Dolphins Don Jones suspended for tweeting about Michael Sam

[NAHSTE]

Still doesn't make it right.

:wat:

Since when do right and wrong enter the equation? Again, this is a free market. If a company has policies in place, you must adhere to them should you wish to be employed by said company. Pretty cut and dried.

Let's say a company requires 5 years of experience to apply. Your opinion is that is a silly requirement.

Who is right?

 

[bucky]

Fixed for truth, actually. If you have these opinions, then use a personal and protected account that does not insinuate that you are an employee. Once you have dragged the employer into this, then it will be a shit show.

I would generally agree with this. There are times when a TV/Radio station gives a pre-show disclaimer and the show should be given leeway. But if someone is representing a company in some kind of official capacity, they should present themselves in a way the company wants to be represented. But I'm talking about personal views on personal time. And it would have to be something that is actually criminal or offensive. Tweeting "Horrible" is pretty tame.

 

[bucky]

:wat:

Since when do right and wrong enter the equation? Again, this is a free market. If a company has policies in place, you must adhere to them should you wish to be employed by said company. Pretty cut and dried.

Let's say a company requires 5 years of experience to apply. Your opinion is that is a silly requirement.

Who is right?

You serious? You want to bring in legitimate job requirements to prove there is nothing wrong with a company punishing someone over opinions on social issues made by an employee during a employee's personal time?

And you want to call me "dumb as fuck"? I have to be one of the most open minded people on VSN. Though that can't be that hard with such a dwindling user base.

 

[Youk]

I have to be one of the most open minded people on VSN. Though that can't be that hard with such a dwindling user base.

:dead:

(Forgot to quote the 2nd half, which is what the smiley references)

 

[bucky]

:dead:

It seems I'm the only one that doesn't want to shit on peoples rights like you do, even when I don't share the same belief. The thing I believe I have a right to fight is the actual act of oppression. You seem to think you should have the right to shit on other peoples rights when you disagree with their opinion/belief. You need to go back and reread my posts. You'll find just how much more open minded I am then you are.

It's not the side of an issue one takes that makes one open or closed minded. What makes one open or closed minded is the realization that my beliefs/opinions on opinion based issues is no more right (or wrong) than the ones on the other side of the belief/opinion.

Something that is clearly wrong is the act of oppression, even if the issue is against my personal beliefs.

How much more open minded could that be?

 

[Argath]

ESPN and NFLN showed the scene with Michael Sam knowing it'd get a reaction...they got one...then hit someone in the wrist with a ruler when he didn't give the desired reaction.

This.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

A company doesn't need to have control over opinions and shouldn't.
A company's unified message should be about what the quality of what the company produces and the quality of service it provides to the customers. Peoples personal opinions on opinion based social issues should have no place in a company's mission statement. If it does, then that company is taking it's personal beliefs outside of it's beliefs ethical boundaries and therefore being oppressive. And have we not learned by now that oppression is bad/wrong?

Not sure why people aren't getting this. People can argue all day about what a business has done but this is a speech/ethics issue whether they like it or not. Its extremely dangerous to give employers any control over speech outside of a work environment that includes social networks. The only validity is if said individuals comments were public , and on an account where a company logo was present or representation was implicit. i.e @DonJohsonNFL85 or whatever. When you see the actual comment "horrible" it becomes even more worrisome that the employer can have any say over something that open ended. You're giving an employer control over speech based on pure subjectivity. If this was 1945 it would be the exact same thing as fining a drunken baseball player for saying "Im ok with the blacks". Don didn't say this in an NFL uni , on field , or in an interview. Authority over social networks of employees is anything but an open and shut thing. Its been highly scrutinized and legalities of it being dealt with everywhere. No matter how you slice it legal or moral or whatever this is a very debatable topic.

Kind of a funny story from my company. They were looking to hire a person for a high-up VP position that would oversee one of our urban departments which employees numerous minorities. One of the "finalist candidates" had listed on her resume under affiliations a religious organization that was against gays and blacks, and we didn't continue the interview process once we found that out. Is what we did "oppressive"?

Its not oppressive but its legally considered discrimination since you are excluding her for religious beliefs. I cant fathom how anyone would disagree with such a conclusion as someone with affiliations with racist organizations can be reasoned to have an inability to perform her actual job functions (managing minorities). But never the less the law would probably side on it being discrimination. This is why you never tell people an actual reason why they werent hired
I dont think NAMBLA is a fair comparison as that is something clearly illegal.

I am beyond confused as to what your possible end goal is, bucky. Your entire argument collapses in on itself in the real world. Here's a quick breakdown of how things would go if everyone could say what they wanted, hypothetically (I am not talking about this situation per se):

- Person A comments on a picture posted by Person B, his co-worker, of Person B and his gay lover kissing. He comments: horrible.
- Company A, Person A and B's employer, worried that they might oppress Person A's right to express himself, does not reprimand him.
- The story gets national traction, and people begin to openly express disdain for Company A, including anything from negative opinions to refusing to purchase products or do business with Company A.
- Company A now must decide between effectively oppressing themselves and their otehr HUNDREDS of employees by continuing to damage their profitability, etc...by supporting Person A's opinion of a co-worker.
- Person's C-Z are all Company employees as well, and they feel that Person A is a scumbag who is not only harming Person B, but them as well through the damage he is doing to the company.

Do you not see how trying to take a strict ethical stance of "anyone is free to say whatever idiot thing that they want with no consequences" probably isn't a remotely realistic business proposition?

Agreed...but don't you see how the opposite is open to wildly varying opinion and subjective thoughts also ?
What if Don Jones said "The Browns are retarded for picking a little guy at QB". Is the NFL justified to fine and suspend him for insulting the mentally disabled and midgets too ?
Social media provisions in the workplace are also highly subjective and not legally solid at this point. We still have employers asking for passwords (wtf).
Even if its been unequivocally established (which it hasnt) why wouldn't anyone see an issue with a company having any say on what you do or say outside of work ? Why is social media treated any different than blabbering at the bar ?

 

[NAHSTE]

You serious? You want to bring in legitimate job requirements .

Not saying something that makes the company look bad

#legitimatejobrequirement

 

[Youk]

It seems I'm the only one that doesn't want to shit on peoples rights like you do

What rights? You work at a private company. You have no right to your own opinion while behind the logo of the company.

 

[bucky]

What rights? You work at a private company. You have no right to your own opinion while behind the logo of the company.

I don't represent my company 24/7. And I always have a right to an opinion. The questions are, where and how do I express my opinion? And ethically, how far should a company be allowed to go to suppress someone's opinion?

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

What rights? You work at a private company. You have no right to your own opinion while behind the logo of the company.

lol that you actually think this is true.

What a surprise that Nahste and Youk are calling people stupid and groaning every opinion they dont agree with on a topic about fines and opinion.
Everyone else seems capable of adult conversation but these two.

 

[bucky]

Not saying something that makes the company look bad

#legitimatejobrequirement

That's not a legitimate job requirement. That's oppression.

 

[Youk]

lol that you actually think this is true.

What a surprise that Nahste and Youk are calling people stupid and groaning every opinion they dont agree with on a topic about fines and opinion.
Everyone else seems capable of adult conversation but these two.

But it is true. Did you miss the whole discussion about companies giving employees Social Media Guidelines? Private companies have their own rulebook, and if you don't follow that rulebook you're out. What's so hard about that?

 

[bucky]

But it is true. Did you miss the whole discussion about companies giving employees Social Media Guidelines? Private companies have their own rulebook, and if you don't follow that rulebook you're out. What's so hard about that?

Back in the day, blacks were told they couldn't vote. In many states the Govt tells gays they can't get married. True. Doesn't make it ethical or right.

 

[Youk]

Back in the day, blacks were told they couldn't vote. In many states the Govt tells gays they can't get married. True. Doesn't make it ethical or right.

Comparing laws that effected everyone to rules at a private company. I see where you are coming from, but it's two different things we are talking about here. If you go off on a homophobic rant, it is terrible PR, and it will hurt the company. In that case, you must be punished.

Just want to see your opinion on something that happened at the end of last year.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...-aids-africa-issues-apology/story?id=21301833

Justine Sacco, formerly a PR executive for the Internet giant InterActive Corp., which owns popular websites like Match.com, Dictionary.com, and Vimeo, was fired over a tweet that came from her account on Friday that read: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"

Should she have kept her job or been fired?

 

[NAHSTE]

I don't represent my company 24/7. And I always have a right to an opinion. The questions are, where and how do I express my opinion?

Consult your employer's social media policy. The answer will be there, more than likely explicitly laid out for you.

 

[bucky]

Comparing laws that effected everyone to rules at a private company. I see where you are coming from, but it's two different things we are talking about here. If you go off on a homophobic rant, it is terrible PR, and it will hurt the company. In that case, you must be punished.

I'm comparing true statements with ethical statements. True and ethical are not the same thing.

 

[Youk]

Consult your employer's social media policy. The answer will be there, more than likely explicitly laid out for you.

Exactly. It all circles back to where Jones made the comments. He made it on twitter, where his affiliation with the Dolphins is known with logos everywhere. This wasn't him saying it to friends, or him saying it on a secret private twitter to people he knew. This was said out in the open.

 

[Youk]

I'm comparing true statements with ethical statements. True and ethical are not the same thing.

You're tip toeing around my questions with ridiculous statements.

 

[bucky]

Consult your employer's social media policy. The answer will be there, more than likely explicitly laid out for you.

Still doesn't make it ethically right. I would go with legally right, for now. But legal doesn't always equal ethical.