Posted on 02/08/2002 7:59:07 PM PST by calvin sun
NOT! He only feels bad that it got out of their local.
Read replies 17 and 20 and then think again about your post. Tell me then if you still think people are overreaching with this one.....
The more I think about it, the madder I get!
Pride should resign for this idiocy alone.
And then think about all the children and babies who now don't have a parent ..... think about Lisa Beamer's daughter, born last month, who will never know her father.
Think about the number of people who have lost a spouse, or a son or daughter.
Think about the ones injured in the crash who were lucky enough to survive but who will bear scars the rest of their lives.
I can't find any humor material in any of that!!!
Those liberal pieces of trash may be able to put such images out of their minds but I will NEVER FORGET!!!!!!!!!!!
Follow your instincts - - they are usually right. This guy Pride, by referring to "copyrighted cartoon" was making it clear that it was somebody else's cartoon. The comment reminded me of how Clinton, following the Waco tragedy, took full responsibility by saying he stood behind Janet Reno's decision to burn the place down. If it walks like a weasel, talks like a weasel....
Re: Why we shouldn't have run Mike Marland's cartoon
Mr. Pride,
I am somewhat gratified by your light retraction of Mike Marland's incredibly offensive editorial cartoon. However, your continued support of Mr. Marland and his mindset of using the incredible atrocity of September 11, 2001 to misrepresent President Bush's budgetary policy, in my opinion, nullifies any and all effort spent on your part. You might respect his talent as an artist but his judgement needs to be seriously questioned. He might even be a personal friend of yours, but the publication of the cartoon represents gross editorial malpractice on your part. It is as offensive as printing a caricature of Aunt Jemima eating fried chicken and watermelon with a welfare check stuffed in her back pocket to represent Black History Month.
You make several errors in your retraction.
Though Mr. Marland's cartoon might be copyrighted, it does not prevent fair use by private citizens in the course of public debate. As a seasoned editor, you should know better. That is basic Journalism Law 3001 at the Manship School of Journalism at Louisiana State University -- a fortunate experience of mine in college. I happened to be one of the individuals that reproduced the image under fair use on the World Wide Web for debate over its content and not commercial gain. Feel free to engage me in legal action over this. I would welcome the occasion to take this to court and further promote your editorial common sense to a national audience as the case would no doubt become. Reply to me and I will send over the relevant contact information so we can legally engage in your perceived copyright infringement. However, I feel you will want to sweep this major editorial error as quickly under the proverbial carpet as possible -- as I am sure your publisher and advertisers who financially supported this travesty would.
As an editor of a private publication, you have no ability to censor. Censorship can only occur by the actions of a governmental body. Your decisions as an editor are not a function of censorship but of the natural editorial process. Everyday of your career as an editor, you make decisions as to what should and should not appear within the pages of the Concord Monitor. That should be a function of your experience and common sense. If you wished to have excluded Mike Marland's repugnant editorial cartoon, he would still be free to publish it in other publications without fear of governmental intervention. You give yourself undue flattery over this statement and your ability to prevent Mr. Marland's constitutionally protected ability to express himself. We all have the right to speak but not to be heard.
You claim at some point in the future that the September 11th atrocity will be legitimate fuel for editorial cartoonists. Do you think the sunken grave of the U.S. Arizona is legitimate editorial fuel after 60 years? Would editorial common sense allow you to publish a Mike Marland editorial cartoon that desecrated the grave of the brave men that perished from the unprovoked assault of the Japanese on December 7, 1941? I doubt it nor do I think in the future the World Trade Center will be legitimate fodder for cantankerous editorial cartoonists. However, your editorial decision in publishing the Mike Marland cartoon has already crossed that line. A decision, I feel, you will carry as a heavy burden the rest of your career.
The correct response by you to this editorial error should have been a full apology without reservations or explanation. To further qualify your decision in the editorial process does nothing but excuse the action as if it was the mistake of spilling milk on a clean table. I would suggest that Concord Monitor take the advertising revenue from the Friday edition and pledge it to the thousands upon thousands of my grieving neighbors through one of the various charities seeking to meet their needs.
Sincerely yours,
Robert M. Toups, Jr.
(personal contact information deleted for WWW publication)
Looks like "Operation Freep Monitor" was a complete success. Thanks to all that pitched in! Free Speech is a mighty weapon. I can't believe the White House jumped into the fray! Do we rock or what?!?!?
This loon has bought into the liberal schtick that claims that any attempt to stop a liberal's opinion from being transmitted is censorship; whether that be by an editor doing his job or a consumer who refuses to buy the lib's product. Mind you, it's only the liberal who has the right not only to free speech, but also to a guaranteed audience in this way of thinking. Similar action against conservative thought is not, in their minds, censorship; it's just editing in that case! This idiot's supposed hand-wringing about "censorship" is nothing more than a smokescreen. He let it in not out of fear of "censoring" anyone, but because he didn't want to do his job as an editor.
Sure, we knew that displaying a crucifix in a jar of piss was offensive and tasteless, but it's not our job to censor, but to provoke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.