This was not something you should get fired over
Also, Epstein didn't kill himself...
*slinks away so he doesnt get banned*
Also, Epstein didn't kill himself...
*slinks away so he doesnt get banned*
Gina Carano Fired From “The Mandalorian” Over “Abhorrent” Social Media Posts
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
I think you mean it was not a 1st Amendment violation. It is censorship. It is creating and supporting a climate of fear as @Houseman pointed out to @
Xprimentyl
The First Amendment and freedom of speech are not necessarily synonymous. A public that cares about freedom of speech should be outraged by censors even if they are not government supported monopolies or of the Federal government itself. It is a value that treasures the right to speak because it is through speech that we reason with each other and provide for ourselves an alternative to violence when dealing with each other.
And as a Jew and former registered Republican, I think her post was spot on.
Mmm no, still isn't censorship, because she still was allowed to say it. No one stopped her from saying it. She faced a consequence. A consequence isn't the same as censorship. Censorship is a suppression of someone's voice/opinion in this context. That didn't happen. She said what she said, it was dumb as fuck, and no one censored her.
Then later Disney didn't renew her contract as a result of her dumb as fuck opinion. Not censorship, its a consequence, one Disney or any company is allowed to make. She was an at-will employee who could be terminated for any reason. Unless of course you're implying companies should be forced to hire/keep employed people regardless of the rules of the employer.
Last edited:
She got shit canned for functionally violating employee social media policy. Basically everyone who works for something with more than five people has one of those. They exist and the blind ignorance people still display with Twitter and Facebook is mind boggling.
Not the only tasteless tweet she's posted, but oh damn the conundrum of when it's okay to mention the persecution of Jews and when it's abhorrent. Though it's more about who's saying it, I reckon. Like how charitably the message gets interpreted and so on.
And you don't see how getting someone fired for something they said would fit into this definition:
Censorship
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship.Wikipedia
The statement may still be in the public, for now. But the actions taken against her is meant to suppress, aka, censor such statements.
If it is selectively enforced, there's a problem. I wonder if she has wrongful termination rights in this? I dunno.
Pedro himself posted a picture of Jews in Nazi concentration camps and compared it to illegal alien children in US detention centers, a less apt comparison than Gina made. He isn't fired.
Show me where her speech was suppressed. Show me where her public communication capabilities were shut off.
You can't because it wasn't censorship, it was the termination of an at-will employee for violating a company's policy.
Can I get some clarification about her tweet?
I mean... exactly what did she say wrong? A lot of the people who did turn in the Jews were their neighbors. Once their friends. Some who got swept up into the furvor, some who were protecting their own skin, some who wanted what the Jewish people had.
This is apart of United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Am I reading this wrong? Carano is saying that the Nazi regime created and fostered hatred where people went out of their way to comply and/or to act against the people the party declared to be the enemy. Is that not any different than the curse 'Democrat' has become to certain Republicans after Trump? Is that any different than how 'conservative' is now short hand for some people to think 'ignorant' and 'racist'?
I read this as her stating that we should stop listening to Demagogues and Pundits, open the door and step out of your bubble... Meet your neighbor, Embrace your differences, and be ok with each other?
Is that not what was written?
I mean... exactly what did she say wrong? A lot of the people who did turn in the Jews were their neighbors. Once their friends. Some who got swept up into the furvor, some who were protecting their own skin, some who wanted what the Jewish people had.
This is apart of United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Am I reading this wrong? Carano is saying that the Nazi regime created and fostered hatred where people went out of their way to comply and/or to act against the people the party declared to be the enemy. Is that not any different than the curse 'Democrat' has become to certain Republicans after Trump? Is that any different than how 'conservative' is now short hand for some people to think 'ignorant' and 'racist'?
I read this as her stating that we should stop listening to Demagogues and Pundits, open the door and step out of your bubble... Meet your neighbor, Embrace your differences, and be ok with each other?
Is that not what was written?
I think you've got it.
I think the offense was taken by those that at least think that Republicans do not face anything like Jews did in Nazi Germany and therefore the comparison is outrageous. And they are wrong to take offense as the statement was apt. Her point, and she is correct, is that you have the people in power vilifying about 1/2 the nation. She's pointing out, holocausts start with this sort of thing. And she's right.
If you are stating that only having her public communication capabilities shut off would constitute censorship, you are writing something contrary to the dictionary definition of the term.
I will write some pondered if the 1st Amendment would be violated if the government made no law abridging speech, as directed. But then punished the ever living stuffing out of people after they'd allowed the offending speech to be published. And, of course not, as that is supressing, aka censoring speech.
Last edited:
Let me rephrase your quote to account for 1950's era Hollywood standards.
"Mmm no, still isn't censorship, because he still was allowed to suck that dick. No one stopped him from sucking it. He faced a consequence. A consequence isn't the same as censorship. Censorship is a suppression of someone's voice/opinion in this context. That didn't happen. He sucked that dick, it was gay as fuck, and no one censored him."
Or perhaps...
"Mmm no, still isn't censorship, because he was still allowed to say it. No one stopped him from saying it. He faced a consequence. A consequences isn't the same as censorship. Censorship is a suppression of someone's voice/opinion in this context. That didn't happen. He was a Commie, that's un-American, and no one censored him."
Or even...
"Mmm no, still isn't censorship, because he was still allowed to say it. No one stopped him from saying it. He faced a consequence. A consequences isn't the same as censorship. Censorship is a suppression of someone's voice/opinion in this context. That didn't happen. He was a Jew, Jews are Communist, and no one censored him."
Do you get it yet? Or do you need a bigger, heavier, cluebat upside the head to figure this out?
I don't because you simply brought up stupid points, don't understand history, censorship or what words mean.
Because if you know about the purple scare, you'd know the real threat wasn't not getting a job, it was being reported to the House Un-American committee and being arrested and brought up on charges for being a communist. That was censorship, because the Government was imprisoning people for having opinions the government didn't agree with.
The Hollywood black list was a list of people not to hire because companies were afraid of being investigated by the government for communist ties.
Gina Carano said something stupid. No on suppressed her, no one took away her voice or public speaking capabilities. She is not being brought up on charges, Disney isn't facing a House investigation, and no one is in jail. She was fired by a company that is well within their rights to fire her for any reason they deem fit. Get over it. Or next time you're at work walk up to your boss and say "Boy fucking cunts and honkies out there just smell like fish and piss" and see what happens.
God you guys don't need a history lesson so much as to read an employee handbook. You know they have rules for what you're allowed to say and still remain an employee right?
Punishing people for saying things after the fact is still censorship. It means discouraging people from ever saying it again in the future under threat of the same, or worse, punishment.
You honestly think "you better not say this or else I'll ruin your life" isn't an attempt at censorship?
At this rate, you might as well say "The government locking you up for speaking badly about them isn't censorship, they didn't stop you from saying it, they're just punishing you because you said it!"
It is within my constitutional right to tell a bar bouncer to "fuck off" directly to his face (with a mask on, of course.) When he subsequently bounces me from the establishment, he's not "censored" me; he's done his duties insofar as the establishment expected and removed someone who's potentially affecting the environment of the establishment.
For all intents and purposes, Carano was an employee of Disney; she made very public some ideals that Disney was not comfortable with, and they terminated their business relationship. Was it the right thing to do? I don't think so; I'm not personally at issue with anything she said; I'd even openly argue she said nothing "wrong," but not having any stake in Disney, it's not for me to say what they should and should not permit their employees to say or do.
If Disney had put her on some form of performance improvement plan (a "PIP" in corporate speak,) and she subsequently quit because she was unhappy with their course of action, would this scenario be equally outrageous? Or would she be doing the right thing in accordance with her personal beliefs and protection of her rights?
You may still have the issue of selective enforcement that could lead to a wrongful termination suit (ie, they didn't fire Pedro for his post). Publicly? How should we feel about a company that gets "uncomfortable" with employees engaged in "wrong think"? We should be outraged and voice that outrage. At a minimum. (Terminate our business dealings with them too a more forceful action).
This is different than when monopolistic companies cancel something like Parlor, for which I do think the Fed should get involved. I would not want new laws drafted over what was done to Gina.
Aren't you the guy who by his own admittance doesn't know American law or history and just posts for the sake of attempting to troll? Oh yeah, I'm taking what you "think" very seriously.
But for the sake of dunking on you, no punishing someone for saying something isn't censorship, its a consequence. You or I can't walk up to someone and say "I'm going to kill you!" and expect the police to just look the other way. What you say can and does have consequences. In this case being arrested for saying a threat. In Carano's case, being fired for saying something stupid.
Consequences of speech are not the same as censorship of that same speech. Seriously guys, check an employee manual sometime. And do you seriously not understand that you're not free to say whatever you want, whenever you want, and nothing at all with happen to you?
So if the government were to throw somebody in jail for saying something bad about them, you wouldn't call that censorship?
That would be, because it involves the Government and the removal of rights. And for completion's sake, also it depends on what that person said. If someone just said they disagree with the Government, and were arrested and thrown in jail for that, yes, that is censorship. If someone said they were going to blow up the White House because they disagree with the Government, and they were arrested and jailed, that is not censorship.
And thank you for clearly pointing out the difference between someone being fired from a company, and someone being brought up on charges by the Government. Why, you might even say that's the difference between a consequence, and censorship.
Well, you contradict yourself.
Earlier, you said: "punishing someone for saying something isn't censorship, its a consequence."
Now, you're saying "well, okay, if the government punishes someone for saying something, yes, that's censorship"
It either is or it isn't. Make up your mind. There aren't two definitions of censorship, one that applies to the government, and one that applies to everyone else.
Maybe you're confusing "censorship" with "First Amendment rights".
Private companies CAN commit acts of censorship
Censorship is not just something that only the government can do.
Again you don't understand. All censorship is a consequence, not all consequences are a censorship.
The difference is when the Government and criminal charges get involved. By your own poorly laid out trap you brought up the Government and being jailed, and now you're clumsily, and poorly trying to draw a connection between you're stated example and a completely different example. A+ for effort, F for execution, please see me after class, you may have to repeat basic...everything.
Gina Carano wasn't censored, she was fired. Get over it.
So, you don't have an argument? All you can do is chant what you want to be true over and over again in hopes that it will magically alter reality?
Okay, the defense rests as well.