SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Friday February 16 2018, @07:58PM (3 children)
If an employee says "I work for X and support Y controversial stance", what is the company X supposed to do if they don't want to have anything to do with the expressed opinion Y? It seems to me they wouldn't be wrong to assume many people are going to associate the company X with the opinion Y and treat this employee as a kind of spokesperson, particularly if they have never heard of this company X (or at least its stance about opinion Y) before.
I'm not trying to argue with whether Y is "right" or "wrong", but what happens if the company X just genuinely wants nothing to do with the opinion Y the employee is expressing? If they can't distance themselves from the employee, are they forced to just release a statement clarifying their position, or what?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:24PM (1 child)
I think it is a stretch that a reasonable person would assume that an employee of X believing Y means X endorses Y, but X should be justifiably afraid of the professionally umbraged and their screaming disciples asserting that link on twatter, facebook and the evening news.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:42PM
While "reasonable person" kind-of works as a standard for legal issues, it means absolutely nothing outside that specific area :/ "Professionally umbraged and their screaming disciples" aren't even a requirement for resulting brand damage.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:37PM
Then a competent PR person at the company would issue a statement saying that company X supports Z, not the opinion Y. Why? Because if that company had never been heard of before, and the employee expressing opinion Y had stirred up controversy, then it's a free, easy opportunity for the company to get exposure by saying that's not what the company believes (as if a company, as a collection of people, could be said to believe anything).
The practice of free speech and many other constitutional rights has gone dangerously wrong in the US. Many have been falsely led to believe those rights ensure a soft, warm, fuzzy security blanket. They don't. They are meant to constitute something very much more like the Iron Throne from Game of Thrones.
Washington DC delenda est.