ESPN disavows host Jemele Hill’s tweets calling Trump a ‘white supremacist’

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Censorship is bad, the end. This trigger-happy culture needs to end and soon.

[Dextroden]

Who in here is saying that they can't fire her?

I'd assume people the one I quoted.

[Jotaux]

Least snapchat has porn.

So does twitter.

[Everwake]

She's free to say stupid things and I'm free to not watch her show if I disagree. So much freedom here I can barely stand it!

[Ripster42]

Least snapchat has porn.

You apparently missed the ted cruz news the past few days. Twitter has porn too apparently.

[prwraith]

Why would espn do that. it undermines their credibility.

[OrcsRLame]

Just wanted to chime in and say that I am still pretty close to a free speech absolutist and I don't think this woman should have been fired for the comment she made. I disagree with what she said but I believe she has the right to say it.

Also, I do think freedom of speech means freedom from consequences, at least certain kinds of consequences. People should be able to use their speech to speak against you. People should not be able to coerce you with violence or by undermining your way of life. I do not agree with a company firing someone for their political opinions.

[Antius]

Curt Schilling is insane. I dont like Hill buy what did she say that was not correct?

Ignoring your "opinion" of Curt and the deflection you threw out I'll rephrase my comment in the form of a question. How can you or any other level headed intelligent human being not see the blatant bias in that example I gave ? You can't kick someone to the curb for violating company policy then turn around not even 4 months later and give someone a stern talking to for the same exact violation of company policy. That is a textbook example of bias.

They could pull it off in private, sure. But this is a very public spectacle and a shit ton of people and customers are watching.

[anyaka21]

Just wanted to chime in and say that I am still pretty close to a free speech absolutist and I don't think this woman should have been fired for the comment she made. I disagree with what she said but I believe she has the right to say it.

Also, I do think freedom of speech means freedom from consequences, at least certain kinds of consequences. People should be able to use their speech to speak against you. People should not be able to coerce you with violence or by undermining your way of life. I do not agree with a company firing someone for their political opinions.

While I understand what you are saying, I disagree as well as most companies. Basically, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. All companies have social media clauses in contracts as well as orientation/hiring standards. Basically meaning they can fire you for stuff you say online, and you accept that as a term of your employment.

Further, there are tons of stuff that can get people fired from their jobs and what it comes down to is dollars. If you cause the company to lose money for your actions via social media, they can fire you for it.

I would also add, there are millions of words that are not acceptable that can get you arrested, yelling fire or gun in a theatre. Employees yelling at customers can get them fired. Sure, they have full freedom of speech, but it most definitely does not excuse someone from the consequences.

I would agree with others that say she should be fired for her words because of the damage it causes to espn and how it makes them look as a sports brand, but not because the White House said so. The problem now is that since the White House actually called for her to be fired, it might ironically be the thing that saves her job.

[Mormolyce]

There's nothing surprising about a network not wanting to be associated with the controversial remarks of a host.

[Rennadrel]

Schilling fired for his comments... Hill barely reprimanded. Just further shows that those in charge are fine with what you say as long as they agree with it. If they disagree, you're gone. Anyone that thinks ESPN doesn't have a political agenda is purposely fooling themselves.

ESPN is owned by Disney, the only reason this woman has a job is likely due to affirmative action because she is a terrible reporter and sports anchor. Of course they won't sack her, it fits their worldview.

[OrcsRLame]

While I understand what you are saying, I disagree as well as most companies. Basically, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. All companies have social media clauses in contracts as well as orientation/hiring standards. Basically meaning they can fire you for stuff you say online, and you accept that as a term of your employment.

Further, there are tons of stuff that can get people fired from their jobs and what it comes down to is dollars. If you cause the company to lose money for your actions via social media, they can fire you for it.

I would also add, there are millions of words that are not acceptable that can get you arrested, yelling fire or gun in a theatre. Employees yelling at customers can get them fired. Sure, they have full freedom of speech, but it most definitely does not excuse someone from the consequences.

I would agree with others that say she should be fired for her words because of the damage it causes to espn and how it makes them look as a sports brand, but not because the White House said so. The problem now is that since the White House actually called for her to be fired, it might ironically be the thing that saves her job.

Freedom of speech IS freedom from consequences. If I tell you, "Say x and I will take away your food, house and car." how is that any different in principle than saying, "Say x and I will kill you." Or, "Say x and I will kill your family." Or, "Say x and I will imprison you."

The concept of freedom of speech is that you will not face consequences for that speech. Realize also that freedom of speech and the first amendment are NOT the same thing. The first amendment protects your freedom of speech, (from the government) but it is not the concept of freedom of speech.

Saying that you cannot yell fire in a theater IS an infringement on your freedom of speech. I would also argue that that infringement is just because it represents the protection of rights and concepts that are more important than freedom of speech. Namely the right to life. This is why I say that I am pretty close to a free speech absolutist instead of just saying that I am a free speech absolutist.

I believe in your post you have accurately represented reality as it is. A company can fire you if you lose them money via your speech. However, I do not think you can derive an ought from an is. Just because that is how things are does not mean that is how things should be. I don't think it should be as simple as money loss = cut them loose.

[ParanoiD84]

Everyone is a nazi today so no surprise there.

[Very Tired]

Oddly enough, almost every job out there is going to hold you to a higher standard than the president of the United States.

[ItachiZaku]

She should be suspended, not fired. That would be in line with many of the others that have done similar things. Well, unless you're female.

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom of speech IS freedom from consequences. If I tell you, "Say x and I will take away your food, house and car." how is that any different in principle than saying, "Say x and I will kill you." Or, "Say x and I will kill your family." Or, "Say x and I will imprison you."

The concept of freedom of speech is that you will not face consequences for that speech.

From the government. Not society. I agree with you, that's been my argument. If I'm not able to react to your initial salvo, then my freedom of speech is impinged upon. etc etc etc lalabooboo.

[Elba]

@Laurcus so you're basically arguing semantics that are not applicable to actually living in a society.

[Themius]

She is wrong and the only people calling Trump a white supremecist are unhinged.

"There are good nazi and white supremacist and I'm not racist" doesn't sound right.

[ipaq]

https://www.metro.us/sports/espn-sus...itical-remarks

Its not a political remark. Trump is a white supremacist. That's a fact.

[Draco-Onis]

I'd assume people the one I quoted.

Nope, I am simply calling out that if Obama had used his office to say that someone on TV should be fired because they said something mean about him you people would be losing your shit. I guess abuse of power is fine as long as it is your guy doing it.

GG for electing a snowflake president.

[Independent voter]

I don't think Trump is a white supremacist. He's a lot of things but not a white supremacist.