DoubleTapDrew
Member
Oh I'm sure she'll be hired in a heartbeat by the brady center, asking pointed catch-22 questions in debates and tearing down anyone who is forced to defend themselves.
Fired Reporter Speaks Out On Local Radio Show
- Thread starter Cowboybootnut
- Start date
- Status
MarcusWendt
Member
She can say whatever she wants. T.V. news is a business and we're the customers. Screw her in the hoop. 5 month PAID suspension. Sounds like she did o.k.
BruceRDucer
Member
Hey Mojohand
LOL! I'm laughing because the reporter was so.....(dare I say it?
) insensitive!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL! I wonder if the "journalist" graduated from some college, because she exercises no ETHICS at all.
-----------------------------------------------Hey, it WORKED! I quoted you guys! Go figger! LOL
--- Mojohand
LOL! I'm laughing because the reporter was so.....(dare I say it?
) insensitive!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Gunslinger
LOL! I wonder if the "journalist" graduated from some college, because she exercises no ETHICS at all.
-----------------------------------------------Hey, it WORKED! I quoted you guys! Go figger! LOL
Brad Johnson
Member
No she wasn't. The station fulfilled their agreement with her, paying her to the end of her contract period. Her contract was not renewed.
If she had been "fired" they would have released her immediately. Instead, she was paid until the end of the the aforementioned contract period.
This story is just a case of one reporter trying to help out another by painting the station as the bad guy.
Brad
Freedom of speech does not divest you of responsibility for what you say. Just as I support your right to own a gun, you remain responsible for every bullet that leaves your barrel. I can and do fully support her right to say whatever she wants. If what she says is a shoddy substitute for real journalism that costs her career, that is her own fault.
Don't mistake free speech with not being responsible for what you say. I support the rights of the Westboro baptist church to say hateful things. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated as pariahs and the lowest scum on the earth for what they say.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Thank you, Brad, for confirming my recollection.Brad Johnson said:
So here she is, out there pitching what a great journalist she is, and she -- and her mouthpiece -- either don't know the difference between "fired" and "not renewed," or they aren't honest enough to tell the story accurately. Either way, it's a good demonstration of why she doesn't deserve to get any job offers.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
A "canard" is an intentionally false story.
The words you put between quotation marks are a misquotation of a statement misattributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Neither the misattributed statement nor your distortion of it make much sense. What sane person would fight for or defend to the death anyone who said something like "Eat all babies!" or "Defoliate Europe!" or "Exterminate inferior peoples!" And who except the product of a twisted educational processing factory would argue that there is some right to advocate such behavior.
The early Twentieth-Century nobody who distorted the Eighteenth-Century philosopher's words later said that she had in mind this statement by Voltaire: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."
Voltaire's statement does make sense but it's far different from both the original distortion and your own, and its meaning is much different too. In it Voltaire advocates what you reject: the tolerance that allows other people to think their own thoughts. He does not claim it as a right nor does he vow to defend the thoughts of other people, especially not those with which he disagrees or disapproves.
Why would anyone with a grip on reality fight for some hypothetical right of people to make demonstrably malicious or destructive or untrue or irresponsible statements.
Always remember that 2 + 2 = 63. Never contradict it. Fight for my right to say it. Attack anyone who challenges it.
Ash
Member
I was wondering who else would get the Canard angle. Doesn't everyone remember Darkwing Duck, who worked in St. Canard?
As to anti-gun elements of her attack, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people at her station who are anti-gun, perhaps the station manager, perhaps others. This woman attacked an old man, making him cry and shake. She treated him like she would treat those child molesters on Dateline, or a mechanic who rips women or minorites off, or a government official trying to solicit a bribe.
It is a big, big difference.
Ash
As to anti-gun elements of her attack, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people at her station who are anti-gun, perhaps the station manager, perhaps others. This woman attacked an old man, making him cry and shake. She treated him like she would treat those child molesters on Dateline, or a mechanic who rips women or minorites off, or a government official trying to solicit a bribe.
It is a big, big difference.
Ash
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
so is her hubby still workikng at the same station? gotta be interesting
CNYCacher
Member
The clip of her interview is contained in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfDLrs3U8Qk&feature=PlayList&p=F7C5BF3ABFDB31C6&index=0&playnext=1
Fast forward to the 3-minute mark to see Aguillar, although the entire video is worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfDLrs3U8Qk&feature=PlayList&p=F7C5BF3ABFDB31C6&index=0&playnext=1
Fast forward to the 3-minute mark to see Aguillar, although the entire video is worth watching.
jrfoxx
Member
Even that aside, is Texas one of the few states that isnt "at will" employment where you can be let go for ANY, or NO reason, as long as it isnt race, gender, religion, etc based? Wonder where she would even have GROUNDS for a suit in the first place, as she doesn't seem to be claiming she was fired, or "not renewed" due to race, gender, etc. I havent ever heard of ANY state where you cant fire someone basedon their actions while performing thier job, which seems to be the case here....
she got let go for doing something, in the course of her job, that her employer disapproves of. Since it wasnt race, gender, etc related at all, seems 100% legit to me. I suspect, or at least hope, the suit is tossed outright from day 1 by the judge.
I'd think any reasonable person would say here actions were out of line, and worthy of dismissal based on how her actions ended up portraying her employer.
csmkersh
Member
Texas is an "at will" state.
Right, you got that one a bit mixed up. What I am defending you against is the government coming to get you and throw you in jail. I am not going to throw my life on the line so you can keep a cushy 'customer service' job
free speech has consequences. As long as those consequences are 'free market' driven and not legal actions, I have NO problem with the outcome. I stand by Rosie Odonnell's rights to say "guns are evil" Rosie does NOT belong in jail. Does she belong in the unemployment line? As far as I am concerned, yes, but then I am not the target audience of her movies or The Vew
Want a new job, Mrs. Aguilar?
I could introduce you to the railroad, where you will leave your air conditioned room and all your digital comforts and your rights to go harass people at will, and enter a new job, where the value of LABOR is truly upheld.
But then, how can libperverts who have been pampered and raised like cuddled poodles in Frenchmens' homes adjust to a real JOB?
Sorry, rather not have libperverts work on the railways, which is a true home of conservative America.
I could introduce you to the railroad, where you will leave your air conditioned room and all your digital comforts and your rights to go harass people at will, and enter a new job, where the value of LABOR is truly upheld.
But then, how can libperverts who have been pampered and raised like cuddled poodles in Frenchmens' homes adjust to a real JOB?
Sorry, rather not have libperverts work on the railways, which is a true home of conservative America.
While that may have been Hall's focus, arouet may have said some other things to lead her down that path.
Historically accurate and often misattributed or not I find Hall's statement a tribute to the idea of the 2nd amendment protecting the 1st kind of thing.
Does freedom of speech really exist if unpopular speech like "exterminate inferior peoples" is not defended (the ability to say, not the ideas behind it defended) as well? I would say not. The most current equivelant to me would be the Westboro church. If they can't say their hateful things, isn't freedom of speech dead? Aren't we always saying things like the soldiers funerals they're invading are the people that ensure their right to say the terrible things they do? I'll leave it up to you to decide if thats worth fighting for or not.
Anyway its kind of a tangent, I'm not personally sure if voltaire really counts as a huge freedom of speech guy, and hall's quote certainly loses some cool history points for being more recent but I still find the sentiment appropriate to the freedom of speech especially as it pertains to our constitution.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Of course you do.
There are people who firmly believe that the edge of the world is at the northeastern city limits of Morristown, New Jersey. Who amongst us would not give up his life to defend their right to believe it? It would defile our national heritage to do anything less, for without such commitment there would be no substance to intellectual freedom. The crops would shrivel, the cattle would be barren, the rivers would turn ashen, and American Idol would become a mockery of all we hold dear.
Of course you do not deserve life if you will not defend the right of people to advocate exterminating inferior people. I don't know why I suggested otherwise. What good is freedom of speech if a guy can't advocate killing other people.
And of what value is a humanistic education if one is asked to accept the proposition that some speech is so vile, inhuman, and indefensible that it must not be defended by one who wishes to retain his humanity.
Take pride in your education. It has helped you to become free.
qajaq59
Member
Sorry folks, but she sounds like a typical modern reporter to me. Anything for a byline, and I mean anything, up to and including trapping old men and berating them. Or asking a mother of 5 how she feels after her children have been lost in a house fire. The days of good reporting went away sometime around 1960 and never came back.
ranger335v
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,797
"Don't mistake free speech with not being responsible for what you say. I support the rights of the Westboro baptist church to say hateful things. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated as pariahs and the lowest scum on the earth for what they say.
Roger that my friend. Mouthy liberals (is that redundant?) always scream for "freedom of speech" when they say any silly thing they wish and expect the rest of us to not only listen and nod our heads in agreement while (frequently) expecting us to pay them for saying it. NOT SO! All the freedom of speech gives them is protection from going to prison for what they say, NOT that there is no accountability for saying it!
Liberal-speak has more PC lines that people should not cross than conservatives ever thought of! The same liberals who wish to protect that looney's job because of "free speech" would want to burn her at the stake if she had said segregation of races was a fine legal policy, everyone should be a Christian, partial birth abortion is murder of an innocent child, global warming is a fraud, privately owned guns save lives, etc.
Roger that my friend. Mouthy liberals (is that redundant?) always scream for "freedom of speech" when they say any silly thing they wish and expect the rest of us to not only listen and nod our heads in agreement while (frequently) expecting us to pay them for saying it. NOT SO! All the freedom of speech gives them is protection from going to prison for what they say, NOT that there is no accountability for saying it!
Liberal-speak has more PC lines that people should not cross than conservatives ever thought of! The same liberals who wish to protect that looney's job because of "free speech" would want to burn her at the stake if she had said segregation of races was a fine legal policy, everyone should be a Christian, partial birth abortion is murder of an innocent child, global warming is a fraud, privately owned guns save lives, etc.
Brad Johnson
Member
She was not employed by general consent, she was employed by contract. In contractual employment the "at will" part no longer applies as you are now in a contractual agreement re: compensation for performance over a set period of time.
Brad
XDKingslayer
member
Oh boo hoo. When are people going to learn that stupidity has a price?
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
It's sad to see people distort a freedom to think and speak into an obligation to defend the vile and the despicable.
So far as I'm concerned Rebecca Aguilar is free to think about persecuting anyone she pleases. For all I care she can spend her remaining nights delighting in thoughts about destroying old people who defend their lives.
But when she advocates their destruction and acts on those thoughts, no one can persuade me to believe that she has any "right" to do so, or that I have any obligation to support her ability to do so, or that I have some moral obligation to put my life on the line to allow her to destroy the lives of other people.
Nor can I see that Ms. Aguilar's employer has any obligation to pay her to exercise that fictitious right.
Whatever happened to American education in the last generation or two that scrambled so many people's minds so thoroughly?
No one should object to my saying that anyone who disagrees with me--about anything I choose to say--is attacking my right to free speech and should instead sacrifice his or her life to defend my right to say anything I want.
So far as I'm concerned Rebecca Aguilar is free to think about persecuting anyone she pleases. For all I care she can spend her remaining nights delighting in thoughts about destroying old people who defend their lives.
But when she advocates their destruction and acts on those thoughts, no one can persuade me to believe that she has any "right" to do so, or that I have any obligation to support her ability to do so, or that I have some moral obligation to put my life on the line to allow her to destroy the lives of other people.
Nor can I see that Ms. Aguilar's employer has any obligation to pay her to exercise that fictitious right.
Whatever happened to American education in the last generation or two that scrambled so many people's minds so thoroughly?
No one should object to my saying that anyone who disagrees with me--about anything I choose to say--is attacking my right to free speech and should instead sacrifice his or her life to defend my right to say anything I want.
So what sort of freedom of speech do we have if people are only willing to stand up for others to say popular or accepted things? Why even have a guarantee of free speech to tell people things they like to hear? Too many people were up in arms being told how wonderful they were and how much you agreed with them? Isn't the idea of free speech to say allow those who say didn't share the popular geocentric view of the universe to put out their message no matter how unpopular such a notion was with the understanding that you accept other unpopular speech like the westboro church's as well? Where does one draw the line on speech thats popular enough to be free and not be silenced under law? Can we do the same thing with say religion? I'm sorry moonbeam but you can choose between christianity, islam, or judiasm. You hari krishna people seem a little nutty and frankly irritating so those freedoms don't apply.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Free speech really didn't have anything to do with Ms. Aguilar's actions. While she was exercising her rights, she trampled on his by physically blocking his exit.
That's called unlawful restraint where I come from, and probably would fit nicely into a few other charges should the old gentleman decide to persue it...which I think he should, but he probably won't because he'd much rather just be left alone.
Her rights end where somebody else's begin. Period.
That's called unlawful restraint where I come from, and probably would fit nicely into a few other charges should the old gentleman decide to persue it...which I think he should, but he probably won't because he'd much rather just be left alone.
Her rights end where somebody else's begin. Period.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
