• 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

Simon W. Moon said:
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?
Complaining to the paper about its content is not a violation of someone's rights afaict.
Click to expand...


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
 
CanadaJohn said:
Having seen the title of the editorial, I'd have to say that it's in poor taste for the editorial page of a newspaper that considers itself serious. I think the President is a disaster, but having the media pulpit and telling the President of your country to "shove it" is a little over the line.

This isn't a free speech issue - it's an employee conduct issue. The fired editor is free now to say whatever he likes about President Obama and not have his words speak for his former employer. Any person employed by another can be fired if their conduct crosses what is included in morality clauses and codes of conduct. Maybe he should have checked with his boss, or the owners of the paper, before he authorized the headline. Then, if they had approved, he'd still have his job or a good wrongful dismissal case.
Click to expand...

True enough, but it's funny how the standard has suddenly changed.
 
TiredOfLife said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
trfjr said:
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
Click to expand...

If there's any proof that the government actually took actoin to get the guy fired, then that's a problem. There's absolutely zero proof aof that right now. Saying "how do you know" is not legitimate reasoning to get upset.

How do you know that the Founder's weren't actually space aliens that created the constitution in league with the Devil!? We must seriously consider, act, and rant based on it being true because HOW DO WE KNOW IT'S NOT?!!!!!!! OMG!!!!
 
trfjr said:
Read more: Editor fired for anti-Obama headline says bosses responded to pressure | Fox News



the lefts war on freedom of speech and press

The liberal manifesto
I believe in free speech as long as I agree with that speech
I believe in freedom of the press as long as they are not critical of me
I believe in the freedom to protest as long as you don't protest me
I believe in free expression as long as you express my views
Click to expand...

Is is really any surprise that supporters of Obama are more sensitive? not to anyone that follows that group. I mean this is the same group that thinks it is ok to draw unemployment for two years instead of moving or taking on a new a career. This is the same group that thinks it is ok to draw disability because you have pain.

We are now dealing with the most sensitive group of people in our lifetimes.
 
Zyphlin said:
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....
Click to expand...

Country stations were responding to calls and letters from their listeners.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TiredOfLife said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

maybe we can put that portion of your argument to rest
 
apdst said:
True enough, but it's funny how the standard has suddenly changed.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's gotten a lot looser and in some dailies such an editorial headline would be considered okay - this one decided no.
 
trfjr said:
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"
Click to expand...
Both of those are the same for these purposes. People have a right to say both of those things afaict.
trfjr said:
and how do we know the complaints was not directed by the white house or from the many organizations that do his bidding?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
trfjr said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
trfjr said:
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
Click to expand...

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...
 
Publishing misleading headlines in a newspaper you don't own isn't a constitutional right.
 
apdst said:
True enough, but it's funny how the standard has suddenly changed.
Click to expand...

Changed how? When has a media company not had the power to hire and fire?
 
Zyphlin said:
If there's any proof that the government actually took actoin to get the guy fired, then that's a problem. There's absolutely zero proof aof that right now. Saying "how do you know" is not legitimate reasoning to get upset.

How do you know that the Founder's weren't actually space aliens that created the constitution in league with the Devil!? We must seriously consider, act, and rant based on it being true because HOW DO WE KNOW IT'S NOT?!!!!!!! OMG!!!!
Click to expand...
You do realize Tennessee is a very red state and the paper probably received more praise then criticism over the article from subscribers so it is very safe to assume the complaints came from out of state from non subscribers. There are many left wing organizations that their sole purpose is to flood news organizations and businesses with complaints and threatening letters if any of them does anything that remotely is critical of Obama, and all of them do Obamas biding. It doesn't take much rational thought to connect the dots
 
Writing a letter criticizing an editorial does not violate free speech, Boycotting a media outlet does not violate free speech.

Arresting and imprisoning someone for the content they create is a violation of free speech, and when the content is sexually explicit, most conservatives support the violation.
 
Although I disagree with the writer's opinions, I don't have particular problem with the editorial headline. Editorials aren't journalism, so they can ethically use any headline they want.

If anyone violated the guy's rights, it his bosses. Not the people who complained, they had no power to fire him.
 
trfjr said:
You do realize Tennessee is a very red state and the paper probably received more praise then criticism over the article from subscribers so it is very safe to assume the complaints came from out of state from non subscribers.
Click to expand...
Do you think it's safe to assume that the paper made a decision to go against the wishes of their subscribers based on what non-subscribers said?

trfjr said:
It doesn't take much rational thought to connect the dots
Click to expand...
It should take some evidence though. ...at least imho.
 
Zyphlin said:
Where was freedom of speech infringed?



Where was freedom of the press infringed?



Where was freedom of protest infringed?



Where was freedom of expression infringed?
Click to expand...

:eek:t How on earth do you manage to live in Herndon and be Conservative? :)
 
TiredOfLife said:
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?
Click to expand...

"We have different ways of dealing with speech directed at different people" when one is a public figure and the other is a private figure.

Change your example from the public figure being the President to the public figure being Jay Leno. Right or wrong once an individual becomes a "public figure", the inherent right against outlandish accusations quickly departs.
 
The owner of the newspaper was exercising his/her free speech rights.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Do you think it's safe to assume that the paper made a decision to go against the wishes of their subscribers based on what non-subscribers said?

It should take some evidence though. ...at least imho.
Click to expand...

would you think the paper was safe to assume they would receive reprisal from this administration like they have proved they are more them willing to do with whom they think are a political threat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom