Page 9 of 28 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 276

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

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Can't speak of journalists, but in talking the broader notion of censorship I seem to remember country stations across the U.S. boycotting the Dixie Chicks and not playing hteir music any more after thier statements about Bush.

    Funny, I wonder if the OP believes there's a "conservative manifesto" about stifiling speech they don't like....
    Country stations were responding to calls and letters from their listeners.

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-16-13 @ 05:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,817

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well, calling Obama a murder COULD possibly get you in trouble depending how you went about it, but it would require a far higher burden for the government to manuever over to be able to do anything about you. This is because he's a public figure, and as seemingly known commodoties the proof of harm from claims against them is much higher.

    If I say Christian Bale is a murderer, most of those that hear it would have reason to be immedietely HIGHLY skeptical and not believe it. He's a famous actor, he's covered by magazines and shows and papers all over. He's well within the public eye. If he killed someone it would be massive news that people would be highly likely to know about, so there's little reason for my random statement about him to be taken serious by almost anyone and thus would have little to no likely harmful effect on him.

    If I say Bill, my next door neighbor, is a murderer then that's a different situation. People have less reasons to be immedietely highly skeptical of me and not believe it. He's not famous, he's not well known, there isn't any great amount of coverage on him and his life. There's no reason for a random person I talk to at work to know whether or not "Bill" is a murderer or not. There is a far greater chance of damage being caused to him due to that defamation because there is not a preconcieved general understanding regarding him in the greater public at large.

    To go further on that point as well, context of course matters greatly. If I called my neighbor "Bill" a murder in a statement saying "I can't beleive my neighbor eats so much steak all the time, the man is a murderer with all the cows that have been slaughtered to feed him", then there's likely nothing to come of it even though he's not a public figure. In the context, it's clear I'm stating an opinion regarding the issue of eating animal meat and not making a statement suggesting a literal accusation of murder, the legal term.

    Similarly, most of the time when people are talking about "Obama" or "Bush" being a "murderer", it's actually statement of opinion and not a claim of concrete legal fact...typically resolving around things like military action or laws they've passed. Combined with the higher standard for public figures and the ability to show LEGITIMATE HARM being done is extremely problematic.

    Which DOES go back to the notion that our rights are meant to be generally protecetd from infringement by the government save for instances where the infringment is necessary to prevent the realistic harm of others.
    You don't think Obama is being harmed by being called a Murderer but the neighbor is? I have the feeling that both of them dislike being called something that should offend them so there goes your "rights as long as I don't harm others theory". As I said, if your theory was valid I could drive one hundred miles an hour and ignore all the red lights, as long as no one else was around, and it doesn't work that way, not in the real world.

  3. #83
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,136

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TiredOfLife View Post
    You don't think Obama is being harmed by being called a Murderer but the neighbor is? I have the fstandard eeling that both of them dislike being called something that should offend them so there goes your "rights as long as I don't harm others theory". As I said, if your theory was valid I could drive one hundred miles an hour and ignore all the red lights, as long as no one else was around, and it doesn't work that way, not in the real world.
    here you go. there is a more difficult standard for public officials to prevail in a defamation law suit:
    ... The Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan set the standard, called actual malice. Public figures have to prove that not only was the statement false, but also that the speaker or writer either knew the statement was false or published the statement with "reckless disregard" for whether the statement was true or false.

    Since libel or slander is by definition a false statement, truth is a defense. So the plaintiff is the one who ends up on trial, because he or she has to prove the accusations against him or her are false. ...
    Can a politician like Van Jones sue for libel or slander? - Yahoo! Answers

    maybe we can put that portion of your argument to rest
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  4. #84
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,187

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    True enough, but it's funny how the standard has suddenly changed.
    Actually, it's gotten a lot looser and in some dailies such an editorial headline would be considered okay - this one decided no.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  5. #85
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,923
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    how do we know it wasn't "you fire that SOB you have him silenced or else" or was it "i didn't like what that man said but he has the right to say it"
    Both of those are the same for these purposes. People have a right to say both of those things afaict.
    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    and how do we know the complaints was not directed by the white house or from the many organizations that do his bidding?
    How do we know that they are?
    How do we know that the fired guy didn't make it up out of spite for being fired?
    I may be wrong.

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    11-16-13 @ 05:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,817

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

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    here you go. there is a more difficult standard for public officials to prevail in a defamation law suit:

    Can a politician like Van Jones sue for libel or slander? - Yahoo! Answers

    maybe we can put that portion of your argument to rest
    It's his argument, not mine, that A has all the rights possible until he infringes upon the rights of B, which isn't true. It very much depends upon who is B therefore the argument fails.
    Last edited by TiredOfLife; 08-02-13 at 02:00 PM.

  7. #87
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,301
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    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 you are trying to suggest that this guys right to what you see as free speech is greater than the right of the left towards actual free speech? Because protest and boycotts are both constitutionally protected free speech, both used frequently by "the right". Further, one is silencing any ones right. No one has a right to be able to put whatever they want into a newspaper owned by some one else. You have a right to free speech, but if you are in my house and say something to piss me off, I can throw you out. You have a truly warped sense of what rights are, and what they mean.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #88
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,301
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    do we know the contents of the complaint? how do we know it wasn't "you fire that SOB you have him silenced or else" or was it "i didn't like what that man said but he has the right to say it" and how do we know the complaints was not directed by the white house or from the many organizations that do his bidding? we all know how thin skinned Obama is. He recently chastised the Huff and Puff post for stepping out of line and for once wrote a somewhat critical article about him. i bet they wont do that again
    How do we know the complaint did not come from space aliens? When you can't get outraged over what did happen(or it turns out you just don't understand the constitution and people point it out to you), make up **** to get outraged over...
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #89
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,777

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

    Publishing misleading headlines in a newspaper you don't own isn't a constitutional right.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #90
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,301
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    True enough, but it's funny how the standard has suddenly changed.
    Changed how? When has a media company not had the power to hire and fire?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 9 of 28 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •