"Evolve" community manager fired after controversial tweet supporting freedom of speech

[Cubert]

Because it is 'a thing'. The fact that the government cannot infringe on speech is very important. Unfortunately, the term is then misapplied by people who want to say whatever without consequences. Mozilla might be able to get rid of their CEO for what he says, but only the government can for example imprison him or bar him from serving in public office. Big difference.

 

I agree, however I don't think that the transferring censorship from one human institution (the government) to another (company, corporation, association of any kind, religious group) is much of a progress. I think people with, stupid ideas, strange ideas, and especially unpopular ideas ought to be able to express them in the free society without their livelihood being threatened. We can disagree and ridicule their ideas just as freely, but to say, no, you have to go away, for having an opinion which is unpopular with the majority is not a hallmark of a free society. 

[ShiverMePenguins]

there is no legal grounds for lynching a person for not liking a race of people. everyone is biased against some form/group of people and it gives no one the right to lynch you for being biased in any manner towards that group. whether thats people of racial diversity (that is non welsh/irish/gaelic/anglic of origins) or their social background or their political views. everyone is acting more like a monster than he is for having his own opinion voiced in his own home.

[StingBull]

I agree but he talked with a meme so fuck that.

[SSL]

I agree, however I don't think that the transferring censorship from one human institution (the government) to another (company, corporation, association of any kind, religious group) is much of a progress. I think people with, stupid ideas, strange ideas, and especially unpopular ideas ought to be able to express them in the free society without their livelihood being threatened. We can disagree and ridicule their ideas just as freely, but to say, no, you have to go away, for having an opinion which is unpopular with the majority is not a hallmark of a free society. 

 

I find it disingenuous to equate 'unpopular' views with outright harmful ones; i.e. bigotry. People seem to think that it is magically possible to express those kind of views privately while being an egalitarian when interacting with others. That's not how things work in real life.

[Blade of Grass]

http://xkcd.com/1357/

Beat me too it!

I think everyone on the Internet should be made to read that comment, maybe then they'd understand what freedom of speech was.

[ohitsluca]

Freedom of speech does not absolve one from the consequences of what they say.

Edit:

You would think being a community manager he would understand this.

Does pointing out the fact that even a bigot has a right to say whatever they want warrant losing your job? Seems excessive.

[Admire]

People clearly don't understand how freedom of speech works. Neither Sterling nor this person have had their freedom of speech limited. Nobody is putting them in jail, nobody is prosecuting them.

 

But people still believe that freedom of speech is being allowed to say what you want without consequences. It isn't and it never has been

 

 

Does pointing out the fact that even a bigot has a right to say whatever they want warrant losing your job? Seems excessive.

 

Maybe...but has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech

[Cubert]

I find it disingenuous to equate 'unpopular' views with outright harmful ones; i.e. bigotry. People seem to think that it is magically possible to express those kind of views privately while being an egalitarian when interacting with others. That's not how things work in real life.

 

Well that's too easy than, just label something harmful and you can censor it. Besides, who will have the honor to decide what's harmful? Who do you entrust this big job to decide for you and me what's allowed and what's not? A publisher of a book, a CEO of a company, the "community" ? No one is saying that there should be no consequences, as i said ridicule, but destroying someones livelihood because of an opinion is insane. Turtle rock community manager got fired just for commenting on the story for fuck's sake.

[Ertman]

Does pointing out the fact that even a bigot has a right to say whatever they want warrant losing your job? Seems excessive.

It could be seen that way, but it is ignorant to think there is no consequences because of free speech. It would have helped if he had phrased his argument with more of a narrow application and in a more befitting manner respectful of his position.

[Ertman]

Well that's too easy than, just label something harmful and you can censor it. Besides, who will have the honor to decide what's harmful? Who do you entrust this big job to decide for you and me what's allowed and what's not? A publisher of a book, a CEO of a company, the "community" ? No one is saying that there should be no consequences, as i said ridicule, but destroying someones livelihood because of an opinion is insane. Turtle rock community manager got fired just for commenting on the story for fuck's sake.

Speech is censored by many people and organizations, and is frequently done. The Turtle Rock community manager should be aware of censorship of speech and that through expression of uncensored speech he to could be found in violation of the terms of his employment, with unfortunate consequences for not censoring his own speech. If he had censored his own speech while maintaining the intent of his argument, he may not have found himself unemployed, regardless of whether or not the reaction was excessive.

[SSL]

Well that's too easy than, just label something harmful and you can censor it. Besides, who will have the honor to decide what's harmful? Who do you entrust this big job to decide for you and me what's allowed and what's not? A publisher of a book, a CEO of a company, the "community" ? No one is saying that there should be no consequences, as i said ridicule, but destroying someones livelihood because of an opinion is insane. Turtle rock community manager got fired just for commenting on the story for fuck's sake.

 

Everyone is not just entitled to their opinion; that is just an excuse to not think or accept consequences. And why does anyone need to 'decide' that something is harmful? That is horribly relativistic.

[SSL]

Speech is censored by many people and organizations, and is frequently done. The Turtle Rock community manager should be aware of censorship of speech and that through expression of uncensored speech he to could be found in violation of the terms of his employment, with unfortunate consequences for not censoring his own speech. If he had censored his own speech while maintaining the intent of his argument, he may not have found himself unemployed, regardless of whether or not the reaction was excessive.

 

I agree; he could have raised the same questions without being an apologist for racism.

[Cubert]

Everyone is not just entitled to their opinion; that is just an excuse to not think or accept consequences. And why does anyone need to 'decide' that something is harmful? That is horribly relativistic.

 

They actually are, that doesn't mean all opinions are equal however. Opinions based on facts are superior to those born of ignorance. I get a lot of joy from seeing stupid baseless opinions get shredded to pieces by factual well thought out arguments, even if it turns out that those opinions were mine, at least I learned something new. I don't want people with unpopular or uncomfortable ideas to keep quiet because they might be afraid of what will happen if they express them. I want all of the ideas on the table at all times, and if that means having to put up with racist bigots and young earth creationists, than so be it. 

 

Why does anyone need to decide on what's harmful? Because we can't all agree on it, you think it's harmful enough to take drastic measures and i think that it is not.

[SSL]

They actually are, that doesn't mean all opinions are equal however. Opinions based on facts are superior to those born of ignorance. I get a lot of joy from seeing stupid baseless opinions get shredded to pieces by factual well thought out arguments, even if it turns out that those opinions were mine, at least I learned something new. I don't want people with unpopular or uncomfortable ideas to keep quiet because they might be afraid of what will happen if they express them. I want all of the ideas on the table at all times, and if that means having to put up with racist bigots and young earth creationists, than so be it. 

 

Why does anyone need to decide on what's harmful? Because we can't all agree on it, you think it's harmful enough to take drastic measures and i think that it is not.

 

I don't want bigoted ideas on the table. On the one hand driving that kind of thing underground can cause problems of it's own but neither do I think there should be no social consequences to espousing those kinds of ideas.

 

And don't be obtuse, there is absolutely a need to classify certain ideas and behaviors as harmful.

[Kamil]

My opinion is, if one group can discriminate against another group due to beliefs, then any group should be allowed to discriminate against any other group based on any beliefs. Obviously all of that should be constrained within things which are legal to do (e.g. no lynching even if the person believes in a religion involving human sacrifice, while PRACTICING that religion would be dealt with by the law so lynching wouldn't be needed either), but if it's legal for the NBA to ban people for saying racist things, then others should be able to ban people for expressing belief in racial equality.

[Yoinkerman]

At the same time consequences should be appropriate.  Getting fired over ANY tweet is totally ludicrous imo.

 

I don't want bigoted ideas on the table. On the one hand driving that kind of thing underground can cause problems of it's own but neither do I think there should be no social consequences to espousing those kinds of ideas.

 

And don't be obtuse, there is absolutely a need to classify certain ideas and behaviors as harmful.

[mvitkun]

I think he's right. The NBA can not ban him for private opinions. He was going to be forced to sell it anyway because The players would not play for him. The banning is the issue. IMHO he shouldn't be banned. His girlfriend should be sued and the public should accept that we all have different opinions. I can say whatever I want (as long as it isn't a threat) inside my own home whenever I want. This is just another showing of fundamental rights in America being taken away. If a fat person can sue a company who fired them, then i think that Sterling should be able to appeal his ban. 

Take this with a grain of salt as this is a 15 year old liberal speaking. And I literally have nothing to back this up.

why should she be sued?

[Jodomcfrodo]

why should she be sued?

Shes getting sued for embezzlement or something.