patrick.net

No free speak in libbyland.
Exactly what the forefathers did not intend...

un-fucking-believable. i'm sure walt disney would be appalled by curt's opinions.

Dungeness says

No free speak in libbyland.

The government didn't prevent him from airing his views, so he had and still has free speech. It was his employer who decided that he didn't represent their company values and so he was fired, which is their right. If you are going to say/post hateful or ignorant things on the internet there may be repercussions.

doubleplusungood.

astronut97 says

The government didn't prevent him from airing his views, so he had and still has free speech. It was his employer who decided that he didn't represent their company values and so he was fired, which is their right. If you are going to say/post hateful or ignorant things on the internet there may be repercussions.

Curt didn't really say anything hurtful or ignorant although I do beleive he poorly worded his position.

The real question involved is "exactly how far is society supposed to go in order to accomodate those suffering from the mental illness labeled gender dysphoria".

Seems to me that legally and socially requiring most of society to change in order to make less than 1% feel marginally better about themselves is a rather ridiculous notion.

This is the free market at work. Are you guys advocating that the government tell companies that they cannot hire and fire someone? I didn't realize so many of you want a nanny state.

If Schilling posted a cartoon with the caption "Abortions tickle!" or "Tax churches" he'd be fired just the same.

Apparently Schilling, as well as much of the membership of this board, was raised in homes with segregated bathrooms, one for men only and one for women only. I didn't know so many people lived this way.

ah, so companies can decide to fire all democrats, simply for no reason other than their political beliefs? or they can fire everyone who supports racial integration, or gender equality?

when you have your employer watching what you say on your own time, you in actual fact do not have freedom of speech.

almost everyone has to work for someone else. only the rich do not.

so tatupu70 and astronut97 seem to be saying that only the rich deserve actual free speech. the rest of us damn well better bend with whatever the current political winds are if we want to eat. some freedom that is, thanks very much.

patrick.net is an anonymous forum exactly because we do not yet have protection from employer or university harassment for political views. please recommend patrick.net to your friends (and enemies!)

rando says

ah, so companies can decide to fire all democrats, simply for no reason other than their political beliefs? or they can fire everyone who supports racial integration, or gender equality?

when you have your employer watching what you say on your own time, you in actual fact do not have freedom of speech.

almost everyone has to work for someone else. only the rich do not.

so tatupu70 and astronut97 seem to be saying that only the rich deserve actual free speech. the rest of us damn well better bend with whatever the current political winds are if we want to eat. some freedom that is, thanks very much.

patrick.net is an anonymous forum exactly because we do not have protection from employer or university harassment for political views.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shift_key

This has always been the case. It's amusing to see angry middle-aged males finally notice it, now that it's being applied to them.

So many precious little sensitivities, so little time.

rando says

ah, so companies can decide to fire all democrats, simply for no reason other than their political beliefs?

Of course. They would never do it because they'd lose a lot of their best workers, but it's not against the law.

rando says

when you have your employer watching what you say on your own time, you in actual fact do not have freedom of speech.

Many people don't understand what freedom of speech implies. It means you cannot be imprisoned for speech. Companies are free to hire and fire for most anything--unless they are discriminating against a protected class.

Have you missed all the stories about people being fired for what they posted on facebook? Or not being hired because of their posts?

Ceffer says

So many precious little sensitivities, so little time.

I know. It is weird how superficially normal people with busy lives can find the energy to care about who pees where.

HydroCabron says

This has always been the case.

not true.

tenure was created in academia specifically to address this problem. noam chomsky can spout off on whatever he likes politically, and in theory cannot be fired for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure

we need something like this for everyone: the right to hold whatever opinion you damn well please without fear of being fired for it.

rando says

ah, so companies can decide to fire all democrats, simply for no reason other than their political beliefs? or they can fire everyone who supports racial integration, or gender equality?

when you have your employer watching what you say on your own time, you in actual fact do not have freedom of speech.

almost everyone has to work for someone else. only the rich do not.

so tatupu70 and astronut97 seem to be saying that only the rich deserve actual free speech. the rest of us damn well better bend with whatever the current political winds are if we want to eat. some freedom that is, thanks very much.

As a television personality, Schilling is literally the face of ESPN (one on many, true) and so he will be held to a much higher standard as would a CEO or other highly placed company official. As such he needs to be very careful of his public persona, as this is partly what he is selling when he works for ESPN. He is not like most of us wage slavers in this respect.

ESPN wasn't monitoring him, it was brought to their attention by the backlash for the offended community. If he was just some anonymous Joe, like you or I, this wouldn't have blown up like this but again he is a public persona and so it did.

Other links on the article show that he's a serial pc offender, comparing radical Islamists to Hitler and defending Ben Carson's view that a Muslim shouldn't be President.

So no, tatupu70 and I don't believe only rich people deserve free speech, but everyone does need to keep in mind that what you say may come back at you. This is why most atheists are in the closet and until recently most gay and transgender people. They can't even declare what they are without a severe response from the general public.

rando says

tenure was created in academia specifically to address this problem. noam chomsky can spout off on whatever he likes politically, and in theory cannot be fired for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure

we need something like this for everyone: the right to hold whatever opinion you damn well please without fear of being fired for it.

Having a union helps curb corporate abuse, doesn't it?

rando says

not true.

tenure was created in academia specifically to address this problem

Yes: true.

That's why tenure was created, as you say.

That is, the problem we're discussing goes way, way back.

The only freedom of speech in America these days exists on the forums of patrick.net. Everything else has gone to hell.

He should sue ESPN, if I were him I would.

#politics

FortWayne says

He should sue ESPN, if I were him I would.

He won't sue because he will lose. It would be a waste of money.

FortWayne says

He should sue ESPN, if I were him I would.

On what grounds could he sue? It's not illegal to fire someone for being an ignorant asshat. Heck, here in Florida, a "Right to Work" state, workers can be let go without cause as long as it can't be proven that they weren't let go because of race, religion, sex or other protected class. No reason needs to be given, they can just be shown the door.

tatupu70 says

He won't sue because he will lose. It would be a waste of money.

I'd think ESPN has a lot more to lose with a lawsuit like that going public drama, lots of folks who would disagree with them.

They'd probably settle out of court for a lot of money just to make the matter go away. If you don't hurt them, they'll never change their ways. Companies have to be financially hit to change behavior.

Sure--they might pay him some hush money to get him out of their hair. But he would lose a lawsuit in court.

tatupu70 says

Sure--they might pay him some hush money to get him out of their hair.

In todays America, that's "winning".

They were looking for an excuse to break his contract, and he gave it to them on a silver platter?

Why do they hate opportunity?

Mincing political correctness is now a great pretense for getting rid of obnoxious asshats. I guess that's called evolutionary adaptation in action.

Great Free Market/Enterprise private corporations can fire at will.
We need more right to work laws so businesses can terminate any rightwinger at any time.

If one doesn't like Capitalism, Fuck You!
WAIT! Capitalism might Fuck You!

Isn't it weird that the very biggest jerks are the most upset about this issue of who goes potty where?

Schilling might actually walk past a puppy without kicking it. But only because he was rushing elsewhere to harvest kidneys from live orphans.

I was referring to Billary charging 250k per speech.
What the fuck is wrong with you???

astronut97 says

Dungeness says

No free speak in libbyland.

The government didn't prevent him from airing his views, so he had and still has free speech.

This is a non-issue in women's bathrooms as they have individual stalls.
OTOH, you want this john goodman lookalike staring at your schlong at the urinal when her birth hormones kick in?

HydroCabron says

Isn't it weird that the very biggest jerks are the most upset about this issue of who goes potty where?

for starters....

astronut97 says

FortWayne says

He should sue ESPN, if I were him I would.

On what grounds could he sue?

Dungeness says

I was referring to Billary charging 250k per speech.

What the fuck is wrong with you???

Well maybe you should have said that rather than "No free speak in libbyland". What is a person supposed to think when you say that? It looks exactly like you were complaining the Schilling was being denied his rights to free speech. So don't be offended if people misunderstand the point you're trying to make because they can't read your mind.

Oh, and nothing is wrong with me, you just don't know how to fucking communicate. :)

Dungeness says

OTOH, you want this john goodman lookalike staring at your schlong at the urinal when her birth hormones kick in?

Oh ... My ... Gawd!

Sooooo scary!

At least it's a new thing for conservatives to fear. Do you wear depends to contain the flow of your frequent involuntary urinations?

If conservatives are this afraid of something so innocuous, how can we trust them to keep us safe from our enemies?

I share men's restrooms with many organisms, some over 6'5", with no chin and fewer than 23 chromosomes, and a lizard brain that is the whole brain. I doubt that thing in the picture is any threat in comparison.

ESPN is a global company much like coca cola and Schilling's statements are clearly inconsistent with the company's vision of who they are and what they want to be. Much like limbaugh a few years ago on the network, he demonstrated repeated acts of lack of self control and schilling was actually given several chances to correct his behavior. Despite numerous opportunities, he still failed like a hooked alcoholic to see the forest for the trees and exercise better judgement.

This is why we need the "First Amendment everywhere, including the workplace" legal philosophy.

Unless it directly interferes with the business mission, like a salesman telling prospects to buy somewhere else because the store's products suck.

When you are exchanging labor for money, you're not selling your soul, just your labor.

thunderlips11 says

When you are exchanging labor for money, you're not selling your soul, just your labor

He would only be "selling his soul" if he was forced by the company to voice support for political issues that violated his beliefs. All he had to do was simply not comment either way and focus on analyzing baseball.

dublin hillz says

He would only be "selling his soul" if he was forced by the company to voice support for political issues that violated his beliefs. All he had to do was simply not comment either way and focus on analyzing baseball.

Nope, he's free to give his opinion on his own time on his own Facebook account. Company can suck it. Free Speech must be absolute.

This by the way, is the ultimate test as to whether somebody is for voluntary exchange, or supports special privileges for employers over their employees.

thunderlips11 says

Nope, he's free to give his opinion on his own time on his own Facebook account. Company can suck it. Free Speech must be absolute.

This by the way, is the ultimate test as to whether somebody is for voluntary exchange, or supports special privileges for employers over their employees.

Public figures are a reflection of the company and therefore must be held to a higher standard than a typical citizen.

thunderlips11 says

This is why we need the "First Amendment everywhere, including the workplace" legal philosophy.

LOL! The first amendment already applies everywhere (well except for yelling fire in a crowded theater or inciting a riot or the like), but if you think that it should shield you from the fallout of your speech you are sadly mistaken, especially for employees who are the face of the company. Every public word uttered or public post/tweet/email made by these types of employees reflects upon the company they work for, it goes with the territory and they are usually very well compensated. Now for non company face employees, I would expect this to be a much lesser issue unless they are publicly identifying themselves as an employee of such and such while spewing whatever offal floats their boat. I don't think most companies are monitoring employees facebook pages or other social websites but many do review such sites when deciding whether to interview or hire a someone.

Sorry, it's too much feudal power for employers to monitor the speech of employees.

Even for public faces, companies should have to bring a suit (can't just fire unilaterally) and prove a repetitive pattern of harm and financial damage.

ESPN should have to prove that Curt Shilling cost them substantial measurable damages, presumably from their huge loss among the large M2Fs sports fan demographic (LOL!)

I have a constitutional right to a job at ESPN!

HydroCabron says

I have a constitutional right to a job at ESPN!

Holy Strawman!

rando says

ah, so companies can decide to fire all democrats, simply for no reason other than their political beliefs? or they can fire everyone who supports racial integration, or gender equality?

No. They can fire people who are public figures and represent the company when they say things in the public forum which they believe have negative ramifications on the company image due to association. My corp will fire you for speaking to the media, if you are not part of our PR department, and commenting on the company/business. Wrong? I don't think so. Not my job to speak for the company.

If part of your job, is living out in the public eye, better do it well and with the interest of ESPN in mind at all times ... or ... bye bye. Curt doesn't GET a public voice that isn't associated with ESPN. So when he Facebooks, it is one of ESPN's figure heads messaging ... always.

rando says

when you have your employer watching what you say on your own time, you in actual fact do not have freedom of speech.

Again, if you are a news anchor, celeb, media figure, etc. ... you are NEVER not speaking for the company/your product. This guy made an unfortunate mistake and paid for it.

This isn't SJW, PC, or anti-first amendment at all. This is just typical PR business in action. I think the issue this is over is horse-crap, but ESPN is well within their rights here.

"Sorry Curt, your brand and image we do not feel is in line with ESPN anymore. We have to let you go. We hired a sports commentator, not a political pundit."