NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/05/Hillsborough/Times_arts_columnist_.shtml

This story tells that a columnist to a Newspaper lost her job because she made fun of a local politician.

I don't know what part of this story bothers me most. It's just so stupid all around.

a) The paper says of the columnist that her credibility was "irreperably compromised" by the incident. She made fun of a politician. The only way you can compromise your credibility by talking about a politician is by praising them. Just look at FOX News.

b) She's a fucking music critic! What the hell does her opinion of a politician have to do with her credibility on music? Back to the praising politicians thing. If she said that John Ashcroft's rendition of "Let the Eagle Soar" was "moving and soulful" well then she'd have no credibility. Otherwise, let it go.

c) she posted several contributions to a phony Web site that mocked Hillsborough County Commissioner Ronda Storms.

It wasn't a fake website. No website is a fake website. It can be a fake News website like the Daily Show, FOX News, and apparently the St Petersburg Times. Other than that the only way to contribute to a fake website is to print out a hardcopy and stick it to the monitor with a gluestick. If it's online, its a real website.

More and more I despair of the press' ability to actually tell a story that isn't just... well, a story. The Daily Show won an award for excellence in journalism, South Pard won a Peabody, an award so prestigous that Bill O'Reilly lied about getting two of them, and yet actual news sources are just full of trash.

There's only one reason to fire a music critic for the stuff she writes. She says good things about bad music.

Hurray for violations of the internet!

America: Becoming like China, one amendment broken at a time!

Where is the violation of the First ammendment here?

She said what she wanted to. No one stopped her.

Her employer didn't like it and fired her. That is their right. The First ammendment does not mean that you have to like what is said, just that you have the right to say it. It does not mean that there are to be no consequences arrising from your free expression, just that it is not restricted.

Where is the violation of the First ammendment here?

She said what she wanted to. No one stopped her.

Her employer didn't like it and fired her. That is their right. The First ammendment does not mean that you have to like what is said, just that you have the right to say it. It does not mean that there are to be no consequences arrising from your free expression, just that it is not restricted.

That's why I said minor.

It's not the government that's trampling on it. It's the newspaper which is disgracing the purpose behind the first amendment.

Ironicly, it's the freedom to speak your mind that is argued as the case for independent newspapers, and here's a newspaper that punishes people for speaking their minds.

It's like Rush Limbaugh complaining about liberal courts letting drug addicts go free.

Where is the violation of the First ammendment here?

She said what she wanted to. No one stopped her.

Her employer didn't like it and fired her. That is their right. The First ammendment does not mean that you have to like what is said, just that you have the right to say it. It does not mean that there are to be no consequences arrising from your free expression, just that it is not restricted.
She stepped down. Why? Because her credibiltiy was ruined by criticizing a politician. Freedom of the Press, I believe it is.

That's why I said minor.

It's not the government that's trampling on it. It's the newspaper which is disgracing the purpose behind the first amendment.

Ironicly, it's the freedom to speak your mind that is argued as the case for independent newspapers, and here's a newspaper that punishes people for speaking their minds.

It's like Rush Limbaugh complaining about liberal courts letting drug addicts go free.

So don't buy the Newspaper. Publicise their action. Organize a boycott, but it has nothing to do with the First ammendment at all.

The newspaper is not trampling on it, it is simply being a private organization which can set its own criteria for employment. Unless you want to head down a road of excessive regulation of business by government, which would probably lead to violations of the first ammendment all you can do is to try and punish the business in the marketplace.

She stepped down. Why? Because her credibiltiy was ruined by criticizing a politician. Freedom of the Press, I believe it is.

Which is a two edged sword. Meaning the press are free to employ who they choose (from amongst the candidates for the job).

So don't buy the Newspaper. Publicise their action. Organize a boycott, but it has nothing to do with the First ammendment at all.

The newspaper is not trampling on it, it is simply being a private organization which can set its own criteria for employment. Unless you want to head down a road of excessive regulation of business by government, which would probably lead to violations of the first ammendment all you can do is to try and punish the business in the marketplace.

The first amendment is more than just a congresional regulation. It is an affirmation by the people of our nation that one of the most important things in a society is that people be able to share their ideas.

Just because a right is violated by a private citizen and not the government doesn't make it OK.

I'm not saying that there should be regulations on what can be said and not, although I believe that many places have rules on what constitutes wrongful employment. I'm saying that the people who made the decision to fire a music critic for her political affiliation, or even opinion, shows that they are assholes.

I certainly don't favor laws against being an asshole.

As for organizing a boycott, don't things like that start with people complaining, "hey! what these people are doing is wrong."

That's what I'm doing here.

Also, note I said it's like Limbaugh complaining about liberal courts setting drug addicts free. I never said that he shouldn't be allowed to complain about it. Only that it indicates a flawed position for him to take. By the same token, a newspaper looses its credibility when it complains that a music critic has damaged her credibility by writing about a politician in some other forum.

Look. I am not saying that you are wrong to criticise the paper. You are wrong however in saying that they have trampled on the first amendment in any way. That is all.