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.
Confirming what you wrote? I gave you some rough statistics it took me 5 seconds to steal off the internet. I also confirmed your son (if you have one) is still a good percentage likely to be assaulted as your daughters. 25% is not insignificant.
Also, I find it funny you've not addressed people being sexually assaulted by their own gender. What if a trans man now has to use the Men's restroom and assaults a boy in there?
Errrr last I checked 75% is a majority, which is what I wrote. A MAJORITY of sexual predators are male. You have confirmed this.
Okay, what percentage of those target girls versus boys? What percentage target girls under/over 16? My point is sure, there are statistics, but your fear mongering fails under closer scrutiny. The amount of people who would abuse this ruling versus people who would use it for its intent is a MINORITY.
What you two are arguing is that once you're employed you're essentially "on company time" 100% of the time on social media..
When you're a public figure, yes, that's pretty much how it works.
It's a matter of association. If I start making offensive comments on twitter, my employer isn't going to care... because nobody outside my circle of friends and family is going to ever actually bother to read it.
If, however, I was employed as, say, a media spokesman for the company and was constantly in the public view making statements for the company, then anything I say on my own time in a public venue is also going to be associated with the company. Because my face is associated with the company.
Again, this isn't a privacy issue. The post that started this mess would have been a non-event if it had been posted by Curt from Accounts Payable. But he's a public figure, and so his public posts on social media reach a much wider audience and because of his position reflect on the company.
That's just how it works when you're in that sort of position.
Curt Schilling wasn't a media spokesperson for ESPN. He was a baseball analyst. He appears on baseball shows and discussed baseball. Sometimes he'd be on SportsCenter and talk about baseball. He was never employed by ESPN to do anything other than talk about baseball. His ability to talk about baseball in an informative and/or entertaining manner has nothing to do with his personal opinions regarding Muslim fundamentalism and transgender bathroom selection/usage posted on his personal social media platforms on his own time. Schilling didn't say these things on air on ESPN, he didn't post them on ESPN's website, he didn't post on ESPN's social media platforms.
You're using the term "public figure" in a rather nebulous way. Curt Schilling may be considered a public figure in regards to libel, slander or defamation but neither he nor ESPN are contesting that either party defamed the other. There is no magic number of twitter followers that lets your employer fire you if you send out a personal tweet they don't approve of.
Why should an employer be responsible for every personal opinion held by their employees? That doesn't make any sense. Personal opinions are personal they are assigned to the individual who holds those beliefs. Just because you're popular or famous doesn't mean that your employer has to approve of every personal opinion you express on social media.
If I tweet out a link to a Donald Trump campaign speech on immigration, praising it and including a #BuildThatWall hashtag should that be a fireable offense because some people find Trump's immigration stance to be offensive and controversial? Where is the line drawn between people who can express a controversial opinion on their own time on their own social media platform without fear of losing their job and the people who can't? If you're on one end of the spectrum and Schilling is on the other where's the middle? When is it ok for a company to fire somebody over a facebook post or a tweet? Seems like there's a really subjective and vague distinction for something as important as a person's livelihood.
Jon, because like it or not you represent your employer in some fashion.
While you have the right to express yourself and associate to what/whomever you'd like, your EMPLOYER also has that right. (see? Corporations are people too! )
So, outside of any laws or contractual obligations that manages your employment status, your employer doesn't have to keep you.
Prestor Jon wrote: Curt Schilling wasn't a media spokesperson for ESPN. He was a baseball analyst. He appears on baseball shows and discussed baseball. Sometimes he'd be on SportsCenter and talk about baseball. He was never employed by ESPN to do anything other than talk about baseball. His ability to talk about baseball in an informative and/or entertaining manner has nothing to do with his personal opinions regarding Muslim fundamentalism and transgender bathroom selection/usage posted on his personal social media platforms on his own time. Schilling didn't say these things on air on ESPN, he didn't post them on ESPN's website, he didn't post on ESPN's social media platforms.
You're using the term "public figure" in a rather nebulous way. Curt Schilling may be considered a public figure in regards to libel, slander or defamation but neither he nor ESPN are contesting that either party defamed the other. There is no magic number of twitter followers that lets your employer fire you if you send out a personal tweet they don't approve of.
He's really more of a public figure. He's a famous ballplayer, which is why he's now a not very famous baseball analyst. He didn't get the job because he's an expert on baseball (although he might be, for example Cris Collinsworth is probably one of the best football analysts in the business and he played pro ball). He got the job because he's Curt "bloody sock" Schilling. He's a more dignified version of Paris Hilton being paid to attend a party.
His public image is actually a huge part of his value to his company.
Why should an employer be responsible for every personal opinion held by their employees? That doesn't make any sense. Personal opinions are personal they are assigned to the individual who holds those beliefs. Just because you're popular or famous doesn't mean that your employer has to approve of every personal opinion you express on social media.
No, and I'll think you'll find that throughout history valuable talent has been allowed to be far more controversial, while middling talent gets flushed at the first hint of upset.
d-usa wrote: Do you have a clause in your contract saying "don't do stuff that makes the company look bad by association" or any other type of morality clause?
If you have such a clause, and you get fired for violating it, then there is no story.
Does ESPN disapprove of his opinions or does ESPN not want to deal with the backlash on social media? ESPN should set a standard and stick to it and not let outrage on the internet dictate whether or not they object to the opinion of the employee. You can't control other people's reactions to your opinions and you can't control how your opinions might be misconstrued or misunderstood. If ESPN takes the position of tweet/post whatever you want, if enough people object to it we'll fire you, then that's not a consistent standard and is really them telling employees not to tweet/post at all because who knows what might cause offense and go viral? If you want to have a morality clause you should have defined morals so you know if what you want to put on social media breaks those morals.
d-usa wrote: Do you have a clause in your contract saying "don't do stuff that makes the company look bad by association" or any other type of morality clause?
If you have such a clause, and you get fired for violating it, then there is no story.
Does ESPN disapprove of his opinions or does ESPN not want to deal with the backlash on social media? ESPN should set a standard and stick to it and not let outrage on the internet dictate whether or not they object to the opinion of the employee. You can't control other people's reactions to your opinions and you can't control how your opinions might be misconstrued or misunderstood. If ESPN takes the position of tweet/post whatever you want, if enough people object to it we'll fire you, then that's not a consistent standard and is really them telling employees not to tweet/post at all because who knows what might cause offense and go viral? If you want to have a morality clause you should have defined morals so you know if what you want to put on social media breaks those morals.
If the clause is "don't do stuff that makes us look bad" then ESPN's position on any issue is completely irrelevant. If you do stuff that people don't like, and if you do it in a way that gets enough people to complain to ESPN about it, then ESPN will react to it and let you go because you made them look bad enough as evidenced by all this angry mail they are getting.
If you are not smart enough to know what kind of tweets and opinions might get an angry reaction, then maybe you shouldn't sign contracts saying you won't do stuff that will get an angry reaction.
If you have a clause saying "don't do stuff that makes us look bad" and you do stuff that makes them look bad, then maybe doubling down on that stuff is also not a wise option and you should take that opportunity to try to help your company save face by issuing an apology instead.
d-usa wrote: Do you have a clause in your contract saying "don't do stuff that makes the company look bad by association" or any other type of morality clause?
If you have such a clause, and you get fired for violating it, then there is no story.
Does ESPN disapprove of his opinions or does ESPN not want to deal with the backlash on social media? ESPN should set a standard and stick to it and not let outrage on the internet dictate whether or not they object to the opinion of the employee. You can't control other people's reactions to your opinions and you can't control how your opinions might be misconstrued or misunderstood. If ESPN takes the position of tweet/post whatever you want, if enough people object to it we'll fire you, then that's not a consistent standard and is really them telling employees not to tweet/post at all because who knows what might cause offense and go viral? If you want to have a morality clause you should have defined morals so you know if what you want to put on social media breaks those morals.
If the clause is "don't do stuff that makes us look bad" then ESPN's position on any issue is completely irrelevant. If you do stuff that people don't like, and if you do it in a way that gets enough people to complain to ESPN about it, then ESPN will react to it and let you go because you made them look bad enough as evidenced by all this angry mail they are getting.
If you are not smart enough to know what kind of tweets and opinions might get an angry reaction, then maybe you shouldn't sign contracts saying you won't do stuff that will get an angry reaction.
If you have a clause saying "don't do stuff that makes us look bad" and you do stuff that makes them look bad, then maybe doubling down on that stuff is also not a wise option and you should take that opportunity to try to help your company save face by issuing an apology instead.
This. Clause or not, most companies are gonna go "X isn't worth it", fire you, then release a "Company doesn't share or condone the opinions shared by X". It's the same warning they put on DVD commentary. Don't make a company choose between you and losing money. They'll choose money every time.
Prestor Jon wrote: Curt Schilling wasn't a media spokesperson for ESPN. He was a baseball analyst. He appears on baseball shows and discussed baseball. Sometimes he'd be on SportsCenter and talk about baseball. He was never employed by ESPN to do anything other than talk about baseball. His ability to talk about baseball in an informative and/or entertaining manner has nothing to do with his personal opinions regarding Muslim fundamentalism and transgender bathroom selection/usage posted on his personal social media platforms on his own time. Schilling didn't say these things on air on ESPN, he didn't post them on ESPN's website, he didn't post on ESPN's social media platforms.
You're using the term "public figure" in a rather nebulous way. Curt Schilling may be considered a public figure in regards to libel, slander or defamation but neither he nor ESPN are contesting that either party defamed the other. There is no magic number of twitter followers that lets your employer fire you if you send out a personal tweet they don't approve of.
He's really more of a public figure. He's a famous ballplayer, which is why he's now a not very famous baseball analyst. He didn't get the job because he's an expert on baseball (although he might be, for example Cris Collinsworth is probably one of the best football analysts in the business and he played pro ball). He got the job because he's Curt "bloody sock" Schilling. He's a more dignified version of Paris Hilton being paid to attend a party.
His public image is actually a huge part of his value to his company.
Why should an employer be responsible for every personal opinion held by their employees? That doesn't make any sense. Personal opinions are personal they are assigned to the individual who holds those beliefs. Just because you're popular or famous doesn't mean that your employer has to approve of every personal opinion you express on social media.
No, and I'll think you'll find that throughout history valuable talent has been allowed to be far more controversial, while middling talent gets flushed at the first hint of upset.
True and that's the problem. The contract clauses aren't there to actually enforce a particular code of ethic or morality or limit opinions they're just there as a CYA measure so employers can fire employees if they generate negative PR over something that has nothing to do with their actual job performance. There's no consistency or standard. It's not really an understanding between the employer and employee about what's acceptable and what's not because a third party, the public, is deciding that issue. If you violate the terms of your employment then you can/should be fired but it shouldnt be determined simply by public outcry. 10 years ago, 20 years ago we didn't have nearly the amount of social media available to us today and it went from being nonexistent to being able to get somebody fired from their job. I'm not defending bad online behavior but that kind of subjective job insecurity isn't a good thing.
It's actually rather ironic that this happened to Schilling because he made a big deal about getting people fired from their job for making vulgar tweets in response to Schilling's tweets about his daughter. Schilling was fully aware that offensive or controversial tweets can get people fired.
Prestor Jon wrote: Curt Schilling wasn't a media spokesperson for ESPN. He was a baseball analyst. He appears on baseball shows and discussed baseball. Sometimes he'd be on SportsCenter and talk about baseball. He was never employed by ESPN to do anything other than talk about baseball. His ability to talk about baseball in an informative and/or entertaining manner has nothing to do with his personal opinions regarding Muslim fundamentalism and transgender bathroom selection/usage posted on his personal social media platforms on his own time. Schilling didn't say these things on air on ESPN, he didn't post them on ESPN's website, he didn't post on ESPN's social media platforms.
You're using the term "public figure" in a rather nebulous way. Curt Schilling may be considered a public figure in regards to libel, slander or defamation but neither he nor ESPN are contesting that either party defamed the other. There is no magic number of twitter followers that lets your employer fire you if you send out a personal tweet they don't approve of.
He's really more of a public figure. He's a famous ballplayer, which is why he's now a not very famous baseball analyst. He didn't get the job because he's an expert on baseball (although he might be, for example Cris Collinsworth is probably one of the best football analysts in the business and he played pro ball). He got the job because he's Curt "bloody sock" Schilling. He's a more dignified version of Paris Hilton being paid to attend a party.
His public image is actually a huge part of his value to his company.
Why should an employer be responsible for every personal opinion held by their employees? That doesn't make any sense. Personal opinions are personal they are assigned to the individual who holds those beliefs. Just because you're popular or famous doesn't mean that your employer has to approve of every personal opinion you express on social media.
No, and I'll think you'll find that throughout history valuable talent has been allowed to be far more controversial, while middling talent gets flushed at the first hint of upset.
True and that's the problem. The contract clauses aren't there to actually enforce a particular code of ethic or morality or limit opinions they're just there as a CYA measure so employers can fire employees if they generate negative PR over something that has nothing to do with their actual job performance. There's no consistency or standard. It's not really an understanding between the employer and employee about what's acceptable and what's not because a third party, the public, is deciding that issue. If you violate the terms of your employment then you can/should be fired but it shouldnt be determined simply by public outcry. 10 years ago, 20 years ago we didn't have nearly the amount of social media available to us today and it went from being nonexistent to being able to get somebody fired from their job. I'm not defending bad online behavior but that kind of subjective job insecurity isn't a good thing.
It's actually rather ironic that this happened to Schilling because he made a big deal about getting people fired from their job for making vulgar tweets in response to Schilling's tweets about his daughter. Schilling was fully aware that offensive or controversial tweets can get people fired.
Co'tor Shas wrote: How is wearing a thong any worse than, say, wearing a bikini? I certainly don't think it's actually indecent exposure.
It's more about where you wear it than it being significantly different than other clothing like bathing suits. If somebody is wearing a thong on a public beach its different than wearing one in a parade down mainstreet. If you go to the beach you expect to see bathing suits and less clothing, if you're working or shopping downtown you don't expect to see it and have a more difficult time avoiding it or justifying it.
I would like to step in and completely disagree with this. I don't even live near a beach nor was I raised near one. I live in Southern Illinois in deep red territory where nearly everybody is a conservative.
It is almost spring in my home town and there is one thing I will be guaranteed to see, girls in bikinis downtown. Really just girls in bikinis everywhere. Selling food at food stands on the weekends, working/partaking in fair activity, in restaurants, and pretty much anywhere else. Nobody cares that they are walking around in the equivalent of underwear. It is hot out and you do what you gotta do to be comfortable.
True and that's the problem. The contract clauses aren't there to actually enforce a particular code of ethic or morality or limit opinions they're just there as a CYA measure so employers can fire employees if they generate negative PR over something that has nothing to do with their actual job performance. There's no consistency or standard. It's not really an understanding between the employer and employee about what's acceptable and what's not because a third party, the public, is deciding that issue. If you violate the terms of your employment then you can/should be fired but it shouldnt be determined simply by public outcry. 10 years ago, 20 years ago we didn't have nearly the amount of social media available to us today and it went from being nonexistent to being able to get somebody fired from their job. I'm not defending bad online behavior but that kind of subjective job insecurity isn't a good thing.
Well, except there is one area in which a third party matters, which is if people are offended. Schilling didn't just express an opinion, he did so in a way that was meant to mock and offend transwomen. (at the very least, it was completely uncaring if they were offended). The tweet wasn't about his opinions on trans rights, but on basically his opinion on a matter that's contrary to 1) medical science, and 2) the people affected. When you are a public figure, you have to be aware that you cannot offend people needlessly.
Prestor Jon wrote: When is it ok for a company to fire somebody over a facebook post or a tweet? Seems like there's a really subjective and vague distinction for something as important as a person's livelihood.
I mean get rid of urinals and just put stalls in every bathroom. Whats the problem with that?
Nothing to me. It would cost more and many building codes would have to be altered, but I'm good with it.
Sorry, but what? Let me get this straight:
The prospect of men going in the same bathroom as women when it has a "women" sign on the door is something to be terrified of, think of the children, etc.
The prospect of men going in the same bathroom as women when it has a "people" sign on the door is just fine.
If you're ok with gender-neutral bathrooms then I really don't see how you can argue that a more limited degree of mixed-gender bathroom use is something to be worried about.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Also soething to consider is FB or especially Twitter isn't private at all like a conversation in your living room with your friends is private. It's very much public speech.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/04/22 22:29:23
Subject: Re:Curt Schilling fired from ESPN over meme
Just a heads up before I start this, I don't believe you. You are suggesting things that are legally impossible to enforce and you should know that as a doctor just from you having to know how HIPPA and various other privacy laws work. There is no way we can enforce a "Penis" and "Vagina" rule for the bathrooms. It would take a court order to get that kind of information out of a person.
You also do not have a firm understanding of transitioning between a male and a female. There are a lot of social hurdles they have to leap through. There are those still transitioning that physically look like a woman, but still have male parts. You are wanting that person to be forced to go in to a "penis" bathroom after a genital search because they still have a penis. Not only will the men in there probably be confused, somebody will say something to them. That causes them mental anguish. This is a person that is already emotionally distressed from being forced to go in to a bathroom they do not believe they should be in, they also just had to be searched to ensure they should be in that bathroom, and on top of that they are a group that has a high probability of suicide because of how society treats them and how they feel about themselves. When you have somebody that is that prone to risk, you want to avoid any sort of external anguish the person could be getting to ensure they do not harm themselves. They are in a very vulnerable place, even more so while transitioning and on hormone treatments. You would understand that if you were a doctor and you would be able to critically think and weigh that risk against your silly sensibilities of how society should work in regards to the bathroom.
2016/04/22 22:55:13
Subject: Re:Curt Schilling fired from ESPN over meme
I imagine that it must be tough when you can't use your degree to help you win arguments on the internet...
Having a degree or being in a profession doesn't automatically make one right. We have witnessed this by watching a former baseball player and sports annalist get fired for his tweets, and we have witnessed this by watching posters in this thread.
The truthfulness or lack thereof behind a user's professional claims aren't the topic here. As long as they aren't brought up again by either side why don't we drop this
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
motyak wrote: The truthfulness or lack thereof behind a user's professional claims aren't the topic here.
Then it probably shouldn't be used as an attempt to appeal to authority. Honestly I am surprised this thread has gone on as long as it has considering the lunacy involved in it and how far it has moved off topic. It started bad and just got worse from there.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/23 00:09:31
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Hence the second part of my post, As long as they aren't brought up again by either side. I'm aware of how it was first used, that's why I didn't tell just one side to knock it off.
And the third part, and this is really it. If you have further questions about my post feel free to PM me instead of discussing it here...
why don't we drop this
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/23 00:19:31
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
No, and I'll think you'll find that throughout history valuable talent has been allowed to be far more controversial, while middling talent gets flushed at the first hint of upset.
I am looking at the wikipedia page for ESPN's current baseball analyst lineup... and it is quite impressive. It really does make Schilling look like "middling talent" I mean, Rick Sutcliffe was a middling talent pitcher, but he definitely is better than the other guy in analysis. Plus, there's Aaron Boone (who was a player, yes) and Dallas Braden, who I would imagine is a "younger guy for a younger crowd"
I would also hazard a guess that they thought they were getting killed by Pedro Martinez over at MLB network, that dude's pitching analysis is fething amazing.
Prestor Jon wrote: When is it ok for a company to fire somebody over a facebook post or a tweet? Seems like there's a really subjective and vague distinction for something as important as a person's livelihood.
Yup. That's because it's a subjective issue.
It seems like a non story to me. ESPN has a stand they want associated with their brand that Curt went contrary to. Free speech doesn't enter into it since they are a private entity that felt their brand and hence their profitability was injured by his remarks on public media. Part of their product is opinion, in much the same way as other companies produce cars, electronics, food, etc., and he seems to have been turning out bad product.
2016/04/29 15:00:04
Subject: Re:Curt Schilling fired from ESPN over meme
Curt Schilling on D&C addresses ESPN firing, where might he land next 04.28.16 at 10:11 am ET
By WEEI
Former ESPN baseball analyst Curt Schilling joined Dennis & Callahan Thursday to discuss his firing from ESPN and where he will might land next. To hear the interview, go to the Dennis & Callahan audio on demand page.
Schilling believes he wouldn’t have been fired if he had made liberal comments.
“I’ve actually spoken with and communicated with quite a few people there since it happened and to a person, everyone said the same thing,” Schilling said. “One of the things that I said was, if I had come out and said transgenders are the greatest people in the world and if you disagree you’re a MF’er, they would say please don’t use that language in public. It’s well-known. I think people knew when I was there, I talked to people about it. Like I said, we move on.”
The former MLB pitcher also said there are people at ESPN who say some racist things, but don’t get into trouble.
“I think there are a lot of people at ESPN that play the race card often,” he said. “I back that up by saying I don’t have a problem with it in the sense that I think there a lot of those conversations that need to happen. For some reason, a lot of people believe that you need to just talk sports and not talk about the social issues that go on. I think those two things are actually intertwined in a very intimate way. It’s one of the many conversations that should be happening.”
Added Schilling: “Nothing behind the scenes. One of the comments I will never forget is listening to Stephen A. Smith talk about the fact that Robert Griffin wasn’t playing quarterback for the Redskins because he was black. It was because he sucked and he wasn’t playing. It was obvious. Things like that. Those were the comments that as this went along — everybody talks about [I] was warned multiple times. Everybody got the same memo. It was sports people stick to sports, not politics and other stuff. It felt like I was the only one that was held to the rule. I think a lot of what happened was very discriminatory. Like I said, if I had made a liberal point of view, I don’t think this would have ever happened.”
Schilling said he has “a couple” of national offers and expects to have something finalized in the next week or two.
“I’ve talked to different people over the last couple of days,” Schilling said. “I think that my next place in life is going to be — I want to talk sports, I want to talk baseball and hockey and football. I also want to talk about stuff that moves the needle and I think I am going to be allowed to do that in a place and a forum that I’ll be comfortable with.”
Dreadwinter wrote: To be honest, I am okay with the man doing whatever as long as he is never again allowed to run a company, more specifically, a video game developer.
I was going to ask if you were in the wrong thread, then I looked at his wiki page.
Dreadwinter wrote: To be honest, I am okay with the man doing whatever as long as he is never again allowed to run a company, more specifically, a video game developer.
I was going to ask if you were in the wrong thread, then I looked at his wiki page.
I did not know that about him.
He's still a dick.
Knowing what he did to those people, I would argue that he should be upgraded from dick to a word that begins with a c that I am not allowed to say on here.
d-usa wrote: Gets fired for saying stuff that EPSN doesn't agree with: "they wouldn't have fired me if I said stuff they agreed with!"
Well, at least he learned...
He's using the laughably stupid reasoning of "you discriminating against my discrimination is just as bad, you hypocrite!" to try and prove his point.
Full disclosure: I don't know what his point is.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
~1.5k
)
