Freedom of What?

I ran across this news article and thought I would share. I find it sad and frustrating.
To Article

But he was right, very windy.

Glad I don't farm in Iowa , louisiana is poor enough , lol. Very sad , what our country is turning into.

2 ways to look at this. No one is telling him that he can't make those cartoons. He stands no chance of going to jail over them. On the other side a good deal of print news is paid for by the advertiser. Write a derogatory article for a rag that knocks an advertisers wares and most likely it isn't going to be published. So you are going to anger the guy that has the butter to put on the bread?

Rick

OPPS should have added:

The Amendment that grants us freedom of speech means that the government cannot restrict speech unless it affects national security. That's why the courts found against the city that had the guy arrested for using foul language at town meetings. That was the government at low level restricting speech. The courts have also upheld firings for the same exact thing in the work place. People often get that confused.

Also a place of business can tell you to stop using foul language or to leave. Completely legal. If you refuse to leave they can call the cops and have you arrested for disturbing the peace.

If someone joins the military there are a lot of restrictions on speech. It's illegal to make derogatory comments about the president. Sure you can say you don't like him. You can say that you think his policies are stupid. But you can't say that he is stupid.

While the guys cartoons may be right on the mark if it cost the paper to lose an advertiser they can let him go. It's that simple. If you work for CaseIH and you get caught telling a customer that JD makes better widgets they can fire you too.

Rick

A large clothing retailer backed a women's rights advocate sounds like a good idea . Turns out not so she was also pro abortion a lot of clothes were returned because of that money back guarantee and future sales . Now you would think that was the end of it no when they backed away from the first problem the pro abortion people got mad because they wouldn't make a stand on there cause.

(quoted from post at 23:09:44 05/02/16) A large clothing retailer backed a women's rights advocate sounds like a good idea . Turns out not so she was also pro abortion a lot of clothes were returned because of that money back guarantee and future sales . Now you would think that was the end of it no when they backed away from the first problem the pro abortion people got mad because they wouldn't make a stand on there cause.

Click to expand...

Sounds plausible but I'd want to see sales figures. All the women I know and only 2 base buying decisions on something like that? The rest all on price point.

Seems funny but I remember when that was a real big hot topic issue with women. Now it seems I hear more men talking about abortion than women.

Rick

Check lands end and abortion. They sell
school uniforms. One number I heard was
9000 I think that might be on the low side.

Freedom of the press is for the person or company who owns the press.

And people wonder why Unions are necessary. Everyone employed there should walk off the job; they could be next. It says a lot that the Farm News publisher had no comment-cowardly is what I'd call it, just like the German population before WWII.

Several years ago, I was trying to order parts for a small IH tractor. I made several attempts to contact a company that was recommended to me. The company would not respond to emails or phone calls. I went on a forum that specialized in small IH tractors and asked if there was something wrong with this company, they never responded to inquiries. Two things I did not know...the man who owned it was phasing it out due to some personal issues and second, the company placed ads on the forum site. I had no less than three moderators contact me, plus the head guy on the forum via email. The head guy was very nice, a couple of the moderators were abusive. I said nothing bad about the fella or his company, just asked if this was normal. I ended up leaving that group behind. Overall they had been very good to me on that forum but I do not care to be told I cannot ask polite questions about people or companies just because they give money to the group. Scares me a lot when I hear stuff like that.

I thought it was pretty mild. Some rich cat musta got up pi$$y that day. gm

I like the cartoon and see nothing wrong with it as it tells the truth. But look at it this way. The newspaper is in business to make a profit with the bulk of it's profit coming from advertising. If an employee of a business does something that has a negative effect on the company's profit margin the company won't keep him around anymore.

(quoted from post at 07:22:37 05/03/16) And people wonder why Unions are necessary. Everyone employed there should walk off the job; they could be next. It says a lot that the Farm News publisher had no comment-cowardly is what I'd call it, just like the German population before WWII.

Click to expand...

Unions are not necessary and in this case I can see where your "walk off the job" scenario could be counter productive. If advertisers think they are open to attack from that paper they will no longer advertise. Then all the union people who walked off the job to support this guy won't have a job because the paper will be forced to shut it's doors. As has been stated: If an employee cost a company revenue, be it a store, dealership or publication the company is JUSTIFIED in canning that person. That paper isn't there to be honest. It's there to make money. If they ran a headline of "Foolish Farmers Plant Too Much Corn Again" even if it's the truth people are going to cancel their subscription. When circulation drops so will advertising dollars. Same result, it's called bankruptcy. It's advertising dollars that keeps the doors open and people employed, not circulation.

It's freedom of the press. Not freedom of the reporter or cartoonist. He wants to publish cartoons that are going to alienate advertisers he needs to start his own paper and see how long he lasts.

You can bet your last dollar that is a paper that's primary readership is pro one party or the other starts attacking the party favored by the readers they are done. Are advertisers going to leave because of the attacks? NO! Circulation will drop and advertisers will stop placing ads.

Rick

You're free to exercise your right to free speech by drawing that cartoon and submitting it for publishing.

I'm free to exercise my right to free speech by pulling my advertising from said publication because I am insulted by your free speech.

Your boss is free to exercise his right to free speech by firing you for losing all that ad revenue.

People cry "free speech" with no comprehension that it's free for EVERYONE! If I don't like what you're sayin' I'm just as free to state so as you are.

Perhaps I don't understand. Doesn't someone at the paper have to proof read and approve what is published? It would seem that person should be the one to blame.

Since this had nothing to do with government at any level there is no free speech issue.

If he insulted an advertiser and cost the paper money then the paper is well within their rights to fire him

He could have avoided a lot of pain by not naming the three entities - he could have simply referred to "the CEOs of three large ag-related corporations".

The original intent of the Free Speech clause of the BoR referred to political speech, not anything else. We've distorted the meaning to include things that were never intended.

(quoted from post at 15:10:44 05/03/16) Perhaps I don't understand. Doesn't someone at the paper have to proof read and approve what is published? It would seem that person should be the one to blame.

Click to expand...

No. That is a common misconception.

The paper just takes what you wrote, makes it fit in the allotted area, and prints it. They do not proofread, or approve of content. You as the writer are responsible for the content.

(quoted from post at 08:11:55 05/04/16)

(quoted from post at 15:10:44 05/03/16) Perhaps I don't understand. Doesn't someone at the paper have to proof read and approve what is published? It would seem that person should be the one to blame.

Click to expand...

No. That is a common misconception.

The paper just takes what you wrote, makes it fit in the allotted area, and prints it. They do not proofread, or approve of content. You as the writer are responsible for the content.

Click to expand...

Didn't know that.

Another interesting note it seems he wasn't an employee. He was a paid contributor. That's a whole new ball game because in those circumstances you are not an employee. He sold them his cartoons in other words. He wasn't on the payroll.

Now his cartoons were considered political in nature but no one forced him to stop making them. The paper simply refused to buy more of them. No censorship there.

It's like this. I can as a publisher accept or refuse any or all stories submitted without being accused of censorship. I have the right within limits of what I publish or don't publish. Now that isn't true of ads. Sure I can refuse to publish ads based on content but not based on prejudice. I can refuse ads from a racist organization but I can't refuse ads from someone based on race, creed ECT ECT.

Rick

A racist organization? What is that?

His error was in naming corporations. No names, no offense. He wasn't producing political cartoons.