Mormon Basher fired over tweet

[curtishouse]

Fired Over a Tweet - Careers Articles

Actually tweeted to his company twit (perfect name for that site I think) account that "I'm downtown eating. Surrounded by Mormons and repressed sexual energy" by accident. He meant to send it to his personal twit account. Somehow I lack the compassion to feel sorry for him.

Edited October 7, 2010 by curtishouse

[captmoroniRM]

Perhaps this is just another case of the Lord fighting our battles. When it comes to Mormon bashers, I've learned we don't need to fight with them. The Lord will take care of it for us. It might take a while, but "the wicked who fight against Zion, will surely be smitten at last"

[curtishouse]

Yeah I don't try to fight with them either. It seems to just be a futile effort (and I'm speaking of Apologetics). He's from SLC and in the middle of the inspiring conference going on and all he can think of is making fun of the church. It's really sad when you think about it.

[hordak]

I wouldn't call it bashing. I'm a church member and constantly proclaim i would hate to live in Utah, too many Mormons, with sincerity. That being said i think the firing is a bit over the the top, yes he messed up by putting on the companies site and should face some sort of consequences but i think it says more about Salt Lake then anything else,

With the damage done an an apology made, the firing paints Salt lake members as a vindictive mob who isn't understanding enough to see how a persons personal opinion could accidentally be posted and may not reflect the views of the station.

[FunkyTown]

Frankly, I would hope most people wouldn't care what someone would think.

"LDS people don't have sex outside of marriage!"

"True."

"Hahah. Sexually repressed."

"Nope. Sexually suppressed."

"Same thing."

"It really isn't."

[Mahone]

"At the same time," Carlisle continues, "I would defend that person's right to Tweet anything he or she wants if they are willing to pay the consequences

Isn't that a contradiction? That's effectively saying you have the right to murder someone as long as you are willing to spend time in jail.

[pam]

Sorry I don't feel the firing is over the top.

Well sure, unless you happen to send it out on the company feed, and that company happens to be a major television network affiliate that depends on the viewership of thousands of Mormons.

Would be the same for any other organization etc. If you are offending the majority of viewers that your business depends on, firing is appropriate in my opinion.

[Gwen]

Isn't that a contradiction? That's effectively saying you have the right to murder someone as long as you are willing to spend time in jail.

but isn't that true? you have the right to break the speed limit if you are willing to pay the fine. our society's issues come from ppl that are trying to avoid the consequences. they shouldn't have done it if they didn't want the outcome. if ppl just owned up to the consequences we wouldn't need half the legal system we do.

maybe the issue is with using the word "right to"... we all have the "agency to" do whatever we want, but we will have consequences.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I think it was just a harmless joke, but as Pam said it was the right move for the company to make given their demographic, and I don't fault them for it. The guy got what was coming to him for posting something he knew was inflammatory in the first place.

[Dravin]

I'm meh on the comment but I can understand why the firing. I can imagine a similar tweet (and I mean fairly mild) from a network affiliate in New York about Jews, or one in San Fransisco about homosexuals would probably garner similar results.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Dravin

[Tarnished]

I think he had to deal with the consequences of his actions. He chose to tweet something, and accidentally tweeted to the wrong place, but accident or not I can see any large company firing someone over that. People really need to learn that when it comes to the internet your privacy is no longer your own. And companies are using things that people post about themselves to determine whether they want to hire or sometimes even fire someone.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I think he had to deal with the consequences of his actions. He chose to tweet something, and accidentally tweeted to the wrong place, but accident or not I can see any large company firing someone over that. People really need to learn that when it comes to the internet your privacy is no longer your own. And companies are using things that people post about themselves to determine whether they want to hire or sometimes even fire someone.

Which is why I don't have a facebook or a twitter. Just IMing and forums, both of which I never say anything stupid on.

[pam]

Which is why I don't have a facebook or a twitter. Just IMing and forums, both of which I never say anything stupid on.

Shouldn't you have ended that last sentence with "In my humble opinion of course?"

[PrinceofLight2000]

Shouldn't you have ended that last sentence with "In my humble opinion of course?"

My opinion = Fact.

[Dravin]

Pam's opinion = can get you banned.

[NeuroTypical]

This story is a dang shame. I'm always giving my cousin grief for living in Utah among all the dang mormons. We relish in such lighthearted banterous back-and-forthings and witty zingers.

I understand that dood was fired because he violated his company's policy. It makes sense that you fire someone doing something like that in a workplace setting. It's a shame because one, it was a mistake on his part, two, I'd have absolutely no problem with the guy saying stuff like this on his personal twitter account, and three, I've said similar things and worse a billion times when talking smack at my cousin.

I hope the guy finds a new job.

LM

[PrinceofLight2000]

Pam's opinion = can get you banned.

I'm glad mine and Pam's opinions coincide on many issues, including this one.

[pam]

I'm glad mine and Pam's opinions coincide on many issues, including this one.

Again I ask..shouldn't it be followed up with "In my humble opinion of course?"

[PrinceofLight2000]

Again I ask..shouldn't it be followed up with "In my humble opinion of course?"

Would you care to re-read post #14? Pay special attention to the floating sunglasses.

[Mahone]

maybe the issue is with using the word "right to"... we all have the "agency to" do whatever we want, but we will have consequences.

The way he said "I'd be willing to defend his right to... blah blah blah" gave me the impression he was referring to living in America, and therefore would be willing to defend his rights to say whatever he wanted. But then goes on to say "but he has to deal with the consequences...". So basically no different from any other country then

[Dravin]

Isn't that a contradiction? That's effectively saying you have the right to murder someone as long as you are willing to spend time in jail.

The right to free speech isn't that there are no consequences for speech, just that there are no govermental consequences* (which is factually wrong, but it's the general claim) for speech. So he has a right to say what he wants and he won't be thrown in jail (government consequence), and the person in question will defend that right. However he has no right to say what he wants and not get fired as a result. Particularly in Utah which is a 'right to work' state.

Just like I can support your right to say what you want but I can still kick you out of my home if you decide you want to start dropping the F-bomb.

* One could (probably should) extend this to having one's own rights violated via extralegal measures in consequence. However, there is no right (in Utah at least) to not get fired for embarassing your employer and his firing was not extralegal.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Dravin

[pam]

Would you care to re-read post #14? Pay special attention to the floating sunglasses.

No thank you. But thanks for asking.

[Wingnut]

However, there is no right (in Utah at least) to not get fired for embarassing your employer and his firing was not extralegal.

Furthermore, if he was an at-will employee (which the article does not specify), then the company could fire him for no reason at all.

[pam]

Furthermore, if he was an at-will employee (which the article does not specify), then the company could fire him for no reason at all.

The article does state:

The unidentified employee who is reported to have worked in the promotions department at KTVX, the local ABC affiliate in Utah

That's our local Channel 4 here in SLC.

[Dravin]

Pam she wasn't unsure if he was an employee but if he's an at-will employee. In other-words he doesn't have contract (individual or union) specifying under what conditions they can terminate him.