You're right, we shouldn't care if voices are silenced because they may or may not be offensive to one group or another while other people say things equally or more virulent and are retained, particularly from an institution that receives government funding.
Every single newspaper of record in this country receives government funding, by law.
So? Who's calling for them to be silenced? 
Well apparently Sugar Dick believes that newspapers can't fire journalists for their actions when not on the job.
Why do the libs on this board insist on pulling everything out of context 
Juan Williams was employed by NPR as a news analyst to provide objective comment on various topics. Juan Williams, through being honest, compromised any objectivity he could have on a pretty important topic that is covered almost daily in the media. This is why most news organizations have strict policies about personal conduct outside the office.
Look, I applaud Williams for speaking the truth about his own knee-jerk fears and how he admitted they were wrong. That's a brave thing to do. But he is also well aware that NPR wasn't exactly pleased that he was going on other shows and providing those shows with the same analysis he was supposed to be doing for NPR, or providing his personal views thus giving him less and less credibility as an objective voice for NPR.
That factored in with a terrible soundbite led to his dismissal.
To say that NPR doesn't have the right to fire an employee for personal conduct on personal time when it compromises one of his chief duties -- being objective -- simply because NPR receives about 2 percent of its funding from the government is asinine.
All I said was that I heard people who work for NPR expressing bigoted (and unproven claims as if they were fact) remarks and they weren't fired. However, JW does it once and gets canned (obviously b/c they didn't like this type of so-called bigotry). Therefore, in my opinion, it's not fair to hold JW to a different standard than lib bigots and he should take legal action if possible.
I personally think anybody should be allowed to hire/fire/work-with/work-for/contract/sub-contract anybody they damn well please without any outside involvement or criticism. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Just like it's unfortunate that people get nervous when they sit next to a guy that looks like the guy that flew a 757 into the twin towers.
It's called the real world.
People are forced to make judgments about other people based on appearance because people don't know every single person on the globe personally(aka "stereotyping" or "profiling"). They do this for their own safety not to alienate or harm a class of people. People have an idea of what certain types of bad people look like based on bad things they've seen and what the people doing the bad things look like. It's not condemnable behavior, unless your an elitist lib who lives in an ivory tower and never interacts with the common-folk. Call it what you want, bigotry, street-smarts, profiling, stereotyping, common-sense, not-being-ignorant, it's the world we live in. And no, I'm not advocating this type of behavior, just explaining it (this paragraph will soon be redacted in part in a reply to this statement in some weak effort to make me look like a bigot).
