Eidos Employee Fired Over "Hate Speech" on Facebook

[viranimus]

I am really loathed to have to break down to dissection level another post in this thread, but it bears attention. Spoilering for space.

Spoiler: I hate these posts

Clip for cohesion

Actually hiring assassins these days is a rather simple task and the quality difference is apparent.

I am sorry but that is so incorrect. Finding an assassin is not merely some trek to some local bar where you will be tripping over viable candidates. Even going into one with such an intention and asking questions is likely to result in someone taking offense and beating the shit out of you for making such an insinuation. And to even suggest that the uninitiated could somehow find an ample supply of assassins to chose from that they would be somehow able to make a rational and informed decision on them is simply ridiculous. That does not even account for the vast multitudes of people for which getting to a "City" would easily be over 100 miles away. Im sorry but this suggestion is downright silly.

Just because he killed one person does not mean he has good aim

And just because he didnt hit anyone of relevance does not mean that aim was a factor in that. In any assassination attempt (or any highly complex action) there are multitudes of variables that can and often DO come into play.

His claim that she will be dead within a month could also easily be seen as a threat or wishing violence upon someone, which is a threat too.

No, because that was eliminated by saying "someone" meaning anyone other than him. Having an expectation that something will happen does not in any way shape or form mean you will make it happen or even want it to happen. The only way to obtain that is to assume it.

Perhaps it does not apply to this person but saying that you want someone dead is just like saying that you want someone to go out and kill that person since your message is advocating their death and anyone who is willing to follow your message could go out and kill them on your behalf.

You are correct, It doesnt apply to this person because this person at no time said they want them dead. They at no time suggested anyone to do it. To suggest that is to apply reasoning that is not relevant in this context. It is an assumption and it is fairly baseless.

What people need to understand is that if you say it on the internet there is not a way to make it clear if you are exaggerating the situation for comedy or if you are serious about this. We simply do not have the context to know without knowing more about this man's personality.

If anything needs to be understood it is that people on the internet need to have a greater understanding of the intricacies of how the English language works. The tools are there, between context, subtext inference, emphasis, structure, word choice, phrasing placement, alliteration, simile, comparative analysis between technical writing and "speaking in text" While it is true things like emotion or intention do not always translate into text, you cannot fall back on that as an excuse when clear ques are right there.

Perhaps he is like me and enjoys dark jokes about death and suffering but he could just as easily be a sociopath with intent to attempt to end her life at the end of that month if nobody else 'steps up' and completes the task. This is a particularly hot issue in our country because of the effects it would have on every person in the nation. It would not be surprising if angry people took arms against the separatists and this man is clearly supporting that action whether it is as a joke or as a serious belief.

It SHOULD be a hot issue. Much like you suggest you cannot know you also cannot punish someone for your interpretation of what they said when there is nothing that actually suggests any direct intention to action, and multiple points of reference rejecting it. Also if you enjoy dark jokes you also understand that you can support the idea of someone killing someone else, and still view it in a humorous context. They are not mutually exclusive propositions.

In Canada we take this sort of thing seriously and you do not get to shout for someone's death and then hide behind free speech. Free speech does not and should not cover what you are saying if you are threatening someone else's safety. Her safety is more important than his right to shout hatred just like the safety of the gay community is more important than the right to scream 'death to fags' from your roof. At least it is in Canada and I hope to God it stays that way.

Well, it is important to take things seriously, but it is also important to not over react or assume intention that is not present. If you support the idea of speech and censorship such is your opinion and prerogative. My only horse in this race is as it relates to how speech gets regulated and controlled and what is lost as a cost of that.

As for your method of replying big words and long winded paragraphs can not elaborate so much on the text he types. You cant know what he was thinking at the moment of posting and you cant really understand even an implied tone from such a short post. You are also rude to those who disagree with you and that is not really conductive to actually discussing this issue.

Ok. That is a direct insult. You are insinuating by using the phrases "big words" and "long winded paragraphs" to point to as you put it a "rude" arrogance and opinionated superiority. I am not being rude to someone disagreeing with me. If anything I have bent over backwards to be polite in the process of correcting something that is not even a matter of opinion. Just as it has been suggested you cannot always know someones intent in text, but if you go purely on what I have written without assuming intention you can at least consider the possibility that my intention is to honestly correct misunderstanding and misinterpretation. That is what I have been trying to do all this time, even if that honest attempt to assist is not appreciated such.


But it is highly conducive to the issue, because it cuts to the root of the issue that is being ignored and allowing the issue to be discussed on a level that is not even related to the actual issue. The matter should not be "should he or should he not" because it isnt about that, because there is clearly no indication that any sort of threat was made, and firing him is not only suspension of free speech, it does so only on the basis of incorrectly inferred context that is clearly not present. Really the only thing that has happened here is someone is being punished for making light of something in poor taste. Thats it.

As Edward Bulwer-Lytton suggested, "The pen is mightier than the sword" While that clearly points to the power of words to influence, it indirectly points to what gives that sword its power. The ability to be used in a versatile fashion with deadly accuracy or blunt and astonishing power. To be as elegant as threading the needle from 100 yards to the artistic mastery of ice sculpture with a chain saw. Words are power and grace and just like that of any tool, in the hands of one who either lacks respect or understanding of their power they can often become dangerous or have unintended effects. So too is the danger present when intended effects are misinterpreted. The failing is not in the words, it is how they are being seen.

 

[viranimus]

If you are driving and pass a pink elephant on the side of the road and didnt notice it. It does not make the pink elephant "nothing"

It most definitely signifies something, and something of great importance that is being entirely too neglected. It seems as if some approach it from a stance of you cannot miss what you never had which points to why there is almost defiant refusal to see it.

Let's torture this metaphor a bit.

I drove past your supposed 'pink elephant'. You brought me back to the space where the elephant was, and you're showing me it's tracks. There are indeed tracks there, pressed in the mud. I see elephant tracks, and I know that elephants are grey, so I feel perfectly justified in assuming the elephant that made those tracks is not pink - nothing in your evidence supports the argument that the elephant is pink.

Im sorry, but that is not really applicable to the metaphor. You are comparing something that is free form and without structure in experience, to something that is procedurally structured as in language. that is apples and oranges.

You cant make the argument of being overly formal when the mass of words was only for your benefit to fully explain to an insanely detailed level because of the failing in comprehension on an incredibly simple concept that should be second nature and easily identifiable as a result of simplier attempts failing to register.

I can make any argument I choose. Free speech.

Also, it's obvious that not one word of your argument was for my 'benefit.' Rather, you're being rude and condescending and insulting my intelligence - and that speaks to your character. You should be aware that it does not cast your character in a particularly good light.

Yes, yes you can, But it does not touch what factors were involved in developing that argument. Just means you can express whatever opinion you wish for better or worse.

Now on this rudeness thing. I do apologize you take it that way, however that is assumption and inference. I didnt spend the amount of time I did writing it out for my own benefit. I spent that time to try to clarify the matter and hopefully help you to see the points you illustrated that you were not catching. I cannot control how other people think. I learned long ago to try is futile. All I can do is say what is factual, even if it is unpleasant or brutal and hope that people understand the intention is to inform, not insult and potentially open eyes to previously unconsidered things.

Again, you are arguing intentions. Intentions are never clear unless they are your own. You say he intended one thing. I say he intended another. We both have reasons to believe our opinions, but neither one of us has definitive facts on the matter.

That is my point. I am not arguing intentions. It is not a matter of opinion. It is simply a matter of reading the statements being guided by the rules of the language and how grammar guides and dictates that direction. Yes if someone suggested the idea of someone dying, that would be a red flag for concern. However in the presence of something that illustrates where the statement is not to be taken seriously, it overrides that intention as being serious. Its not interpretation, It is to reading what reading the directions on a box are to cooking or the signs on a road are to driving.

I doubt you'll have an easy time convincing the Supreme Court that being arrested for threatening the President's life is unconstitutional. Feel free to try, though.

Yes, your most certainly dead on there. However, just because something would be considered constitutional, does not mean it is legal or not in conflict with the law. Just look at the 16th amendment of the US constitution that allows the government to levey income tax. It is accepted as a constitutional fact. However it is not nor has ever been because the amendment was never properly ratified. But as far as anyone is concerned, its constitutional. Trying to resist was the predominant factor in getting William Cooper killed in 2001 and others like him who failed.


Summarization:

Look.. Im done here. I have said what I wanted to say and did what I could to correct misconceptions and assumptions. I do sincerely apologize if my intent was taken as malicious. None was present. I respect others rights to difference of opinions where they happen. I hope that what I have said has expanded the way you consider things, as I know some of the points you made had be expand my perspective as well. So really I have nothing more to say on the subject. Wish this thread well and honestly look forward to the next interesting topic of discussion.

 

[viranimus]

It doesnt apply to this person because this person at no time said they want them dead.

This right here shows that either you don't understand what the guy said or you're arguing purely to be argumentative. I don't care how you parse his words, he made it pretty clear:

I give this ***** a month before someone with better aim comes forth and does what must be done.

I don't see how you can read that any other way than "this ***** needs to die"

Ok, on parsing... As I said in the other post... The use rules and proper use of the language are to reading what sign posts are to driving, directions are to cooking. They tell us how to do it and give us situational directions so we understand when unfamiliar or unique situations come up.


On the assumption of "this ***** needs to die" I can read that as a wounding, I can read that as put the fear of god into her, I can read that as martyrdom, I can read that as a lot of things if I do not look at the contextual guide points. To assume meaning with no direct evidence to suggest it is one of the reasons we strive for free speech. Just because someone says something we do not like does not mean they are wrong, or they plan to act on their thoughts that have been expressed or that we even understood what they were trying to get at. I mean its kinda going back and forth to switch between saying "we cant know their intention" when there were clear structures and signs, to turn around and assume intention based on interpretive context.

 

[viranimus]

snip

I thought you were abandoning thread? Do you want to debate or not?

I am.. I simply gave response to your post that came in while writing the other. Sorry. I really do not see much point where continued discussion would be productive on this point. I mean do you?

 

[viranimus]

snip

I thought you were abandoning thread? Do you want to debate or not?

I am.. I simply gave response to your post that came in while writing the other. Sorry. I really do not see much point where continued discussion would be productive on this point. I mean do you?

I could provide you with a deconstruction of why you came off as rude, obnoxious and condescending, I suppose.

LOL you could, but it would be preaching to choir. Trust me, I am very well aware of how I seem to people, and yep I know my grammar/word nazi'ism definitely doesnt endear me to most people. Again, sorry for the anal retention to detail. And as for me.. I am out and getting breakfast. Have a good one.

 

[jackinmydaniels]

Uh, hi, dumb ignorant American here so sorry I can't contribute a whole lot about the whole separatist thing but this guy is a moron. If you have even a lick of sense you should know by now that companies CAN and WILL fire your ass over Facebook comments, people seem to think that Facebook conversations are essentially the same as private conversations with your friends, problem is they are not, other people can see what you write and it'll probably get to your boss eventually.

So if your going to write shit like that make an alternate account or something, I wouldn't talk about how much I would want to assassinate political figure X if my boss was in the same room would you? So make sure that they can't see it you jackass.

 

[ATRAYA]

Okay, I'm American, and WHY HAVE I NOT SEEN ANYTHING ON THE NEWS ABOUT A FREAKING ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON A POLITICIAN'S LIFE?

Yet, WE hear about every single mouse fart in the U.S. from most news stations. Weird, huh?

 

[ATRAYA]

Okay, I'm American, and WHY HAVE I NOT SEEN ANYTHING ON THE NEWS ABOUT A FREAKING ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON A POLITICIAN'S LIFE?

Yet, WE hear about every single mouse fart in the U.S. from most news stations, even local ones. Weird, huh?

Captcha: Topsy-turvy. O.O

 

[Evil Smurf]

You are supposed to post stuff like that on political forums under an alias or use a trolling facebook account not your own.

And quebec is still on about the independence thing? dont they know they will become a 3rd world country within a year?

they have maple syrup, why would they care?

 

[Stripes]

If you advocate the assassination of someone who just survived an attempted assassination then you deserve the full force of the law upon you. People are dead because of that sort of talk. hate speech does not fall under free speech in my book, Eidos has every right to be rid of him.

 

[Darkmantle]

I understand firing the guy over it, this kind of thing can be a concern for the business, whatever. But criminal charges? Thats overreacting and just being silly.

Well no charges have been laid yet, So we'll just have to see if he's charged at all I guess.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Well, I didn't expect it would a quebec related thread and I didn't expect that the amount of bad racists comments would be non-existent. Unlike the failure from the mods that I will never forget... [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.104775-Quebec-Demands-French-First-Videogames?page=1]


Anyhow, The guy deserved to get fired unless Eidos want a PR related nightmare. I don't think the issue of seperation is a big deal since Le parti Québécois is in minority. Unless the canadian goverment fucks up pretty bad with relations, seperation will have few supporters. Miss Marois only got most of her votes since people are pissed off about the political shitstorm of the student strike that Jean Charest created.

At best, we will see effort to keep a french heritage culture where it belong. At worst, Marois will only shoot herself in the foot.

 

[KarlMonster]

Right. A number of people have opined that this was overreaction. That this was the guy's personal opinion, and not a declaration of intent. Or that it was just a manifestation of dark humor. Or that his comments should be protected as "free speech" if, in fact, Canadian laws protect free speech as we know it in America.

Except he shouldn't be. Nor should he be under investigation for making a threat. He did no such thing. Nor did, if I understand correctly, he say this in any official capacity, or on a company account. Now, not having seen his account, he may in fact have plastered his Facebook with reference to the fact that he worked for the company, and THEN he might deserve to be fired. But he still didn't threaten anyone

The truth is, your employer has no right to your internet activity, unless said activity happens on the job. If you use company resources to log on to facebook and rant about how much they suck, then yes, that's something to be fired over. However, they should not be allowed to police your thoughts or actions on your own time. And as much I need a job, were I informed my employment was conditional upon access to my internet accounts, I would refuse.

Now, not knowing the political situation in canada, I won't presume to say whether or not this man is JUSTIFIED in his offensive behavior, but he shouldn't be in this much trouble either way

Sorry Jack, I'm not picking on you personally. To best explain this, lets go back to what really happened. And the politics in question are irrelevant [though you wouldn't know that from reading this thread].

So how did this story get started? It did not start with an assassination. It did not start with an ill-advised Facebook posting. It started with Blake Marsh's boss reading his email in the morning and discovering multiple complaints. People had read his Facebook, and apparently were able to gather enough information from it to be able to contact Marsh's boss. Quoth the raven:

The comments were brought to the attention of Eidos Montreal General Manager Stephane D'Astous, who said there were dozens of emails about it waiting for him when he arrived at the office Wednesday morning. He consulted with a lawyer and then immediately fired Marsh, who had been with the company for four years. "I think he thought that social networking posts were private matters, but in fact, they're not," D'Astous said. "When you cross the line so clearly, like in this situation, and you associate yourself not just with your person but with your employer, that's totally unacceptable."

Either Mr Marsh had placed sufficient information about himself on Facebook for people to identify him as an employee of Eidos, or he had declared openly that he was an Eidos employee. Let's not mince words here; outraged readers were able to email his boss - though it would be interesting to see how many emailed him directly, rather than having their mails forwarded from a general mailbox.

Right there, Marsh is already in trouble. He was a video game tester, and it looked to me like he worked in a "relaxed" environment (his boss was wearing a black T-shirt in the interview). What is missing from the article is that Eidos has a zero-tolerance policy for threats and intimidation, so free speech or not, Marsh was already fired. [How'd you like to explain this away at your next interview?]

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

snip

as I said in my post, if he made clear his affiliation with the company, then yes, he ought to be fired.

I was talking in broad strokes, then brought up the specifics ads they related to him

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

snip

You do realize that this guy was condoning murder and advocating the assassination of an elected official, right?

And you do understand the difference between literal and figurative, right? He wasnt condoning literal murder. He was using figurative language and a dark sense of humor to vent a distressing situation.

But the fact that here we are with this pretty much reinforces and illustrates what I was saying, though I can see where you dont follow.

Companies don't tend to put up with bullshit or any behavior that might reflect badly on them. This isn't political correctness, it is about knowing who you work for when you speak on an open forum.