Another Liberal on Conservative Firing? Student Fired From Newspaper For using ‘illegal alien’

Is this another liberal on conservative firing? Or is Avin K a touchy journalist who was too sensitive to the changes editors had to make?

Aviv Khavich is an immigrant from Israel and a conservative pro Trump journalist. He feels he was fired as a political ploy for his disparaging remarks about HRC, BLM but mainly for the use of the words Illegal alien. The paper also won't allow undocumented to describe people who are here illegal, undocumented is a term that is now a no no as well. He also has criticized the Daily news story about sexual-assault reports at Rutgers.

Editor in Chief Corey said that Khavich’s “column was not discontinued because he is a conservative,” saying the Daily already hired another conservative to write the column and “we have other conservative columnists” as well.

Does he have a leg to stand on? He was told not to use the "decisive terms" but the editor said he was fired for repeatedly fighting over “stylistic” editing changes to his columns.

But the trigger for the firing may have been Khavich’s demand that his column include the phrase “illegal aliens” to describe those in the country illegally.

It was the final straw for the Daily’s editor, who said Khavich repeatedly fought over “stylistic” editing changes to his columns over the past several months. His last 3 stories were about immigration and he used the term illegal to describe people who were here illegally. He argued that offensive speech needs to be protected, but was fired.


Khavich has written six pieces for the Daily, four since joining as a columnist. His first defended Yiannopoulos’s speech as protected by the First Amendment, saying that “offensive speech … needs the most protection.”

Later columns disparaged socialism, questioned the Black Lives Matter movement and praised Donald Trump as the presidential candidate of “peace” and called Hillary Clinton a “warmonger.”

But two of his last three were about immigration. Khavich opposes accepting Syrian refugees into America as a security threat, and his final column Sunday said flatly: “Justice is mass deportation. Justice is respecting my [legal immigrant] family and millions of others like us.”

Khavich’s firing not only stemmed from his published conservative views, according to Khavich, but also an earlier incident in which he criticized a Daily news story about sexual-assault reports at Rutgers.

Editor in Chief Corey told The Fix in an email that Khavich’s “column was not discontinued because he is a conservative,” saying the Daily already hired another conservative to write the column and “we have other conservative columnists” as well.

www.thecollegefix.com...

a reply to: seasonal


It's liberal nonsense like this that created an environment for Trump to be as close to winning as he is.

I think that the "Hands up-Don't shoot" lie was the straw that broke the camel's back.

a reply to: seasonal

Gary Johnson Completely Flips Out Over Term 'Illegal Immigrant'

a reply to: Picklesneeze

I think that the "Hands up-Don't shoot" lie was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Using this thread as the example, does this mean the conservative "puts his hands up" for using blacklisted words and says "don't shoot" meaning I will comply?

a reply to: seasonal

Looks like he was fired for being an asshole towards editors about them editing his words as well as disrespecting senior staff. In other words, he couldn't play well with others. But hey in this day and age, not playing well with others is just a quick email to an online news blog away from being a anti-SJW whine fest.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Looks like he was fired for being an asshole towards editors about them editing his words as well as disrespecting senior staff.

You could be right, although journalist are notoriously touchy about their writing. Maybe he pushed too hard.

But the line of non-blacklisted words is moving. Now undocumented is on the blacklist, maybe he has a right to be upset that words are off limits. Because those very same words are used by everyday readers.

a reply to: seasonal

Well that's the price you pay for writing for a company instead of doing your own blogging or news reporting. When you work for a private company, you have to adhere to their standards. If the company says these are the words that must be used then so be it. You either use them or you find yourself without a job.

In fact it seems like the editing department didn't even have much of a problem with his words. They'd just change the unacceptable ones to the acceptable ones and move on with their day. Then it seems he would push back way too much over it every time it happened. If I was the editing department, I'd get fed up with that nonsense too. Clearly he wasn't a fit for that newspaper company if he can't adhere to their writing standards.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We give up rights for the "safety" of working for a company.

I imagine there are 3 stories about what happened, Avin's story, the papers story, and the truth.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We give up rights for the "safety" of working for a company.

The Constitution only protects you from government infringement of rights. That is civics 101 right there. If you don't understand that then you have no business discussing people's rights being infringed.

I imagine there are 3 stories about what happened, Avin's story, the papers story, and the truth.

Duh. That's always the case. Though I'd be more willing to side with the newspaper's side than this cry baby's side. I'm used to seeing conservatives feign outrage over misunderstanding when their rights are being violated so I can easily see this as more of the same.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Go to a bakery and order a wedding cake for Jim and John. If the bakery refuses, guess what, they just violated your civil rights.

The Constitution only protects you from government infringement of rights. That is civics 101 right there. If you don't understand that then you have no business discussing people's rights being infringed.

Gays and Lesbians Unlike race, gender, age, ethnicity or religion, sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic under current federal civil rights law. But following the 1969 Stonewall riots of gays in Greenwich Village, a key goal of the gay and lesbian political movement has been to win civil rights protection against discrimination in employment, housing, and elsewhere. Too often, gay men and lesbians face hostility, discrimination -- and sometimes deadly violence -- solely because of their sexual orientation

a reply to: seasonal

Fine. That still doesn't mean the Constitution protects your rights when you get fired for saying something the company disapproves of.

So did you just post that so you could say "See! Here's an exception to what you just said."? Because it literally has ZERO baring on this issue in the op and proving your point. It certainly doesn't suddenly mean that this guy's rights were violated when he was fired.

We may have legislated exceptions to what I said, but I stand by my point for the 1st amendment and it can only be violated by the government.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Constitution only protects you from government infringement of rights. That is civics 101 right there. If you don't understand that then you have no business discussing people's rights being infringed. .

Does that apply to you? Or just anyone who is right but disagrees with you?


At some point, freedom of speech will be tested in court. Even if you work for someone. He is a paid journalist, and if he is in fact being treated differently than his peers (I never said he was), then the company could be liable.

You brought up civil rights, and you were mistaken.

a reply to: seasonal

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Hard to argue with that, but you guys keep trying to...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hard to argue with that, but you guys keep trying to...

I fail to see your point.

a reply to: seasonal

I even bolded the part that is pertinent to our discussion... I guess I'll have to spell it out for you. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not understand?

You know. I wonder how you feel about the Second Amendment. Most notably the phrase: "...shall not be infringed." It's a wonder that people get so up in arms about that phrase not being violated but will pretend like "congress shall make no law..." doesn't exist or doesn't mean what it says.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

OK take a breath,

We are not discussing the govt. I just wonder why you keep bringing it up.

I am supporter of the right to bear arms, as well as freedom of speech.

The Constitution only protects you from government infringement of rights. That is civics 101 right there. If you don't understand that then you have no business discussing people's rights being infringed. .

a reply to: seasonal

You never did answer my question, according to you, you have no business discussing the infringement of rights.
Does that apply to you? Or just anyone who is right but disagrees with you?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Krazysh0t

OK take a breath,

We are not discussing the govt. I just wonder why you keep bringing it up.

I am supporter of the right to bear arms, as well as freedom of speech.

I bring it up because you are insinuating with your thread that Khavich's rights were violated when he was fired.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well if he was fired for not following the rules, then no.

If he was fired for his beliefs while his peers are allowed to express theirs, then his rights may have been violated.

I bring it up because you are insinuating with your thread that Khavich's rights were violated when he was fired.

Please paste the sentence/s where I insuinuate he had his rights violated. That wasn't my intent.

Stars for you, good back and forth.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well if he was fired for not following the rules, then no.

If he was fired for his beliefs while his peers are allowed to express theirs, then his rights may have been violated.

I bring it up because you are insinuating with your thread that Khavich's rights were violated when he was fired.

Please paste the sentence/s where I insuinuate he had his rights violated. That wasn't my intent.

Stars for you, good back and forth.

If he was fired for his beliefs then he has a wrongful termination suit on his hands. His rights still wouldn't have been violated since that would be a civil case, but he could get monetary compensation for it.

However, like I said originally I'm more apt to side with the newspaper in this regard because I see people do these all the time. They have controversial beliefs but are in your face about it or just plain assholes and get fired for being an asshole. Then they immediately contact a newspaper and say the firing was because of their beliefs. Then a bunch of conservatives get all outraged and complain about Social Justice running rampant.

This whole situation is textbook to me. That's why I don't believe Khavich for a second. Especially since the newspaper has said that it has other conservative reports employed there.