4 ms·

I am sympathetic to him, but there is no constitutional right to an unbought press (like he is quoted as alleging). Editorial independence is not enshrined by t

I am sympathetic to him, but there is no constitutional right to an unbought press (like he is quoted as alleging). Editorial independence is not enshrined by the Constitution. At all. To clarify, this is obviously a bad thing if it happened like he says, but since the press is free, his employer is allowed to fire him and find someone who will express a different opinion. It's a pretty bonehead decision to fire someone over a nearly completely inoffensive cartoon though...

iherbig 11y ago
I see this sort of defense a lot, and I find it interesting. Some party does something many would find ill-conceived, reprehensible, or in some way greedy. Some other people come out declaring that the action wasn't illegal. It's interesting to me, because often the legality of the situation isn't even in question (edit: as it is in this article).
- stormbrew 11y ago
  The defence comes up against the claim of infringed right to free speech, which is right there in the article. It doesn't come out of nowhere.
  - iherbig 11y ago
    I never said it did in this circumstance.
- ambulancechaser 11y ago
  In the article, the cartoonist mentions "“When it comes to altering someone’s opinion or someone’s voice for the purpose of wealth, I have a problem with that,” said Friday. “It’s our constitutional right to free speech and our constitutional right to free press.” " The person above you is responding to the claim that this was unconstitutional, which is most certainly is not.
- tghw 11y ago
  Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - youngbullind 11y ago
    The important part of that being the alt-text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
    - tghw 11y ago
      That's exactly my point. Citing the first amendment is a very weak argument, even weaker when he cites it in a situation where it does not apply. It's so weak that it weakens an argument that otherwise is very strong, that the press is so influenced by money that they cannot handle any amount of criticism, even from a cartoon.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Yeah, but it's completely accurate though.
coldtea 11y ago
>Editorial independence is not enshrined by the Constitution. At all. So? That's another issue to fix, not a justification for this being a non-issue.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  It is an issue. I was responding to the allegation in the article that the Constitution was supposed to protect against this sort of thing, which it isn't. Yellow journalism was the water the founding fathers swam in; editorial independence is a relatively new idea. https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2012/12/19/breaking-down-the-wall/ https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2012/12/19/breaking-down-... It's a very good idea, and it should be preserved and fought for, but it's not an idea that has any basis in the Constitution. "Not technically illegal" is not much of a claim to morality, obviously. Firing a cartoonist because an advertiser doesn't like him is against the public interest, and probably against the long-term interests of the paper itself; it's a bad idea and the people who did it should feel bad, and they deserve all the bad press they get.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Editorial independence is not enshrined by the Constitution. At all. That's -- still -- an understatement. The right to freedom of the press in the Constitution is exactly the right of the publisher to exert editorial control. Doing so is not merely not unconstitutional, it is Constitutionally protected. You have no more Constitutional right to control someone else's press because "freedom of the press" than you have to direct someone else's vote because "right to vote".
- rainsford 11y ago
  The borrow from The West Wing, making sure Farm News can publish whatever it wants is the only way we can make sure The New York Times can publish whatever IT wants. Anything else is an extraordinarily slippery slope.
ball_of_lint 11y ago
That is exactly wrong. The editor gets to pick what goes in the paper, who to employ and etc. What this does say is that the editor didn't review the comic before printing it, and then fired the cartoonist after the fact. This seems unfair to me and I sympathize, but it is entirely within his rights.

iherbig 11y ago

I see this sort of defense a lot, and I find it interesting. Some party does something many would find ill-conceived, reprehensible, or in some way greedy. Some other people come out declaring that the action wasn't illegal. It's interesting to me, because often the legality of the situation isn't even in question (edit: as it is in this article).

stormbrew 11y ago
The defence comes up against the claim of infringed right to free speech, which is right there in the article. It doesn't come out of nowhere.
- iherbig 11y ago
  I never said it did in this circumstance.
ambulancechaser 11y ago
In the article, the cartoonist mentions "“When it comes to altering someone’s opinion or someone’s voice for the purpose of wealth, I have a problem with that,” said Friday. “It’s our constitutional right to free speech and our constitutional right to free press.” " The person above you is responding to the claim that this was unconstitutional, which is most certainly is not.
tghw 11y ago
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- youngbullind 11y ago
  The important part of that being the alt-text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
  - tghw 11y ago
    That's exactly my point. Citing the first amendment is a very weak argument, even weaker when he cites it in a situation where it does not apply. It's so weak that it weakens an argument that otherwise is very strong, that the press is so influenced by money that they cannot handle any amount of criticism, even from a cartoon.
chris_wot 11y ago
Yeah, but it's completely accurate though.

coldtea 11y ago

>Editorial independence is not enshrined by the Constitution. At all. So? That's another issue to fix, not a justification for this being a non-issue.

roywiggins 11y ago
It is an issue. I was responding to the allegation in the article that the Constitution was supposed to protect against this sort of thing, which it isn't. Yellow journalism was the water the founding fathers swam in; editorial independence is a relatively new idea. https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2012/12/19/breaking-down-the-wall/ https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2012/12/19/breaking-down-... It's a very good idea, and it should be preserved and fought for, but it's not an idea that has any basis in the Constitution. "Not technically illegal" is not much of a claim to morality, obviously. Firing a cartoonist because an advertiser doesn't like him is against the public interest, and probably against the long-term interests of the paper itself; it's a bad idea and the people who did it should feel bad, and they deserve all the bad press they get.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Editorial independence is not enshrined by the Constitution. At all. That's -- still -- an understatement. The right to freedom of the press in the Constitution is exactly the right of the publisher to exert editorial control. Doing so is not merely not unconstitutional, it is Constitutionally protected. You have no more Constitutional right to control someone else's press because "freedom of the press" than you have to direct someone else's vote because "right to vote".

rainsford 11y ago
The borrow from The West Wing, making sure Farm News can publish whatever it wants is the only way we can make sure The New York Times can publish whatever IT wants. Anything else is an extraordinarily slippery slope.

ball_of_lint 11y ago

That is exactly wrong. The editor gets to pick what goes in the paper, who to employ and etc. What this does say is that the editor didn't review the comic before printing it, and then fired the cartoonist after the fact. This seems unfair to me and I sympathize, but it is entirely within his rights.