[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

No! what I'm saying is, if they can do it to Roseanne, then they can do it to anyone, even you and me.

If you say something in your own free time, that they personally don't agree with, then they can just take away your living.

If you're happy with that, then that's fine, but I wouldn't want that to happen to me, so I'll defend Roseanne here.

Originally Posted by Alf

So if we want to use social media, we must accept Orwellian rules against us as part of the deal?

Who are "they" though, Alf. For it to be Orwellian you'd have to be talking about the government, and again, it isn't the government - it's the companies these people work for... private companies... who in a free market economy can hire & fire whoever they want to hire & fire. The only way around it is to have the government implement laws where they tell private business owners who they can and can't hire & fire - MORE government control over private enterprise... which IS Orwellian.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Who are "they" though, Alf. For it to be Orwellian you'd have to be talking about the government, and again, it isn't the government - it's the companies these people work for... private companies... who in a free market economy can hire & fire whoever they want to hire & fire. The only way around it is to have the government implement laws where they tell private business owners who they can and can't hire & fire - MORE government control over private enterprise... which IS Orwellian.

My argument is that it's wrong to take away a persons living off them for their thoughts. Life is hard enough as it is.

Roseanne thought that the lady looked like a character from "Planet of the Apes" and as a comedian she made a joke about it. They fired her for her thoughts.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

My argument is that it's wrong to take away a persons living off them for their thoughts. Life is hard enough as it is.

Roseanne thought that the lady looked like a character from "Planet of the Apes" and as a comedian she made a joke about it. They fired her for her thoughts.

No they fired her for saying it in public / publishing it, not for thinking it. If they could somehow read her mind and fired her for thinking it I would agree that it's wrong. If she had said it in a private conversation at home or to a friend and someone had overheard then I would agree it's wrong. But she published it to thousands (millions?) of followers on Twitter and that makes it a different situation for her employer.

For example... if I said something racist to my wife at home (not that I would but if I did) then I would have an expectation of privacy and that even if it was somehow recorded or something and my employer heard it, it would be none of their business. BUT... If I went into town, even on my day off, and stood near my place of employment shouting racist jokes... then yes, I would probably expect to face some disciplinary action.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No they fired her for saying it in public / publishing it, not for thinking it. If they could somehow read her mind and fired her for thinking it I would agree that it's wrong. If she had said it in a private conversation at home or to a friend and someone had overheard then I would agree it's wrong. But she published it to thousands (millions?) of followers on Twitter and that makes it a different situation for her employer.

For example... if I said something racist to my wife at home (not that I would but if I did) then I would have an expectation of privacy and that even if it was somehow recorded or something and my employer heard it, it would be none of their business. BUT... If I went into town, even on my day off, and stood near my place of employment shouting racist jokes... then yes, I would probably expect to face some disciplinary action.

But were does that end?

Within a couple days, people have been calling for Bill Maher, Jimmy Kimmel and Samantha Bee to be fired, for things that they have said that people have found offensive, and now that will continue. And let's be honest, they've got a point. Bill Maher said something along the lines of Trumps mother had sex with an orang-utan to produce Donald, he said that in while at work. So going by company policy, he should have been fired immedietly, shouldn't he?

Maher is anti Trump and Barr is pro Trump and that's the difference, they're not equal.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

But were does that end?

Within a couple days, people have been calling for Bill Maher, Jimmy Kimmel and Samantha Bee to be fired, for things that they have said that people have found offensive, and now that will continue. And let's be honest, they've got a point. Bill Maher said something along the lines of Trumps mother had sex with an orang-utan to produce Donald, he said that in while at work. So going by company policy, he should have been fired immedietly, shouldn't he?

Maher is anti Trump and Barr is pro Trump and that's the difference, they're not equal.

I'm not going to disagree that there seems to be an imbalance, and a pretty big one, but again all I can really say is that it doesn't actually matter in terms of what I'm talking about... Because again, it's not a government / society decision. In Rosanne's case, and every other case, it's quite simply up to the employer if they want to keep that person on or not. If they think keeping them on will cost them in the long run they'll get rid of them, if they think they're still profitable they'll keep them. These companies are not in the ethics business, no matter how much the pretend to be... Their staff and "stars" are trading commodities and assets. That's it.

You know how the horses work surely Alf? In this situation... Rosanne was a prize racehorse for ABC with her show - but when she made that tweet, she "broke her leg". She's no longer valuable to them so she's off to the glue factory .

It IS harsh and it's not really morally right at all if you think about it, but the only answer is for the US government to take some control away from private companies and dictate what is and isn't a fireable offense. There are much more robust employment laws in other countries for example. But the US people just do not seem to want that... They value their economic freedoms very highly... And won't sign off on the government being able to meddle too much in private business decisions.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not going to disagree that there seems to be an imbalance, and a pretty big one, but again all I can really say is that it doesn't actually matter in terms of what I'm talking about... Because again, it's not a government / society decision. In Rosanne's case, and every other case, it's quite simply up to the employer if they want to keep that person on or not. If they think keeping them on will cost them in the long run they'll get rid of them, if they think they're still profitable they'll keep them. These companies are not in the ethics business, no matter how much the pretend to be... Their staff and "stars" are trading commodities and assets. That's it.

You know how the horses work surely Alf? In this situation... Rosanne was a prize racehorse for ABC with her show - but when she made that tweet, she "broke her leg". She's no longer valuable to them so she's off to the glue factory .

It IS harsh and it's not really morally right at all if you think about it, but the only answer is for the US government to take some control away from private companies and dictate what is and isn't a direable offense. There are much more robust employment laws in other countries for example. But the US people just do not seem to want that... They value their economic freedoms very highly... And won't sign off on the government being able to meddle too much in private business decisions.

But when these company's all have the same political agenda, it could be argued that it is. I think it is fair to say that these TV networks are the propaganda wing for their political agenda.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not going to disagree that there seems to be an imbalance, and a pretty big one, but again all I can really say is that it doesn't actually matter in terms of what I'm talking about... Because again, it's not a government / society decision. In Rosanne's case, and every other case, it's quite simply up to the employer if they want to keep that person on or not. If they think keeping them on will cost them in the long run they'll get rid of them, if they think they're still profitable they'll keep them. These companies are not in the ethics business, no matter how much the pretend to be... Their staff and "stars" are trading commodities and assets. That's it.

You know how the horses work surely Alf? In this situation... Rosanne was a prize racehorse for ABC with her show - but when she made that tweet, she "broke her leg". She's no longer valuable to them so she's off to the glue factory .

It IS harsh and it's not really morally right at all if you think about it, but the only answer is for the US government to take some control away from private companies and dictate what is and isn't a fireable offense. There are much more robust employment laws in other countries for example. But the US people just do not seem to want that... They value their economic freedoms very highly... And won't sign off on the government being able to meddle too much in private business decisions.

Tbh, it's not even an American thing. It's an entertainment industry thing. It works completely differently. Roseanne is more self employed and the company hire her services as an actress/producer/writer etc.

It's much easier to cease using hired help.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

My argument is that it's wrong to take away a persons living off them for their thoughts.

No it isn't. It's ending a collaboration with an artist because they're bringing the brand bad publicity.

She's a self employed actress, producer and writer and a network have cancelled their contract with her for good reason. That's on her.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No it isn't. It's ending a collaboration with an artist because they're bringing the brand bad publicity.

She's a self employed actress, producer and writer and a network have cancelled their contract with her for good reason. That's on her.

Isn't any publicity good publicity? Publicity being the key word there.

They fired her for her politics.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

Isn't any publicity good publicity? Publicity being the key word there.

They fired her for her politics.

No. Racism aint going to bring anything good.

If she was fired for her politics, her programme would never have made it to air in the first place.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No. Racism aint going to bring anything good.

Why is Jimmy Kimmel still employed then? People have complained about him using Blackface, and he refused to apologies for it.

He's good at bashing Trump though, so that might be a reason, you think?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

Why is Jimmy Kimmel still employed then? People have complained about him using Blackface, and he refused to apologies for it.

He's good at bashing Trump though, so that might be a reason, you think?

I don't know anything about that so I can't comment.

But she's been a big Trump supporter for years and even incorporated that into her sitcom, which they happily revived for her and renewed for another season after just 1 or 2 episodes had aired. So, to suggest she's now being fired for that is actually kind of laughable.