Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday February 16 2018, @07:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the get-fired-in-140-chars-or-less dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

A Subnautica developer has reportedly been fired over controversial comments he previously posted to Twitter, with the game's sound designer Simon Chylinski tweeting that he has been ousted from his position at Unknown Worlds Entertainment.

Chylinski has come under fire recently after a number of recent comments he posted to Twitter were placed under the spotlight. The sound designer took to Twitter yesterday to post an update on his status with Unknown Worlds Entertainment, tweeting: "so. i just got fired.. :("

Isn't it illegal to fire someone for their political views in California? Unknown Worlds Entertainment may be in for one hell of an uncapped damages lawsuit.

Source: http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/366749-subnautica-dev-fired-controversial-twitter-comments


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:40PM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:40PM (#638971)

    I was gonna say wrong as some initial searching returned "political affiliation" as a protected class, but this has a nice table breakdown by state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

    So TL:DR these are the protected classes in CA:

            Race, color
            Ancestry, national origin
            Religion, creed
            Age (over 40)
            Disability, mental and physical
            Sex, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions)
            Sexual orientation
            Gender identity, gender expression
            Medical condition
            Genetic information
            Marital status
            Military and veteran status

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:46PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:46PM (#638982)
    Well, he could claim he only tweeted the WrongThink because he has a mental disability...
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @09:42PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 16 2018, @09:42PM (#639060) Journal

      He could cite potus as an example of wrongthink, twitter and mental disability connections.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:47PM (#638983)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:49PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:49PM (#638987)

    Wrong.

    CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )

    1101.
    No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

    (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

    (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:56PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:56PM (#638992)

      Ah, strange they don't put that in the list I found (gov site). I'm not certain whether non-political tweets counts here, he wasn't engaging in any politics aside from general opinion about the world. The legal definition might be much more narrow, otherwise everything could fall under "politics".

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @08:37PM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday February 16 2018, @08:37PM (#639019)

        The legal definition might be much more narrow

        That's what I'm thinking. Otherwise, all you have to do is find a political candidate somewhere who's an actual Nazi (like the guy in Ohio or Wisconsin or something now, I just saw an article a few days ago) who espouses some obviously horrific things, then make posts supporting those same things (which are blatantly racist/sexist/supporting genocide etc.), then when you get fired claim it was "political". Any opinion at all can be construed to be "political".

        Surely what the writers of that law really meant was that an employer couldn't prevent you from running for political office, or demanding that you vote a certain way.

        • (Score: 1) by redneckmother on Saturday February 17 2018, @06:45PM

          by redneckmother (3597) on Saturday February 17 2018, @06:45PM (#639398)

          s/guy in Ohio or Wisconsin or something/elected officials in D.C./

          :-)

          --
          Mas cerveza por favor.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @09:26PM (3 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 16 2018, @09:26PM (#639050) Journal

      Since when is hateful speech a "political activity" or "political view"?

      Hate speech coming from the highest office doesn't make hate speech okay. Nor does it make it a political view.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @10:11PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday February 16 2018, @10:11PM (#639077)

        Hate speech coming from the highest office doesn't make hate speech okay. Nor does it make it a political view.

        It may not make it OK in your view, but how on Earth does it not make it a "political view"? If the hate speech is not only made by a politician, but it's a big part of his campaign, then of course the hate speech is a political view. You (and I) may not like it, but if the voters really are voting for someone because of their hate speech, then it absolutely is a political view.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday February 17 2018, @12:58AM

        by jmorris (4844) on Saturday February 17 2018, @12:58AM (#639145)

        How about we get to basics. You are simply fudged up and do not belong in a society with Free People. Hate speech is not a thing. ALL speech is ok. The only acceptable response to speech you disagree with is to speak your objection. I know some of the folks here live in shitholes without the Right to speak freely, but here in America we believe we have an absolute Right to speak, assemble, petition our government, print stuff, etc. and CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW bridging those Rights. If it isn't controversial speech it doesn't need protecting. Nobody ever got sent to the camps for agreeing too strongly with the current official Party Line. It is speech that sends pussies to their fainting couch that requires protection.

        Most of what what this guy was fired for tweeting is best described as painful truths. If you import too many shitholians your country turns into a shithole. That is simply reality. Haiti isn't a shithole because of some mystical radiation seeping from the land, it isn't blighted or suffering some extraordinary natural disaster. If the current inhabitants were removed it would be a tropical paradise again in a few short years. It is a shithole because it is filled with Hatians. And if you relocate large quantities of them they will bring their defective customs and patterns of thought with them. Same goes for most other shithole countries.

        If small numbers are introduced into a developed country there is some evidence that after several generations many can be assimilated, but we aren't discussing small numbers. And in the case of Europe this guy was discussing Islam is a complication. No program of assimilation that doesn't involve conversion can make them suitable as citizens in a civilized land.

        Company is in CA but if this guy is not in the U.S. he probably can't sue. Sad.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @12:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @12:45PM (#639322)

        Since when is hateful speech a "political activity" or "political view"?

        Since Hitler.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @11:41PM (1 child)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 16 2018, @11:41PM (#639124) Homepage Journal

      Wrong.

      CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )

      1101.
      No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

      (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

      (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

      Hmmm...Let's see.

      1101.a -- The employee wasn't forbidden or prevented from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming a candidate for public office. -- He was fired for being an asshole and shown the door. [xkcd.com] No violation on that count.

      1101.b -- The employee's political activities or affiliations were neither controlled nor directed. -- He was fired for being an asshole and shown the door. [xkcd.com] No violation on that count either.

      TFS could easily be changed to:
      Obnoxious asshole fired for being an obnoxious asshole. No film ever.

      and still be just as accurate.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:42AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:42AM (#639157)

        When you can’t attack the argument, you attack the man instead.