• 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

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


sound familiar?

That is the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights. Notice that it does not say that there is any creator endowed right to a job at a newspaper.
 
Dan Guthrie and Tom Gutting.

■NBC and National Geographic fired journalist Peter Arnett for giving an interview to an Iraqi television station in which he criticized America's planning for the Iraq war, stating: "Clearly, the American war plans misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces." [Associated Press, 3/31/03]

■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."
 
Since you seem confused about the constitution, let me help. Here is the First Amendment:



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.

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 majority Founding Fathers felt that the Natural rights of humans (Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness) as put forth in the Declaration of Independence was adequate and didn't need re-stating in the Constitution. Many felt the Constitution should solely be a frame work for operating a National Government. It was felt that including these specific rights would imply that rights not granted by the National Government would be largely ignored. Eventually James Madison and most of the Founding Fathers came to agree with the addition of the Bill of Rights, but they still referred to the Declaration of Independence as the founding philosophy for our rights, and stated the Bill of Rights was not meant to be a replacement. Our Natural rights stem from and are granted by our Creator and the People, not the Federal Government.

Bill of Rights a Summary
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
sound familiar?
Yeah. Isn't that from the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution?
 
Seems like I remember some very inflammatory Bush headlines. Funny though, I can't recall anyone ever being fired over them.
Not exactly clear that this guy was fired for his criticizing Obama, imho. I know he says so.
 
Yeah. Isn't that from the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution?

The majority Founding Fathers felt that the Natural rights of humans (Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness) as put forth in the Declaration of Independence was adequate and didn't need re-stating in the Constitution. Many felt the Constitution should solely be a frame work for operating a National Government. It was felt that including these specific rights would imply that rights not granted by the National Government would be largely ignored. Eventually James Madison and most of the Founding Fathers came to agree with the addition of the Bill of Rights, but they still referred to the Declaration of Independence as the founding philosophy for our rights, and stated the Bill of Rights was not meant to be a replacement. Our Natural rights stem from and are granted by our Creator and the People, not the Federal Government.


Bill of Rights a Summary
 
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

That's a fine sentiment, but it isn't a legal convention.
 
This forum has more confused "Libertarians" than any forum I have ever visited. Every time "free market" forces punch the wrong person in the nose many of the "Libertarians" around here go crazy whining about how its not fair.

It boggles the mind.
 
I believe in free speech as long as I agree with that speech

Where was freedom of speech infringed?

I believe in freedom of the press as long as they are not critical of me

Where was freedom of the press infringed?

I believe in the freedom to protest as long as you don't protest me

Where was freedom of protest infringed?

I believe in free expression as long as you express my views

Where was freedom of expression infringed?
 
Oh, come on. Do you really think the
White House contacted this newspaper? Please. You're a Conservative. Don't you believe in following the policies of your job??

THIS White House ? Yes.

And if he was fired because he exceeded policy, why is the News Paper now offering up excuses ?

That their decision was influenced by pressure ?

Sure I understand the need for inter company rules and regulations, but with this President and his administration chosing to not abide by the rules and regulations placed before every President prior, I'm learning to not be a stickler.
 
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.

It was written so the government could not take them away.

See, when you're talking about rights "granted by our creator" in a general sense, then you're speaking about nature. And in nature, the notion that "your rights end where mine begin" is non-existant. You have the right to say what you want in nature...I have the right to punch you in the face and gag you in nature as well. Might makes right.

It is only through coming together and forming a social contract that we agree that we will respect the rights of each other and that we will set down established guidelines (IE laws) as to how we deal with situations where our rights interfere with each other.

When it comes to speech, the press, etc...the GOVERNMENT is limited by the Bill of Rights from infringing upon it. However, there is no such limitations on private individuals or businesses placed by the BOR.

That's because you start getting into conflicting rights. The "government" doesn't have rights, but a business owner does.

One persons "Right to free speech" doesn't trump another persons "Right to assembly" of his choosing. Specifically, if an individual no longer wishes to employ you it's his right to NOT employ you in a state like Tennessee.

What you have here is a situation where BOTH individuals have "rights" that conflict...because YOU agree with the speech, because YOU are critical of what he is critical of, because YOU agree with his protest, because YOU agree with his views, you come down on the side of the rights of the editor while squashing the rights of his employer. You do the same thing you accuse others of doing.
 
Dan Rather

he was fired for falsehoods in presenting a falsified document and lost creditability not because he was critical of Bush
 
So does those on the Right that have a brain. :roll:

I don't believe that our rights come from Government.

So please Pbrauer...do I have a brain? Or are you going to retract your ignorant attempt to broadly insult?
 
The majority Founding Fathers felt that the Natural rights of humans (Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness) as put forth in the Declaration of Independence was adequate and didn't need re-stating in the Constitution. Many felt the Constitution should solely be a frame work for operating a National Government. It was felt that including these specific rights would imply that rights not granted by the National Government would be largely ignored. Eventually James Madison and most of the Founding Fathers came to agree with the addition of the Bill of Rights, but they still referred to the Declaration of Independence as the founding philosophy for our rights, and stated the Bill of Rights was not meant to be a replacement. Our Natural rights stem from and are granted by our Creator and the People, not the Federal Government.

Bill of Rights a Summary

There are several problems with this. The biggest one, and the one I will deal with, is that what they actually did put into law was the first amendment. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights, nor even the Declaration of Independence does it say that you have a right to put whatever you want into a newspaper privately owned by other people. Your failure to understand the constitution of this country and the history of this country is sad, but correctable.
 
Seems like I remember some very inflammatory Bush headlines. Funny though, I can't recall anyone ever being fired over them.

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....
 
Dan Rather

Cmon, be honest.

He wasn't fired for critiquing GW, he was fired for presenting the Killian Documents as facts in a effort to smear the President.

Whats with you lefties and your general lack of honesty ?
 
There are several problems with this. The biggest one, and the one I will deal with, is that what they actually did put into law was the first amendment. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights, nor even the Declaration of Independence does it say that you have a right to put whatever you want into a newspaper privately owned by other people. Your failure to understand the constitution of this country and the history of this country is sad, but correctable.
What you know that he doesn't, Freedom of the Press belongs to those who OWN one.
 
I don't believe that our rights come from Government.

So please Pbrauer...do I have a brain? Or are you going to retract your ignorant attempt to broadly insult?

Our rights are(in theory) protected by the government. It works out about the same.
 
It was written so the government could not take them away.

See, when you're talking about rights "granted by our creator" in a general sense, then you're speaking about nature. And in nature, the notion that "your rights end where mine begin" is non-existant. You have the right to say what you want in nature...I have the right to punch you in the face and gag you in nature as well. Might makes right.

It is only through coming together and forming a social contract that we agree that we will respect the rights of each other and that we will set down established guidelines (IE laws) as to how we deal with situations where our rights interfere with each other.

When it comes to speech, the press, etc...the GOVERNMENT is limited by the Bill of Rights from infringing upon it. However, there is no such limitations on private individuals or businesses placed by the BOR.

That's because you start getting into conflicting rights. The "government" doesn't have rights, but a business owner does.

One persons "Right to free speech" doesn't trump another persons "Right to assembly" of his choosing. Specifically, if an individual no longer wishes to employ you it's his right to NOT employ you in a state like Tennessee.

What you have here is a situation where BOTH individuals have "rights" that conflict...because YOU agree with the speech, because YOU are critical of what he is critical of, because YOU agree with his protest, because YOU agree with his views, you come down on the side of the rights of the editor while squashing the rights of his employer. You do the same thing you accuse others of doing.

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
 
What you know that he doesn't, Freedom of the Press belongs to those who OWN one.

Also that freedom of speech extends to the freedom to not buy products, such as newspapers. Boycotts and the threat thereof are an American tradition. I wonder if he buys news sources he dislikes just to ensure they have the freedom of the press...
 
Our rights are(in theory) protected by the government. It works out about the same.

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.
 
I don't believe that our rights come from Government.
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.
 
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

If I own a newspaper, I have an absolute right to determine what goes in and what does not.
 
Back
Top Bottom