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: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:37PM (16 children)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=1101 [ca.gov]
For someone so proud of "keeping his mouth shut", you sure managed to produce a lot of text about something you have no clue about.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @07:42PM (10 children)
That just takes me to a blank "code search" page. Try again.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:45PM (9 children)
Blame SN's crap parsing of ampersands.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=1101 [ca.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:51PM (3 children)
How about you just summarize and we'll believe you? link still no linky
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:55PM (2 children)
Here's the content, posted throughout the comment thread for every armchair member of the California State Bar. Feel free to just Google a string from it to find the source on California's government website.
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: 5, Informative) by shipofgold on Friday February 16 2018, @11:03PM (1 child)
This isn't about supporting a political party or supporting political views....
This is about bringing unfavorable publicity to an employer. Yes, expressing your views may be freedom of speech in that you won't have the government at your door looking to arrest you, and supporting the Republican party is not grounds for firing, but bringing a shitload of criticism about you (and perchance to your employer) is grounds to can your ass.
Nothing to see...move along.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @11:28PM
Bingo! You win a prize, Shipofgold [xkcd.com]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Friday February 16 2018, @08:19PM (4 children)
Blame submitter for not knowing anything about link shortners and resubmitting the same crap with the same failure again.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @09:19PM (2 children)
Pay attention retard, first link was SN's parsing issue, second link was California's website's handling of request data.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @09:29PM (1 child)
Correction: it's not even California's website for the second issue. It's still SN's shit programming. After fixing the ampersand in the URL, it included it in the visible portion but removed it from the HREF tag.
Seriously, I'd link you guys to Perl's documentation on escaping/unescaping so you could fix this amateur hour nonsense, but the fucking URL probably wouldn't work.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Friday February 16 2018, @11:18PM
So, why don't you just go find another site to troll on.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @09:24PM
The links are actually different. Unglaze your eyes, notice the difference between "§" and "§", and stop trying to defend the shit programmer here who doesn't understand URL encoding.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AndyTheAbsurd on Friday February 16 2018, @07:56PM (4 children)
Looks like you tried to link to 1101 (which didn't work BTW) on this page, which doesn't say anything about terminating employment for political activities. You probably wanted 1102, which does say that employers may not "coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity."
But that's irrelevant, too, because the Twitter posts in question weren't political - they were racist.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:02PM (2 children)
It's supposed to link to 1101-1106 actually. The first link issue was Soylent's shitty parsing modifying the string "§", the second one seems to be a problem with the way California's state website handles request data.
Either way I've posted the relevant text about half a dozen times by now so it should be clear what I intended to link. And care to provide which of these tweets were "racist"? To save us some time, nationality is not race, and religion isn't race either.
(Score: 2) by forkazoo on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:14AM (1 child)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the one musing about whether it would be good to ban black people from competing with white people in sports is not about "nationality" or "religion."
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 18 2018, @12:33AM
"I was trolling. But now that I think about it, yes men will tend to do better. But black ppl tend to do better in running. So should we ban black ppl from competing against white ppl because of this?"
And if so then it's fundamentally incorrect to claim this is racism, the subtext is clearly the exact opposite. Should we ban black people from athletic events that, statistically, black people do better at? He's not implying a yes here, but a no.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @10:04PM
But that's irrelevant, too, because the Twitter posts in question weren't political - they were racist.
Not necessarily: if some political candidates running in a race make racism a political issue (for instance, one candidate is an overt racist and has a campaign promise to pass racist legislation, and the other candidate opposes this), then racist speech supporting the racist candidate could be argued to be "political".
Really, almost anything could be "political", no matter how benign or offensive, if politicians make it a political issue. This seems like something this law could be argued up to a high court over. If some political candidates want to exterminate some race of people, and some employee posts a bunch of stuff publicly supporting this, and gets fired, could they argue this law forbids this firing over a "political" issue? Remember, this really was a real political issue not that long ago across the pond.