Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[Dragonlayer]

Just another story that teaches if you have a job don't express an opinion ever, you'll piss off someone somewhere and you'll get fired for it.

People should just play it safe like me and not say anything about anything ever.

....

OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE!?

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

Just another story that teaches if you have a job don't express an opinion ever, you'll piss off someone somewhere and you'll get fired for it.

People should just play it safe like me and not say anything about anything ever.

....

OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE!?

And we've hit the nail on the head. The conversation can stop, and we can all hit the showers. Well after a slight addendum that is. "Don't say anything about anything ever, unless you're absolutely sure the only people that hear it agree with you"

There used to be a time that unless your view was completely psychotic, you could be different, and think different, and you'd always be around to offer a different point of view. Now, people prefer the echo chamber.

I personally think there is plenty of room in the world of civil discourse for well spoken bigots and racists. I really do. Bill Cosby would be branded a racist and ran out of town because of how he speaks about the elements of black culture he has determined to be languishing. You know why he isn't? Because he's black... Isn't that just stupid? Hell, he should check his privilege amirite?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

And we've hit the nail on the head. The conversation can stop, and we can all hit the showers.

Wait, wasn't that comment about being allowed to say different things? Yet you want to arbitrarily call the discussion finished, and stop speech.

Not to mention that the argument is completely ridiculous. We have more avenues to express our speech than ever. The key is to not do it in stupid ways, and not do it while representing your employer. It's not that hard.

There used to be a time that unless your view was completely psychotic, you could be different, and think different, and you'd always be around to offer a different point of view. Now, people prefer the echo chamber.

If you think today is some kind high-water mark for conformist, echo-chamber speech, you couldn't be more wrong. It has never been more free and diverse. You'd face a lot more push-back for expressing dissenting opinions in previous decades and Centuries.

Bill Cosby would be branded a racist and ran out of town because of how he speaks about the elements of black culture he has determined to be languishing. You know why he isn't? Because he's black... Isn't that just stupid? Hell, he should check his privilege amirite?

Uh, what?

Bill Cosby's remarks about black youth were widely condemned and criticized. He essentially was run out of town in certain circles. He certainly was told to check his privilege (as a wealthy elitist) by many people.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Whoops, double-post. To avoid a low-content warning, I'll add:

It seems to me that the main difference between today and the past is that today people don't accept any risk at all for their speech. People used to put their lives and freedom on the line to express themselves.

These days, people want to both hold their cushy jobs, and use their position of employment as a soapbox without suffering any repercussions. It's like thinking you're some kind of big-time activist by signing an online petition, or posting a tweet with a hashtag.

You have never been less at risk from posting your opinions publicly. You have never had more access to means of speech and expression. Yet you want us to believe that we're in some kind of uniquely oppressed time in history? Balderdash.

 

[Strazdas]

1) It doesn't matter if he claims that his own posts are his own [thoughts/opinions]. If he truly wanted them to be his own, then he really shouldn't have posted his association and representation of the company and product. By doing so he was tying everything he said/did on his personal Twitter account to both those things.

2) And no, a back yard =/= a PUBLIC TWITTER PAGE, with plasterings of his job and the product they make. My example was spot on as he was openly, in the public, while wearing a 'virtual uniform' of the company, defending a bigot and saying that the individual in question was a "victim". Maybe if he posted it on a privately locked Facebook page that nobody could view it would have been a different issue altogether, but he publicly shared this opinion openly to everyone knowing full well that others could view it.


3) Alright, you're contracting yourself on your thing about the Firefox. If the USSC declared that donations are an act of Free Speech, then by making the donations himself, he was making a speech about his hate towards homosexuals and a stance against them. See how that works? You can't have it one way or another, it either is or it isn't. It's also a political action by him against a select group of people. How do you not see that as being similar to rich German individuals giving money to the Nazi party during it's early iteration? I'm not kidding you in that thought, as it's on par with what he's doing (supporting political parties with motivations to ban select individuals from shared rights of other individuals so as to eventually push those banned individuals out of the system). HE WAS WRONG for what he did; whether you agree or disagree is your own opinion. HOWEVER, there were many companies, public groups, and general citizens that disagreed with him and voiced their opinion by using FREE SPEECH to publicly call to boycott his company and don't support anything that he's working for/supporting. Their actions of FREE SPEECH against such an ignorant fool (yes, he's an ignorant fool) worked as it got the company to get him to remove his position because the public FREE SPEECH against him and the company hurt their image.




5) Bottom line is that people like you will support FREE SPEECH for people that are bigots, racists, and have a general opinion that is opposite of the majority public. However, when it comes to the majority public to turn it's FREE SPEECH into movements against such people in a way that it not only exposes them for the hateful person(s) they are, but to bring it's attention to their employer that has to act to save a company's image, that's something you'll completely disagree with and call against? Hypocrite much?

1. You have a point.

2. No. private twitter account is just that - private account, and not official page. if i were to plaster my walls at home with my work picutures that does not turn it into public property, nor does it mean im representing my work when im there.

3. Yes. he was making a speech. he was allowed to do that and everything he did was legal. And German individuals giving money to Nazi party is no different. So? They did not give money to genocide machine, they have money to political party that at that period of time was not committing any local or international crimes.
Whether he was wrong or not is IRRELEVANT. Freedom of speech should protect everyones speech, not only what is popular at that time (which is what "right" is).
What they did was not free speech, what they did was witch hunting. And in fact speech that demands reprecusions for somones words is discrimination that is illegal in quite a lot of places.
4. There is no 4?
5. Yes, i will support freedom of speech for everyone, even those who hold unpopular opinions or opinions i disagree with. And i expect to have same freedom of speech when i suggest an unpopular opinion. I am not hypocrite to expect to have same rights applied to me as i apply to others.

And he dodges!

Yeah right, oh woe is me. Whatever will happen with this 80 year old billionare. Surely he's doomed to a life of... continued unimaginable luxury for the rest of his days. I would not wish that upon my worst enemy..?

Your argument basically boils down to that people should deny a truth simply because someone somewhere at some time infringed on another persons personal space. Like if you happen to be watching over your girlfriends shoulder when gets a sext from a dude named "hot stuff", you're supposed to ignore it cuz "personal space" or whatever.

Oh, i didnt knew he was a 80 year old billionaire, certainly we cant treat rich old people equally, they must be hated! also why does 80 year old billionaire work as PR for game company?

My argument is that infringing on personal space should not happen and when it does it should be discouraged by completely ignoring the info they "dug up".

You know something is wrong when people are actually defending a bigot's right to spew his/her hate without consequence.There's something very wrong with that.

today i leaned equity is very wrong. thank you for the lesson.

Naive?It's called living in the real world.The day people start getting lynched for their opinions is the day the world starts going to hell.

So apperently by living in rela world and seeing all the wars that are currently active you do not think a WW3 is ever possible. riiiight.

Oh, and people are getting lynched for their opinions, case in point: this thread.

But he's going to walk out rich, furthering his billionaire status. and I never come in defense of people who make more money than me.

So I don't care.

well, i hope you will get very rich so you could start caring for the world you live in.

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?

That is not what happened. Olin used his personal account.

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.

well of course if your suing for that recording the recording will be taken as evidence. i meant in a case against his racism.

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.

It makes sense. The freedom is to recieve or not recieve consequences, not choices. hence the freedom from consequence and not freedom of choice.

 

[freaper]

Olin's final comment is pretty much my own opinion on the matter, and as such I hope he's not completely removed from working at Turtle Rock.

 

[Robert Marrs]

So he was fired because people are too stupid to realize the difference between supporting racism and supporting personal privacy. People raged hard and threatened to not buy the game because a fucking community manager (aka someone who has pretty much zero input on the development of the game or company policy) stated an opinion in support of personal privacy. Granted he should have kept his mouth shut on the situation regardless of his opinion. Not very smart to get involved in polarizing events like this when you represent a company from the community stand point. I still find myself more angry at peoples knee jerk, childish reactions to this whole situation. Not towards Donald Sterling himself but the anger you see directed at people who dare to even suggest recording and releasing private conversations is wrong. That is more upsetting then some crotchety old white man being a racist. Congrats community. Your voices have been heard.

 

[mysecondlife]

1) It doesn't matter if he claims that his own posts are his own [thoughts/opinions]. If he truly wanted them to be his own, then he really shouldn't have posted his association and representation of the company and product. By doing so he was tying everything he said/did on his personal Twitter account to both those things.

2) And no, a back yard =/= a PUBLIC TWITTER PAGE, with plasterings of his job and the product they make. My example was spot on as he was openly, in the public, while wearing a 'virtual uniform' of the company, defending a bigot and saying that the individual in question was a "victim". Maybe if he posted it on a privately locked Facebook page that nobody could view it would have been a different issue altogether, but he publicly shared this opinion openly to everyone knowing full well that others could view it.


3) Alright, you're contracting yourself on your thing about the Firefox. If the USSC declared that donations are an act of Free Speech, then by making the donations himself, he was making a speech about his hate towards homosexuals and a stance against them. See how that works? You can't have it one way or another, it either is or it isn't. It's also a political action by him against a select group of people. How do you not see that as being similar to rich German individuals giving money to the Nazi party during it's early iteration? I'm not kidding you in that thought, as it's on par with what he's doing (supporting political parties with motivations to ban select individuals from shared rights of other individuals so as to eventually push those banned individuals out of the system). HE WAS WRONG for what he did; whether you agree or disagree is your own opinion. HOWEVER, there were many companies, public groups, and general citizens that disagreed with him and voiced their opinion by using FREE SPEECH to publicly call to boycott his company and don't support anything that he's working for/supporting. Their actions of FREE SPEECH against such an ignorant fool (yes, he's an ignorant fool) worked as it got the company to get him to remove his position because the public FREE SPEECH against him and the company hurt their image.




5) Bottom line is that people like you will support FREE SPEECH for people that are bigots, racists, and have a general opinion that is opposite of the majority public. However, when it comes to the majority public to turn it's FREE SPEECH into movements against such people in a way that it not only exposes them for the hateful person(s) they are, but to bring it's attention to their employer that has to act to save a company's image, that's something you'll completely disagree with and call against? Hypocrite much?

1. You have a point.

2. No. private twitter account is just that - private account, and not official page. if i were to plaster my walls at home with my work picutures that does not turn it into public property, nor does it mean im representing my work when im there.

3. Yes. he was making a speech. he was allowed to do that and everything he did was legal. And German individuals giving money to Nazi party is no different. So? They did not give money to genocide machine, they have money to political party that at that period of time was not committing any local or international crimes.
Whether he was wrong or not is IRRELEVANT. Freedom of speech should protect everyones speech, not only what is popular at that time (which is what "right" is).
What they did was not free speech, what they did was witch hunting. And in fact speech that demands reprecusions for somones words is discrimination that is illegal in quite a lot of places.
4. There is no 4?
5. Yes, i will support freedom of speech for everyone, even those who hold unpopular opinions or opinions i disagree with. And i expect to have same freedom of speech when i suggest an unpopular opinion. I am not hypocrite to expect to have same rights applied to me as i apply to others.

And he dodges!

Yeah right, oh woe is me. Whatever will happen with this 80 year old billionare. Surely he's doomed to a life of... continued unimaginable luxury for the rest of his days. I would not wish that upon my worst enemy..?

Your argument basically boils down to that people should deny a truth simply because someone somewhere at some time infringed on another persons personal space. Like if you happen to be watching over your girlfriends shoulder when gets a sext from a dude named "hot stuff", you're supposed to ignore it cuz "personal space" or whatever.

Oh, i didnt knew he was a 80 year old billionaire, certainly we cant treat rich old people equally, they must be hated! also why does 80 year old billionaire work as PR for game company?

My argument is that infringing on personal space should not happen and when it does it should be discouraged by completely ignoring the info they "dug up".

You know something is wrong when people are actually defending a bigot's right to spew his/her hate without consequence.There's something very wrong with that.

today i leaned equity is very wrong. thank you for the lesson.

Naive?It's called living in the real world.The day people start getting lynched for their opinions is the day the world starts going to hell.

So apperently by living in rela world and seeing all the wars that are currently active you do not think a WW3 is ever possible. riiiight.

Oh, and people are getting lynched for their opinions, case in point: this thread.

But he's going to walk out rich, furthering his billionaire status. and I never come in defense of people who make more money than me.

So I don't care.

well, i hope you will get very rich so you could start caring for the world you live in.

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?

That is not what happened. Olin used his personal account.

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.

well of course if your suing for that recording the recording will be taken as evidence. i meant in a case against his racism.

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.

It makes sense. The freedom is to recieve or not recieve consequences, not choices. hence the freedom from consequence and not freedom of choice.

Why thank you. I'm doing alright, but I could always do better..

 

[Spearmaster]

I love when all the little social warriors come out of the woodwork for no other reason to try and bully someone for their opinion when it has literally nothing to do with them, maybe its a self esteem thing...I'm not sure.

On the first amendment thing the reason we have the first amendment, which protects people from the government, is because oppressing peoples freedom of speech is bad, whether it is the government, a person or a group of social bullies who like to try and oppress people who don't share their opinions. Its allowed by law sure but is it moral? Is it ethical?

I remember a time when the goal was to learn from and be better than people who had backward opinions about others, not to bully them and feel good about yourself because they don't agree with us so there not real people anyway.

 

[Vareoth]

One should expect a certain rebuttal if one does something which will clearly offend people. No arbitrary right overrules ones own responsibility for their actions. How far such a rebuttal can go is not something I can properly judge (especially since this whole business seemingly waived Sterling's right to privacy). But while Sterling had a history of uncouth behaviour, Olin just made a reasonable statement (though calling Sterling a victim feels slightly awry) for the wrong team. To fire him for that seems a bit much.

But I do find it funny Sterling was in the NBA but he didn't like black people all that much.

 

[Ratty]

It's too bad Sterling got in trouble for saying the wrong things, rather than being a Slumlord for decades.

I don't feel bad for Sterling at all. But while I don't exactly agree with the thought process behind this guy's tweet, I don't think he should have been fired for it. But I understand I might think differently if I was his employer and he was making me and the company look bad this way.

 

[UltimatheChosen]

that would be the case.


if the NBA was a government association instead of a private one.

and no, the freedom of speech does not cover private businesses.

So, really, this is a guy being punished by the group he works with for things they do not tolerate.

The right to speak freely does not apply to private events. That's true. But what that generally means is you don't have a right to practice free speech in private locations. This is one reason why you can be banned from a message board for what you say.

But in general speech is often just the expression of belief and the freedom of belief (aka, the freedom of religion) is a protected status. For example, you can't refuse service to a person because they're Christian. You can refuse service if they walk into your business and start shouting things. From what I understand, this was a privately recorded conversation but clearly I was less informed about the extent of this guy's douchebaggery so maybe he did shout things in an NBA stadium and I just didn't know about it.

He generally says these nutbag things privately from what I've seen. Someone just finally caught him via recordings.

The right to speak freely doesn't apply AT ALL in this case because it's not a case of government regulation.

The NBA is not part of the government. It can fire or censure people for any reason it chooses to unless it's something that is specifically forbidden by law-- for instance, there are laws against firing someone for being black, but there is no law against firing someone for liking anchovy pizza.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Cool, it looks like I have one less game to buy!

It's his right to be an old bigot, but it's my right to not support anyone who roots for him.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech without consequence. The NBA isn't the government, they can do as they please.

Would you really not buy a game because of something a community manager said?

 

[Church185]

Would you really not buy a game because of something a community manager said?

Trust me, I've done it before for much less. Though it does look like he has been canned now, so I'll need to buy the game to balance out the equally petty people who are now skipping it because he was canned.

Logic doesn't apply. :3

 

[wulf3n]

Well Brutally beating someone up is still obviously disproportionate and you know it, as is preventing them from finding other work, which no one has actually done. Getting them fired from a job closely tied to public relations though, seems pretty proportionate. As for speaking for equal rights, I feel like a positive consequence (not everything needs to be a punishment) would be in order, maybe a drink or some applause depending on how it's actually done. Speaking against equal rights should see you ostracized from people in favor of equal rights, along with any financial burdens that follow because of this.

I think you misunderstand my position.

They shouldn't, they should experience consequences for their actions, just like everyone else. In this case, positive ones like those mentioned above.

But if they were to express that opinion during say a Klan rally, they would likely be putting themselves in mortal danger and the "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence" mantra essentially says it's their own fault and they deserve whatever they get, which is what I disagree with.

So if I went on a tirade filled with expletives and insults to you right now, I shouldn't face any consequences? Would you appeal to the mods that suspend me and not change the way we interact in the slightest, because I consider getting suspended and you changing the way you converse with me consequences.

I would not appeal to the mods nor would I want you suspended. As for the changing the way I converse, well that's taking a fairly liberal view point of "consequence". I'm using the word in the "unpleasant result" sense not the action/reaction.

And we already protect those who say unpopular opinions, we just don't protect them to the point that nothing bad ever happens to them as a result of what they say, which is apparently what we need to do for them to be considered "protected."

As for society being better for all, if we consider bigoted opinions the unpopular ones, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. That might have been the case in the past when the unpopular opinions happened to be the ones advocating equality and freedom and such, but that doesn't really fit now.

We feel that way now with the benefit of hind sight, but I wonder how many opinion the majority hold now that will be considered horrific in the future?

We know those opinions of the past to be for the betterment of society, whereas if you want unpopular opinions of today to be protected to the point that no consequences can ever befall them, you need to either argue that bigoted statements are somehow bettering society or separate bigotry from other speech and protect only the latter.

The problem with separating "bigotry" from other speech if terms of protection is who defines bigotry. Sure the obvious stuff will be included which is good, but I worry that things that are unpopular now, that will be the norm later will fall in there and hinder progress.

The idea that my opinion is "defending bigotry" is incorrect [not saying you said that, it's just that theme has come up a lot in this thread], what I want is a world where people aren't afraid to express their opinion out of fear or repercussion, unfortunately bigoted opinions with no redeeming value fall into this category, but it's a necessary evil.

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

I suppose it depends on how one defines "choice". To me a decision made under duress is not a choice.

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.

Well that's really a gray area. Being demoted for not doing the job effectively is a part of work. The question is whether what is said really does affect said company.

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?

Not completetly. Obviously things like verbal harassment, talking negatively about the company you work for, or giving up company secrets etc. shouldn't be allowed, what I want to ensure doesn't happen is say someone being fired from the IT position because they said something like the 2nd Amendment is the biggest threat to America, or that everyone has a right to privacy.

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?

That's a pretty loose definition of punishment. Not voting for a person because you don't like their policies isn't punishment, nor is firing someone who's not good at their job.

The situation with Olin however is different. His stance on privacy has no immediate bearing on the product he's representing [unless of course Evolve is secretly collecting everyone's personal information] so the way I see it his being fired is not related to his ability to do his job, but rather something he personally believes in, which to me is wrong.

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

Technically it's his account, or at the very least Treyarchs.

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?

Because my company does a lot of charity work on the side and I like to spread the word to raise awareness.

Also anything with my actual name on it is little more than a business card, I make sure there's nothing unprofessional on there, for that stuff I use a pseudonym. Though I feel I shouldn't have to.

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

Technically yes, in the sense that it's an account that relates to his work, but I wouldn't call it a work account.

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.

In a pessimistic world perhaps.

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.

This isn't the first time he's posted his opinion on that account, in fact he does it quite a lot, if Turtle Rock had an issue with it they should have said something years ago. If expressing his personal opinion along side company promotions influenced his ability to do his job it would have been known ages ago.

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.

Given that he worked for Treyarach first, I would wager that's who he used to get followers not Turtle Rock. If anything Turtle rock were using him because of his connections.

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.

How is that a contradiction? Your logic would be like saying Ashton Kutchers account isn't a personal one because the only reason he has so many followers is because of he has worked for a bunch of movie companies.

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.

I think you're missing the point I'm making. I'm not saying that's not how it is, just that's not how I feel it should be. Hence the quote from before.


... Anyway, this behemoth of a conversation is getting too big for my liking, so I'm going to call it a day.

 

[Spearmaster]

I love when all the little social warriors come out of the woodwork for no other reason to try and bully someone for their opinion when it has literally nothing to do with them, maybe its a self esteem thing...I'm not sure.

On the first amendment thing the reason we have the first amendment, which protects people from the government, is because oppressing peoples freedom of speech is bad, whether it is the government, a person or a group of social bullies who like to try and oppress people who don't share their opinions. Its allowed by law sure but is it moral? Is it ethical?

I remember a time when the goal was to learn from and be better than people who had backward opinions about others, not to bully them and feel good about yourself because they don't agree with us so there not real people anyway.

Who is bullied here?Because I don't see anyone being bullied.

So when a multitude of people take up internet pitchforks and torches and call for someone to loose their job through threats of boycotts, not for something they did mind you, but for something they think, no one is being bullied to conform their thoughts? Or are we going to go with don't ask don't tell?

Also I was waiting for someone to pull the "social justice warrior" card,what's next?You gonna complain about so called "political correctness" that does'nt exist except in the minds of those who think being a hateful asshole should be allowed with impunity?

So do you have a horse in this race? Has anyone done anything that directly pertains to you in any way? I just look on in awe as people line up to demonize someone they don't know for something that has nothing to do with them other than they don't like someones opinion and decided they should be punished for having it.

Freedom of Speech only protects you from the government,it does'nt protect someone from being fired for stating a opinion that could be considered imflamatory or harmful to the place of work's image.

I didn't say otherwise. I called into question the morality of it. Just because its legal doesn't always make it right.

People need to understand the fact that they aren't allowed to say whatever they want without some sort of reaction be it positive or negative.

Yes and that reaction should be reserved for people that are actually affected. People that have nothing to do with the issue other than forcing conformity to their views should just live and let live.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

2. No. private twitter account is just that - private account, and not official page.

There is no such thing as a private Twitter account. They are all public.

if i were to plaster my walls at home with my work picutures that does not turn it into public property, nor does it mean im representing my work when im there.

Completely irrelevant comparison. Twitter account are public, they are not your private property. Also, this guy explicitly links his employer to this Twitter account.

A better analogy would be if you were plastering bus stops with posters expressing your opinion, and putting a URL for your employer on the posters. He has 140,000+ followers. That is nothing like putting something on the walls of your private home.

Oh, and people are getting lynched for their opinions, case in point: this thread.

What the hell? Who has been "lynched" in this thread? Do you even know what "lynching" means?

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?

That is not what happened. Olin used his personal account.

How is it his personal account when he has Turtle Rock linked in its description, and he regularly posts company PR from it? In what way is he not speaking for the company? He uses the word "we" in his tweets to describe company activity.

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.

It makes sense. The freedom is to recieve or not recieve consequences, not choices. hence the freedom from consequence and not freedom of choice.

This does not make sense, because freedom of speech is not the freedom to choose consequences or lack thereof. Where the hell are you getting this idea from?

Part of the human experience is that we can't control everything. If we were able to choose consequences, then I'm pretty sure that everybody would choose "being rich and popular" or "immunity from negative consequences" as a consequence of their actions. That's not how things work, outside of fantasy. Heck, even the rich, popular and powerful are regularly subject to unintended consequences of their actions.

Please explain where you get this idea that people should be immune from all consequences of their speech from.