• 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

Well, yeah...freedom of expression always comes with consequences...sometimes good and sometimes bad.
When it comes to a job the employer has a right to think of the business' public image which might undermine profits
. Like I said before, no one has a right to a job...but when employer's act like dicks they can expect to get yes-men for employees.
You think that's what was at play in this case?
 
You think that's what was at play in this case?

Pretty much. That's always been the case when I investigated why an employer fired someone for a facebook post or a tweet or some other public comment. Perhaps they were worried about access to the President or his staff for future interviews, which might affect public sales. Perhaps their main customers are liberals, who knows?
 
Pretty much. That's always been the case when I investigated why an employer fired someone for a facebook post or a tweet or some other public comment.
Perhaps they were worried about access to the President or his staff for future interviews, which might affect public sales.
Perhaps their main customers are liberals, who knows
?
Perhaps ... and perhaps again ... OR ... also perhaps it was more of a decision by the uber-Editor, not the employer, who was influenced by her personal opinion. After all, she felt the need to make up an excuse for the firing.
We could get into the whole "why do people really choose to go into journalism (or teaching ... or politics ... or etc.)" thing but this is not the thread for that.
 
As far as I can tell nobody's suggested that the government can do anything of the sort. They have said that a private newspaper could fire an employee for a controversial headline that could cost them money.

Actually, Deuce claimed that writing for a privately owned newspaper isn't a constitutional right, which means that the government can regulate such activity.
 
Is that why at the signing of the constitution that women had the right to vote and blacks had the same rights as whites? Oh wait they didn't. It wasn't until society changed their views on the subject that it changed and was applied. Had nothing to do with a creator.

Without the Constitution, women and blacks STILL wouldn't have any rights. See how awesome The Constitution is?
 
Actually, Deuce claimed that writing for a privately owned newspaper isn't a constitutional right, which means that the government can regulate such activity.

You mean this?

Publishing misleading headlines in a newspaper you don't own isn't a constitutional right.

I believe he meant that you don't have a constitutional right not to right whatever you want in someone else's newspaper if they don't want you to, and that it is alright to be fired for doing so.
 
You mean this?



I believe he meant that you don't have a constitutional right not to right whatever you want in someone else's newspaper if they don't want you to, and that it is alright to be fired for doing so.

I think that everyone who claims I'm wrong is very, very confused.
 
Without the Constitution, women and blacks STILL wouldn't have any rights. See how awesome The Constitution is?

Without people to amend the constitution they STILL would not have those rights. Again, at the signing of the constitution they didn't have those rights. A group of people created the constitution, society decided to follow it. Do you really think if something extremely catastrophic happened to this country the constitution would protect you?
 
I think that everyone who claims I'm wrong is very, very confused.

Watching you massage a really bizarre strawman for 10+ pages borders on insanity.
 
Without people to amend the constitution they STILL would not have those rights. Again, at the signing of the constitution they didn't have those rights. A group of people created the constitution, society decided to follow it. Do you really think if something extremely catastrophic happened to this country the constitution would protect you?

And, without the rights that were endowed by our creator, people couldn't inact those rights.

If something very, extremely, like totally catastrophic happened to this country, the 2nd Amendment will do a great job of protecting me.
 
And insults are all you have.

What else would you call it? Why would you claim that people have a right to insert their beliefs in somebody else's newspaper against their will or else its a violation on the constitution? Who makes such a bizarre claim and changes it around every other page.
 
And, without the rights that were endowed by our creator, people couldn't inact those rights.

If something very, extremely, like totally catastrophic happened to this country, the 2nd Amendment will do a great job of protecting me.

If those rights were endowed by a "creator" blacks would have had the same rights as whites and women could have voted from the creation of the constitution. They didn't.m no creator was endowing anything.
 
If those rights were endowed by a "creator" blacks would have had the same rights as whites and women could have voted from the creation of the constitution. They didn't.m no creator was endowing anything.

And, we do. If not for those rights, endowed by our creator, we wouldn't have them and neither would you.
 
What else would you call it? Why would you claim that people have a right to insert their beliefs in somebody else's newspaper against their will or else its a violation on the constitution? Who makes such a bizarre claim and changes it around every other page.

Re-write that sentence so that we can understand it. Thanks!
 
And, we do. If not for those rights, endowed by our creator, we wouldn't have them and neither would you.

If those rights were endowed by our creator they would have been there AT THE BEGINNING. Or are you suggesting the creator just decided later that blacks should have the same rights as whites and women should vote later on.
 
Re-write that sentence so that we can understand it. Thanks!

You can't even understand your own logic, red flag?
 
You can't even understand your own logic, red flag?

I understand that the government can't tell you what you can, or can't write in anyone's newspaper; meaning that you have the right to do so. Just because your employer excercises his right to fire you over it, doesn't mean you don't have the right to write it.
 
Actually, Deuce claimed that writing for a privately owned newspaper isn't a constitutional right, which means that the government can regulate such activity.

Liar.

I think that everyone who claims I'm wrong is very, very confused.

They are very, very confused because what I ACTUALLY wrote is easy to verify and you are very, very clearly making **** up.

You, apdst, are the only person in this entire thread who has misunderstood what I wrote. Every other person has interpreted it correctly. You have not. I'll clarify for you:

You, apdst, do not have a constitutional right to work for my company. If I own a paper, and don't like what you write, guess what? You're out of a job. It's my paper, what is written in it is key to my business, I don't need any reason beyond that to fire you. You do have some rights when it comes to working for me. I can't fire you because you're black, or Jewish, or a woman, or gay, for example. Your ****ty, misleading headlines? Not covered. Pack your bags, you're fired.
 
Last edited:
Well, yeah...freedom of expression always comes with consequences...sometimes good and sometimes bad. When it comes to a job the employer has a right to think of the business' public image which might undermine profits. Like I said before, no one has a right to a job...but when employer's act like dicks they can expect to get yes-men for employees.

and that's what they want, and what for the most part they have. This then isn't the news, isn't journalism, isn't editorial -- it's propaganda.
 
I understand that the government can't tell you what you can, or can't write in anyone's newspaper; meaning that you have the right to do so. Just because your employer excercises his right to fire you over it, doesn't mean you don't have the right to write it.

So now you're sayi..

nevermind,

I'm going to quietly back out of this thread.

... see

you...

........... later
 
If those rights were endowed by our creator they would have been there AT THE BEGINNING. Or are you suggesting the creator just decided later that blacks should have the same rights as whites and women should vote later on.

They were there, at the beginning. People interfered with those rights.
 
Liar.



They are very, very confused because what I ACTUALLY wrote is easy to verify and you are very, very clearly making **** up.

You, apdst, are the only person in this entire thread who has misunderstood what I wrote. Every other person has interpreted it correctly. You have not. I'll clarify for you:

You, apdst, do not have a constitutional right to work for my company. If I own a paper, and don't like what you write, guess what? You're out of a job. It's my paper, what is written in it is key to my business, I don't need any reason beyond that to fire you. You do have some rights when it comes to working for me. I can't fire you because you're black, or Jewish, or a woman, or gay, for example. Your ****ty, misleading headlines? Not covered. Pack your bags, you're fired.

I hope you never operate your own business, because if you do, you will definitely get sued for wrongful discharge. As a newspaper owner, you are required to tell me what and how to write articles; what's off limits and what is fair game. Unless you do that, I can write anything I please, any way I please. It should be included in the written job description, that you provide me upon hiring. You'll need it when you go to court.
 
Gawd I love this. Same crowd that argues you can call your boss an asshat on Facebook and he can't fire you because that is "free speech".

The editor was on-duty doing the work that he was assigned to do when he made his alleged mistake. If he was not given clear guidleines on how to do his work, and/or could reasonably assume that the headline was appropriate based on his prior experience at that job, he may have a case for wrongful termination. However, since he was working for the owner of the newspaper, not self employed, there is no first amendment or privacy issue in this case. It is a very different situation than an employee expressing an opinion while off-duty using a medium not owned or controlled by his/her employer.
 
Gawd I love this. Same crowd that argues you can call your boss an asshat on Facebook and he can't fire you because that is "free speech".

The same crowd that wants to spill blood for workers's rights, are the ones that are defending this guy getting canned for doing his job.
 
Back
Top Bottom