Great argument or not, it is a reality. That’s the thing about living in a litigious society, you have to honor your agreements. Do you think he should be able to put a company and all its employees at risk so he can do a comedy routine that is specifically designed offensive humor? And don’t bother tell me they’re too big. Anheuser-Busc…
Great argument or not, it is a reality. That’s the thing about living in a litigious society, you have to honor your agreements. Do you think he should be able to put a company and all its employees at risk so he can do a comedy routine that is specifically designed offensive humor? And don’t bother tell me they’re too big. Anheuser-Busch lost $27 billion over trying to be edgy, and don’t believe for a minute that the higher ups are going to face a cut for it. The “avg employee” is going to take a pay cut or get dumped. The risk of offending and getting financially screwed is all too real.
Reality? NPR covers edgy stuff all the time, this was a comedy act - he wasn't acting as an NPR employee nor mentioning it onstage. His supervisor as a representative of the company knew about it and did not warn him, the judge in the courtroom sided with him in spite of the fact that he was acting as his own lawyer -- it's hard to buy the idea that he was putting his company and all its employees at risk. If he were working for a church, maybe. But a media company? A liberal one at that? That doesn't seem clear at all. I think your idea of the Overton window is shifted too far to the right. Of course, there's the spine test - on that perhaps NPR has shifted in the jello direction.
Your spine test analogy was exactly my point. Thank you. You made it far better than I did. Businesses are afraid to the point of having to fire employees for the most mundane of actions, and they have legal contracts to do so. I just saw a video on Instagram where the commenters were demanding to know who the subject of the video was so they could “destroy” the person. Companies see that and respond. The supervisor can approve of whatever they want, they are not the ones with liability, and they weren’t responsible for signing his contract. As for assuming I’m too far right, you clearly don’t know me at all, but the implied insult proves the point even further. Thanks for the insight.
I'm sorry, I wasn't implying you were too far to the right (not that I would be trying to insult you if I did). I was talking about the Overton window and your perception of it. I'm not sure how you think NPR would be legally liable for an employee's comedy act? That Instagram video response sounds terrible, but I wonder if giving in to people who threaten to "destroy" others doesn't threaten to crush fundamental freedoms?
I think you and I are on the same track, though coming from different directions. NPR wouldn’t be liable for his comedy act, but that wouldn’t prevent social media attention from it affecting their bottom line. That’s exactly why they had the contract, he agreed to, in the first place. Companies want to be able to manage the perception of their brand. Is it morally or ethically right to ask that of employees? I honestly don’t know. I’m just trying to understand what happened and why.
As to your comments about my perceptions, I always appreciate it when people stick to the arguments presented and don’t make assumptions about another person’s character or beliefs. You guessed what I think and tried to paint me with a particular brush. I’m fairly certain that’s exactly what NPR did with this situation. They would (rightly) assume people would hear certain words, get offended- not bothering to understand his routine, and cause problems for them. It’s simply not worth the risk for a corporation.
Great argument or not, it is a reality. That’s the thing about living in a litigious society, you have to honor your agreements. Do you think he should be able to put a company and all its employees at risk so he can do a comedy routine that is specifically designed offensive humor? And don’t bother tell me they’re too big. Anheuser-Busch lost $27 billion over trying to be edgy, and don’t believe for a minute that the higher ups are going to face a cut for it. The “avg employee” is going to take a pay cut or get dumped. The risk of offending and getting financially screwed is all too real.
Reality? NPR covers edgy stuff all the time, this was a comedy act - he wasn't acting as an NPR employee nor mentioning it onstage. His supervisor as a representative of the company knew about it and did not warn him, the judge in the courtroom sided with him in spite of the fact that he was acting as his own lawyer -- it's hard to buy the idea that he was putting his company and all its employees at risk. If he were working for a church, maybe. But a media company? A liberal one at that? That doesn't seem clear at all. I think your idea of the Overton window is shifted too far to the right. Of course, there's the spine test - on that perhaps NPR has shifted in the jello direction.
Your spine test analogy was exactly my point. Thank you. You made it far better than I did. Businesses are afraid to the point of having to fire employees for the most mundane of actions, and they have legal contracts to do so. I just saw a video on Instagram where the commenters were demanding to know who the subject of the video was so they could “destroy” the person. Companies see that and respond. The supervisor can approve of whatever they want, they are not the ones with liability, and they weren’t responsible for signing his contract. As for assuming I’m too far right, you clearly don’t know me at all, but the implied insult proves the point even further. Thanks for the insight.
I'm sorry, I wasn't implying you were too far to the right (not that I would be trying to insult you if I did). I was talking about the Overton window and your perception of it. I'm not sure how you think NPR would be legally liable for an employee's comedy act? That Instagram video response sounds terrible, but I wonder if giving in to people who threaten to "destroy" others doesn't threaten to crush fundamental freedoms?
I think you and I are on the same track, though coming from different directions. NPR wouldn’t be liable for his comedy act, but that wouldn’t prevent social media attention from it affecting their bottom line. That’s exactly why they had the contract, he agreed to, in the first place. Companies want to be able to manage the perception of their brand. Is it morally or ethically right to ask that of employees? I honestly don’t know. I’m just trying to understand what happened and why.
As to your comments about my perceptions, I always appreciate it when people stick to the arguments presented and don’t make assumptions about another person’s character or beliefs. You guessed what I think and tried to paint me with a particular brush. I’m fairly certain that’s exactly what NPR did with this situation. They would (rightly) assume people would hear certain words, get offended- not bothering to understand his routine, and cause problems for them. It’s simply not worth the risk for a corporation.