Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon7
While this is technically true as Cherry was employed by SN and as such is not being directly punished by the Canadian government for his speech -- it was on a show produced in partnership with a government-funded entity (CBC). Imagine it was CBC doing the firing...
Just because it is legal doesn't make it right. And what do you think the impact will be for punishing a public figure for making an insensitive observation? Are all insensitive observations expressed aloud fireable offenses? Is that the standard we want to set? Because Cherry is only the latest in a long line of standard setting in this direction.
There's a term for this: the chilling effect. |
It’s not “technically true”. It’s flat out true.
If CBC fired someone they pay 7 figures to on their national broadcast? It wouldn’t be a free speech issue.
And again, since ‘legality’ has nothing to do with this, I’m assuming your ‘chilling effect’ link has a sentence in it somewhere where they aren’t discussing legal matters.... which is mostly what that link discusses. Because, again, and I feel like you’re missing this, this isn’t a legal matter.