Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[wulf3n]

If you flip this argument, the lack of consequence also means that nobody should be rewarded for their speech - i.e: nobody should be promoted for eloquently expressing a company's values, leading to positive PR, or that no politician should ever be elected based on what they say.

Freedom from != Not Happening. Freedom is essentially not being forced. So if you're argument is a person is promoted regardless of their opinion on the matter then yes they should be free from that consequence.

And nobody is advocating that "consequences" include illegal actions such as assault or murder.

Isn't being fired based on religion/political belief illegal in America? Is it really that much of a stretch to include "opinion on current affairs" to be among that?

They fired somebody for representing the company inappropriately. The guy was in a PR position. He's effectively speaking for the company. Why should the company continue to employ somebody who does such things? It has nothing to do with "freedom."

Well that's really a whole other debate, regarding what is said personally and what is said professionally, but essentially a company should employ people regardless of their beliefs/words as to protect all with different opinions.

So, you oppose the freedom of a private organisation to make their own decisions?

No I criticize and argue against their decision, not punish them for it, or force them to renege. That's the key difference here. No ones saying Olin can't be criticised for his opinion, just that he shouldn't be fired because of it.

Nobody's freedom of speech has been violated here. He is perfectly free to speak, and the NBA is perfectly free to disown and disassociate with him.

Ok it seems like we're arguing different points here, I'm more talking about Olin, not Sterling.

Sterling's issue is a bit more complicated. If he were fired for publicly expressing his racist views there would likely be no argument. What people are defending regarding Sterling is the manner in which the racist views were acquired, an illegal wire tap. That is what Olin was referring to when he said "victim"

Now for Olin the issue is that he was fired because of what he publicly which one could argue is bad PR for the company but how far does that go. Is it ok for a person to be fired because they support Animal Rights?

edit:

I'm also not sure why you have changed the debate to "being punished for their beliefs" - because that has nothing to do with the case at hand. He can believe what he wants all he likes - this problem has stemmed from his actions. For example, say you have a job as the PR agent for an organic food company. You can believe all you want that organic food is a complete scam. But if you say that organic food is scam when your job is to promote organic food, you'd better believe you'll be fired, with good cause.

True but what Olin said had nothing to do with the Turtle Rock whatsoever. His comment was on an unrelated event in an unrelated industry.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Freedom from != Not Happening. Freedom is essentially not being forced. So if you're argument is a person is promoted regardless of their opinion on the matter then yes they should be free from that consequence.

I have no idea what you're trying to say with this paragraph - it is nonsensical in its grammar.

Isn't being fired based on religion/political belief illegal in America? Is it really that much of a stretch to include "opinion on current affairs" to be among that?

No, it's not that much of a stretch to include privately held opinions in that. But that's not what we're talking about.

]No ones saying Olin can't be criticised for his opinion, just that he shouldn't be fired because of it.

So, it's perfectly OK for anybody to go online with an account that represents their employer, and say whatever they like with it, without fear of being fired or professionally punished?

Now for Olin the issue is that he was fired because of what he publicly which one could argue is bad PR for the company but how far does that go. Is it ok for a person to be fired because they support Animal Rights?

If you're using your position as a company PR person to promote your stance on animal rights, on a Twitter feed that is used to promote the company, then I'd say that's absolutely OK.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Wait what? Just because I think bigots should be held accountable for what they say that means I'm a bigot?

You didn't say "held accountable" - you said they should be beaten up.

Complete nonsense,this is no different from asking people to be held accountable for inciting panic or making terroristic threats.

Those people should be held accountable by due legal process, not by acts of violence administered by vigilantes.

I ask again - do you care about human rights?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Yes I do.I also believe the First Ammendment should not be a shield for those who intentionally make provocative statements without fear of punishment.

That's not what "human rights" means. Human rights includes the right not to be assaulted or murdered. So, if you support people being assaulted by vigilantes, then you do not support human rights.

Actions have consequences.

Well, yes. And the consequence of assaulting people for speaking should be being arrested and tried by a court. The consequence for speaking should not be being beaten up, no matter what you say.

And, again, you ignored my question about the homophobic preacher. Since actions have consequences, and you apparently approve of violent vigilantism, do you think that the gay person being beaten up or murdered is perfectly OK to teach him a lesson for his action of being gay?

What exactly do you believe is the basis for a system of laws and punishment? You say you support the First Amendment, so it seems you accept the US legal system, and are not an anarchist who believes in no laws. So, if you accept the First Amendment, then why not the other laws regarding assault, murder, due process, etc?

 

[wulf3n]

I have no idea what you're trying to say with this paragraph - it is nonsensical in its grammar.

It was a difficult idea to express. It took a lot to get out of the trap you set.

Essentially Freedom is about choice. The choice to do or not do something. Freedom of Consequence means the consequence is a choice, not something that is forced upon a person. As such the notion of consequence is still valid, i.e. a person can be promoted due to their eloquence if they so desire. The freedom aspect is about them choosing to be promoted.

So a person being fired due to their opinion is a violation of their [TBC] freedom of consequence, however being promoted because of it, is not, provided they can choose to decline the promotion.

No, it's not that much of a stretch to include privately held opinions in that. But that's not what we're talking about.

Honestly that's not what I want to talk about either. The whole area of Private vs Public is a mess. Social media has advanced too quickly for humanity to truly comprehend it significance.

What I'm trying to talk about is whether or not an opinion, totally unrelated to a persons ability to do their job, is something someone can be fired for.

So, it's perfectly OK for anybody to go online with an account that represents their employer, and say whatever they like with it, without fear of being fired or professionally punished?

Uh, the account Olin used was his personal one. Unless of course https://twitter.com/JD_2020 somehow links to Turtle Rock, other than "Employed By". Whether or not that constitutes "represents their employer" is another discussion.

If you're using your position as a company PR person to promote your stance on animal rights, on a Twitter feed that is used to promote the company, then I'd say that's absolutely OK.

What if you're not. It's just a personal tweet, not related to the company in any way?

Dammit, you're getting me into the Private vs Personal debate

 

[Church185]

Actually I'm banging on about people blindly judging a situation based on what the herd thinks. You don't even understand why you are "using your freedom to give your money to whom ever you want for whatever reason you want"

You said "One less game I have to buy" because a person said something that confused you. You are "exercising your freedoms" based on your skewed perspective. THAT is what I'm banging on about.

like I said. He didn't support Sterling, he slammed the media. PERIOD. But you go on ahead and keep on demonstrating brother, I'm sure it'll do you a whole lot of good.

Cool story, bro. I can blindly judge all I want. According to you I should still be forced to give that company money because I didn't refuse to do it for a good enough reason.

 

[LetalisK]

Yes, his right to privacy probably was violated according to California law and he could probably sue the dog shit out of his (probably) ex-mistress. That doesn't mean the NBA has to cover their ears and pretend nothing happened, though.

actually, in real court the evidence would be inadmissable and be akin to covering their ears and imagining it hasnt happened. at least technically.

Not in a civil court where Sterling would be suing his mistress because it's a big no-no in California to record another party without their knowledge. He would be submitting the recording as evidence against his mistress. In a criminal court, yes, it would be inadmissible, but that's neither here nor there with this situation.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

It was a difficult idea to express. It took a lot to get out of the trap you set.

I wasn't trying to set any kind of trap.

Essentially Freedom is about choice. The choice to do or not do something. Freedom of Consequence means the consequence is a choice, not something that is forced upon a person.

Still not making any sense. Nobody is taking away his choice to speak or not to speak. And, no, you don't get to "choose" consequences - beyond being legally protected against illegal actions that people take in response.

So a person being fired due to their opinion is a violation of their [TBC] freedom of consequence, however being promoted because of it, is not, provided they can choose to decline the promotion.

So, speech should have only positive consequences? That doesn't make any sense, And there is and such thing as "freedom of consequence." The consequences are up to other people.

The whole area of Private vs Public is a mess. Social media has advanced too quickly for humanity to truly comprehend it significance.

Maybe, but I don't think it's that incomprehensible on this level. It's a matter of not thinking before using Twitter. He could have easily seen the possible problems before he composed the tweet.

What I'm trying to talk about is whether or not an opinion, totally unrelated to a persons ability to do their job, is something someone can be fired for.

Not really relevant here, as his job is in PR, and he was using an account he also used for his job.

Uh, the account Olin used was his personal one. Unless of course https://twitter.com/JD_2020 somehow links to Turtle Rock, other than "Employed By". Whether or not that constitutes "represents their employer" is another discussion.

Doesn't seem like a personal account when he has that many followers, and most of the posts are about his employer's game. I don't know anybody who gets that many followers for their "personal" account outside of celebrities.

What if you're not. It's just a personal tweet, not related to the company in any way?

Then make it on an account that's not liked to your job. I think that's the ultimate lesson here. As someone else put it, don't shit where you eat. You'd think that people who work in social media would have some basic clues about these things. I think that alone demonstrates he's not competent for the job.

The only reason his account got that many followers is because of his link to the game. So, he's using his employer as a soap box for his opinions.

 

[wulf3n]

I wasn't trying to set any kind of trap.

I was being facetious.

Still not making any sense. Nobody is taking away his choice to speak or not to speak.

I would argue the threat of being fired does take away ones choice to speak, replacing it with the choice to work or not work.

And, no, you don't get to "choose" consequences - beyond being legally protected against illegal actions that people take in response.

Do I not get to choose whether or not to accept the promotion given to me as a consequence of my good actions?

So, speech should have only positive consequences?

For the most part. Though I would have worded it "No one should be punished for expressing the opinion".

Maybe, but I don't think it's that incomprehensible on this level. It's a matter of not thinking before using Twitter. He could have easily seen the possible problems before he composed the tweet.

The question I have is should he have to see the possible problems. Should a person have to worry about someone somewhere taking offense to their opinion? Do we really want to add this fear to what should otherwise be an open forum?

Not really relevant here, as his job is in PR, and he was using an account he also used for his job.

I still don't agree that was a business account. While he may have tweeted things related to his job/the company on their I don't think that makes it job related. For example I've posted things relating to my work on Facebook, but that doesn't my Facebook account is indicative of the companies thoughts or opinions.

Doesn't seem like a personal account when he has that many followers, and most of the posts are about his employer's game. I don't know anybody who gets that many followers for their "personal" account outside of celebrities.

Most of the posts? I just had a look it's more a 30%/70% split with work being the 30%

Then make it on an account that's not liked to your job. I think that's the ultimate lesson here. As someone else put it, don't shit where you eat. You'd think that people who work in social media would have some basic clues about these things.

That sort of attitude reminds me of the quote

"The only reason there's theft in this world is because people like you leave shit unlocked

and while it's not only incorrect [people still steal stuff that's locked up] it's a defeatist attitude. People shouldn't have to lock up their stuff. Just because that's the way it is now doesn't mean that's the way it should be. I'd like to live in a world where the average person can distinguish between a person and the company they work for.

I think that alone demonstrates he's not competent for the job.

I don't see how an opinion on a totally unrelated matter has any bearing on his ability to manage a community for a game company.

The only reason his account got that many followers is because of his link to the game. So, he's using his employer as a soap box for his opinions.

Or did he get the job because he had a lot of followers? Looking at his Twitter profile it said it was created in 2008, while he was working for Treyarch not Turtle Rock. He wasn't using Turtle Rock as a soap box.

I would say it's his link to the games industry that nets him so many followers not Turtle Rock or Evolve. So yeah, it's still a personal account.

 

[wulf3n]

and everyone is subject to face consequences for their actions including their speech.

By your reasoning that includes the person who is murdered by bigots for saying what they know to be right? And that's something I'll never agree with

 

[SnakeoilSage]

You haven't made a point worth responding to. If I can boil down your remarks into "racism isn't as bad as pedophilia" and "she only wants money," then you might want to stop and listen to yourself, because you're not saying what you think you're saying.

And that mentality is why Sterling got in trouble.

As I said previously, misunderstanding what I was saying has been your only talent here. You've yet to bother trying to respond in any way but trying to claim I was saying racism wasn't a victimless crime when you made a crap comparison no individual with a decent amount of intelligence would try to make. Or, assume that my point was she solely was doing this for monetary reasons when in my very first post I said if money was being paid to her, that could be a good reason as to why it's taken so long for this to come out.


Oh.

ex·ploi·ta·tion (ĕk′sploi-tā′shən)
n.
1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
3. An advertising or a publicity program.
ex?ploi?ta?tion (ˌɛk splɔɪˈteɪ ʃən)

n.
1. the use of something, esp. for profit: exploitation of oil fields.
2. the use or manipulation of another person for one's own advantage.
3. promotion; publicity.

He was not exploiting his team for monetary gain, buddy, sorry to say. Now if you had argued using other reported examples, such as showing them off as they showered to his girlfriends for his (and likely her own) enjoyment, you'd have a point in which it could be considered "exploitation". However! You haven't show any reason how he'd be exploiting them for any sum of cash.


And, unlike you, I can easily provide links and such to back what I say.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-v-stiviano-was-not-donald-sterlings-mistress-her-lawyer-says-20140429,0,4489758.story

And while it says that the girl making the recording isn't his "mistress", it does go on to say that the reason this came out was likely do to money being involved. Whether the supposed "mistress" is lying, or someone else had indeed ended up with it, money appears to be the biggest reason this ever got out. Not some act of righteousness on someone's part.

People always tolerate the racist or bigoted opinions of a family member or spouse.But everyone has a limit and it's fair to assume she had enough when he told her not to bring any black friends to basketball games.Being half black myself I would've done the same thing and make sure everyone knew what he is.

I agree people will put up with family to an extent, and that have a limit. My only point was that if someone is with some rich individual, and if money has been previously exchanging hands between the two for a while (if her being his Mistress is indeed true) then it should also be noted that the same reason could of led to the release of the recording. People trying (and failing) to argue that it has the same gravity as someone molesting a child, is just plain wrong on multiple levels, and trying to act as if that couldn't be a possible reason is just plain ignorant.

My biggest question with this, after being derailed from my original point, is what served to be the breaking point. While she claims the tape was leaked by someone else for monetary reasons, it could always still of been done by her. And considering Sterlings past examples of racist behavior, why wait to oust him for it if she wasn't benefiting from being around him?


It's easy to just jump on the bandwagon with this. It's why I sympathize with what Olin was saying about this - a person's privacy was invaded, and that's never good. As Voltaire once said
"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

That fact that Sterling only lost his job because of this recording, and not the many reported instances of racism that were shown to be more blatant and public is terrible. The fact that Olin, whose sole point was merely towards the blatant invasion of someone's personal space, was fired for believing that, is terrible. Yet everyone is happy to just hop on and claim that anyone who might possible agree in the slightest with Olin must be a bigoted racist as well.

That's just disgusting.

I haven't misunderstood what you said. You want to defend a man's right to make racist statements because his racism was "behind closed doors." Therefore his right to privacy is more important than letting the predominantly black team that he makes money off of (i.e. exploits, a word I've continued to use correctly, while the word you seem to be looking for is "blackmail" which isn't what I said or even implied) know that he considers them second class citizens at best and subhuman at worst. I understood that you'd rather attack the character of the woman who exposed him to throw question on her credibility for exposing him, because who cares if she revealed Sterling's disgusting attitude, she only did it for the money. I understand that through all of this, your position has been that laws should only benefit one person, instead of all the people he profits off of, because those people are either greedy and/or don't need, have the right, or deserve to know when their boss is a bigot with a contemptible opinion about them.

 

[wulf3n]

Yes, if you take the idea that people are subject to the consequences of their actions on its own, the person killed by bigots is included; how evil of me.

I mean, it's not like I've talked about how the consequences should be proportionate to the action or pointed out how you can easily take your reasoning that speech should be consequence free to an extreme I doubt you'd agree with. Nope, none of that ever happened, I just think people should be killed by bigots.

Oh, so it's ok the just brutally beat them up instead? or how about just have them fired from their job and prevent them finding other work, because that's somehow better? What is proportionate to speaking for equal rights? likewise what is proportionate for speaking against equal rights?

Why should the person speaking for equal rights be punished at all?

Expressing an opinion should not be subject to consequence. To protect those who may be saying currently unpopular necessary for society to be better for all.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I would argue the threat of being fired does take away ones choice to speak, replacing it with the choice to work or not work.

In other words, it doesn't take away his choice to speak.

Do I not get to choose whether or not to accept the promotion given to me as a consequence of my good actions?

I suppose that might be an option in some cases, but some promotions you can't turn down. Especially if they simply re-define the job, give you a pay rise and say "you're doing this now." You could refuse that by quitting, I guess.

But what about being demoted for for your bad actions? You don't choose to not get demoted if your speech reflects poorly on the company, and they decide you are not suitable for the position.

You seem to want to make speech risk-free, and somehow engineer it so that somehow everybody ignores anything negative you might say, but still reward you for the positive. This seems absurd. Do you want people to be able to go around the workplace insulting everybody, but have that "stricken from the record" so only the nice things you say about people count?

So, speech should have only positive consequences?

For the most part. Though I would have worded it "No one should be punished for expressing the opinion".

So, politicians should never be punished by voters for saying things the voters disagree with?

And, again, repeating a previous example - a PR agent for an organic food company should not be punished for publicly saying that organic food is a scam?

The question I have is should he have to see the possible problems. Should a person have to worry about someone somewhere taking offense to their opinion?

As a community manager using an account used for company communications, he absolutely should.

I've posted things relating to my work on Facebook,

Why the hell would you do that?

Just to be clear, you're talking about stuff like "My company [xxx] has this project [yyy] progressing well," and not merely "I had a bad day at work today," right? Why would you even disclose your employer on Facebook or Twitter, unless it was being used for work purposes?

Most of the posts? I just had a look it's more a 30%/70% split with work being the 30%

If he's doing any communication on behalf of the company, it's a work-related account.

That sort of attitude reminds me of the quote

"The only reason there's theft in this world is because people like you leave shit unlocked

and while it's not only incorrect [people still steal stuff that's locked up] it's a defeatist attitude. People shouldn't have to lock up their stuff. Just because that's the way it is now doesn't mean that's the way it should be. I'd like to live in a world where the average person can distinguish between a person and the company they work for.

That's a terrible analogy, because ideally, there should be no reason to mention your employer on these accounts. There's no good reason for it. People should avoid personal/professional conflicts, because that's the correct way to go about things.

I think that alone demonstrates he's not competent for the job.

I don't see how an opinion on a totally unrelated matter has any bearing on his ability to manage a community for a game company.

I'm not talking about his opinion on Sterling. I'm talking about his poor judgement to use a "personal" account for business-related communication. That has a lot of bearing on his competence as a community/social media manager.

Or did he get the job because he had a lot of followers? Looking at his Twitter profile it said it was created in 2008, while he was working for Treyarch not Turtle Rock. He wasn't using Turtle Rock as a soap box.

The fact that the account was pre-existing does not disprove he was using the Turtle Rock relationship to garner attention for his personal opinions.

I would say it's his link to the games industry that nets him so many followers not Turtle Rock or Evolve. So yeah, it's still a personal account.

Wow.

If it's about the "games industry" then it's clearly not a personal account. You completely contradict yourself there. If his account gets so many followers because it's an industry account, then it's clearly a "work" account and not a "random political views" account. Those readers didn't follow him for his political views, they followed him for his industry connections, regardless of who he's currently working for.

So, yeah, there's probably some unprofessionalism on Turtle Rock's behalf to let him use that account for communication about their game (if they were aware of it). But this guy should have been smart enough to not do that in the first place. Basically seems like incompetence all-round.

And if Turtle Rock were not aware of him using the account in this way, then that's incompetence on Turtle Rock's behalf, but also unprofessionalism on Olin's behalf for not informing them of that fact.