Anti-Trump Political Cartoons Censored

[Aquila King]

Quote

The work of Rob Rogers, longtime political cartoonist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, has been notably absent from his paper’s opinion page during this past week. Aside from a cartoon criticizing the trade war posted on Tuesday, June 5, the most recent of Rogers’ drawings appeared last Thursday, May 24.

So where was Rogers all of last week? He did not simply “have the day off,” as printed in last Tuesday’s issue of the Post-Gazette.

Keith Burris, the Post-Gazette’s editorial director since March, when it merged its editorial board with the co-owned Toledo Blade, refused to publish six of Rogers’ cartoons in a row. Four were directly critical of President Donald Trump, and two alluded to racism.

Despite not being published in the Post-Gazette, Rogers continued posting these cartoons on Twitter, as he does with all of his work.

https://fair.org/home/anti-trump-cartoons-stopped-by-censor-at-pittsburgh-post-gazette/

What happened to all the free speech warriors on the right?...

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequence - HOWEVER the amendment that protects freedom of speech (the first?) specifically protects yuo from governmental interference in the expression of that speech, which there’s a faint whiff of here.

although I would like to see the cartoons that were censored. Maybe they were libellous.

[Aquila King]

4 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

although I would like to see the cartoons that were censored. Maybe they were libellous.

They're in the link, and no, they're rather tame compared to what else is out there.

[skliss]

I think what is forgotten here is that cartoons are entertainment....And selling newspapers is a business. If the powers that be think something doesn't fit with the image they are trying to project, or they find it (whatever "it" may be) too controversial on THEIR scale then they can decide not to publish it.

[Skulduggery]

It's, simply put, the paper's decision what to run. However, yeah, this is lame as hell.

[Aquila King]

I want to be crystal clear - The Newspaper is a private company, and as a private entity, it legally reserves the right to censor whatever it chooses to censor. However it is the principle of free speech that is under assault here. NOT the legality.

Whether we're talking about social media, corporate media, video sharing sites like YouTube, online forums such as this, television stations, radio stations, publishing companies, even sign and t-shirt making small businesses, etc. All these platforms are privately owned communication companies, who's job is to give people a means by which to spread their voice to a broader audience. Legally speaking, these are private entities who all reserve the right to publish what they want to publish and censor what they want to censor. However as a matter of standing on the principle of freedom of speech, they should not censor those they simply disagree with.

Imagine an idea that could not be expressed to the masses via any of the above ^ methods provided. Imagine no private communications companies being willing to give a platform to your idea you wish to express (be the idea good or bad). The only place you could use to exercise your freedom of speech would be somewhere on public property. In today's age of communication, you and I both know that that goes nowhere fast.

Private communication companies allowing some to express their views while not allowing others, while they do reserve the right to do so as a private entity, effectively limits the available means by which to spread your ideas, and thereby stifles your freedom of speech. Be they good or bad, certain ideas are allowed, while others are not

This isn't about legality, it's about freedom of speech as a principle. And therefore, it should be protected.

[Farmer77]

37 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I want to be crystal clear - The Newspaper is a private company, and as a private entity, it legally reserves the right to censor whatever it chooses to censor. However it is the principle of free speech that is under assault here. NOT the legality.

I gotta ask you the same thing I would ask our conservative friends here. Does this make sense for the bottom line of the company? If so then its about the free market and not about censorship. 

My small town being a decent example, its full of "trump supporters" as my wife has taken to calling them ( they are living caricatures of human beings ) , and cartoons bashing Trump would be a surefire way to lose newspaper subscriptions. 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Kismit
Doing our best to keep it civil

[Aquila King]

26 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I gotta ask you the same thing I would ask our conservative friends here. Does this make sense for the bottom line of the company? If so then its about the free market and not about censorship. 

My small town being a decent example, its full of "trumpty dumpties" as my wife has taken to calling them ( they are truly horrible living caricatures of human beings ) , and cartoons bashing Trump would be a surefire way to lose newspaper subscriptions. 

I understand that, however once again this goes back to the supposed 'free speech warriors' on the right, who constantly rail against college kids and SJWs censoring them, but when it comes to anything left-wing they use the 'private company' excuse to censor it. You can't constantly claim to heavily support free speech, but then when it comes to your private business ventures, suddenly business takes precedence over principle.

Standing for free speech as a matter of principle, means that you do so regardless of how it effects your bottom line. It's as simple as that.

[ian hacktorp]

16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

cartoons bashing Trump would be a surefire way to lose newspaper subscriptions

I have to agree with this.  I live near a large city that is long known for its left-leaning politics and this has always been reflected in the reporting and editorial slant of the major newspaper here.  Things got pretty crazy in the lead-up to the 2016 election with anti-Trump articles and cartoons relentlessly bashing and lampooning Trump.

After the election and especially since the start of 2018, I began noticing more and more reader's comment posts complaining about Trump-bashing fatigue and cartoons that were distasteful and downright ugly.  Recently I've noticed that the barrage of anti-Trump content has largely disappeared.  The newspaper has apparently gotten the message.

I think people everywhere are exasperated with the non-stop negativity and yellow journalism concerning the current administration.  If newspapers are starting to scale it back, it is a response to market forces...something they would be foolish to ignore.

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Standing for free speech as a matter of principle, means that you do so regardless of how it effects your bottom line. It's as simple as that.

Id agree in general for sure, and it is definitely hard to find balanced perspective in the days of Sinclair Broadcasting Orders Local Anchors To Record Bizarre ‘Hostage’ Video  

 

[ian hacktorp]

30 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

You can't constantly claim to heavily support free speech, but then when it comes to your private business ventures, suddenly business takes precedence over principle.

 A strange remark given that the most recent and most egregious examples have come from the left who have defended Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube censorship as being within their rights as private (and extremely large) companies.

The left have defended monopolistic, fascist corporations while demonizing smaller media outlets for listening to the market.  Anyone surprised?

[Aquila King]

5 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

 A strange remark given that the most recent and most egregious examples have come from the left who have defended Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube censorship as being within their rights as private (and extremely large) companies.

The left have defended monopolistic, fascist corporations while demonizing smaller media outlets for listening to the market.  Anyone surprised?

And if you knew anything about me I have condemned them heavily for that.

Shouting "butwhatabout the left!!" doesn't justify the right doing it, so your deflection is dismissed.

[ian hacktorp]

7 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

And if you knew anything about me I have condemned them heavily for that.

Shouting "butwhatabout the left!!" doesn't justify the right doing it, so your deflection is dismissed.

Your earlier remark reeked of partisan bias.  I guess I can understand why my pointing out your lop-sidedness might be seen by you as "deflection".

[AnchorSteam]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

Standing for free speech as a matter of principle, means that you do so regardless of how it effects your bottom line. It's as simple as that.

Absolutely goddamn right.

Unfettered free speech  (meaning speech that is not advocating criminal activity) is supported in the following way by IQ level;

High IQ;  78%

Above average; 56%

Average; 44%

Below average; 33%

Low IQ; 14%

 

The source is a survey that has been going in since 1972 -

 

 

Glad article 13 hasn't passed yet, or I would not be able to paste that.

[pallidin]

If it's your own paper or such, do as you will.

If you are an employee or commenter of someone else's paper, the owner retains full edit rights.

Edited June 10, 2018 by pallidin

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, pallidin said:

If it's your own paper or such, do as you will.

If you are an employee of someone else's paper, the owner retains full edit rights.

Exactly so.  Newspapers are businesses and are subject to market forces.  The market will take care of itself by choosing who to buy from.

[pallidin]

If I write an article or cartoon, and submit it to, say, the New York Times, and they refuse publication I have zero legal redress.

Freedom of Speech and Press in no way demands a "second party" to voice your opinion.

 

[pallidin]

As another example, here on U-M, there is no legal obligation for my opinions to be allowed, even if I am a member.

Freedom of Speech and Press only applies to the originator and the originators own medium of dissemination, not conveyance on other people's papers, broadcasts or websites.

[Skulduggery]

This is a simple issue. The paper has full rights. The cartoonist was a regular, not piffy on a rock bun. However, if the cartoon loses them business, they can opt out of publishing it. Still, super lame. 

[Seti42]

Having clicked the link, and looked at the cartoons, It's pretty clear they were censored because they contain left-wing content. There's no nudity, foul language, gore, violence, etc. in them. While I agree with a business' right to control their content, ie: websites (including this one) have a right to delete a post that encourages suicide, criminal activity, or in any way violates the UA everyone has to agree to to join, I think a newspaper not publishing these particular comics on their editorial page stinks of the worst kind of censorship. Does it violate the 1st amendment? Probably not. Unless it can be proven that the government/an agent of the government told the editor not to publish those cartoons.

[Farmer77]

5 minutes ago, Seti42 said:

Unless it can be proven that the government/an agent of the government told the editor not to publish those cartoons.

Which considering this administration's willingness to shun societal norms and ethical standards shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Lilly]

3 minutes ago, seanjo said:

Bit of irony bleating about freedom of speech on a forum that censors the slightest slight!

 

But private owners have the right to choose what they print. I don't know what bias this paper has.

While I like your comment that the paper has the right to print what they want. Private websites also have the right to remove content that is inflammatory or could cause in fighting...this too is 'owners choice' type of thing. 

[preacherman76]

Guess they don't wanna follow the crowd anymore. Just go to nearly any other media outlet if you want to see Trump bashing. Yahoo typically has 4 to 5 negative stories on their front page consistently. One of em might be partially true.

[GlitterRose]

If they don't think they're censoring, then why lie about his absence?

Why not just say outright that they didn't like the cartoons?

[GlitterRose]

The point of political satire is to poke fun at...well...politicians. 

If all of a sudden, our politicians are sacrosanct, we should be concerned about that.