Just for the record
I was also told you worked at Radio info.
Regrettably, you have been misled.
My only connection with radio-info.com is as a registered user enjoying only the same privileges as do you. I have no power to delete anything and no ability to edit anyone's posts other than my own.
The left frequently accuses me of being far right; the far right frequently accuses me of being a lefty lunatic. They are entitled to their (conflicting) opinions. Throughout this thing my only position has been that NOBODY should be subjected to punishment except by a legally constituted court after a guilty finding (or acceptance of a guilty plea).
Which brings us to loss of employment.
Yes, talk hosts often offend. One might argue that, if they did not, they would have no audience. Yes, talk hosts often have guests whose opinions/positions are deplorable but in a free country even the most unpopular points of view are entitled to be heard. Nobody HAS to agree with them. Nobody HAS to listen to them. A talk show host has NO obligation to present them but also is under NO obligation to ignore them....though any host certainly is free to ignore them and not invite their spokespersons to appear.
If an individual elects to continue to listen to a guest whose opinions he/she deplores, well, that's their business. If they elect to turn the radio off or to change the station, well, that's their business. But to demand that a host be fired or otherwise sanctioned for having had an unpopular guest? Yes, people have the right to make the demand just as the station management has the right to act upon it or ignore it. To run to government complaining that a point of view is offensive and ought to be suppressed? Maybe in some future regime but, so far, that's not the way it works up to now. Of course if the guest elects to use forbidden words, maybe government has an interest but that's an entirely different discussion.
Personally, I deplore sexual exploitation of any kind and would almost surely have turned off the radio or changed stations during the event at issue. But I would not join the ranks of those (and I know you are NOT among them either or, at the very least, haven't taken that approach in posting) who would have the "guests" drawn and quartered for their opinions (actions would be another thing entirely and, even then, only after ajudication). I certainly would not attack the host for having those "guests" address their views and thereby give callers the opportunity to speak out in opposition (or favor if any might).
If my strong feelings on protecting the rights of even the probably guilty (until PROVEN) guilty are "insensitive", I'm sorry you feel that way. I did radio talk decades ago, and yes, wasn't very good at it. From that experience I feel very protective of others who do the work today and the right of others to hold and express even the most offensive opinions....so long as they don't act upon them.
As to The ACLU: More than once I've shaken my head in wonder at some of the cases they take up. But as I get older (despite the wishes of certain others) I realize more and more that if they start being "sensitive to public opinion" in determing which cases to take we're all going to lose big time. Even the worst child molester, rapist, serial killer or corrupt lawyer is endowed with the same rights as the most innocent among us. Certainly no more. They are also subject to the same responsibilities. Properly convicted of crimes they deserve to be punished. But to circumvent their rights because what they are alleged to have done....or actually have done in public view...is so horrible that people avert their eyes when the pass? Nope. If those rights are lost to them, they're lost to everyone.
