PDA

View Full Version : Radio host Anthony Cumia has been fired from his show, "Opie and Anthony"



Apocalypse
07-05-2014, 01:30 AM
Radio host Anthony Cumia has been fired from his show, "Opie and Anthony" on Sirius XM; the latest entertainment personality to be punished for his behavior on social media. Cumia hosts the show along with Gregg "Opie" Hughes and comedian Jim Norton. This year, Opie and Anthony celebrated twenty years of broadcasting together.

http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/07/anthony-of-opie-and-anthony-fame-fired-for-twitter-rant/373966/
.



He ended up going to NYC taking pictures when a black women out of the blue got in his face and assaulted him. He took a picture of her and posted it using some very profane names on twitter.

Elspeth
07-05-2014, 02:47 AM
Ok, what did he do?

Rockntractor
07-05-2014, 11:07 AM
Ok, what did he do?
He was taking pictures in a park when a black woman started yelling at him calling him a white motherfucker for taking her picture, the fight ensued online on social media with him calling her a c**t.
He was supposedly the conservative on the show though neither were conservative enough to hold my attention for long, it is geared for a younger crowd then I
Now XM/Sirius listeners are dropping their subscriptions in droves.
I dropped my subscription when they dropped Quinn & Rose.
The liberal programming doesn't make a dime for XM, the conservative shows carry the day and pay the bills, they have to pay for the liberal programs to make XM fair.
The continual pandering to the handful of liberals and the constant abuse of the conservatives will soon spell the end of satellite radio, you can't bite the hand that feeds you for long.

SVPete
07-05-2014, 11:29 AM
I'm guessing - purely guessing - that the black woman got into his face without reason (except that he's white), called him more racial epithets than I know, and he Tweeted about it using racial and sexual epithets to characterize her. She's a no-name ordinary person; he's a very public media figure. His employer decided that his outburst, if he remained undisciplined, would bring their company into disrepute. It's their choice to make. And it's their customers' choices to make whether they want to continue to use the company's service.

As a teen, my son was falsely accused of short-changing and racism by a 40ish black man, and sent home for a very direct but non-racial negative response. My son was vindicated - as his manager knew would be the case - by the count of his cash drawer. My son had been taught - by me - that skin color means nothing regarding the worth or humanity of any human being. In almost those exact words. After this incident I felt horrible, because I had not warned him or his sisters that there are black, Hispanic, etc. racists "out there" who hate him for his skin color, and who would gladly falsely accuse him of being a racist. Race-Card Players are contemptible, in my books.

Back to "Anthony", he's at the receiving end of a double-standard. The woman who got into his face is probably getting high-fived and drinks from friends for having, "got a white boy." And "Anthony" got canned. But it's a double-standard inherent to his line of business, one with which he has prior experience, IIRC. His task, once recovered from this weekend, is to do what it takes to make S-XM regret their move.

RobJohnson
07-05-2014, 11:31 AM
He was taking pictures in a park when a black woman started yelling at him calling him a white motherfucker for taking her picture, the fight ensued online on social media with him calling her a c**t.
He was supposedly the conservative on the show though neither were conservative enough to hold my attention for long, it is geared for a younger crowd then I
Now XM/Sirius listeners are dropping their subscriptions in droves.
I dropped my subscription when they dropped Quinn & Rose.
The liberal programming doesn't make a dime for XM, the conservative shows carry the day and pay the bills, they have to pay for the liberal programs to make XM fair.
The continual pandering to the handful of liberals and the constant abuse of the conservatives will soon spell the end of satellite radio, you can't bite the hand that feeds you for long.

I agree, if they get rid of the conservative shows, XM will be in trouble. I love XM mostly for music, but I listen to talk on longer trips. Plus Dr. Laura helps me with personal issues :biggrin-new:

RobJohnson
07-05-2014, 11:38 AM
Social media is always getting people in trouble.

Sirius decided to cave and fire me. Welcome to bizarro world. Fired for shit that wasn't even on the air & wasn't illegal. So, who's next?
— Anthony Cumia (@AnthonyCumia) July 4, 2014


Much of Cumia's on-air personality involves racial commentary. He also frequently discusses the conservative movement in America, including his role as a gun owner in New York state, which has very strict gun regulations. Many Opie hiand Anthony fans were particularly fond of this commentary, and are now canceling their subscriptions to Sirius XM en masse.

Sirius' statement for firing him is in the OP link, saying his comments were hate filled and racially charged........

NJCardFan
07-05-2014, 02:08 PM
What he was fired for was not what he said against that individual woman but when he characterized blacks as "savages" and "animals". That's the remark that ultimately got him fired. He made a comment about the city belonging to the "savages after midnight". As for Sirius, I listen to Andrew Wilkow, Mark Levin, and David Webb. I listen to some of the music channels but they're lame. They play the same songs over and over. Classic Vinyl can't go 15 minutes without playing Led Zepplin who I think is one of the most overrated bands in history.

Apocalypse
07-05-2014, 07:52 PM
I agree, if they get rid of the conservative shows, XM will be in trouble. I love XM mostly for music, but I listen to talk on longer trips. Plus Dr. Laura helps me with personal issues :biggrin-new:
A lot of his fans are already canceling their subscriptions to XM Radio because of it.

Elspeth
07-05-2014, 10:13 PM
What he was fired for was not what he said against that individual woman but when he characterized blacks as "savages" and "animals". That's the remark that ultimately got him fired. He made a comment about the city belonging to the "savages after midnight".

I should have known. No one gets fired for using the c-word. Hell, Bill Mahr uses it all the time to describe Sarah Palin.

No, it was the "racism" thing again.

Rockntractor
07-06-2014, 12:42 AM
I should have known. No one gets fired for using the c-word. Hell, Bill Mahr uses it all the time to describe Sarah Palin.

No, it was the "racism" thing again.

Apparently there was nothing wrong with her calling him a white motherfucker first.

JB
07-06-2014, 05:11 AM
Ok, what did he do?Here's a link to his tweets. The dude has issues. NSFW and lewd/crude language:

Yikes (http://gawker.com/siriusxm-host-claims-****rag-assaulted-him-in-racist-1599491744)

txradioguy
07-06-2014, 08:00 AM
The hell of it is that he said it on his personal twitter account. Not the Official Opie and Anthony twitter feed...he didn't say this on the air.

It was his personal thoughts on his personal social media account. If he can be fired for that...I suggest ALL of us need to scrub things tom our social media feeds before our bosses take a look at them.


I also kind of find it a bit hypocritical of Sirius/XM to talk about standards consider the conversations and language used previously on the Playboy Channel on currently on the Vivid Channel.

DumbAss Tanker
07-06-2014, 09:20 AM
The hell of it is that he said it on his personal twitter account. Not the Official Opie and Anthony twitter feed...he didn't say this on the air.

It was his personal thoughts on his personal social media account. If he can be fired for that...I suggest ALL of us need to scrub things tom our social media feeds before our bosses take a look at them.


I also kind of find it a bit hypocritical of Sirius/XM to talk about standards consider the conversations and language used previously on the Playboy Channel on currently on the Vivid Channel.

When you're a public figure, even a lowly tag-team radio jock, there is no such thing as a private account. Once you say something stupid and it gets out, it still reflects on the employer, and they don't take kindly to it.

Lanie
07-06-2014, 11:05 AM
When you're a public figure, even a lowly tag-team radio jock, there is no such thing as a private account. Once you say something stupid and it gets out, it still reflects on the employer, and they don't take kindly to it.

Agreed, and it's not just public figures. When I was a teacher, I was very careful what was said on my FB account. If I saw profanity, I deleted it and asked the person not to do it. I'm a little bit more free in my speech now on there. However, when I got hired at the last company I've been hired at, I had to go through my likes and get rid of their competition. I don't list where I work in the official area asking where I work because I want to reduce the chances of my employer tracing me. I admit where I work on Linked In, but that's it.

Rockntractor
07-06-2014, 11:22 AM
When you're a public figure, even a lowly tag-team radio jock, there is no such thing as a private account. Once you say something stupid and it gets out, it still reflects on the employer, and they don't take kindly to it.

This man wasn't on open radio, it was pay as you listen satellite.
What he is today was the same thing he was 20 years ago, societies rules have changed he hasn't.
Of course he should have kept his vulgarity on the program and not taking it to twitter.
I never liked any of it but lots of the younger crowd did.
They will get around to us soon enough, we don't use speech like that he but it won't matter, just expressing our displeasure with any protected group will soon be enough to get our voices silenced, it progresses, that's why they call them progressives.
Soon they will be peering into our minds looking for unacceptable thought.

SVPete
07-06-2014, 11:45 AM
When you're a public figure, even a lowly tag-team radio jock, there is no such thing as a private account. Once you say something stupid and it gets out, it still reflects on the employer, and they don't take kindly to it.

I think I tried to say something like that, but you said it succinctly and well.

IF the female who got in his face indeed unloaded crudities and racial epithets - something I speculated - then she is being held to a different "standard". Guess what? She's not employed in an on-air position where personal and corporate public image are megabucks. So two different standards do apply. That doesn't make her any less of a horse's hind quarters.

On the other side of the coin, "Anthony" has been in radio for decades, and getting suspended or banned seems to be part of the shtick:

Opie & Anthony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opie_and_Anthony)

On May 15, 2007, XM suspended Opie & Anthony for 30 days, in response to a broadcast featuring a homeless man who wandered into the studio. Opie and Anthony dubbed the man "Homeless Charlie", who mentioned the possibility of raping Condoleezza Rice and Laura Bush.[15] Fans reacted to the news of the suspension by canceling their XM Radio subscriptions, with some fans even going as far as smashing their XM units. XM did offer a free month of service to subscribers who called in complaints of the suspension.[16] Moreover, some sponsors pulled their advertising off XM in protest of the suspension.[17] The radio duo's month-long suspension from XM ended on June 15, 2007, when they returned to XM's airwaves.

There are more antics mentioned in the article. They seem to be marginally successful mountebanks in one of the scummier corners of the radio industry. All in all, there's a better than even chance this banning will be a career (noun and verb) milestone for "Anthony".

Bailey
07-06-2014, 11:57 AM
I dropped my Sirius account at the start of the year, wish I still had it so I could drop it now I love opie and anthony. :(

He's right inner city blacks are by and large savages

NJCardFan
07-06-2014, 12:18 PM
He's right inner city blacks are by and large savages
I said this here a while back and was admonished for it. But it's unfair to lump them into the term savages. The term was from explorers who encountered violent native people from wherever they went. Those natives were reacting to strangers encroaching onto their territory and they were only trying to protect their people. These thugs aren't trying to protect anything. They're thugs, and I know it's hard to believe this, but they're raging racists blaming the white man for all of their troubles.

Bailey
07-06-2014, 12:23 PM
I said this here a while back and was admonished for it. But it's unfair to lump them into the term savages. The term was from explorers who encountered violent native people from wherever they went. Those natives were reacting to strangers encroaching onto their territory and they were only trying to protect their people. These thugs aren't trying to protect anything. They're thugs, and I know it's hard to believe this, but they're raging racists blaming the white man for all of their troubles.

Its mostly the men of whom I speak and a great amount of the young women. I am sure there are a few that don't act like thugs, never saw one in my life but I am sure there are a few.

Rockntractor
07-06-2014, 12:45 PM
Its mostly the men of whom I speak and a great amount of the young women. I am sure there are a few that don't act like thugs, never saw one in my life but I am sure there are a few.

I'm cancelling your radio show!:biggrin-new:

Bailey
07-06-2014, 12:52 PM
I'm cancelling your radio show!:biggrin-new:

My whole 2 listeners will be heart broken :D

Lanie
07-06-2014, 03:16 PM
Its mostly the men of whom I speak and a great amount of the young women. I am sure there are a few that don't act like thugs, never saw one in my life but I am sure there are a few.

So, I've volunteered a while back in an inner city area to distribute food to kids. We're also supposed to talk to them to make sure they eat the food there. I'll probably do this again next week. I was nervous at first because this area is why I'm calling that city the Detroit of NC. I get sick of driving by the crime scenes or seeing it on TV. Thing is when I got there, most of the people in the neighborhood seemed normal. I'm including the adults in this and not just kids. These weren't thugs or gang members. They were just ordinary people living their everyday lives. Same goes for when I taught in the inner city schools. Most of the kids were good kids. I think a lot of good people probably live in those horrific neighborhoods.

Not to mention I've lived in the white version of this (it's a poverty thing, not a race thing, although more blacks are poor). A lot of people were okay. When there was somebody who needed to be stayed away from, my instincts kicked in fast.

txradioguy
07-06-2014, 03:20 PM
When you're a public figure, even a lowly tag-team radio jock, there is no such thing as a private account. Once you say something stupid and it gets out, it still reflects on the employer, and they don't take kindly to it.

Well then I guess the 1st Amendment is well and truly dead.

Lanie
07-06-2014, 03:40 PM
Well then I guess the 1st Amendment is well and truly dead.

The first amendment is about the right to say something and not go to jail for it. It's not about the right to not to be fired or anything else related to a private business or affair.

Bailey
07-06-2014, 03:54 PM
The first amendment is about the right to say something and not go to jail for it. It's not about the right to not to be fired or anything else related to a private business or affair.

We know that but what difference does it make? we lose our jobs and end up not being able to get another or we go to jail, same same

Bailey
07-06-2014, 03:57 PM
So, I've volunteered a while back in an inner city area to distribute food to kids. We're also supposed to talk to them to make sure they eat the food there. I'll probably do this again next week. I was nervous at first because this area is why I'm calling that city the Detroit of NC. I get sick of driving by the crime scenes or seeing it on TV. Thing is when I got there, most of the people in the neighborhood seemed normal. I'm including the adults in this and not just kids. These weren't thugs or gang members. They were just ordinary people living their everyday lives. Same goes for when I taught in the inner city schools. Most of the kids were good kids. I think a lot of good people probably live in those horrific neighborhoods.

Not to mention I've lived in the white version of this (it's a poverty thing, not a race thing, although more blacks are poor). A lot of people were okay. When there was somebody who needed to be stayed away from, my instincts kicked in fast.

Sorry they are mostly thugs, I live and work near them. I am sure when they have their hands out looking for freebies they are as pleasant as punch but when they aren't you'd better watch out.

Lanie
07-06-2014, 04:35 PM
Sorry they are mostly thugs, I live and work near them. I am sure when they have their hands out looking for freebies they are as pleasant as punch but when they aren't you'd better watch out.

I was observing people at their own homes, not just people coming to us.

RobJohnson
07-06-2014, 04:52 PM
Here's a link to his tweets. The dude has issues. NSFW and lewd/crude language:

Yikes (http://gawker.com/siriusxm-host-claims-****rag-assaulted-him-in-racist-1599491744)

Wow. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SapynmrD488/T3hoGP_nbcI/AAAAAAAAGMg/bcQDzqjY-cg/s1600/eyeopener.jpg

RobJohnson
07-06-2014, 04:58 PM
Agreed, and it's not just public figures. When I was a teacher, I was very careful what was said on my FB account. If I saw profanity, I deleted it and asked the person not to do it. I'm a little bit more free in my speech now on there. However, when I got hired at the last company I've been hired at, I had to go through my likes and get rid of their competition. I don't list where I work in the official area asking where I work because I want to reduce the chances of my employer tracing me. I admit where I work on Linked In, but that's it.

There are a lot of corporations that data mine Facebook users that identify workplaces and the also look for tagged posts. It best to keep your profile locked down on the privacy settings, and not indicate your workplace like you suggest. I know people that have gotten themselves in trouble for posts on social network sites.

txradioguy
07-06-2014, 05:06 PM
The first amendment is about the right to say something and not go to jail for it. It's not about the right to not to be fired or anything else related to a private business or affair.

Really? I don't remember that clause being in the 1st Amendment. Can you show it to me?

JB
07-06-2014, 05:41 PM
Well then I guess the 1st Amendment is well and truly dead.How so?

txradioguy
07-06-2014, 05:52 PM
How so?

Just seems to me that if they can reach down into your personal social media accounts and use something you post on there to terminate employment, decide not to hire you in the first place or take administrative action against you....then your right to freedom of speech is gone.

As I said before this wasn't done on the air...it wasn't done on an official site related to either the O&A show or Sirius/XM...it was on his personal account.

Where will it end?

At some point I can see a challenge by an employee against an employer for something like this.


Social Security Benefits Assistant - "I'm sorry Mr. JB, but due to your negative comments about President Hillary Clinton on Conservative Underground, we're cutting your monthly benefits by 20%."


JB - "What? That's insane! I have the right to voice my opinion! It's guarenteed to my by the 1st Amendment! That was said on a private forum!"


Social Security Benefits Assistant - "The first amendment is about the right to say something and not go to jail for it. It's not about the right to not to be fired or anything else related to a private business or affair. Have a nice day."

JB
07-06-2014, 06:23 PM
Just seems to me that if they can reach down into your personal social media accounts and use something you post on there to terminate employment, decide not to hire you in the first place or take administrative action against you....then your right to freedom of speech is gone. <snip>I understand what you're saying but we see this all the time in the U.S...People being fired or not hired as a result of their social media footprint. The majority of headhunters and HR folks troll all the major outlets (FB, Twitter, Linkedin) trying to gather information (good or bad) on a potential hire.

In the Opie/Anthony thing maybe the guy signed a Code of Ethics contract each year. I'd imagine all corporations have something like that these days.

What sucks is the application, ie, he gets fired but Joan Rivers will probably get a pass for all the shit she said about Barry/Moochelle the other day.

And actually, in your SS example, that is a government move against me based on my speech and should be illegal relative to the 1st.

Lanie
07-06-2014, 07:58 PM
Really? I don't remember that clause being in the 1st Amendment. Can you show it to me?

The constitution only says we have freedom of speech. This leaves it up to legal experts to interpret it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment


The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

If the government can limit some speech, why wouldn't private corporations be able to in their own house? BTW, this confirms it's about government interference.

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/free-speech.aspx


Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007)

I think the arm band case might be your best shot at winning in regards to what you post on your Twitter account. However, you do see other situations where speech was limited.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose you found out that your kid's teacher was bashing conservatives and the military on her facebook page. Sure, she shouldn't go to jail. Now, suppose the school board put into question whether she should get to keep her job. Would your ideas about the constitution somehow applying to facebook and twitter prevail? BTW, this happens all the time. A teacher says something stupid on their facebook page and they end up in the unemployment line.

Lanie
07-06-2014, 08:01 PM
Just seems to me that if they can reach down into your personal social media accounts and use something you post on there to terminate employment, decide not to hire you in the first place or take administrative action against you....then your right to freedom of speech is gone.

As I said before this wasn't done on the air...it wasn't done on an official site related to either the O&A show or Sirius/XM...it was on his personal account.

Where will it end?

At some point I can see a challenge by an employee against an employer for something like this.


Social Security Benefits Assistant - "I'm sorry Mr. JB, but due to your negative comments about President Hillary Clinton on Conservative Underground, we're cutting your monthly benefits by 20%."


JB - "What? That's insane! I have the right to voice my opinion! It's guarenteed to my by the 1st Amendment! That was said on a private forum!"


Social Security Benefits Assistant - "The first amendment is about the right to say something and not go to jail for it. It's not about the right to not to be fired or anything else related to a private business or affair. Have a nice day."

The social security office is part of the federal government. They can't cut benefits due to an opinion they don't like. Okay, so I spoke too quickly earlier. The first amendment means the government can't punish you for voicing an opinion.

Rockntractor
07-06-2014, 08:51 PM
Everybody thinks they can force their beliefs, interests, religions, sexual orientations, pastimes, foods, ways of life and entertainment on everyone else. If you don't like something don't do it, stop trying to force your ways on everyone else, if we are going to live side by side with each other we need to develop a more libertarian way of life.
Nobody has a right to not be offended, this has gotten ridiculous.
People need to stop walking around with their feelings on their sleeves, you have to pay to listen to Opie & Anthony, if you don't fucking like it , don't buy it and turn it on, it is not on the regular airways.

At the most Twitter should have been the one to do the censoring, it was their bandwidth being used, and if it offended them they could have deleted it. I have never listened to an entire episode of Opie and Anthony but if that is what you like go ahead.
I am really getting tired of whiny special interest groups dictating what the rest of us do. mind your own fucking business and get over it.

RobJohnson
07-06-2014, 08:52 PM
At some point I can see a challenge by an employee against an employer for something like this.


"

I hope so. Every company now has social media policies and it's no secret that employers often do Google searches on applicants.

JB
07-06-2014, 09:15 PM
Everybody thinks they can force their beliefs, interests, religions, sexual orientations, pastimes, foods, ways of life and entertainment on everyone else. If you don't like something don't do it, stop trying to force your ways on everyone else, if we are going to live side by side with each other we need to develop a more libertarian way of life.You're absolutely right. I think all of us should embrace our bigotry and suffer the market consequences of it, if any.

If you want to be a baker that doesn't want to make gay wedding cakes, so be it. You take that chance on whether your business survives or not with that attitude. Personally, I would like to open a bar that can refuse service to greasy dagos. I don't want any filthy wop/dagos in my bar and that should be my perogative. That Guinea "Yo Tony ForgettAboutIt" nonsense will have no place in my establishment. No Sicilians either. Except the pizza. I happen to like sicilian pie.

Retread
07-06-2014, 11:25 PM
The social security office is part of the federal government. They can't cut benefits due to an opinion they don't like. Okay, so I spoke too quickly earlier. The first amendment means the government can't punish you for voicing an opinion.

Yet......

borg5575
07-07-2014, 01:03 AM
The first amendment is about the right to say something and not go to jail for it. It's not about the right to not to be fired or anything else related to a private business or affair.
Technically you are correct. But this firing was not in the spirit of the First Amendment.

txradioguy
07-07-2014, 03:59 AM
The social security office is part of the federal government. They can't cut benefits due to an opinion they don't like. Okay, so I spoke too quickly earlier. The first amendment means the government can't punish you for voicing an opinion.

Three words for.you Internal Revenue Service

Sent from my BlackBerry Playbook using Tapatalk 2

DumbAss Tanker
07-07-2014, 10:05 AM
Well then I guess the 1st Amendment is well and truly dead.

Not unless the radio station management and the government are the same people.

Lanie is right for once, the First Amendment keeps the government from regulating speech, it has nothing to do with relieving blowhards running off at the mouth of any social or employment consequences for ill-considered rants. He's free to say whatever he wants, and his employer is free to say he needs to find a job somewhere else.

Lanie
07-07-2014, 10:57 AM
Three words for.you Internal Revenue Service

Sent from my BlackBerry Playbook using Tapatalk 2

Which is illegal and they're trying to get the proof that wrongdoing was done.

Just because you can't completely prove a crime and get a conviction doesn't mean it wasn't a crime.

txradioguy
07-07-2014, 02:33 PM
Which is illegal and they're trying to get the proof that wrongdoing was done.

Unless you're a Liberal or the PResident...then there was not a smidgen of wrong doing.


Just because you can't completely prove a crime and get a conviction doesn't mean it wasn't a crime.

Tell that to your Liberal brethren.

Elspeth
07-07-2014, 04:05 PM
Just seems to me that if they can reach down into your personal social media accounts and use something you post on there to terminate employment, decide not to hire you in the first place or take administrative action against you....then your right to freedom of speech is gone.

As I said before this wasn't done on the air...it wasn't done on an official site related to either the O&A show or Sirius/XM...it was on his personal account.

Where will it end?

At some point I can see a challenge by an employee against an employer for something like this.


Social Security Benefits Assistant - "I'm sorry Mr. JB, but due to your negative comments about President Hillary Clinton on Conservative Underground, we're cutting your monthly benefits by 20%."

Media personalities have always been able to be fired based on their off-screen speech and activities. If you remember the infamous "morals clauses" in many actors' contracts for example, these clauses could be invoked if you said or did something against public morals and it became publicly known, even if you said or did it on your own time. A media personality always had to use discretion and keep things hidden. Imagine if Rock Hudson in his heyday had publicly (as a citizen) come out for the marriage of homosexuals. Even if it were at some small gathering, if the statement was printed and could be proved, Hudson could have been dropped based on the morals clause. (And he would have lost his audience.)

However, in the past there was always was a firm line between public and private. An opinion that you shared with your immediate (and trusted) circle didn't necessarily go anywhere. Someone else actually had to film or publicize your statements or doings and journalists had to be careful to avoid slander/libel.

With the advent of the internet, public and private have been fused. You may feel like you are making a private statement as a private individual but you are actually broadcasting that statement on a worldwide media outlet. The middleman (newspaper, radio or TV station) is gone.

The First Amendment guarantees your Constitutional right to say whatever you want in public without governmental consequences (with a few notable exceptions. (http://debmcalister.com/2011/06/03/7-things-you-cant-claim-first-amendment-rights-to-say/)) Anthony Cumia cannot be hauled to jail for what he said in the OP; that's his First Amendment protection. However, the First Amendment is a government protection not a corporate one. As soon as you sign on with a corporation and voluntarily agree to their rules, you can be fired for violating those rules. I am sure Cumia's media company has certain safeguards built into his contract, and public expression--whether it is at show events or on his private time--is most likely limited by that contract.

Now, as to the rest of us:

Thanks to the internet, we are all potential media celebrities. Our own private rantings against the government--which, in the past, would have never been heard outside of Thanksgiving dinner--are now able to be publicized to the world by our own hand. The fusing of public and private on websites like Facebook make anything we type a media event. Facebook is PUBLIC space, even though it feels private. You always have to remember that, unless you are under an unrecognizable screen name, you are publicizing your personality, opinions and beliefs. (Even with an unrecognizable screen name, you are always transparent because of the IP address. Any person or agency who wants to know who "Donald Duck 55" is can certainly find out.)

Even worse, others who use our names and photos are publicizing our personalities, opinions, beliefs, and IMAGES without our permission (usually). Gone are the paper contracts with a newspaper releasing your words or images to them. Everything you say or do can now become public without your knowledge or consent, including private family pictures or videos of parties you attend, where someone is recording on an iPhone without anyone's knowledge.

By the way, if you read the link at the OP, Anthony Cumia had photographed that black woman without her consent. That is what started the fight. Cumia claims he was just taking some photos and she happened to be in one of them--that is possible. But she took great exception to him having taken that photo, and you can see why. Cumia could have downloaded that photos and posted it--which he did when he ranted and raved about her online. He could have photoshopped it in any disgusting way he wished. He could have stalked her using the photo.

A man taking a photo of an unknown woman who has not given her consent should always realize that he can be seen as a potential predator by that woman. Cumia should have known better.

At any rate, our current battle with the internet is not just with our own freedom to share information with the world but with that of our friends and neighbors. A friend of mine has constant fights with her friends and family NOT to post pictures of her children on Facebook, especially with its image recognition software. She has a multitude of fears including child predators (who spend alot of time looking for children on the internet) and law enforcement agencies (who could be creating a data base using the images of her children.) Whatever our individual concerns are, the internet has created a new kind of space and has allowed for our abuse in ways heretofore unimaginable.

RobJohnson
07-07-2014, 04:25 PM
Unless you're a Liberal or the PResident...then there was not a smidgen of wrong doing.




I agree. They will milk the investigation out long past the election season and the damage has already been done to those targeted and it's been considered a "phony scandal" by the President.

Rockntractor
07-08-2014, 12:55 AM
I sold my SIRI stock, I have owned some stock in them and XM since before they even went on the air. I haven't looked at my SIRI stock for over 10 years, I just had a handful of shares left.
They never have run this like a business and have been in the red with no hope of profit in sight for years. The liberal jackasses that run this company are going to completely bankrupt it and it won't be long.
I may buy in again someday after they reorganize and have different management, they need an entirely different model but I still believe that satellite radio can work.

Rockntractor
07-08-2014, 01:24 PM
Satellite radio stock is now officially converted to copper mine stock, enough of that bull shit.

Elspeth
08-10-2014, 02:30 PM
Anthony Cumia Complains About Black People on 'Pro-White' Radio Show
http://jezebel.com/anthony-cumia-complains-about-black-people-on-pro-white-1616516052

Anthony Cumia, who was fired last month from The Opie & Anthony Show by Sirius XM after going on a racist tirade on Twitter, has resurfaced with his own videocast. Naturally, he chose to promote it on a white power radio show.

Cumia appeared on The Political Cesspool (the mission statement of which reads: "We wish to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races") to talk shit about black people:

"When you watch any of the footage of any of the Apollo programs over the years and you look at the control room of mission control, what do you see? Do you see diversity there? Honestly, let's be honest. You're seeing white males smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee at the console and putting people on the moon. How is this a horrible thing? How is this something to look at and say, 'We need to change this by injecting people that do not pay attention to the laws of this country, do not assimilate to the cultures, do not work and contribute to this nation'?"

Cumia's new subscription-based show—broadcast live on the Internet from in front of a green screen in his basement—launched yesterday. He opened his first episode saying:

"I'm lucky because racism has paid so well for me over the years that I was able to build this complex down here."

With a President Obama bobble head on his desk, he attempted to justify why black people should be followed around in stores by distrusting shop owners.

He promised to have "an open and honest dialogue on violence in the black community." Then he played videos from the local news—one in which a mother is crying over her teenage son who was shot and killed—to illustrate his point that black people are violent. He intermittently would do a "black guy" voice. He congratulated himself on not "dropping the n-bomb."

Mostly, though, he whined about getting fired and how he's not allowed to talk about what he thinks is wrong with the black community. However, it doesn't seem like he's doing anything but these days.