Carthage.
After the third Punic War, Rome said "fuck this".
They leveled the city, killed all the men, enslaved all the women and salted the Earth so that NOTHING could ever grow there again.
A Roseanne revival? Really??
- Thread starter Ar-Pharazon
- Start date
- Status
Carthage.
After the third Punic War, Rome said "fuck this".
They leveled the city, killed all the men, enslaved all the women and salted the Earth so that NOTHING could ever grow there again.
When someone shouts "FIRST AMENDMENT!" at the above examples it only shows how little they understand it. That amendment only pertains to Congress. It has nothing to do with employees of a business.
Last edited:
Isn't anyone who isn't employed a employee of a business? Are you saying if you have a job your boss has complete control over what you say? I really hope anyone who has protested over the years don't have any Republican bosses who find out because apparently they get to choose what you say and do even when not at work. I actually think people should be able to say whatever the hell they want but like I said I also think companies should be able to fire racist especially when they are public figure's that represent you on a massive scale. Basically were are making exceptions for some free speech but in some cases that is okay like yelling, Fire in a theater. I have no problem making that exception for racism as well. Sometimes though it's also important to take it case by case. If someone is racist and works at a groccery store and keeps his views to himself at work but then goes hopes and rants about Obama or whatever is that the same as Roseanne? Don't you basically have to be someone of note for your views or even your outside of work behavior to really matter to any company?
Jason
Umm......welcome to the real world? And it isn't a matter of Republican/Democrat. It's a matter of how you conduct yourself in a manner that reflects on the company you work for.
Good luck keeping a job.
No, you don't have to be a celebrity to embarrass or reflect badly on a company. You can be a waiter who spouts of on social media and then someone sees that and reports it. You can say something demeaning to a customer or even an employee. You are free to say whatever you want, but there are always consequences.
Saying something demeaning to a customer though would be a case of bringing those issues to work. It doesn't even have to be racist or sexist for someone who did something like that to be fired for a deserved reason or at least be giving a warning depending on the severity. I agree that good manners should be important in how people treat each other. I think we kind of agree on this. The big issue I think is the internet. It's basically words on computer screens. At least if your acting like a asshole to someone at work that is actual human on human interaction. People have the option of ignoring hateful stuff online but if someone is doing it to you in person it's something you can't avoid. Then their is the fact that many people have their real life personality and then their internet personality. On the internet their is the idea you can talk about things you feel uncomfortable about in real life. I don't think half of people who get angry at stuff are really that angry. I think sometimes people just want to feel like a good person by tearing down someone else who has some kind of shitty aspect about them to hide from some of things about themselves they aren't to happy about. People know injustices are happening all the time but I assume they know that yelling at people online isn't going to solve it yet people still do it. Which means it has to be on some level more about what is going on in their own lives than society as whole.
Jason
Ummmm.... no.
Have you ever had a job? I worked at Lowes twice, the contract's first paragraph is how you can never say anything bad about the company. Even after you left. It's laughable because what would they do after I left. But if I went on Facebook and went 'Lowes is shit!' and a boss there saw it I'd be fired. If I got into a bar fight because I was drunk and on pills and started assaulting people and it made the news, I'd be fired.
I think this is an increasing problem with humanity, they are completely out of touch with how the world actually is run.
That seems crazy. I mean who doesn't grip about their boss or their company when they are not working or even when you are working? I know more about the local hospital politics of what is going on in the cafeteria than maybe even people who work their because my mom and her friends talk all the time over the phone about how terrible the boss is or how badly it is run. It seems you would be better off talking with your co-workers about how the boss sucks than posting it to strangers online.
Jason
Griping about that stuff to one person face-to-face (old school) vs griping on facebook where anyone could see it, two very different things.
FOX News is asking whether she was fired because of her vile behavior or because of her political views.
They say the jury is still out.
A company that pretends to be that fucking stupid shouldn't be allowed to call itself news.
They say the jury is still out.
A company that pretends to be that fucking stupid shouldn't be allowed to call itself news.
That's true but what does that mean. People can only have real opinions in the privacy of your own home? If you try and censor honesty then what is the point of something like Twitter? I would encourage people to try and show good manners towards people because that is how I feel but If someone doesn't then I would not be so quick to jump to something as harsh as firing someone. Unless your a celebrity which means your opinion can have a bigger impact then I would not be so fast to punish them if I didn't think it was effecting their work. Maybe talk to them and let them know that you know and that you want them to not bring whatever conflict they have to work with them but their personal life and even internet life wouldn't be much of a issue for me.
Jason
Apparently you've never used social media before.
To Trump anything that isn't: "Donald J. Trump is the most amazing person alive!..." is a 'horrible statement.
I Rosanne had said, y"You know, I've look at her record and I think she is an idiot..." <--- She WOULDN'T have been fired and that's normal commentary/opinion.
If you can show an ABC commentator's comment regarding Trump as racist/homophobic, etc. THEN Trump has a valid complainty. But as usual it's more of his usual narcissistic behavior. Hell, the fact he can't tell the difference is obvious from past comments Trump has mad stating a group of Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are "Good people..." or that Dictators (who routinely murder their own people and poison family members) like Kim Jong Un are "...trustworthy...".
In the end there's only ONE PERSON who Donald J. Trump cares about; and that's Donald J. Trump.
The First Amendment basically says the Government can't criminally charge you, and lock you up for what you say. (There are of course exceptions that have been upheld, such as saying things that incite people to harm others - aka 'Hate speech'; or doing something that could cause others to harm themselves - like yelling "Fire" when there is no fire in a crowded building/area.)
As many conservatives love to claim when they attack comments or a person reacts to a comment regarding Gun Rights/the Second Amendment - calling for more regulation:
"Yes, the government won't lock you up but no one says there can't be consequences for what you say..."
You'll now find many organizations inform their workers that if they post/say something that is totally at odds with/or disparaging of a corporate image (especially if they are high profile and publicly connected to said company/organization ; they could be terminated for such a post.
^^^
That's NOT Free Speech infringement because their freedom is not being taken away; nor are they receiving a criminal charge. They are fully exercising their right to speak as they please, but their employer is exercising his/her right to decide if the employee's attitude and temperament are in line with an image the company/organization wants to publicly project.<--- And that's 100% legal too.
And in U.S. Civil law - If you spread a lie about someone (that can be proven as false in court) that impacts their livelihood or mental health; YOU can be found guilty of 'defamation of character' and ordered to pay restitution/punitive monetary damages to the person. (Trump has threatened to and also brought lawsuits of this kind against others many a time.)
So, sorry, for you to try and claim ABC's reaction to a racist tweet by a major star of one of their shows is a violation of "Freedom of Speech" just shows how ignorant you are of what the right ACTUALLY protects a citizen against.
Last edited:
On Laff, they replaced Roseanne reruns with Night Court reruns, which I'm fine with because I love Night Court.
It's the drawback of the social world we live in now. There were employment rules about bad-mouthing your company, but it was rarely so easy to find out about. Stuff gets retweeted, quoted, forwarded, etc.
Even if it isn't technically not a Free Speech infringement doesn't it sort of go against the spirit of what free speech is suppose to mean? I don't think anyone had the internet in mind when they came up with the law or massive corporations either. It feels a little to much like the Christian argument that someone who doesn't find God and goes to Hell it's because they choose to go their by not becoming a true believer. Sure someone has a choice but if the punishment is Hell that isn't really much of a choice. Basically your saying that anyone can say anything but they can be fired if people who hire them don't like what they say but it was their choice. It's at the very least a loophole giving people with power yet more control over people. I also don't have a problem with what ABC did. Like I said I believe in exceptions to the rules but something did occur to me. I assume Roseanne is part of the Actors Union. I wonder what their response was to this. Seem like something a union would challenge for no other reason than to show they take firing people as a serious thing. I know in Baseball every time a player gets suspended they always have the union appeal them. They know they are guilty but they still go through the procedure anyways.
Jason
I avoid it. From what I understand it's much like Youtube comments sections and I didn't like those the few times I have read them. Frankly I don't see what anyone gets out of. Whatever you say whether your conservative or liberal your just going to be bashed and insulted. Who wants to deal with that?
Jason
You're a smart man. Social media is evil, and it's my hope that someday everyone will realize that. But since the trend seems more to be that people use it as a tool for bitching about the world and their personal lives to anyone who will listen, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
It's got nothing to do with the internet per so - it's been going on since people wrote a letter to the editor and signed their name (And there are plenty of times people sent in letters anonymously; and there are PLENTY of ways to post anonymously online still.)
Again (and even in yor response above) even you admit there are valid exceptions to full unfettered "free speech" and those have been in place since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. if any civilized society, there's NEVER been completely unfettered free speech with zero consequences; and hell many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that. Their intent with the 1st Amendment was that THE FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT couldn't arrest, charge, or imprison you for speaking out against Elected or Appointed government representatives actions or for expressing negative views about a government's actions or policies.
So, again, no; ABC's actions don't "...sort of go against the spirit of what free speech is suppose to mean?" as you imply.
As for any Union getting involved - it depends on the employment contract, but somehow I think:
"She was fired because she made an openly racist remark on a public social platform; and is a well known actor and is the face of one of our Network shows. She was fired because her remark was egregious and not at all representative of our Network's views, she was fired..."
Is something no Union could successfully challenge; and unless said Union agreed that her comment was not egregiously out of line - they wouldn't challenge a firing on such grounds. Sometimes people are fired for valid reasons that are seen/agreed as valid. Again, given her status, I don't think anyone who isn't racist questions WHY ABC terminated her employment and cancelled her sho
I wasn't really thinking about Roseanne's situation so much as some of the more grey area situations that can happen with that kind of power. What someone is dating a co-worker and they breakup and one of them or maybe both of them say some really offensive stuff towards each other because they now hate each other. Could a company get involved because of mean and offensive tweets they send each other because they represent the company? I also know full well that companies can't be counted on to treat employees fair. It's why we got unions and and with the Republicans being able to destroy many of them and their power I am sure that is one of the reasons why we have so much employer abuse and sexual abuse in some of these places. I know from personal experience of being screwed by legal trickery.
I was a bulk carrier for the local newspaper and when I had to go inpatient because my OCD was bad at the time and I was having Panic attacks and they basically fired me like it was nothing. That was partly because Oklahoma isn't Union friendly and also because instead of hiring you as a employee the hire you as a "Individual Contractor" which is basically them giving you no rights at all. You had to pay for your own gas and car repairs and if you can't do the job even if it's for a legit reason they just fire you. I know even talking about forming a Union at my Mom's hospital can get you fired. These are the type of people we want deciding the difference between right and wrong with their employee's?
Jason
In the 'Dating Co-Workers situation; again, it depends on what they say in public (and IMO it's stupid to air a private situation in public, so yeah IF it affects the image of the company, or affects either worker's productivity - OR either one or both get HR involved citing 'harassment at work' - many things could happen.
As for your second situation; I have a feeling were you Unionized and your employer knew of your medical status when hired OR something that's outside of what would be considered your normal day to day work situation triggered your OCD or the panic attacks - I doubt they could have fired you as easily. But again, in Rosanne Barr's situation, it's pretty clear cut WHY the decision was made to fire her, and it 'for cause' that no one would dispute given Her's and ABC's status.
- Status
