Besides, the right to free speech does not mean that every media outlet is obligated to provide a platform to every person who wishes to speak, or for every opinion.
The editor basically told the President of the United States to "shove it." If that crosses the line for that newspaper's editorial policies and/or code of conduct -- written or unwritten -- then there is no problem whatsoever with terminating his employment.
Incorrect.The left believes our rights come from government granted to them by the Bill of Rights.
1) There are plenty of leftists and progressives who believe in intrinsic rights.
2) There is no religious requirement in order to be a conservative or right-wing.
3) There is no problem or contradiction in asserting conservatism / right-wing ideas and rejecting intrinsic rights (e.g. Mill).
Notice that it does not mention a creator, but it does mention congress. What does this tell you? This is a limit on the power of government, not of a private business.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, can you show me where any creator said that people have the inherant right to be employed by a newspaper and write anything they want in that newspaper? Because I don't think that is a creator given right. I am not sure why you hate free enterprise so much, but it kinda is how things work in this country.
■The Fort Worth Star-Telegram fired real estate columnist Steve McLinden after he sent a private e-mail response to a statewide e-mail from the Young Conservatives of Texas, which advertised a protest of an upcoming speech by former president Bill Clinton. In his e-mail, which the Young Conservatives of Texas included as part of their anti-Clinton promotions, McLinden attacked the group as "heartless, greedy, anti-intellectual little fascists."