Ruckus over "Taser this: F**k Bush." Colorado State University editor-in-chief

and you want a misreable compant to have the ability to limit it?
i see your bet and raise you 20

 

you are just dodging now to save face.

Exactly. Congress shall make no law...

Free speech only comes into play when government legistlates it.

If you work for a company and write stuff on their property (their newspaper) you are bound by their guidelines.

Now, your free speech argument would hold, if:

Editorial boy was yelling f*** bush on a street corner and got hauled off to jail for it. Assuming he wasn't breaking another law - stopping traffic, flashing people, whatever.

But he wasn't. He was writing in someone else's paper - whose guidelines he surely knew about. Therefore free speech isn't an issue.

It's not difficult. Nor complicated.

Are you sure you want to argue that there is a right to be heard? Cuz this is what you are doing.

 

who gave the company or its shareholders the right to make such limitation?

 

their ownership of the paper

 

but who gave the owners the right to do that.

 

their ownership of the paper gives them that right. Don't be obtuse, man.

 

i am not
think about this for a second if ownership law trumped first amendment what are the possible consequences of that and how the power will be transfered from we the people to the companies.

 

there is no right to be heard.

let that sink in for a second. think about it, okay?

then think about this:

you own a newspaper; should you have a say in the content of that paper?

 

Pizzaman, he's right bro. Private businesses are free to restrict speech as they see fit; the first amendment's intention is to protect speech from being regulated by the government. As long as you work for a private business, you have to follow their rules. Did you know that private businesses can kick you out of their store just because the owner doesn't like you? Unless you're discriminated against because of a protected class (race, religion, etc), private businesses can pretty much do as they wish. Don't like it? Don't work for them.

 

oh no no no no no no
newspaper is suppose to report the news. how could the owner interfere in the content and me and you still get the news unadulterated and complete.
if they can not live with that they should invest in a different buissness. you know this is my problem with the direction that we are going.and this is what i do not like about bush.

 

it is the govt that regulate the private business. in case of press its freedom is granted by the constitution, so how can a regulatory agency allow a private entity to limit the constitution. i might be wrong legally but if i am i will donate a $1000 to any attemp to take this to supreme court

 

Pizzaman, if you follow my posts, you'll know I'm very opposed to the degradation of civil rights, and totally against a lot of the actions going on as far as privacy and free speech goes. But let me make this clear, and bring down your fantasy world: private media companies can put spin on their reporting, and they do. If you don't like the show, change the channel...literally. Private news companies are free to act in their own interests, ignore stories that might be significant (too many to name), cover stories that have little importance (Paris Hilton, OJ, etc), and why can they do this? Because ITS THEIR BUSINESS.

EDIT: Yes, freedom of the press is granted by the Constitution. That means the government cannot limit the press and its ability to print as it wishes. But at the same time, the press itself can decide what it wishes to print. You need to read the Constitution a bit more, you're trying to twist the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of press to the very opposite idea, which is having the government regulate both.

 

ok then i change my position to damn sure i do not like it