Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[maddawg IAJI]

People can be punished for what they say,just recently a teenage girl got in trouble for jokingly making terrorist threats to a airliner.

That's different. The first amendment doesn't cover threats or words that could endager people. For example, the cops will arrest you if you decide to walk into a crowded theatre and yell "FIRE!" because you caused a panic and people may be hurt in the rush to the exists because of your action. What a racist says however, is, unfortunatly, covered by the first amendment.

That sort of thing is what I support,making people be accountable for their actions and words.

Actions and words are two separate things and the only evidence you posted to support your violation of the first amendment was a tweet that was never covered by the first amendment to begin with.

Just like you can't make terroristic threats and not expect people to take you seriously,racists and bigots should'nt expect to spew their hate without someone doing something about it.

Yeah, that's fine, protest the game. Boycott the businesses of racists. That's what civil rights leaders did for a very long time before the 1960s, but do not for a second think that by beating them or by fining them that you're solving any problems. All you plan would do is make them angry and if history has proven anything to us, its that racists can be extremely vindictive and violent when they get angry enough. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching]

Instead, why don't we attempt to solve the real problems that plauge race relations today? Why don't we intergrate racially isolated schools, educate people on race and increase the budget for schools on a national level, increase housing assistance and job training programs, shit that will allow the urban dwelling citizens to better themselves and get out of the crime ridden cities. That my friend is how you're going to solve racism. Beating the racists is like trying to convert the Westboro Baptist Church to Islam.

 

[SlothDeVidya]

the supposed privacy of his home.

Ha, nice.

You know, after all the articles about the big scary NSA that have been featured on this website, this seems a wee bit hypocritical to me.

What the fuck does "supposed privacy" mean?

Is it meant to say that privacy only applies when people are saying things you like? Do people you don't like not get privacy? Are violations of privacy only important when they happen to someone that isn't you?

Nice to know that this website can be trusted to defend privacy right up until something they don't like is said. Now all the NSA has to do to get the internet on it's side is change "We have to violate your privacy to stop the terrorists" to "We have to violate your privacy to stop the RACISTS!"

People can be punished for what they say,just recently a teenage girl got in trouble for jokingly making terrorist threats to a airliner.That sort of thing is what I support,making people be accountable for their actions and words.

Just like you can't make terroristic threats and not expect people to take you seriously,racists and bigots should'nt expect to spew their hate without someone doing something about it.

I think you should look into what the word "speech" actually means, it doesn't mean "anything that comes out of your mouth"

A bombing threat isn't speech, it's a statement of intent, which is very different from speech. She wasn't punished because what she said wasn't socially unacceptable or because it wasn't nice.

She was punished because she made a statement of intent to cause harm to other people.

Now if she'd said something to the effect of "I wish I could blow up this plane because everyone here is an asshole/sinner/degenerate/filthy casual that deserves to die" That would be speech, and she could not be punished for such a remark, because it is simply a statement of her thoughts and opinions, without any implications of intent to break the law. (The airline could still refuse to let her onto the plane, though only if such remarks are prohibited by the agreement that she signed when she bought her ticket)

What Donald Sterling said IS protected speech, no matter how much we don't like it, he never implied intent to break the law, he merely expressed his, entirely repugnant yet sincerely held, opinions of black people.

That is not a crime, you cannot be legally punished for hurting people's feelings.

Note "Sincerely held", deliberate lies aren't speech either, which is why libel laws can exist.

Of course the NBA still has the right to ban him from the game, because they're a PRIVATE ORGANISATION with every right to control who participates in their game. (The matter of the violation of his privacy and the betrayal of his trust by a third party is a separate issue, the NBA has the right to act of information available in the public sphere, even if it was put into the public sphere by illicit means)

So no, you CANNOT be punished for what you say (by the government).

The first amendment is there for the exact purpose of defending unpopular speech.

If we go back on that then civil rights would never have gotten off the ground, the government would simply have punished everyone that talked about it.

But they couldn't, because despite segregation being enshrined in law, and despite racism being the social norm, you CANNOT legally punish people for speaking. Not. Ever.

Yeah you can,the First Amedment protects from the government punishing you for what you said.It does not however protect you from being punished anywhere else.Talk shit to some guy in a bar or some other place that people hang out at?Then don't be surprised if that guy knocks you on your ass.Start shouting fire in a crowded place or inciting panic?Then don't be surprised when the cops haul your ass off.Talk shit about your boss?Then don't be surprised if he/she docks your pay/demotes you,or fires you.

The point is there are consequences that comes with freedom of speech.And you are wrong once as freedom of speech does mean anything that comes out of your mouth.

So like, are you just blind or what?

Did you not read my entire post?

I fucking said, MULTIPLE TIMES, that private entities are free to punish you for your speech. Which is why it is fine for the NBA to ban Donald Sterling.

I made it ABUNDANTLY clear that my issue was with your suggestion that the GOVERNMENT should fine people for speech just because you don't like it or find it "bigoted"

If the bigots were in power they could apply the exact same things to you if you said something they don't like.

There can be absolutely no ambiguities here, either we all have freedom of speech or no one does.

And no, Freedom of Speech is not anything that comes out of your mouth, there is a legal difference between protected and non-protected speech. This is why the government can punish your for threats or deliberate libel, because those don't actually count as "speech" in the first place.

It's really very simple.

I also take issue with your implication that it is fine for people to assault you in a bar because you were talking shit.

Assault is still a crime, even if incited, though the punishment will likely be reduced.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I'm not directly affected in any way, that's why I'm not threatening boycotts but trying to have a dialog about censorship. Talking is fine but making threats that would harm an employer to try an elicit a response because I didn't like someone's harmless statement is far different

But you said that people should not have ANY reaction, whether positive, or negative, unless they were directly affected. You gave this as a reason that people should not be talking about it.

Just look at your own discussion thread here. Nobody was threatening boycotts. You flat-out stated that people should not be able to talk about this, unless they were directly affected. Then you went ahead and talked about it, in violation of your own advice.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

The fundamental principle behind "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence" is that people are responsible for the reaction of others, which I disagree with at a genetic level.

No, it is not. Where did you get that idea from?

My issue with the phrase first appeared around the incident where some guy made fun of Islam and caused a riot resulting in I believe a few deaths. A tragedy to be sure, but what I found most distressing is rather than blame those that committed murder everyone blamed the guy who made the joke with the argument Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence saying stupid things like he should be beaten and killed himself.

No, they did not.

Did you blame the guy that made the joke, rather than those who committed the murder? No? then not everybody did what you are accusing everybody of. In fact, from my memory, only a very small minority of people did what you are claiming.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I was speaking figuratively. Noone was physically lynched yet i hope, but there were some figurative lynching here.

No there wasn't.

Perhaps you can point out in which posts that happened?

Protip: people disagreeing with you does not mean you are being lynched, even in a figurative sense.

 

[Strazdas]

And, as with crimes, we'd be constantly changing the proportion to seek out the correct one and constantly debate that it is not working. Since I don't believe you would recommend that, just because people argue about what is the right amount of punishment for crimes, that we should get rid of it all together, so why should such a thing apply to the "punishment" of speech?

As for the harm being done, I hadn't really taken that into account since I didn't think it was necessary. As far as I know, and save for a few overzealous people, no one has really advocated actual, physical harm or imprisonment against these people we hear about. Mostly what happens amounts to public shaming and a loss of job that is at least somewhat related to their company's image (Eich as a representative, Olin as a community manager, and Sterling as an owner). I mean I guess there could be instances where more punishment was called for (I want to say that that'd just be considered abuse or harassment), but really this is the standard instance and punishment that we see.

As such, there's not really any complexity: the usual consequences of speech should be restricted to public shaming, ostracization, and possibly the loss of your job due to such things. You don't have to determine what is and isn't proportional for every given incident, because what's proportional is usually what will happen without issue other than people declaring the fall of the First Amendment.

except as we know from criminal justice, that does not really solve the problem and turns out does not really work.

right now punishment for crimes are more or less a majority of vote. imagine if that was same for punishment of speech. marthin luther king would have died in jail. the activits who started female right to vote campaign would have been beat up to death and we would have still live in society of 18th century full of racism and sexism. It i was because they had no consequences for their unpopular opinions that our society managed to progress in this way. by punishing people for unpopular speech you are hampering progress, just like the middle ages held back the wesntern world for decades.

you say there is no complexity, yet already prove otherwise. you think consequences of speech should include loss of work, i think it should not, we area already at an impasee on a first step of regulating speech. now try to apply that to millions of people. Publish shaming is mob justice. nothing more, nothing less. i hope i dont have to tell you why mob justice is wrong.

what is proportional usually happens on its own? wow thats very naive.

Stop twisting my words,it's getting really annoying.

My post was to show that it did'nt matter whether or not Sterling 'was illegally recorded' (and even that's a stretch since there are reports he likes to record stuff because he's forgetful)this would've come out when black people were banned from attending future Clippers games.

Also anyone who would knowingly allow a serial killer to do whatever he wants based off some ridiculus notion that his privacy is more important than the people he's harming shares some of the blame for the deaths they could've prevented.

At one point does the serial killer's right to privacy overrule the rights of his victims?Am I the only one who thinks that's completely fucked?

i am not twisting your words, i am using the logic you provide and apply it to more than racism. if that is not what you mean, then you have logical incinsistency and frankly dont know what your talking about.

Yes, it matters if it was illegally recorded. because illegal recording is a crime. and he was a victim of that crime. This means that what Olin said was factually correct.

If a "serial killer" is doing nothing but talk at his house, then no rights of potential victims are broken. His protection stops when he actually goes and tries to kill somebody, as then he is violating other peoples rights. Whats "completely fucked" is that you think only some people deserve to have rights.

Being intolerate of intolerance is not hypocrisy, since it shows society will not accept people who think others are inferior or less than human because of the color of their skin or sexual preference.

being intolerance of intelorance you yourself are intolerant and therefore should not tolerate yourself. this is illogical. its not so much a hypocracy as logical impossibility.

No there wasn't.

Perhaps you can point out in which posts that happened?

Protip: people disagreeing with you does not mean you are being lynched, even in a figurative sense.

for example The Hidden Eagle telling we should beat up bigots for their opinion. Or the person going on crusade agasint said hidden eagle till he got a warning around page 3 (sorry forgot the name). I never implied i was the one being lynched here, nor that disagreement of opinion was lynching. calling for punishment for people you disagree with, now thats lynching.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

No there wasn't.

Perhaps you can point out in which posts that happened?

Protip: people disagreeing with you does not mean you are being lynched, even in a figurative sense.

for example The Hidden Eagle telling we should beat up bigots for their opinion. Or the person going on crusade agasint said hidden eagle till he got a warning around page 3 (sorry forgot the name). I never implied i was the one being lynched here, nor that disagreement of opinion was lynching. calling for punishment for people you disagree with, now thats lynching.

None of that is remotely comparable to a lynching, literal or figurative.

Hidden Eagle's opinion was just that - a poorly considered opinion. Notice how it didn't inspire a bunch of people agreeing with that course of action?

Also, "one person going on a crusade" is nothing like a lynching, as lynchings are a mob activity. It's impossible for a single person to engage in lynching.

 

[Strazdas]

No there wasn't.

Perhaps you can point out in which posts that happened?

Protip: people disagreeing with you does not mean you are being lynched, even in a figurative sense.

for example The Hidden Eagle telling we should beat up bigots for their opinion. Or the person going on crusade agasint said hidden eagle till he got a warning around page 3 (sorry forgot the name). I never implied i was the one being lynched here, nor that disagreement of opinion was lynching. calling for punishment for people you disagree with, now thats lynching.

None of that is remotely comparable to a lynching, literal or figurative.

Hidden Eagle's opinion was just that - a poorly considered opinion. Notice how it didn't inspire a bunch of people agreeing with that course of action?

Also, "one person going on a crusade" is nothing like a lynching, as lynchings are a mob activity. It's impossible for a single person to engage in lynching.

Fair enough, you have a point here and i retract my statement.

 

[Spearmaster]

I'm not directly affected in any way, that's why I'm not threatening boycotts but trying to have a dialog about censorship. Talking is fine but making threats that would harm an employer to try an elicit a response because I didn't like someone's harmless statement is far different

But you said that people should not have ANY reaction, whether positive, or negative, unless they were directly affected. You gave this as a reason that people should not be talking about it.

Reacting to something and discussing something are 2 completely different things in my view.

Just look at your own discussion thread here. Nobody was threatening boycotts.

I had read at least 2 posts on the first page where people were not going to buy Evolve based on Olin's twitter post. That is what you would call a reaction.

You flat-out stated that people should not be able to talk about this, unless they were directly affected.

Not what I said, I said "...reaction should be reserved for people that are actually affected." Never did I say discussion was reserved.

Then you went ahead and talked about it, in violation of your own advice.

Again discussion and reacting are not the same thing, the only reaction I can be guilty of is my reaction to society thinking its a good thing to fire someone because they believe people have privacy in their own home, in that regard I am affected, everyone is affected.

Reaction
re·ac·tion
noun
1.a reverse movement or tendency; an action in a reverse direction or manner.
2.movement in the direction of political conservatism or extreme rightism.
3.action in response to some influence, event, etc.:

 

[tzimize]

Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

Acknowledging it as an unpopular opinion, Turtle Rock's Josh Olin calls the banned owner of the Los Angeles Clippers a victim.

Update: Turtle Rock Studios has apparently removed Olin from his position as community manager as a result of his statement. "The comments made by our former community manager stand in stark contrast to our values as a game development studio," the studio tweeted [https://twitter.com/TurtleRock/status/461985205323317248] earlier this evening. "We sincerely apologize for his remarks and in no way endorse or support those views."

In his own follow-up tweets [https://twitter.com/JD_2020] posted after he was removed, Olin wrote, "I'll remind you, my remarks were in condemnation of sensational media, and support of one's privacy. Not in support of Sterling's actions... Final thoughts: I believe in racial equality & do not endorse bigotry in any way. I also believe in free speech and decry sensational media."

Original story:


Anyone who follows sports, especially NBA basketball, has been aware of the bigoted utterances of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, and the subsequent lifetime ban from the game by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver. However, the topic is far from dead, and at least one member of the game community has publicly come out to defend the man as a "victim."

Josh Olin is manager of the community and eSports team at developer Turtle Rock, which is making the sci-fi shooter Evolve. What makes this interesting is that his tweet [https://twitter.com/JD_2020/status/461613922370351104] is so out of bounds from the video game business (unless it was an NBA sports game), and a topic one would probably not expect to see from someone that deals with the community on a regular basis.

Olin's comments of Sterling as a victim seem to stem from the recording of the Clippers' owner's comments in the supposed privacy of his home. Forget for a moment that Olin is commenting on Sterling at all, but just a controversial topic outside the scope of his official duties. That seems to be a borderline issue between Olin and Turtle Rock, and any HR policies the company may have on such public comments.

Now, bring in the context of Sterling and his bigotry and Olin's perceived defense of the man, and Turtle Rock may be facing an issue similar to the NBA. The tweet, as of this posting, has been retweeted 25 times, and Olin has more than 142,000 followers. Of course, this is Olin's personal account, not a Turtle Rock one, but again, as the NBA showed, if personal feelings spoken in your home can get you banned for life, is there any difference of a public comment from your private account?

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion as part of the First Amendment, but at what point does that freedom of speech become a PR nightmare for the company said individual works for? The First Amendment allows you to say whatever you want without fear of arrest, but it does not guarantee you exemption from the ramifications those comments may bring from employers or other associations.

While I see (but don't agree with) Olin's point of view, and at the same time abhor Sterling's bigotry, the tweet poses an interesting dilemma worth following.




Permalink

Its not really a dilemma. People have a right to voice their opinion. If our society takes a direction where we need to watch what we say PRIVATELY because we work in a specific place...there is WAY too much power in corporations and WAY too little freedom for individuals.

Society will become bottled up and more extremists will emerge. The only way to temper opinions is to be able to voice them, and be challenged.

 

[Strazdas]

There are reports Donald Sterling knew he was being recorded so that point is moot.

Second being intolerant of intolerance is not a logical impossibility since why should I or anyone else tolerate the opinion of those who think others are inferior or inhuman based on their skin color or sexual orientation.

Finnaly if you think me asking the hardcore racists getting their just due is lynching then you should look up the word.I'm not asking for them to get pulled out of their homes and killed by a angry mob,I'm simply saying they should'nt be protected from those who get sick of the hatred they spew.

irrelevant. If you know somone is mugging you that does not mean the mugger is no longer doing a crime.

It is a logical impossibility, because by being intolerant of intolerance you yourself become intolerant and thus should intolerate yourself. well i guess that would work if you hate yourself, but thats a psychological problem then. I believe you also do not understand that tolerance and agreement are not the same thing. I tolerate that some people are racist, i do not agree with them.

yes, your not saying they should be pulled out of their home and killed, your just saying you are ok with people doing that. how noble of you.

 

[tzimize]

Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

Acknowledging it as an unpopular opinion, Turtle Rock's Josh Olin calls the banned owner of the Los Angeles Clippers a victim.

Update: Turtle Rock Studios has apparently removed Olin from his position as community manager as a result of his statement. "The comments made by our former community manager stand in stark contrast to our values as a game development studio," the studio tweeted [https://twitter.com/TurtleRock/status/461985205323317248] earlier this evening. "We sincerely apologize for his remarks and in no way endorse or support those views."

In his own follow-up tweets [https://twitter.com/JD_2020] posted after he was removed, Olin wrote, "I'll remind you, my remarks were in condemnation of sensational media, and support of one's privacy. Not in support of Sterling's actions... Final thoughts: I believe in racial equality & do not endorse bigotry in any way. I also believe in free speech and decry sensational media."

Original story:


Anyone who follows sports, especially NBA basketball, has been aware of the bigoted utterances of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, and the subsequent lifetime ban from the game by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver. However, the topic is far from dead, and at least one member of the game community has publicly come out to defend the man as a "victim."

Josh Olin is manager of the community and eSports team at developer Turtle Rock, which is making the sci-fi shooter Evolve. What makes this interesting is that his tweet [https://twitter.com/JD_2020/status/461613922370351104] is so out of bounds from the video game business (unless it was an NBA sports game), and a topic one would probably not expect to see from someone that deals with the community on a regular basis.

Olin's comments of Sterling as a victim seem to stem from the recording of the Clippers' owner's comments in the supposed privacy of his home. Forget for a moment that Olin is commenting on Sterling at all, but just a controversial topic outside the scope of his official duties. That seems to be a borderline issue between Olin and Turtle Rock, and any HR policies the company may have on such public comments.

Now, bring in the context of Sterling and his bigotry and Olin's perceived defense of the man, and Turtle Rock may be facing an issue similar to the NBA. The tweet, as of this posting, has been retweeted 25 times, and Olin has more than 142,000 followers. Of course, this is Olin's personal account, not a Turtle Rock one, but again, as the NBA showed, if personal feelings spoken in your home can get you banned for life, is there any difference of a public comment from your private account?

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion as part of the First Amendment, but at what point does that freedom of speech become a PR nightmare for the company said individual works for? The First Amendment allows you to say whatever you want without fear of arrest, but it does not guarantee you exemption from the ramifications those comments may bring from employers or other associations.

While I see (but don't agree with) Olin's point of view, and at the same time abhor Sterling's bigotry, the tweet poses an interesting dilemma worth following.




Permalink

Its not really a dilemma. People have a right to voice their opinion. If our society takes a direction where we need to watch what we say PRIVATELY because we work in a specific place...there is WAY too much power in corporations and WAY too little freedom for individuals.

Society will become bottled up and more extremists will emerge. The only way to temper opinions is to be able to voice them, and be challenged.

As a PR person you can't just say whatever is on your mind because you are effectively representing the company at all times.This is one of those cases where Olin should've made a personal blog instead of going on Twitter,especially since he like anyone else who thinks this is a privacy issue did'nt have all the facts.Like Donald being reported to ask to be recorded out of fear of being forgetful.

This entire thing could've been avoided if people waited until all the facts out before getting on some moral soapbox about their "version" of the First Ammendment and privacy.

What you are saying makes no sense. Why would making a private blog be ok, but posting it on private twitter not be ok?

Having a "work-twitter" and a private twitter is what would help. If someone talks out of place in their work-environment, disciplinary options (including firing) is not something I have a problem with. But a blog and a twitter account represents the person. Unless it represents the company.

I havent read the fine lines in this case, but I'm guessing the guy used his private twitter. If he used his work twitter I cannot imagine this discussion every taking place. Using his private twitter for this should pose no problem. SHOULD.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Brendan Eich, Mozilla
Donald Sterling, NBA
Josh Olin, Turtle Rock Studios

The bodies going on the social justice bonfire are mounting.

To anyone who supports these PR-motivated terminations, I'd love to know what you would have to say if your political donations or Internet posts were published for America to see only to have your employer delete you from payroll in order to protect its image.

Your opinions or your career. Is that a choice you'd want on yourself? How clean and politically correct are you?

 

[Edl01]

Wait...isn't the community Manager's job to ensure that backlash like this doesn't happen?
Even if the guy wasn't agreeing and defending someone for being racist I'd still say that he deserves to lose his job for the fact he is doing the opposite of managing the communities, he's encouraging backlash against the game!