Originally posted by dadudemon
And that is what should have happened. But her employer getting involved is what I didn't like.
She's a public figure so her public image is inherently part of her job. To make an example by pushing this to the extreme: If she murdered someone she'd also be fired and I don't think you'd have a problem with it. That crime was part of her private life but her employer would decide to get involved.
Originally posted by Digi
I do think there's a difference between this and your Muslim example though. It's the difference between criticism and insults. One's a deconstruction of an idea or practice; the other is a personal attack. That extremist Muslims might not be able to tell the difference in your example is their fault, not the criticizer's. And I refuse to acknowledge that an attack on an idea IS an attack on the person who holds it. It does not need to be, and isn't, regardless of how the person takes it. Otherwise it renders immune strongly held beliefs to criticism, and paints debate on the same level as slander and insults.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They didn't "attack" her though, not in the same way that Islamist do. If we say she was acting reasonably then we have to say the people who responded we acting reasonably. There's also a matter of how appropriately scaled the response was, she was rude and people were rude to her. If someone murdered a Muslim and got killed for it I'd say that person was stupid and should have known better, too.
oh certainly, I'm neither trying to say they are the same or that the reaction has been on a similar scale. It does strike me as a bit of a slippery slope when "they should have known better" is the logic we use to condemn someone.
I believe it is true here, and she should have known much better, regardless of intent, I just have a hard time leaving it at that because I'd rather have people free and open to say stupid things they believe rather than hiding behind platitudes they disagree with.
Like, possible homophobic slur aside, is there a major issue with one media personality saying something insulting about another? I don't think so... but again, that is with the homophobia not included.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And that is what should have happened. But her employer getting involved is what I didn't like.
why does the employer have no rights over the workplace they own?
Fair enough, in. Though I dislike the modifier "slippery" because it implies that we might devolve to lower forms of the argument by accident. One only falls down the slope if they allow it. I have no problem using "she should have known better" here, while realizing it isn't a cure-all for similar circumstances.
But yeah, the company's involvement shouldn't be in question. Most employers have some sort of conduct code in place, and can suspend or fire for violations of it. And this extends to anything that gets put in the public forum. The station has a name and a brand to protect, other peoples' jobs at stake if they start losing money for an unpopular decision, etc.
If I started slurring gays on my Facebook page, I'd probably risk losing my job, and my employer is as progressive as many. And I wouldn't have much legal recourse in the matter, if any, let alone moral justification.
Originally posted by Oliver North
why does the employer have no rights over the workplace they own?
Your question makes an incorrect assumption and, therefore, cannot be answered. My previous statements in this thread answered this particular question, already, however. Since Ushgarak does not like any sort of ambiguity from me, I'll quote myself so I don't get into trouble:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think people should be able to say whatver they want off the clock, on their own "space", and on their own resources.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This would be different if she was posting on a public, Fox 19, Facebook fan page, but she wasn't. It was her personal Facebook. That is between her and her Facebook friends. The only time her Employer should be involved in anything is when she is operating as an agent of Fox 19. Not at work and not on an assignment? GTFO.
To be even more direct, you question is flawed because this situation had nothing to do with the workplace: she did it on her personal computer, on her own time, and she wasn't on assignment: it was purely personal.
I believe there was discussion in the GDF 3 or 4 years back about a gentleman that is part of the KKK but his employer didn't fire him because he never expresses his hate while on the clock or officiating as an agent of the company. That is how it should be run: personal time is personal time.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She's a public figure so her public image is inherently part of her job.
I agree. A private Facebook page is not public, however. She is at fault for adding Facebook friends that would be sensitive to some of her commentary. 😐 Had she been more discretionary, this would have never blown up, she would have gotten a few laughs, and no one would have known the wiser.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To make an example by pushing this to the extreme: If she murdered someone she'd also be fired and I don't think you'd have a problem with it.
Well, that crosses a line: one falls under speech and the other is illegal.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That crime was part of her private life but her employer would decide to get involved.
Again, there is a clear line: one is legal and the other is a felony that can get you the death penalty in some states.
Originally posted by Digi
If I started slurring gays on my Facebook page, I'd probably risk losing my job, and my employer is as progressive as many. And I wouldn't have much legal recourse in the matter, if any, let alone moral justification.
And that needs to change. You should be able to sue them for their "retaliation" because of what you do in your personal life. Let us add another section to Title VII under the civil rights act. We need to cover sexuality in the Civil Rights act, anyway.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That is how it should be run: personal time is personal time.
in some cases I'd agree, in this one I don't.
the employer, as the owner of the station and the provider of the job, has a right to employ who they like, especially given that they have a direct stake in the public perception of their employee given she is a newscaster
Originally posted by Oliver North
the employer, as the owner of the station and the provider of the job, has a right to employ who they like, especially given that they have a direct stake in the public perception of their employee given she is a newscaster
That's only true if it is a "At-Will" employment.
I am not familiar with that state's labor laws and I'm too lazy to spend 2 minutes looking it up.
However, I would never agree with your above statement. There are no "exceptions" in my book.
I guess the exception is betrayal like some forms of corporate espionage. But there are far better ways of doing that than on Facebook.
and I think it is a violation not only of the rights of the owner, but of all the other employees, that they would have their hands tied and be forced to suffer a loss of market share because one of their public figures is toxic, just not during the specific hours when she is on TV.
I'm actually really surprised to hear you suggest that, as an individual, an employer doesn't control what they own, meaning, the place of work. It seems way more like you are interested in defending hate speech than individual rights.
Originally posted by dadudemonSexual response is a deep mysterious union of the mind, body, will, and emotions. The difficulty with equating race with sexuality is that if I lose the use of my mind, body, will or emotions, I would still have brown skin. I know of former homosexuals but not any former African Americans. The color of my skin was an inevitable consequence of the combination of my mother and father’s DNA."
- Dr. Derek Grier
And this guy has clearly never heard of passing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_%28racial_identity%29
And what the hell is he talking about? If he lost his body how would he still have brown skin?
This Dr. Grier?
Originally posted by Oliver North
This Dr. Grier?
My rebuttal to his argument would be that while gays are an invisible minority and thus are not as visibly persecuted as blacks were, this is only a result of the extreme historical intolerance toward gays, that they couldn't even identify themselves in public without being ostracized and abused in almost every way imaginable.
Because they are an invisible minority I'd also argue that they've had (until recently) nothing close to the outside support that black rights campaigners received throughout the Civil Rights era.
Uncle Tom's Cabin (for all its shortcomings and datedness) did a considerable amount of good in bringing the evils of slavery to the attention of a broad, international audience and is an example of a member of the majority extolling sympathy for the oppressed minority. I would argue that such a sympathetic treatment of homosexuals by a member of the majority didn't happen until almost a century later when Gore Vidal wrote The City and the Pillar, and what's important to note here is that whereas Uncle Tom's Cabin was very well received (outside of the South, anyway) almost immediately after publication, in the case of Vidal's book the mainstream reaction was condemnation and scorn.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Assuming that's him, he could easily pass himself off as Samoan, not that many people likely pass anymore.My rebuttal to his argument would be that while gays are an invisible minority and thus are not as visibly persecuted as blacks were, this is only a result of the extreme historical intolerance toward gays, that they couldn't even identify themselves in public without being ostracized and abused in almost every way imaginable.
Because they are an invisible minority I'd also argue that they've had (until recently) nothing close to the outside support that black rights campaigners received throughout the Civil Rights era.
Uncle Tom's Cabin (for all its shortcomings and datedness) did a considerable amount of good in bringing the evils of slavery to the attention of a broad, international audience and is an example of a member of the majority extolling sympathy for the oppressed minority. I would argue that such a sympathetic treatment of homosexuals by a member of the majority didn't happen until almost a century later when Gore Vidal wrote The City and the Pillar, and what's important to note here is that whereas Uncle Tom's Cabin was very well received (outside of the South, anyway) almost immediately after publication, in the case of Vidal's book the mainstream reaction was condemnation and scorn.
thats... damn, thats actually pretty good...
my argument would have been that this man has no relevant qualifications to talk about homosexuality, but that is way better
Originally posted by Oliver North
and I think it is a violation not only of the rights of the owner, but of all the other employees, that they would have their hands tied and be forced to suffer a loss of market share because one of their public figures is toxic, just not during the specific hours when she is on TV.
Prove that this would happen, first, and then we can entertain the Sarbanes-Oxley Act...which act only applies to high-level management (there is a way you can make that argument but you'll still have a hard time proving it with a real-world case...it just doesn't happen the way you'd want it to happen in the real world).
Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm actually really surprised to hear you suggest that, as an individual, an employer doesn't control what they own, meaning, the place of work. It seems way more like you are interested in defending hate speech than individual rights.
How could you possibly come to that conclusion? Everything I posted should allow you to conclude that I am about protecting individuals from their employers, not hate speech.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
And what the hell is he talking about? If he lost his body how would he still have brown skin?
I assume the loss of control over your body, not the body itself.
To your reply, I disagree with it as a relevant argument, of course, because my rebuttal is the same point you argued against...which is odd. That is how I can tell an argument goes nowhere: the rebuttals are the rebuts of each-other.
Open another thread if you want to discuss this further.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
beat the argument, not the man 😉
Indeed. I don't like most of what that gent has to say about the topic. I carefully edited out most of his idiocy. He is also an advocate of Ex-gays: he thinks that ex-gays are being discriminated against both both straight and gay groups.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Prove that this would happen, first, and then we can entertain the Sarbanes-Oxley Act...which act only applies to high-level management (there is a way you can make that argument but you'll still have a hard time proving it with a real-world case...it just doesn't happen the way you'd want it to happen in the real world).
lol, excuse me, Dad...
it seems in this case the employer did punish their employee for their off-work behaviour, so I'm not sure which "real world" you are speaking of...
Originally posted by dadudemon
How could you possibly come to that conclusion? Everything I posted should allow you to conclude that I am about protecting individuals from their employers, not hate speech.
what I mean is, it is strange you are siding with the employee over the owner, when individual property rights would suggest the owner should have more control in this situation, especially given the context of this specific circumstance (re: public figure).
Why do you think the employee would have more control over the workplace than the owner, who owns the workplace and provides the job for the employee?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. I don't like most of what that gent has to say about the topic. I carefully edited out most of his idiocy. He is also an advocate of Ex-gays: he thinks that ex-gays are being discriminated against both both straight and gay groups.
ugh, it was just this line:
Sexual response is a deep mysterious union of the mind, body, will, and emotions.
every one of my psych spider-senses went into overdrive...
Originally posted by Oliver North
lol, excuse me, Dad...
😐
Originally posted by Oliver North
it seems in this case the employer did punish their employee for their off-work behaviour, so I'm not sure which "real world" you are speaking of...
That did not address what you quoted.
You said:
"and I think it is a violation not only of the rights of the owner, but of all the other employees, that they would have their hands tied and be forced to suffer a loss of market share because one of their public figures is toxic, just not during the specific hours when she is on TV."
To which I said:
"Prove that this would happen, first, and then we can entertain the Sarbanes-Oxley Act...which act only applies to high-level management (there is a way you can make that argument but you'll still have a hard time proving it with a real-world case...it just doesn't happen the way you'd want it to happen in the real world)."
Stating your case by using the example of what the Fox 19 did to Tricia is not making your case.
Originally posted by Oliver North
what I mean is, it is strange you are siding with the employee over the owner, when individual property rights would suggest the owner should have more control in this situation, especially given the context of this specific circumstance (re: public figure).
This is not correct. I am siding with privacy and the right of a person to be free of their employer outside of their working hours. I feel like a broken record, now. 🙁
The individual should have more control, not the employer. Her employer does not:
1. Own Tricia's home computer.
2. Own Tricia's speech rights.
3. "Own" Tricia in her off-time.
4. Own Tricia's home.
5. Own Tricia's access to the internet.
6. Own Tricia's public image during her off-time (seriously, is that even legal to do?).
Originally posted by Oliver North
Why do you think the employee would have more control over the workplace than the owner, who owns the workplace and provides the job for the employee?
Your question is malformed. I cannot accurately answer your question because it is irrelevant to the situation in the thread. Your question also incorrectly assumes that I think the employee should have more control over the workplace than the owner.
Rephrase your question in the context of this situation. Namely, she was at home, on her home computer, while "off duty".
I can ask you a different question: why do you think the employer has absolute control over the employees, even when the employees are "off-the-clock", at home, using their own resources on a private forum?
Originally posted by Oliver North
ugh, it was just this line:every one of my psych spider-senses went into overdrive...
There is still some mystery involved, for sure. We are not even close to fully understanding sexuality.