Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 kronk wrote:
The man comes off as a condiscending a-hole with no respect...

Funny that ESPN didn't fire him for being that way though, huh?

From the article:

"ESPN is an inclusive company. Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated."

Yeah I am pretty sure he sealed it up as not being joke with his posts afterwards

NEXT PERSON THAT INSULTS ANOTHER PERSON IN THIS THREAD IS GETTING A LONG BREAK FROM THE OT FORUM.

 kronk wrote:
Curt shilling is a fething d-bag. I posit that I listen and watch more baseball than 90% of you. The man comes off as a condiscending a-hole with no respect for others.


Just my 2 cents

I would hypothesize that I watch/listen to maybe 10% less baseball than you


And yeah... I agree with you on the "persona" of Schilling. I even personally met him while I was in Iraq (he was on a USO tour). One of the lamest celebrity visits that I was ever a part of. Lance Armstrong, one of the douchiest athletes in the 20th century was a much better/cooler customer than Schilling was. (I could go on about how awesome Robin Williams and the WWE people who visited our bases were... but that's OT)


And I would posit that that is EXACTLY what ESPN is firing him for: I mean, you pretty much have to be a condescending a-hole to post such a picture in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

OOOOORRRR maybe it was big fat freaking JOKE. Some found funny and other's didn't. Poor taste, maybe. Firing offense? Not so much, no.

Considering that when Schilling was called out on it, he didn't say that it was a joke... He turned around and berated "liberals" and called THEM discriminatory and intolerant.

 LordofHats wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
This isn't Western Europe where you can be arrested,fined, and possibly imprisoned for expressing unpopular opinions that might offend some people.

And none of those things happened

O rly?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/world/europe/spain-europe-protest-free-speech.html?_r=0


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614834/Arrested-quoting-Winston-Churchill-European-election-candidate-accused-religious-racial-harassment-repeats-wartime-prime-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html

U.K. Communications Act of 2003, Section 127 has been abused by authorities. From Wikipedia:

Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network. The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor. The section has controversially been used to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.

On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humor, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.

Despite the revisions in 2012, this Section of the Act is still abused, and what constitutes speech that is "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" is still broad and nebulous.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/french-arrests-beg-free-speech-114420014.html?ref=gs

http://hypercrypton.livejournal.com/262201.html


Germany has long had laws relating to speech and Nazi symbolism and holocaust denial,Strafgesetzbuch section 86a


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a


Swedish Criminal Law or Brottsbalken has hate speech provisions known as "The Act on Agitation Against a National or Ethnic Group (Lagen om hets mot folkgrupp)". And they have been used to suppress free speech relating to opinions regarding homosexuality and Islam that doesn't toe the "accepted" line:

From Wikipedia:

Åke Green (Swedish: [ˈoːkɛ ɡreːn]), born 3 June 1941, is a Swedish Pentecostal Christian pastor who was prosecuted, but acquitted, under Sweden's law against hate speech because of critical opinions on homosexuality in his sermons. The district court found him guilty and sentenced him to one month in prison. The sentence was appealed to the court of appeals (hovrätt). On 11 February 2005 Göta hovrätt overturned the decision and acquitted Åke Green. On 9 March, the Prosecutor-General (Riksåklagaren) appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on 29 November also acquitted.

The Supreme Court stated that Åke Green had violated Swedish law as it currently stands regarding agitation against groups, and that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression as well as freedom of religion does not protect him. However, the Supreme Court also stated that the freedom of expression as well as freedom of religion provided by the European Convention on Human Rights, which is superior to Swedish law, gives him protection, since jurisprudence shows that a conviction would probably not be upheld by the European Court.

And what did he say during his sermon?

At his church in Borgholm, Green delivered a sermon in which he described "sexual perversions" (referencing homosexuality) as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He also said that a person cannot be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time.

Green had invited members of the media to attend the sermon, but none were present when he preached it in the presence of about fifty listeners. He wrote a summary of the sermon, including the above-mentioned quotes, which was printed in the local newspaper Ölandsbladet. A representative of nearby Kalmar's RFSL, an LGBT equal rights organization, reported the sermon to the police and the controversy began.

In 2002, Swedish neo-Nazi Fredrik Sandberg was tried in a district court on the island of Gotland for re-publishing and distributing a 1936 Nazi propaganda booklet titled "The Jewish Question". He got two years in prison and the Swedish neo-Nazi group responsible for distributing said material was told to cease and desist.

In 1997, Dan Rolf Mattias Berner, a Swedish neo-Nazi, was invited to give a lecture of his views on Islam and the holocaust at the Umeå University by his girlfriend Karolina Matti who was working on her doctorate in sociology. A journalist recorded the lecture, and both were tried and convicted (Matti got a suspended sentence). Berner got a two month sentence.

Bjorn Björkqvist, a member of the ultra-right wing Party of the Swedes, which has connections to the neo-Nazi NSF imprisoned on several occasions for violating Sweden's anti-hate speech laws.


While I despise neo-Nazis, it's troubling to me that Sweden, a pioneer in free speech rights, has went the other way when it comes to unpopular views. It's even worse now when it comes to Swedish media and government attitudes toward those critical of Sweden's immigration policies.

The German government has been putting pressure on Google, Facebook, and Twitter to "police" anti-immigrant rhetoric in the guise of fighting "hate speech" toward asylum seekers.

That's just a few examples. So, yeah, you contention that it's "never happened" doesn't hold water.

Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

And Voltaire dedicated years to trying to get Rousseau's works banned in France.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and doesn't diminish the truth of those words.

I've seen no one say he can't speak his mind. Just that care for his firing is limited, because freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Your rights to free speech are protected from infringement by the government, and the extension of such protections into the private sector is virtually nonexistent.

If you read my post above, I made the same statement concerning ESPN's rights as a private entity. So, there is no real disagreement there.

But I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.

He didn't say none of those things ever happened. He said none of those things have happened in this particular instance.....

I meant that Schilling isn't going to jail, being fined, or any of that stuff.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
*snip*

I think you misread that. He said that none of these things happened to Curt Schilling. The wonderful part of freedom of speech is the accompanying right of freedom of association. After hearing Schilling speak, ESPN decided that they didn't want to associate with him anymore. Funny how that works.

Dreadwinter wrote:He didn't say none of those things ever happened. He said none of those things have happened in this particular instance.....

LordofHats wrote:I meant that Schilling isn't going to jail, being fined, or any of that stuff.

Apologies for the misunderstanding then.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

But I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.

I agree with you on the government aspect... but social pressure is precisely how major laws are passed....

It was strong social movements and pressure that gave us the 18th Amendment (as well as the 21st).

There was a strong social movement, and associated pressure that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

It just so happens that LGBT issues are the 2015-2016 social movement. And clearly, some people are showing their true colors over it.

I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.

Free speech is does not entail that you can speak and never be replied to. That's the opposite of free speech. If you speak, you will get a response from those who disagree (unless no one disagrees but I find there's always someone no matter what). There's a whole society out there. No one is going to gag it to protect sports announcers or basketball team owners from getting called out on the stupid things they say and do. Given realities of economics, that means some CEO somewhere is going to ponder if the response is going to hurt business.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Apologies for the misunderstanding then.

I can see how you read it that way. Could have been clearer by stating Shilling specifically.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

But I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.

I agree with you on the government aspect... but social pressure is precisely how major laws are passed....

It was strong social movements and pressure that gave us the 18th Amendment (as well as the 21st).

There was a strong social movement, and associated pressure that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

It just so happens that LGBT issues are the 2015-2016 social movement. And clearly, some people are showing their true colors over it.

not to mention the 13th amendment

I don't know that I'd consider Civil War to be a social movement

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't know that I'd consider Civil War to be a social movement

Both rose out of abolitionism to be honest, without the abolitionists the civil war may not of happened.

I think that's over simplifying it, but that's a whole other thread XD

Perhaps I should lay out a bit of a personal anecdote...

Growing up in the household I did, when I joined the army, I was severely anti-gay. I was taught that it was an abomination, etc. etc. etc. Then, I met my wife's best friend. About as gay as gay can be, and cool as the other side of the pillow. Then, as my career in the army went on, I met more gay people in the towns and cities in the areas I lived. In probably the 20 or so acquaintances that I made, I only had issues with 1 person, everyone else were extremely nice, laid back people. They were a ton of fun to hang out with, even drink a bunch or whatever, the vast majority of them realized that I am straight and respected that.

Then I learned about transgenderism... Having had the experiences that I had with the Gay/Lesbian community that I had, I didn't negatively view this... but I thought it slightly odd. Then, I met some trans people (one I hung out with fairly regularly at my school), and guess what!? They are some genuinely cool people!


I lay out this story for one reason: The US is moving to include the LGBT community. You can either accept it, and move on, or you can remain bigoted and hateful towards something that in all actuality, you probably don't understand.

By Odin's beard, I don't fully understand some aspects of LGBT life, and the very real struggles of using restrooms in public, but feth... I'm gonna try, because at the end of the day... this is all there is.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

But I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.

I agree with you on the government aspect... but social pressure is precisely how major laws are passed....

It was strong social movements and pressure that gave us the 18th Amendment (as well as the 21st).

There was a strong social movement, and associated pressure that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

It just so happens that LGBT issues are the 2015-2016 social movement. And clearly, some people are showing their true colors over it.

I have no problem with pushing for change if it involves constructive actions, change by example, logical discourse, and education.The 18th Amendment and Civil Rights Act came about by those means, not suppression of thought and speech, like you see today. And all that does is breed resentment and reactionary backlash from those who might otherwise be sympathetic.


Unfortunately, people who attempt to do that in modern movements are drowned out by the riff-raff, in your face types, the self-centered, and those who just want to pat themselves on the back.

LordofHats wrote:

I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.

Free speech is does not entail that you can speak and never be replied to. That's the opposite of free speech. If you speak, you will get a response from those who disagree (unless no one disagrees but I find there's always someone no matter what). There's a whole society out there. No one is going to gag it to protect sports announcers or basketball team owners from getting called out on the stupid things they say and do. Given realities of economics, that means some CEO somewhere is going to ponder if the response is going to hurt business.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Apologies for the misunderstanding then.

I can see how you read it that way. Could have been clearer by stating Shilling specifically.

Free speech is indeed about it going both ways. That's why you have discussion. And I'm all for disagreement. It would be kinda boring if we all marched lock-step like robots.


As for the last, no big deal. My fingers needed the exercise.

Ustrello wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

But I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.

I agree with you on the government aspect... but social pressure is precisely how major laws are passed....

It was strong social movements and pressure that gave us the 18th Amendment (as well as the 21st).

There was a strong social movement, and associated pressure that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

It just so happens that LGBT issues are the 2015-2016 social movement. And clearly, some people are showing their true colors over it.

not to mention the 13th amendment

Are you sure you meant the 14th Amendment?

Exalted Ensis

I'm a weird mix of personally being a bigot when it comes to my personal views regarding myself and my religion, while also being very liberal and accepting when it comes to everybody else.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

I have no problem with pushing for change if it involves constructive actions, change by example, logical discourse, and education.The 18th Amendment and Civil Rights Act came about by those means, not suppression of thought and speech, like you see today. And all that does is breed resentment and reactionary backlash from those who might otherwise be sympathetic.


Unfortunately, people who attempt to do that in modern movements are drowned out by the riff-raff, in your face types, the self-centered, and those who just want to pat themselves on the back.

Wait... you think the 18th Amendment was passed through example, logical discourse and education????

In reality, the political climate that brought about the 18th Amendment was in many ways, even worse than what you ascribe to today's world.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a weird mix of personally being a bigot when it comes to my personal views regarding myself and my religion, while also being very liberal and accepting when it comes to everybody else.

Nothing wrong with that. Everybody has some form of prejudice. It's human nature to find fault with the guy on the other side of the hill.


But you do make an effort to rise above it, which is cool.


I'm weird myself. I consider myself to be a paleo-conservative of the Burke school, with a weird mix of libertarianism and Old Left.


I frustrate everybody on the modern political and religious spectrum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

I have no problem with pushing for change if it involves constructive actions, change by example, logical discourse, and education.The 18th Amendment and Civil Rights Act came about by those means, not suppression of thought and speech, like you see today. And all that does is breed resentment and reactionary backlash from those who might otherwise be sympathetic.


Unfortunately, people who attempt to do that in modern movements are drowned out by the riff-raff, in your face types, the self-centered, and those who just want to pat themselves on the back.

Wait... you think the 18th Amendment was passed through example, logical discourse and education????

In reality, the political climate that brought about the 18th Amendment was in many ways, even worse than what you ascribe to today's world.

The temperance movement had it waves going back to the 18th Century that laid the foundation of the 18th Amendment.

It had it's share of radicals (like Carrie Nation). But by the time the 18th Amendment rolled around, much of the push was done through legal and peaceful venues. It was also one of the few times that the Left and Right in America actually agreed with something, with everybody from the KKK to labor unions supporting it. It was considered a "progressive" amendment..

Unfortunately, it was also a demonstration of the old saying "The road to hell Is paved with good intentions".

There is a good argument to be made that we as a society are increasingly looking to shame and punish people for making the wrong kinds of comments. But trying to make Schilling a victim of that is way past the point of ridiculous.

The obvious first point of failure is that Schilling isn’t some random back office guy, he’s one of the public faces of a media company. Nor is it the first and only instance where he’s pushed the boundaries – the guy clearly wants to go on making lots of divisive statements. So it wouldn’t matter if those statements were about transgender people or about how unfairly the rich are treated by progressive tax… every company is going to act in favour of its own bottom line and cut the guy.

The second and probably bigger point is that there is a big difference between giving a political view and being an ass. If Schilling had simply said that he found self-identifying a problematic answer to public bathroom use, he wouldn’t be fired. But Schilling didn’t do that, instead he posted a meme from the ugliest part of the internet, that was intended to show transgender people in the worst possible light. If you can't make your point while showing respect, then you're being an ass and consequences should be expected.

There is a good case that the internet needs to back off from the ‘name and get fired’ campaigns. But Schilling is not the guy to build that case around, because while honest political thought should be protected and respected even if we don’t agree, there is simply no reason to pretend we need to stop companies from firing their public figures when they act like complete asses.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

This is a post about someone getting fired for expressing an unpopular view about a hot button topic.

No, it isn't.

It's about someone, who was a public face for a company, getting fired for expressing an offensive view about a hot button topic.

Companies generally prefer to avoid deliberately offending people, because that's bad for business. And when public figures who are associated with a given company do things that cause offense, that reflects on the company, even when it's done off the clock.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

But I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.

I agree with you on the government aspect... but social pressure is precisely how major laws are passed....

It was strong social movements and pressure that gave us the 18th Amendment (as well as the 21st).

There was a strong social movement, and associated pressure that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

It just so happens that LGBT issues are the 2015-2016 social movement. And clearly, some people are showing their true colors over it.

I have no problem with pushing for change if it involves constructive actions, change by example, logical discourse, and education.The 18th Amendment and Civil Rights Act came about by those means, not suppression of thought and speech, like you see today. And all that does is breed resentment and reactionary backlash from those who might otherwise be sympathetic.

I think we would all be alright with change being pushed by those things. But here is the deal, none of that applies to what Schilling did. He posted an intentionally inflammatory thing to the internet and people called him on it. It is like if one of my family members came to the family get together and started talking about how segregation was where it was at and how we need to go back to the way it used to be.

I am going to call him on it. That is what happened here. Curt Schilling came in saying terrible things and people called him out on it. Then ESPN said "Yup, we agree with them. Cya." Now he is gone. He has the free speech to continue saying whatever messed up thing he wants to say on the internet. In fact, he has even more freedom to do it now that he doesn't have to worry about losing his job.

Nobody is suppressing his thought and speech. If people were being suppressed, why do we have so many conflicts on issues?

 sebster wrote:


There is a good case that the internet needs to back off from the ‘name and get fired’ campaigns. But Schilling is not the guy to build that case around, because while honest political thought should be protected and respected even if we don’t agree, there is simply no reason to pretend we need to stop companies from firing their public figures when they act like complete asses.

That is an excellent summation of my thoughts as well...and I would add that if he wasn't such an ass about what he posted, it might make his case a bit more sympathetic to some.

I worry though that at some point even civil discussion will result in your termination.

And I think that, for me, that is what my original snippit from the article touches on...that companies will become and encourage more "thought policing" and nobody will be able to even "gently" express their political or religious thoughts/beliefs withought fear of retaliation from their employer.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I worry though that at some point even civil discussion will result in your termination.

And I think that, for me, that is what my original snippit from the article touches on...that companies will become and encourage more "thought policing" and nobody will be able to even "gently" express their political or religious thoughts/beliefs withought fear of retaliation from their employer.

I agree with you there, and I think there's an increasing awareness that this is a problem. But turning from growing awareness to something more substantial will take cases that are a lot more sympathetic than Schillings.

 sebster wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I worry though that at some point even civil discussion will result in your termination.

And I think that, for me, that is what my original snippit from the article touches on...that companies will become and encourage more "thought policing" and nobody will be able to even "gently" express their political or religious thoughts/beliefs withought fear of retaliation from their employer.

I agree with you there, and I think there's an increasing awareness that this is a problem. But turning from growing awareness to something more substantial will take cases that are a lot more sympathetic than Schillings.

I ain't sympathtic towards Schillings...

'Da Kronk was right... Schillings is a D-bag.

But, I can't help to think that this is reminiscent of Brendan Eich getting fired from Mozilla.

It's almost not worth to engage in the Thunderdome for fear of reprisal. And that's a shame...

Agreed, sebster. Schilling is certainly not a good poster boy...but...guess it gets the conversation started.

 whembly wrote:
But, I can't help to think that this is reminiscent of Brendan Eich getting fired from Mozilla.

I don't think it has anything to do with the Schilling case. Eich was much less of a public figure and the action that led to his firing was something he did quietly in private, years in the past. And there were never any accusations of inappropriate behavior at work. Schilling, on the other hand, did something incredibly offensive in a very public way, and it would have been very difficult to believe that his behavior wouldn't have any effect in a business context. It's the difference between firing someone because you dug into their private conversations and found them saying "customers suck" and firing someone because they just got into a screaming match with a customer about how much they suck.

Semi-relatedly, I think there's a legitimate argument that firing him was excessive, but I'm amused at how many of the critics of the decision to fire him seem to have the exact opposite opinion on "a corporation can have beliefs and act on them" when it comes to things like refusing service to gay customers.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Agreed, sebster. Schilling is certainly not a good poster boy...but...guess it gets the conversation started.

Ever heard of framing the question?