Fat-shaming columnist gets booted from Fergus Falls newspaper

[zenkai]

And he isn't going to jail over anything to do with free speech.

Tell that to the man who gave a shitty example.

- - - Updated - - -

The article isn't just some general commentary, it's making fun of a specific person. Not surprising the news paper canned him, the article isn't even funny, it's just some guy ranting about having to sit next to a fat person on an airplane. I can read that for free on social media.

Wonder why they didn't have a problem publishing it in the first place.

[Tinykong]

Wonder why they didn't have a problem publishing it in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if no one actually read it before going to print, given how long the author has been there.

[Tijuana]

Um actually it does, if I say fuck off and you punch me, guess who is going to jail? It isn't me. We do have limited free speech here I will say, you can't just threaten people but it but it doesn't change the definition of free speech.

- - - Updated - - -



http://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom-of-speech

We are both correct, in this case. Free Speech doesn't protect you from being punched in the face. Law and Order will protect it from happening a second time, but even when that guy is in jail, your face still got punched.

[burzian]

Um actually it does, if I say fuck off and you punch me, guess who is going to jail? It isn't me. We do have limited free speech here I will say, you can't just threaten people but it but it doesn't change the definition of free speech.

- - - Updated - - -



http://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom-of-speech

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but I think you misread your own link. Let's take a look:

freedom of speech
noun
1.
the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.

The right of the people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference. The exception is that the speech cannot violate the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion. There is no right to express speech without private citizen or corporate consequences.

[zenkai]

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but I think you misread your own link. Let's take a look:



The right of the people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference. The exception is that the speech cannot violate the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion. There is no right to express speech without private citizen or corporate consequences.

I know exactly what my link said, but they're also protecting me from someone being violent against me because they don't like my words. What this guy did is not protected under free speech, as it's a private venue, but that wasn't my argument to begin with. I was just pointing out that speech that everyone agrees with doesn't need to be protected.

[Dhrizzle]

Wonder why they didn't have a problem publishing it in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if no one actually read it before going to print, given how long the author has been there.

Tinykong is pretty much right; the editor was away that week and the rest of the staff were trying to decide what to do with a potentially problematic letter so they just let the regular columnist slide in.

[zenkai]

Tinykong is pretty much right; the editor was away that week and the rest of the staff were trying to decide what to do with a potentially problematic letter so they just let the regular columnist slide in.

You're a shitty editor if you don't read everything you're publishing, I think the editor should be fired too since they allowed it to be printed if we are going to play by them rules. But it's not my paper they are free to do what they want, soon you won't be able to say anything or make any jokes because people have feels.

[burzian]

I know exactly what my link said, but they're also protecting me from someone being violent against me because they don't like my words. What this guy did is not protected under free speech, as it's a private venue, but that wasn't my argument to begin with. I was just pointing out that speech that everyone agrees with doesn't need to be protected.

You are completely wrong. Society "protects you" from violence because there are laws against violence. Not because speech isn't allowed to have consequences. The definition you posted has literally nothing to do with your argument -- it only mentions violence in the context of the speech itself inciting violence. You're backpedaling from your "speech cannot have consequences" post, but nobody is buying it.

[Tinykong]

You're a shitty editor if you don't read everything you're publishing, I think the editor should be fired too since they allowed it to be printed if we are going to play by them rules. But it's not my paper they are free to do what they want, soon you won't be able to say anything or make any jokes because people have feels.

My sister works for a small-ish newspaper, and the "lighter side of life" type columns about dogs and pie eating contests usually don't get reviewed, they are just slapped it in wherever there is space to fill in the pages.

[Dhrizzle]

You're a shitty editor if you don't read everything you're publishing, I think the editor should be fired too since they allowed it to be printed if we are going to play by them rules.

Somehow I doubt that editors of small local newspapers everywhere else in the world never take holidays, although he did tell his staff in future to make sure that they contact him if there's any doubt.

But it's not my paper they are free to do what they want, soon you won't be able to say anything or make any jokes because people have feels.

These days if you say you're English you get thrown in jail...

[Sam the Wiser]

Another hero falls.

[zenkai]

You are completely wrong. Society "protects you" from violence because there are laws against violence. Not because speech isn't allowed to have consequences. The definition you posted has literally nothing to do with your argument -- it only mentions violence in the context of the speech itself inciting violence. You're backpedaling from your "speech cannot have consequences" post, but nobody is buying it.

I am not back peddling anything, how do you define free speech? You're going to pick on someone proving a shitty example of free speech take it up with them. It's still a fact, America has limited free speech, my argument from the start is that saying "free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences" is bullshit because that's exactly what free speech is there for, to protect you from the consequences. That is a true statement, that statement isn't non factual because America has LIMITED free speech.

- - - Updated - - -

My sister works for a small-ish newspaper, and the "lighter side of life" type columns about dogs and pie eating contests usually don't get reviewed, they are just slapped it in wherever there is space to fill in the pages.

Cool, I hope those people never lose their shit and write some batshit crazy article like how they thought Hitler was right, I never knew papers were so trusting.

[melodramocracy]

ITT: the usual suspects, outraged that someone else was called out on their favorite form of bigotry. Carry on.

[Spectral]

ITT: the usual suspects, outraged that someone else was called out on their favorite form of bigotry. Carry on.

Personally, I'm not outraged - there's really no greater gift from modern leftists than this ridiculous obsession with defending obesity. I couldn't have drawn up a more ridiculous caricature of leftism than fat acceptance if I'd tried. By all means, let's have this bizarre little niche crew keep it up.

[burzian]

I am not back peddling anything, how do you define free speech? You're going to pick on someone proving a shitty example of free speech take it up with them. It's still a fact, America has limited free speech, my argument from the start is that saying "free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences" is bullshit because that's exactly what free speech is there for, to protect you from the consequences. That is a true statement, that statement isn't non factual because America has LIMITED free speech.

- - - Updated - - -



Cool, I hope those people never lose their shit and write some batshit crazy article like how they thought Hitler was right, I never knew papers were so trusting.

It's too general to be a true statement. Free speech specifically deals with governmental consequences. What you're saying has nothing to do with this and presenting it as if it helps your point is disingenuous. Losing your job at a newspaper because they hate your articles couldn't have less to do with free speech. Getting punched by a random citizen because you're handing out ethnic cleansing flyers couldn't have less to do with free speech. I don't think you're ever going to get this.

[zenkai]

It's too general to be a true statement. Free speech specifically deals with governmental consequences. What you're saying has nothing to do with this and presenting it as if it helps your point is disingenuous. Losing your job at a newspaper because they hate your articles couldn't have less to do with free speech. Getting punched by a random citizen because you're handing out ethnic cleansing flyers couldn't have less to do with free speech. I don't think you're ever going to get this.

Go read my original comment and you will see I in no way used "free speech" to protect this guy from being fired. The news paper has every right to fire him, I was just correcting someone on what the definition of free speech is.

I spend more time on this damn forum defending what I didn't say vs on what I actually said.

[Tinykong]

Cool, I hope those people never lose their shit and write some batshit crazy article like how they thought Hitler was right, I never knew papers were so trusting.

Most people aren't crazy polarized and don't spew rhetoric and/or hateful nonsense.

[zenkai]

Most people aren't crazy polarized and don't spew rhetoric and/or hateful nonsense.

I used an extreme example, but you would think a paper that publish a wanna-be comedian would double check his work. It's not exactly unheard of for comedy to be offensive to some, this is a pretty big difference than writing about puppies.

[Halicia]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how he's shaming someone who may or may not even exist for all anyone knows.

They have no name, barely any description, and no way anyone in their right mind could even recognize that it was them they were being talked about.

If I'm reading a comedy piece, and don't find it funny. I just DON'T READ IT.

If anything's cause to be fired in this article, its the fact that its an awful article. Not wildly offensive or anything... it just makes no statement, doesn't support a statement, lead to any statement, or even provide any form of lighthearted humor.

If he'd started with "The person in the next seat to me was so fat they had to use my seat too", and then followed up with that with supporting and related issues and commentary, it might be more offensive, but it'd at least be relevant and/or humorous.

I think its pretty much on point though, that if you're stuck in a middle seat between two people that are so big you can't use YOUR SEAT THAT YOU PAID FOR, properly. (putting the armrest down as inadequate of a barrier that it is), something is wrong.

Even if he could put the armrest down, I think in most cases he'd still be unable to use it, as his neighbors would be overflowing into his personal space regardless.

But yeah, he's totally at fault for being uncomfortable being sat on.

[NicoWolf]

Well there are 2 sides to this coin. He is free to make jokes and people are free not to find them funny, a comedian that isn't funny (or few find funny) is an unemployed comedian.

He needs to work on his humor skills it seems

He was employed for 30 years. His humor skills are fine; its a small screeching minority of special snowflakes that became the squeaky wheel that needed grease.