Should we be shamed publically for what we say in private?


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 487 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Let's say you didn't agree with how Paizo handled Rogues and said that Paizo created Rogues wrong in Pathfinder. Hence, in a private conversation you told others that you gamed with that you would strongly prefer them to play something other than Rogues.

Then, someday, one of your players showed they had taped that conversation and released it. Due to that, I came over and confiscated ALL of your Pathfinder stuff.

I don't think I'd be comfortable with that. I don't think I'd like my private conversations that were meant to be private to be used against me in a public setting, and used to prosecute me and take all my Pathfinder stuff.

Why do I bring this up?

Because there is a situation in the US that currently has a sort of dilemma. I'm not sure where I stand, but at the same time, don't really like how they've put it.

For those who don't know, a Man by the last name of Sterling owns the Clippers.

Now, this guy is despicable, I mean...truly and completely despicable from everything I've seen.

Several years ago he was literally evicting minorities from rentals that he owned....for no other reason than they were minorities.

He is also married. He blatantly got a mistress...took her in public, dated her, and basically cheated all in a blatant manner.

At least one of these mistresses was trying to shake him down for money. When he finally refused to pay up again, she revealed that she had taped private conversations with him. She said he agreed to it, but has no evidence to prove it (thus far) and hence could be legally held for illegal recording without the other's consent. Because he wouldn't pay up, she released the tapes to a TV show.

On that TV show it was shown that...no surprise...Mr. Sterling was extremely racist. One of the more used comments has him trying to forbid his mistress (who interestingly, I've been told, is actually a minority herself) from going to games or taking pictures with minorities...including celebrity minorities and players.

Due to this release of a PRIVATE conversation, he was subsequently banned for life by the NBA and they are trying to force him to let someone else buy his team that he owns, have forbidden him from going to his games or practices or any inclusion with the team, property, and other items he owns in regards to the team.

Part of me wants to cheer, because it's like a really bad guy getting his comeuppance. At the same time, the other, more logical part of me...is saying...WTH just happened.

We took someone's private conversation that was never meant for the public, was not stated in the public, and was between two individuals for private interests...and used it to justify a major action. By approving this, I'm approving of invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion.

It's a conundrum. I wouldn't approve of people doing this to me, or anyone else. It's a deprivation of some basic freedoms. The guy is absolutely horrible, and one would hope he gets his comeuppance, but I don't think I'd want him to have his comeuppance due to the listed items above (invasion of privacy, blackmail, extortion).

Hence, sort of a twisted feeling, there's no way I can condone the banning of him based on what they utilized to have as a banning condition, and hence I don't.

At the same time, I feel so wrong because this guy really does/did need to be smacked down hard from everything I've read about him.

But, preserving one's rights (inclusive of our own) should take priority over making an example of someone...because what's used against them could someday be used against us?

Sort of one of those weird conflicting things.

So is that attitude on this more of a LG or CG item?

Or is it some other alignment?


The NBA has been trying to get rid of Sterling for years, just the outcry over this has finally tilted things enough to enable it. The last time they hit him with a heavy fine he countersued for 4 times the fine and kept it in court long enough for the NBA to capitulate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree while I may not agree with what some one belive and even be morally out raged by what they believe or say I still think they have right to believe what every they want. this is not the only example in recent history either. the CO of Firefox had to step down because of a donation he made. now wather or not you like or agree with it he still has a right and we should allow people the freedom.


It was my understanding he had asked for the conversations to be recorded, as a way of keeping notes.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
It was my understanding he had asked for the conversations to be recorded, as a way of keeping notes.

?

Is that so? Can you cite me that somewhere?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The smitter wrote:
I agree while I may not agree with what some one belive and even be morally out raged by what they believe or say I still think they have right to believe what every they want. this is not the only example in recent history either. the CO of Firefox had to step down because of a donation he made. now wather or not you like or agree with it he still has a right and we should allow people the freedom.

He has every right to believe or say whatever offensive nonsense he wants to say or believe. You'll notice he's not in jail. He's not being charged with any crime for his opinions or speech. He has his freedom. Not to mention giant piles of money.

The question is does he have the right to be free from any public backlash to his crap. The answer to that is No. The rest of the country has freedom of speech to and we can call him out for his opinions. That could, in the extreme include choosing not to associate ourselves with his business (the Clippers and by extension the NBA and the advertisers they make money from). The fear of that is what caused the NBA to ban him.

As for the taping, if that was illegal he can bring charges against his mistress or sue her in civil court. And the tape would likely be inadmissible as evidence in a case against him (unsure of that. It may depend on the details of the situation.) What he can't do is require the rest of the country to pretend they never heard it.


this is interesting.

I think he's embarrassed the league, though, and they have the right to protect their business interests. Looks like she might've broke California law by taping him though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

U.S Senators say worse and get to keep their jobs. I find that even more upsetting.

Liberty's Edge

Once again, political correctness triumphs. Even though Mr. Sterling sounds like a louse, he should have the right to express his ideas as long as they do not inflict measureable and serious harm to others or put people in imminent danger ( you don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater ). I would hope that he vigorously defends his right of free speech by again suing the NBA.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's relevant that this was all part of the contract he signed as part of buying the team. If he didn't want to have his private life be inspected, he shouldn't have taken a job that gives the NBA the right to inspect his private life.

To put it another way, if you don't want me to confiscate all of your pathfinder stuff, don't sign a contract that gives me the right to confiscate all your pathfinder stuff. At my sole discretion.


I can agree that with that, it is not government censorship it is coming from people. I have just noticed a trend of intolerance in the public. the guy is clearly a jerk and I can see why the NBA would want to distance them selves from him. but it is a little alarming that private info being used to blackmail someone has so much of effect.


Spastic Puma wrote:
U.S Senators say worse and get to keep their jobs. I find that even more upsetting.

Recently? I can't think of anything quite so blatant in the recent past. They usually use euphemisms like "urban" or "inner city".

Some House members, but that's usually in tune with their district.


a contract does change things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Once again, political correctness triumphs. Even though Mr. Sterling sounds like a louse, he should have the right to express his ideas as long as they do not inflict measureable and serious harm to others or put people in imminent danger ( you don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater ). I would hope that he vigorously defends his right of free speech by again suing the NBA.

So how far does that right extend? Should the NBA be required to keep him as an owner and not ban him (whatever that exactly does)? Should they do this even if his racist attitudes hurt attendance and discourage advertisers? Should advertisers be required to continue buying ads and endorsements as if he hadn't said anything? Should fans be required to continue attending and watching games? Should they be required to continue buying products advertised or endorsed?

How does this "right to express his ideas" work? Does it trump everyone else's right to express their opinion that he's a racist jerk and they don't want to be associated with him?


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Once again, political correctness triumphs. Even though Mr. Sterling sounds like a louse, he should have the right to express his ideas as long as they do not inflict measureable and serious harm to others or put people in imminent danger ( you don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater ). I would hope that he vigorously defends his right of free speech by again suing the NBA.

I hope he does too.

My understanding is that the NBA contract is ironclad and he has not a cat's chance in the fire of winning.

My understanding is also, that is soon as he did, he would open himself up for public discovery of essentially every element of his personal life. Every statement that he's made would be subject to discovery, he would have no personal privacy whatsoever, and he would just have to take it because he opened that particular door himself.

Basically, if he thinks he has it bad now, let him try to sue, and he'll find things are a thousand times worse. Which frankly I think he deserves. I think he has been treated far too nicely for too long, basically by buying press coverage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The smitter wrote:
I can agree that with that, it is not government censorship it is coming from people. I have just noticed a trend of intolerance in the public. the guy is clearly a jerk and I can see why the NBA would want to distance them selves from him. but it is a little alarming that private info being used to blackmail someone has so much of effect.

Intolerance of racism?

Meh. I'm a lot happier with that than I am with the racism itself. Would it really be better if everyone was free to be as openly racist, sexist and homophobic as they wanted and no one was allowed to object?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Once again, political correctness triumphs. Even though Mr. Sterling sounds like a louse, he should have the right to express his ideas as long as they do not inflict measureable and serious harm to others or put people in imminent danger ( you don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater ). I would hope that he vigorously defends his right of free speech by again suing the NBA.

So how far does that right extend? Should the NBA be required to keep him as an owner and not ban him (whatever that exactly does)? Should they do this even if his racist attitudes hurt attendance and discourage advertisers? Should advertisers be required to continue buying ads and endorsements as if he hadn't said anything? Should fans be required to continue attending and watching games? Should they be required to continue buying products advertised or endorsed?

How does this "right to express his ideas" work? Does it trump everyone else's right to express their opinion that he's a racist jerk and they don't want to be associated with him?

In this case, he has no rights at all. He gave them up when he signed a contract letting the NBA do this to him.

One would think that an ostensible libertarian would support the sanctity of contract in the situation. But I guess contracts in Libertopia only count when you are the person screwing someone else over and not when you're being screwed.


My understanding is that the contract didn't have anything to do with it and no one knows what's in it specifically anyways.

Plus, the punishment supposedly was based on the NBA constitution, with the specific part being posted was that the Commissioner can hand out punishements and his word is final.

The excuse they used had nothing to do with the contract either. The justification used was with the furor over the statements that the team owner had made, it has caused supporters to flee and would hurt the franchises financially, hence the banning and the fine.

Interestingly, just a few days ago they were talking about maybe putting him into the Hall of Fame which was the TRUE reason I think many were starting to speak out (as I said, this guy had a long history of discrimination already) due to this idea.

The only difference between then and now is the release of his private statements.

Total 180.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

My understanding is that the contract didn't have anything to do with it and no one knows what's in it specifically anyways.

Plus, the punishment supposedly was based on the NBA constitution, with the specific part being posted was that the Commissioner can hand out punishements and his word is final.

Er, the NBA Constitution is part of the contract that the owners are required to sign to buy a team.


Freehold DM wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
It was my understanding he had asked for the conversations to be recorded, as a way of keeping notes.

?

Is that so? Can you cite me that somewhere?

Honestly? I saw it on a The Daily Show but it was a clip from Morning Joe. They said there was hundreds of hours of tape that he wanted recorded because he was having trouble remembering.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Political correctness is today's McCarthyism utilized by left-wingers. In the 1950's, leftists were called communists to discredit and shame them. Now, this tactic is used by the left to discredit the right. This is a dangerous tactic to use, not only because it can be turned against you; but because it corrodes the entire political system which is based upon the right of freedom of speech which lets the populance know the facts and decide the right course of action. Moreover, it can be argued that any contract Mr. Sterling signed which abridged his freedom of speech was an illegal, unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable one.


She said something about he routinely had her tape their conversations because he had trouble remembering stuff.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Moreover, it can be argued that any contract Mr. Sterling signed which abridged his freedom of speech was an illegal, unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable one.

It certainly can.

But not by anyone with any understanding of the law, and not successfully.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

My understanding is that the contract didn't have anything to do with it and no one knows what's in it specifically anyways.

Plus, the punishment supposedly was based on the NBA constitution, with the specific part being posted was that the Commissioner can hand out punishements and his word is final.

Er, the NBA Constitution is part of the contract that the owners are required to sign to buy a team.

The Constitution isn't publicly published. In addition, using that clause is actually a rather weak excuse.

Currently the expectation is that he is going to sue back and probably has a pretty solid case unless there's over 75% consensus between the other owners to back the Commissioner in a vote.

Of course, the expectations will be different if it's a public or private vote. A private vote could get touchy because there's already been some expression that this move gives the commissioner too much power for the exact reasons I listed above.

It's possible many of them have stated things in public, and with that power hanging over their heads, they are open to blackmail/extortion as well rather than lose their property and teams...or...on the word of ONE man, they could lose it all.

Which has been expressed by one of them, though publically he will support the commissioner.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
It was my understanding he had asked for the conversations to be recorded, as a way of keeping notes.

?

Is that so? Can you cite me that somewhere?

Honestly? I saw it on a The Daily Show but it was a clip from Morning Joe. They said there was hundreds of hours of tape that he wanted recorded because he was having trouble remembering.

It was claimed by his girlfriend.

The question is if this is true or not.

It has not been backed up by the other side (aka The jerk) yet.

Thus far, she has also not supplied any evidence to support her statement that I know of, which is why legalities have been discussed and stated that right now, without that evidence, not only could she be sued, she's committed an illegal act.

Not to mention the blackmail and extortion she committed regardless (which is why she released the tapes in the first place).

The Exchange

GreyWolfLord wrote:
Then, someday, one of your players showed they had taped that conversation and released it. Due to that, I came over and confiscated ALL of your Pathfinder stuff.

I think they only confiscated 2.5 million. As far as forcing him to sell the team, I think they may have the power to do that if the other owners vote that way. But what they would technically be doing is saying "You must sell your team if you want the Clippers to remain an NBA team." He could continue to own the team and form another league to play in if he didn't want to sell.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Moreover, it can be argued that any contract Mr. Sterling signed which abridged his freedom of speech was an illegal, unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable one.

It certainly can.

But not by anyone with any understanding of the law, and not successfully.

I think what he's going to do is drag any and all examples of other owners saying or doing racist stuff into court when he sues the NBA and say......"and yet,......I get a lifetime suspension?"

This is going to take years to work out.

He's a billionaire; he can survive this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If this were a Black owner saying this stuff about Jews or Gays some of us wouldn't even be HAVING this discussion about Free Speech.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Moreover, it can be argued that any contract Mr. Sterling signed which abridged his freedom of speech was an illegal, unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable one.

No, it can't. Here, have a civics lesson.

Quote:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, you can't be jailed, fined, or have legal action taken against you by the government for speaking your mind. That's what the first amendment means.

It doesn't mean you can't be ostracized, protested against, fined, fired, or otherwise punished for being a racist dick.

Liberty's Edge

I am sure that Mr. Sterling has the resources to mount a vigorous legal defense. I am more concerned about people who are not billionaires being able to exercise their right of freedom of speech, and not having private citizens or the government spy on them or attempt to pressure them into silence and submission.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I am more concerned about people who are not billionaires being able to exercise their right of freedom of speech...

They are welcome to say racist things and get fired the same way Mr.Sterling was suspended.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

the First Amendment does not apply to non-governmental entities, including private corporations and organizations. This means that private corporations and organizations generally can — and do — impose restrictions on speech, provided that the restrictions are not (racially) discriminatory, or otherwise illegal.

Shadow Lodge

You're asking us to answer a very general question where the real question here has very specific details involved.

Do you want to know if it's right in this case?

Or if it's right generally?

Because that's likely going to get very different poll results.


I actually have not been following the case (as I care nothing about basketball) but since it seems to be about a code of conduct, I don't think how they found out matters. Generally the "you were never supposed to know" argument doesn't hold up too well.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
One would think that an ostensible libertarian would support the sanctity of contract in the situation. But I guess contracts in Libertopia only count when you are the person screwing someone else over and not when you're being screwed.

You've got it twisted. The NBA going after Sterling is free market at work. It isn't a free speech issue, because, as others have pointed out, it was perfectly legal for Sterling to say everything he said. I think sometimes people confuse sports leagues with the government. But then again, we do from time to time waste Congress's time and our money with Congressional hearings about baseball doping, and our taxes pay to build stadiums for these guys for free, so I can see where the confusion arises.

To answer the OP: welcome to the wide world of instantaneous global communication. Wiretapping is bad, but so is shooting off at the mouth. Nobody but you controls what you say but you can believe the rest of the world will hold you accountable for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Once again, political correctness triumphs. Even though Mr. Sterling sounds like a louse, he should have the right to express his ideas as long as they do not inflict measureable and serious harm to others or put people in imminent danger ( you don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater ). I would hope that he vigorously defends his right of free speech by again suing the NBA.

I hope he does too.

My understanding is that the NBA contract is ironclad and he has not a cat's chance in the fire of winning.

My understanding is also, that is soon as he did, he would open himself up for public discovery of essentially every element of his personal life. Every statement that he's made would be subject to discovery, he would have no personal privacy whatsoever, and he would just have to take it because he opened that particular door himself.

Basically, if he thinks he has it bad now, let him try to sue, and he'll find things are a thousand times worse. Which frankly I think he deserves. I think he has been treated far too nicely for too long, basically by buying press coverage.

Tell Seattle that a contract with the NBA is ironclad.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Political correctness is today's McCarthyism utilized by left-wingers. In the 1950's, leftists were called communists to discredit and shame them. Now, this tactic is used by the left to discredit the right. This is a dangerous tactic to use, not only because it can be turned against you; but because it corrodes the entire political system which is based upon the right of freedom of speech which lets the populance know the facts and decide the right course of action. Moreover, it can be argued that any contract Mr. Sterling signed which abridged his freedom of speech was an illegal, unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable one.

In the 1950's leftists were called before Congress to testify about their supposed communist activities. Some were tried and imprisoned. That's an entirely different thing than a purely public backlash, with no legal consequences or government involvement.

Isn't this exactly "letting the populace know the facts and deciding the right course of action"? It seems you're more in favor of the public knowing the facts and taking no action whatsoever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also relevant:Free speech. Especially the hovertext.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

thejeff wrote:
Also relevant:Free speech. Especially the hovertext.

Keep in mind that "Free speech" can refer not just to the legal concept in the Constitution, but also the general ethic that people shouldn't have their careers and livelihoods attacked because they hold an unpopular opinion.

Of course, the legitimacy of the fine and ban that Stirling received depends entirely on the contract he signed when he became involved with the NBA. But even at its most general (something like "Don't bring the NBA into disrepute"), a good lawyer (of which I'm sure he has an army), could probably make the case that he didn't bring the NBA into disrepute by making private comments in his own home, but rather his girlfriend (who presumably never signed a contract) brought it into disrepute by publicizing his private comments. And if she did record his statements illegally and use them to blackmail him, well, she can probably look forward to being sued into oblivion by him.

As despicable as his comments were, I think it's a bit chilling to see someone being fined millions of dollars for something said in the privacy of his own home.


RainyDayNinja wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Also relevant:Free speech. Especially the hovertext.

Keep in mind that "Free speech" can refer not just to the legal concept in the Constitution, but also the general ethic that people shouldn't have their careers and livelihoods attacked because they hold an unpopular opinion.

Of course, the legitimacy of the fine and ban that Stirling received depends entirely on the contract he signed when he became involved with the NBA. But even at its most general (something like "Don't bring the NBA into disrepute"), a good lawyer (of which I'm sure he has an army), could probably make the case that he didn't bring the NBA into disrepute by making private comments in his own home, but rather his girlfriend (who presumably never signed a contract) brought it into disrepute by publicizing his private comments. And if she did record his statements illegally and use them to blackmail him, well, she can probably look forward to being sued into oblivion by him.

As despicable as his comments were, I think it's a bit chilling to see someone being fined millions of dollars for something said in the privacy of his own home.

So I go back to my previous post: Should the NBA be legally required to keep him on in good standing despite any public feedback and loss of revenue? Should advertisers and endorsers be required to continue doing business as usual even if less people watch games his team plays and people choose to avoid products they endorse? Should the public be required to keep watching games (and thus ads) and purchasing products?

Because that's what this is about. The fear on the part of the NBA that a backlash to these comments could lead to a loss of revenue. All the legal technicalities aside, this is about money. Where does that process get legally interrupted? Whose rights have to be violated to allow him to suffer no consequences for his freedom of speech?

And as a side note: being fined millions sounds horrible, but he's a billionaire. He can pay it out of petty cash. The ban and attempts to make him sell the team will hurt worse.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I admit it's a tricky legal situation because of whatever contract he had to sign to join. It's an arrangement that would make any libertarian cringe (I own the team, but someone else tells me how I can use it, and can take it away if they don't like what I do with it). So I guess the moral of the story is:

1) Don't sign away all your rights, just for millions of dollars.

and

2) Treat your sugar babies well. Otherwise, they may get tired of screwing you for money, and decide to turn around and, well, screw you for money.


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Political correctness is today's McCarthyism utilized by left-wingers. In the 1950's, leftists were called communists to discredit and shame them. Now, this tactic is used by the left to discredit the right. This is a dangerous tactic to use, not only because it can be turned against you; but because it corrodes the entire political system which is based upon the right of freedom of speech which lets the populance know the facts and decide the right course of action. Moreover, it can be argued that any contract Mr. Sterling signed which abridged his freedom of speech was an illegal, unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable one.

nope. Congress had nothing to do with this, its a private contract.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Moreover, it can be argued that any contract Mr. Sterling signed which abridged his freedom of speech was an illegal, unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable one.

It certainly can.

But not by anyone with any understanding of the law, and not successfully.

I think what he's going to do is drag any and all examples of other owners saying or doing racist stuff into court when he sues the NBA and say......"and yet,......I get a lifetime suspension?"

This is going to take years to work out.

He's a billionaire; he can survive this.

im sure he'll be fine, financially. But realistically, a lifetime ban? How many years does he have left?


RainyDayNinja wrote:

I admit it's a tricky legal situation because of whatever contract he had to sign to join. It's an arrangement that would make any libertarian cringe (I own the team, but someone else tells me how I can use it, and can take it away if they don't like what I do with it). So I guess the moral of the story is:

1) Don't sign away all your rights, just for millions of dollars.

and

2) Treat your sugar babies well. Otherwise, they may get tired of screwing you for money, and decide to turn around and, well, screw you for money.

I believe he was suing her for the money and gifts he gave her during their relationship when the tape was released.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I am more concerned about people who are not billionaires being able to exercise their right of freedom of speech...
They are welcome to say racist things and get fired the same way Mr.Sterling was suspended.

Martin, have you worked for any organisation or group or company other than yourself (I.e. self employed)? Most companies or organizations that one works for can and do curtail what you say as part of your contract with them, especially when it comes to sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and just speaking ill of the company itself. It's a standard part/understanding with any company I've worked for, and I've been employed since I was a teenager.


Freehold DM wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I am more concerned about people who are not billionaires being able to exercise their right of freedom of speech...
They are welcome to say racist things and get fired the same way Mr.Sterling was suspended.
Martin, have you worked for any organisation or group or company other than yourself (I.e. self employed)? Most companies or organizations that one works for can and do curtail what you say as part of your contract with them, especially when it comes to sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and just speaking ill of the company itself. It's a standard part/understanding with any company I've worked for, and I've been employed since I was a teenager.

Though generally that's only while on the job. I'd be fired for racist or sexist behavior at work, but not in my private life.

OTOH, I'm a computer geek. I'm not the public face of the company. Anything I do doesn't wind up splashed all over the internet with the company's name prominently attached. It makes a difference.


I wonder how all of this compares to peoples views of what happened to Clark Peterson?

Although this specific situation is nearer to Max Mosley (though less illegal).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The initially analogy is slightly flawed. It would actually be more something like this.

A group of twenty friends get together and all agree to play Pathfinder, as a form of entertainment, and for profit, in a public setting such as a large game store

The group, together, agrees upon a set of rules to be self imposed for the “benefit” of the organization and to ensure that all members have an equal opportunity for success

The organization, as a whole is successful

At some time one member acts in a way that embarrasses the organization, threatens the image of the organization, and undermines the organization’s reputation

This act is done outside of the regular playing of any kind of pathfinder game, however, it is within the organization’s rules, that this behavior, as an insult to the organization, is punishable

The individual is punished, and asked to find another group to play with

That’s really all there is to it.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

DSXMachina, I was wondering how it compares to people's views of the Duke porn star.

I think the Clark Peterson business was some journalist trying to make a mountain out of a nonexistent molehill, capitalizing on circa-1980's D&D hysteria. Clark's actual behavior, from reading the articles, was above reproach.


thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I am more concerned about people who are not billionaires being able to exercise their right of freedom of speech...
They are welcome to say racist things and get fired the same way Mr.Sterling was suspended.
Martin, have you worked for any organisation or group or company other than yourself (I.e. self employed)? Most companies or organizations that one works for can and do curtail what you say as part of your contract with them, especially when it comes to sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and just speaking ill of the company itself. It's a standard part/understanding with any company I've worked for, and I've been employed since I was a teenager.

Though generally that's only while on the job. I'd be fired for racist or sexist behavior at work, but not in my private life.

OTOH, I'm a computer geek. I'm not the public face of the company. Anything I do doesn't wind up splashed all over the internet with the company's name prominently attached. It makes a difference.

people can and have been fired for idiotic stuff they did and posted to Facebook regardless of their position in the company. It happens.


Charlie Bell wrote:

DSXMachina, I was wondering how it compares to people's views of the Duke porn star.

I think the Clark Peterson business was some journalist trying to make a mountain out of a nonexistent molehill, capitalizing on circa-1980's D&D hysteria. Clark's actual behavior, from reading the articles, was above reproach.

Agreed, I wasn't trying to touch upon the actual instance and words used by Mr. Sterling - since it's utterly reprehensible. Rather that the media can use a private activities of an individual and then try and oust him from his profession.

1 to 50 of 487 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Should we be shamed publically for what we say in private? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.