Playgirl editor fired after admitting being Republican
 

Now, don't get me wrong. A private business should be able to fire anyone at anytime (so long as they abide by the Title VII rules). However, the left who claims to hold the monopoly on tolerance, seems to have a hard time practicing what they preach. This episode is just one more example.

Thoughts? Should politcal affiliation be enough reason to fire someone?

I assume it's Drudge, but do you have a link?

That's idiotic. If for some reason her politics were getting in the way of her performing her job effectively, that'd be one thing, but just firing her because people don't want to work with a Republican is disgusting and childish. Sour grapes. It's not that liberals resent a woman with power possessing Republican views, it's the deep bitterness they (we) have at losing the last election. Quitcher bitching and figure out how to parlay your views into a viable vision.

I f this is true it is a sad day for freedom of speech, no matter what political view you have

This is almost as disconcerting as the woman who was fired from her bank job because she spoke up at a school meeting.

But not quite.

If I were management at Playgirl I might have fired this person solely based on the fact that she actively supports politicians who want to shutdown my magazine.

But if it is true that management fired her because her staff objected to her political views, that just pisses me off.

Hmmmmm....

Let's see, Playgirl last time I checked was considered porn (maybe wrong don't read it, but from what I have heard).

Now the GOP wants to crack down hard on porn.

So would it make sense for a business to keep and to promote someone as a leader of that company, that publicly admits to voting for people that would censor and fine your company?

That would be like Smith and Wesson having a VP admit and talk openly about how he votes for Democrats.

Well, the public perception rightly or wrongly is that Dems. favor gun control.

That shows a conflict of interest, and could very well harm Smith and Wesson's business.

So while she had the right to vote for anyone she chose to, publicly stating she voted for the party that would harm you, would be grounds, in my mind for dismissal.

Exactly the same way that in my example the VP for S&W should lose his job.

The email she sent to Drudge sounds more like a disenfranchised former employee that has an ax to grind. Not to mention, Drudge is sooooo very non partisan that he wouldn't try to take swipes and post letters that only slam one party while trying to make the author look totally innocent.

It would be like my example S&W guy going on talk shows and talking about why he was fired.

I'm sorry but companies have the right to protect themselves, and dismiss anoyone that publicly shows a conflict of interest and this is an example... nothing more nothing less.

pan6467

There are many Republicans who do not want to ban pornography and many Democrats who are against additional gun control. Heck they even close some plants so that the union men can go deer hunting when the season begins.

Sure, they have every right to fire her, but it does seem silly to pigeon hole people that way.

I'd like to hear some direct comments from Playgirl before making my decision on this case. I don't really trust Drudge as a primary source, and I suspect that Michele Zipp's comments aren't free of bias.

i agree with the folks above who have raised questions about this story.

how can anyone assume that the linked report is self-contained, self-explanatory...

what basis is there, apart from how the former editor framed her own predicament, for making ANY evaluations about what went on at playgirl?

all that i see is an example of the right's persecution trope.
what i also see is a potential sollicitation for free legal representation from a conservative group, on the order of the rutherford foundation.

what i do not see is a story that enables anyone to make any comments about what is going on in this case.

Roach, sometimes it just ain't a vast right wing conspiracy. The woman knew she worked with a bunch of lib and thus knew what their tolerance level would be at. I would have fired her for stupidity alone.

nothing in what i wrote should have implied any conspiracy, ncb. i dont knwo where you got the idea....what i said was that you presented no information--or not enough information--for any coherent response to be generated. for you it seems not to be a problem because the factoids fit with assumptions about the treatment afforded conservatives by those who oppose them--if you did not hold these assumptions, you would not have treated this email posted to drudge as if it constituted a complete or even a partial account of what actually happened.

that is the problem.

that you seem unconcerned about waiting for factual material before jumping to the conclusion that this is obviously a case of sanction of political beliefs says more about the problematic ways in which you form judgements than it does anything else.

She got fired for that?

Fucking assholes.

I referred to ^^this^^ comment. Since you see that I may have jumped to conclusions, you do the same, by claiming there may be some secret motives behind her letter.

BTW, how would you feel if her story does indeed turn out to be accurate, since that's more what we're looking for here

I must disagree with this.

Why does republican have to = asexual? Bullshit.

Whatta ya' know, you right wing kook :p


mods, we know each other, no flaming here

:hmm:


;)

Well then that woman who was fired from the bank should have been fired because she would have known that many of the people that have money in the bank were conservative.

I dont see a difference between the two. It threatened business, this one under conflict of interests in a very broad brush. If she worked at the Playboy magasine of course she wouldnt be supporting the very right who want to cut off her job. It's a broad brush but I can see the reasoning.

But the public perception of the GOP is that they want to ban porn, and it is very much an issue with Bush. Not all GOP want to ban porn but that IS the perception.

It's public perception.... there doesn't have to be fact behind it.

Again, if she had chosen to keep quiet about who she voted for she would have been ok....

Just as in my example the Dems. have been painted to be percieved to want gun control. Not all Dems. are anti-gun but again that IS the perception.

Public perception. Both the lady and the hypothetical man, by making their voting public can adversely affect business. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

You have a point. Whoopi Goldberg opened her big, fat piehole and slammed Bush, and Slimfast canned her. :lol:

yep.... and the GOP laughed.... they didn't cry foul as they do now. Showing yet again how hypocritical they truly are.

I felt at the time Whoopie had the right to say what she wanted, SlimFast had the right to can her.... But that Slimfast knew her politics and by doing what they did allowed great publicity for them.

Slimfast didn't even claim to be a GOP company they just said that they didn't want politics to be a part of their advertising..... If I were a conspiracist, I'd say Slimfast had had it planned.

As I'm sure the same people who cried foul at the bank-woman's case and the Slimfast case cried foul are smiling now. Hypocracy arent relegated to those who hold political view opposed to you.

I didn't cry foul. The Slimfast case I thought was nothing more than a PR "get your name out" issue. As for the bank lady..... I honestly haven't heard anything about it.

And no it's not all GOP ..... but my feeling is that the same ones (Limbaugh, Drudge, Fox News etc) that laughed over Whoopie are crying foul now. And because they have such loud voices this will become far more an issue than Whoopie or whatever this bank lady's case is.

Hypocracy isn't a 1 way street.... just some scream it louder than others (Limbaugh, Drudge, O'Reilly.... etc) and will make it a federal case, because in their eyes this is just evil...... yet they do the same thing.

The hatred for each other and intolerance in this country is far out of hand. It's going to destroy this country.

I agree with Manx and Pan's original comments. Being Republican, or at least supporting those views is pretty hypocritical if you work for a pornography magazine. I feel like it is less a matter of liberal intolerance than simply removing the fox from the henhouse. I wish it weren't this way, I wish the republicans could get off their moral high horse and admit that they look at pron and screw around on their wives etc, but in this polarized political climate, you have to assume anyone who willingly paints themselves as a Republican does not have the interests of a porn magazine at heart.

I'm a conservative and I love watching porn. Painting a broad brush there buddy, there's an infinate amount of people within those bounds. That would be like me accusing you of being a communist who loves to kill babies just because you dont support Bush.

I see nothing to be gained by painting all Republicans as ascribing to the policies of the far right portion of their party or all Democrats as ascribing to the policies of the far left portion of their party. The truth is that the majority of people are somewhere between the extremes.

Some of my aquaintances are pro-business like Republicans supposedly are and pro-personal freedom (civil rights) like Democrats supposedly are. Whether they can be considered Democrat or Republican depends on who they voted for in the last election cycle.

For which office? I vote for the best candidate, regardless of party. My votes are all over the place, office by office. I find both parties repulsive at the moment.

These days, it is unusual for an employer to make any comment or criticism of a dismised employee. We'll never know the full story here. She could have been fired for snorting coke off her desk for all we know.

I just did a Google News Search: playgirl zipp to see if there were any updates, and so far this story is only on Blogcritics and the editoral page of the National Ledger. According to Blogcritics, this was released
...although I can't find a cross-confirmation of that posting anywhere. in fact, the story has fallen off of Drudge's front page as well.

I appologize for coming off that way Seaver. There are undoubtedly millions of Republicans who love watching porn, that's basically what I was saying, unfortunately, the fact that the Republicans (as a party) claim a moral mandate means specificly and by definition that they are against porn. I was just saying that you can't have it both ways. IMO, you cannot simultaniously legislate morality and support pornography.

Limbaugh brought it up today and kept calling her a babe, guess he supposedly saw her on Fox News.

He of course did the blah blah blah sue... shows how desperate Dems are.... blah blah blah..... She's going places she doesn't have to worry about a new job..... blah blah blah

I seem to recall when Whoopie got fired he said it proved the GOP was more prevelent and that a great justice was done..... hmmmmmmmm.... which is it? Firing for politics is right or wrong and desperate????????

Also shows me that she knew full well what she was doing. Perhaps she was on thin ice anyway and this was a way to save face and get on the GOP/Fox and such and become a new Ann Coulter.

If you can go three days without saying 'vast right wing conspiracy', I'll give you $5. This story is far from vast, far from a cospiracy. News media bias is not usually a part of a conspiracy. Sometimes, it's just a writer who wants very much to get you on their side. And you know what? Sometimes people are wrong. This, on the surface, seems a bit like some woman who lost her job and is trying to both strike back at the company, and get herself on some newspaper covers. It'd be funny if her fame lead her to pose for playboy.

You do realize how narrow-minded and stereotypical that sounds, don't you? Are you really that unaware of the diversity of the GOP?

Apparently.

Do you even know what a fiscal conservative is? Are you aware that a lot of Libertarians vote Republican?

I suppose, if I continue your line of thinking, I can say that all Democrats are immoral heathens, despite the fact that I know damn well there are countless (religious and nonreligious) very conservative Democrats.

I think there is a difference in GOP as there is in Dems.

This lady made it very clear she supported Bush in every way not just some GOP issues.

This is an administration that is wreaking havoc on the porn industry and if you do not think so ask our founder and leader of TFP land HALX.

There is a huge difference in saying I support fiscal responsibility (which Bush shows he has no idea how to be) and I like the GOP platform. And saying, I support the Neo-Cons and the right and the Dems are evil controlling and blah blah blah.

Obviously, she praised Bush and Neo-cons and bashed Dems because that is the ONLY way Limbaugh and Drudge would have ever mentioned her to begin all this.

And when she did so, she no longer showed support for the company she worked for. Plain and simple. To have her go on Fox and e-mail drudge and try to make this a huge issue shows that she knew full well what she was doing.

To me, this lady probably would say she fucked Hugh himself to get her job, if she thought it would further her career. And that's all this is.... as Limbaugh said today "she doesn't have to worry about getting a new job."

Politics aside, she is a hottie.

She also said she isn't filing suit, so I am not really worried about this.

I am aware of the diversity in the GOP. Politically there is very little. Check the voting records on social issues to confirm. This is a social issue, not a fiscal one, don't try to bring fiscal concerns into the argument to muddy the water, and yes I know what fiscal conservativism is (it's balanced budgets, you know like we had five years ago.) The Republicans declared THEMSELVES that they were elected on the basis of their superior moral standards. You simply cannot have it both ways, you can't simultaneusly attempt to legislate morals including pornography and free speech, and then support the pornographic industry also. You have to take the good with the bad, so if you truely support the current republican regime, that means no more girly mags or internet pron, or backdoor penetration.

Ah, no it isn't.

Having a balanced budget is nice, but that is not what "fiscal conservatism" is about.

my mistake, i didn't hit the sarcasm button.

Do you have any idea how condescending that is?

Do I put you in the same house I put PETA in or the terrorist actions of many in Green Peace (look it up)? No, I give you the respect of basing off your beliefs and what you say. Dont put me in the same house of Ann Coulter or many other radicals just because it is convenient for you.

It seem that it is easier for you to think that i am being condecending than for you to examine the hypocracy in the Republican party. Perhaps it would be more clear to you if I said "I am aware of the diversity of the people who consider themselves Republican, however the Republican politicians who do not appear to be as significantly diverse." You could easily argue that the Democratic politicians do the same things as their Republican counterparts (look at porn, have out of wedlock children and affairs, swear, whatever) but the difference is they have not run campaigns on morality and declared themselves winners of a mandate because of their higher moral ground. The fact remains that a fairly significant part of the general agenda of the elected republicans is creating legislation around what they believe is moral. if you vote Republican, as you have every right to do, just know that you are shooting yourself in the foot if you also support free speech, privacy, pornography etcetera.
As far as the latter part of your statment, it is a spurrius, silly comparison because greenpeace and PETA are not elected officials and a fringe element at that. They do not impact my life through legislation (sure they may annoy me with their late night ads) they will not impact my rights as an american citizen.

If you worked for Coke and publicly announced you drink Pepsi, you would almost definitely be fired. This is no different.

And "liberals proclaming tolerance" means less than shit then it's ONE company out of how many? One voice of liveralism out of how many? One does not represent the many.