• 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

apdst said:
AND THE OWNER OF THE NEWSPAPER CAN'T DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goddamn! Why is it so ****ing hard for you people?!?
Click to expand...

Not being able to put a headline you want into a paper YOU don't own isn't a case of you being deprived your right to free speech.

You have no RIGHT to be able to post any headline you want in someone else's paper.

I can't post a headline of my choice into the Washington Post....the Posts owner is not depriving me of any rights t free speech because of that. Neither is this guyguy
 
apdst said:
So, the only folks with 1st Amendment rights are people who OWN the media source???? Really?!?!?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously funking suggesting media is the only means of "speech" people can do? Not being able to make headlines in a single paper is NOT depriving anyone of their right to free speech. ESPECIALLY, when its not even the government stopping him
 
Zyphlin said:
Not being able to put a headline you want into a paper YOU don't own isn't a case of you being deprived your right to free speech.

You have no RIGHT to be able to post any headline you want in someone else's paper.

I can't post a headline of my choice into the Washington Post....the Posts owner is not depriving me of any rights t free speech because of that. Neither is this guyguy
Click to expand...

That depends on who's telling you that you can't publish it.
 
apdst said:
However, there's no way the government can control what you write in any newspaper. Yes?

Have you ever actually READ the Constitution?
Click to expand...

The government didn't do anything on this situation. The entire conversation about freedom of speech started because a poster was first suggesting the boss deprived the editor of his free speech and then suggested citizens deprived him of free speech.
 
Zyphlin said:
Are you seriously funking suggesting media is the only means of "speech" people can do? Not being able to make headlines in a single paper is NOT depriving anyone of their right to free speech. ESPECIALLY, when its not even the government stopping him
Click to expand...

Is that what I funking said? No, it's funking not. Is it? Funking pay attention. Stop being so funking argumentative.
 
ChezC3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

???? You find that surprising? I've known that for a long time. The news has a poor history of professionalism. It was yellow journalism that got us into most of our wars prior to 1941. Even during that war it was used by the government as a propaganda tool to increase morale back home. It' didn't develop a veneer of professionalism until the advent of television and the prestige garnered from live televised reporting.

I'd say from 1958 to 1985 or so, it attempted to maintain some higher level of professionalism. Then cable took off, and shortly thereafter the internet, and it became what it is today. Now they just blatantly tell us what they want us to think is important and keep it in our faces while they compete to sell commercial advertising.
 
Zyphlin said:
The government didn't do anything on this situation. The entire conversation about freedom of speech started because a poster was first suggesting the boss deprived the editor of his free speech and then suggested citizens deprived him of free speech.
Click to expand...

That poster wasn't me. Was it? Go bitch at him and address what I said and not what I didn't say.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, the fundamental difference between the right and the left is this: the right believes in the fallacy of natural rights. The left KNOWS that rights are based on social constructs of society and of the time.

You are welcome for the correction.
Click to expand...

Despite your own inflated opinion of yourself, you claiming your opinion as fact isn't any more worthwhile or accurate than trjfr doing it. Also, instead of ignorant broad statements about right and left like this perhaps you should actually take a moment to loom at reality...where in this very thread you have a person on the right acknowledging the existence of societal rights and someone on the left acknowledging natural rights.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
That poster wasn't me. Was it? Go bitch at him and address what I said and not what I didn't say.
Click to expand...

....can't make this **** up...
 
apdst said:
Re-write that sentence so that we can understand it. Thanks!
Click to expand...

That's great advice, could you clarify your stance so we can understand you...

Is the owner of the paper infringing upon the rights of the editor by firing him?

Are people protesting the paper due to the headline infringing upon the rights if the editor?

Has anyone, in this particular cases infringed the rights of the editor and if so, who?
 
Hard Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

The one problem for him in terms of wrongful termination is that Tennessee, like Virginia, is a right to work state...the owner has wide latitude for firing the employee
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

And many of those in the crowd that wants to spill blood for business owners rights are the ones that are the ones attacking the fact this guy got canned for causing problems for his employer
 
apdst said:
That depends on who's telling you that you can't publish it.
Click to expand...

In the case of this thread and what's being discussed in this topic, the people telling you that you can't publish it is the papers owner
 
apdst said:
That poster wasn't me. Was it? Go bitch at him and address what I said and not what I didn't say.
Click to expand...

Sorry, silly me, thinking you'd do what everyone else in the thread was doing and making statements as they relate to the OP and the topic at hand. Apparently thinking people are talking about the actual topic of a thread was a poor assumption
 
Zyphlin said:
That's great advice, could you clarify your stance so we can understand you...

Is the owner of the paper infringing upon the rights of the editor by firing him?

Are people protesting the paper due to the headline infringing upon the rights if the editor?

Has anyone, in this particular cases infringed the rights of the editor and if so, who?
Click to expand...

Could be; we don't know for sure one way, or the other. If the owner violated the editor's contract, then yes, he is violating his rights. If the editor wasn't properly informed of what he could and couldn't do, then yes. According to the owner, he circumvented the process. According to the editor, they "change headlines at the last minute all the time". If the editor is correct and it's common occurance, not resulting in a termination, then yes, the editor's rights have been violated and the owner should probably be on the phone with his attorney.

Did the owner violate his 1st Amendment rights? probably not, unless it can be proven that there was pressure from Obama staffers, then yes. If the editor was wrongfully fired, then the owner not only violated his rights, but broke the law.

Regardless of what some folks may think, you can't just fire someone because you feel like it. You have to have a reason and that reason 99% of the time has to be a violation of written, company policy.
 
Zyphlin said:
In the case of this thread and what's being discussed in this topic, the people telling you that you can't publish it is the papers owner
Click to expand...

You're wrong. The owner is telling the editor that he circumvented the process of changing the headline. The editor isn't technically getting fired for writing the editorial.

Speaking of the OP, that is. ;)
 
apdst said:
Could be; we don't know for sure one way, or the other. If the owner violated the editor's contract, then yes, he is violating his rights. If the editor wasn't properly informed of what he could and couldn't do, then yes. According to the owner, he circumvented the process. According to the editor, they "change headlines at the last minute all the time". If the editor is correct and it's common occurance, not resulting in a termination, then yes, the editor's rights have been violated and the owner should probably be on the phone with his attorney.

Did the owner violate his 1st Amendment rights? probably not, unless it can be proven that there was pressure from Obama staffers, then yes. If the editor was wrongfully fired, then the owner not only violated his rights, but broke the law.

Regardless of what some folks may think, you can't just fire someone because you feel like it. You have to have a reason and that reason 99% of the time has to be a violation of written, company policy.
Click to expand...

Tennessee is an at will employment state

Unless it can be shown his firing was because of discrimination for race, sex, age, religion, disability, or national origin then he's basically SOL. In an at will state an employer has the rights to fire employees for basically any reason that isn't specifically protected by law.
 
Zyphlin said:
The one problem for him in terms of wrongful termination is that Tennessee, like Virginia, is a right to work state...the owner has wide latitude for firing the employee
Click to expand...

But now where, can you fire someone without a valid reason. In the case, the owner's reason could possibly be invalid.

Valid, or not, it still doesn't protect him from spending a truckload of money defending his decision in court.
 
Zyphlin said:
Tennessee is an at will employment state

Unless it can be shown his firing was because of discrimination for race, sex, age, religion, disability, or national origin then he's basically SOL. In an at will state an employer has the rights to fire employees for basically any reason that isn't specifically protected by law. It doesn't matter all that much whether its in his contract or not
Click to expand...

And, the law says that unless you have a valid reason to fire someone, you can't just do it arbitrarily. In other words, if this practice has taken place before, with no punitive action, the owner is violating federal law.
 
apdst said:
And, the law says that unless you have a valid reason to fire someone, you can't just do it arbitrarily. In other words, if this practice has taken place before, with no punitive action, the owner is violating federal law.
Click to expand...

your ignorance of labor law is showing
except for the EEO exceptions, the employer need have no reason to terminate the employment of someone in their hire
the employer can terminate the employee because of their looks as was recently confirmed by the court when the termination of employment by a dentist who fired his dental assistant because she was too good looking

Melissa Nelson Fired For Being Too Sexy - Business Insider
 
justabubba said:
your ignorance of labor law is showing
except for the EEO exceptions, the employer need have no reason to terminate the employment of someone in their hire
the employer can terminate the employee because of their looks as was recently confirmed by the court when the termination of employment by a dentist who fired his dental assistant because she was too good looking

Melissa Nelson Fired For Being Too Sexy - Business Insider
Click to expand...

You people are so hung up on the "evil coporation" that you aren't even aware of the laws that are in place.
 
apdst said:
You people are so hung up on the "evil coporation" that you aren't even aware of the laws that are in place.
Click to expand...

then educate us
while i doubt you have the means to accomplish that, i welcome your attempts to do so

but insisting you know something we don't is never going to allow you to prevail in a debate
so, share with us the laws that are in place which will undermine our arguments
until you do so, recognize that your position has been soiled by every member who has posted in the opposition
 
apdst said:
But now where, can you fire someone without a valid reason. In the case, the owner's reason could possibly be invalid.

Valid, or not, it still doesn't protect him from spending a truckload of money defending his decision in court.
Click to expand...

Yes apdst, there are many places you can fire someone without a valid reason.

At Will Employment

Tennessee is an At Will Employment state AND a Right to Work state. This means that absent some kind of labor agreement, an employer can fire anyone for any reason, good or bad, including "no reason", as long as the firing does not violate federal or state laws regarding discrimination AND that such a labor agreement to the contrary is unlikely because Unions have little power in the state.

Also, there's a reason why businesses aren't bankrupted continually in At Will Employment states anytime they fire someone...the laws are rather clear and an attempt to sue someone for wrongful termination when there's no evidence that can be shown of it violating a state law are likely to be thrown out in rather short order by judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom