See that is the problem, once you take up a position as editor you are now publicly an unbiased figure. Any public stances you take puts your position at jeopardy.
He chose to be an editor so he's responsible for his public statements. In this case he was irresponsible so he was rightly removed.
Certain sacrifices have to be made for impartiality and he refused to.
he's stated his social media profile is for that purpose
It is part of the job he took. Very few jobs require you to be publicly neutral but a Journalist or Editor falls under that.
There's a big reason that until recently you never saw the editors of major publications take public stances, it would permanently taint the publication. That's part of his job.
That's not how that works. People don't lose their personal, principled right to free speech by virtue of taking any job. This wasn't just a news story. This was an event that happened within the community, being commented on by a member of that community and in that capacity.
Why even try to erode free speech? How could this kind of petty bullshit possibly help anyone?
You are missing the point. Certain positions require public neutrality in order to stay employed. Editor is one of them.
This isn't about free speech, it is about professionalism. Editors can publicly say whatever they want however if what they publicly say threatens the publics belief in the neutrality of their employer that is a fireable offense.
Think of a Judge publicly saying on social media that he's going to be 'incredibly hard on thieves.' A defense attorney can use that as evidence that he's biased and have his judgements thrown out.
When you become a journalist by definition sharing any bias regarding a story is grounds to be removed.
This isn't a free speech issue it is about a lack of journalistic integrity.
See that is the problem, once you take up a position as editor you are now publicly an unbiased figure. Any public stances you take puts your position at jeopardy.
He chose to be an editor so he's responsible for his public statements. In this case he was irresponsible so he was rightly removed.
Certain sacrifices have to be made for impartiality and he refused to.
It is part of the job he took. Very few jobs require you to be publicly neutral but a Journalist or Editor falls under that.
There's a big reason that until recently you never saw the editors of major publications take public stances, it would permanently taint the publication. That's part of his job.
That's not how that works. People don't lose their personal, principled right to free speech by virtue of taking any job. This wasn't just a news story. This was an event that happened within the community, being commented on by a member of that community and in that capacity.
Why even try to erode free speech? How could this kind of petty bullshit possibly help anyone?
You are missing the point. Certain positions require public neutrality in order to stay employed. Editor is one of them.
This isn't about free speech, it is about professionalism. Editors can publicly say whatever they want however if what they publicly say threatens the publics belief in the neutrality of their employer that is a fireable offense.
Think of a Judge publicly saying on social media that he's going to be 'incredibly hard on thieves.' A defense attorney can use that as evidence that he's biased and have his judgements thrown out.
It just comes with the position.