MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
that's not beyond the pale
certainly not for well connected supporters
he makes the argument that the policy was effected AFTER he made the headline edit. the veracity of that should be easy to assess. He said he edited a placeholder headline; not an unusual edit.
And then there is the argument that the headline was too raunchy ... 'shove it' ... really?!
it was an obvious play on an old CW hit, take this job and shove it, which was on the public airways for a long time, but the theme is somehow too raunchy now for the president's delicate ears. don't think so. then there are those who wrongly point to this as a free speech violation. clearly they have no understanding of our Bill of Rights. but they also tend to be those opposed to unionization and supporters of an employer being able to fire employees at 'free will' except if the fired employee is one who appears to share their political point of view.
what is evident here is the wholesale ignorance of civics by much of our population
Name one reporter who was ever fired for being critical of Bush?
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.
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??
Actually it isn't. If you own a newspaper, you can make the headline as you choose, but if some one else owns it, you do not have a right to make the headline as you choose.
Actually it isn't. If you own a newspaper, you can make the headline as you choose, but if some one else owns it, you do not have a right to make the headline as you choose.
Quote Originally Posted by Deuce
"Publishing misleading headlines in a newspaper you don't own isn't a constitutional right."
Only if you are authorized to do so by the owner. If you think otherwise, you need to provide proof, such as court decisions. The proof sure isn't in the constitution.
Thank you for destroying Deuce's post and verifying my point.
If you need owners' authorization, how exactly is that a constitutional right?
Which makes it a right. Correct? Deuce said, that it absolutely isn't a right to do so.
C'mon darlin', you're smarter than that!
He said if you do not own the newspaper, you do not have a right to make the headlines.
What's hard for us to understand is that Deuce claimed that NON OWNERS do not have a constitutional right and you're saying you 'destroyed' deuce's post. How exactly?
Can you see that or do I need to add some irrelevant and completely misapplied dig at the end?
AND THE OWNER OF THE NEWSPAPER CAN'T DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Goddamn! Why is it so ****ing hard for you people?!?
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".
You do not have a constitutional right to make headlines for some one else's newspaper.
How can the government stop you from doing so?
So, the only folks with 1st Amendment rights are people who OWN the media source???? Really?!?!?
I love more, how the crowd that hates private corporations are willing to give those same people control over the rights of private citizens.
Allow me to quote one of them: "NON OWNERS do not have a constitutional right".
I think you are seriously confused. Your responses are nonsensical to the events.
AND THE OWNER OF THE NEWSPAPER CAN'T DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Goddamn! Why is it so ****ing hard for you people?!?
The way you conflate two separate issues is silly.
Seems like I remember some very inflammatory Bush headlines. Funny though, I can't recall anyone ever being fired over them.
I think it is you, sweetie, that is confused. You're confused about what The Constitution says. I mean, anyone that actually believes that a citizen doesn't have the constitutional right to write for a paper that he doesn't own is purdy much a moron.
Or, can you show me the government regulation that controls a person writing for a paper that he doesn't own?
Personally, I think this newspaper is owned by a bunch of ******s, that have no idea what "free press" and "free speech" are really about; they're nothing more than political hacks that happen to own a rag-sheet of a newspaper.
I'm far too complex for most of the ****ing Libbos to understand.
NOONE said they can't write for a paper that they don't own. Nice try. The owner DOES NOT HAVE TO PRINT IT if so desired. That's it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?