Randi Rhodes trips over her own rhetoric all the time, but she's still one of my media heroes, and this is absurd. Shame on Air America.

Randi is fearless and intelligent. She has the respect of many respectable people in government, academia, and the media and is all the more impressive as she is largely self taught and extremely well read. Air America does not deserve her. I will pray for her continued perseverance in the face of such transparent corporate hackery. Hang in there Randi. We love you.

the first amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech, it doesn't do anything to prevent your employer from suspending you. no police came on stage to arrest ms. rhodes, right? she is free to start a blog, carry a sign, get a soapbox and make a speech in her town square. she does not however, have a right to appear on someone else's radio station if they don't want her on it.

Randi Rhodes is no progressive. No progressive would use that kind of language about a Democratic woman politician.

She needs to go back into rehab, she's back on the sauce, I guess. She would have been better off just falling down drunk again. She isn't helping the Obama campaign, either.

US Constitutional protections of free speech proscribe governmental attempts to curtail dissenting opinions of its citizens. It does not give Randi Rhodes the legal right to say anything she wants and keep her job at a radio network. A private company has the absolute right to terminate an employee who sullies the public image and reputation that company wants to maintain.

Randi Rhodes is no progressive. No progressive would use that kind of language about a Democratic woman politician.

So much for freedom of speech in America, as viewed by the worhippers at the idol of political correctness. I suppose if Mrs. Clinton was a Republican woman politician, calling her a whore or worse would have been just fine.

I won't comment on Ms. Ferraro, but Hillary Clinton is worse than a plain old whore - she is a murderess as well. But I can say what I will: there is no liberal media asshole to fire me.

And Deano, just for your information, I'm not on the sauce - and never was. My assessment of the bitch is a cold and sober one. Clinton differs from Condaleezza Rice in that at least she is competent, both as a whore and as a murdereess.

Since when do leftists believe in free speech?

Rhandi Rhodes is just one dumbas leftist, moonbat kook that got screwed by some other dumbass leftist, moonbat kooks of a different flavor.

Rhandi was right though, probably for the first time in her life. Hillary is a whore. But those of us who don't have subscribptions to Pravda have known this all along.

Many on the left who have latched onto Obama Bin Laden and abandoned the Clintons are now miraculously having an epiphany about Billary. "Oh well look at that..you know I never realized how self centered and underhanded those Clintons are. Gosh darn it I'm just going to have to vote for this Obama guy because he's such a great speaker and he's change I can believe in."

I just love watching one of my enemies fight another of my enemies.

Video clips of Randi's drunken obscenity laced tirade will be used by the Republicans in political ads as an example of what Obama supporters are like. Randi Rhodes is hurting Obama's chances of getting elected.

Randi Rhodes has never been progressive, except insomuch as people who hate George Bush are considered de facto "progressives" by other fauxgressives who don't give a damn about social progress. She's casually transphobic, homophobic, and misogynist as it suits her needs, though she purports to defend LGBTQ- and women's rights. And she's not fucking talented, either. I'm hard-pressed to imagine anything that could more thoroughly expose her as the uncreative, unclever, unfunny hack she is than calling Hillary Clinton a whore--which makes her not only offensive, but boring. That shtick is about as fresh as a pile of day-old puke.

Randi is one of the worst pieces of low class trash I have ever had the displeasure of listening to. Let her crawl back in the gutter she crawled out of.

Randi got exactly what she deserved. As a person who knows her personally and professionally, I feel that she has been toeing the line for far too long.

Everyone has to understand... there IS freedom of speech, but the thing is, that part of the Constitution is open to so much interpretation, this is where these snags about people getting suspended or not come in because the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate what COULD happen.

I mean... if you are a public figure and you are on film or tape... there are things that you just should know better not to do:
1. Don't call gay people "fags"
2. Don't call black people "niggers"
3. Don't call women "cunts" or "twats"

If you're trying to imply that Hillary Clinton is willing to "sell" herself for special interests, then say so without saying "fucking whore", because Constitutionality aside, no one will listen to you, and lose the real message.

Say it to yourself over and over... fucking whore, fucking whore, Fucking Whore, FUCKING WHORE, FUCKING WHORE!!!!!

That phrase was said with such vitriol and hatred by Randi, and to be honest, if Bill O'Reilly said this at a public event, FOX would slap him on the wrist in the same fashion. Sure... Ann Coulter says things like this all the time, but she (probably smartly) does not have her own show on TV or the Radio so cannot be penalized, the b*tch.

This is exactly the same thing that happened to Don Imus, and although Randi didn't support him being penalized, they are both getting what they deserved.

We DO have free speech, but I personally don't think that gives ANYONE the right to abuse that right by calling people "nappy headed hos" or "fucking whore's" just because they CAN.

Really, please -- stop insulting the First Amendment. As other have pointed out with 90% accuracy, the Amendment most often does not apply to employment relationships (although the spirit of the Amendment has ruled against things like forcing restaurant employees to wear anti-abortion pins, etc.), but clearly it does not apply here in terms of the public image of a public figure.

The Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, does not guarantee life without consequence.

Lisa writes: "We DO have free speech, but I personally don't think that gives ANYONE the right to abuse that right by calling people "nappy headed hos" or "fucking whore's" just because they CAN."

That's pretty much exactly what free speech does. People in America have the individual right to be complete assholes. We live in this coddled, consequence-free society where people believe that having the "right" to do something implies that doing it will have no consequence in their interactions with other individuals. Nope.

Rhodes right to free speech is still in tact. The company had every right to suspend or fire her. A point can be made without vulgarity. People who can't discuss anything without delving into name calling, vulgarity, and obscenities demonstrate a limited vocabulary.

I agree that we would be perfectly fine trusting our civil liberties to corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Citigroup or AT&T and the feudal chieftains who run them.

However, Air America Radio operates over public airwaves. They hired Randi Rhodes because she is outspoken and controversial because that improves ratings and increases profits. They knew what they were getting. They have the absolute right to publish a statement condemning Rhodes' use of foul language, but when they include job suspension or any other penalty they are inhibiting free speech and setting a really bad example for other would-be censors would may not be quite so liberal.

Randi is a public commentator riffing on public figures.

Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton are big girls and can take care of themselves. They don't need protection from Charlie Kireker.

Watching the video it is clear she is doing a performance piece and speaking in hyperbole for entertainment value. Whether she was successful is debatable.

From reading comments from people who were actually in the audience it is clear that the majority of the audience was not offended.

Randy being suspended from Air America has more to do with offending Mark Green who is a devout Clinton supporter than with offending the Air America audience.

If she had spoken ill of Barrack Obama this would not be an issue.

Air America has ratings? They can hardly stay afloat. I listened it it a few times and felt my IQ drop to the single digits, It's just as bad as reading the writings of the KosKidz. No wonder so many of these moonbats are in therapy. Ugghhh!

Randi Rhodes was paid by the Obama campaign...

She's an alcohol abusing potty mouthed nasty little girl who needs some serious help. Lenny Bruce would wipe the floor with her.

Her "routine" was hate speech turned on her own sex. If she had done an ugly gay or brown or disabled riff she'd be fired and not suspended and my God, if she had been talking about Barack Obama and his wife, she'd be under armed protection.

Just because someone is "doing it as a performance piece in hyperbole for entertainment value" makes it okay?


Just ask Seinfeld's Michael Richards....

As for Randi...Fire the @#$%!

This is almost too obvious a point to make, but evidently it needs saying.

A private employer suspending an employee for her remarks has nothing whatever to do with the First Amendment. The Constitution forbids the government, and only the government, from placing restrictions on speech.

And there is no guarantee anywhere that any speech will be without consequences. If you say it, your employer and others are free to respond in any legal manner they choose. That's the part of "free speech" that so many people seem to have trouble grasping.

I may not agree with all that you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Why is it that so few liberals understand the concept of 'freedom of speech'?

If she was arrested by the government for her ridiculous, hateful rant, you'd have a point.

That her employer held her to a standard (yes, even I was surprised AA has standards) has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Let me put it in language that even liberals may understand:

If you wear a t-shirt of George Bush's head with a penis going in his mouth and the words 'Eat Me, Ape Man!', and you wear it while you're sitting on your lawn, no big deal.

But if you wear it to McDonald's for your evening shift in lieu of a uniform shirt, you can be fired.

To Harkin: Thank you for your condescension. It helps keep me humble.

I believe that there is a difference between the corporate responsibility toward the expressions of a public commentator, like Randi Rhodes, and McDonald's "responsibility" to dress its employees in uniforms. Your example isn't appropriate. Air America Radio's reaction could be interpreted as censorship or suppression of inconvenient opinion. McDonald's reaction could be interpreted as "good taste," an appropriate response from a food vendor.

We are not talking about corporate rights (corporations have rights?) but the right thing for the corporation to do.

Last time I check Free Speech was protection from the Government not a private company. Just because she can say anything she likes does not meant that the company she represents has to allow the content. Again this is not the government but a private company.

The First Amendment doesn't cover your job. If you say something your boss doesn't like he can fire you. To say otherwise is to attempt to gain rights that are not covered anywhere, US Constitution or otherwise. You can't force Person A to like or agree or subsidize the statements of Person B. I don't know anyone who would want to live in a society that forced people to agree with every statement ever made by any person. R Rhodes had a big mouth, and I bet this won't be the last time she suffers for it.

I think the key difference we are missing here is that Randi Rhodes is a public persona and a recognized proponent of progressive issues. The fact that her suspension has generated such intense media coverage shows that we're dealing with more here than a corporate employee expressing an non-corporate opinion.

Randi deals in discussions of people who have put themselves in the public spotlight. She addresses political issues as they are represented by the various candidates. Maybe the letter of the First Amendment doesn't protect such speech (although I think it does) but surely the entire body of writings of the Founding Fathers favors this kind of spirited political exposition.

We can all agree that some words are dirty and might better be left out of this discourse. But to silence any political expression because it is presented in an unpleasant or unconventional mode is to threaten all political expression.

Is there a petition we can sign to have Randi Rhodes committed to intense psychotherapy?

It seems as if at least some of the posters, such as txcat get it.

Free speech means that you as a private citizen have the absolute right to say anything you want anywhere you want at any time. However if you have been hired to represent a business the people that sign your checks have every right to decide wether or not they want you to continue to employ you because it's not a matter of your free speech but your representation of your employer in a manner which they find acceptable and if they can your sorry ass for saying something boneheaded it is in no way a violation of your free speech.

The First Amendment protects the people from the government making laws and limiting speech. It doesn't do a thing when it's your employer curtailing your speech.

The fact that Hillary is a "whore" for corporate America is fact beyond repoach. She and her husband helped start the DLC an organization dedicated to getting democrats to sell themselves for corporate money just like the republicans so they could win elections. She has taken more corporate lobbist money than any other candidate democrat or republican running for president this time. We have seen vividly the kind of strings attached to this kind of money for the last seven years. Whoring yourserlf out has become accepted venacular for selling out your beliefs. Randi had every right to call it like it is. The people who own Air America are Hillary supporters who wanted to get her to quit. Nothing more.Her employers did not have firing her as an option she had a no fire contract. They are just using this incident to get her out.

Having free speech means that we have to take responsibility for the consequences of what we say. Randi Rhodes has been given an object lesson on this reality.

Dave

When new management does not like the terms of a contract negotiated by the previous management as in this case with Randi's no firing clause then all management can do is humilate her into quitting. The legality of her suspension when she has a no firing clause in her contract is extremely suspect. With the damage to her reputation done by this incident expect a huge lawsuit coming soon. i hope the new Air America owners have some deep pockets cause this little incident is gonna cost them big time!!!