incorporate more race related concepts into her scripts. Have the shows address the problem. Make it better. While initially satisfying, firing her reminds me of Gandhi's: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth makes the whole world blind and toothless."
5
She is very free to host a discussion on her own.
However she instead chose to erase her twitter apology and her plead to her fans to not defend her rant. She has since gone on to demean and slander her co-workers and staff instead.
No, ABC did the right thing with a clean and clear concise dismissal of bigotry and racist humor. A simple slap upon the wrist will be like deregulating the banks, again, and expecting the Banksters to do the right thing. History says otherwise will happen.
3
She had that opportunity, and I believe she blamed it on her taking Ambien. (The makers of Ambien had a great response to it - something along the lines of, "many pharmaceuticals have side effects. Racism is not one of them.") I loved her back in the day, but Barr's remark about Jarrett was disgusting and unwarranted.
2
Oh. Keep paying her $250K an episode, give her an added public forum, and weave more propaganda into the show.
Because otherwise, racists and the very worst Trumpists might have their feelings hurted.
By the way, MY feelings are a bit hurted to see somebody try to compare a wealthy woman's losing her job to British colonialism, the Amritsar Massacre, Gandhi's hunger strike, and his assassination.
2
I applaud the decision by Channing Dungey and supported by Disney executives to cancel the show. It was the right decision, and to Mr. Stephens' point, it was made on the right grounds - based on what's right, and not caving under public pressure. It shows that even in this day, there are people who are willing to make the right decision, even if it comes with a cost. But the truth of the matter is, if ABC had tolerated this remark, the damage would be much more severe because they would have lost something far more important - their souls.
4
CNN has also been full of racist comments lately, preaching that hatre of white people not only is permissible but promoted. The comments about President Trump are so bad they smear every president.
Yet, you are urged to smile and ignore as they ready their next attack on Joy Ann Reid. Where does this begin to make sense? Do any of the late-night Trump-haters still have their souls?
1
I would add to this article that the NFL players who take a knee are drawing attention to a problem, that of police abuse; whereas Roseanne's actions demonstrate the problem itself, public racism in America.
15
THANK you. A racial slur vs. standing against brutal racism. Hard for me to see how the author equated the two.
This is a great column: thoughtful, intelligent, well-written.
3
Roseanne's latest defense was to blame it on Ambien. As the manufacturer tartly noted: "Racism is not one of the known side effects."
Some people destroy themselves now with that cellphone in their hand. At least Roseanne isn't going to jail, like Anthony Weiner.
Is Trump smart enough to think about it? Bet not.
4
The rot that began in the head of the fish, Trump in this case, being the head of the new republican party fish, is now just a rotting echo chamber between the Alex Jones/Roseanne Barr/Limbaugh/Hannity/Giuliani majority and Trump. Each catering in their nastiness to curry favor with the other.
8
Forgive me but I was unaware of Roseanne's tweets, & even her support of Trump, until the show came on.
I even thought I'd watch the show until I heard she was a Trump supporter. Was I wrong to settle for my tribal feelings here?
Even after the 1st shows, I heard that the show would be a window into the Trump-constituency's mindset. Not for me, I thought, still blissfully unaware of her prejudices.
Only when she sent her fateful tweet (& why wasn't the combined antisemitic slur against Soros & Chelsea Clinton fateful?) did I become aware of the filth embodied by America's sweetheart.
So, again, I like my tribalism. It protected me from this lowlife--& from interaction with her fans, most of whom, I'm sure, were in fact well aware of her tainted soul, and approving of it.
Just as they are of their Daddy, Trump.
6
I always enjoy it when my protagonist cedes most of his argument telling me why my false equivalencies are wrong.
"...to be truthful means to employ the usual metaphors" Nietzsche
1
Some here have said this subject has been made too much of but I disagree for many reason. As petty as the President is, I was shocked and very dismayed that he decided to make this issue about him. Why wasn't he apologized to? Until he starts to lead and be an adult we will continue to take sides and accomplish nothing.
2
I don't get her apology. She said it, stand up for it. Own it. No one really believes she is "sorry" she said it. She may be sorry her show got cancelled, but good riddance for that.
4
This is spot on. Slurs are not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. They did not believe in anarchy, and if the First Amendment really protected slurs then the public discourse would quickly devolve into a shouting match (in fact, one can argue it already did thanks to our Twitter-in-chief). But, based on what I saw at my kid's Boys and Girls Club, some Trump supporters are incapable to understand this simple truth, and saw themselves as being victimized - again! - by the PC police. Well, don't count on me to cry too much over your lost of privileges (that shouldn't have been yours in the first place).
Ah, and even with my low esteem of the current resident of the White House, I also think that puerile slurs (not jokes) about him should also be banned from the airwaves. Colbert making fun of the president is classy, Maher comparing him to an ape is just a slur and has no place even on paid cable channels.
1
Bret the point, that you seem to intentionally ignore, is that Barr's statement is substantively bad because it promotes hate. Taking a knee to say racism is wrong is substantively good because it speaks against hate. Bret continues to use false equivalencies by dragging free speech into the situation, when such analysis is not relevant. There is right and wrong, it is not always just opinion.
2
Mr. Stephens has it right. No one is stopping Ms. Barr from tweeting. Her right to free speech remains unfettered. ABC/Disney has done the country a tremendous service and taken an economic hit to do it by affirming that this country, despite its criminal, adulterous, money grubbing president and his supporters, still has ethical and moral standards.
3
If Roseanne Barr is a "National Treasure" as William Sparks claims our country is morally bankrupt.
3
For me, the Sanofi tweet said it all...
"People of all races, religions and nationalities work at Sanofi every day to improve the lives of people around the world. While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication.
9:57 AM · May 30, 2018"
We need a comparable tweet to serve as the end of the tweets of Donald Trump. He needs to have his children and his wife cut off his twitter account which is spewing and promoting hatred across the world!
6
I disagree that we should merely "lean toward" free speech toleration: we must insist on it. The issue is not good and bad ideas but the dangerous presumption to pick and choose ideas. Censorship begins at the limits of sedition.
I disagree with the NFL protests only because they bring politics (or religion) to work where it will abrade against the composure of coworkers. That has to be the red line for any decent employer, otherwise we are lost to faction. The "moral merit" of politics at work has utterly nothing to do with it.
Barr spoke as a celebrity and was punished through her celebrity employment, a more difficult case. Corporations are not persons (despite the legal fiction otherwise), so they cannot have a conscience or moral principles.
The core issue here, as in #MeToo shaming out of careers, is how society handles dysfunctional opinion and behavior. What we see is not a media company drawing a line but society groping for useful methods to fight hate and predation.
Personally I would have preferred an abject public apology, and a contrite face to face "teaching moment" meeting with Ms. Jarrett, as conditions of continued employment. Beheading is far less effective than recanting to change the minds of others.
And in this case the beheading fell on the whole cast, not the perpetrator. At minimum fire Barr, and hire someone suited to fill the role, and keep the show rolling. We burned the witch, and all of Salem with her.
1
An "unprovoked racial attack"... you mean it would be ok if RB had been provoked? What if she were to say that the very existence of some people provokes her?
Write tighter, Bret!
Thank you, ABC. You did the right thing.
2
"Perhaps the reason Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature is that they so frequently conform to type."
Ok, Bret. I don't agree with your politics (usually) but you are now officially a good writer in my book.
2
Though I am glad Roseanne was fired, I don't think it was right to do so.
First of all, Jarrett is a public political figure, and as such is fair game. This is the same reason why Kathy Griffin should not have been fired for her picture holding a fake
head that resembled Trump.
More importantly, if we as a society create a distinction between what we consider a "slur" versus what is a valid protest (Barr v Kaepernick or Kaepernick v Barr, depending on one's viewpoint) we are prone to censor the most challenging and uncomfortable of ideas. The words we don't want to hear are often the most important for us to hear.
Even if we choose to exclude racist ideas from the marketplace of ideas, firing Barr is still problematic because many people define 'racism' only in the way that enforces their personal political beliefs. Further, while a racial "slur" against an individual certainly can be indicative of racial bigotry and prejudice, it falls short of racism.
3
Yes, public figures are subject to much puerile comments.
But...but her employer has the right to terminate employees that slander in such a manner. America. Profit Uber Alles.
Barr is still free to be the awful human being she gladly promotes to the world. Her free speech rights are still intact and she is currently is exercising said hate speech to this moment.
1
Whenever something like this happens you always hear the cries about free speech. When NFL players are not allowed to take a knee, you hear about their free speech being curbed. No one is stopping free speech. Also, no one is stopping consequences of your free speech. I think it is ridiculous for the national anthem to be played at sporting events, but none of us get to protest or promote social movements in our workplace - without consequence. In most businesses probably half of their customers are on the other side of any given issue. A company cannot alienate half of its client base.
1
So half of the client base is FOR police brutality and the killings of blacks?!
Now that I type that out...yes, I believe your right.
Should a company in America support customers who espouse such nonsense?!
1
Too much intellectual and moral squishing and squirming regarding the NFL players and in the penultimate paragraph for my taste. Otherwise, I enjoy Mr. Stephens work.
I repeat what Stephens says. Rosanne Barr is free to make whatever racial comments she wants. She is free to make even worse ones. ABC is free to fire her. It's a free country, as the kids on my block used to say. It's a free country.
5
This minor gefufful is getting a whole lot more attention that it deserves.
It's done, Roseanne is toast, let's get back to something meaningful.
Who do you like in the Stanley Cup series?
1
I agree with you completely. With some rational conversations, and few more months or years of outlandish misbehavior by Barr, Fox "News", Donald Trump, and the conservative Republican cowards in Congress who defend him, we might make a liberal out of you yet. There's always hope.
3
I am hanging on for dear life to the notion that ABC, in cancelling the show, has exhibited an ethical morality absent in the discourse emanating from the White House and from the pusillanimous Republicans in power who worship at the altar of Trump's racist ideology.
In Trump World, maybe our only hope is for corporations like ABC and Starbucks to take productive action and to declare publically that racist rants are unacceptable and inflame the fires of hatred and bigotry.
Barr is free to twitter her life away with her prejudice and insane conspiracy theories until her fingers go numb, but we do not have to read those vile tweets. She has every right to vent her spleen in her private twitter account and we have the right to ignore it. ABC also has the right to take a stand and proclaim that they do not endorse a star of a show that made much money for them, who promotes ideas that are ugly, vile and reflect the darkest sides of our nature.
Valerie Jarret declares that this should be a learning experience and I have learned that there is hope left for all of us who disdain and are repulsed by vitriolic language that uses ugly stereotypes to continue the debasement of black people, an extension of the Jim Crow Era through twitter and social media.
We have so far to go to achieve racial equality in this country, but ABC has taken a small step towards a better and more just humanity, so lacking in the current administration.
4
I agree that what Roseanne Barr tweeted was a disrespectful slur, as is name calling, something Donald Trump has done many times through the years. But Roseanne had something at stake. It seems Trump did too but his behavior was and continues to be excused or overlooked. Why do we take a blind eye to someone who should, as leader of this country, do what's morally right then?
Maybe it's true about this being the "last straw," but when you set a precedent at the highest level it follows suit, like a domino effect. Also, perhaps Roseanne thought, as a professed Trump supporter, she would be immune from such consequences. Apparently that was a gross misjudgment on her behalf. On the bright side, finally something prevails over the mighty dollar.
5
So, they are deplorable after all. It's good to hear it from the other side.
7
Meanwhile, back at Mara Lago, we have no health insurance, Medicare faces cuts from the entitled legislators and immigrant children by the thousands are separated from their mothers. But look at this over here!
5
You just coined a term, Mr. Stephens - "whataboutism" ... and it is Trump's default setting. "Yeah, I did this/said this, but what about what HE did to ME/what THEY did to US?" It's a classic way for people to steer the conversation away from their own behavior, and if you're on the receiving end of it, it's maddening. It makes relationships go sour and poisons the public sphere. Be on the lookout for "whataboutism" and counter it with, "But what about YOU?"
2
I agree with everything Mr. Stephens says here, except for his view that the take-a-knee stance by football players was 'dignified, considered and silent'. It may have been 'considered' in creating a loud uproar which left off any vestige of 'silent', but dignified? Isn't it sad what passes for dignity today?
1
I stopped early on at the statement that constitutional rights offer only a defense against government. This is too obvious to mention. What does need to be said is that the principles enshrined in constitutional guarantees are also the principles of civil society in general. In a moral and ethical sense, these principles are as binding on ABC as in their legal meaning they are binding on government.
I have been a fan of Mr. Stephen's writings RE: Israel. For example, he praised Trump keeping his word to move our embassy to Israel's capital, Jerusalem.
However, he of all people should know that the show's cancellation was not about racism but the fact that Chairman Iger's has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and has been the last placed ratings network. The great financial success of Roseanne helped Iger to do his job, but it proved to anger a number of people on the left.
I have never watched the show, episode "Go Cubs" IMDB rating 7.3 review mentioned that "Dan (John Goodman) lost his job to undocumented immigrants...." which would anger those on the left.
Shonda Rhimes, creator of Grey's Anatomy and other hits for ABC left to Netflix over the show.
Roseanne should be required to donate several million dollars to a charity and perform 1000 hours community service or some such and the show should be restored.
Chairman Iger, laid off several hundred American STEM workers forcing them to train their H1-B Visa Indian immigrants. He is anti-American, wanting to triple the H1-B Visa cap to displace even more Americans from their jobs. Both Trump and Sanders spoke out against this H1-B Visa abuse.
Mr. Stephens should read Computerworld and interview Americans who lost their jobs to foreigners thanks to Iger and then he should write a column. Perhaps it is time to ditch CEOs that use H1-B Visas to replace American workers with foreigners.
4
Bret Stephen's piece is the perfect response to the current "anything goes" social media attitude. Cyberspace has become a very comfortable place for cowards to say what they would never voice face to face to their victims. It also appears to be a place which exposes the mental instability of some users.
And though it may have been "the last straw" for Dungey and Iger concerning Barr, I'd like to think that it is also the last straw for our tolerance for Trumpism. That the majority of the country is tired of the sheer nastiness, the manipulations, the false indignations, the self-indulgence, and the self-centeredness of the Trump-like subculture. I'd like to think that this is the last straw for all of it, and that more and more courageous Americans will start saying No.
22
I think the country needs a time-out from Twitter. Surely there's more important things for the POTUS to attend to than "who owes him what." Roseanne got what she deserved. Time to move on.
6
Roseanne went from #1 to all but done. The saddest part is she brought down a ton of good people with her.
5
Once again, those on the right decry the "tyranny" of "political correctness." I fail to understand this "conservative" vision where our society is made better or "more free" by encouraging people to voice vile and poisonous words of cruel, vile racism.
9
Thank you Mr Stephens, I think you nailed it.
2
ABC hires a known boor to do, basically, what she does. Then, when she does something according to that profile, they are, "Shocked, Shocked!" when she does it.
Normally, any kind of publicity is good for a show. I guess ABC missed that lesson in school. One wonders which network will pick up the show after ABC. 18 million viewers is a tantalizing number for most networks.
3
Brett, well said - on all points. Slurs like the one made by Roseanne are a foul reminder that much still needs to be done on the social front. However, the root cause for a lot of these kinds of events happening all too frequently nowadays is that we have a President who is empowering the bigots. Charlottesville was a stark reminder as was a KKK rally in California before that. With at least one mainstream media outlet (Fox News) that is implicitly aiding this hideous movement, the rest of us have our work cut out to mitigate this problem. We can start by going to the polls in vast numbers in November and voting out the GOP. Sending a message to Trump that divisiveness will not be tolerated is a strong signal that he should amp down his diatribe. We can follow up that course of action with an even better goal for 2020. Vote the Divider-in-Chief out of office.
4
I care as much about Roseanne's tweets as I do about her apologies. In other words, not at all. Please stop wasting ink on this racist has-been and start reporting on more important issues such as the environmental destruction being wrought by the EPA; the rampant corruption and self-dealing of Trump, his family and his cabinet; Zinke's degradation of our public lands; the Federalist Society's takeover of our judiciary; low morale in the FBI and Justice Department caused by Trump's repeated assaults on those two agencies; continuing cost-benefit analyses of tariffs and trade wars with Europe, China and our NAFTA trading partners.
6
People who have read my commentary in these spaces know that I don't have much patience for microaggressions and "trigger warnings"; I'm not a free speech absolutist but worry that censorship of expression is generally a worse evil than allowing offensive, racist and bigoted expression to be broadcast (mainly because I worry about who the censorship will next be turned upon). And I am particularly disquieted by the peculiarly American practice of elevating commercial rights--specifically, the right of corporations and employers to severely limit the expression of employees--above the expression rights of said employees.
That said, for those who argue Roseanne should not have been canned by her employer because she has freedom of expression, I have to respond that if the NFL has the right to regulate the "protest speech" of its players taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem (by saying it will fine or otherwise discipline them), ABC has the right to toss Roseanne off the air. One has to have it either both ways or neither way; we cannot legislate that speech offensive to one segment of society has a higher or lower value than speech offensive to another.
Now, it may be that we need to examine and debate whether workers need more protection of their expression rights, as many employees in Europe have. But if that happens, it needs to happen across the board--again, one's political leanings can't enter into that debate.
2
Americans who lose their jobs because they publicly express unpopular opinions--political or otherwise--seem to me to be targets of illegal repression of free speech. But unpopular opinions are not the same as obscene slurs, race-based, religion-based, gender-based, or otherwise.
This essay exemplifies the kind of language and concept analysis that needs to be front and center in all of our discourse, public and otherwise. The blurring of language and, to that end, the meaning of concepts, is eroding our population's ability to think clearly, and it's approaching crisis level.
7
What was that line about the Constitution not being a suicide pact?
Free speech, like all rights that are enshrined in law, depends on context. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater... unless you smell smoke and see flames. In the case of the final offending tweet from Barr, A) it was just the latest in a series of offensive tweets, B) it comes at a time when hate speech is on the rise, and C) the intent behind it was not benign.
It's always troubling when a business comes down on an employee for exercising their rights. How much freedom can be given up in exchange for employment, and on what grounds? Whether it's ABC or the NFL, it's a question that needs to be answered.
One context places this in the constant battle to equitably balance competing interests against the larger framework of the rule of law. Another context is much simpler: Us versus Them.
Charles Blow talks about the Moral High Ground today in his column. Identifying where that ground lies and who is standing on it is one way of sorting this out.
2
As some people recognize, this is not a Constitutional free speech issue. Barr is not being sanctioned by the government. ABC has every right to do whatever they want in response to her comment. However, the notion that there is a distinction between an idea and a slur is questionable. Barr claims that Jarrett sympathizes with the Islamic Brotherhood. Who knows- that may be true or maybe not. Is Stephens suggesting that the numerous falsehoods and myths propagated by this newspaper are all worthy ideas? Most are thinly disguised insults aimed at a President that the paper intensely dislikes.
1
Sober thoughts on a far too common twisting of what free expression is supposed to do, enhance communications, and understanding, of what makes us humans, however brittle and tentative our steps from thought to proper action. I know that 'proper' may be in the eye of the beholder, but there are basic norms of decency, and the need for tolerance towards things we may disagree with, and our imperative to recognize we are social animals that depend on each other, not only for our survival but for our well-being. That is why I don't understand why we are so complicit in accepting Twitter to help spread dis-information, lies and insults patently aimed to confuse us and detract from what we ought to hold dear, the truth based on empiric evidence and the need to trust each other. Otherwise, we shall jump from hypocrisy to cowardice, from chaos to cruel divisions, from relevance to shameful complicity of the uninhibited abuse of power, and the thrashing of our dignity, by a runaway narcissist currently in the Oval Office. Roseanne is but one bad apple in the heap of condoned institutional discrimination (so-called 'racism'). Who are we, exactly? Just the 'walking dead' unable/unwilling to think for ourselves, and always demanding conspiracy theories for our addiction to be entertained?
2
The show is eponymous (named after) Roseanne, no the other way around.
2
Roseanne Barr was just tweeting what Trump has been advocating for a while. It began apparent with his comment of equating Nazi's and anti-Nazi protesters in VA early in his Presidency, and subsequently many more episodic dog whistles tweets from him.
A lot more is to come as trump and his cabal gets the support from the Republican leadership and some Democrats in the US Congress. We do understand that these values and ideas did exist during the last administration too but it was in the Fringes, Trump has brought them in the main discourse, Heaven help us all.
3
Roseanne is a boor not a provocateur, and that was what really got her fired. That was her unforgivable sin, being a boor.
She could have gotten away with being a witty provocateur even when commenting on such a taboo subjects as race, but her diatribes came out as drunken rants like some old white guy yelling at black children to get their black butts off his lawn.
Especially in the time of Trump I find it it interesting that it is more often the private sector and not the public sector that is leading the fight against boorish behavior. More and more companies will not put up with boorish speech and behavior from its employees. They simply do not want their brand associated with such acts. I wonder if this registers at all with the GOP, or will it just be Jeff Flake who calls out the boorishness.
To all letter writers and the NYT'S.
Please stop using the term HEARTLAND as if we are all Trump voters.
We are not!
Sincerley , voters from Mnpls. Chicago Milwaukee St Louis Columbus etc etc.
Rural voters? Fine.
Oy!
4
I was just discussing this with a friend last night. I like the French legal system. In France, if you say something racist you are fined and end up in court. Of course, if that were case here, they would have to set up a cot in the back of the courthouse just for Trump. He could never leave. I remember reading Brigitte Bardot being fined repeatedly for making anti-Muslim comments. To that end, if I had one wish I'd force every person making comments online to use his/her real name. If people knew they could be held accountable, sued, lose their jobs, their family and neighbors see how they think, etc. they would think twice before making racist remarks. What are bullies after all? Cowards.
2
This isn’t “Free Speech” -its Hate Speech- this woman should be tried by a jury for using her “fame” platform to spread divisive, treasonous, poison onto American soil-like her president-these people are tearing our country apart, like fascists everywhere and for time immemorial-when will we learn to take away their public microphones and silence their inhumanity?
3
Let this be the last article about Roseanne Barr, she is an uncouth, vulgar person America does not need.
Let us allow her to go away and in another three years trump could join her.
1
At another time I might be attracted to the argument that a private company should be discouraged from punishing an employee for expressing his or her opinions; but these are not normal times. When I hear Roseanne or the Donald "joking," I flash back to Nazi guards "joking" about the suffering of the Jews they were torturing and murdering. If the phrase "Never Again" means anything, it must mean saying "no!" to Roseanne Barr's jokey jackbooted racist smears and to the Donald's.
2
MLK in 1963 on the Washington Mall: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Sorry Trump no apologies!!!! Rosanne judges by the color of her skin, ABC judges by the content of his character.
3
This is a confusing mess of an article. Simply put Barr is an offensive, aggressive and nasty public figure.
The woman even spit during her rendition of the national anthem. That would be the comparison to use when discussing NFL players' protests at sporting events.
Roseanne is a grotesque public figure, not for her countenance, but because of her speech acts. Her stock and trade is a nasty persona. That's what got her fired, dipping once to often into the dark pool of insult.
The niceties of that mode of comedy demand a Don Rickles, or at least a Gilbert Gottfried touch, and even they got burned from time to time for crossing the line.
Roseanne has no awareness of a line and she left herself out to dry once too often. Let her twist in the breeze.
1
Let's start a new game show and call it "Tweets and Consequences".
9
Language is important, but language has been compromised in recent years in the U.S. by a sense that we can simply "wing it." This became quite obvious with GWB who spoke with little precision and was, at best inarticulate and at worst, stupid. Sarah Palin often descended into "train-of-thought-nonsense" which was almost incomprehensible (but people loved her). In other words, the bar has been set pretty low these days.
The fact that Rosanne Barr, a woman of mediocre talent as an actress has made such a splash nationwide is mind-boggling.
Why would Americans spend any time either watching her show or, indeed, care what she thinks?
And since language is important, here are some adjectives I believe apply to her:
shallow, inane, hollow, crass, banal, stale, puerile, ungracious, lowbrow, and she's not funny or clever or noteworthy.
I guess she now passes for the new poster child of the conservative intelligentsia.
1
I regret or rejoice that I rarely watched the original Roseanne except for, perhaps, a couple of episodes to see what all the hype was about. I found the sitcom, if one could actually call it that, outside my scope of interest or amusement and bypassed it, as I had All in the Family and Carroll O'Connor's Archie Bunker mentality.
While I agree wholeheartedly with freedom of speech, it gives no one license to insult anyone, regardless of color, creed, or ethnicity. And I agree entirely with the author of this article Roseanne Barr again went a step too far. ABC did the right thing cancelling her sitcom, however, in light of her history of insulting comment and disgraceful conduct such as her manner rendering the national anthem all those years ago and, then, spitting and scratching her crotch, perhaps, it requires a drastic step by her employer to reach through the density of an ignoramus like Roseanne Barr.
I had no intention of tuning in to the resurrected trash and can only wish I could shut off the dial on Trump and his trash as well.
2
Wow, a strong statement about "taboos and essential decencies." How about explaining how it is not just all right, but extremely sophisticated, for a museum in NY to accept from a person of one religion an item that uses elephant dung to portray a central focus of another person's religion. Exactly where is the line for taboos and essential decencies? It is apparently different in my neighborhood than in NYC.
Vile Tweets are the bread and circuses of life in this Trump hinge of history. Roseanne Barr is only the latest putrid carbuncle in America's foul social media world. Entropy will put paid sooner or later to our demented president and his sycophants like Rosanne Barr. But can we wait? That is the question.
2
And so, Bret Stephens, you've never made an inappropriate comment? I doubt that you haven't. We all make mistakes. And some people, like comedians, make their living by making comments like those of Roseanne. Watch the White House press dinners, where people like you trash Mr. Trump, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and others. You are making a big something out of nothing!
1
Bret Stephens jumps the shark. Tally ho Bret, nice reading you while it lasted! Lol!
1
Mr. Stephens misses the point. It's not that ABC has a right to make "HORRIBLE statements" about Trump because he's the "ultimate public figure." ABC reports the news, and also provides opinion on the policies, ethics and morals of political figures, whether the president or an aide. What Ms. Jarrett was subjected to was hate speech.
3
Roseanne Barr resurrected her show to show that Trump supporters are not all bigoted racists. Now she has put on another show about how she is a bigoted racist. It's not the Ambien, Roseanne. It's in you.
2
Mr. Stephens is right that this is not a First Amendment issue, but a personal responsibility issue. If you want to keep saying stupid, conspiracy-theory-laden, racist garbage, most people won't want much to do with you, let alone pay you millions of dollars.
And in addition to the moral issues there is also this simple business proposition: ABC probably also saw her as a risk to its brand, given that it has many African American and other non-white viewers.
These basic points seem to be lost on the Trump crowd: Say whatever you want, but you're fully responsible for what you say. Sorry anti-PC crowd, but this is not an attack by the liberal police or the coastal elite. Roseanne is an offensive boor and most people find her racist views abhorrent, and her business partners don't want to pay her millions to spew hatred that reflects badly on them.
5
Mr Stephens’ arguments are spot-on. Barr’s dismissal, however, is being politicized by the president and his base. Racial (religious, ethnic, sexual orientation) insensitivity has received validation—from the shock troops of right-wing advocates to the highest office of the land.
Is it not a conservative value that we should take responsibility for our actions? Professional football players are to be financially punished because they choose to call attention to injustice by kneeling during the anthem, but dismissing an employee who makes insulting comments that contradicts a company’s position on social issues somehow is denying that person’s right to speak out?
The Barr uproar demonstrates the deep fissures that exist in this country. Stephens is correct in differentiating what a TV actor did and what a football player did. Trump’s support of Barr undercuts decency and reinvigorates those with tiki torches and veiled racial slurs.
For a group that wraps themselves in the flag, it is ironic that their latest "poster child" was one who outraged the very same people when she sang the national anthem, grabbed her crotch, and spit.
But then, it was all a joke.
2
Trump said it - 'Roseanne' is "about US!" Yeah, we know.
1
Toward the end of the column, you note that Trump supporters often conform to type. Yes, they do. And, for all of the bleating about the "working class" and its economic woes, studies confirm that Trump supporters are motivated by race and status concerns, and, even if not racists themselves, they are willing to be complicit with racism.
4
I can actually remember when "civility" was a conservative point-of-view. How mindless public speech, such as this, becomes some sort of political statement is beyond one's comprehension. Keep it to yourself, or share with your bigoted friends, but do not share it with me. Ask Roseanne's fellow cast members how they must feel. Ask Valerie Jarrett.
2
It's time we all bend the knee regarding racial inequality.
2
You and I are on the exact same page with a small yet important difference. You glaze over a distinction between NFL and ABC examples you use with. "... it is true the players do not have the legal right.....", and then go on to say they have the moral one.
As I said above we do agree even with the fact that I too do not like their choice of method or venue, but to make a distinction between their moral right to do so is to ignore Roseannes' moral right to express her moral view and it's repugnancy. Each of Roseanne and the kneeling players will now face their consequences from respective employers
Well said. I can't agree about the NFL, though. Those players have every right and opportunity to protest on their own time. But the NFL is under no obligation to permit a political display that many of us find scatterbrained and offensive, and that would be inappropriate even if it weren't. Unless perhaps you're an opinion columnist or politician, the workplace isn't your personal soapbox.
How, exactly, is it "scatterbrained and offensive" to protest systemic racism in our justice system?
5
Trump tweeted that Disney should have called him to apologize for comments made about him in ABC tv. Of course, apologies are not warranted when the critical coverage is truthful.
But what Trump failed to reveal is that Bill Maher did call to apologize for his comments about Trump. In fact, a spokesperson for the Bronx zoo commented that Orville the Orangutan was pleased to have received the call and accepted Maher's apology.
Amazing to me that the NY Times can say that "Constitutional rights are what you’re entitled to in the public sphere, not as an employee of a private corporation" yet not support he NFL's requirement to stand for Star Spangled Banner.
Mr. Stephens and some of the commenters here bring up the issue of some of the NFL players conduct and behavior during the playing of the National Anthem. A very good point. I suggest that anyone who's interested to google on You Tube, "Roseanne Barr National Anthem baseball" and compare Ms. Barr's conduct and behavior during the playing of the National Anthem with that of the NFL players. Ask yourself, who is more respectful and dignified during the playing of the National Anthem, the NFL players or Barr? Who uses the National Anthem in the spirit in which it was intended?
I would like to see the video of Roseanne Barr antics during the playing of the National Anthem played before each one of Trump's rallies. I wonder how many of the attendees would at least scratch their heads.
1
I assume Ms. Barr's defenders are equally outraged by Kathy Griffin's professional problems in the wake of her appearance with a replica of Trump's severed head (?) Unfortunately, I doubt it. People who grouse about our society being too PC are generally people who feel uncomfortable with a decrease in tolerance for hate speech rather than any suppression of free speech. They often conflate the two to try to muddy the issue and, frankly, to hide their ugliness behind a vital constitutional right most of us cherish. Unfortunately, haters and hypocrites are adept at portraying themselves as victims when they have to pay a price for their words and actions. Cosby is a victim. Roseanne is a victim. Trump is a victim. Harvey Weinstein will claim to be - wait for it - a victim. Nonsense. You lost your job Roseanne - and cost a lot of other people their jobs - by choosing to spew ugliness that in your employer's view damaged his brand. That's his right and certainly that's your right. But what does the bumper sticker say? Freedom isn't free. Disney will lose some money over their decision - but that juggernaut with roll on. You lost your gig, but will now be a beloved martyr to like-thinking people. I suspect you will land on your hooves.
Please, this is a double standard and in a much broader context than Trump. Men still control everything.
This, men in every walk of life are allowed to artlessly say stupid stuff. The assumption being that they're processing and self-educating for a larger purpose or just to finally get their act together. Women are held to a higher societal standard everywhere and are supposed to be the ones helping the men and kids get it together but never be flawed themselves. The same holds for kids. Boys are allowed enormous latitude to constantly "bull in china shop" bump against the world, regardless of damage inflicted; it's expected and even encouraged. But girls are supposed to be more put together and even "perfect".
1
A Scarlet A doesn't impede speech either. It's not the PC Police, it's the PC Prudes. Welcome to the new Moral Majority. I didn't like it the first time in the 70's from the Right, why should I like it from the Left now?
1
Roger that, Bret. Well done.
We can and do recognize immorality. We can and do determine appropriate ways to describe one another. In the face of their immorality, the appropriate language used to describe a person, shifts.
Journalists have exhausted their readers and themselves this last year, striving to find original ways to describe the president's behavior, comportment and being. When they speak of him harshly, it is related to his destruction of common values, institutions, and immorality. It is attached to the reach and damage that the leader of the free world can cause by his behavior. You can say extremely harsh things about him, and be perfectly accurate. Another critical human response is to laugh at his vanity and hypocrisy, because he feigns to be a man of substance and dignity, and in reality is Liberace without the soul or piano skills and a million times the power to cause harm and suffering.
What Roseanne Barr did was to bully someone for whom she had a lazy disregard. Her remark was inaccurate and served a selfish, indolent, purpose. She gave great offense for which there was no conceivable moral utility.
A big difference, which the man in the WH can't appreciate because he's so frantically engulfed in personifying the 7 Deadly Sins (greed, lust, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and pride) in a dizzy spiraling he claims is patriotic.
Would it be wrong to call name such a man any kind of monster that comes to mind?
"But what Barr tweeted wasn’t an idea. It was a slur."
There are indeed "ideas" in Barr's tweet, although critics would need to escape their own bigotry to explicate them.
For a start, "The Planet of the Apes" is a movie in which there are both ape-like characters and human characters. The title is actually wrong, because the "apes" in the movie can speak and think. Thus, Barr's tweet cannot be construed as a slur based on what the movie is actually about.
Interpreting the "Muslim Brotherhood" part of the tweet is left as an exercise. :-)
"... in which he [Kevin Williamson] seemed to suggest that women who get abortions should be hanged."
AFAICT, Williamson was making a logical deduction from some plausible premises involving crime and capital punishment. Williamson should have been engaged intellectually.
'What’s the “totality” of Barr’s work, at least when it comes to political and racial questions?'
That's a straw man. Barr is an actor, so her "work" is what appears on screen. Williamson is a political commentator, so his "work" is what is published. In both cases, their tweets are not their "work".
"John Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary magazine, summed it up perfectly when he described Barr as [various things]."
So Stephens is endorsing yet more name-calling.
2
Comparing African-Americans to apes is a centuries old racist trope. Ignorance of that fact is pathetic
1
Well said, Bret.
I believe public figures like Roseanne and Mr. Trump are not only encouraging people to say in public what they were reluctant to say out loud before. I believe they are also actually inciting this racist behavior. That is, they are causing people to think racist thoughts who had not had such thoughts before, and to act in racist ways who had never acted like that before.
2
617 lost a good one when you moved to 416.
This 401 moved to 34O, but I'm still a New Englander, who appreciates yr well-spoken insights into one of America's core values.
Mr. Stephens,
To my way of thinking your last paragraph was unnecessary. Given his history, I think that Trump supporters very support for him says it all. That said, there is good reason to debate ABC's initial sponsorship of a known racist but all of us should welcome every instance and opportunity to call out racist speech and behavior wherever and whenever it occurs, especially in our own hearts.
1
Brett is right about Barr, but struggles uselessly to distinguish her from kneeling black nfl players. He fails because he refuses to recognize that the quality of speech, its moral content, matters. Free speech means anyone can say almost anything. But free speech doesn’t entitle the odious Charles Murray to spew his racism at a distinguished platform at Middlebury. Kneeling athletes protesting racism have a moral right to do so, and like Socrates and king the moral duty to bear up under the consequences. Socrates died at state hands. King ultimately changed the laws that had bound him. We don’t yet know how the kneeling struggle will end. I hope the kneeling ends because racism and police brutality have stopped. In the meantime we must stop pretending that free speech releases you from the civic duty to judge the quality of what is said, and we must defend our honorable venues from trash speech. FDR set the example when he said we must drive the economic royalists from the temple of our democracy. That temple has been defiled by the economic royalists, by Barr and by trump inter alios. Reclaiming the temple means insisting on standards, and separating the wheat from the dross.
"Also to their credit, Dungey and Iger acted despite “Roseanne” being a ratings hit. Something mattered more than a bottom line. "
Roseanne instantly made herself a financial liability for the massive Disney empire as rumors quickly spread of an emerging boycott not only of the TV show but the amusement parks and movies. That adds up to a lot more money than Roseanne could have hauled in with advertising revenue.
Also, Roseanne was fired by ABC president Channing Dungey, a black woman. At this point I must stand back and question Roseanne's intelligence or sanity at recklessly disregarding the public relation concerns of Disney and its subsidiary ABC that fed her so generously. Who did she think she worked for, the GOP?
3
I thought the manufacturer of Ambien's Twitter reply was spot on: Racism is not one of the side effects of the drug.
It amazes me that people like Barr and Trump really see themselves not as racists, but as people who "tell it like it is." Please.
I never cared for Rosanne Barr (or Donald Trump for that matter). I always thought Barr to be crude and tasteless, and I never liked her brand of humor. Her rendition of the National Anthem was beyond the pale in its disgusting display of, and pathetic attempt at, "shock comedy."
Mr. Stephens is correct: this is not a First Amendment issue. How about this? Barr can go back to Hawaii and cultivate her nuts there. There's poetic justice in that.
3
In typical fashion, Trump doesn't address the issue of racism, instead making it all about him. As in, where is the apology "owed" to him? He's fully disinterested in the effects of racism to a person, family, community and country.
Nothing on the inappropriateness of Barr's horrible comment. No careful examination of anything.
That same day he whined in tweets about his Tennessee rally seen as drawing few people.
And reminded us he was elected president, attacking the usual cast of characters with whom he is fixated on a daily basis. His tweets seem like satire, but the reality is these strange messages reflect his thought processes.
And reveal how much time he wastes obsessing on himself.
Worst.President.Ever.
3
Twitter is not a public space. It is a for-profit company. It is past time to boycott this mindless data mining by a corporate entity that refuses to take responsibility for the garbage that is thrown out into the public sphere.
2
Mr. Stephens' denunciation of "Trump's base" in his penultimate paragraph is bigoted and unfair. They do not need to be "humanized", 'typecast' or yoked to the disgusting bigotry of an actress who claimed to represent them. Many Trump supporters voted for him with their noses held, just as many Clinton supporters did. The Trump folks, with the screaming, rabid 'base' excepted, are experiencing economic failure and cultural collapse. These are real issues that are exacerbated and dismissed by the 'winning' coastal economies and they deserve respectful attention and political interventions, not back hands across the face. HRC's vicious and deeply stupid "basket of deplorables" remark displayed her own bigotry and cost her the election as the voters who were repelled by Trumpishness had no where else to go.
Barr's blue collar character living in economic uncertainty within a changing social world was familiar to these voters. Her personal racism is as repellent to most of them as is Trump's.
And Mr. Stephen's defense of the NFL players is tortured. The owners have co-opted patriotic symbols to burnish their tarnished game and to pander. The players were hired to play football, not to animate jingoistic marketing tricks. They are not purposely botching plays or throwing games to make their point. They are declining to participate in a display of "patriotism" that does not match their experience. And they are not making Barr's personal attacks.
2
This new "Rosanne" show just keeps getting funnier and funnier.
Not "ha-ha" funny, but still funny.
Why doesn't the Times print some of Keith Olberman's (an espn/ABC company) tweets that reference Trump. That's right, they are so foul that they can only be shared online. Yet he wasn't cancelled? Not exactly a protest that was quiet with dignity etc. Please
1
“ ....they so frequently conform to type”. A chuckle here...too sweeping? Maybe. Stop trying to reconcile every speech, knee, comment. Can’t be done. But as with that old comment on pornography, we know extremes when we hear them.
Society has rules. You don’t have the right to yell “Fire” in a movie theatre as a joke. Some rules are just plain stupid, but as a rule, accepted mores over time keep our society somewhat sane.
If you allow a foul mouthed actress unrestricted access to the public, sooner or later, that snake is going to bite you.
I’m not at all surprised by the huge number of Roseanne Barr’s fans and Republican supporters who apparently didn’t think she should have been fired for her tweet. Sadly, this is the arena we all live in now. The United States is no longer the beacon of light that it was before Trump and the Republicans took control in 2016. Is this really “The New America?” NOT for me!!! I will do everything possible to change the political temperature in 2018, even in RED Arizona.
4
“Perhaps the reason Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature is that they so frequently conform to type.”
In other words, if the shoe fits...
1
Disney knows a dog whistle used to denigrate and they know Ms Barr's careless disregard for racism .. that is still being perpetrated daily in verbal, economic, justice, etc forms.
Disney knew what being American demanded.
Can the NFL owners learn what is best for America?
Pressure from Trump and Pence was brought to bear EARLY through THEIR hijacking of patriotism. Pure politics to incite support for THEIR brand of politics.
What are these owners thinking to relegate free speech to the locker room? Why can't they see that taking a knee to show support for their centuries-long harassed community is certainly one of the most worthwhile reasons to protest that we have seen in decades?
Trump was unsatisfied and demands athletes to comply with HIS standard of no kneeling OR LEAVE COUNTRY! Similarly today, Trump demands his apology from ABC!
Swilling beer with an "I'll help you pack" t-shirt sense of entitlement to pronounce what is or is not 'acceptable' free speech IS WHITE PRIVILEGE RAGE. Is that the NFL brand?
Republucan congressmen should take a clue from ABC.
It’s never too late to correct your past mistake. Trump and Barr are what a human being should not be. It’s that simple. Trump has sanctioned use of vulgar language, lawlessness, disrespect for institutions, divisions in society in daily life. To my Republucan friends I say ‘ save the Republic and Presidency , not this President. The nation will be ever so grateful to you.
So was the problem the "muslim brotherhood" part or the "planet of the apes" part?
What I remember from the planet of the apes was that the apes ruled the world once humanity had destroyed itself. Is that denigrating in some way? Is there some negative thing there that I just don't understand?
1
Even though many, if not most, of Trump supporters actually agree with Barr's tweeted slur, they should understand, from his tweet, just how thoughtless, mean spirited and megalomaniacal is their Commander in Chief.
One problem is Mr. Stephens is a businessman, not an artist nor an art appreciater.
I hadn't been able to catch many of the Tuesday 7pmCST Roseanne shows this year, since I am not usually home from work by then. But I saw one or two -- to catch up on where the characters were at. And I loved having the old Roseanne marathons on all weekend this winter, watching the old family I remember.
MR. Stephens is celebrating the black head of ABC killing off this family, for political purposes. As an artist, I mourn our loss.
You see, if you watched the reruns, that was an original, "groundbreaking" show. Gay issues just didn't happen on network tv before Roseanne. Weren't addressed. LOts of "controversies" were honestly handled on that show, and not in a sugary, Brady Bunch way either.
The kids were the best -- Darlene! They bickered, fought over food at the table, and didn't always win. Did you see the one where Darlene wrote the winning poem and her mom and aunt went to the ceremony where she read it??? You should see that one... Great tv, and it hold up over time.
I'm sorry not to know how Becky, DJ, and especially Darlene now raising two kids herself, with her hometown help, will fare in Lanford. I'm really sorry too that so many elites think that shutting down talk of such families helps our nation.
I would have loved to see how the Conor kids handled the reality of loving Mom in these times, while raising their own kids in other ways.
Congrats, Bret. You "won".
2
Solution according to an example of a modern Constitution.
"Article 5 Grundgesetz
[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. (..)
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour."
Ms. Barr´s tweet is an "expression" and even "opinion" without any doubts. Chapter 1 is adressed to the state and not to privates but this doesn´t preclude application in private law when there is a power bias between employer and employee. Then there is an indirect third-party effects of the fundamental rights and freedoms.
Because there is an offence of Ms Jarrett there is a collision of fundamental rights of Ms. Barr (Speech) and Ms. Jarett (Personal Honour).
This leads to an appreciation of both values. Normally simple personal honour prevails - but not for politicians. On the other hand "baby of Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes" is a - repetitive - serious slur so even a lighter level of protection of politicians is violated (In Germany it´s is a crime, § 185 StGB a provision of "general law".)
Cancelling is o.k.
Firing is another issue but it´s close for top executives.
"... the right to personal honour."
Under US law, people can sue for defamation. Google "defamation", "libel", "slander".
If ABC was right in cancelling, what about Netflix that picked up the show less than 24 hours later? Nobody seems to relate to that/
Nobody is really ever gone.
After all Mel Gibson, racist and anti-Semite was nominated for an Oscar in 2017.
Hollywood, land of rebounds and resurrections.
Ms. Barr was back in a day.
4
Mr. Stephens is right. ABC has simply fired an employee under contract who has written a crass and racist statement for the world to see.
On top of it, I would guess (and hope) that there is language in Ms. Barr's contract that prohibits her from exactly this sort of behavior. She is a representative of the network and the parent company, Disney. Even Roseanne tweeted that she should have known better.
ABC gambled that Roseanne could be paid enough to refrain from public proclamation of her racist beliefs. ABC lost.
"Williamson insists his comments were misunderstood, but that’s another story. 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.”
Thanks for clarifying the norms that distinguish ideas from slurs paying careful attention to the totality of the individual's work. Having settled that issue, what are we going to do about a president who easily meets the criteria for slurring early and often, and aces those of boorishness, propagating conspiracy theories and being a loose ICBM?
4
And if a black entertainer or public figure had dared to make equally scathing and ugly remarks about a white person or group, what would have ensued? What if someone tweeted anti-Semitic slurs about Roseanne or Weinstein for that matter, blaming their behavior on their religious affiliation? It's all been said and done. Just like Roseanne's career. Unfortunately we'll see her until her demise in the tabloids' innumerable headlines because she appeals to that segment of our "culture."
1
"I know Trump supporters who don’t conform to type, and many of them are writers or talking heads. Let’s hear from them on this."
Ask them whether it's OK to to tell racist jokes in public?
Ask them whether they support the decision to fund ZTE?
Whether it's OK to make up and or spread false stories about political enemies? Do they believe in Santa Claus? The Easter bunny? Spygate?
4
Racist statements in this country always seem to have one of two possibilities or some fusion of each, that the person is a monkey (as are we all descended from primates) or needs to go "back" to some other place (as we all came from some other place except perhaps the Native Americans). Valerie Jarrett was born in Iran of African American parents working there but also has Native American ancestry as well as French, as Googling can inform us. Roseanne throws in the Muslim Brotherhood here just as banana trees get thrown into many racist statements (so and so needs to go back and live in a banana tree--usually in Africa--although most of our bananas seem to come from other places. Someone needs to ask Roseanne what she herself finds funny in her statement; no only is it illogical, it reveals a sad need to think that she is superior to anyone Muslim and anyone descended from a primate (including herself obviously). And when Donald Trump whines that ABC hasn't apologized to him about "horrible" things said to him, he seems to be recalling being called a "white supremacist" (something he seems to feel is horrible). Clearly he needs a tutorial on what the term means, and Roseanne should be asked to attend alongside him. Anyone still needing to know what a "deplorable" should be welcomed as well.
"In many white communities, prejudice and bias are an important part of peer esteem."
Walter, this is so true and how I grew up. The other kids were always trying to indoctrinate me into using the N-word. The game call-out Eenie Meenie Miney Mo for example. We all know who racists catch by the toe.
I still don't remember exactly WHY I refused that lesson and caught a TIGER by the toe when I called out the It for Hide and Seek. Maybe because my babysitter was a Lutheran and said God's good news was for the children of all nations. Can't recall for sure.
Then later in high school, I just had enough and socially isolated myself with other nerds who also refused that peer social activity of slandering innocent black people.
You had to actively resist, when I was growing up, because your peers were majority racist and if you were that white kid who needed to belong, you could end up down that path too.
5
I think "unprovoked" part of the tweet is crucial to why it was the last straw. Ms. Jarrett hadn't made any public comments as of late. She certainly hadn't interacted with Ms. Barr in any way. Obama has been out of office for over a year and Ms. Jarrett, therefore, hasn't been anywhere near the White House.
It was unprovoked and completely and totally not necessary. It was the twitter equivalent to kicking a dead puppy. WHO DOES THAT? Only a person with the primary intent of being hateful and racist.
And Disney and ABC realized that immediately.
5
Private corporations, as individuals, have a right to speech and free association. So says the law.
But in practice, they are more like government actors, having outsized control over our daily lives.
I therefore find that Ms Barr's punishment, in being completely out of proportion to her speech - as stupid and vile though it was - sends a chilling message about where speech freedoms are heading.
2
Boy, oh boy!
Line by line, Mr Stephens, I'm going line by line on your written piece.
"essential decencies"
Why is DJT in the WH, if americans care about essential decencies? The Billy Bush tape should have been enough to make DECENT americans vote for Hillary or no one at all, Just not DJT.
Dungey and Iger get credit for not looking at the bottom line(profits, advertising income), but doing what's morally and ethically right - stepping away from a toxic, disgusting hired contractor.
Other than that ... I agree with your piece.
Roseann Barr, an outspoken Trump supporter, stars in a show where she portrays a Trump-supporting woman, and puts a vile racist insult on Twitter.
Golly! Who could have seen that coming??
The daily reminder our President is unqualified to lead our country.
3
When Bill Maher called Trump an organgutan on HBO -- also a primate -- where was your outrage if we talk about the same principle? And why the HBO didn't fire him? Why the late night hosts of the main networks have hurled even worst insults at Donald Trump for 3 years and got away with the abuse?
The left is horribly hypocritical and authoritarian. They confiscate the first amendment of the right and use their own for the unbridled abuse of the people they hate.
2
That the president fails or refuses to appreciate the distinction is the thousandth reminder of his unfitness for office.
1000 is a gross underrepresention of Trump's unfitness for office.
Who knew Trump and his supporters were such delicate snowflakes? Perhaps Melania's "be best" initiative can help them cope.
1
i disagree. Her ideas are vile and disgusting, but that doesn't mean they aren't ideas. It's not a first amendment issue because no one is preventing her from expressing herself. She can hand out flyers, she can scream on a corner. No one is stopping her.
I for one prefer this. I like my nuts out in the open where everyone can see them.
Trump supporters are either actively racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic or they’re okay with a president who is, because he’ll cut their taxes and/or loosen gun control and/or curtail a woman’s right to choose - which makes them passively racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic.
1
We're getting a lecture on morality from a guy who supported the Iraq war, which killed a million people? Per Wikipedia: "Stephens continued to insist as late as 2013 that the Bush administration had "solid evidence" for going to war." But wait, he wants more war: "Stephens has also argued strongly against the Iran nuclear deal and its preliminary agreements, arguing that they were a worse bargain even than the 1938 Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany." I guess as long as he dresses up his Machiavellian politics in polysyllabic words, it won't come across as "boorish" as Barr's Tweets of Mass Destruction.
1
Perfect! The Party of personal responsibility takes every opportunity to blame everyone else but themselves!
1
We all need to look at ourselves in the eye! Check for racism, homophobia, hatred for someone else's religion or judgment of someone's disability.
Then, admit it's there and open your heart to examine it.
The lack of a resoundingly strong, negative response by Senate and House Republicans to Trump's lack of a flat-out condemnation of Barr's racist statement is a reflection that Republicans by and large do not care that our president is setting a racist tone for the nation.
A loud and clear message on this 'normalization' of racism trumpeted by the Trump administration is reflected in yesterday's statements by the President's spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders, WH press secretary.
Sanders dissed the need to condemn Barr and her racist statement. In responding on the topic, Sanders first listed gripes that Trump has against the news media, then listed media stars who've not apologized for their statements against the president. Sanders first dissed Kathy Griffin, then Bob Iger for hiring Keith Olbermann, then ended by stating: "No one is defending her comments.They’re inappropriate, but that’s not the point he was making."
"Inappropriate"?????
That's the extent, the furthest, that Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, and by default, this White House, goes in 'condemning' a vile, racist statement by a network star who had top ratings and has high support by the Trump base.
Trump and Sanders, and any and all Republicans supporting this non-response response from Sanders, should be ashamed of themselves.
2
I have tried to engage my friends in the right on this issue, and without exception, I keep getting the “what about xxxxxx?” excuse.
This isn’t about Keith Olbermann. It’s not about Bill Maher. It’s not about Kathy Griffith. It’s about not coddling racists and racist comments.
Similarly, our President doesn’t get it. How hard would it be to put out a statement that says “While we all enjoy free speech in this country, that doesn’t mean that there are no consequences to our words. There is no place for racism in a civil society.”
He can’t do that, of course, because his own words sound strikingly similar to Barr’s tweets - from the moment he came down the escalator and called Mexicans rapists, and worse, his arc has been to bend away from social justice.
Sad that so many of his supporters follow that path as well.
5
An excellent article that gets to the heart of the matter. The opening sentence is the pith of the marrow.
I continue to marvel at those who either pretend not to know or really don't know how free speech works. I am a free speech absolutist --meaning I even support the neo-Nazis' right to spill their swill--for two specific and incredibly important reasons.
1) Our greatest gift is knowing what dangerous people have on their minds. Is there anyone who really thinks driving speech and thought underground does not cause it to fester and mushroom into something altogether darker? Look at what is happening in Europe, where some speech is criminalized. I want to know every neo-Nazi and KKK member by name. Make them claim their words. Then fire and shun them. Which brings me to...
2) Free speech has never meant consequence-free speech. On the contrary, it's the only weapon we have to hold people accountable for socially unacceptable behaviour. Anyone can and should be free to say anything, but employers and fellow citizens have a right to hold those who say threatening, vile, dire, or dangerous things accountable. Those who attended the Charlottesville Rally for Hate found that out the hard way through the pink slips awaiting them Monday morning.
And it is not hard to draw the line. The only "snowflakes" here are those on the right who want to bash anyone in deplorable ways but who take to their collective fainting couch if they're held to account for their vile bile.
2
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why Oprah Winfrey's statement on BBC that to make the world better "all old white people HAVE TO DIE" is not racist, hate filled, and potentially incitement to violence but Roseanne's single tweet about ONE person, which was a joke and didn't advocate that person's death is racist and dangerous. I see a double standard.
2
Trump exploits the dark toxic underbelly of American politics of Richard Nixon and George Wallace known as the "Southern Strategy" following civil rights legislation in 1964. His followers are given permission for racist, sexist and antisemitic behavior while he is not held accountable for his breathtaking slander and corruption. Our capitalist system, like in Mike Pence's Indiana, recognizes that this is NOT the future of America and sent Rosanne a message -- You're Fired!
1
We are a nation that sells hot dogs and beer during the playing of the National Anthem at NFL games. We are the same nation that demands the entertainers, the players, stand during the playing of the Anthem.The defenders of comment made by Barr would be up in arms if comments were made about one of their favorite ethnic groups.Ms. Obama was referred to by some as resembling a primate. Barr once referred to Susan Rice as the member of the ape family. I appauld ABC for showing Barr the door but the accolades given ABC for doing that are over the top.ABC should have never given her show in the first place based on her past racist behavior. ABC tried to produce a shoot from the hip show but hired a star that shot herself in the foot. ABC executives should have read her resume before they signed on the dotted line.
2
I was hoping that my NYT sub would provide me with a considered contextual analysis of the 'Roseanne' tweet debacle but so far all I am seeing is a lot of predictable knee-jerk reaction pieces. Disappointing.
Any professional journalist engaging in serious analysis rather than lazy polemic could not avoid pointing out that Roseanne Barr has a proven track record in promoting diversity and supporting minority rights - an inconvenient truth which the Brets and the Lindys of this world simply choose to ignore. Understandable, that kind of awkward fact would wreck their quick hatchet-jobs.
If you have an open mind, go watch some of the original Roseanne series and consider some of her 'Firsts' - African-American and gay characters who are shown as 'real' human beings for the first time, rather than mere token gestures.
Maybe ask yourself why this supposed 'racist' should include episodes in the reboot series like the one where Muslim neighbors are initially feared - then ultimately shown in a most positive light.
Possibly consider the way in which Roseanne is happy to cast herself as a bigot (which many of the TV audience can identify with) before neatly swerving the plot to demonstrate that the character's views were just plain dumb - teaching the audience a more effective lesson than any 'right-on' media could ever hope to achieve.
Roseanne's tweet was a stupid slur, but we need more evidence that it was intentionally racist before the mob labels her a true 'Deplorable'.
2
But doesn’t the First Amendment protect the most abhorrent speech? The difference here as Mr. Stephens points out she is an employee and even though she is outside the realm of the workplace it is their choice to no longer be associated with the her.
The startling part is where the line is draw, and it usually has nothing to do with actual speech itself but rather the reaction to it. Barr does an ugly Twitter in the middle of the night and within hours it is the most important issue in the world. Joy Reid does a series of ugly Twitters and there is silence. Maher calls Palin and Bachman a couple of stupid C-words and it’s dismissed as late night “comedy”.
The optics are bad, as the tolerance should be zero.
1
ABC just became number 1 in my ratings. Imagine what might be different today if NBC had the courage to cancel The Apprentice and take Donald Trump and out of the limelight a couple of years back when he promoted the racist Obama "birther" issue. Thank you ABC, your decision matters.
1
Twitter seems to be the way maladjusted famous people with insomnia attempt to purge their psyches. All their insecurities are magnified in the middle of the night and instead of taking a nice hot shower, they attack people whom they may secretly admire. Secure people do not need to denigrate others. If all you can do in the middle of the night is spew hate, I suggest you look in the mirror and start yelling at yourself. You are your own worst enemy.
2
We should treat one another with dignity and respect. The natural consequence of Rosanne's behavior should be killing off or incarcerating and her character rather than thrusting hundreds of innocent cast and crew members and advertising employees out of work.
1
The emboldening of the closet racists and xenophobia by the election of our current President is deeply worrisome.
America was the land of our dreams, but in all sincerity, after our younger kids are out of college, my wife and I are likely going to look for retirement elsewhere. We worked hard, we paid our taxes, we voted, we respected absolutely the rule of law and we contributed to society in whatever way we could. But now, our hearts are not happy...
Barr is just a symptom of the disease that had been in remission for decades but once again flared up since Nov 2016. Hopefully by Nov 2018, our beloved country will once again start to respond to treatment, and the millions of decent and emancipated people that populate it, prevail.
2
Where were your morals and those of your white colleagues when the Michelle Obama was insulted in the same manner and when none of the media called Trump out for his claim that President Obama was not a citizen? You are responsible for his election by being amused rather than horrified by his sideshow.
2
This writer nails it...the abject failure of the Trump supporters to examine their own reprehensible behavior instead of scapegoating others for their economic failures goes to the heart of the problem...
3
Can we just get rid of Twitter? Too many people who are on it are not intelligent enough to use it approprately. I can name two very easily. Anything coming out of Twitter is bad news, racist, false,or a headline making lie that people tend to remember and consider fact. It is used to destroy our democracy.
Just watched The Young Turks on youtube about
Roseanne. They have dealt with her in the past, when
she was a flaming liberal and on their early show.
Of course they are against what she tweeted, but
they are kinda defending her in a way. First Cenk
brought up that she had been in a car crash when she
was in her teens and afterwards supposedly never
the same and was in a mental institution after
the accident for 8 months. He pointed
out that she has been making similar kinds of remarks
and lately tweets for years and people overlooked them.
Saying Soros turned in fellow Jews during the holocaust
to be murdered. And today retweeting doctored photos
of Joy Behar's tweet about hoping Trump burned up in
his own tower fire, . And Whoopie wearing a
t shirt with a bloody head of Trump on it and so on. Cenk also
quoted the people who have said Roseanne needs help and he is worried no one is watching over her right now because she seems so unbalanced. And that the Alt right is using this unbalanced person to further their mission. He said that the side effects of Ambien are pretty serious and
maybe Roseanne should have stopped taking it long
ago, if that was what was causing her to spew such
hatred and craziness. He said there is no way of telling
if it is the drug or not, but she clearly needs help for
her mental instability. As outraged as I am at what she
said, I was glad to listen to a humane take on the situation.
Something felt so off to me about her supporting Trump.
1
All of the right wingers who think it is just fine for a baker (a private company) to impose his bigotry on a same sex couple by refusing to bake a wedding cake for them need to understand that another private company (ABC) can decide that they do not want to broadcast (or give a platform to) a person who makes bigoted comments aboout others, such as big fat ugly Roseanne.
If you do not like it, do not watch ABC.
On the other hand, I will be sure never to give the baker any of my business.
When Bill Maher called Trump an orangutan -- also a primate -- why did you laugh happily and stayed silent? And why HBO didn't fire him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izlS15orhP0
And when all the late night shows of all the TV networks hurled insults at Trump -- the meanest possible --- and his associates, including kids and wife, why weren't they fired?
The left is hypocritical and authoritarian. It confiscates the freedom of speech of the opposition while it abuses its own to degrade its opponents and commits much greater sins.
1
You made sure to inform that players kneeling is "mistaken" but you didn't make sure we understand that you believe police brutality to be mistaken. It's a small point, I'm sure you expect us to assume this is the case with you. It would have been for me, had you left out the assurance that you believe kneeling to be mistaken. That's really a point for a different article. As a non participant in social media, I believe this is what leftists, liberals, people with concern for minorities see as the conservative caveat to their racist base. It really had no bearing on this article for you to inform that you find kneeling mistaken. But it reads like a typical shout out to a racist base. The republican base is racist. Are you reminding them of where you stand? Surely you would respond no. But it doesn't read that way.
2
An outstanding piece, well reasoned and well written. Loved the ending, where the ball is served to trump media supporters. ABC did the right thing after doing the wrong thing; There was no reason to expect that Barr wouldn't blow up the house at some point. She's been giving obvious clues for years. In the end Barr and trump are two malignant narcissists acting in type, tolerated far too long simply because they're good for ratings. Let's see if trump and Roseanne supporters figuratively hit the streets in protest over this, or what's coming with the investigations. They won't because somewhere deep in their hearts they know that what really drives their support more than anything is nasty, vindictive pettiness.
3
The 1st Amendment right to free speech protects against local, state and federal public government interference and restriction. But the 1st Amendment does not apply to the actions of private entities and individuals.
Roseanne Barr has the 1st Amendment free speech right to be a racist bigot. But Barr does not have the 1st Amendment free speech right to be a racist bigot while working for a private employer.
Donald Trump has the 1st Amendment free speech right to be a racist bigot while being President of the United States.
There is no moral right to punish the entire cast of the show for one stupid, first of all, and secondly willfully offensive, public utterance made by one member of the cast, and not in connection with the show.
Under Obama, this might have been deemed a "teaching moment," Roseanne sent off on leave, encouraged to make a full heart apology, and then (probably) allowed back. Now, however, would-be PC enforcers are too righteous to even remember Obama. Even Trump supporters, though utterly ready to wink at 100s of equally awful statements by the twitter-tantrum-in-chief, are out for collective punishment in this case no matter what.
3
And what is wrong with being part Ape? From what I'm seeing of homo sapiens, we need a little (or more likely a lot) of humility.
Disgusting comment by Ms. Barr, yes, she worked for "an employer whose reputation she stained and whose values she traduced." Let us note however, that there have been plenty of equally disgusting tweets and comments by Keith Olbermann who Disney just welcomed back into the ESPN fold. Can it be acknowledged that vile is vile regardless of political persuasion? Or is that a bridge too far for Disney?
1
Time for free speech to include the workplace. I abhor RB, never watched her show. But it is beyond time for free speech to extend to the workplace.
For one, wages will rise faster than ever when employees are free to discuss salary among themselves.
Second, businesses will no longer have worry about their images being damaged by their employees racist comments, because the disclaimer that “they don’t speak for the company” will finally be true.
Free speech should be unabridged in the workplace. It is an unconstitutional restriction propagated by the overclass to repress the masses. It must end.
1
Roseanne's excuse-making has already begun and an apology tour of the talk shows is no doubt already in the planning stages. Even Jimmy Kimmel has called for "understanding" regarding her. So, I think we'll see over the coming months a softening of attitude about this episode, and probably a return of Roseanne's show to the ABC lineup, maybe as early as this fall. Being right about Roseanne does not mean ABC wants to turn its back on the millions her show generates.
1
The decision to cancel may well have been a moral one but it was equally economic. The ABC legal team certainly weighed the loss of a highly rated show against the inevitable loss of sponsors which was about to happen. With big corporations, it's always about the bottom line.
"That the president fails or refuses to appreciate the distinction is the thousandth reminder of his unfitness for office."
The thousandth? Where have you been? There have been at least a thousand just this week.
3
I don't see how anyone can draw a line of moral equivalency between free speech that is racist (Barr's tweets) and free speech opposed racist actions by members of the police (the NFL players' protests). Especially since until the NFL suddenly changed its policy, the kneeling was allowed. FWIW, the NFL players still have a platform, and I'm sure they'll find a way to use it. Barr, however, has managed to lose much of her platform, which is all to the good.
The police in the U.S. continue to be used to enforce white privilege, and many continue to abuse their power while doing so. As this becomes more evident to more people, I hope that we'll see changing expectations regarding how police force is to be used and exercised. But political speech is protected-- and as long as your political speech doesn't violate your contract with your employer, it won't cost you your job.
2
Bret,
Why should Roseanne have been hired in the first place? These are not the first racist comments she's made. Are we letting ABC off the hook by commending them after another incident for what they should have never done in the first place?
3
I waste so many good minutes of my life hammering conservatives for muddled thinking, so I should be gracious enough to acknowledge clarity.
I (swallow) agree with every bit of this fine column.
Barr's comment was a horror. And despite the moral repulsion (and I cannot stand sanctimony), it tells a lot that her supporters do not realize that a lash on somebody else's back is a lash on your own.
Burr deserves the boot and the scorn. The character in the office of the Presidency deserves to be booted by voters. But instead, they voted for him.
Stephens, America is not looking itself in the eye. Are we less Lincoln and more Trump? We will know in November.
Ah, yes. Mr. Stephens gets it "right" on this obvious issue of celebrity racist expression. In this case the celebrity isn't just the tweeting president but another mediocre tv figure. Now let's see if Mr. Stephens takes on his conservative colleagues such as Ryan and McConnell and the rest of the GOP Congressional and SCOTUS majority as they quietly dismantle: protections for our shared environment and civil rights;what's left of the tattered social safety net that affects the poor, working or not, and disabled regardless of race/color; and further enriches the oligarchs who actually own our media and government. I suspect it will be a long time before Mr. Stephens opines on such subjects other than to justify them.
1
We all have the right to say whatever we want but we also have the moral duty to accept the consequences of our actions. In the last year and a half we have spent way too much time justifying abhorrent behavior, especially regarding our President. He has perfected a playbook of strategies designed to undercut the moral norms of our society. Every time a blatant racist throws a bomb into the public square they use Trumpism to clean up the shrapnel and obscure the collateral damage but we all bear the burden of the wounds they inflict.
1
"It’s true the players don’t have the legal right. But they have the moral one, especially when their gesture is dignified, considered and silent (even if I also think it’s mistaken)"
let me make a wild guess. You're a white male?
I am trying wrap my mind around some of the alleged distinctions drawn in this article. Exactly why, for example, is a slur is not an idea? Be this as it may, most of the racist slurs, hate speech, and vile language that I have heard over the past two years has been directed against Donald Trump and voiced by allegedly "enlightened" and "progressive" left leaning celebrities who have apparently gotten some bad education in them or have no powers of self-reflection at all.
2
Free speech issue, plain and simple.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean she's not able to say it.
Free. Speech.
2
No one is saying she cannot say it. But DISNEY is also free to protect its bottom line and fire her.
2
It always helps if a person commenting has actually READ the article they are commenting on.
Barr's tweet was NOT, as this writer correctly points out, a free speech issue. Her tweet WAS the exercising of that "free speech", her show getting cancelled was a consequence of that decision to free speak racist, vile, disgraceful insults about a person who has served this country, and her president, long and faithfully.
You could look it up!
2
Obviously, Roseanne's speech was not prohibited in any way. She was, and still is, free to say whatever she chooses. She did learn though, that speech can have consequences. She appears willing to accept that, because her Twitter feed is still active and she is continuing to speak out. No one has censured her.
2
The real problem with Trump and Rosanne is not the 1st Amendment, it's that they've brought their previously private country club and dining room banter, completely normal amongst their friends and family, onto the public stage. They've exposed their inner selves as honest racists, and many of us have the right to be offended by it, not by what they think, because we can't do much about that, but because they feel empowered to shove it in our faces.
1
The fact that America wants to watch itself sitting on the couch, watching tv, being over-weight, inert, self-absorbed and anti-intellectual is itself bizarre and depressing. The fact that they want to be loved and admired for it is delusional.
4
I agree there are many reasons ABC cancelled the show. I also believe they did it because they did not want to fan the flames of racism that Ms. Barr appears to enjoy. I think they cared about the good of the country, at least a little bit, about what is right and about how we should treat each other. If only the president cared as much about others.
1
ABC did the wrong thing and then they fixed it by doing the right thing. They could have done an even better thing and just fired Barr and replaced her with someone else. Hollywood is loaded with talent. This was a lost opportunity. Oh well. It's just a sitcom, but it might show which way the wind is blowing in these sad and frightening times. The Republican Party has unleashed a monster across the land and empowered the worst of us. Let's hope Barr's demise is a sign of the times. VOTE.
Trump is right and Stephens is wrong.
It is Stephens who doesn't understand the distinction between the LAW and CIVILITY and what each requires and/or permits.
Of course, Disney's firing of Barr raises no First Amendment issue since the First Amendment prohibits only Congress (and by extension the states) from restricting speech. Disney is not a government or "state actor," and so the prohibition does not apply to it.
Therefore it is irrelevant if current First Amendment jurisprudence has different standards for public and private figures. The point is that CIVILITY recognizes no such double standard. Civility commands that everyone has a right to be free from vicious slurs, even if they are mere Presidents of the United States. A slur is a slur -- and reprehensible -- irrespective of whether the target is a public or private figure.
That is why Trump is right and this IS a double standards issue. So if you're keeping count, Trump still has given only 999 reminders of his unfitness for public office, not one thousand.
2
Bret
I have watched you on Bill Maher’s show. How does he get a pass?
2
As you note, Donald Trump is "the ultimate public figure" and should not expect the same protection from verbal abuse as a private citizen.
Another, even more important, difference is that Donald Trump is a combatant in the insult wars and has been for longer than most people have been insulting him.
The reply to his whining for apologies is simple: "You can dish it out, but you can't take it."
3
@ Walter Rhett, We are now told that pornography and dysfunctional families are causing the surge in school shootings. Is not stormy a pornographer producing pornographic films? Does dt have a dysfunctional family life? Do we need now to worry about him becoming an "active school shooter" somewhere?
1
ABC had nothing to lose in advertising revenue for canceling the show because the cast was going to resign in all probability. The show would not have continued. The real question is why they revived it in the first place with Roseanne Barr as the lead character. No surprise from her vile Tweets. She was not acting, she was that racist, boorish character. Then I cannot imagine any advertiser placing a product on that show in the first place except maybe ones selling guns.
Mr Stephens notes that Iger cancelled the Roseanne show because "something mattered more than the bottom line". If only Rupert Murdoch had at least this rudimentary moral standard.....
1
The main difference between the Roseanne and NFL situations, aside from morality, is that, despite the vituperous fits of their right wing racist fans, the NFL has NOT CHOSEN to fire any of the players. To their credit, I believe, though they are caving to enormous political pressure on their latest decision fining teams. I hope most teams decide to keep all players off the field until the mandatory political spectacle with which the game is commenced is complete.
1
In 1977, the ACLU famously supported the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois on the basis of protection of freedom of speech. Their actions were laudable on one hand but cost them many members on the other.
Ms. Barr's outburst is entirely different. Her tweet was not enjoined nor expunged nor challenged in the courts. Her free speech rights were exercised. What was not and should not be protected was insulation from the consequences of her speech. She did not shout fire in a crowded theater as in Justice Holmes' famous example; she poured gasoline into the theater and lit a match.
Despite the example of our president, norms remain. Values remain just as bulwarks around a city remain even if they have been breached.
We are all equal in birth and ultimately in death. We should be judged by how we choose to spend the time between these parentheses. Did we honor the gift we received and seek to make a better world and better life for others? Or did we seek dominion and power to enrich ourselves and immiserate others? The consequences of our choices will be revealed in our wake.
1
In some ways the Rosanne show reminded me of the great old comedy "All in the Family" with one important exception. Archie Bunker may have been a bigot, a product of his place and time, but Carroll O'Conner, the actor who portrayed him with such humanity that even people like my father (whose political opinions were pretty much in line with Archie's) absolutely loved the show, was not. It was a show that reflected real life but in the end was pure art.
Roseanne Barr clearly is a bigot--and very much a loose cannon to boot. IMHO, ABC made a mistake in hiring her in the first place. They made the right decision in firing her.
In a way it's too bad. In our polarized society, we need depictions of working class people and their struggles to come to terms with a rapidly changing world in our popular culture. I doubt if a show like All in the Family could be made today but done right, it would be great.
2
Well said. Barr's tweet was not only racist but the lowest of the low in taste. It exceeded all norms of decency. And now, she is gone from her sitcom. And hopefully, soon, out of the news cycle.
This article is far to nuanced and thoughtful for Trump or Barr (and their admirers) to understand. They see Twitter not as a platform for sharing thoughts and ideas but as a megaphone for anything that comes into their minds and validates their personal world view and their self worth.
Twitter was launched with a fatal flaw and has now become truly toxic and contagious. At present we don't know just how to cure it, especially while it continues to function as an outlet for lies and hatefulness...an historic record of how something with so much potential to unite became a muddied battlefield where real ideas are challenged and discredited by liars and haters who no longer have to hide from the light and are now free to attack and destroy with little or no consequences.
1
Well done Mr. Stephens. I wish I could get the Trumolodites around me to read this, and then read it till they get-it. But they dismiss the NYT out of hand right now, because their Thought-master (Trump) tells them to.
The fact that so many in the Trump camp dont/won't understand simple legal arguments, and/or moral ones is where I find my deeper understanding of them, but also most of my frustration with many of them. They are either playing dumb, or simply are...its hard to tell at times.
2
Barr's comments are of course outrageous.
The much more important concern is that maybe a fifth of this country agrees with Barr. Moreover, perhaps a third or more resent her being busted, whatever their agreement with her Twitters.
Don't look for these figures to be sustained by polls. It is shameful to hold such opinions: such is the message of the vast majority of reports on the Barr incident. Many of those sympathetic to Barr won't declare themselves bigoted violators of the apparent standards of decency.
The "indecent" aren't going away. Neglect of Flyover, from
Appalachia to the Sierra, a betrayal by the Establishment, has destroyed the social contract for almost half the US. There is no indication that the collapse will be arrested. Accordingly, the ranks of the angry and insensitive will continue to grow.
The response of liberal America has been to shame this growing and volatile enraged large minority of our citizens. This is a waste of time: whether the angry should be ashamed or not isn't the question.
The real question is what on earth are progressives going to do to bring Flyover's alienated mass to join the fifty-years' old cause of human rights?
If the liberal policy continues to be echo-chamber disdain for a stench in the room, the left should get ready to face not a minority, but a majority which despises all of the progressive social moves of the last half century.
Only by reaching out to Flyover can this catastrophe be avoided.
3
Exactly HOW has flyover been neglected by the left? You mean when Obama bailed out the auto industry despite the GOP’s resistance? Or when Obama tried to pass an infrastructure plan? Is that what enraged them?
I think you are implying they were enraged over gay marriage and public rest rooms. Are you proposing that the Progressives stop supporting what they believe in to placate flyover country?
No thanks.
2
How about not pejoratively calling people "flyovers"? We have lives, families and love the hearland of this great country. Disdain is not the right way to treat others....
If inflicting psychological stress on an entire country can be considered a “High crime or misdemeanor,” add Trump’s latest tweet spew to the future impeachment articles.
Donald Trump wants an apology for the HORRIBLE things said about him on ABC. Fine. Let's see if that can be arranged, on on condition: Trump must first apologize to everyone he has said HORRIBLE things about since becoming president.
We can compile the list and keep track of apologies for you, Mr. Trump. In the meantime, you can get started with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
5
You know...... it all comes down to what is purposefully hurtful behavior vs. setting boundaries and asking to be treated fairly.
If you call someone a nasty name for the sake of disparaging their person, body, or rights, that is hurtful behavior and oh yeah, bullying.
If you describe a person's actions as nasty in the midst of defending yourself from an attack to your rights and body, that is neither name-calling nor purposely hurtful--that is called drawing a boundary....and usually against a bully.
When someone like Roseann Barr takes 200 years of painful history and uses it to diminish the worth of another person, that is BEING A BULLY.
The kneeling, on the other hand, is a respectful response to a well-known wrong.
What is kneeling, really, but a gesture of supplication? When someone proposes, they kneel. When you pray, you kneel. Kneeling is an ask from a submissive to a greater. Doesn't the very act of kneeling in essence reinforce the solemnity of the occasion? For if you want to see disrespect towards the flag, look no further than the people on the stands yawning.
To me, those athletes are the ones who understand the inherent promise behind the flag, and behind our ideals of equality. They are asking for their place at the table.
I just used a lot of extra language to describe something that should be self-evident. That we cannot see the distinction speaks to our collective confusion about kindness and unkindness. Here is hoping we can do better.
2
While agreeing with much that's said in this column, I must say that the distinction Brett draws between Barr/ABC and players/NFL smacks of "Barr expression = bad; kneeling players = good." In the end, neither is a First Amendment issue, since there's no government action at play.
1
Do we need Roseanne Barr to enlighten and inform our public debate? No, we never needed her for that purpose. Some people, some millions, apparently needed her as a national voice of confirmation, a loud voice barking at passing liberals.
It would be highly interesting to know what percentage of citizens, on reading her racist tweet, laughed or said to themselves, "She got it right," and concluded that no one can speak their mind any more. Taking away the humanity of black people, as her words implied, has always been the greatest social sin of discrimination, of racial attitudes. Her words were not merely vile. They represent a mindset that can result in a complete fracture of a society, words can condone any level of repressive actions against a minority, including mass death.
Unintentionally, Barr revealed some of the ugly stain that propelled opposition to the Obama administration, a stain from which Republicans benefited without much push back at all and which some actively encouraged by word and deed.
Whatever she wishes to say under the guarantee of freedom of speech, she does not deserve a national forum, backed by a television network, to exercise those rights.
3
ABL is simply exercising their prerogative to jettison a hopelessly damaged brand property. Not a United States constitutional matter. If anything, when POTUS personally exerts pressure on the NFL owners and athletes, that actually intrudes on First Amendment territory.
2
Truly, we live in a degenerate age when the NY Times evinces the same level of illiteracy as the general public.
I am reminded of the book, "The Ugly American". People who did not read the book, or did not understand it, think that "ugly American" refers to Americans behaving badly when abroad. In fact, the eponymous character was a specific individual, physically unlovely, but who was the one intelligent, culturally aware, and constructive person in the American diplomatic corps in Southeast Asia. Paradoxically, the Ugly American was the good guy.
Similarly, if you did not actually see the movie, "Planet of The Apes", or did not understand it, you might think the movie is about apes. Well, if the movie is about apes, then Roseanne's tweet is racist. But the movie is not about apes and Roseanne's tweet is not racist.
You may not agree with Roseanne, politically, but her tweet was political, not racial.
2
What a preposterous misreading of the novel "The Ugly American" -- the character you speak of is a naive, deluded, criminally arrogant young American, a self-described "expert" on foreign policy and the region, because he's read one book. The result of all this, in the book, speaks for itself: utter disaster, for the non-Americans, and too many civilian corpses to count.
Your reading of the tweet is similarly absurd. Ms. Barr herself doesn't deny its brazen racist intent, why should anyone else?
1
I am so saddened that many of the comments defend this vile, insulting, clearly racist tweet of Barr's.
I fear for our country. Trump has made this behavior acceptable...
1
Comparing an African-American to an ape is racist. This is a centuries old trope. Not recognizing this is indicative of a fundamental ignorance of the history of race relations.
1
“That the president fails or refuses to appreciate the distinction is the thousandth reminder of his unfitness for office.”
Closer to the ten-thousandth reminder that Trump is unfit. But hey, it’s been less than 2 years, I’m sure he’ll hit the millionth by the time he’s gone.
Roseann is, and always was a ‘boor’ - as you said. It’s her trademark, as it is Donald Trump’s. People who defend or support them must acknowledge this - boorish conduct isn’t criminal (in most cases) but it doesn’t entitle one to a job.
And those, like Trump, who want to stop (or deport) the NFL players who respectfully knee at the national anthem should look up Roseann Barr’s rendition at a Padres game.
Finally and bottom line, Trump supporters: low-brow and high, working-folk and wealthy, intellectual and not - whatever you point to as the reason for your support, you are supporting a serial liar. Don’t say “everyone lies” - everyone probably does lie sometimes, but Trump lies all the time. Totally unfit and an embarrassment to our country.
6
Two brothers offended by and in response to cartoons they perceived mocked the prophet Muhammad attacked the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people. Ms Barr offends and does not, I pray, need to look over her shoulder or hire bodyguards. She is free to offend.
In Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz make relevant arguments that the right of freedom of speech is not balanced with a right not to be offended. Freedom of expression is an inalienable human right and the foundation for self-government.
Ms Barr failed a measure of public tolerance and received a thimble-full of rebuke. She has a right to say what she wants. We have a right to be offended and to ignore her.
1
I can truthfully declare that I don't care a whit about Roseanne the person, Roseanne the show and ABC. Unrelated, but I can't remember the last of their shows that I cared for. (They succeeded in mangling one of my most beloved movies, Time after Time, so badly that I stopped watching in the midst of the first episode.)
Wish I could say that about Trump.
Well phrased and, more importantly, well reasoned.
2
Roseanne did herself in. Much like Kathy Griffin, who held Trump's severed head did. though I see her back in action already. Too far is too far. Yes, she has the right to be repulsive, and yes, ABC was correct to show her the door. Too bad for all the other actors, writers and producers who lost their jobs, right? This is a correct social consequence of speaking whatever filth in in ones' mind. Not much more to say, except I am glad to see this form of social correction function. As far as Trump goes, yes, he goes too far too, but I don't think calling MS13 gang members "animals" was too far.
ABC is a business - they certainly had the right to cancel the show after Ms. Barr's hateful tweets. But the NFL is a business as well, and the argument here that "dignified" protest should be afforded a higher level of protection flies in the face of what the First Amendment stands for. There is no basis for free speech being free only if "dignified" and "justified," however those attributes are defined. I suspect if NFL players were respectfully kneeling to protest abortion as the killing of innocents, the media take on the limits of free speech would be quite different.
1
Almost never agree with Stephens, but he's 100% right on this. Good column.
1
As a Vietnam Veteran and retired Army officer, I cannot understand why I should have to stand when the national anthem is played at a sporting event that is a quasi war. I am sickened that my tax dollars are spent on Air Force flyovers and that the military pays to put the service members on the field. I don't need to be reminded of what the oath I took to protect and defend the constitution is about. I don't like seeing the American flag become an article of clothing. But I tolerate it.
It would be nice if we could sit quietly for a moment, at a minimum and reflect about the nature of public discourse in the country and what it means to be an American. We have to confront great and compelling issues. There is a draft dodging orange haired buffoon leading the country who had bone spurs but couldn't remember which foot they were on. The sad part is that 47 percent of the country has no problem with what he says in public as our president.
22
I agree that ABC had the right to fire Roseanne for her racist tweet. However, I was deeply shocked that Bret Stephens would argue that there was a reason to apply a different standard to a writer who spoke of hanging women for having abortions. I found it deeply traumatic to read such a hateful and vicious attack on women, and I can only conclude that Bret Stephens is more sensitive to racist descriptions and not really viscerally affected by men who advocate for the violent murder of women, because his empathic identification with women is lower than his identification with people of African heritage. This is about a lack of empathy by Bret Stephens, and not a legitimate difference. I think the writer who wrote of hanging women displayed a deeply misogynistic indifference to female suffering, and I think there is no conceivable distinction here other than that insufficient value is placed on the life of a woman by Bret Stephens and the writer he mentioned, and the society they live in.
By all means let's hear from people who feel that we have the right to say anything - no matter how offensive - without consequence. Let's hear why we are unfair to poor old Roseanne Barr.
And let's hear why a protest for the loss of life of black men - silent and respectful, since they took a knee and didn't moon the flag on national TV - is equal to a vicious jab at a woman criticizing her existence, and deriding a whole race and a whole religion at the same time. The NFL players are paying a price for asking us to consider a terrible injustice; Roseanne is paying a price for saying vicious things that she apparently believes true.
Some people are martyred for speaking against injustice, at a time in which the powers that be are unwilling to make changes or consider the situation unjust. Roseanne is not one of them.
4
I think all this talk and analyzing of these things come down to a few points. Roseanne has the right to say racist things and ABC has the right to fire her. NFL players have the right to protest the national anthem and the NFL has the right to fine their team. People seem to want to forget that sometimes there is a cost for our actions and people also have the right to think about that cost before they act.
2
Of course Roseanne should have been fired.
Why did ABC fire everyone else who worked the show? Must everyone examine the sanity/politics of co-workers for their own job protection. Since the show is a "soap opera", why not just kill off her character and move on. The show does bring up real issues and could continue in their well written way.
I just do not understand the decision to fire the other 250 people who had nothing to do with her twitter, nor share her opinions (as far as anyone can tell).
ABC can fix this.
1
Didn't they lose their jobs because they were with the SHOW and if the show is cancelled, there are no jobs? Were the 250 employed at ABC before the show? Or, were they hired specifically to work on the Barr show? Big difference.
I feel for them, though. In that tough business to one moment be relaxed knowing you've got an assured job for another season than, socko!
So was ABC's only choice to cancel the show because she was with the show and not Disney?
You are right tough business.
"There are necessary taboos and essential decencies in every morally healthy society." Perhaps this can be a subject for a future column. Are we still morally healthy? Can a society that chooses Donald Trump as president be considered morally healthy?
Thank you for drawing a distinction between Rosanne tweets and NFL players' kneeling. Of course the president, a moral beacon for nobody, thinks the players should not be in this country.
4
I would like to see ABC do a show on America's got talent when it comes to screen plays, tv show ideas and other entertainment ideas. Barr had no talent from day 1, John Goodman doesn't need any additional money and we all are sure he's made millions from the past movie successes he has had.
Absolutely correct, Mr. Stephens. The First Amendment does not protect citizens from suffering the consequences of their own grave indecency. I suspect Ms. Barr’s hubris keeps her addicted to social media, and probably the best thing for average citizens to do is to collectively resolve to ignore her attention-seeking tantrums.
As for the NFL, while kneeling for the anthem might violate social mores for the conservative bent NFL owners, kneeling is not a grave indecency. There are worse things the players could do, but to their credit they have chosen to not cross that line.
In the spirit of holding ourselves accountable, I take issue with his stereotyping conservatives in his second-to-last paragraph. If we are to truly hold each other responsible, then we must focus on individual behavior while taking the nuances of context into account. Stereotyping renders such (badly needed) feedback irrelevant. To Mr. Stephens’s credit, he caught his own ironic error.
3
Most Americans do not understand that the First Amendment prohibits the Federal government (and through the 14th, state governments) from inhibiting free speech. There is no private right to free speech, with certain exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court relating to monopolies, areas that can legitimately be considered public spaces even if privately owned, and a few other things.
An essential part of the problem not discussed here is why anyone pays attention to entertainers in any capacity other than their profession. That they do is beyond question, as it is the basis of much advertising. Why is another story. Why does anyone think a member of the Houston Rockets knows anything more about insurance (State Farm ads) than anyone else? Why does anyone think a skimpily clad woman knows more about auto repair tools than anyone else? Whatever the reason, I suspect it is much the same thing that makes people think a "reality TV" star would make a better President than anyone else.
Roseanne Barr is an actress. If one did not pay particular attention to her off camera, then one would be no more disgusted by her tweet than if it came from Jane Doe who, if she were a carpenter, would likely have no pressure put on her employer to fire her.
Moral of the story: skip the illusions about entertainers so that you will not become disillusioned. And if you want to buy an antiperspirant, don't expect a player in the N.F.L. to know better than anyone else what will be best for you.
2
The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the First Amendment did not protect someone who yells FIRE! in a crowded theatre. Yet, Trump and his supporters have been doing just that and cloaking themselves in the First Amendment while everything else burns. The media has been very complicit in allowing this behaviour. Now that we are surrounded in ashes, will someone please sue to stop all these Fire-yellers, on First Amendment grounds. Will the media call out the fact that they are NOT protected by the First Amendment now, or ever. As these people like to say, especially AG Sessions, enforce the law.
3
ABC did the only thing it could do, if it expected to pursue its current business model. Similarly, NFL owners dare not fire black players, if they expect to maintain current revenues.
What's puzzling is the presence of Bret Stephens, whose said some pretty terrible things himself, on the Times op-ed page, where neither the First Amendment nor the business requires it. Putting aside climate denial -- never mind the scope of the catastrophe --Mr. Stephens is on record as an enthusiastic supporter of torture and has been known to opine on what he refers to as "disease of the Arab mind". Replace "Arab" with "Jewish" or "Israeli", and how long would he have lasted?
The far right is correct in complaining of a double-standard. What it doesn't realize is that it's the beneficiary.
2
Finally! A column by Bret Stephens which is not an apology for Trump's supporters. I had almost given up on ever finding myself in agreement with his opinion pieces. But, this.
1
One of the things that is so surprising to me is that the most moral people these days seem to be corporate business executives.
Folks like me on the left like are accustomed to thinking of business executives as amoral profit maximizers, who need to be countered by moral institutions like government and the church.
But under the Trump administration there is no morality in government any more. And at least the Evangelical leadership has demonstrated that it couldn’t care less about morality through its continued support of Trump.
It’s interesting to note that Trump’s council of business advisers disbanded after his amoral comments on Charlottesville.
But his evangelical church advisers are all still there. Apparently they weren’t troubled by it. Or his incessant lying and race bating. Or his multiple affairs with pornstars. This is all fine with these church leaders.
Business men and woman are more moral than our government and church leadership.
1
That ABC acted so quickly is laudable, but also pragmatic. Advertisers don't want to be associated with statements like that, and the deranged dysfunctional people who make them. Her ratings were going to go on sliding, of course. The show was going to be canceled no later than season three, most likely. ABC only ordered 13 eps for next season, which suggests they knew they needed to limit exposure, to keep the show alive longer.
Roseanne has made other horrible statements in the past, but because she's been off the radar so long, it took this to remind everybody what a trainwreck of a personality she is. And once she did, the train really was wrecked--by her.
And she didn't even keep her word to leave Twitter.
People who love Trump don't love him because they agree with this or that policy. They love him because they're LIKE him. (Looking at you, Kanye.) Trump himself loves no one, because the Narcissist in Chief doesn't need friends when he can have sycophants.
Freedom comes with responsibility. If you're going to make controversial statements, you should be prepared to accept the consequences. Otherwise, you're just exercising your vocal apparatus. Or your Tweeting fingers.
1
“The show was supposed to help explain, and humanize, Trump’s base to a frequently unsympathetic and uncomprehending public.”
No – it was not. The show pandered to Trump’s base and that’s where its ratings came from.
“Also to their credit, Dungey and Iger acted..”
They get credit after they created a platform for an unstable performer such as Roseanne Barr, whose comment was so true to form? I don’t think so. Next you’ll tell us that Dungey and Iger were “surprised” by Ms. Barr’s comment.
Enablers never really do get it.
4
Stephens' comment about Trump supporters being subject to caricature is an interesting one. If you are a Trump supporter, you have three choices: (1) Embrace Trump because of his overt racism; (2) Embrace Trump in spite of that racism; or (3) Pretend such racism doesn't exist. None of these is a good alternative, or promising for the future of our country.
9
Rosanne Barr isn't just sad for her individual lapses against common decency. She's also representative of millions of older Americans who at some point in their lives fell down the rabbit hole - and landed in a Mirror Land haunted by fear, anger, and baseless conspiracy theories.
I don't know for sure why this, now. But it probably has something to do with the rate of change in our society. Technology advances so quickly, dragging the rest of us behind with it. There are those young and/or open enough to embrace and understand it, and there are those who cannot. Conspiracy theories give the fearful an illusion of control, as well as the illusion of a "we" that "sees through" those "plots" - and will thus expose them.
We all hate the idea of extinction. A large subset of White America feels its relevance is about to become culturally/biologically extinct. It also feels that it cannot compete in a truly level playing field, and would like to keep the odds stacked in their favor.
That is the real definition of racism. Not that we fear other races are "less" than us. It's that we fear they might be *more* successful, and we might become irrelevant.
3
This is a great piece, Mr Stephens. It is well reasoned and even where you note your disagreement, the tone is measured and relatable. This style should be the model for all of your writing.
1
"Perhaps the reason Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature is that they so frequently conform to type."
The best sentence in your column, Bret. And, no, it is not "much too sweeping," it is much too true.
5
Bret Stephens may have found common ground for decent folks on all sides of the political spectrum.
I would add to his comments that the long existing phenomenon of celebrity politics has reached a new low late in this decade. It will be refreshing when most of us once again do not care in the least what random actors and stage performers think of political debate just because they have a microphone.
Companies have the right to control their employee’s speech.
An employee can’t publicly disparage a company’s brand without expecting repercussions.
What a company considers disparagement, is up to the company.
ABC clearly considered Barr’s racist, personal insult to be bad for the brand. (I suspect Barr’s employment contract had a clause dealing with this.)
The NFL is opposing political speech. It is choosing the President’s interpretation of the gesture over the players’ stated explanation of the gesture.
ABC/Disney is opposing hate speech.
I know which brand has been enhanced by its stance.
PS If Bill Maher, a late night talk show host, is booted, can we boot Rush, Alex and all the hate speech sewers on right wing radio as well?
2
There is one reference that Stephens makes that is in error. Until recently, there were no workplace rules in the NFL about what a player could or couldn't do when the national anthem was played.
I suppose that both the NFL players and Roseanne have a "morals" clause in their contracts that allows an employer to fire them whenever their conduct brings disrepute to the company that hired them.
In Roseanne's case, the disrepute was clear. Ape jokes about African Americans have been a staple of white supremacy for ages and its association is as unmistakable as it is undeniable.
Not standing for the anthem is not so clear. Some players have correctly pointed out that while some demand respect for "our flag" during the singing of the anthem, that respect disappears when the flag is improperly used for commercial purposes.
And the commercial purposes run the gamut from beer cans to bikinis. Even the flag sewn on to players uniforms is an improper display.
For Black NFL player's it's clear that what they were protesting makes all the difference.
1
Thanks for saying this.
If this was a first time thing, she would get another chance. But those first chances are long in the past.
This is like the kid in class who creates problems every day, then complains when they get suspended because what they did THAT time was not "really so bad."
Except that this really was a fireable offense on it's own for most people.
When will Republicans hold their party leader to anything even close to this standard? He does and says worse every single day.
"Perhaps the reason Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature is that they so frequently conform to type".
Mr. Stephens, you hit the nail on the head.
1
"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."
An additional point of distinction: aren't at least some of those stadiums partially funded by taxpayer dollars or with tax benefits granted by public authorities? Shouldn't that make them at least quasi-public spaces in which forcing patriotism or smothering dignified protest is objectionable?
I'm neither a pro football nor Roseanne watcher but the difference in the nature of the speech being condemned couldn't be more stark. I grieve for the loss of this country's collective common sense and critical thinking skills.
4
Stephens gives an excellent formulation for the tricky issue of free expression: " It’s that we should lean toward greater tolerance for speech we dislike, and reserve our harshest penalties only for the worst offenders. That requires considered adult judgment, not professional defenestration via a bad Twitter ratio."
If we are ever going to get past the attack-dog hostility that has infected public discourse, we will have to figure out how to balance tolerance and disapproval in this kind of careful, measured way.
3
Simply this: There is no law nor a constitutional requirement for anyone to stand during the playing of the National Anthem whether the flag is displayed or not. It is a matter of "etiquette," part of the U.S. Flag Code. Standing during this event is a private, personal decision that is lawful for any citizen to adhere to or not.
If a multibillion-dollar for-profit entertainment (such as professional sports corporations) creates a contractual requirement that its employees stand during the playing of the anthem, it is up to the employees to stand and honor that contractual obligation, or not and risk being their employment being terminated. As far as I know, none of the professional sports teams in this country include that obligation in contracts with their employees.
4
A great column by Mr. Stephens. ABC will face blowback by the extreme right but there has to be a moral high ground. The NFL only cares about profits.
3
I told my kids as they were growing up"you can do or say anything you want in life, as long as you are willing to pay the consequences." So many people in the public sphere observe the first part of my advice to my childre, but whine when they have to face the conseqences of their words or deeds.
8
Thank you, Mr Stephens, for this thoughtful article. Because we are a decent people with a Constitution that protects citizens from government intrusion in areas of speech, I believe we are conflicted about how to understand the First Amendment when encountering episodes like Ms Barr's racial attack on a private citizen. I agree this is not a free speech issue at all but rather a human rights issue. Ms Barr's statements stem from propaganda and an ideology that one race believes it is superior to and has domination over another. She felt perfectly comfortable using a public platform (Twitter) to deploy her power to racially assault a private citizen because she did not see Mr Jarrett as either equal or human. Her tweet about Ms Jarrett is an effort to intimidate people of a different color through power dynamics and to incite a climate of hate and discrimination. Racial assaults are not free speech issues.
13
Finally someone who points out the NFL players are part of an entertainment industry and are paid by entertainment companies -- just like Roseanne. The players are still free to exercise free speech by sitting during the national anthem at their kids' Little League games.
5
The "national anthem" is not owned by the NFL. If the NFL came up with their own trademark song, and required players to stand, I think we would have a different debate. But this is the national anthem. What you are saying is that if a corporation decides to start playing the national anthem in the morning at each work day, and compelled employees to stand for that or lose their jobs, and they didn't stand, they should lose their job. How about a prayer? Separation of Church & State is a great thing. I believe it applies to the national anthem and the NFL.
Nice false equivalency. The moral high ground under Trump is now deep in the swamp. Sad.
Er what now?
Stephens is not making any logical sense, and is ignoring several incredibly valid points.
He defends Barr's firing as not being a free speech issue. So far so good.
But then he goes on to defend his support of the kneeling football players (with which I agree, by the way) on the grounds that they had a "moral right" to disagree with their employers, and that their protest was "dignified".
Nope. "Dignity" and "moral rights" have nothing to do with it.
The kneeling football players and Roseanne differ on some incredibly important points:
1. As others have pointed out, football players play on public land, protected by public police forces. They are not merely private employees of private companies. And the First Amendment specifically refers to the government (ie the public's) inability to shut down speech for political reasons.
There is a real First Amendment issue here, and Stephens is ignoring it.
2. It's now come out that the President of the United States put pressure on NFL owners to crack down on kneeling football players. Once again, from an entirely different direction, this becomes a free speech issue.
"Dignity" and "moral rightness" have nothing to do with it.
The crackdown on the kneeling football players is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and needs to be treated as such.
14
What also has to be noted about that is how many Americans don't seem to know that about the First Amendment, that the point is that the government cannot itself punish or otherwise try to deny American citizens their rights, and that is exactly what Trump did. I am shocked and worried by how many Americans don't seem to get that, which is one of the things the footballer situation revealed. We have got to bring American Civics back to schools. This erosion is likely one of the reasons Trump is being so successful at tearing down our institutions. Ignorance of the masses and compliance of the Republican Congress.
Absolutely. Mike Pence’s little stunt of showing up at a game to attack the players - at public expense - made it clearly an attempt by the government to silence speech, fully and publicly endorsed by the president.
1
"I know Trump supporters who don’t conform to type, and many of them are writers or talking heads. Let’s hear from them on this — presumably, something other than the muttered excuses and tendentious whataboutism of a political movement that is capable of saying and doing anything except look itself in the eye."
Got that exactly right.
9
No, Roseanne Barr's constitutional right to free speech is not being denied, as conservatives are claiming, but Bret Stephens mostly fails when trying to explain why:
"This is not a First Amendment issue. Constitutional rights are what you’re entitled to in the public sphere, not as an employee of a private corporation. Barr’s speech has not been curtailed; she remains free to opine (and mostly free to tweet) to her heart’s content. 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."
In fact, she is free to do so while getting $250,000 a show. No one is denying her "freedom" to do so. However the employer paying her is also free to fire her.
People like Stephens make this First Amendment issue too complicated. He gets close when talking about "in the public sphere", but you can say what you want in the private sphere also. It's just that the company you work for is also free to fire you.
The simpler way to describe it that the 1st Amendment right to free speech protects you from *prosecution by authorities* for things that you say. It doesn't protect you from all consequences of your actions, which is what the right seems to imagine.
This is what conservatives miss about boycotts. People have the right to decide not to buy something because of racist comments by someone in the company, and corporations have the right to decide that this is bad for business.
18
When ABC decided to reboot the Roseanne show they knew exactly who she was. They knew what they were going to get with her as well. I feel no sympathy for ABC at all. If they were blindsided by her actions its merely because they were too self-important to actually see who she really was.
Yes Iger did the right thing in canceling the Roseanne show. But remember this cancellation also put hundreds of people out of work. This is something he needs to rectify. There are innocent families that are without employment now because of his decision. He isn't going without a paycheck, they are. He needs to help these people out financially, or get them all new positions. Otherwise, his good decision turns into simply a virtue signaling at the expense of others.
Also just an additional thought here, the irony is that ABC execs were actually shocked that her show was a hit. And no, I don't by into the false accusation, that only Trump supporters liked her show. I'm not a Trumpnik, and I found her show tackled some very real issues for the everyday, from a possibly transgendered grandchild, interracial marriage, returning vets, unemployment, middle class economics, and even the opioid epidemic. These entertainment execs have no idea about the lives of the average American. In the end , their surprise that her show was a hit proves that they live in a political and economic bubble. This should give us all pause, considering that they are basically in charge of culture in this country.
3
They are only "in charge of culture" because people watch TV. Maybe if people turned off their TV's we'd all be better off.
As for the many who are out of work, that is Roseanne's fault, not Iger's. I'm sure the network had plenty of conversations with her about the content of her twitter feed.
Plenty of people watched The Apprentice and thought, gee, what a great businessman, look how rich he is, yadda yadda yadda, then failed to employ any critical thinking skills when they heard about Trump's multiple bankruptcies, saw a tax return with a posted loss of almost one billion dollars of other people's money, or read about the contractors and banks he stiffed. I'm sure plenty of workers suffered. When a contractor gets stiffed, workers get laid off. Are we supposed to blame the banks for lending him the money for his failures? Are they supposed to go around finding jobs for laid off workers?
Roseanne owns this failure, no one else.
9
Why does ABC need to do something for workers because they canceled a hit show? Would you be making the same demand if the show had flopped? Folks in the business know it’s a gamble - and piece in today’s Times tells how there were clear signs Roseanne would take the show down, and a steady stream of staffers were already leaving. Yes, it’s sad for the workers. And shareholders who saw a cash cow gone. But, in reality, that’s show business.
1
Actually when a show is a flop you look for other work. Networks order their shows a full 6 months to a year in advance. You can bet that those involved in the show thought they had upcoming jobs and turned down other positions. They were basically told by the network to NOT look for work. That is why this in on them and Iger and they owe those involved in the show some recompense.
Perfect dissection of this issue. It highlights the president’s true, lasting abuse of power; his assault on decency. He alone is able to behave worse than Roseanne on a daily basis while not suffering any repercussions. Once all boundaries on the basest behaviors are erased by the most powerful person in the world, any abuse is possible.
12
Among the necessary taboos of society used to be any positive depiction on television of homosexuality, interracial marriages or concourse, and even of married couples sleeping in the same bed. In the light of who was most recently elected President, havent we given up the right to such taboos?
2
I almost like how Bret Stephens describes the NFL player protest: “It’s true the players don’t have the legal right. But they have the moral one, especially when their gesture is dignified, considered and silent (even if I also think it’s mistaken);“
It’s a real interesting question if they actually do have the legal right. When the stadium and the players listen, stand or kneel for the national anthem, they take a break from the game, commerce and employment. These moments are a dedicated time to express your feelings and opinion toward the nation. They stand or kneel as citizens and not as players. As such they are fully protected by the constitution and can exercise their first amendment rights without infringement.
11
The first time I ever saw Ms Barr on TV was when I was backpacking through Europe after grad school. I had never watched the show till I treated myself to a night in a hotel with a TV. I was utterly appalled that such a program was what Europeans were being told a "typical American family" was like. I found her crass, the acting on the show dull and the storyline boring. Needless to say I never watched it again, but I remember all the tabloid antics of her, her family, her marriages and so on. Hotels and rentals never liked her as a costumer because her family always trashed the place. She is no role model. We do not need television shows to reflect our culture. That being said, her latest round of hate filled public venting should not be rewarded. But lets take this a step further and work on our day to day public discourse. We can not look to the president, anyone in our cabinet and a large number of politicians to be models. Lets start kindness and graciousness at home and stop looking to our leaders to model such behavior.
11
"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."
Mr Stephens, many (if not all) of those stadiums were financed with tax payer bonds, making them "quasi" public places, and therefore places where public protest shouldn't be banned.
Barr's firing by a private company, isn't even in the same ball park (pun unintended).
12
And we ALL have First Amendment rights w/o the GOVERNMENT, i.e.: the US President, stepping in to pressure punishment or otherwise attempt to silence people, including when they are exercised at work. Trump broke his oath when he did that, again.
Brett is right to focus on the moral virtues or lack thereof- the dignity exhibited by the kneeling NFL players versus the boorishness exhibited by Roseanne Barr, but the world can't be divided into protected spaces where free speech is paramount and corporate spaces where every word is scrutinized by your employer.
In a society increasingly dominated by the spaces of capital, you're shrinking the space for free and dignified speech as a moral virtue if that speech is regulated by your employer. It's not her employee status that makes it OK for her to be fired, for that's exactly the argument being made by the NFL owners who don't want to hire Colin Kirkpatrick.
Moral virtues such as courage, dignity and honesty are commendable even if (especially if?) they run counter to the employers stated or unstated rules. I would support a TV star who said "Black Lives Matter" on network TV even if that got her fired.
3
The problem with the football players issue which seems to have been lost here, for me, is not about whether people have First Amendment rights while at work (they do) or whether employers can punish or fire those who exercise them while at work (they can). The whole point of the First Amendment is that Americans have these rights -- without fear of the government interfering with them. In the case of the football players, the US President, a government official, and one who took at oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution, did step in and put pressure on private business owners to punish people for exercising those rights, saying they should be fired, even should leave the country. I don't understand why there hasn't been any discussion about that, since that is the entire crux of the free speech "thing". As usual, Trump skates. RE: Roseanne, he simply used it as yet another way to make an issue about himself, but he didn't urge her firing or scream that she should be penalized somehow for her words, and that is the difference between the Roseanne matter and the Football situation; the US President stepped in to urge punishment for one of those. the NFL execs were pressured by the US President to move in one direction. THAT is what was wrong and what people should be upset about. Add in Trump's four attempts to get the USPS to raise rates for Amazon as a way of harming a personal nemesis, not to mention being part of his ongoing assault on the free press.
31
Really well stated.
Roseanne’s ‘free speech’ wasn’t violated. Her employer canceled her show because the contract allowed them to and they chose to. I understand the difference between the freedom to express ideas and a slur. But again - this was her employer ‘who has the right’ to employ who it wants. I cannot go around saying everything at work that I say at home. Freedom of speech may give me the right to say what I want and not go to jail, but not keep my job. Roseanne got fired because she was a liability to her employer. She doesn’t have ‘the right’ to be that.
12
The NFL opened the gates for the players knee-taking protest. They accepted big contracts to support political ends such as military recruiting, air force fly overs, etc. Indeed, the playing of the national anthem in concert with massive military demonstrations on the part of the NFL changed the context to a political one. The NFL can not make the pre-game and half-time moments political without opening the gates to political actions in a different direction. The players protest is not only appropriate within the context constructed by the owners, but necessary.
I will not watch another NFL game while the owners have a policy to silence their players, and surely this is a right that they cannot take away from people who will boycott them.
20
Sports leagues are not like other businesses in one essential respect: they are exempt from standard antitrust law. There are probably a bunch of reasons for this (from the venal to the principled) but sports are treated differently, and they are different. They are entwined with culture, politics and the civic life. All sports exploit this to varying degrees, but it's a reality regardless. The NFL players who are making a statement (it's partly protest but mostly statement) are in my view making an important contribution in that context. In contrast, Barr is a purveyor of shock and incitement She was always about showing what was under the roc. Disney's platform is not protected by the government and is not a national (or local) trust. They had a right to toss her from the stage.
4
NFL players protest because they're sick and tired of systemic racism in this country. Roseanne Barr is living proof that their protests are justified.
77
Tolerance is a moral, categorical imperative. Tolerance of intolerance is a contradiction in terms. It would be categorically illogical -- the term "tolerance" itself would have no objective meaning and no universal application.
3
Roseanne’s racist opinions are tolerated - she hasn’t been jailed, her Twitter numbs have not been removed - but being tolerated doesn’t mean she has to keep her job if those same racist opinions are hen seen to represent ABC - and her show.
Whenever you look toward the White House to check the country's moral compass on situations like this, it always turns back to how Trump was maligned and no one was held accountable. From his and Sanders and all the rest of the "leaders", there is only one person in this country that can be maligned. Anyone else is fair game. No apologies ever required. So I suggest the White House Press Corp start rephrasing the questions: "Ms. Sanders, can you give us some examples of statements, behaviors, or policies that don't involve the president that he would consider racist or offensive or crossing the line?" The problem here is, for Trump, there is no bar (no pun intended) of what is acceptable versus unacceptable. We need to know the Trump standard to make informed judgements. In addition, why should anyone apologize to Trump. Examples Trump cites are simply modeling his own, acceptable (from his perspective), behavior. "Just following your lead, Mr. President."
8
That ABC had a right to end one of its own shows is obvious, because they can end them for any reason, right down to disliking the instrumentation of the theme song, or just being in an odd mood, corporationally speaking.
That they WERE right to end it implies that they were providing some significant benefit to society by taking the show off the air, which seems a lot more questionable. After all, ABC doesn't control its writers' off-the-air activity. Ms. Barr can still feel free, if she wishes, to refer to a U.S. government official as "the unlikely spawn of Karl Marx and a toucan," regardless of anything ABC says or does.
So unless there was something harmful about the SHOW (and then ABC would have to take some accountability for airing it,) I don't really see how ABC is doing a public service by ending it. It's not ABC's job, nor a particularly virtuous action, for them to use their economic leverage over Ms. Barr to publicly punish her for unrelated speech.
3
How dare an employer use its “economic leverage” when an employee does something the employer finds unacceptable and which could reflect negatively on the employer? Really? Except exactly that employer action is written into many contracts. It’s commonly known as a “morals clause.” Sorry, ABC can do exactly what they did. And, remember, by canceling a number one show they acted knowing it would financially hurt the company.
1
Roseann Barr was the star of an ABC show so what she does publicly affects ABC's brand. It most decidedly harms ABC if ABC wishes its brand to represent something other than racist insults.
1
To the extent that Ms. Barr's show was an attempt to explain Trump's base to the world, things have gone perfectly, right down to Donald Trump deciding it's cancellation means somebody owes him an apology. Bravo, ABC!
34
Stadiums are built with public monies & have publicly paid police officers providing security at events. Activities at stadiums include not just games, but also concerts, religious gatherings & political rallies. Stadiums are public venues, while the teams that play in them are private. Players are not wrong to protest in a stadium.
24
Football players are not "playing in the stadiums of the teams that pay their salaries". They are playing mostly in stadiums financed and owned by cities, which make these stadiums public forums.
38
Are the cities also their employers? Cause if they ain't, then their REAL employers - you know, the owners - can institute whatever rules they like. The players aren't slaves - they can, I'm certain make the same exorbitant salaries in other lines of work. Oh wait...
1
Not too racist, dude. Interesting use of the word "slaves" -- sure it wasn't used completely insensitively to refer to the mainly black players who have protested. In fact, NFL players are chattel slaves -- it is called the draft. They don't get to choose their employers or where they live. Kind of like a slave sale, eh?
Every day every single person on earth has choices to make. We all choose who we are.
My mother use to tell me 'You made your bed, now sleep in it.'
I prefer: 'You chose this path through a few lousy choices decided by you and for you. Now you have to work your way back or continue forward. Whichever you choose will be an indicator of your integrity or lack of it.'
Most of us learn as we travel through life. Some of arrive at the conclusion what we choose is reflected back onto us. Some of us begin choosing wiser.
7
True. Although we choose our own decisions we are never alone. Every decision of ours impacts others knowingly or unknowingly just as others’ decisions impact us. Fact is we are ALL in it together. I might wear an oxygen mask to protect myself from breathing in polluted air that others have created through emission chimney stacks or sheer ignorance of the interconnectedness of all beings, but try taking a shower with the oxygen mask on, sooner or later I have to take it out. We have gotta teach our children from the very beginning that we are all interdependent interconnected and intertwined from beginingless Times.
5
There seems to be a compulsion on the part of white supremacists to push the limits of acceptance for their belief that it is they who are the injured; it is their world that is constantly threatened by outside influence. I'm not sure what the most prudent decision would have been for Disney, but they chose to cancel Roseanne's show and it was from the onset an option available to them, less likely in response to the "right thing" than to bend to the pressures which surely would have come to bear had they done nothing. It was also an initial gamble on their part to give Roseanne this reprised venue because so many do agree with her "take" on things. The problem was and is that the intolerant can't help themselves; sooner or later they always cross the line of acceptability.
20
Since the middle ages kneeling on one knee (semi-genuflexion) has been a gesture of reverence towards a worldly power—king, emperor, prince, etc. It was opposed to full genuflexion (kneeling on both knees), which was, and still is, a gesture reserved for worship of the divine.
From a traditional point of view, falling to one knee before the National Anthem ought to be seen as a strong gesture of patriotism. By what subtlety of symbolism or misunderstanding of tradition has it become a gesture of protest?
19
The NFL benefits from a Congressional exemption of the antitrust laws - the Sports Broadcasting Act. Most venues benefit from huge public tax breaks. Unlike most people in the private sector (including the cast of Roseanne), NFL players cannot quit and go to another league if they don't like their boss. The NFL is not a purely private venture
13
Canadian football league, along with two newly formed pro football leagues that will debut in the next two years. I'm sure these incredibly talented folks can also look forward to similar compensation in other private employment opportunities, right?
Similar compensation? Most NFL players are lucky to make 5% of their NFL salary after they leave the NFL.
1
So in order for American football players to give their opinion, they have to leave American and stop playing football (the only thing most players are trained for).
I have never watched Roseann's shows but the comment that she made was disgusting.
However also disgusting was John McCain's comment.
"The reason Chelsea Clinton is so ugly is because her father is Janet Reno."
Both Roseann and McCain have the right to make disgusting comments.
We have the right not to watch Roseann shows or not vote for John McCain.
John McCain's cancer does not excuse his comment. I hope he gets medical treatment but that is a separate issue from what that comment says about his values.
15
This is another false equivalency and more of the whataboutism that has infected our public discourse.
John McCain apologized, has rarely made such public gaffes, is a genuine war hero, and has devoted his life to public service. I admire him greatly, even though I disagree with many of his policies. During his campaign against Obama he publicly called out the bigotry of his own supporters - you can see the video on YouTube.
Barr is a foul, bigoted clown who never served any cause but her own. There is no comparison.
2
Thank you, Mr. Stephens, for an excellent and well-differentiated discussion on free speech. I certainly do not agree with all your political positions, but this analysis hit the nail on the head.
11
Bravo Mr. Stephens. You made an excellent distinction between our First Amendment rights and the requirements of others in response to free speech that most would consider toxic.
15
Thanks for a thoughtful piece. I'd say, though, that there is one difference between the TV show and the football games, and that is that football games start with the national anthem. That should _not_ make the moment political; the idea is to pull everybody together focusing on the ideals that shaped the country. Unfortunately, it can easily become political. In my own experience, people with an agenda (right or left) make it political the minute the first strands are heard. It seems unavoidable these days and it makes the experience more complicated than Roseanne's tweets.
3
The minute our DoD started paying sports to display the jingoism propaganda it became political. When our teams are decked out in camouflage, its political.
When people are demanded to stand etc. it is political and no longer American.
Or the America we are supposed to be.
24
Bravo for pointing out the history of DoD, sports, and the national anthem. It's frightening that citizens know so little of their own history, and never think to wonder when, how or why we established these public rituals.
4
Maybe the first Stephens article I can wholeheartedly agree with. Maybe his most important point is this: "But what Barr tweeted wasn’t an idea. It was a slur." Increasingly, when I hear "free speech" advocates on the right they seem to be defending a trivial freedom—not the inviolable right to express one's ideas or beliefs—but merely a right to say nasty, hateful things and suffer no consequences. Speech as an expression of ideas should never be restricted. Speech as an act of hate, as a way of humiliating or intimidating or harassing another person or as a way of making another person feel uncomfortable, excluded, or unwelcome in a public place they have a right to access need not be protected. The NFL players who kneel are expressing an important and powerful idea. Many of those on the right who rail against "political correctness" are simply asking to suffer no consequences when they choose to attack others with hateful words.
18
The Supreme Court, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, set a very high bar for speech to be ruled criminal, and it was right to do so.
Unless the intent of speech is to incite lawlessness AND that lawlessness is likely AND imminent, it is legal.
What Barr said was despicable. It was not criminal. It must never be criminal. It must always be protected.
What you’re suggesting is a dangerous slippery slope to fascism. We’re teetering on that edge already. Let’s not tip it over.
1
I suggest there is a more serious issue here than simply the racist rant of a TV performer. If a decidedly conservative, solidly right-wing, Republican columnist has penned the essay Mr. Stephens has here, I'd say our country is in serious trouble.
Of course Ms. Barr may say whatever she wants, however offensive it may be. But as Mr. Stephens rightly notes, she is not entitled to her continued employment after such a racist tirade.
But the Rosanne "incident" is about much more than "free speech", and I suspect this is why Mr. Stephens is so vehement in his denunciation of her. Demonization of groups is one of the first steps in organizing fascist regimes. Any student of Paxton or Shirer will recall their emphasis on identifying "the other" and slurring minorities in an effort to justify inhuman and cruel treatment of them. After all, this sort of labeling denigrates their humanity, permits the perpetrator to view his victim as less than human.
This is exactly what Trump wants to accomplish. And he knows how to do this. By threats, by intimidation of those closest to him. By threats to Congress, holding Republicans' re-elections hostage if they dare cross him. He knows they're terrified of his base, and they'll toady to him as long as he remains in power.
So understand this. Mr. Stephens' essay is much more than a discussion of free speech rights in a toxic political environment. It is an examination of the groundwork Trump has laid to install fascism here. Now.
29
Let’s not ignore that the groundwork has been done before Trump came into office, and he has added many of those builders, both officially and unofficially, to his team. Trump may be the point person, but, like much of his work, he’s the brand, the front man for those who did the actual work.
2
Good article. You divide and clarify the knot of issues well.
Sadly, too many on the right just want to see a good fire to throw fuel on. Mr. Stephens is interested in trying to stomp out the flames.
I refuse to think in cowardly equivalences. If an NFL player threw a flag on to the field and ground it under his foot, please, do not tell me "liberal;s" would be rejoicing or defending that player. No, we would not. Taking a knee has to be one of the most innocuous demonstrations I can imagine.
The conflagration facing us is not "both sides do it." Only one side wants the right to start fires and act out anger as if it were a right. The other side wants to protest in the hopes we can somehow move forward.
The Right has some serious problems. And they are gradually devouring it, as Trump keeps handing out gasoline.
17
A nice reminder that decency and self-control used to be conservative values before You-know-who and his followers took over the Ministry of Magic.
I'm a liberal but I think we do need conservatives in order to have an effective democracy. No country can run on only one set of opinions. But the Trumpers are the last straw. Never thought I'd say this but couldn't we bring Reagan back?
Reagan's policies often made me very mad, but he never aggrandized himself, he never made anything personal, and our political warfare never made me feel personally insulted.
4
This piece surveys a number of valid points on the subject of free speech. However, the essential points on the Barr case are these two:
"*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. "
That line alone would be sufficient, if not superfluous, in a less legalistic age.
"The intelligent defense of free speech should not rest on the notion that we must tolerate every form of speech, no matter how offensive. It’s that we should lean toward greater tolerance for speech we dislike, and reserve our harshest penalties only for the worst offenders."
Exactly. This is the more general point of overriding importance, and a sword that cuts in all directions. We often hear the sophistical argument that tolerance of the most offensive utterances is the one true test of freedom of speech. Even if that were so, there would be no sane basis for submitting to such a procedural test continually and routinely at the cost of the substantive well-being which freedom of speech is supposed to protect.
And nothing could be more naïve than to buy into the high-toned rationales of entertainers, artists, and public intellectuals for whom the strip-mining of taboos is an easy alternative to professional excellence. Disruption for its own sake is neither a defense of freedom nor a contribution to society. It's what used to be called anarchism.
5
The studio crew should sue Barr for loss of wages, assuming they were under contract. Hit them in the pocketbook where it really hurts. Hate speech is not free speech!
19
I was with you, Mr. Stephens, until the last paragraph. Your analysis in the previous paragraphs was so on point as to preclude reasonable objections. Not that that will prevent unreasonable ones; lately it seems that few people understand the Constitutional basis for "freedom of speech", a right ascribed to NFL players in kneeling that (as you say) they do not legally have. But how different their dignified and purposeful demonstration was from the routinely foul-mouthed and irresponsible Ms. Barr! Good riddance to her. And three cheers for the people she tries to do down.
11
As far as I've read Roseanne's bigoted tweet was made apropos of nothing...VJ apparently just popped into her head and the associated thoughts hit the air waves. No, it was no "joke", it was not satire, it did not make a political statement: it was a personal statement from the mind of a bigot who believed she didn't have to hide under the sheets.
Roseanne's said her "supporters" make her "want to fight back" so she's considering her options. In the meantime, in true Roseanne, Trumpian-style, she's got a new conspiracy theory: Michelle Obama made a call to ABC and demanded and ensured Roseanne would be fired.
There will be no end to the vileness, the venality nor its being excused, explained away through the most twisted of mental gymnastics so long as Trump remains in the Oval Office and "trumpism" remains to pollute public life.
17
The reaction of Trump supporters is completely predictable. - Blaming liberals for their "political correctness".
10
"Considered adult judgement"?! That's kind of in short supply these days, I can't be the only one who's noticed.
5
She’s not in jail. Her constitutional right to free speech has not been violated.
Decency, however, has. By Ms. Barr.
19
Hurrah Bret Stephens. And Thank You.
8
Trump and Pence are so appalled by football players taking a knee in peaceful protest against racism, but San Diegans were completely appalled when Roseanne Barr spat on the Padre's ball field after the National Anthem. She's been quite coarse for many, many years. It's not funny.
20
I know Trump supporters who don’t conform to type, and many of them are writers or talking heads.
What type do they conform to?
4
Couldn't they just fire Roseanne and replace her with a new actor? Or something? A creative something?
This seems excessive, authoritarian...?
2
So corporate. So like a business making a decision. Which might include that when a show is built around a person and persona its like ends when the person is removed.
3
Nice to see Mr. Stephens on the correct side of a controversy, but I have to disagree with the part about praising ABC/Disney's great moral stance. Like all of us, they knew what a racist she is before they agreed to air her show in the first place. It was indeed only when public outrage boiled over that they did what, yes, they must have known all along would be the right thing.
3
With all the creative talent out in the world the big question to ABC network execs why in the world did you allow this washed up tv star and the has-been actors to bring back this tv show in the first place. You couldn't find some new talent? You couldn't find another comedian who wanted to create a show about nothing. Hey ABC execs how about you look at some of the screen plays you have ignored all these years by some no name talent. Look at some tv show ideas by people who have talent.
6
"Donald Trump took to Twitter on Wednesday to denounce Disney’s chairman, Robert Iger, for not apologizing to him ... the thousandth reminder of his unfitness for office."
What good is the FCC if it can't make broadcast companies apologize to Trump for reporting the news?
Ajit Pai better watch his back. Ms. Barr has a lot of free time on her hands, and she's just the type of quality person that the President loves to appointment to government leadership positions.
FCC chairperson Rosanne Barr.
Sure, roll your eyes. But does that really sound that much more insane than Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos or EPA Head Scott Pruitt? Or for that matter: President Donald Trump?
22
Thank you Brett Stephens, for clarifying the so often dragged in 1st amendment issue. This is simply slander and bigotry. It is using Rosanne's public notoriety to spread hate, and to destroy civility. this is a new bottom, even in Trump land, with no possibility of avoiding the racist intent.
10
With the numerous offensive slurs tweeted by Trump,why haven't his Republican enablers in congress cancelled his presidency. Are we not better than that.
27
''This is not a “one bad tweet” issue...'' Aye it isn't, nor is it ''one good reaction issue either.
What is getting brushed over, is that ABC hired Roseanne in the first place. She had a history of racism ( and other bad acts ), yet they reasoned that it all was not enough to affect the bottom line. It wasn't for a time. ( short that it was )
The issue is that the bottom line is moving, much like what society as whole is willing to accept.
This President/administration was voted in ( knowing all of the previous bad acts ) and I suspect that the same ''correction'' will come about.
The bottom line is no longer profitable.
5
To compare insults to an individual as a result of their personality and or behaviour with an insult based upon an immutable characteristic such as race is ridiculous on its face. It is also the false equivalency trap that is a favorite of the far-right propaganda machine. I do realize that reasonable, logical arguments to defend or promote Trump are elusive on the best day...on a normal day, they are non-existent. Those that are not infected with hate, purposeful ignorance and malicious piety are required to stand as a fortress protecting our democracy and related freedoms that our heroes died to preserve. Americans like Martin, Bobby, Harriet, John, Eleanor, Malcolm and Rose....The list can go on and will go on because without the gate keepers of freedom and equality this nation will fail. Trump is a dangerous figure in our present. Like other dangerous figures in history that have challenged our protections and tested our resolve, he will be relegated to our nightmares and extinguished from our waking world. Those that follow his train of thought and ill-conceived ideals and ideas , if not swayed by reason or education , will find another subject to reinforce their deplorable sense of self-hate and destruction. An ointment of freedom, equality and democratic values will eradicate the blistered rash that is Trump.
19
Mr. Stephens comment about NFL players not having a 1st Amendment “right” to make their peaceful, silent protest against police brutality on blacks is missing a key factor, I think: perhaps the “private corporate space” where the players (now effectively prohibited by league and corporate owner policy) is more of a public space! After all, how many NFL stadiums are entirely built, run and maintained with private funds? If a publicly funded space, wouldn’t 1st Amendment rights have some weight?
21
An essential part of the problem, one discussed neither in the column nor in the comments I have read, is why anyone bothers to pay attention to entertainers in any capacity other than their profession. That they do is, of course, beyond question. It is the basis of much advertising. But why is another story. What makes anyone think a member of the Houston Rockets knows anything more about insurance (State Farm ads) than anyone else? What makes anyone think a skimpily clad woman knows more about auto repair tools than anyone else? Whatever the reason, I suspect it is much the same thing that makes people think a "reality TV" star would make a better President than anyone else.
Roseanne Barr is an actress. If one did not pay particular attention to her off camera, then one would be no more disgusted by her tweet than if it came from Jane Doe who, if she were a carpenter, would likely have no pressure put on her employer to fire her.
Moral of the story: skip the illusions about entertainers so that you will not become disillusioned. And if you want to buy an antiperspirant, don't expect a player in the N.F.L. to know better than anyone else what will be best for you.
5
Since almost the beginning of motion pictures in the US, attention to stars private life has been part and parcel of the star system and entertainment marketing and is by now part of US culture.
Yet we again have a D-list reality TV charlatan as Commander in Chief.
What could go wrong...?!
1
Brilliant column. May this be a turning point.
6
Summed up in an excellent article. Though it does beg the question, why isn't Joy Reid gone from MSNBC in regards to her cruelty homophobic comments that were recently discovered.
4
That the President of the United States will not take this easy opportunity to condemn the vile and racist tweet tells us everything we need to know about him. In November we'll have a chance to begin to repair the immense damage of the greatest unforced error in American political history.
28
Twitter and many other forms of new media travel one way, from sender to receiver. There is no back and forth, dialogue or discussion. Barr did not stand on a box in Washington Square to discuss Jarrett in a public forum. Public figures who choose to "tweet" or use other forms of instant social media have control over what they send, but the public has little control over what is received. Once a tweet or tasteless media comment is in the mass media world, it cannot be unsent or tossed in the trash like third class mail. It becomes a part of everyone's daily experience. The enormous reach of social media redefines the concept of freedom of speech, because new media can also become a potent form of propaganda. Does Barr illustrate a greater problem with 21st century electronic "free speech"? Is this more to this than just tasteless, racist comments?
2
Aren't we all employees of someone? So that means none of us can exercise our freedom of speech.
2
Yes, we all have a right to free speech. But that right isn’t free of consequences.
Ugh. You may exercise your right to speech (non-absolute right) against the state. You do not, as conservatives like to point out, have the same right[s] against your employer. Is this really news to some of my fellow citizens?
1
The president not only doesn’t understand the distinction between being a public figure and a private citizen subjected to an unprovoked racial attack, he fails to grasp that every single horrible thing that has ever been said or even thought about him by anyone who has ever lived on this planet is most probably true.
14
"I know Trump supporters who don’t conform to type, and many of them are writers or talking heads. Let’s hear from them on this — presumably, something other than the muttered excuses and tendentious whataboutism of a political movement that is capable of saying and doing anything except look itself in the eye."
Perfect.
Thanks.
8
"Constitutional rights are what you’re entitled to in the public sphere, not as an employee of a private corporation." Mr. Stephens could not be more mistaken. Private corporations are far less private and much more in the public sphere than he images. His formulation of the problem tells us that the Constitution does not extend, and our rights as citizens are not applicable, to the work place. It is nothing less than an invitation to tyranny, not in this instance of the State, but of capital. He needs to rethink this matter without delay.
2
He is, however, largely correct about the distinction between civil rights and employee rights. We may not like it, but it is the way things are. Do you really think you could say/write things that embarrass your employer with impunity?
4
No, you're mistaken. Freedom of speech doesn't require every person and organization to provide Roseanne with a platform from which to speak, nor does it force anyone to maintain a relationship with an individual they find objectionable.
We've heard so much from Roseanne since she was fired that I fail to see how her freedom of speech has been curtailed. She's got plenty of other avenues to broadcast her ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if she soon turns up on the Fox network.
3
I wasn´t discussing Rosanne Barr´s freedom of speech, I addressed the absurdity of Mr. Stephens´s proposition that there is a red line separating the public and the private spheres, and that capital is on the other side of the line. It manifestly is not.
The real legal issue with the NFL protests is the insertion of the government in the form of the President into the issue. He made statements suggesting that the NFL should be punished if it didn’t make the rule. That’s why the First Amendment might come into play. Although I agree they have a morally superior position it’s not really relevant to the issue.
If a government official had urged ABC to fire Roseanne that would have raised the same issues ( the First Amendment protects vile and hateful speech, even if it conveys no “ idea”). But that’s not what happened here.
11
Good article, though I cannot help but think that it belabours a very simple point that can be summarised in 14 words: the right to free speech does not engender the right to a free audience.
12
Stephens is wrong when he writes, "...an employer... whose values she traduced." The only values ABC and every large corporation has is profit. They smelled a disaster in the making, figured the pressure on sponsors to pull out, calculated the cost, and simply decided to cut their losses, perhaps even increase their value by appearing to be a "good guy."
As to free speech: most Americans do not seem to understand that what the First Amendment prohibits is the Federal government (and through the Fourteenth Amendment, state governments) from inhibiting free speech. In general, there is no private right to free speech, with certain exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court relating to monopolies, areas that can legitimately be considered public spaces even if privately owned, and a few other things.
4
@ Steve Fankuchen.
You perhaps undercut your own correct point here by overstating it. Ms. Barr did in fact traduce her employer’s values. Their primary values, as you say, involve maximizing profit. She put them at risk of making less profit because the entire world was about to turn on them; most inevitably, her advertisers would’ve walked away. By the way, there’s nothing wrong with a television network making money. That’s what it supposed to do. But your dismissal of the possibility that it might have other values is perhaps a bit reductionist. Some corporations, not many but some, feel at least a minimal obligation to be reasonable corporate citizens. Disney is at the forefront of ending the white-men’s-club domination of show business and that’s partly but not solely about profit. That is to say, Channing Dungey is both extraordinarily talented and black but you haven’t noticed a lot of other black presidents of entertainment divisions running around. I would suggest that ABC made its decision quickly and without fuss and without hesitation, and if most of that was about profit at least some of it was about the sheer ugliness of their employee’s behavior.
7
I think the principle of free speech is not violated when Disney/ABC says "Not On My Platform!".
They had given her a platform, in the form of her show, to communicate with the public. Her tweets are merely an extension of her speech on that platform.
At the same time, Disney/ABC should recognize that her crude, know-nothing Trump-like persona was what they were exploiting to attract a huge audience of similar eyeballs to deliver to their advertisers.
That said, I am glad--more, I am relieved--that Disney/ABC ended the show.
14
Precisely. She can still say and tweet about whatever she wants. But as a public figure herself she should understand that whatever she says will be noticed, commented on, and influence others. She's not the only one who may not like Valerie Jarrett but she is the one who had a tv series, who tweeted something extremely nasty, and who,in the end is paying the price.
12
"The show was supposed to help explain, and humanize, Trump’s base to a frequently unsympathetic and uncomprehending public."
This piece is on point pretty much across the board, but the idea in the quote above always troubles me. I understand poverty, and I understand the anxiety of a changing world, and I'm sympathetic to that. But I don't understand how people can use their struggles to justify dehumanizing others. Trump and his core supports have shown themselves pretty willing to degrade anyone and everyone, and then cry about how they're victims of a "liberal media" and "pc culture". For that kind of willfully uncomprehending behavior, I have no sypathy.
30
Trump's base is made up of primarily middle- income folks, not poverty stricken folks. This is a fact that the media has largely ignored in this drama that continues to play out, citing the poverty of the out-of-work people in the "heartland" pitted against the "coastal elites."
These types of generalizations hurt our current understanding of what is really happening politically, and how it is discussed in the public
sphere.
What is happening is less of an economic one than it is a backlash against liberal policies on immigration, racism, education, LGBT rights, environmental protection, government regulation practices, etc.
Anything that adds to our polarization--specifically continuing to frame Trump's base as
low-income and out of work--adds to the propaganda.
8
Bret, this was a well-considered and nicely written exposition of the issue of free speech in America, and the emptiness of the protest of some sectors of American society of whatever it is they call "political correctness".
5
For some, it’s easy to confuse intolerance of abusive and racist speach with attempts to limit First Amendment rights. For those who are confused here’s a simple test: Was (insert name here) jailed because of his/her statement? The answer is no.
14
Where were Dungey and Iger's moral principles when they hired this woman and provided her with a platform from which to spew her hatred? Unlike some of our fallen idols, Barr was not hiding her true nature; she was broadcasting it loudly.
ABC should never have gotten itself into this. Yes, they should be praised for finally doing the right thing, but let's not forget that they were willing to sell their souls for ratings.
12
Roseanne Barr’s poisoned arrow she shot at Valerie Jarrett was not condemned by the president. Instead, he lamented a lack of apology for insults he feels he has suffered unjustly. Barr’s comments mirrored the president’s and his base’s attitudes about all things Obama. That Ms. Jarrett is black and a former employee of the Obama administration made her a prime target for this kind of comment. Ms. Jarrett had the grace to pardon the insult and move on but, once again, the president makes any issue or news item all about him.
People like Barr and the president give aid and comfort to the hateful tweets and messages that depict Ms. Jarrett and former first lady Michelle Obama as “an ape in heels”. These attacks have nothing to do with freedom of speech. They are the result of the racial insensitivity this president has encouraged, first when he hatched his odious birther comments to cast Mr. Obama as a fraudulent president, then going out of his way to demean his predecessor.
Barr and the president are both deplorable. ABC rightly showed Barr the door. Hopefully, the American people will show this president the way out, that is, if Robert Mueller doesn't beat us to it.
216
Trump’s response was utterly predictable.
First off, when does he ever not change the topic to himself and his supposed victimhood?
Secondly, of course Trump was not offended by what Roseanne wrote. Hey, when does he ever apologize for his own racist and inflammatory remarks?
So while it is heartening to see such an immediate, unequivocal condemnation of Ms. Barr’s offensiveness, it is discouraging that lower standards are being applied to the person in our highest office.
There is still a moral backbone in this country; now Trump needs to feel it, too.
43
@NM, NY: "...a moral backbone in this country..." I usually agree you, esteemed daughter of the Cairene professor, but my many years have seen my hopes for a better and understanding America recede before my outstretched hand. I remember the love-in at Grant Park on November 4, 2008, the night Barack Obama was elected. I thought that, as a nation, we scaled the heights that defeated other nations in terms of racial tolerance and forbearance. I never reckoned on Mitch McConnell. In reality, he's the 45th president although he carries another title: a 21st Century Jefferson Davis. McConnell is the fountain of the poison from which Donald Trump drank greedily. It didn't kill him because all he did was imbibe what already inside him. Never forget that 63-millions thought him a grand, noble idea. "...moral backbone..." I don't think so.
9
@NM -- I agree with you. There is a moral backbone in America, personified by the rule of law and common decency in spite of presidential and Congressional attempts to weaken American democracy. The printed and electronic media have called out the president and his minions every day for his destruction of American values which the whiner-in-chief decries as fake news. The president will never feel a moral backbone because he's as spineless as the reptiles that inhabit the swamp that is his administration.
2
Good column right on the money. I think the best sound bite I’ve seen so far on the Barr brouhaha came from the maker of Ambien, which supposedly caused Barr’s tweet about Ms. Jarrett. The company said that racism is not a side-effect of Ambien. Perfect.
57
What about racial slurs against Jews from the head of the Nation of Islam? Never mind the lack of decency, and talk about believing in conspiracy theories if they involve Jews.
Barr was correctly removed. I do not understand people who get a kick out of dehumanizing others in western society. A paid, public entertainer should have known better. Yet, behind doors, anti-Semitic religious and lay leaders in America do that, even worse. There are also boatloads of outrageous tweets against Jews, and others, without discourse to firing them from celebrity jobs.
No double standards, please.
8
I can think of exactly zero celebrities in the Nation of Islam. Can you name one for my edification? And then, name one with an anti-Semitic tweet habit?
Also, for what it's worth the NOI teaches polygenesis and believes white and black people derive from separate divine creations. It's literally an absurd position to take on "faith" but all religions believe irrational things, so I don't much worry about it. When someone in the NOI speaks about anything, I assume they are being ignored as crackpots. Who takes them seriously? And who is a celebrity adherent to their "faith"?
The NFL should put up or shut up, just like ABC. If players taking a knee during the national anthem is so offensive, how can they take tickets or sell food/beverage/merchandise during the anthem? They should close down all concessions and ticket gates too.
268
Be careful what you suggest, even ironically. I have seen "patriots" at baseball games being quite intolerant of people who do not satisfy their standards. Recently, when I was talking on a concession line during the anthem, someone told me to shut up, and to take off my hat. Rather than aggravate the confrontation, I complied, but I would have to think hard about what to do if it happened again.
18
Taking this thought experiment further: go ahead and fire the players who protest. That way we would know the morality of the players who remained. And those who protested themselves out of a job could start their own league - a place that's just about the game, and not politics at all, even though it would be played and watched by people who have a better understanding of that distinction.
A nice dream...
6
Roseanne has told us what she thinks--but can the mental process that leads to despicable racist insults really be classified as thinking? It seems more like a toxic river of fear, willful ignorance, lack of empathy, and nastiness that whirls past the realm of thought without a backward glance.
11
We are a country in rapid decline. The voices of hate and degradation, led by our fearful leader, are out in full force. We need a revolution in November. VOTE
164
Love it and thank you!
5
Mr. Stephens, I certainly agree that ABC was well within its rights to fire Ms. Barr. In fact, I will go further and say that I believe it to be the responsible thing to do. I also agree with you that this is not a free speech issue. That said, you are, as you admitted and then tried to minimize, following a double standard when you then attempt to justify the NFL players whom you support in defiance of league rules. From where I stand, your attempt at a "moral" distinction is merely a weak attempt to justify your own poorly reasoned thinking. Ms. Barr's hideous remarks may seem worse to you than the football player's kneeling during the National Anthem, but, in both cases, the actors involved are violating workplace standards and are subject to whatever discipline is deemed appropriate by their employers.
5
I quite frankly don't see how the two situations can be equivocated: Trump had no reason whatsoever (oh - except for racism) to insert himself and his opinions into the NFL players' protest.
What exactly are the 'league rules' that say NFL players must stand and be visible for the national anthem? Please post for all to see. And, not retroactive 'rules', please.
Trump politicized the kneeling for one reason only: he knew it would appeal to his base, rile them up, and give them license to put those 'uppity' people in their place. You think he's patriotic, really? I'd like to see some real examples of that too. He may like the money he can fleece from the US using the very laws that are supposed to protect people, but given a chance, he'll use money from whatever country he can, regardless of human rights violations.
The NFL moved their own goalposts in an attempt to glean support Trump and his supporters. ABC simply threw the flag down, knowing that the rules of the public sphere had been violated, and stuck with the call.
16
Why is it that we want to hold Rosanne Barr to a higher standard than Donald Trump?
They're both racist bigots, and both have continued to display terribly wrong bad behavior in their use of the Twitter platform.
This happens again and again, and yet where's the hewing outrage?
They both should have their Twitter feeds permanently terminated, and we must say no more to this sick acceptance of horrible public diatribes, just because they we made by celebrities.
C'mon, where's the common sense?
27
All of America abjectly apologizes to Dr. Ruth that people here are free to defend their beliefs on publicly available platforms just as she is, albeit in terms that she finds offensive because they don't comport with her own ideological beliefs.
4
Who's this "we" you're talking about, Dr. Ruth?
I commend ABC's actions, and I wish they had to power to remove Trump from office. But that power is vested in our rabbit-hearted congress.
6
RL might have missed Mr. Stephens' accurate statement that Roseanne wasn't broadcasting an idea, but a slur. Which is exactly what our juvenile president does - he attacks people he doesn't like with name-calling and lies. Which apparently floats RL's boat.
ABC was warned by a long history of Roseanne Barr bizarre racist behavior. They chose to roll the dice and lost. They deserve no accolades for firing her, their behavior was amoral at best.
People and organizations making money leveraging Trump's hate deserve to be ostracized.
39
"...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?"
Yes. There is no comparison of the two. In one case, a group is elegantly and understandably protesting violence against black and brown people and, in the other case, a woman is spewing unvarnished hatred and racism. Again: no comparison.
40
Well, Bret Stephens, I agree with you. Although, I'm in support of the dignified and silent protest of the NFL players.
Roseanne Barr is a boor, just go back to her singing of the national anthem and you get the idea.
We all have Freedom of Speech, but not the right to Hate Speech.
25
Ms Barr is just one more victim of Donald Trump. He gets away with worse and was elected despite these sorts of personal attacks aplenty, while never apologizing or paying a price, so why shouldn’t she?
10
She's no victim. She's just another racist with a Twitter account that went too far. It's her own fault, something that conservatives never admit.
Would I be within my First Amendment “rights,” Mr. Stephens, to argue that Roseanne Barr tweeted something that resonates deeply in the American experience?
Would I be crude and rudely “liberal” to ask why the American “president” lacked the grace and sensibility in turning and twisting the Barr code into something that’s all about him?
I’m not among the untold millions who are tossing bouquets at ABC for its “moral” and “courageous” decision. The network really had no other choice. Oh, it could have ignored the tweet; it could have “issued a statement” about “mistakes” and “forgiveness.” The show’s popularity mitigated against its termination. But the television giant knew of the polluted stream of racism in her personal make-up. She was always bereft of the off-set humanity and compassion for others that informed Carroll O’Connor’s Archie Bunker in All In The Family. Roseanne was always herself. She cheekily hinted at it for decades and threw off the veil yesterday.
As far as free speech is concerned, why is it a toxic issue when black men from Tommie Smith (1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City) to Colin Kaepernick make forceful silent protests against injustices that never knock on white people’s doors?
What Trump and the Republican Party and the Right hate is that their discredited culture icons are shoved back in their faces. Black people are out of line when they say “no more!”
Roseanne will re-surface, bitter and far from contrite. Look for Roseanne on Fox. Soon.
52
Roseanne Barr, former ABC prime time star: one racist comment too many - fired.
donald trump, former NBC prime time star: multiple racist comments too many - tolerated and actively promoted.
29
It’s up to us to fire him.
1
Roseanne Barr's firing has nothing to do with free speech. The fact that each of us has the right to be free from punishment by the government for insulting someone, through remarks based on race or otherwise, does not shield us from being rightly disliked, fired or ostracized for doing so.
10
Editorial on point. I wonder about this line:
The show was supposed to help explain, and humanize, Trump’s base to a frequently unsympathetic and uncomprehending public.
Aren't the people in Trump's base part of the public?
5
Interesting observation! Yes, Trump's base is part of the public but it's a part that appears to baffle the rest of us, hence the endless attempts to "understand" them. It's as if the 2/3 of America that can't stand Trump is at a complete loss to explain the loss of our country to such a person. And rightly so I might add. It should be a shock.
10
"The intelligent defense of free speech should not rest on the notion that we must tolerate every form of speech, no matter how offensive. It’s that we should lean toward greater tolerance for speech we dislike."
I could not agree with you more, and I wish this was a viewpoint more people on both sides of the divide would urge for others and practice for themselves.
7
There's a straight line between Daycare Donnie's Deplorable Birther-Liar Nation and Roseanne the Racist.
Many Trump supporters have been quoted as saying they 'like the way he talks'.
It's hard to know precisely which part of the bottom of the verbal barrel Trump supporters like so much, but I guess it's the delicious part between unapologetic white supremacy, white privilege, White Wonder Bread, broken syntax and the gut feeling that their ignorance is just as good as - or better than - actual knowledge.
What part of Valerie Jarrett offended Roseanne Barr ?
Perhaps the fact that Valerie Jarrett comes from a highly educated family, is highly educated herself, speaks multiple languages, and has the 'wrong' skin color.
Not all Trump supporters are deplorable, but it seems that all deplorables are Trump supporters.
When a political party's favorite types of 'speech' form a perverted centrifugal force of tax cut nihilism, 0.1% moneyed-speech, guns and Birther Lies, it's clear that their idea of 'speech' is a whirlpool of Palinesque stupidity sprinkled with GOPolkadots .
So when a Trumper chimes in with idiotic free speech “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj”, we see yet again the never-ending dark prison walls of dumb white spite occupying sacred Republican political real estate.
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
- Soren Kierkegaard
The Party of Stupid demands to be heard.
Sad.
235
"Not all Trump supporters are deplorable, but it seems that all deplorables are Trump supporters."
That may have been true two years ago. That is NOT true today. ANY Trump supporter at this point in time cannot be other than deplorable.
14
In summary, to quote John Stuart Mill, "I did not mean that conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any honorable gentleman will question it."
4
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
14
Look at the picture here. All these people are currently unemployed.
She verbally assaulted Ms. Jarrett, and ended up costing her fellow cast-members their jobs, an act for which she has not yet apologized or offered compensation for. Some great comic actor, some great booster of Trump, some great advocate of ordinary, hard-working Americans.
48
Barr is a comedian so she has the excuse that she was cracking a joke. There are lots of unsavory jokes out there; one that comes to me now is Monty Python's entire Life of Brian movie attacking Christianity.
I think there are are lot of bigots in Hollywood. But they are smart enough not to show it on twitter.
3
The Life of Brian doesn't attack Christianity. The movie makes it clear that Brian's followers (who he doesn't want) are the people who can't be bothered to get close enough to hear Jesus's actual words. And so they end up way in the back discussing what "blessed are the cheese makers" might mean.
The movie is harsh to those who hear only what they want to hear.
10
According to tabulations by respected news sources, our Fake President since his inauguration has managed to lie, through tweets and spoken word, over 3,000 times! Mr. Stephens writes that he knows Trump supporters who do not fit the Barr racist model and that "...many of them are writers or talking heads". Presumably, these "writers" and "talking heads" hold some respect for verifiable fact, intellectual argument and, ultimately, truth. They certainly should, considering what they do for a living.
What fascinates, but repulses, is how and why do these people manage to support a loathsome serial fabricator, operating on a scale that is unprecedented in presidential history. They may not be loud, virulent bigots, but for them to willingly accept Trump's daily, damaging deceitfulness is, in itself, perhaps even worse for a number of reasons, particularly its steady undermining of any possibility for successful public discourse.
51
Glad to read an unequivocal repudiation of the vile and foul Madam Barr.
What a refreshing read!
The left will equivocate with "Madam is a nice, misunderstood person, has good qualities, calls her mother every day, and goes to church, but is a slight racist with just one slur."
Or some such.
Thank you for a clear eyed, non-equivocating piece of writing.
9
When you come across those equivocations from the left, please post them for all to see. So far "the left" seems to be pretty unified in supporting ABC's canning of R. Barr.
1
It is the right that is saying she is just misunderstood. The left is calling her what she is, a racist.
When women choose to treat other women with this level of viscous hatred for her heritage and looks, it’s no wonder America’s men and sons don’t know how to treat women with respect. Disagree about politics all you want, but this hurts us all.
#CutItOut
#RaiseTheBarr
15
I am reminded of the personal disgracefulness of Charlie Sheen years ago when his show “Two And A Half Men” was such a smash ratings hit. CBS let him get away with murder (figuratively) because he was such a cash cow. That is the way corporations behave. They are not in the business of cutting off a gushing spigot of money.
The difference with Barr is that she is being personally AND civic-ly disgraceful. Hate speech is rightly a matter of civic concern. ABC in Barr’s case did not have a choice. It looks “brave” for a corporation to cut off a gusher of money, but this particular corporation isn’t making widgets — it’s in the business of broadcasting all manner of utterances, but is not in the business of broadcasting hate speech. Could ABC merely offer apologies for this particular employee and her crazy personal behavior and still make money on her show? No. It couldn’t still make money, not unless the public is OK with hate speech defining it.
And so enough with the false comparisons: kneeling for the National Anthem is a political act, but it is not hate speech. Bill Maher skewers, but he does not traffic in hate speech.
32
Define "hate speech" please
Bang on column. Would that more right-wing Americans had the chutzpah to stand up against the creeping fascism and idiocracy of current U.S. conservatism.
27
I'm hewing to a cynical position: I don't believe for a second that Disney/ABC are somehow moral actors. I'd like to see a transcript of their boardroom discussion. I can hear one of the board members now: "This is going to end up in a boycott of ABC and our sponsors will flee, because they too don't want to be boycotted. Pulling 'Roseanne' will hurt us in the short term, but we have to think long term profitability. She's gotta go." They don't care about Barr's speech. If they did, they would have pulled the show long ago. I'm only aghast at all the progressives who continued to work with this train wreck, knowing full well what she was/is all about. Shame on them.
And lest anyone think that Disney/ABC has taken the high road, I will ask you: What has Disney -- the operator of Florida's Disney World -- done to promote the rights of gay people in Florida, a place where it is 100% legal to fire someone simply because they are gay? .....crickets......
14
The Island of Hawaii is not without racial tensions, but none the less most folks get along with plenty of Aloha for each other. As a Big Islander I wish miss Barr does not return. Maybe she can go live somewhere in Trump country where she can get along better with her neighbors.
21
OR, perhaps Hawaii folks can teach her a thing or two about the aloha spirit, in action. If anyone can do it, the people of Hawaii are our hope.
So Trump thinks ABC should apologize to him for all “the horrible” things they’ve said about him? Apparently that doesn’t go both ways. When has Trump ever apologized to all the people he’s defamed, to the institutions he’s lied about (including of course the “fake news providers”)? Answer, he just doubles down on the lies!
As for ABC it is entitled to fire “for cause” any employee. A while back the singer of the MNF theme was fired after a bigoted remark.
With the NFL, the complication is the labor agreement with the Players Union And whether the League may act unilaterally. And though the players were protesting neither the anthem nor the military, but the killings by police of unarmed black people, again the First Amendment is not a protection since it is within private organizations. Interesting question: what if the Sradium was publicly owned?
13
Trump is the biggest whiner in America bar none. He makes the two year old downstairs look like a mensch.
1
Aside from Mr. Trump being “the ultimate public figure” (except for his daily hours of “executive time”), that he should want an apology from anyone — let alone a leading broadcast network — is sooo over-the-top hypocritical when his own motto is to never apologize, however offensive and FALSE the tales he tells. Truly the principal source of “fake news”.
29
I honestly don't believe that most Trump voters think it's OK to call black people apes. But they tolerate it. They can say liberals are PC crazy, but at least we have a line in the sand. Trump voters need to do some soul-searching.
45
Disagree. 62mn people voted for Trump. So most Trump voters are what, 31mn Americans then? That's less than 1 in 10 Americans. I definitely think 10% of Americans are racists who say and believe this stuff, but they do it in private, among safe like minded racists, or in broader "safer" circles as a "joke" and when they get caught, they backpedal or blame PC, etc.
1
What is your line in the sand? You call Trump every vulgarity known to man.
We know what Disney and ABC did, the right thing. Wonder how it would have gone if this happened over at Fox with one of their top rated shows? Just thinking!
7
Why was Roseanne Barr so angry at Valerie Jarrett that she needed to use a racial slur?
When has Ms. Jarrett an Ms Barr ever in the same room, event or panel?
What was Ms. Barr viewing that made her so angry?
Some Trump supporters have a visceral reaction to Obama staffers, donors and supporters - what do they think they did? Obama’s Whitehouse was squeaky clean. We all know that because the Benghazi committee would have swung into 24/7 action if there was any there there...so what are Trump supporters so angry about?
188
There isn't any excuse for Barr's tweet, which didn't convey any meaningful ideas that weren't mere insults, and coarse, bigoted ones at that.
We know that Barr is an aficionado of conspiracy theories that are outlandish. Jarrett was born to American parents working in Iran in the 1950s, which, sadly tends to feed into some of those conspiracy theories. It's also true, though, that Valerie Jarrett suggested on The View that Louis Farrakhan was no worse a figure on the American political scene than the Koch brothers, a comparison that few would make unless willfully trying to downplay Farrakhan's anti-Semitism (which Jarrett was in fact doing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8gMg6FzhE )
3
Deirdre,
In answer to your last question: Trump supporters are angry and will forever be so because we elected a black president who appointed a number of highly qualified black people to his administration. The answer, in a word, is RACISM.
12
There is this thing, it's on TV. It's known as FOX News. IMHO the original creators of "fake news". I mean take a story, any story, build on it for months. You ever go to McDonald's in the morning and watch Seniors being fed stories of Death Panels?
3
What about separating someone's individual opinions or biases from their work? The way to address this is not to silence Roseanne but to have more debate about the issue. I have to disagree with the author, this is a free speech issue; he apparently does not understand the concept of free speech I that it is only meaningful in protecting speech you detest. The overriding issue here, however, is that even if Roseanne is a racist, her job should not be at risk for expressing herself outside it. If she expressed racist opinions in the context of her show you might have a better argument for its cancellation. The fact that this action was taken by a private company does not provide cover for punishing someone disproportionately for expressing their opinion.
8
" I have to disagree with the author, this is a free speech issue; he apparently does not understand the concept of free speech " .......Weird. No one prevented Barr from saying or expressing anything. No one is stopping her from tweeting whatever she wants tomorrow. ABC also has rights. They can hire or fire whom they choose, for any reason or no reason at all.
14
I have the opposite intuition about the legitimacy of the employer's action, but your question does make me think. How, if at all, is this case different from the Hollywood blacklist of the 1950s? People were prevented from working if they were, or were perceived to be, communist sympathizers. I think the prevailing sentiment today is that that was wrong, but how is that sentiment consistent with the view that Disney and ABC did the right thing?
1
No business is going to let an employee mouth off and threaten the business's profits. Esp public ones where a boycott could be called against them.
Every business has rules regarding the behavior of their employees whether on the job or off. Break those rules (in some cases unwritten, but understood.) and you can be fired for it.
Keeping her would have warranted charges against them of supporting racism. Something neither disney or abc wanted.
4
Points well-taken. Thanks for weighing in so clearly.
To your point about the NFL I’d add that they often seek local taxpayer support for their stadiums as a civic good.
And perhaps the last person in the world who should need to be told that not everything is about them is the President of the United States. To the extent he could argue that her show portrayed his base so his tweet was really about defending his base, I may agree that much of his base was ignored for too long but we simply have to find a way to pay attention to his base without pitting one group against another.
9
Barr didn’t speak about Jarrett’s policies or programs or give any reason to dislike her. It was derogatory racist hate and her employer had the right to terminate her for humiliating them.
Most people on TV have a clause in their contract that gives the producer the ability to terminate for creating negative press unrelated to the content of the show.
My sympathies to the cast and crew
134
Exactly!! She's been known as a hater of people and places and anthems since she spit on our Padre's ball field after singing the National Anthem decades ago. Trump must have forgotten about this thoughtless and crude act, disrespectful of the flag and all people at the stadium that day (including my two children), while he and Pence now suggest that football players stop their peaceful protest against racism and leave the country.
1
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”
Free speech is all about prohibiting the Federal Government from passing laws which prevent it. It says nothing about employers and employees, agreements set forth in contracts, or the remaining consequences of exercising one’s rights to free speech.
Both Roseanne Barr and football players have willingly entered into contracts which may set forth consequences for certain types of self expression. I may applaud football players for kneeling and despise Roseanne for her racist tweets, but that has no bearing on their contracts with ABC or the NFL teams. Both ABC and the NFL stand to lose by invoking their punitive contract clauses, but all parties are mentally competent adults who chose to make these contractual agreements. Put on your big boy/girl pants and accept that your contractual word is your bond.
19
Wow.
A wonderful column. Well reasoned and well argued. No but's coming, no prevarication.
You hit the nail on the head, consistently, about Donny Trump and what he hath wrought. Roseanne is just the latest. She is a pathetic racist unleashed, much like a mad dog, by Trump and his ilk.
Yes, it's not about free speech. The answer to bad speech is more speech and you have provided that in spades.
36
I’m not and never have been a fan of Roseanne. She’s crude, rude, and offensive. Equating her with football players who take a knee is a false equivalency. Kneeling is a show of respect. You kneel in church and at prayer. There’s nothing crude, rude or offensive about that. I’m tired of being told what I need to be outraged about by people who themselves are nothing but outrageous.
223
Bravo to Disney. I know this hits deeply in the pocket book, but rotten behavior cannot be tolerated.
28
As always, powerful, thoughtful, nuanced and informative. We need more of this and less of that.
13
You compare Roseanne's tweet with the NFL kneeling controversy? The team owners should have fired the players who kneeled just like Iger fired Roseanne. Their behavior was grossly disrespectful if not despicable. The double standard of the left continues unabated. The NFL players are still making millions, Oberman,Behar, Maher, still have their shows. To bring Trump into the conversation on the back of Roseanne is misguided. Why don't you just call him a virulent racist that all your friends on the left have?
Why mince the thin distinction between ugly pronouncements made about a private individual vs a public figure?
6
Brett makes a perfectly sound case for his comparison and why they are different. It's not our fault you can't follow his logic, as easy as it is to parse.
10
How 'patriotic' did you think Ms. Barr's rendition of the National Anthem was? Let's refresh our memories;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru2BYd3c90w
..thanks Bret, good article. Rosanne needed to go for that statement - her obnoxious character finally caught up with her. She's really a disgrace - I never understood why anyone ever thought she was talented.
Regarding the players - they can do whatever they want....off the field. The fans (72%) were opposed to kneeling during the anthem, and the owners were opposed.
If they want to play, they'll stand - or they can join Mr Kaepernick, who's actions put him into permanent retirement...where he belongs.
7
Roseanne was an obnoxious, vulgar, loud mouthed jerk, and she was booted out of the public eye. Another two and half years, and the other one, just like her, will be too.
Lots of people like people like that, and that’s the worst part.
50
Hope to God you're wrong about 2 1/2 years for the other one to be given the boot. I don't know that the country can survive that long under his egregious and dangerous policies ~ if you can call them policies.
5
It tells you a lot about Roseanne Barr that one of her defenders is the British journalist, Katie Hopkins. This is a woman who called economic migrants from Africa arriving in Europe ‘cockroaches’. The only pests here are the ones spreading vitriol on social media. Hate speech should not equal freedom of speech.
55
Please, stop distorting the essence of the First Amendment. It’s about freedom to speak against the government without fear of reprisals. It’s not about speaking whatever one wants against anyone and the world be damned.
195
Thank you BWCA-- this gets lost in all the First Amendment conversations everywhere. It should be pointed out at the onset of any of these discussions, comments, articles but is not.
3
You are incorrect.
This was probably the best move for the whole US brand... not to further the cliche of “the ugly American” in one of top export industries.
14
At long last two corporations are coming to the rescue as arbiters of speech and behavior which inflame racial tensions.Starbucks wanted to help their employees become more racially sensitive and Disney/ABC immediately cancelled a TV show when it's star tweeted a cruel racial rant.We have had to suffer through so much hurtful rhetoric that it is a relief, brief though it may be,that there are voices that say ,NO !
32
Thanks, Bret. While I do not always agree with you, at least you understand the concept of nuance unlike most conservative pundits. You nailed this one. On the totality of the tweets issue, one wonders why the leader of the free world gets a pass while a comedian bites the dust. Be best.
23
Roseanne Barr’s many enemies, and for that matter Trump’s, as well, won; and she admittedly did it to herself. Whenever you seek to communicate and argue for a value-set by flamboyantly over-the-top behavior and speech in order to attract attention and to influence by appealing to emotion, you walk a very narrow path bounded on both sides by precipices over deadly depths. And there will be people constantly poking at you to lose your balance.
She lost that knife-edge of balance, whether it was as she claimed Ambien-induced or not, and she was precipitated over the left edge of that path to her death. This is why I always caution to the commentariat and practice what I preach, that one should never take that first drink of an evening BEFORE finishing commenting. Since Trump doesn’t drink so’s you’d notice, I don’t know what his excuse might be. Maybe too many diet Cokes and McDonald’s.
Inarticulately, crudely and usually outrageously, Roseanne nevertheless flogged a basic and widely-held American viewpoint that we have become altogether too politically correct in our interactions, and we’ve shown a curiously European propensity to create regulation to punish those who wander beyond the lines of strict propriety drawn in bright lines by elites. While her tweet clearly was racist, outrageous and offensive, and not as she may have thought also funny, we did not destroy Michelle Wolfe for commenting on Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s physical appearance.
3
If Fox feels this is unfair then what is preventing them from picking up her show and airing it in competition to whatever ABC chooses to run . Birds of a feather so I've heard( The Trumpster is always hearing from many unnamed people who agree with him ).
12
This is no more about the First Amendment than it is about ABC/Disney merely making a decision to save their corporate brand.
This is about racism. Period.
And anyone trying to filter Roseanne Barr's vituperative tweet about Barack Obama's Senior Adviser, Valerie Jarrett, through any other lens is seriously missing the point.
Besides that, Ms. Barr's timing couldn't have been worse with all this happening around the same time Starbucks ordered all of its branches closed for anti-bias training after that unfortunate incident in Philadelphia involving the arrest of two Black customers, and the N.F.L.'s decision to punish protesting players a few days before that.
While few are loathe to admit it, this country is currently on a dangerous trajectory when it comes to race relations; something that hasn't been helped by the current president's words and actions when bigotry must be openly and swiftly discredited.
It's hard not to notice that Mr. Trump has remained curiously silent throughout this all.
At least the broadcaster got it right.
23
"This is not a First Amendment issue. Constitutional rights are what you’re entitled to in the public sphere, not as an employee of a private corporation."
.
You mean, like the NFL?
.
ABC and liberals in general missed an opportunity to fix what so many see is wrong. Rather than cut her loose and the dozens of other people that work on the show, ABC had a chance to do a "Starbucks" type of fix.
.
In a secure and private setting, bring in everyone on the show. Let Roseanne speak and apologize. Then, she would take questions and answer them as best as she can. Have Roseanne leave the room and have a (secret) vote. Perhaps something more than a majority, 70 or 80%, to agree to keep the show going or close it down. Have the sponsor representatives present, so their input could be considered. Anyone that wanted to leave could.
.
The show could cover other social issues, with all parties in agreement. If Roseanne didn't like the offer she could walk, knowing she had a chance to save those jobs, but didn't. Fox News Alert, ABC, your viewership would go up. All of the people that didn't like her would tune in, to watch her squirm.
.
As it stands, ABC did the "right thing", but the problem remains. Maybe some think this was a poke in the eye to Trump. I don't believe this will have an effect on Trump voters in the fall.
1
If only, 10 or 15 years ago, NBC had had the guts to cancel The Apprentice because of the crackpot conspiracy theories & race-baiting of its lead actor . . .
1024
Absolutely!
8
Does this all mean that Trump is constantly taking Ambien ???
76
We would, perhaps, be better served if he would take something to enable a LONG, DEEP sleep. (I'm thinking hibernation - at least until the next election.) He can't do much harm while he's sleeping.
4
I speak from an elementary school teacher's perspective. Rosanne was a prime time show. Kids watched it with their parents. I am dealing with discipline problems on a daily basis with students as young as seven who listen to shows like Rosanne, and POTUS, and learn new attitudes toward students who look like them. In my school, we have students from a number of countries, including countries that trump wants to disallow people from coming to this country. I have students of every color and religion attending our school, and yet there are many students who identify with trump, his ideas, such as they are, and to their parents' attitudes towards classmates that don't look like them. I hear them moan about football players that take a knee, and politicians that don't support the rights of their parents to own any firearm they please. To tell you the truth, it does me good to hear that Rosanne lost her job, thought it saddens me that the union people who worked on the show did as well. It says to these young students that they cannot get away with saying anything they want about people who aren't just like you. It says to them that there are indeed boundaries, even in a country with a racist president who feels he can do or say anything he pleases.
308
Wow. It had not occurred to me how young children are impacted by the current “discourse” and what a challenge that is for teachers today. What a sad place we are in. When I was your students’ age my public school teacher played guitar while my class sat in a circle and sang songs by Peter, Paul and Mary.
30
I have no trouble at all believing this. As a career educator of 30 years I can say - as much as Barack Obama inspired diverse students and their families to be their best selves, trump is definitely doing the opposite in schools. I experience it and so do my teacher friends wherever they teach.
12
Roseanne Barr’s many enemies, and for that matter Trump’s, as well, won; and she admittedly did it to herself. Whenever you seek to communicate and argue for a value-set by flamboyantly over-the-top behavior and speech in order to attract attention and to influence by appealing to emotion, you walk a very narrow path bounded on both sides by precipices over deadly depths. And there will be people constantly poking at you to lose your balance.
She lost that knife-edge of balance, whether it was as she claimed Ambien-induced or not, and she was precipitated over the left edge of that path to her death. This is why I always caution to the commentariat and practice what I preach, that one should never take that first drink of an evening BEFORE finishing commenting. Since Trump doesn’t drink so’s you’d notice, I don’t know what his excuse might be. Maybe too many diet Cokes and McDonald’s.
Inarticulately, crudely and usually outrageously, Roseanne nevertheless flogged a basic and widely-held American viewpoint that we have become altogether too politically correct in our interactions, and we’ve shown a curiously European propensity to create regulation to punish those who wander beyond the lines of strict propriety drawn in bright lines by elites. While her tweet clearly was racist, outrageous and offensive, and not as she may have thought also funny, we did not destroy Michelle Wolfe for suggesting that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is overweight and unattractive.
7
Wolfe was defended by comedians BECAUSE she is a comedian; but what is Roseanne Barr BUT a comedian?
Yet we destroyed Roseanne. Unlike Michelle Wolfe, she had a national following and espoused viewpoints that many considered dangerous to their own ideological agendas – particularly dangerous because she was so effective. And we destroyed her despite an abject apology to ALL injured parties and recognition that she blew it. I have to wonder if the real objective of that destruction wasn’t to condemn racism (if Roseanne is even at heart a racist – frankly, I doubt it), but to eliminate an adversary by maximally exploiting a failure.
I’m coming around to the recognition of just HOW determined each of our two sides is in America to utterly destroy the other. This is becoming as dangerous to our civility and even to our ability to cohere as a people despite our differences as anything that Lincoln faced.
As Bret suggests, Roseanne did nothing illegal but merely carelessly tweeted a slur that repulsed millions – even Republicans, certainly me. The lesson here to other would-be Roseannes who seek to become representative voices for millions of Americans is that you can’t afford to be sloppy for one second, or you will find yourself in free-fall, having been nudged off that narrow path into the depths below. And it’s an object lesson for our president.
6
Dear Richard, there's a huge difference here. You might be right about the divides in our society but your comparison is hardly apt. Wolfe was wrongly criticized. She didn't say anything bad about SHS appearance; she did deplore the sell-out media who enable a would-be dictator who not so incidentally is dragging our country down into the sewer. Roseanne Barr spoke from the sewer. Surely you see the issues here aren't remotely the same.
6
Michelle Wolf called out SHS for her serial lying and complicity in furthering an agenda that is harmful to women generally. The only woman whose looks she criticized was Michelle Wolf.
When someone on your “side” does something outrageous, you might consider how it harms “our civility” to accuse the other side of engaging in equally egregious behavior. Every single time.
9
How come so many of Roseanne's right-wing comrades in arms (or is it "armed comrades"?) have forgotten that great moment in sports when she screeched the Star Spangled Banner while grabbing her crotch and feigning the sound of flatulence?
105
Because she's not black
1
good column. here's what jumped out at me:
"Perhaps the reason Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature is that they so frequently conform to type."
I confess this rings all too true for me. we're constantly being told we have to understand the Trump supporter, I shake my head. Tonight I watched someone interview folks at Trumps most recent rally, and to a T, they all vigorously professed their belief of the deep state, their hatred for the FBI and CIA, indeed their hatred of government all together.
I'm sorry, but I can't comprehend people who believe conspiracy theories, and easily fact-checkable lies.
of course this does not exonerate them from ugly behavior any more than Roseanne Barre's tweet did.
But as a public figure (and now private citizen), Barre had to suffer the economic repercussions of her poor judgment.
too bad she had to drag down all the other staffers of this cancelled show s she indulged her early morning rage and racism.
12
An excellent piece! It is the best summary of all the arguments in favor of canceling her show that I have yet seen. I particularly like the Lawyerly way Mr. Stephens outlined his case. It read like the summation by a masterful but soft-spoken prosecutor. I am usually critical of Mr. Stephen's columns, but this is the first one that I wholeheartedly agree with, "99 and a half" percent. (My only quibble is with his sentiment about the kneeling NFL players, but you cannot have everything.). Bravo, well done!
18
Dear Bret, Now you know why universities are wary of right-wingers who complain that universities are inhibiting "free speech." (Which has never made sense, since conservative views do get plenty of airing on campuses and in fact have their own funding schemes. and privately funded institutes.) Some of the people not invited to campuses are not peddling reasoned, conservative viewpoints. Some of them are just hatemongers. So, maybe when University of California at Berkeley isn't wild about having that Milo guy as a speaker - maybe that makes sense now.
224
All the left understands is hate- of America, of straight white men, of Christians, of patriots and of reason.
Roseanne Barr said what many other people of her ilk think, or would think, if they had the imagination and the verbal skills. Her employer came down on her like a ton of bricks, but many of the other small-minded inhabitants of the heartland who voted for the president are probably wondering what all the fuss is about.
The brainland wasn’t having any of it, but the outpouring of outrage isn’t reaching the very place where it ought to reach, and must reach. Anyone who thought the president was a good idea made a comment in the voting booth that far exceeds the vileness of Barr’s nasty joke.
If we can expunge Barr for what she said, why does the president get to stay in office when he has said things that were far worse, and which have far more real impact than mere shock and hurt feelings?
Barr was pounced upon because we can’t pounce upon the neo-Nazi sympathizer, the Alt-Right aficionado, the clueless, ineloquent commander in chief, the pea-brained, pornstar-diddling scumbag and the proto-fascist president who squats like a vulture in the Oval Office.
Getting rid of a comedian may be cathartic, but the zero-tolerance attitudes that have surfaced lately may have something to do with our pent-up frustration in having to endure someone who is beyond endurance.
I might forgive a crass, clueless and vulgar comedian. But I can’t stomach a president who doesn’t get the joke.
1019
Roseanne has verbal skills? Otherwise, great comment.
92
Brilliantly written, gemli.
74
Just like the #MeToo movement, Barr's firing and public demotion is a start. The Women's March, the March for Science, and the Parkland students march to end gun violence--are all part of a mass movement with the power to turn Trump out of office and end the reign of his cowardly enablers. Someday Fox News too will lose enough advertisers to no longer be relevant.
72
Four premises, for broader context:
In many white communities, prejudice and bias are an important part of peer esteem.
For many racists, America as a ethnic and religious homogeneous unit recycles 19th century narratives.
Few people realize racism's strongest strategy is denial (not hate!), because denial is adaptable and has many forms. (the latest, Ambien?)
Many Americans prefer open conflict and oppression to power sharing or decentralization of authority.
Examples:
Prejudice: Racist jokes, physical stereotypes, amoral values (include Ferguson police, Russia during the 2016 election, political party officials, the Cabinet, populist emails/websites/social media). Recently, “Black-while-breathing” police calls.
Nation: A Judaeo-Christian white nation, others prohibited. Recently, immigration policy, travel bans, Black-while-breathing.
Denial: it was humor/subconscious slip/free speech/deflection/victim blaming, mea culpas that act as an endorsement of the sin; (current) it's only a movie name! Double standards.
Conflict: Interior violence/abortion limits/regulated behavior/civilian shootings by state actors/inaction against school and mass shootings/political pressure on sanctuary cities/military equipment sales to police/voiding criminal justice reform/expanding school-to-prison pipeline/mass child internment.
Take note: of those who pretend not to know the difference between comparing black women to apes and expressing "harsh" political opinions. #BlessYourHeart
57
Greater context/parallel difference: different story, but worse broken logic!
On gun violence, Republicans have offered pornography and doors as reasons for school shootings—creating instant fear elected officials are as crazy as the killers. Who thinks sealing doors is the fix or Stormy is driving some kid to click a Glock or AR-15?
For the record, none of the copious diaries and manifestos left by shooters say doors or boobs were on their minds, spoke to them, or send secret messages to their brains. It is also really difficult to see how backpacks are to blame. Nor is “enforced monogamy” the solution—Aren't Republicans for limited, less restrictive government?—sounds eerily like sex trafficking—or govt mandated brothel experiences that reduces the imagined connection between guns and domination.)
Common sense says if you are killed by a bullet, it was fired by a gun. Let's repeat: If you die from the impact of a bullet entering your body from a high velocity weapon and it shreds your organs and tissues, it was loaded and discharged by human hands in possession of a gun.
Here's the obvious: background checks, age limits, bans on assault rifles all work! Doors, porno, and backpacks? Further research and evidence might be nice. Clearly, mental health issues are indicated (severe ones; delusions, schizophrenia, voices) not only for students at risk--get these lawmakers help!
Remember Claudia Patricia Gomez Gonzalez, shot in the head for seeking work and education.
23
Well said, sir. Thank you for this reasoned and reasonable take.
45
"Barr, too, has exercised her freedom to tell us what she thinks — without, however, the virtues of dignity and consideration, never mind silence."
The point is that Barr's comment is without content. It does not defend a political, social, moral, economic position. It is simply a vulgar, hateful, racist and above all stupid remark. If you want to protect your right to express your opinion, don't debase it with ludicrous and endlessly offensive remarks.
419
Roseanne and Trump don’t express opinions. They release attention bombs. How can we preserve free speech when capitalism rewards the debasement of free speech down to the level of attention bombs?
16
Well said. But make no mistake here: Ms. Barr used her political animosity against our first black president — like Trump — to target Mr. Obama's trusted aid, Valerie Jarrett. Like Trump, she must attack all things and people that remind her of how much she hated Mr. Obama. Like Mitch McConnell, she despised Mr. Obama for being black, as well as a progressive.
All about herself is Roseanne
Her vitriol just overran,
Her concerns you know?
Not the jobs on her show,
Completely self centered Woman.
Spoiled rotten? There isn't a doubt,
Conversant with what it's about?
Hollow and shallow
With insights not fallow,
Were she male, just a waspish tongued lout.
155
Mr. Stephens writes, "There are necessary taboos and essential decencies in every morally healthy society." I agree, but I do not agree that ABC gets to determine what are these necessary taboos and essential decencies.
7
ABC/Disney are not pretending to set the standard on what is or isn't acceptable for the country or society. They are setting THEIR OWN standard on what kind of behavior they will put up with from their employees. totally different, and totally acceptable.
311
You are correct, but as Bret pointed out, ABC is not a part of government or a publicly supported institution. They are a private entity, and as such, they are free not to pay their moneys to someone whose speech they do not like. Sorta same as NFL owners not willing to pay their moneys to Colin Kaepernick.
121
They’re not “determining” anything more than their right to fire an employee for actions that reduce the value of their brand. It happens to have a political element - everyone knows ms. Barr’s politics - but it’s unrelated to the fundamental issue. Every entertainment contract has a “morals” clause. I’m putting it in quotes because these contracts invariably include actions and utterances that reflect adversely on the employer or reduce the value of the employee’s services. Can you possibly argue that ms. Barr’s tweet didn’t do that? Or that the network’s failure to terminate wouldn’t have economic consequences? Their responsibility to stockholders required the action they took.
111