Fired Reporter Speaks Out On Local Radio Show


PDA






Cowboybootnut
April 29, 2008, 12:29 PM
Fired Reporter Speaks Out On Local Radio Show
KXAS-TV

updated 6:58 a.m. CT, Tues., April. 29, 2008

FORT WORTH, Texas - Former KDFW-TV 4 Reporter Rebecca Aguilar spoke out on KRLD-AM 1080 Monday afternoon about her termination from and lawsuit against the TV station. Aguilar appeared with her attorney in a Dallas studio for the "Ernie and Jay Show" hosted by Ernie Brown and Jay McFarland.

Aguilar was fired in March, ending a five-month paid suspension. The actions follow an October 2007 interview with west Dallas business owner James Walton, who had shot and killed two burglary suspects within three weeks.

The former reporter said on Monday that she received praise immediately after the report ran, but threatening calls quickly followed.

Callers and bloggers, some identifying themselves as gun owners, claimed that the report was anti-gun and one-sided.

Another former reporter from a competing TV station, Sarah Dodd, called in to the show in support of Aguilar, saying others in KDFW-TV's newsroom would have seen the report before it aired.

Aguilar's lawyer, Steve Kardell, recently issued a news release saying the former reporter was fired "in a calculated move."

Aguilar was suspended less than two weeks after receiving the 2007 Broadcast Journalist of the Year Award from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ).

Aguilar said on Monday's show that she has not received any offers for employment from other stations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24356377/

If you enjoyed reading about "Fired Reporter Speaks Out On Local Radio Show" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MakAttak
April 29, 2008, 12:34 PM
Aguilar said on Monday's show that she has not received any offers for employment from other stations.

Good, maybe blood suckers like her will learn to treat people with respect if there's a little bit of fear in them.

M2 Carbine
April 29, 2008, 12:40 PM
She should have been fired. She was totally out of line.

Aguilar said on Monday's show that she has not received any offers for employment from other stations.

Which in itself shows something.

SaxonPig
April 29, 2008, 12:55 PM
Want to never get hired again by any employer?

File a lawsuit against a former employer. Noboy wants to hire someone who is lawyer-happy.

feets
April 29, 2008, 12:59 PM
She's another one of those people who put a HUGE hispanic accent on names and anything related to Mexico. It was so bad that some words were unintelligible even to this guy who listens to the Mexican language all day long.

She was annoying and I'm glad she's gone.


BTW... yes, it's Mexican. There's a HUGE difference between the spoken languages our south of the border amigos and the people in Spain.

1911Tuner
April 29, 2008, 01:07 PM
I didn't really take it as pro or anti gun. It was sensationalism in its basest form. Just a reporter being a reporter. I got a little ticked when she kept hounding the old gentleman, though. That was the part that was uncalled for.

Carry Big Stick
April 29, 2008, 01:18 PM
I just can't imagine why no other job offers have come yet. You would think being the exceptional reporter she makes her self out to be she would be getting all kinds of job offers from anti-gun groups.

Now if she really wanted to improve her chances of employment she would learn the errors of her ways and thank Mr. Walton for stopping two criminals. Thats two less criminals out there that all of us have to worry about.

SHOTGUNJOE
April 29, 2008, 01:35 PM
I'm glad to learn that Sara Dodd is also anti-gun :barf:. Now I will turn the channel at the first sight of her. i'd love to send her a prepaid NRA membership just for kicks.

BruceRDucer
April 29, 2008, 01:38 PM
So what does this mean?

Are we no longer going to persecute law abiding citizens in the Media? :uhoh:

Are we going to allow criminals to just face the consequences of their actions? :uhoh:

Isn't this a clear BIAS against the lawless?:uhoh:

Society itself needs to change, but if we start allowing a fair and ethical journalistic professionalism in America, who knows what will happen! :what:

I think there's a lot of good to be said for the way we've been doing it for years now. We use the media to persecute the LAWFUL and generate sympathy for CRIMINALS; because, if this country ever breaks down to the idea that citizens have legal rights under the Constitution, who knows what kind of a society will be the result! :what:

And firing a TV Reporter? Wouldn't that signal the END OF THE WORLD? Who will take up the cause of the LAWLESS?:o

Besides, could the nation endure the loss of a single reporter? What are you saying?

(what the heck am I saying?) LOL



/

ServiceSoon
April 29, 2008, 01:48 PM
Where can I find the report she wrote?

Robert Hairless
April 29, 2008, 01:51 PM
Aguilar's lawyer, Steve Kardell, recently issued a news release saying the former reporter was fired "in a calculated move."

As opposed to "in an impetuous action" or "on a whim"?

Rebecca Aguilar's termination was preceded by a series of calculated moves from her to advance her career.

Just two weeks prior to her suspension she received the 2007 Broadcast Journalist of the Year Award from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) in a calculated move by each party to increase attention to each of them, which is part of a series of calculated moves by the NAHJ to distinguish Hispanic journalists from non-Hispanic journalists, including Katie Couric and Bill O'Reilly.

Steve Kardell issued his press release in a calculated move to win sympathy from the media for his client, Rebecca Aguilar.

Kardell and Aguilar appeared on the radio program in a calculated move to win sympathy for her from the public.

They seem to be ahead on calculated moves.

Meanwhile, in a random display of non-calculated moves the Energizer Bunny has bumped into Rebecca Aguilar's complaint numerous times in an attempt to determine some reasonable grievance in it but has run out of both energy and interest.

The Tourist
April 29, 2008, 01:55 PM
C'mon guys. We can't celebrate when we win, anymore than we should complain if we lose.

If any reporter, for example a leftist, gets fired, sued or driven out of a job due to views we dislike, it also sends a clear messaage to reporters who might be in favor of firearms.

Imagine the situation in your personal life. Imagine if everytime you mentioned you owned a Ford all of the Chevy owners went to the human resources department and got you fired.

Remember the old canard, "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."

mojohand
April 29, 2008, 02:00 PM
is there a link to the original news story. I haven't seen it

misterwhipple
April 29, 2008, 02:04 PM
Here's a meta-report on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfDLrs3U8Qk) that includes the clip in question.

The lady's conduct was shameful. That she was not dismissed the day she turned in the footage reflects poorly on her station's management.

Ash
April 29, 2008, 02:09 PM
Tourist, it wasn't about guns. She trapped this man, effectively holding him against his will, by placing herself so that his car could not back up without knocking her down (stood between the man and the opened door, preventing him from closing the door or backing his car up). She then berated him in journalistic flair for his act, asking him if he felt good about what he did - all the while keeping him trapped. He could not drive away, nor could he walk away from his car. Only when the man was shaking and almost sobbing did she back off.

Her actions were aggressive and uncalled for. That is why she was fired.

Ash

The Tourist
April 29, 2008, 02:13 PM
Granted, the reporter was trying to twist the issue, and I agree, the management should have made sure the report was balanced.

I just never want to chill debate.

Edit: And my comments were meant to cover all issues, not just this one. I admit, pestering that old man really boiled my blood. But you cannot (and should not) fire everyone who disagrees with you. I disagree lots with members here.

I think we are ultimately responding to rudeness, not journalism.

MakAttak
April 29, 2008, 02:13 PM
C'mon guys. We can't celebrate when we win, anymore than we should complain if we lose.

If any reporter, for example a leftist, gets fired, sued or driven out of a job due to views we dislike, it also sends a clear messaage to reporters who might be in favor of firearms.

Imagine the situation in your personal life. Imagine if everytime you mentioned you owned a Ford all of the Chevy owners went to the human resources department and got you fired.

Remember the old canard, "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."


If you will note, I called her a "blood sucker" not an "anti-gunner."

She was preying on a victim of crimes.

She was preying on a man who TWICE had to defend himself with lethal force.

And she did it for her own personal gain. (I am also convinced she enjoyed it.)

Personally, if someone is reporting the news, I'd LOVE to see them afraid to bring their own biases and views into it.

I doubt that will ever happen though.

mojohand
April 29, 2008, 02:16 PM
Wow, just watched that clip. That was extremely rude and disrespectful. I can't belive she actually asked him if he was "trigger happy" ***?

misterwhipple
April 29, 2008, 02:18 PM
C'mon guys. We can't celebrate when we win, anymore than we should complain if we lose.

If any reporter, for example a leftist, gets fired, sued or driven out of a job due to views we dislike, it also sends a clear messaage to reporters who might be in favor of firearms.

The problem isn't her expression of an anti-gun opinion. It's her shameful abuse of a) an old man who b) had just been through a life-changingly traumatic experience, c) again.

Imagine if everytime you mentioned you owned a Ford all of the Chevy owners went to the human resources department and got you fired.

She did not simply mention she owned a Ford. She hunted down a Chevy owner who had recently been in a collision that threatened his life and ended another's, and accused him of buying his replacement Chevy because he enjoys killing people with them and hopes to do it again.

PotatoJudge
April 29, 2008, 02:19 PM
Here's the original story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rIZhzfTZTA

theotherwaldo
April 29, 2008, 02:33 PM
You guys still watching the talking heads? C'mon, nobody watches TV anymore! It's SO twentieth-century!!

(-And I'm a nineteenth-century kinda guy... .)

Evil Monkey
April 29, 2008, 02:39 PM
Remember the old canard, "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."

Get out of here with that non-sense. Today brings us a different set of rules.

There's no respect for the opposition, and there shouldn't be. You agree with a certain idea? Then you stick with it, defend it fiercely, and destroy anybody that imposes.

No Compromise. No Tolerance. No Equality.

If you don't play by these rules, you will be driven into the ground.

Cowboybootnut
April 29, 2008, 02:48 PM
Some of the higher ups of FOX who approved her story are to blame too. :cuss:

No victim of crime should have been treated the way she treated Mr. Walton. He was the victim who took appropriate action.

Gun Slinger
April 29, 2008, 03:43 PM
I agree with Evil Monkey.

The days of "fighting fair" are long gone. The Liberals and the Antis have long since done away with the notion in their assault upon the Constitution and our God-given rights and we cannot let them have another inch.

Our compromises are used as tools against us, our acceptance and tolerance to allow them to 'get a foot in the door'. If we grant them any say it is used to speak against us with unthinking rhetoric.

As for Ms. Aguilar, here's hoping that we find find her (and those of her ilk) unemployable, destitute and penniless before the year ends, begging on the street and spending all of her free time in homeless shelters or dumpster diving...ahh, it warms the heart. :)

Claude Clay
April 29, 2008, 03:53 PM
but the entitlement generation sure don't like when it is used against them

DoubleTapDrew
April 29, 2008, 04:11 PM
Aguilar said on Monday's show that she has not received any offers for employment from other stations.
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.

MechAg94
April 29, 2008, 04:15 PM
I have no problem with them saying what they want, but I don't have to listen or agree with them, and I intend to speak my piece also.

MarcusWendt
April 29, 2008, 04:18 PM
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.

k_dawg
April 29, 2008, 04:28 PM
IMHO: she should have been arrested and charged for unlawful detention, kidnapping and non-physical assault.

BruceRDucer
April 29, 2008, 04:44 PM
Wow, just watched that clip. That was extremely rude and disrespectful. I can't belive she actually asked him if he was "trigger happy" ***?--- Mojohand

LOL! I'm laughing because the reporter was so.....(dare I say it?:)) insensitive!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Ms. Aguilar, here's hoping that we find find her (and those of her ilk) unemployable, destitute and penniless before the year ends, begging on the street and spending all of her free time in homeless shelters or dumpster diving...ahh, it warms the heart. --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
April 29, 2008, 04:48 PM
Aguilar was fired in March, ending a five-month paid suspension.

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

Soybomb
April 29, 2008, 04:56 PM
C'mon guys. We can't celebrate when we win, anymore than we should complain if we lose.

If any reporter, for example a leftist, gets fired, sued or driven out of a job due to views we dislike, it also sends a clear messaage to reporters who might be in favor of firearms.

Imagine the situation in your personal life. Imagine if everytime you mentioned you owned a Ford all of the Chevy owners went to the human resources department and got you fired.

Remember the old canard, "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."
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
April 29, 2008, 05:55 PM
Aguilar was fired in March, ending a five-month paid suspension.
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.
Thank you, Brad, for confirming my recollection.

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
April 29, 2008, 07:12 PM
Remember the old canard, "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."

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
April 29, 2008, 09:04 PM
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

cassandrasdaddy
April 29, 2008, 09:13 PM
so is her hubby still workikng at the same station? gotta be interesting

CNYCacher
April 29, 2008, 09:29 PM
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.

jrfoxx
April 30, 2008, 12:08 AM
the difference between "fired" and "not renewed,"
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
April 30, 2008, 12:16 AM
Texas is an "at will" state.

akodo
April 30, 2008, 12:33 AM
Remember the old canard, "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."

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

Rachen
April 30, 2008, 12:36 AM
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.

Soybomb
April 30, 2008, 01:34 AM
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."
While that may have been Hall's focus, arouet may have said some other things to lead her down that path.

February 6 1770 letter to M. le Riche: ``Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.''

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.

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!"
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
April 30, 2008, 03:12 AM
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.

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
April 30, 2008, 07:59 AM
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
April 30, 2008, 08:13 AM
"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.

Brad Johnson
April 30, 2008, 10:45 AM
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?

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
April 30, 2008, 11:20 AM
Oh boo hoo. When are people going to learn that stupidity has a price?

Robert Hairless
April 30, 2008, 05:25 PM
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.

Soybomb
April 30, 2008, 07:47 PM
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 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
April 30, 2008, 08:16 PM
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.

Heartless_Conservative
April 30, 2008, 11:47 PM
Anyone know what she's suing over if it was just a case of her contract running out? Last time I checked you couldn't force someone to sign a contract with you (legally anyway).

Soybomb
May 1, 2008, 01:45 AM
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.
I would not contest that or say that she doesn't desere everything she's gotten and more. We're just off on a bit of a tangent I think :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Fired Reporter Speaks Out On Local Radio Show" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!