Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Community manager tweets in favor of free speech; gets fired.


dietlbomb
 Share

Recommended Posts

Best thing with bigots is to give them the space to say their piece and watch as they get shot down. Remember when there was all that fuss being made that Nick Griffin should not be allowed on Question Time. The producers made the right decision, let him on the show to give him a say and he was ridiculed as a result of his wafer-thin aguments were torn to shreds. As a result he's disappeared from the public eye and the BNP is in retreat.

But then you get people like Nigel Farage getting branded as racist simply because some disagree with his views. Same with Tommy Robinson. Sometimes people are simply called bigots because it's a quick and easy way to have others ignore what they have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then you get people like Nigel Farage getting branded as racist simply because some disagree with his views. Same with Tommy Robinson. Sometimes people are simply called bigots because it's a quick and easy way to have others ignore what they have to say.

 

Even more reason for people to be given airtime. If they've not racist etc then they'll be heard. Worst situation is when people decide which views can and cannot get airtime and as a result are able to censor out those who they disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even more reason for people to be given airtime. If they've not racist etc then they'll be heard. Worst situation is when people decide which views can and cannot get airtime and as a result are able to censor out those who they disagree with.

Which is why certain speech, even if dumb or bigoted, should not be illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even more reason for people to be given airtime. If they've not racist etc then they'll be heard. Worst situation is when people decide which views can and cannot get airtime and as a result are able to censor out those who they disagree with.

Exactly, but airtime doesn't necessarily equal being heard. There are so many interviews in which the person interviewing them keeps asking loaded questions or repeating previously refuted questions. Or another person is brought on at the same time and just shouts them down by calling them a racist.

I remember one with Farage being asked how he isn't racist if he believes that British people should get priority on British jobs. She neglected to realise that racism is about race, not nationality, and that British people aren't just one race. And she kept repeating it like she was making a valid point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quoted the part of your post I disagreed with. I don't think I missed anything. You said he misconstrued 1st Amendment in his tweet. I disagree. That has nothing to do with what happened afterwards.

Fine, unless you're pulling a Sapience and saying "look only at the words and don't think about meaning or intention," it's still not a difficult stretch: There are exactly two ways to interpret "be a bigot." Words or action. In Sterling's case this time, there were words. CM says "right" and there is exactly one way to interpret that---a higher and universal freedom of some kind that should be protected.

If we're going by the meaning of Free Speech under law, CM and the article are both wrong. If we're going by the OP's diluted social understanding "just be a jerk for social reasons," that's still wrong, because Sterling is accountable to the entire audience of his business (uh, the NBA), also as a public figure, not to mention he's already been sued and lost for actual bigot actions harming others. Black basketball players, black fans, fans who don't like bigots---lots of money at risk if people do something like boycott. Whether or not Sterling's private remarks should be a basis for judgment is simply no longer an issue because the rest of the NBA business had to do damage control stat. Like I said, businesses are still part of society.

Then we have the CM making comments like how Sterling was a victim (yeah, not really, considering the rest of history), and more importantly, stating such views on a venue used for company purposes. So I'm not particularly sympathetic in either case---Sterling had to be removed, and this CM dude's removal wasn't surprising at all. He exercised poor judgment. Should have left that on Facebook/etc., if Turtle isn't connected to his Facebook/etc. account in any way.

Absolutely NONE of this has anything to do with "rights" or whether such views are illegal. (They're not, otherwise Rush Limbaugh and such wouldn't exist.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, but airtime doesn't necessarily equal being heard. There are so many interviews in which the person interviewing them keeps asking loaded questions or repeating previously refuted questions. Or another person is brought on at the same time and just shouts them down by calling them a racist.

I remember one with Farage being asked how he isn't racist if he believes that British people should get priority on British jobs. She neglected to realise that racism is about race, not nationality, and that British people aren't just one race. And she kept repeating it like she was making a valid point.

 

Yeah I see your point. Interesting though that Brown, when PM was making exactly the same statement - British jobs for British workers though he knew that both national and EU legislation would never allow him to do that. A point that was made to him a few times and not that long after the whole policy was dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I see your point. Interesting though that Brown, when PM was making exactly the same statement - British jobs for British workers though he knew that both national and EU legislation would never allow him to do that. A point that was made to him a few times and not that long after the whole policy was dropped.

 

Wasn't that during one of the TV debates for the last General Election?

The same one in which he said "no life on the dole".

Trying to steal votes from the Far Right?

Yeah, that worked out for him ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, unless you're pulling a Sapience and saying "look only at the words and don't think about meaning or intention," it's still not a difficult stretch: There are exactly two ways to interpret "be a bigot." Words or action. In Sterling's case this time, there were words. CM says "right" and there is exactly one way to interpret that---a higher and universal freedom of some kind that should be protected.

If we're going by the meaning of Free Speech under law, CM and the article are both wrong. If we're going by the OP's diluted social understanding "just be a jerk for social reasons," that's still wrong, because Sterling is accountable to the entire audience of his business (uh, the NBA), also as a public figure, not to mention he's already been sued and lost for actual bigot actions harming others. Black basketball players, black fans, fans who don't like bigots---lots of money at risk if people do something like boycott. Whether or not Sterling's private remarks should be a basis for judgment is simply no longer an issue because the rest of the NBA business had to do damage control stat. Like I said, businesses are still part of society.

Then we have the CM making comments like how Sterling was a victim (yeah, not really, considering the rest of history), and more importantly, stating such views on a venue used for company purposes. So I'm not particularly sympathetic in either case---Sterling had to be removed, and this CM dude's removal wasn't surprising at all. He exercised poor judgment. Should have left that on Facebook/etc., if Turtle isn't connected to his Facebook/etc. account in any way.

Absolutely NONE of this has anything to do with "rights" or whether such views are illegal. (They're not, otherwise Rush Limbaugh and such wouldn't exist.)

I still don't see that the CM misused the 1st Amendment by saying Sterling has the right to be a bigot.

 

What the NBA did was fine although much belated, considering his past many years worth of similar comments. CM maybe shouldn't have used de facto company account to tweet his comment. Still has nothing to do with what I disagreed about what you said.

 

BTW, nice touch with the Sapience slur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. They fucking don't. It's 2014, not 1855.

Frankly, those views are unacceptable in this day and age. Same with homophobia.

 

No, people have the right to hold whatever opinions they choose, even anti-social ones. What they cannot do is act upon them, such as burning a cross on a black family's lawn, or berating someone just because they are gay. There are consequences for anti-social behavior, and for anti-social beliefs as well, if one chooses to share them. For example, If a bigot owns a business, and shares their bigoted views publicly, the community can shun that person and not do business with them.

 

So one is allowed to hold whatever beliefs they so choose, but if they are anti-social in nature, then they would do well to keep their bigoted mouth closed, for their own sake. And if they act on that opinion in an anti-social manner, they may well find themselves charged with a hate crime.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd take some exception with your last point. UK slipped to 33rd in the Press Freedom Index this year. Do I need to remind you of Newspaper offices being raided by Government thugs weilding angle grinders? Reporters acquainances being detained under Terrorism legislation and subjected to search and seizure? If your point is to indicate that we are not yet North Korea, then I might agree.

 

Daily Mail right there :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes. That blew up. lol

 

But I still think Turbine would do better if they actively tolerated dissent instead of giving people infractions for "Fabricated and misleading information" when they don't like a poster's opinion or deleting threads offering suggestions in good faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He probably had a condition in his contract that required all his public speech and activity to be representative of the company's values. That's really not uncommon for an employee who serves as a spokesperson, or for performers or athletes in an entertainment industry.

 

The company's reaction seems heavy-handed to me, but if customers were upset by those comments, or if they became disruptive to business, I think the company did the right thing. That's just the bottom line.

 

If you're a public figure, you really can't trust people to understand a complicated opinion like he had, especially if it was expressed in under 140 characters.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Donald Sterling issue, a sportswriter named Dave D'Alessandro wrote a good piece about it after the story broke but before Sterling was hit with the lifetime ban.

 

http://www.nj.com/ledger-dalessandro/index.ssf/2014/04/dalessandro_donald_sterlings_candid_moment_its_business_as_usual_and_nba_business_is_often_ugly.html

 

(For context, Adam Silver is the commissioner of the NBA - he just took over that position from David Stern earlier this year.  The "business partners" D'Alessandro refers to are other NBA team owners.)

 


Adam Silver has a parade of laudable business partners that he inherited from his morally ambiguous predecessor, David Stern.

 

The new NBA commissioner has a business partner in Washington who doesn’t know the difference between a tax code and "class warfare," who bribes bloggers, slugs fans, bulldozes the neighboring Chinatown population into Virginia so he can help put up more Hooters, and asserts that we should all be grateful for the privilege of subsidizing his team.

 

He has a business partner in Orlando who is so righteous he has poured millions into anti-gay marriage initiatives, because gays "keep asking for favors" and "special treatment," and marriage is "not vital to them, in my opinion."

 

He has a business partner in Cleveland that made billions in the mortgage business, many of them by passing subprime loans along to the ultimate thieves, Countrywide, which greased the derivative machine that helped destroy the global economy.

 

He has a business partner in Oklahoma City who made his billions through fracking, which has been linked to everything from toxic drinking water to earthquakes to climate change, and then screwed landowners out of their royalties when business went bad.

 

He has a business partner in Brooklyn who is an oligarch, that special kind of patriot who uses political connections to grab billions in state-owned assets for micropennies on the dollar, leaving much of the population to starve in the feudal cesspool left behind.

 

And yes, he has a business partner in Los Angeles who is a slumlord that refused to rent to minorities because they are "not desirable tenants," and because "black tenants smell and attract vermin," and "Mexicans sit around and drink all day," leading to a humongous settlement of a federal housing lawsuit; and who has some scary attitudes toward women, which has led to harassment suits and yet more settlements.

 

We’re not here to put Donald Sterling’s racism on a scale with other social sins practiced by Silver’s business partners, which stretch from here to Seattle.

 

We can only remind you that everyone already knew that Sterling was a despicable human being. If you didn't know it, you simply weren't paying attention, or – like Stern and Silver and everyone else in the NBA – you chose not to care.

 

Racism is an indelible part of what he is. If he issues a thousand mea-culpas today, nothing changes that. He has stood courtside with a what-me-worry visage for decades, because he is part of a lunatic fraternity that always embraced him as a bit eccentric, but always One of Ours.

 

So we find this latest example of Sterling spewing his usual vile nonsense not even remotely interesting, or as anything but redundant. This is Donald Sterling we’re talking about. What TMZ captured on tape is not a smoking gun. It is a longstanding business practice.

Yet his remarks have received a ton of attention, because the people who do business with him suddenly cannot overlook the fact that he is a public embarrassment and a risk to their virtuous enterprise.

 

(Pause here for eye roll.)

 

Only two things should vex these Men of Basketball.

 

One: They never denounced Sterling a decade ago, when his odious viewpoints were already a part of the public record — yet the players took his money, his partners shared in his largesse, and the fans subsidized his business.

 

Two: They don’t seem to care that all this evidence of bigotry was obtained via an egregious invasion of Donald the Clown’s privacy, which is a candor test that absolutely none of these Men of Basketball would be able to pass.

 

So, better late than never, we go to the torches and pitchforks. Donald has everyone fired up just by being the despicable human being that he is, so expect Silver to punish him for, essentially, free speech. He has the authority to do that within the framework of the NBA constitution — because, you know, Sterling’s latest behavior isn’t in the best interests of the league.

 

Just let the record show that until Saturday morning, it was just fine.

 

The public response was outrage, and, sure, mostly proportionate. As for the punishment, most of us scratch our heads like LeBron James, the league’s commercial colossus, who says, "There is no room for Donald Sterling in our league."

 

Try to keep up, young fella. Clearly, there’s abundant room for all types in your league.

 

The other primary cash cow, Michael Jordan, was one of the first owners who had the guts to speak up in the first 24 hours. But MJ, not exactly the world’s foremost expert on perspective, concluded his statement with, "In a league where the majority of players are African-American, we cannot and must not tolerate discrimination at any level."

 

It wouldn’t matter if there was one black player, or two. Discrimination is intolerable, period. Unless one of your business partners is Donald Sterling.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to post racist comments under my real name and somebody looks up where I work and lets them know I might be in very serious trouble, too.

The damage that a shitstorm can do to a company can be a real problem, not to mention that many people in my company would probably be ready to ask for my dismissal just based on not wanting people like that in the company.

Defending racists like in this case is problematic. Saying "he is a victim" in a tweet is definitely over the top. And I thought that the recording was made on some form of public event?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to post racist comments under my real name and somebody looks up where I work and lets them know I might be in very serious trouble, too.

The damage that a shitstorm can do to a company can be a real problem, not to mention that many people in my company would probably be ready to ask for my dismissal just based on not wanting people like that in the company.

Defending racists like in this case is problematic. Saying "he is a victim" in a tweet is definitely over the top. And I thought that the recording was made on some form of public event?

But if you were to post comments insulting racists, I'm sure you wouldn't be in any trouble at all. There's a double-standard with this sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to post racist comments under my real name and somebody looks up where I work and lets them know I might be in very serious trouble, too.

The damage that a shitstorm can do to a company can be a real problem, not to mention that many people in my company would probably be ready to ask for my dismissal just based on not wanting people like that in the company.

Defending racists like in this case is problematic. Saying "he is a victim" in a tweet is definitely over the top. And I thought that the recording was made on some form of public event?

 

The recording was made in private, although stories have emerged that he asked V. Stiviano to record their conversations, as he was starting to forget things that he'd said.

 

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/05/02/donald-sterling-agreed-to-be-taped-alleged-girlfriend-v-stiviano-gave-recordings-to-friend-who-leaked-them-attorney/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The company should be able to fire him. There shouldn't be a law that the company cannot fire him if he tweets something. They can fire him and did.

 

He can tweet whatever he wants and face the consequences.

 

Sterling is saying something racist - but saying something should not be against the law. Unless it is part of a hate crime and the words are said as part of that - but there needs to be a clear definition of a hate crime, and saying something racist to a person close to you is not a hate crime. 

 

I am not sure saying racist things (or anything) should be a crime. Other actions, maybe, but not just words. If the law needs to in extreme circumstances they can hold words as a hate crime - but don't need to make it a crime to only say something.

 

I am very against racism but don't think this is the best way to fight racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The company should be able to fire him. There shouldn't be a law that the company cannot fire him if he tweets something. They can fire him and did.

 

He can tweet whatever he wants and face the consequences.

 

Sterling is saying something racist - but saying something should not be against the law. Unless it is part of a hate crime and the words are said as part of that - but there needs to be a clear definition of a hate crime, and saying something racist to a person close to you is not a hate crime. 

 

I am not sure saying racist things (or anything) should be a crime. Other actions, maybe, but not just words. If the law needs to in extreme circumstances they can hold words as a hate crime - but don't need to make it a crime to only say something.

 

I am very against racism but don't think this is the best way to fight racism.

 

What if he tweeted I love homo sexual men or every woman deserves the right to a safe abortion and was fired?

 

would that change anyone's reaction?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...