• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure

Working out the same way and actually being the same are different, especially when it's being stated that if you don't believe exactly the same OPINION that Pete has you don't have a brain.

Oh, I agree that Pete was wrong, and the "no brain" part was, ironically, kinda brainless.
 
your rights and liberty doesn't give you the right to infringe on other persons rights and liberties.

They absolutely do. In a state of nature the rights of others is irrelevant, all that matters is what you can do. It is only through forming a society...be it loosely knit or a formalized government...that we come to a point where we MUTURALLY AGREE to limit our own rights in the name of not infringing upon others.

You have the right to protest against speech you don't like or disagree with but you don't have the right to have that speech or person silenced

You absolutely do in the state of nature. You don't within a soceity IF the society agrees to limiting their own rights in such a fashion.

In THIS country and society, we have laws dictating where our level of infringement of others rights through the use of our owns is not allowed.

A business owner is perfeclty capable of acting on their right to assembly and right to their property to FIRE someone for their use of their right to speech, because you don't have a right to speech without CONSEQUENCE and you have no right to FORCE the business owner to continue to employ you, give you money, and be assembled with you.

If the business owner attempt to cut out your vocal cords, or chop off your hands, or take some other action to permanently or sizable remove your capacity for speech, that'd be a problem. But removing an avenue for your speech that HE CHOOSE TO GIVE YOU, that he FINANCES, and that is his property is not keeping you from speaking freely...it just keeps you from utilizing his property and taking his property to give your speech.
 
your rights and liberty doesn't give you the right to infringe on other persons rights and liberties. You have the right to protest against speech you don't like or disagree with but you don't have the right to have that speech or person silenced
Yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one and let us know how that works out for you? All rights have limitations. Sorry.
 
Well there's your first mistake. Which would you rather have defend you in court, God or a Lawyer? Choose wisely, and in the real world.

Which would you rather post? A stupid comment or a pinapple?

See, I can make non-sensical statements and posts that are nothing but strawmen (at best) and pure idiocy at worst.

Where rights come from and "defending [me] in court" is about as relevant to each other as me stating my athletic ability is partially genetics and then yo uasking me who'd I rather coach me in football, Lambeua or my Great Great Grandfather.
 
Yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one and let us know how that works out for you? All rights have limitations. Sorry.

Ummm...you realize his post you quote acknowledged that right?

The whole "doesn't give you the right to infringe on other persons rights and liberties" part?

Did you actually read his post, or are you just on "liberal propoganda auto-pilot" where you imagine the words you think people say based on their lean and then fill in your standard response?
 
If I own a newspaper, I have an absolute right to determine what goes in and what does not.

im not arguing against the news papers right to hire or fire. im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like

you have the right to protest but you don't have the right to protest to have some one silenced. you cant use a right to violate some one elses rights
 
wrong it is an Inherent Right granted by our Creator. the bill of Rights wasn't written to give us those rights it was written so those rights could not be taken away. This is one of the fundamental differences between the Right and the Left. The left believes our rights come from government granted to them by the Bill of Rights. The Right knows they are Inherent Rights granted by our Creator and the Bill of Rights was to keep government from taking them away

the Constitution isn't an enabling document is was written as a limiting document

You don't have the right to be paid by somebody to say it. He is free to start his own paper and print whatever he wants, but there is no right to work for a newspaper.

For example: You have the right to stand on a street corner and say whatever you want. You don't have a right to a TV show.
 
You don't have the right to be paid by somebody to say it. He is free to start his own paper and print whatever he wants, but there is no right to work for a newspaper.

For example: You have the right to stand on a street corner and say whatever you want. You don't have a right to a TV show.

im not arguing against the news papers right to hire or fire. im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like

you have the right to protest but you don't have the right to protest to have some one silenced. you cant use a right to violate some one elses rights
 
Ummm...you realize his post you quote acknowledged that right?

The whole "doesn't give you the right to infringe on other persons rights and liberties" part?

Did you actually read his post, or are you just on "liberal propoganda auto-pilot" where you imagine the words you think people say based on their lean and then fill in your standard response?
I read it but his post doesn't actually say that, but you might mistakenly think it does. Yelling out something that isn't true doesn't "infringe" upon anyone's rights. If it did there would be no preachers.
 
im not arguing against the news papers right to hire or fire. im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like

you have the right to protest but you don't have the right to protest to have some one silenced. you cant use a right to violate some one elses rights

So did the right have a right to protest radio stations that played the Dixie Chicks?

You have the right to protest whatever you want, and you have the right to ask that someone be "silenced." I'd hardly say this guy was silenced since he's now appeared on Fox which is a far bigger platform than any local newpaper.
 
Oh, I agree that Pete was wrong, and the "no brain" part was, ironically, kinda brainless.

Gotcha.

In my opinion, there's natural rights and then there's societal rights (which can take on a whole host of names depending on the societal structure).

Natural rights are that which exist within nature, abscent any form of community. They are all things that are inherent upon oneself. You have the right to live. You have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to speech, to believe as you wish, to be around who you wish, etc. However, these natural rights extend only to the point in which you are able to exert them. There is no protection, there is no notion that your rights can not be infringed upon.

These are rights people can not GIVE YOU. They are things that if you strip away all form of society you would still be able to strive to do. You can restrict these rights, but you can never fully take them away.

Societal Rights are ones that exist thanks to the social contract. They are typically rights unable to exist within a state of nature. For example, "the right to vote" would be a societal right as there would be no such notion in the state of nature (Though it would be essentially a restricted version of the right to choose). Things like "Every citizen gets healthcare" would be a societal right. The notion of one persons rights ending if they infringe your own is, itself, a SOCEITAL right. Societal Rights go the opposite way than natural rights...they can always be expanded, but they can never be made truly permanent.

Freedom of Speech as a notion is a natural right. As a soceity, we've placed agreed upon limitations to it...such as that speech being unable to infringe upon anothers rights through purposeful lying as a means of defaming the person (slander) as an example.

We have rights in nature, but they're not protected and extend only to the point in which we can act upon them on our own. Whether people want to think they're endowed by a creator, by nature, by humanaity, whatever then more power to them....but ultimately one has "rights" even if there is no government, those rights are simply not protected.
 
You don't have the right to be paid by
somebody to say it. He is free to start his own paper and print whatever he wants, but there is no right to work for a newspaper.

For example: You have the right to stand on a street corner and say whatever you want. You don't have a right to a TV show.

The people that buy that Newspaper also have the right to cancel their subscriptions.

If enough do, and this guy is rehired, I guess it's lesson learned.
 
im not arguing against the news papers right to hire or fire. im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like

you have the right to protest but you don't have the right to protest to have some one silenced. you cant use a right to violate some one elses rights

No one is being "silenced". The man can still talk, can still post online, can still use his own money and put out a newspaper if he wants, etc.

He has NO RIGHT to use another persons property to spread his message. People ABSOLUTELY have the right to protest a private entity if they don't like what that private entity is doing.
 
Last edited:
The people that buy that Newspaper also have the right to cancel their subscriptions.

If enough do, and this guy is rehired, I guess it's lesson learned.

They do, and if that's what happens, then it's what happens. It's all within people's rights.
 
Oh, come on. Do you really think the White House contacted this newspaper? Please.
that's not beyond the pale
certainly not for well connected supporters

You're a Conservative. Don't you believe in following the policies of your job??
he makes the argument that the policy was effected AFTER he made the headline edit. the veracity of that should be easy to assess
he said he edited a placeholder headline; not an unusual edit

and then there is the argument that the headline was too raunchy ... 'shove it' ... really?!
it was an obvious play on an old CW hit, take this job and shove it, which was on the public airways for a long time
but the theme is somehow too raunchy now for the president's delicate ears. don't think so

then there are those who wrongly point to this as a free speech violation. clearly they have no understanding of our Bill of Rights
but they also tend to be those opposed to unionization and supporters of an employer being able to fire employees at 'free will'
except if the fired employee is one who appears to share their political point of view

what is evident here is the wholesale ignorance of civics by much of our population
 
I read it but his post doesn't actually say that, but you might mistakenly think it does. Yelling out something that isn't true doesn't "infringe" upon anyone's rights. If it did there would be no preachers.

Okay, so you're just ignorant of why "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is illegal.

It's not because it's "untrue". It's because yelling such a thing in a crowded location with minimal exits is realistically likely to cause a paniced situation that has a high proability of leading to injury to some of those within the location.

It's why the example is always "in a crowded theater".

I could walk out to the middle of a park at 6:00 PM tonight when it's almost empty and shout out "FIRE!" and it not be illegal, because the conditions aren't such that I'm posing a legitimate threat to the public with my words.
 
im not arguing against the news papers right to hire or fire. im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like

you have the right to protest but you don't have the right to protest to have some one silenced. you cant use a right to violate some one elses rights
We use our collective rights to limit the rights of individuals to harm society and others. It's where the yelling fire, and inciting a riot, and threatening the life of the President limitations come into play. Your rights and my rights have to be in balance. It's not just do whatever you like as long as you aren't affecting anyone else. I know you want that to be true but it isn't. If if was I could drive 100 miles an hour and ignore all the red lights as long as no one else was on the road. Life doesn't work that way.
 
The people that buy that Newspaper also have the right to cancel their subscriptions.

If enough do, and this guy is rehired, I guess it's lesson learned.

ABSOLUTELY!

This is the free market, this is the freedom of commerce and of protest, etc.

If people DISLIKE what this PRIVATE entity is saying, they can protest and boycott it in hopes of instituting change they'd like.

If people DISLIKE the change that happened by this PRIVATE entity, then they can protest and boycott in hopes of instituting change THEY'D like.

Everyone involved is invoking their rights and abilities and no one is having their rights TAKEN AWAY from them.

No one has the right to have a job at a newspaper. No one has a right to have their speech pushed over someone elses product. And no one has the right to speak without reprucussions for that speech.
 
im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like
Perhaps you mis-stated this?
Subscribers have no right to express their opinions to the the newspaper they subscribe to? It seems like a God-given right to expression would cover the right to tell a service provider what you think of their services, imho anyway.
I think that some service provider actively seek out the opinions of their subscribers. Are we quite sure that these people have no right to express their opinions to the paper about the paper?
you cant use a right to violate some one elses rights
Complaining to the paper about its content is not a violation of someone's rights afaict.
 
If Jon Stewart can call Obama "Dude" to his face on national TV and everyone laughs, including Obama, it's already been established that there isn't much of a baseline of dignity or respect expected for Obama. e

The fact of this firing simply shows the left's increased sensitivity now that the Obama presidency has resulted in such an unmitigated disaster in front of the entire world.

so, on one hand you object to the lack of respect shown by the editor's revised headline

but you then also object to the editor's being fired for it

notice how your position, like your post, makes no sense
 
Okay, so you're just ignorant of why "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is illegal.

It's not because it's "untrue". It's because yelling such a thing in a crowded location with minimal exits is realistically likely to cause a paniced situation that has a high proability of leading to injury to some of those within the location.

It's why the example is always "in a crowded theater".

I could walk out to the middle of a park at 6:00 PM tonight when it's almost empty and shout out "FIRE!" and it not be illegal, because the conditions aren't such that I'm posing a legitimate threat to the public with my words.

Good. You have some idea what you are talking about. Now yell "fire" in the park but this time have someone hear it, call the fire department, and on the way to your fire the truck rolls and a fireman dies. The charge against you is now Manslaughter. It's never as simple as you think. As for speaking (and writing) untruths, we have laws on that as well. We call it Slander, Libel, and Perjury.
 
Good. You have some idea what you are talking about. Now yell "fire" in the park but this time have someone hear it, call the fire department, and on the way to your fire the truck rolls and a fireman dies. The charge against you is now Manslaughter.

One, you're making some grand assumption there that such would absolutely result in a manslaughter charge.

Two, it still doesn't change the fact that it is occuring because you've said something that REASONABLE reaction to led to the infringement of another persons rights.

It's rational and reasonable to suggest that someone who hears someone yell "fire" may contact the fire department.

It's not rational and reasonable to suggest that someone who hears someone say "Gays are vile sinners", for example, is going to go off and murder someone.

It's never as simple as you think.

The irony of this statement after your elaborate lead in filled with assumptions as if they're unquestionable facts is astounding.

As for speaking (and writing) untruths, we have laws on that as well. We call it Slander, Libel, and Perjury.

I know, I spoke about them in post 62, 5 posts befoer the one you quoted.
 
So I'm trying to understand this bizarre logic...

Let's say a Newspaper comes out with the editor putting in a headline on page one going "Conservatives are a bunch of ********ing racists"

Are you suggesting people don't have a right to stop buying that paper?

OR are you suggesting they have the right to stop buying that paper, but don't have a right to state the reason for why they're stopping buying that paper?

OR are you suggesting they have the right to stop buying the paper, and why they won't buy the paper, but they can't say they'd be open to buying it again if the editor is fired?

Or are you suggesting they have hte right to stop buying the paper, state why they won't buy it, state they'll buy it again if he's fired, but can't state that the guy SHOULD be fired?

I'm confused here at which point SPECIFICALLY you feel that the paying publics speech/action should be not allowed....
 
I know, I spoke about them in post 62, 5 posts befoer the one you quoted.
Good. Now tell me why calling Obama a murderer won't get me in trouble but saying the same thing about my neighbor, even if he is one, likely will? It's all Free Speech right? Tell us why we have different ways of dealing with speech directed at different people? Doesn't Obama have a right not to be called something false or slanderous just like the guy next door?
 
Back
Top Bottom