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:
I guess everyone is okay with having someone being fired for their political views and expressing them openly, huh?

Normally, no. However, a public figure like Schilling likely had a morals clause in his contact with ESPN that enables them to do this very thing.

http://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/tips-for-protecting-your-company-before-a-scandal-strikes/

A company also can promote good behavior by adding a “morals clause” to the executive’s employment agreement. A traditional “morals clause” is a contractual provision that gives an employer the unilateral right to terminate the employment agreement or take punitive action against the employee in the event that the employee engages in reprehensible behavior or conduct that may negatively impact the company. These clauses are often a part of the “termination for cause” provisions in the executive’s employment contract.

I put in bold the part that is relevant in this hypothetical.

Schilling spouting his (unpopular) opinions puts ESPN at risk of losing revenue. Simple as that.

Schilling has also pulled stunts like this before, and fairly recently, so it is difficult for me to feel sympathetic toward him when he likely knew that his past actions put him on thin ice with his employer and he chose to voice his opinions anyway.

 Ustrello wrote:


Ignorance is no excuse

Ignorance of what?? I have no idea what you're even talking about.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Those aren't political views those are bigoted views. You see there is a difference between believing in a hands on or hands off economy (political views) and disparaging against transgender people

They become political when the government passes laws/etc and people then "take sides".

Laws can be passed for bigoted reasons Ie) jim crow, the current rash of "protectin muh religion" laws etc.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

http://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/tips-for-protecting-your-company-before-a-scandal-strikes/

I'm 100% certain there is a similar clause that we all sign when agreeing to work for anyone.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


Ignorance is no excuse

Ignorance of what?? I have no idea what you're even talking about.

Being ignorant about the actual transgender population and their problems with almost every post that you've made

 Ustrello wrote:


Being ignorant about the actual transgender population and their problems with almost every post that you've made

Honestly dude, this isn't a thread about Transgender rights, so please give it up. You're trying to hijack the thread with your views on that topic and insulting me at the same time.

This is a post about someone getting fired for expressing an unpopular view about a hot button topic. If you;re okay with that, watch out for that slippery slope. Eventually one day your view will be unpopular. Then what?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

http://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/tips-for-protecting-your-company-before-a-scandal-strikes/

I'm 100% certain there is a similar clause that we all sign when agreeing to work for anyone.

Probably, I don't recall the fine print of the employment agreements I've signed, but thankfully I am not on social media with thousands of followers either, so my salty opinions go unnoticed.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

http://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/tips-for-protecting-your-company-before-a-scandal-strikes/

I'm 100% certain there is a similar clause that we all sign when agreeing to work for anyone.

Probably, I don't recall the fine print of the employment agreements I've signed, but thankfully I am not on social media with thousands of followers either, so my salty opinions go unnoticed.

Eventually, one day, that might not be true. It will be a sad day.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 feeder wrote:

But yes, if you want to have a discussion, you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you are just ranting into the void.

Kinda feel like I'm ranting to the void one way or another anyway so why not have a little fun?

Well fair enough. It can be difficult to voice an unpopular opinion, and then get dog-piled for it.

I do recall Don Imus getting fired for calling some basketball players "nappy-headed hoes". It's not like this is new.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


Being ignorant about the actual transgender population and their problems with almost every post that you've made

Honestly dude, this isn't a thread about Transgender rights, so please give it up. You're trying to hijack the thread with your views on that topic and insulting me at the same time.

This is a post about someone getting fired for expressing an unpopular view about a hot button topic. If you;re okay with that, watch out for that slippery slope. Eventually one day your view will be unpopular. Then what?

Defending a bigot who posts a meme about transgenders and laws (which effects their rights) and then claims it isn't about rights. Yeah okay

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


Being ignorant about the actual transgender population and their problems with almost every post that you've made

Honestly dude, this isn't a thread about Transgender rights, so please give it up. You're trying to hijack the thread with your views on that topic and insulting me at the same time.

This is a post about someone getting fired for expressing an unpopular view about a hot button topic. If you;re okay with that, watch out for that slippery slope. Eventually one day your view will be unpopular. Then what?

This. Thank you.

"I am not a role model" -- Charles Barkley

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

http://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/tips-for-protecting-your-company-before-a-scandal-strikes/

I'm 100% certain there is a similar clause that we all sign when agreeing to work for anyone.

Probably, I don't recall the fine print of the employment agreements I've signed, but thankfully I am not on social media with thousands of followers either, so my salty opinions go unnoticed.

Eventually, one day, that might not be true. It will be a sad day.

I dunno.

I am very, very concerned about the policing of language that is occurring in our culture but I don't think this incident is part of that problem.

Anyone who acts as a representative of a large, multi-national corporation needs to reign in their speech because if they alienate anyone they are costing their company money. In my opinion that isn't political correctness gone awry, it is just business.

And the whole "We want diversity, but not YOU because YOU don'think like US".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Funny thing is...they pay him for his opinion (and commentary).

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

http://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/tips-for-protecting-your-company-before-a-scandal-strikes/

I'm 100% certain there is a similar clause that we all sign when agreeing to work for anyone.

Probably, I don't recall the fine print of the employment agreements I've signed, but thankfully I am not on social media with thousands of followers either, so my salty opinions go unnoticed.

Eventually, one day, that might not be true. It will be a sad day.

I dunno.

I am very, very concerned about the policing of language that is occurring in our culture but I don't think this incident is part of that problem.

Anyone who acts as a representative of a large, multi-national corporation needs to reign in their speech because if they alienate anyone they are costing their company money. In my opinion that isn't political correctness gone awry, it is just business.

This is true.

Also, inspiration to be excellent in your chosen field. Don Cherry says stupid gak like this every day but gets away with it because he's a Canadian legend. Micheal Vick ran a fething dog fighting ring but got back to football because he's so good at it. If Curt was really good at his job, then he would still have it.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

Funny thing is...they pay him for his opinion (and commentary).

On baseball.... The moment ESPN airs a show regarding actual politics, THEN there may be a different discussion going on.

As it is, ESPN is strictly about sports. They paid Schilling to talk about one thing, and one thing only. He could've discussed his politics on a private, personal page, but instead chose to do so under a "public figure" account. As I said, ESPN is about sports, not politics. And where those sports venture into the political realm, they only discuss insofar as they take place within a sporting sphere (ie, the Northwestern University football team unionizing/striking, just about anything to do with Title IX. That sort of thing)

Mdlbuildr wrote:
I guess everyone is okay with having someone being fired for their political views and expressing them openly, huh?

I think it is more that we are okay with a person being fired for posting a grossly exaggerated meme of something that isn't even what it says.

You do realize that is Danny Devito in the meme, right?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

You do realize that is Danny Devito in the meme, right?

Holy gak... I did not realize that... I hope that was a halloween costume or something he did?? Or maybe he lost a bet?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

You do realize that is Danny Devito in the meme, right?

Holy gak... I did not realize that... I hope that was a halloween costume or something he did?? Or maybe he lost a bet?

TV show. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

As it is, ESPN is strictly about sports. They paid Schilling to talk about one thing, and one thing only. He could've discussed his politics on a private, personal page, but instead chose to do so under a "public figure" account. As I said, ESPN is about sports, not politics. And where those sports venture into the political realm, they only discuss insofar as they take place within a sporting sphere (ie, the Northwestern University football team unionizing/striking, just about anything to do with Title IX. That sort of thing)

Let us also bear in mind that ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh over his statement regarding McNabb, so there is precedent.

 dogma wrote:

Let us also bear in mind that ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh over his statement regarding McNabb, so there is precedent.

I had honestly forgotten that that pile of human excrement worked for ESPN at one point....

I'm sure ESPN hoped you would

As the article pointed out....

One of their other commentators recently wore a "Cleveland Caucasians" jersey making an obvious and none-to-subtle statement on racism regarding the "Cleveland Indians" name.

Nothing happened to him.

So its ok for one person but not ok for another.

If you actually think what schilling said and what that guy wore are comparable you are grasping at the tiniest of straws

I take the same position as the writer of the article. I don't agree with Schilling's opinion on the issue. But in this country, he has the right to express views that some might find distasteful without retaliation. This isn't Western Europe where you can be arrested,fined, and possibly imprisoned for expressing unpopular opinions that might offend some people.


Schilling posted that on his own Facebook page on his own time. He did not (as far as I can tell) use company resources while expressing said views.


One of my favorite quotes is one often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." In the drive to "tolerance", it's champions have become "intolerant". That makes many on the hard left, not just post-modernist, regressive leftists, just as bad as the worst "Bible thumper" who won't tolerate any views other than his/her own, and thinks they have to crusade to stamp out other views for the greater good, either through the barrel of a gun (government legislation) or through social pressure/shaming (a popular strategy by so-called "social justice warriors" on the internet).

I didn't put on a uniform in service to my country to support that kind of censorship and suppression.


On the other hand, I cannot fault ESPN. I'm a firm believer in private companies being able to conduct their business as they see fit, within the legal framework of society, and unhampered by toadyism, political pressure/influence, and the corruption that tends to come with unions. As a media company, they have to toe a fine line if they don't want to lose advertiser's dollars. In such a climate, even somebody who expresses unpopular views that offend a certain segment of society on their own time, is a poison pill and bad for business. It make be a dick move on their part, but I understand why they cut him loose, and their right as a privately owned entity to do so.


Peace, out.

 Ustrello wrote:
If you actually think what schilling said and what that guy wore are comparable you are grasping at the tiniest of straws

They are both a statement on a hot button issue.

One was a bit crude, certainly.

If Mr. Schilling thought that a man of his position could get away with making those statements in the current political climate on a very public venue then he is either brave or fool. Or a brave fool. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. After all, a private company has every right to fire him if his statements were ones either vehemently disagree with or felt would hurt their brand.

Do I disagree with being fired over personal opinions? No. Do I agree with people getting fired over broadcasting personal opinions particularly if the individual is known to be affiliated with that company? Yes. In general, social media is not the best place to voice political opinion particularly if they are considered socially unacceptable. It's no different than shouting these opinions at people on the street.

 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.

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.

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.

I find it hypocritical that the company allows certain speech from some of their commentators, but exact consequences on others.

TheMeanDM wrote:I find it hypocritical that the company allows certain speech from some of their commentators, but exact consequences on others.

In case you missed it the first time:

Ustrello wrote:If you actually think what schilling said and what that guy wore are comparable you are grasping at the tiniest of straws

Also, it's important to remember that ESPN, like any company, can decided what they deem as acceptable conduct from their employees and there is nothing saying it's an 'all or nothing' proposition. So you can either accept and understand that or continue to cry into your beer about how the mean company fired the unapologetic bigot for his inflammatory bs.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I find it hypocritical that the company allows certain speech from some of their commentators, but exact consequences on others.

It's not hypocrisy. Context and content matter. That's like saying I'm a hypocrite for thinking that the US should be able to bomb ISIL but not orphanages.