Originally posted by: mrzed
All the frikkin red herrings are piling up so far it's hard to even see the argument.
All those who keep saying Danny Glover is a radical, that he supports Castro, just drop it. It's stupid, you can't provide evidence, and it's irrelevant anyhow.
Classy: while it is true that firing someone for their thoughts (ideas) is wrongful dismissal, that does not apply in this case. He is a public face of this company, and he therefore can be fired if his activities affect the company negatively. There is ample evidence of this happening. If this went to court, all MCI would need to do is trot out the thousands of emails and protest letters. Danny Glover is not suing, do you really think it's because he can't afford a lawyer?
The unfortunate thing is, the dangerous precedent is being set by the american public. You can lay some blame on the media and the administration, but the USA is still a democracy (of sorts), and depends on the complicity/acquiesence/support of at least a reasonable portion of the pubic. Dubya may have started the ball rolling with his "those who are not with us are against us" BS after 09/11, but he didn't have to push very hard.
Yes freedom of speech still technically exists in the USA, but that freedom is meaningless unless it includes views that you don't agree with. All the irate protesters whenever a public figure expresses dissent are also using of freedom of speech, but I can't help feeling that they do not really beleive it at heart. Calling for boycotts and burning albums just doesn't seem like a freedom of speech kind of action, but maybe that's just me.
If I dislike the publicly expressed views of some celebrity, I feel no need to form a protest group. Most of the time I just ignore it. If it particularly offensive to me, I may avoid supporting that person by seeing their movies or buying their music.