[ SECRET POST #5958 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5958 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.
[Succession, Roman Roy]



__________________________________________________



04.
[minecraft youtube?]



__________________________________________________



05.
[Green Hell]



__________________________________________________



06.
[Lost Ruins]
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #852.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

That's true, if they work for the government! Luckily, Star Wars isn't a government property yet.

Unless you're talking about the Reagan-Era weapons program. In which case, you're correct and firing a civilian who worked on the Star Wars defense program for their political views would be a clear violation of their Constitutional rights.

[(Anonymous)]

No, I'm talking about getting fired for being liberal, conservative, et cetera.

[(Anonymous)]

Being fired for drawing negative attention to your employers and potentially costing them revenue is, quite possibly, the most American reason to be fired ever.

[(Anonymous)]

Gina Carano's political views have nothing to do with The Mandalorian or Star Wars. It isn't fair that she got fired.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah but political affiliation isn't a protected class and unfair=/=illegal.

[(Anonymous)]

Actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences include being fired for being a liability to the brand. Le gasp!

[(Anonymous)]

Yep! The Mouse is /known/ to be really strict on appearances

[(Anonymous)]

DA

People don't have a legal, constitutional right that protects them from being fired for their political views - the First Amendment only protects people from government action. But firing people for their political views is still bad. It's a hindrance to free speech if employers have the right to veto their employee's speech or demand that they have certain political views, even if it's not the government doing it. So I get why people would be leery about it.

But I think we should also take a less absolutist stance with regard to this kind of social pressure than we should for government restrictions on speech. When it comes to the first amendment, we have really cut-and-dry prohibitions on the government doing anything to restrict speech, regardless of who's talking or what they're saying. And that makes sense when we're talking about the government because the government is so powerful.

But when it comes to social pressure and the actions of private individuals, we have to be more nuanced. After all, people do have a right to decide not to associate with other people; companies have a right not to hire people who have a very bad public image for prominent positions. You can't really regulate that out of existence. And there are some points of view that *should* be socially unpopular, because they're evil, and bad. Being an open Nazi (as the worst possible hypothetical example) *should* have severe social consequences. So it's a case-by-case thing. You have to think about the details of what happened, who it was, what they said, how they were affected by it, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I see your points, and I respectfully disagree. She was a liability to her employers with her open bigotry, and they used their freedom of association to distance themselves from her. This wasn’t a case of someone who might vote conservative, but doesn’t make their coworkers feel judged or unsafe. This is someone openly discriminating against trans people.