I've seen petitions circulate advocating for both the removal of Don Lemon from CNN and Raven Symone from the view, and I could not disagree more. Lemon and Symone are being targeted for refusing to comply with the overall idea, of how an individual is supposed to think ---- specifically in situations that concern black individuals.
I am not saying I agree with what Symone and Lemon have said in the past, rather I defending their justification to say it. Their opinions on circumstances are being dismissed as unnecessary, illegitimate, and disposable, because they fail to agree with the populace. In turn, the public has developed this idea that such disagreement is cause to dissolve them of their employment --- that idea, is which that I find fault. Based on the "The Marketplace of Ideas" , a political theory championed by John Stuart Mill, it is important to allow such opinions , that don't necessarily resonate with the majority , as to dismiss the minority opinion would be to force away our ability to arrive at a truly accurate conclusion. The minority opinion challenges the majority and forces it to tailor itself, to actual truth.
Based on this I say, the opinions of Symone and Lemon are those to which they are entitled and based on their career paths, opinions to which they are encouraged to expressed.

Some will make the argument that Lemon, being an employee of CNN, should focus more on objective communication of the situation. This, however, ignores the fundamental fact that modern journalism and reporting allows for personal positioning and stance. Furthermore, upon researching the job description of news anchor I uncovered that "tv anchors may also engage in commentary about various community issues and conduct interviews of key figures." Allowance of commentary, by anchors and news personalities are commonplace in the field of news reporting, no matter how radically placed and "out of touch " with reality this opinion is perceived to be. Take an individual such as Nancy Grace, for example, someone employed by the same cooperation as Lemon. Her opinions remain just as radical and divergent from the mere details of the story, yet she still has failed to met consequence and continues to pass under the radar , of those who are now insisting Lemon's termination.
On behalf of Symone, some will insist that Raven exit the view because her opinions in the past are ignorant, uninformed, and offensive to various members of society. I've taken a moment to look over the "6 times Raven Symone has made controversial remarks", and yet with the exception of her comment regarding Michelle Obama (which was harshly inappropriate) and her comment regarding "Ghetto Names", I find this largely not to be the case. Most comments are her opinions regarding her personal identity (though at times when describing these identities she , i believe unintentionally, made statements that were inaccurate) or her opinions regarding debates which are present in the media. It should be noted that Raven's job on the View is commentary. She is encouraged to express her opinion regarding circumstances, and that in no way does her "saying her piece" violate her job description.

With this analysis, the question must then be posed, why are Symone and Lemon being targeted? Simple, their opinions diverge from what people want to hear. By the black community, they are seen as "sellouts" (although the concept that an individual is a sellout because their opinion doesn't agree with most of the black community, is ludicrous. Their is not "black" opinion and their is no one opinion that can be observed as more black than the rest, and thus those who insist that they are turning their back on their community for sharing an alternate opinion, is promoting this idea of questioning "blackness".) for not sharing the opinions of the majority black population and by the white community, they are seen as those who question the tendency for conventional ideas of complete polarity. They are the minority opinions that are forcing the majority opinions to rethink and redesign their arguments, but the problem arises because, the majority of the populace don't wish to listen to Mill. They would rather subscribe to their own wave of thinking, rather than analyze the points, in which that wave of thinking falls short.

In short, people wish to destroy the need for a counterargument, and thus wish to dispose of that counterargument entirely. This , however, is dangerous, because the ability to think and consider is truly what pushes us foreward.
Thus to remove Lemon and Symone from the air, to advocate for their termination, would not only be a grave injustice to them (for they have technically done nothing "wrong") , but a grave injustice to us all as it would limit the type of opinions to which we are exposed ---- whether we agree with them or not, is not the question. The ability to consider them, however, is extremely important.