An American editorial cartoonist has been fired for skewering Trump

[ZiprHead]

Pitt Post Gazette Political Cartoonist Fired

That was my reaction the day after the election of Donald Trump in November of 2016, when it dawned on me that I would be serving my year as president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists during the same time as the guy who wanted to “open up” libel laws and weaken the First Amendment so he could sue journalists more easily. Instead of the usual loss of jobs for editorial cartoonists that a president of the AAEC has to address during his or her tenure, now I’d be dealing with a much more fundamental threat to our profession: a president of the United States who has no idea or respect for the institution of a free press and its role in a democracy.

 

[Underseer]

So a newspaper (a private entity that is not the government) has fired an employee because he was spreading a message that they didn't agree with, and freedom of speech does not mean that private entities can be forced to spread a message they don't agree with.

This is all OK so far.

But the problem is: why aren't the Free Speech Warriors up in arms about this? Isn't this the exact circumstance that would otherwise cause them to scream and gnash teeth about the destruction of our "freedom of speech"? Or do those arguments only apply when we are forcing a private entity to serve as a platform for white nationalist messages?

Conservatives and libertarians believe that firing Don Imus because he said something racist is an attack on our free speech, but firing political cartoonists for criticizing an elected and powerful politician is not?

I assume they will respond to this either by using a special pleading fallacy, or else changing the subject ("Hey, let's talk about Hillary Clinton instead!").

 

[braces_for_impact]

The alt-right/white nationalist movement has all but admitted at this point that their free speech arguments are only used in service to their bigoted goals, nothing more. I ignore their stupid arguments and go on about my business of defending actual free speech issues.

 

[Underseer]

OK, so when conservolibertarians use the phrase "free speech" they specifically mean speech that promotes white supremacist ideas only?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK, so when conservolibertarians use the phrase "free speech" they specifically mean speech that promotes white supremacist ideas only?

Yes. Had they been somehow unclear or subtle about that point? If so, I'm sure they apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[Underseer]

OK, so when conservolibertarians use the phrase "free speech" they specifically mean speech that promotes white supremacist ideas only?

Yes. Had they been somehow unclear or subtle about that point? If so, I'm sure they apologize for the misunderstanding.

But doesn't criticizing them for that make us evil Social Justice Warriors who hate freedom, if not guilty of White Genocide?

 

[Elixir]

OK, so when conservolibertarians use the phrase "free speech" they specifically mean speech that promotes white supremacist ideas only?

Yes. Had they been somehow unclear or subtle about that point? If so, I'm sure they apologize for the misunderstanding.

But doesn't criticizing them for that make us evil Social Justice Warriors who hate freedom, if not guilty of White Genocide?

Yeah. What's your point?

 

[Underseer]

But doesn't criticizing them for that make us evil Social Justice Warriors who hate freedom, if not guilty of White Genocide?

Yeah. What's your point?

Ah ha! I knew it! The only reason you say that racism is a bad thing is because you want to commit genocide against white people!1!!!!!11!!!!!11!!11oneoneone [/satire]