Warner targets media in Twitter rant

[williamsutton]

Warner targets media in Twitter rant

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-18/warner-targets-media-in-twitter-rant/4698006?section=sport


maybe it would be better if Warner concentrated on scoring runs instead
of bein a twit

[Ramapriya]

On May 18, 9:38 am, williamsutton <will...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Warner targets media in Twitter rant
>

> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-18/warner-targets-media-in-twitter...

>
> maybe it would be better if Warner concentrated on scoring runs instead
> of bein a twit

If you dislike something I write and say so, does it make you a twit?
Or is Warner to shut up just because he isn't making runs? Funny
world.

Ramapriya

[will_s]

How is it funny . He is in the limelight and gets paid huge amounts of
money and he has certain obligations.

btw: its a twitter account and I think you would understand the use of
the word "twit" in that context

[Ramapriya]

On May 18, 3:55 pm, will_s <will...@optusnet.comm.au> wrote:
>
> > If you dislike something I write and say so, does it make you a twit?
> > Or is Warner to shut up just because he isn't making runs? Funny
> > world.
>
> > Ramapriya
>
> How is it funny . He is in the limelight and gets paid huge amounts of
> money and he has certain obligations.

Not disagreeing with that. I was talking of why it shouldn't be wrong
if people held opinions and had the total liberty to air them.

> btw: its a twitter account and I think you would understand the use of
> the word "twit" in that context

I more understand the 'witter' bit :)

Anyone should have the right to say what he feels like, just as anyone
else should always have the equal right of agreeing, mocking,
criticizing or lauding them. I totally condemn all forms of gagging
rules / laws / clauses.

Ramapriya

[Uday Rajan]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:06:21 AM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:

> Anyone should have the right to say what he feels like, just as anyone
> else should always have the equal right of agreeing, mocking,
> criticizing or lauding them. I totally condemn all forms of gagging
> rules / laws / clauses.

Not sure what you mean here. I agree that freedom of speech is in some sense the bedrock of democracy and the freedom from which other freedoms flow. But freedom of speech (rightly, IMO) only gives one protection against being sent to jail or against criminal prosecution by a government.

Most professional organizations will not tolerate an employee routinely swearing at other people in the course of a professional day. And I don't see why they should. Even outside professional hours, there are boundaries. For example, a shop-owner should be allowed to fire an employee who stands outside the door of the shop in his own spare time and swears at passers-by.

Warner swearing at journalists on twitter is akin to his swearing at a press conference, and I don't see why CA should stand for that. Would we really be OK if captains routinely swore at press conferences? I think cricket would lose a lot of fans if that happened.

If Warner makes his twitter-feed private to only friends and family, then it becomes his personal business. He can swear as much as he wants in his lounge in private (whether watching FoxTel while camped on a sofa or not). But if he's got an open-twitter feed, it's akin to swearing at a press conference, and his paymasters are entitled to have issue with that.

[willsutton]

In Australia we have a superstar of Rugby League who is banned by his
new club from using Social Media. If he uses it he will lose a million
dollar contract and this is after he was sacked from his previous club
for using it. Another Rugby player made the mistake of using social
media and using the words "toxic enviroment" and this looks like costing
him a place againt the British and Irish Lions next month.


Warner is under contract to CA and they have quite a few rules about
what you can and cannot do. If Warner wants to give up this contract
then he can tweeter all he likes but as long as he wants to play for
Australia he should try and use his brain a bit more.

I wonder what would happen if Warner tweeted that the BCCI and IPL were
a mob of crooks etc ......

[Ramapriya]

On May 18, 11:55 pm, Uday Rajan <udayra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:06:21 AM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:
> > Anyone should have the right to say what he feels like, just as anyone
> > else should always have the equal right of agreeing, mocking,
> > criticizing or lauding them. I totally condemn all forms of gagging
> > rules / laws / clauses.
>
> Not sure what you mean here. I agree that freedom of speech is in some sense the bedrock of democracy and the freedom from which other freedoms flow. But freedom of speech (rightly, IMO) only gives one protection against being sent to jail or against criminal prosecution by a government.
>
> Most professional organizations will not tolerate an employee routinely swearing at other people in the course of a professional day. And I don't see why they should. Even outside professional hours, there are boundaries. For example, a shop-owner should be allowed to fire an employee who stands outside the door of the shop in his own spare time and swears at passers-by.

I don't recall mentioning abuse as being = an opinion. I'm thinking of
a way of stating my point here... let's say I continually write stuff
(not saying that I don't but let's ignore that :)) that you and 99% of
those on rsc might consider bonkers. Would you and the others just
ignore what I said and killfile me or bring in some legislation
banning me from writing or, assuming that you had the collective power
to do so, impose some penalty on me?

A more correct example would've been a bloke who works in an
organization and thinks that some of the clients who walk in through
the door are immature and writes so in a blog of his or wherever. An
organization not wanting that is understandable, since it means a
potential loss of revenue, and indeed most companies would have an
explicit rule banning such opinions, but in my view such
considerations are wrong.

Not sure if your vintage runs as far back as the late 70s but there
was a time when newspapers regularly carried daily columns by cricket
captains. I clearly recall those written by Gavaskar and Asif Iqbal.
And there were many days when they felt a particular person didn't
bowl, bat or field well enough, and stated so. In full public view.
That today is an anathema to most cricket boards. It needn't have been
but it is.

> Warner swearing at journalists on twitter is akin to his swearing at a press conference, and I don't see why CA should stand for that. Would we really be OK if captains routinely swore at press conferences? I think cricket would lose a lot of fans if that happened.

> If Warner makes his twitter-feed private to only friends and family, then it becomes his personal business. He can swear as much as he wants in his lounge in private (whether watching FoxTel while camped on a sofa or not). But if he's got an open-twitter feed, it's akin to swearing at a press conference, and his paymasters are entitled to have issue with that.

Let's agree to disagree. If scribes write rubbish, why should anyone
be prevented from saying so? Cronje's 'yes there's a lot of scope for
improvement in the commentary box, Quirky' at Kingsmead to Trevor
Quirk in '96 was so tellingly brilliant.

That said, I'm utterly against abuse which is crass and deplorable.
OTOH, a dissenting opinion is perfectly respectable and should never
be censored simply because it's unpalatable. That's akin to your being
liable to be fired from your job just because you think (and state so)
that some particular decision of your boss was idiocy.

Ramapriya

[Ramapriya]

On May 19, 5:42 am, willsutton <will...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> In Australia we have a superstar of Rugby League who is banned by his
> new club from using Social Media. If he uses it he will lose a million
> dollar contract and this is after he was sacked from his previous club
> for using it. Another Rugby player made the mistake of using social
> media and using the words "toxic enviroment" and this looks like costing
> him a place againt the British and Irish Lions next month.
>
> Warner is under contract to CA and they have quite a few rules about
> what you can and cannot do. If Warner wants to give up this contract
> then he can tweeter all he likes but as long as he wants to play for
> Australia he should try and use his brain a bit more.
>
> I wonder what would happen if Warner tweeted that the BCCI and IPL were
> a mob of crooks etc  ......

All I'm saying that such rules are wrong, not that they don't exist.
The real architects of censorship are the political and religious
classes. Where I am, e.g. my true views on religion, if stated in
public, will at the very least lead to my arrest :)

The problem I have with gagging rules is that they're in effect saying
that no matter what your views are, you're barred from airing them.
That to me is promoting hypocrisy.

Ramapriya

[Uday Rajan]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:49:30 PM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:

> I don't recall mentioning abuse as being = an opinion.

Since you seem to be defending Warner's right to post whatever he wants to Twitter in a thread on Warner's twitter rants, let's at least look at what Warner did post. Both of the following are from a CI article (http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/636544.html)

Exhibit 1: "The following tweet appeared on Warner's Twitter account: "Shock me @crashcraddock1 talking s*** about ipl jealous p****. Get a real job. All you do is bag people. #getalife" "

Exhibit 2: "@malcolmconn are you still talking you old fart, no wonder know one buys your paper."

To me, Exhibit 1 is outright swearing and abuse. Calling someone an "old fart" in public is in my book not swearing but is unseemly, and I wouldn't want any of my employees to engage in such public behavior. It reflects badly on an organization if it tolerates such behavior.

> I'm thinking of
> a way of stating my point here... let's say I continually write stuff
> (not saying that I don't but let's ignore that :)) that you and 99% of
> those on rsc might consider bonkers. Would you and the others just
> ignore what I said and killfile me or bring in some legislation
> banning me from writing or, assuming that you had the collective power

> to do s impose some penalty on me?

Two responses. (1) I don't see why anyone should bother bringing in the powers of government either in your hypothetical instance or indeed in Warner's case (2) Your example is a straw man in a couple of different ways: (i) Warner used language that is generally considered unacceptable in public discourse (ii) Warner's actions reflect ill on his employer. They are akin to engaging in a public spat with a customer, and most businesses will not look kindly on that. In rsc, there is no such notion of business and customer.

> A more correct example would've been a bloke who works in an
> organization and thinks that some of the clients who walk in through
> the door are immature and writes so in a blog of his or wherever. An
> organization not wanting that is understandable, since it means a
> potential loss of revenue, and indeed most companies would have an
> explicit rule banning such opinions, but in my view such
> considerations are wrong.

There are two separate considerations here. One is simply voicing a disagreement with a customer, or in Warner's case with a press article. I don't have trouble with that in principle, but if it gets to the point that an employee is losing me clients by his activities outside of work, I would see keeping him on as a poor business decision.

The second is the tone and language used in that disagreement. Swearing at customers in public is unacceptable, and I believe Warner has been guilty of that. But even without swearing, a strident tone toward customers in public is generally not helpful for a business, and Warner has been guilty of that too.

> Not sure if your vintage runs as far back as the late 70s

Yes, it does; about a decade further in terms of first-hand interactions with cricket.

> but there
> was a time when newspapers regularly carried daily columns by cricket
> captains. I clearly recall those written by Gavaskar and Asif Iqbal.
> And there were many days when they felt a particular person didn't
> bowl, bat or field well enough, and stated so. In full public view.
>
> That today is an anathema to most cricket boards. It needn't have been
> but it is.

And I don't see why it shouldn't be. Suppose Kohli suddenly starts criticising Dhoni in all his public outbursts. One can expect that it will affect team chemistry, and Kohli should expect to be in trouble for it. After all, a cricket team is not just a collection of 11 individuals, but they are expected to work together toward a common goal. Many businesses care about how well people work with each other in a team.

> Let's agree to disagree. If scribes write rubbish, why should anyone
> be prevented from saying so? Cronje's 'yes there's a lot of scope for
> improvement in the commentary box, Quirky' at Kingsmead to Trevor
> Quirk in '96 was so tellingly brilliant.

Seems like a far cry from Warner's rants.

> That said, I'm utterly against abuse which is crass and deplorable.

Indeed, I found Warner's tweets to be crass and deplorable.

> OTOH, a dissenting opinion is perfectly respectable and should never
> be censored simply because it's unpalatable. That's akin to your being
> liable to be fired from your job just because you think (and state so)
> that some particular decision of your boss was idiocy.

If I tell my boss in private that a decision is idiotic, I may well get into their bad books, but there should be no cause to fire me. If publicly announce to the world that a decision made my boss is idiotic, I should expect to be in much bigger trouble. It's not helpful for a business to have its employees squabbling in public.

[willsutton]

On 19/05/2013 12:23 PM, Ramapriya wrote:
> On May 19, 5:42 am, willsutton <will...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> In Australia we have a superstar of Rugby League who is banned by his
>> new club from using Social Media. If he uses it he will lose a million
>> dollar contract and this is after he was sacked from his previous club
>> for using it. Another Rugby player made the mistake of using social
>> media and using the words "toxic enviroment" and this looks like costing
>> him a place againt the British and Irish Lions next month.
>>
>> Warner is under contract to CA and they have quite a few rules about
>> what you can and cannot do. If Warner wants to give up this contract
>> then he can tweeter all he likes but as long as he wants to play for
>> Australia he should try and use his brain a bit more.
>>
>> I wonder what would happen if Warner tweeted that the BCCI and IPL were
>> a mob of crooks etc ......
>
>
> All I'm saying that such rules are wrong, not that they don't exist.
> The real architects of censorship are the political and religious
> classes. Where I am, e.g. my true views on religion, if stated in
> public, will at the very least lead to my arrest :)

well my views on relgion if aired in certain places would see me lose my
head :-)

>
> The problem I have with gagging rules is that they're in effect saying
> that no matter what your views are, you're barred from airing them.
> That to me is promoting hypocrisy.

The people that control sports want to control everything that could
basically have any impact on their sport ie. $$$$$$$$$$$$

The thing is there is no such thing as free speach

[Ramapriya]

On May 19, 6:41 am, Uday Rajan <udayra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Since you seem to be defending Warner's right to post whatever he wants to Twitter in a thread on Warner's twitter rants

True

> Exhibit 1: "The following tweet appeared on Warner's Twitter account: "Shock me @crashcraddock1 talking s*** about ipl jealous p****. Get a real job. All you do is bag people. #getalife" "

That's surely abuse, agree.

> Exhibit 2: "@malcolmconn are you still talking you old fart, no wonder know one buys your paper."
>
> To me, Exhibit 1 is outright swearing and abuse. Calling someone an "old fart" in public is in my book not swearing but is unseemly, and I wouldn't want any of my employees to engage in such public behavior. It reflects badly on an organization if it tolerates such behavior.

Agree. If OTOH he'd stridently criticized the hacks without abuse,
would or should it have been okay?

> Two responses. (1) I don't see why anyone should bother bringing in the powers of government either in your hypothetical instance or indeed in Warner's case (2) Your example is a straw man in a couple of different ways: (i) Warner used language that is generally considered unacceptable in public discourse

True.

(ii) Warner's actions reflect ill on his employer. They are akin to
engaging in a public spat with a customer, and most businesses will
not look kindly on that.

I know. Businesses are structured to maximize revenue, even if it's to
the exclusion of most else. That isn't disputed. In sport, however,
it's a bit different because the players are in a way the business
product.

> > A more correct example would've been a bloke who works in an
> > organization and thinks that some of the clients who walk in through
> > the door are immature and writes so in a blog of his or wherever. An
> > organization not wanting that is understandable, since it means a
> > potential loss of revenue, and indeed most companies would have an
> > explicit rule banning such opinions, but in my view such
> > considerations are wrong.
>
> There are two separate considerations here. One is simply voicing a disagreement with a customer, or in Warner's case with a press article. I don't have trouble with that in principle

That is precisely my point. A fair few freely aired Twitter posts
lately have seen Boards talk to the players. That one can't write a
long enough, reasoned article on Twitter makes it difficult but my
view was only against gagging in principle which cricket boards have
increasingly resorted to.

, but if it gets to the point that an employee is losing me clients by
his activities outside of work, I would see keeping him on as a poor
business decision.

> The second is the tone and language used in that disagreement. Swearing at customers in public is unacceptable, and I believe Warner has been guilty of that. But even without swearing, a strident tone toward customers in public is generally not helpful for a business, and Warner has been guilty of that too.

Agree. He should be censured for the language used but not because he
disagreed with what was written by Craddock and Conn.

> > That today is an anathema to most cricket boards. It needn't have been
> > but it is.
>
> And I don't see why it shouldn't be. Suppose Kohli suddenly starts criticising Dhoni in all his public outbursts. One can expect that it will affect team chemistry, and Kohli should expect to be in trouble for it. After all, a cricket team is not just a collection of 11 individuals, but they are expected to work together toward a common goal. Many businesses care about how well people work with each other in a team.
>
> > Let's agree to disagree. If scribes write rubbish, why should anyone
> > be prevented from saying so? Cronje's 'yes there's a lot of scope for
> > improvement in the commentary box, Quirky' at Kingsmead to Trevor
> > Quirk in '96 was so tellingly brilliant.
>
> Seems like a far cry from Warner's rants.
>
> > That said, I'm utterly against abuse which is crass and deplorable.
>
> Indeed, I found Warner's tweets to be crass and deplorable.

If that's what was written, totally crass (the report I'd read
mentioned criticism without those excerpts).

> > OTOH, a dissenting opinion is perfectly respectable and should never
> > be censored simply because it's unpalatable. That's akin to your being
> > liable to be fired from your job just because you think (and state so)
> > that some particular decision of your boss was idiocy.
>
> If I tell my boss in private that a decision is idiotic, I may well get into their bad books, but there should be no cause to fire me. If publicly announce to the world that a decision made my boss is idiotic, I should expect to be in much bigger trouble. It's not helpful for a business to have its employees squabbling in public.

Not 'boss' because that'd then descend to the personal but his
decision. Why it is okay to disagree with a captain's decision in
front of the other 9 teammates in private but not okay to state so in
public? Moreover, only the immature ones will establish a pattern of
continual agreement or disagreement with anyone else. In your example,
Kohli might find Dhoni's decision to put the opposition in to bat
brilliant but disagree with him taking out one of the slips a bit too
early. This isn't some extraordinary situation like a war where the
army is out defending your existence.

Ramapriya

[Bharat Rao]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:06:21 AM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:

> On May 18, 3:55 pm, will_s <will...@optusnet.comm.au> wrote:

>
> Not disagreeing with that. I was talking of why it shouldn't be wrong
> if people held opinions and had the total liberty to air them.

Well Warner is a cricketer and an employee of Cricket Australia -- at least he has a contract with them.

That alone gives CA the right to control what he says, including suspending his contract (presumably, his IPL employer has the same right).

> Anyone should have the right to say what he feels like, just as anyone
> else should always have the equal right of agreeing, mocking,
> criticizing or lauding them. I totally condemn all forms of gagging
> rules / laws / clauses.

Well, that view, in my frank opinion, is cowardly.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to say anything you wish and not be jailed for it -- the government has to grant you freedom of speech.

No private organization has to grant you the same.

If you believe what you say, have the guts to face the consequences, including being fired by your employer. You can always go do something else -- I doubt that if Warner were to quit cricket and become a plumber or bricklayer, his employer would care if he said rude things about cricket journalists. I'm sure he can find a job.

It is strange for you to suggest that employers who pay employees, should be expected to allow employees to say anything they wish, without fear of consequences. I doubt your employer would put up with you making derogatory public statements about their clients, or espousing anti-Semetic or racist views if they deemed that would hurt their image.

Simply put -- you want carte blanche freedowm to say anything with no fear of any consequences, be independently wealthy. Else, be prepared to kowtow whatever line the particular employer you choose has drawn.

Bharat

[Uday Rajan]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:20:03 PM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:

> Agree. If OTOH he'd stridently criticized the hacks without abuse,
> would or should it have been okay?

Depends on how strident it was, I suppose. I see his "old fart" tweet as being strident but not abusive, and I don't think it's OK. Name-calling need not be abusive, but can be deplorable even when it's not.

I think most people can agree that some forms of disagreement should not be penalized and others (e.g., abuse) should. Beyond that, it's hard to generalize, and each incident should probably be examined in its own context.

> I know. Businesses are structured to maximize revenue, even if it's to
> the exclusion of most else. That isn't disputed.

One modification there, though: businesses should be structured to maximize profit rather than revenue.

> In sport, however, it's a bit different because the players are in a way
> the business product.

I'm not sure what import this has for the Warner case --- I don't think it makes his tweets more acceptable.

> That is precisely my point. A fair few freely aired Twitter posts
> lately have seen Boards talk to the players. That one can't write a
> long enough, reasoned article on Twitter makes it difficult but my
> view was only against gagging in principle which cricket boards have
> increasingly resorted to.

Are there specific instances you are thinking of here? An example would be useful. I generally don't have the sense that Boards have reacted excessively to players' tweets.

> Agree. He should be censured for the language used but not because he
> disagreed with what was written by Craddock and Conn.

We'll have to see if CA does or does not take any action, but it's hard to see any statement by CA being nuanced to the point of "We support his right to air his views, but object to the language". My guess is that either they will take no action, or they will discipline him in some way for his tweets (which encompasses both substance and tone, to say nothing of grammar).

> Why it is okay to disagree with a captain's decision in
> front of the other 9 teammates in private but not okay to state so in
> public?

IMO strident public disagreement undermines team spirit. Again, I think some kinds of disagreement are fine and others are not.

> Moreover, only the immature ones will establish a pattern of
> continual agreement or disagreement with anyone else. In your example,
> Kohli might find Dhoni's decision to put the opposition in to bat
> brilliant but disagree with him taking out one of the slips a bit too
> early. This isn't some extraordinary situation like a war where the
> army is out defending your existence.

Suppose a journalist asks Kohli "What do you think of Dhoni removing the slips after the first hour?" Here are two possible responses:
(a) "Maybe we could have left the slips in place for a few more overs"
(b) "Dhoni is a moron and should have left the slips in place"

FWIW: I see (a) as acceptable and (b) as not.

[Ramapriya]

On May 19, 7:47 am, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not disagreeing with that. I was talking of why it shouldn't be wrong
> > if people held opinions and had the total liberty to air them.
>
> Well Warner is a cricketer and an employee of Cricket Australia -- at least he has a contract with them.

> That alone gives CA the right to control what he says, including suspending his contract (presumably, his IPL employer has the same right).
>
> > Anyone should have the right to say what he feels like, just as anyone
> > else should always have the equal right of agreeing, mocking,
> > criticizing or lauding them. I totally condemn all forms of gagging
> > rules / laws / clauses.
>
> Well, that view, in my frank opinion, is cowardly.

Cowardly? For calling for freedom? How so??

> Freedom of speech gives you the right to say anything you wish and not be jailed for it -- the government has to grant you freedom of speech.
>
> No private organization has to grant you the same.
>
> If you believe what you say, have the guts to face the consequences, including being fired by your employer.  You can always go do something else -- I doubt that if Warner were to quit cricket and become a plumber or bricklayer, his employer would care if he said rude things about cricket journalists.  I'm sure he can find a job.
>
> It is strange for you to suggest that employers who pay employees, should be expected to allow employees to say anything they wish, without fear of consequences.  I doubt your employer would put up with you making derogatory public statements about their clients, or espousing anti-Semetic or racist views if they deemed that would hurt their image.
>
> Simply put -- you want carte blanche freedowm to say anything with no fear of any consequences, be independently wealthy.  Else, be prepared to kowtow whatever line the particular employer you choose has drawn.

As I've said, I'm not oblivious to rules existing all over the place,
I'm just saying that they're wrong. They're wrong because if for a
moment we imagined a world where all employers granted everyone the
freedom I mention, nobody would be advantaged or disadvantaged any
more than anyone else. 'Hurting the image' and 'hurting feelings' are
all built on foundations of either insecurity or hypocrisy.

Ramapriya

PS: In sport, the players are part of the product itself, so it's not
quite correct as such to compare them to employees of an organization.
Warner himself is the draw, a major piece for which his employer
exists in the first place. Now I'm sure I'll get the 'no one is bigger
than the game' line from someone :)

[Ramapriya]

On May 19, 8:04 am, Uday Rajan <udayra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:20:03 PM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:
> > Agree. If OTOH he'd stridently criticized the hacks without abuse,
> > would or should it have been okay?
>
> Depends on how strident it was, I suppose. I see his "old fart" tweet as being strident but not abusive, and I don't think it's OK. Name-calling need not be abusive, but can be deplorable even when it's not.

'Old fart' is personal. If he'd said, 'your pieces are generally
stupid in their content', it'd have been perfectly okay.

> I think most people can agree that some forms of disagreement should not be penalized and others (e.g., abuse) should. Beyond that, it's hard to generalize, and each incident should probably be examined in its own context.
>

> > In sport, however, it's a bit different because the players are in a way
> > the business product.
>
> I'm not sure what import this has for the Warner case --- I don't think it makes his tweets more acceptable.

Of course, because it contained abuse. I'd go easy on the employer-
employee relationship when it comes to sportsmen because the employer
exists because of the players. This comes especially to the fore when
the subject is a match-winning superstar.

> > That is precisely my point. A fair few freely aired Twitter posts
> > lately have seen Boards talk to the players. That one can't write a
> > long enough, reasoned article on Twitter makes it difficult but my
> > view was only against gagging in principle which cricket boards have
> > increasingly resorted to.
>
> Are there specific instances you are thinking of here? An example would be useful. I generally don't have the sense that Boards have reacted excessively to players' tweets.

I think Pietersen, Broad and Mooney were all talked to in the past.
And IIRC Jayawardene and Umar Akmal as well.

> > Agree. He should be censured for the language used but not because he
> > disagreed with what was written by Craddock and Conn.
>
> We'll have to see if CA does or does not take any action, but it's hard to see any statement by CA being nuanced to the point of "We support his right to air his views, but object to the language". My guess is that either they will take no action, or they will discipline him in some way for his tweets (which encompasses both substance and tone, to say nothing of grammar).

The language and tone yes, substance they shouldn't.

> > Moreover, only the immature ones will establish a pattern of
> > continual agreement or disagreement with anyone else. In your example,
> > Kohli might find Dhoni's decision to put the opposition in to bat
> > brilliant but disagree with him taking out one of the slips a bit too
> > early. This isn't some extraordinary situation like a war where the
> > army is out defending your existence.
>
> Suppose a journalist asks Kohli "What do you think of Dhoni removing the slips after the first hour?" Here are two possible responses:
> (a) "Maybe we could have left the slips in place for a few more overs"
> (b) "Dhoni is a moron and should have left the slips in place"
>
> FWIW: I see (a) as acceptable and (b) as not.

(b) is abuse. "His decision to do away with the slips so early was
moronic" should be acceptable.

Ramapriya

[CaraMia]

On 5/19/2013 7:19 AM, Ramapriya wrote:
> A more correct example would've been a bloke who works in an
> organization and thinks that some of the clients who walk in through
> the door are immature and writes so in a blog of his or wherever. An
> organization not wanting that is understandable, since it means a
> potential loss of revenue, and indeed most companies would have an
> explicit rule banning such opinions, but in my view such
> considerations are wrong.

Why is it wrong?

> That said, I'm utterly against abuse which is crass and deplorable.
> OTOH, a dissenting opinion is perfectly respectable and should never
> be censored simply because it's unpalatable. That's akin to your being
> liable to be fired from your job just because you think (and state so)
> that some particular decision of your boss was idiocy.

If you state it in public, I am sure you will be fired in a lot of
organisations.

[Ramapriya]

On May 19, 8:53 am, CaraMia <c...@mia.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 7:19 AM, Ramapriya wrote:
>
> > A more correct example would've been a bloke who works in an
> > organization and thinks that some of the clients who walk in through
> > the door are immature and writes so in a blog of his or wherever. An
> > organization not wanting that is understandable, since it means a
> > potential loss of revenue, and indeed most companies would have an
> > explicit rule banning such opinions, but in my view such
> > considerations are wrong.
>
> Why is it wrong?

Because what's not addressed is someone, or indeed the organization as
a whole itself, having that view of some of the clients (in my
example) but only the point about someone's public utterance of a
view. That's the equivalent of 'you can have a view, only you're not
free to say so'. To many, that may be acceptable, but I find that
hypocritical.

> > That said, I'm utterly against abuse which is crass and deplorable.
> > OTOH, a dissenting opinion is perfectly respectable and should never
> > be censored simply because it's unpalatable. That's akin to your being
> > liable to be fired from your job just because you think (and state so)
> > that some particular decision of your boss was idiocy.
>
> If you state it in public, I am sure you will be fired in a lot of
> organisations.

Yes almost every organization, save for possibly academic research
institutions.

Ramapriya

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:47:05 PM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
> That alone gives CA the right to control what he says, including suspending his contract (presumably, his IPL employer has the same right).

Surely the discussion is about whether they should have that right or not.
There's no doubt that they currently DO have that right.

It does seem strange to me that an employer has the right to stop an employee from engaging in this kind of talk. I'd understand the restriction on commercially sensitive info, ie the recipe to Coke, but this?

[willsutton]

there is a clause in a lot of contracts called "bringing the game into
disrepute "

Look no one forced him to sign the contract

what really amazed me about Warner getting upset about the article was
that he could actually read and that he knew how to use twitter

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:06:41 PM UTC+10, willsutton wrote:
> there is a clause in a lot of contracts called "bringing the game into
> disrepute"

What disrepute?

Should Warner be allowed to partake in mass, Nazi-themed, gay orgies? Should he fear losing his job if that's what floats his boat?

> Look no one forced him to sign the contract

That's a line of argument a 7th grader would use.
People must work. Worker's have rights. There are time when some employment conditions are unfair, contract or not.

Can CA say "sorry lads, you can't eat KFC in public whilst McD is our sponsor". I would hope the answer to that is "no".
When did the right to eat junk food become more important than the freedom of speech?

[willsutton]

On 19/05/2013 5:23 PM, jzfredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:06:41 PM UTC+10, willsutton wrote:
>> there is a clause in a lot of contracts called "bringing the game into
>> disrepute"
>
> What disrepute?

well talking to you would be one prime example :-)

>
> Should Warner be allowed to partake in mass, Nazi-themed, gay orgies? Should he fear losing his job if that's what floats his boat?
>
>> Look no one forced him to sign the contract
>
> That's a line of argument a 7th grader would use.
> People must work. Worker's have rights. There are time when some employment conditions are unfair, contract or not.

Ponting got sacked because someone belted him ... bringing the game
into disrepute

>

> Can CA say "sorry lads, you can't eat KFC in public whilst McD is our sponsor". I would hope the answer to that is "no".

Not eating but if he deemed to be promoting by doing ads then he may
lose his CA contract

> When did the right to eat junk food become more important than the freedom of speech?
>

Freedom of speech ... roflmao


it doesnt exist

[CaraMia]

On 5/19/2013 12:53 PM, jzfredricks wrote:
> Can CA say "sorry lads, you can't eat KFC in public whilst McD is our sponsor". I would hope the answer to that is "no".
> When did the right to eat junk food become more important than the freedom of speech?

The commonly spoken of 'Freedom of speech' is the guarantee of lack of
restraints from the govt. There is no such guarantee from private
companies like your employers.

[willsutton]

CA is investigating


"Warner is alleged to have breached Rule 6: Unbecoming Behaviour,
regarding comments posted on his Twitter account," Cricket Australia
said in a statement."

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC+10, CaraMia wrote:
> The commonly spoken of 'Freedom of speech' is the guarantee of lack of
> restraints from the govt. There is no such guarantee from private
> companies like your employers.

FoS is an inherent human right, I've no idea why you've dragged the US's version of it into this debate, other than it is 'the common one'. There ARE other countries that protect this right, you know.

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:48:14 PM UTC+10, willsutton wrote:
> Freedom of speech ... roflmao
> it doesnt exist

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing... or something like that.

If you think CA should be allowed to punish Warner for his tweets, then surely you must also think it's ok for them to fire him. I, otoh, don't think this is ok.

Especially if the employer gets to define "disrepute".

[Bharat Rao]

I agree they do have the right and should have the right. As an employee you have the choice to work for someone else.

I fully support freedom of speech, but it isn't consequence free. All you get protection from is that you can't be prosecuted by the government for your views.

For instance, lets say I have two jobs. In public life, I am Commissioner of Parks, and in my professional life, I am CEO / Chairman of a moderately successful startup with 50 employees.

Now this is an extreme example, but I find extreme examples are very good at working through cases.

Let us say the KKK or Nazi Party -- any organization I abhor with every fiber of my being -- approaches me to hold a rally in the public park. As Commissioner, I would fight to allow them the right to march (assuming they paid for the extra security needed, etc.). At the same time, as CEO I would have zero compunctions of firing any employee of mine (if I had the legal authority to do so), who spoke on the stage, and publicly supported the hateful (to me) views of that organization.

For instance, let us say you are the employee and a picture shows up on the front page of the New York Times, "JZF, VP of Public Relations for Purple Cricket Gear Inc, speaks at KKK rally." Even if you and my company were not identified, you have chosen (by speaking on stage) to identify yourself with that organization. Unless I am not legally permitted to fire you, now I have no issue firing you on the spot.

That was my point about "cowardice" to Ramapriya. Go ahead and speak up, but take the personal consequences; getting carte blance to speak is like posting froth anonymously on the Internet. Identify yourself and have the courage to take the opprobrium that comes with it. Find an employer who doesn't care.

If you work for a deeply religious organization, publicly supporting the LGBT community (which I do support, I hasten to say) may be contrary to their views. Again, if they have the legal right to do so, they can muzzle you, or ask you to leave. Again, the word "legal" here is key -- certain kinds of views (religious, sexual orientation, etc.) may be protected, meaning you cannot be fired, in which case, said organization has to bite its lip.

But barring specific protections, I fully support the rights of organizations to regulate public statements of their employees; private views are a different matter. The fact is employees have a choice for whom they work -- citizens don't have a choice of which government they fall under.

Bharat

[Bharat Rao]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:23:30 AM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:

> When did the right to eat junk food become more important than the freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech is a right given to you by the government. The assumption is that as a citizen, you really don't have a choice (barring extreme measures) where you live. So, citizens must have extremely broad protections on what they can say, where they live, and the organizations to which they belong.

You, however, in a democracy, have considerable choice for whom you choose to work. Employers have no obligation to give you any freedom of speech, except the few categories of speech that are explicitly legally protected.

The scope of the latter freedom is much narrower than in the former.

If you value freedom of speech so much, work for an employer who doesn't care. If slagging journalists is so important to Warner, go ahead and work as bar tender or a brick layer -- I doubt those employers would care. If not, shut up, and toe the line that the employer for whom you have expressly chosen to work has drawn.

Bharat

[Bharat Rao]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:16:52 AM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:48:14 PM UTC+10, willsutton wrote:
>
> > Freedom of speech ... roflmao
>
> > it doesnt exist
>
>
>
> All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing... or something like that.

See, I don't think this is evil. Commercial organizations are not governments. Warner isn't entitled to be a millionaire playing cricket and that isn't a protected class in any way. Nor is computer programmer, marketing executive, or bartender.

>
> If you think CA should be allowed to punish Warner for his tweets, then surely you must also think it's ok for them to fire him. I, otoh, don't think this is ok.

I absolutely think they can fire him. If they have the legal power to do so.

> Especially if the employer gets to define "disrepute".

Fair point. One could argue that Warner didn't realize that he was being disreputable (though ignorance is not a good defense); the test is would most people think he was disreputable (in the absence of a definition), and it would be a close run thing were Warner to sue.

However, now that he has been cautioned, if he puts out a similar tweet again, CA would well be within their rights to fire him. They have told him the line, and if he now knowingly crosses said line again, I admire him for the courage of his convictions, but hope not to see him on the dole.

Actually, now most CA cricketers know where the line is, so one could argue that they have all been warned.



Bharat

[Mike Holmans]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:04:07 -0700 (PDT), Bharat Rao
<rao.b...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

I'd take a rather dim view of it were CA to attempt to muzzle Warner's
opinions on, say, journalists reporting on the forthcoming Australia v
British & Irish Lions series or the ghastliness of the latest winner
of "Australia's Got No Talent".

But in the cricket world, Warner is not a private citizen any more
than an MP or Congressman is in the political world. When public
figures say things, there are consequences, and public figures ought
to know that.

You can have what opinions you like, but you need to be careful about
whom you express them to. We've got a storm in a political teacup
going at present about a senior Tory who's been caught saying his
party's grassroots activists are a bunch of swivel-eyed loons.

This is of course true: having spent decades in grassroots activism,
I'm well aware that huge numbers of grassroots activists are
swivel-eyed loons, whichever party you're in. (You aren't a proper
Liberal in the UK until you've endured an hour-long harangue from
someone utterly convinced that the problems of the world would be
solved if all current taxes were abolished to be replaced by a tax on
the unimproved value of land. If you aren't catatonic by the end of
that, you get treated to a lecture on the limitless potential of
industrial co-ownership, complete with examples drawn from the John
Lewis Partnership and the Mondragon collective in Spain.)

The trouble is that the parties depend on those same swivel-eyed loons
to contribute money and to stuff envelopes and staff phone banks and
knock on doors, so you mustn't go around actually *saying* that
they're as mad as hatters in case it upsets them.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Unknown]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:20:21 -0700 (PDT), Ramapriya
<d.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 19, 8:04=A0am, Uday Rajan <udayra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:20:03 PM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:
>> > Agree. If OTOH he'd stridently criticized the hacks without abuse,
>> > would or should it have been okay?
>>

>>

>> Are there specific instances you are thinking of here? An example would b=
>e useful. I generally don't have the sense that Boards have reacted excessi=

>vely to players' tweets.
>
>I think Pietersen, Broad and Mooney were all talked to in the past.
>And IIRC Jayawardene and Umar Akmal as well.

Mooney was banned for three matches. They should call it 'twatter'

max.it

[Bharat Rao]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, Mike Holmans wrote:

>
> But in the cricket world, Warner is not a private citizen any more
> than an MP or Congressman is in the political world. When public
> figures say things, there are consequences, and public figures ought
> to know that.

Thank you Michael. Exactly my point. You can't ignore who you are (Warner is a de facto representative of CA) and hide behind the curtain of "Freedom of Speech" when doing something your organization doesn't like.

Be a man and take the consequences, or toe the line.

Bharat

[guypers]

FOS does not give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, at least not in the US, go to jail for sure, felony?

[Mike Holmans]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:36:23 -0700 (PDT), Bharat Rao

<rao.b...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

That said, there's a bit of a question about what consequences are
actually appropriate.

Given that his offence was on Twitter, why wouldn't this have
sufficed?

"@CricketAustralia: Ignore @davidwarner. He has the brain of a
chimpanzee #WarnerDickhead"

Cheers,

Mike
--

[willsutton]

I thought I was a grizzled old SOB but you outdo me by a country mile

Not saying that its not true

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:56:52 PM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
> I agree they do have the right and should have the right. As an employee you have the choice to work for someone else.

What if 75% employers ganged up and agreed to stop their employees from publicly supporting, say, the Democratic party? Or from voicing an opinion on a particular religion?

Governments have the right to set labour laws. I would like to see laws prohibiting employers from restricting the free speech of employees, except for where commercial damage is not only done, but provably so. In court.

Governments protect our rights to a lunch break or cup of tea every 4 hours. Why don't they protect a genuine right, like FoS?

> I fully support freedom of speech, but it isn't consequence free.

Why should Warner fear losing his job if he says something that some above him doesn't like?

> Now this is an extreme example, but I find extreme examples are very good at working through cases.

/agree. Extreme cases are the only things worth discussing, IMO, as it's only through them that we know we have the framework correct.

> For instance, let us say you are the employee and a picture shows up on the front page of the New York Times, "JZF, VP of Public Relations for Purple Cricket Gear Inc, speaks at KKK rally." Even if you and my company were not identified, you have chosen (by speaking on stage) to identify yourself with that organization. Unless I am not legally permitted to fire you, now I have no issue firing you on the spot.

Exactly. What I'm interested in discussing is SHOULD YOU BE LEGALLY PERMITTED for fire me because "JZF and KKK" are said in the same sentence? I say no. Free association and all that.

> That was my point about "cowardice" to Ramapriya. Go ahead and speak up, but take the personal consequences; getting carte blance to speak is like posting froth anonymously on the Internet. Identify yourself and have the courage to take the opprobrium that comes with it.

Personal consequences my arse. This is worker's rights issues. If I can be fired for saying "I like Romney" then I'm just the modern version of the slave class.

> Find an employer who doesn't care.

Warner is has a specialist trade, that he's spent his life learning. There's only 1 real employer in his country - CA. The board of CA itself can change on a whim, so after learning this skill, and getting a job, his bosses can change overnight. His new boss might be draconic to the core.

> If you work for a deeply religious organization, publicly supporting the LGBT community (which I do support, I hasten to say) may be contrary to their views. Again, if they have the legal right to do so, they can muzzle you, or ask you to leave. Again, the word "legal" here is key -- certain kinds of views (religious, sexual orientation, etc.) may be protected, meaning you cannot be fired, in which case, said organization has to bite its lip.

Hold on. You're happy with me getting fired after saying SOME STUFF, but you're not happy with me getting fired after saying OTHER STUFF. What on earth AM I allowed to say without fear of losing my job?

> But barring specific protections, I fully support the rights of organizations to regulate public statements of their employees;

Can you please give one example of these specific protections, so that I may respond to it?

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 11:54:58 AM UTC+10, jzfredricks wrote:
> If I can be fired for saying "I like Romney"

Bad example, sadly, as my job requires a reasonable level of intelligence.

[Ramapriya]

On May 19, 6:04 pm, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you value freedom of speech so much, work for an employer who doesn't care.  If slagging journalists is so important to Warner, go ahead and work as bar tender or a brick layer -- I doubt those employers would care.  If not, shut up, and toe the line that the employer for whom you have expressly chosen to work has drawn.
>
> Bharat

Private enterprise exists for two major reasons - provision of
services or products. An organization's true long-term strength will
only depend on the quality of their aforementioned services and
products and has not much to do with what views their employees hold
personally.

The artificiality of the existent gagging rules can easily be proven
if every organization concurrently lifts such restrictions. I wager
that after a while, no business would be affected too significantly.

In respect of your 'if you value freedom of speech so much' bit - why
would *anyone* not want that most natural freedom of being able to
think for himself and express his views?

The thread has moved unrecognizably away from the correctness of the
gagging rules to whether they exist, which of course none disputed.

Ramapriya

[Ramapriya]

On May 19, 6:37 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> But in the cricket world, Warner is not a private citizen any more
> than an MP or Congressman is in the political world. When public
> figures say things, there are consequences, and public figures ought
> to know that.

The consequences should only be natural. If someone seeking to stand
for elections is prejudiced against, say, men not taller than 1.6 m,
and states so, those who disapprove of the prejudice will likely not
wish him to represent them. That loss of votes is a natural outcome
but even in that example, expedience alone shouldn't make him a
hypocrite.

Coming back to the current example, so long as no player resorts to
crude abuse or defamation without proof, a player shouldn't be gagged
by his Board from disagreeing with a journalist or former player. If
anything, Warner should be rapped for the abusive language but
certainly not because he thinks Craddock's piece is rubbish.

> You can have what opinions you like, but you need to be careful about
> whom you express them to.

Why? So long as (a) the views don't affect how he does what he's
supposed to and (b) the ramifications are natural and not brought
about by self-serving legislation, why should the rules be different
for a public figure?

> We've got a storm in a political teacup
> going at present about a senior Tory who's been caught saying his
> party's grassroots activists are a bunch of swivel-eyed loons.

We all know how ludicrously little it takes these days for a 'row' to
break out. It's as if nobody can say anything about, well, anything.

> This is of course true: having spent decades in grassroots activism,
> I'm well aware that huge numbers of grassroots activists are
> swivel-eyed loons, whichever party you're in. (You aren't a proper
> Liberal in the UK until you've endured an hour-long harangue from
> someone utterly convinced that the problems of the world would be
> solved if all current taxes were abolished to be replaced by a tax on
> the unimproved value of land. If you aren't catatonic by the end of
> that, you get treated to a lecture on the limitless potential of
> industrial co-ownership, complete with examples drawn from the John
> Lewis Partnership and the Mondragon collective in Spain.)
>
> The trouble is that the parties depend on those same swivel-eyed loons
> to contribute money and to stuff envelopes and staff phone banks and
> knock on doors, so you mustn't go around actually *saying* that
> they're as mad as hatters in case it upsets them.

So it's expedience, then.

Ramapriya

[jzfredricks]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:16:52 PM UTC+10, Ramapriya wrote:
> The thread has moved unrecognizably away from the correctness of the
> gagging rules to whether they exist, which of course none disputed.

Hear hear!

[Uday Rajan]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 12:45:12 AM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:

> Coming back to the current example, so long as no player resorts to
> crude abuse or defamation without proof, a player shouldn't be gagged
> by his Board from disagreeing with a journalist or former player.

Why should a Board try to prevent crude abuse or defamation either? Let's take defamation first. If a player defames a journalist, the journalist can sue the player in court. The Board is not liable for the private comments of the player.

Next, abuse. For me, the reason for a Board to prevent players resorting to abuse in public utterances is that it can lead to some fans turning away from the game. In other words, it's a matter of protecting the business interests of the Board. But that line of argument then says more broadly that the Board should have the right to protect its business interests even when there has been no abuse. We can differ on whether the Board is or is not being hurt by any particular utterance, but the courts can sort that out if need be.

In your mind, why should a Board be empowered to clamp down on abuse?

[Uday Rajan]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 12:16:52 AM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:

> Private enterprise exists for two major reasons - provision of
> services or products. An organization's true long-term strength will
> only depend on the quality of their aforementioned services and
> products and has not much to do with what views their employees hold
> personally.

I don't think it's always so clear-cut. Suppose the CEO of GM holds the personal view that GM's cars stink and Toyota's cars are far superior, and makes this known in public via (say) Twitter. GM's stock price is likely to be negatively affected. After all, even if GM's true long-term strength only depends on the quality of their cars and not on the private views of their CEO, the CEO likely knows more about the quality of the cars than most consumers, and true car quality is something consumers can only find out about after several years.

I don't know what the legal situation would be in such a case, but IMO GM's board should be well within its rights to fire a CEO for an action like that. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders of the firm, and an action like that is detrimental to the interests of the shareholders.

Substitute "high-level GM employee" for CEO above, and the same logic goes through. As you get to lower-level employees, their actions no longer affect GM's stock price, but one can make a reasonable case that an employee who does something like that is not a team player. After all, being a team player requires one to sometimes suppress one's own personal interests (e.g., the utility from airing one's true views to the whole wide world) to enhance the welfare of the team. I don't know if one can legally fire an employee for that, but, in terms of the principles involved, I don't see the difference between that and an employee standing outside a shop in his off-duty time with a big sign saying "Don't Shop Here". And the latter should IMO be a fire-able offence.

[Ramapriya]

On May 21, 8:40 am, Uday Rajan <udayra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 12:45:12 AM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:
> > Coming back to the current example, so long as no player resorts to
> > crude abuse or defamation without proof, a player shouldn't be gagged
> > by his Board from disagreeing with a journalist or former player.
>
> Why should a Board try to prevent crude abuse or defamation either? Let's take defamation first. If a player defames a journalist, the journalist can sue the player in court. The Board is not liable for the private comments of the player.

True, actually. Can't argue against that.

> Next, abuse. For me, the reason for a Board to prevent players resorting to abuse in public utterances is that it can lead to some fans turning away from the game. In other words, it's a matter of protecting the business interests of the Board. But that line of argument then says more broadly that the Board should have the right to protect its business interests even when there has been no abuse. We can differ on whether the Board is or is not being hurt by any particular utterance, but the courts can sort that out if need be.
>
> In your mind, why should a Board be empowered to clamp down on abuse?

They shouldn't, true. I buy that. Gladly.

Here's to unfettered freedom!

Ramapriya

[jzfredricks]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:05:57 PM UTC+10, Ramapriya wrote:
> unfettered freedom!

I see what you did there

[Uday Rajan]

Fair enough. That's a logically consistent position, even though I disagree with it. I approach it the other way --- swearing and abuse in the workplace make many people uncomfortable and reduces productivity. Similarly, swearing at people going into a shop turns away customers. An employer is entitled to fire employees who indulge in either because it hurts the employer's profit. But logically that must mean that some non-swearing related actions that hurt the employer's profit should also be proscribable.

[jzfredricks]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:40:45 AM UTC+10, Uday Rajan wrote:
> Fair enough. That's a logically consistent position, even though I disagree with it. I approach it the other way --- swearing and abuse in the workplace make many people uncomfortable and reduces productivity. Similarly, swearing at people going into a shop turns away customers. An employer is entitled to fire employees who indulge in either because it hurts the employer's profit. But logically that must mean that some non-swearing related actions that hurt the employer's profit should also be proscribable.

If an employee says "I'm muslim, and I love all life on this planet, peace be to all of us" and a customer says "I'm no longer doing business with you as I'm a christian bigot", then the employer's profit has been hurt, and by your standards, the employer should be able to fire the employee.

This is NOT fair, and it's not a world that you should want to live in.

[Bharat Rao]

This actually happened at my work on my watch some 15 years ago, tell me what you would do.

One of my scientists, a deeply religious Christian (happened to be Christian, could be any other religion), but up a poster on his office door -- some very nice artwork, something to the effect, "God is Great" and a quotation from the Bible. He also put a small note inviting people to a Bible Study at his home.

I thought it was all fine, until a couple of my other employees came by and said they found it offensive. They were atheist. I thought they were over-reacting (Here I was, a new manager, leading a group, full of "freedom of speech" ideals, etc.)

Anyway, they went away and a few days later they came to my office with a poster that said something to the effect that God was dead, or non-existent or something like that. Quite witty, but I had no doubt that devoutly religious people would find it offensive. They also showed a not-so-witty second sign, inviting people to a God-bashing session, where works of Lucifer would be read. Their point made, I thanked them for not posting the poster on their door.

A few hours later another scientist, a Muslim, stopped by and asked me if he could post versus from the Koran on this door (this was a few years before 9-11).

OK, enough was enough -- I could see this whole freedom of speech thing going too far, had a nice chat with the original poster, and suggested he post his views inside his office. We agreed that the work place was no place for overt displays of religion, and would lead to a lot of potential conflict. He graciously took off his poster and put it inside his office.

I have no idea what is "right," but this was the only practical resolution. It would be absurd if a customer came to our offices and saw doors festooned with pro-God and anti-God signs. There is also no doubt that sticking to "freedom of speech" would cause a lot of conflict within the group and destroy productivity, not to mention my fledgling career.

So, the situation you mention jz, I lived it. I have no idea what you would do, but I think I handled it in a low-key fashion and in a way to maintain morale and productivity.

Comments.

Bharat

[jzfredricks]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 9:13:02 PM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
> So, the situation you mention jz, I lived it. I have no idea what you would do, but I think I handled it in a low-key fashion and in a way to maintain morale and productivity.

I think you handled it well. I'd have banned, respectfully, religious banners from the outset (ie at the first sign of one). Atheist ones as well.

What you've described is a intra-workplace issue.

The scenarios I've described are people saying things OUTSIDE of work, then getting punished INSIDE of work.

Sorry, I'll not entertain any "but Warner is contracted 24/7 for the entire year" arguments.

[jzfredricks]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 9:36:41 PM UTC+10, jzfredricks wrote:
> What you've described is a intra-workplace issue.

The balance between your right to say "I love Allah" at work and my right to NOT hear things like that is a tricky one.

I'll post my thoughts on that shortly. (bit busy right now)

[jzfredricks]

> The balance between your right to say "I love Allah" at work and my right to NOT hear things like that is a tricky one.

I think a workplace should be able to limit speech on a non-discriminatory basis. It can either;
1) allow speech on ALL religions
2) ban speech on ALL religions

Atheism isn't a religion, but I'll include it as one for the above. Easily enough to understand, I'm sure.

Importantly, this is IN the WORKPLACE.

No employer should be able to limit what the employee says outside of work, nor should the employer be able to punish an employee for what they've said outside of work.

Re commercial damage;
If I say "I like cats" and Cat Haters United boycott my work, too bad. For work, that is.
If I say "our secret formula is XYZ", regardless of inside/outside work hours, then I agree that the employer should be able to dismiss me.

How do you define what's allowed and what's not? I considered "wilful damage", but I'm not sure if that's enough. I might KNOW that Cat Haters United is listening, and that by saying "I love cats" their standard reaction will be a boycott.
Perhaps simply prohibit the dissemination of trade secrets/IP? Anything else goes?

If McDonalds is CA's major sponsor, should Warner be allowed to say "I think McDonalds tastes like dried dog poo"? I DO think he should be able to say that without fear of punishment. Yes, even if McD withdraws sponsorship because of those words.

In these cases I'd much rather McD seek damages off of Warner, through civil action (ie defamation), than CA (Warner's employer) punishing Warner directly.
Of course in this particular example I'd hope the court would rule McD is being vexatious and award costs to Warner).

Should CA be able to stop Warner from saying that IN THE WORKPLACE?
Should it be legal for a contract to say "you're ours 24/7"?
My guts says yes to the first, and no to the 2nd.
Obviously complex issues. When in doubt, I'd rather protect the individual than the corporation.

[CaraMia]

On 5/23/2013 6:39 AM, jzfredricks wrote:
>> The balance between your right to say "I love Allah" at work and my right to NOT hear things like that is a tricky one.
>
> I think a workplace should be able to limit speech on a non-discriminatory basis. It can either;
> 1) allow speech on ALL religions
> 2) ban speech on ALL religions
>
> Atheism isn't a religion, but I'll include it as one for the above. Easily enough to understand, I'm sure.
>
> Importantly, this is IN the WORKPLACE.
>
> No employer should be able to limit what the employee says outside of work, nor should the employer be able to punish an employee for what they've said outside of work.
>
> Re commercial damage;
> If I say "I like cats" and Cat Haters United boycott my work, too bad. For work, that is.
> If I say "our secret formula is XYZ", regardless of inside/outside work hours, then I agree that the employer should be able to dismiss me.
>
> How do you define what's allowed and what's not? I considered "wilful damage", but I'm not sure if that's enough. I might KNOW that Cat Haters United is listening, and that by saying "I love cats" their standard reaction will be a boycott.
> Perhaps simply prohibit the dissemination of trade secrets/IP? Anything else goes?
>
> If McDonalds is CA's major sponsor, should Warner be allowed to say "I think McDonalds tastes like dried dog poo"? I DO think he should be able to say that without fear of punishment. Yes, even if McD withdraws sponsorship because of those words.
>
> In these cases I'd much rather McD seek damages off of Warner, through civil action (ie defamation), than CA (Warner's employer) punishing Warner directly.
> Of course in this particular example I'd hope the court would rule McD is being vexatious and award costs to Warner).

Instead of going through all this trouble what if McD just decides to
not renew the contract next year and CA has no sponsor or has a sponsor
who pays less than what McD paid?

[Uday Rajan]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:44:53 PM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:

Not at all. That's a rather poor mis-characterization of my position. I said "some" actions should be proscribable, not "all" actions should be proscribable.

I inhabit a world of trade-offs, in which very little is crystal clear. Any policy benefits someone and hurts someone else.

One position is that no one should be fired for anything they say, on or off work. The right of person X to swear at will in the workplace conflicts with the right of person Y to work in a non-hostile environment. Most employers would uphold the right of person Y over that person X in that setting, as would I.

Suppose person X is a lamb at work, but in his spare time stands on the sidewalk outside the shop swearing at customers trying to come in to the shop. His right to free speech conflicts with the shop-owner's right to earn a living or a profit as well as the shop-owner's right to hire employees he trusts. I would therefore support limits on the speech of person X as well as the shop-owner's right to fire him.

In the other example I provided in this thread: if GM's CEO decides to denigrate GM's cars and extol the virtues of Toyota's cars on Twitter, I think the board should have the right to fire him without giving him a severance payment. His right to free speech conflicts with the shareholders' right to hire an employee who supports the company.

In your example, there is a conflict between the Muslim's right to earn a living and the shop-owner's right to earn a living or a profit. To me supporting bigotry comes at too high a cost, so I do not think the shop-owner should have the right to fire him. The shop-owner has recourse to another way to achieve his purpose: negotiate a suitable severance payment with the employee; i.e., effectively bribe the employee to voluntarily quit.

[Ramapriya]

Can't quite put a finger on why it isn't quite 'apples to apples' but
it appears so. We've seemingly segued from FOS to self-scuttling acts
and fiduciary expedience which while legit isn't what prompted this
discussion initially. The implication of the CEO's comment is that he
ought not to be at the helm when he believes what he does, so I don't
see why his employers should continue to have him there. The reason
for his dismissal shouldn't be because he holds the view that he does
but that he's in charge of doing something about it and isn't. That
said, a good owner might just take those comments in the right spirit
and knuckle down to getting his cars better than Toyota's but that's
another matter.

On a somewhat similar parallel, haven't you heard of captains
commenting, pre-series, that they don't believe their teams to be good
enough? I have. SMG's pre-79 'We'll be smashed to pulp by Asif Iqbal's
Pak' comment comes readily to mind. Steve Waugh's 'Let's see if we're
good enough' prior to the last Test of the Harbhajan-VVSL '01 series
is also comparable. Neither skipper was fired or anything.

I can't put a finger on it but my point about gagging of views has
been overtaken by what I believe are not comparable situations. Either
that or I've lost the plot, as usual :)

Ramapriya

[Ramapriya]

If I let my sons get away with the graffiti that they'd want on the
walls of our house, I wouldn't be able to live there. By not letting
them, I'm not restricting their freedom of expression or views. They
might like what they want and advertise it over FB or wherever (and
they do) but not muck around the premises physically.

If your scientists had, say, newspaper columns or blogs where they
stated their personal views on matters, no employer should attempt to
curb them. That's how I'd want it anyway.

If Warner wanted to paint the inside or outside of a stadium owned by
a sports body or the CA, it's no comparison to the situation that
began this thread!

Ramapriya

[Uday Rajan]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 9:43:03 PM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:

> Can't quite put a finger on why it isn't quite 'apples to apples' but
> it appears so. We've seemingly segued from FOS to self-scuttling acts
> and fiduciary expedience which while legit isn't what prompted this
> discussion initially. The implication of the CEO's comment is that he
> ought not to be at the helm when he believes what he does, so I don't
> see why his employers should continue to have him there. The reason
> for his dismissal shouldn't be because he holds the view that he does
> but that he's in charge of doing something about it and isn't. That
> said, a good owner might just take those comments in the right spirit
> and knuckle down to getting his cars better than Toyota's but that's
> another matter.

Seems to me this is getting close to Mike's position. I think most participants in this thread agree that if the CEO of a car company says he doesn't like "The Great Gatsby", that should have no bearing on his employment status. In other words, intrinsically, we all recognize the importance of freedom of speech. I personally am comfortable with some restraint on speech (e.g., against swearing in a professional context) and at that point it becomes a question of where to draw the line rather than whether there is a line.

It also depends somewhat on how sentiments are expressed. "Congratulations to Toyota on their award. We have some catching up to do and are working on improving quality." may seem to express the same substantive thought as "Our cars are a pile of crud", but to me sounds very different. The latter would require PR damage control and the former can be seen as healthy pragmatism.

Perhaps what it comes down to is this. In some jobs, communications and public relations are part of the job requirements. An extreme example is the job of US press secretary. But many other jobs have a PR component to the job as well. In such jobs, disciplining someone for a rash comment to the media is not really a restriction on their freedom of speech, but rather as you suggest an action taken because of poor job performance. We can disagree about whether Warner's job with CA does have PR as a component. I'm not sure whether I'd go that far (well, perhaps as far as it has a small PR component), but I think there's a case to be made for it.

FWIW, I have no trouble with a player who tweets "Disagree with Conn. IPL is a graet from of the gaem in which boncers are aloud". (We'd all have trouble with the grammar and spelling, but we've also learnt to expect all too little in online communication). My trouble with swearing is not that it bothers me personally. After all, lots of things may bother me and it's absurd to curb other people's freedoms for my personal benefit. Rather, I think swearing in public is akin to failure on one aspect of a public person's job (i.e., the aspect that requires maintaining a good relationship with the public). I suspect our positions are very close in this regard.

> On a somewhat similar parallel, haven't you heard of captains
> commenting, pre-series, that they don't believe their teams to be good
> enough? I have. SMG's pre-79 'We'll be smashed to pulp by Asif Iqbal's
> Pak' comment comes readily to mind. Steve Waugh's 'Let's see if we're
> good enough' prior to the last Test of the Harbhajan-VVSL '01 series
> is also comparable. Neither skipper was fired or anything.

I don't remember either of these comments. Gavaskar quit after T5 in that series (you will recall that Viswanath captained T6 and the Jubilee Test against England), but indeed, he wasn't fired. Steve Waugh's statement is reasonable on its own. Gavaskar's statement depends on context.

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 9:44:36 PM UTC+10, Uday Rajan wrote:
> In other words, intrinsically, we all recognize the importance of freedom of speech. I personally am comfortable with some restraint on speech (e.g., against swearing in a professional context) and at that point it becomes a question of where to draw the line rather than whether there is a line.

Do you actually think it's ok to restrict speech if it contains swear words, or is this just your flippant way of saying you dislike foul language?

[Uday Rajan]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:17:56 AM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:

> Do you actually think it's ok to restrict speech if it contains swear words,
> or is this just your flippant way of saying you dislike foul language?

I think that in some contexts, it's reasonable to restrict speech (and expression more broadly, not just speech). In others, it's not.

For example, I think it's reasonable for an employer to require that employees refrain from swearing and abuse in the work place. It's also reasonable for an employer to require that employees not show up to work naked. After all, not wearing clothes is a form of expression, so if all speech is to be sacrosanct, so should showing up naked to work.

Many communities have implicit restrictions on free speech. E.g., suppose someone stands at a children's playground and starts swearing loudly. In many parts of the world, unless he stops or goes away, someone will call the police and the police will try to persuade him to leave or stop, and if necessary will take him to a station for a short while. That is yet another situation in which someone's right to free speech conflicts with the right of parents or society more broadly to protect kids from hearing such language. IMO many such situations are far from clear-cut, when you are weighing one person's rights against another's.

In other contexts, it's not reasonable to restrict speech or expression, regardless of abuse or swearing. I think rsc should be completely unfettered, for example. If I don't like abuse, I can simply ignore abusers, so the market works just fine, and we don't need regulatory intervention to prevent anything. As another example, if someone lets out a few swear words on the New York subway, no one will bat an eyelid.

To answer the second part of your question, swearing per se doesn't really bother me. E.g., the movie "My Cousin Vinny" is a family favourite, and my kids were allowed to watch it when they were quite young. It's just that when I swear, I try to do it in private rather than in public.

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 08:08:42 -0700 (PDT), Uday Rajan
<uday...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:17:56 AM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:
>
>> Do you actually think it's ok to restrict speech if it contains swear words,
>> or is this just your flippant way of saying you dislike foul language?
>
>I think that in some contexts, it's reasonable to restrict speech (and expression more broadly, not just speech). In others, it's not.
>
>For example, I think it's reasonable for an employer to require that employees refrain from swearing and abuse in the work place.

I'm a bit nervous about a company rule which says "no swearing". "No
swearing where customers might hear", I can understand, but I'd far
rather deal with bad language in private by peer pressure. It's a bit
too easy for "no swearing at all" to get used as a disciplinary
offence to get rid of someone - you could have someone who is vaguely
irritating fired for saying "fuck" when they've just dropped a heavy
object on their toe, which would be extreme; I'd agree that persistent
foul language could be a disciplinary offence, but I'd rather have it
prosecuted under a more generalised "offensive behaviour" clause which
would require the employer to show reasonable cause rather than have a
binary criterion which could be abused.

>In other contexts, it's not reasonable to restrict speech or expression, regardless of abuse or swearing. I think rsc should be completely unfettered, for example.

I don't, though I don't care about the language. There is of course no
means by which it can actually be restricted, but I think we're
entirely within our rights to complain bitterly about
non-cricket-related posts, especially those dedicated to bashing some
political or religious drum. As those who know me can attest, I have
some pretty strong views in those spheres, but rsc is not the place to
be trotting them out.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:07:41 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> foul language could be a disciplinary offence, but I'd rather have it
> prosecuted under a more generalised "offensive behaviour" clause which
> would require the employer to show reasonable cause rather than have a
> binary criterion which could be abused.

This is a lot more sensible.
It would be a sad to if someone was fired for saying "bugger".

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 8:55:40 AM UTC+10, jzfredricks wrote:
> It would be a sad to if someone was fired for saying "bugger".

^ That sentence should be taken outside and shot

It would be sad to someone fired for saying "bugger".

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 9:37:00 AM UTC+10, jzfredricks wrote:
> It would be sad to someone fired for saying "bugger".

scratch that! "Bloody" That's worse.

[Ramapriya]

On May 25, 8:07 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I don't, though I don't care about the language. There is of course no
> means by which it can actually be restricted, but I think we're
> entirely within our rights to complain bitterly about
> non-cricket-related posts, especially those dedicated to bashing some
> political or religious drum. As those who know me can attest, I have
> some pretty strong views in those spheres, but rsc is not the place to
> be trotting them out.

Me neither, generally (if not 100% consistently). Bets are off, of
course, where the game itself is likely to be harmed by such factors.
As an example, if an edict by some cult or religion is issued by a
buffoon proclaiming that cricket is irreligious, and if you know that
there'd be droves of unthinking sheep ready to be swayed by it, or
worse still be ready to act upon it by physically impedimenting the
sport, I'll of course decry the edict and the git here. Ditto if on-
field behavior that's incompatible with what's traditionally
considered decorous in cricket is condoned by a religious or political
group based on some set of rules that has nothing to do with the game.

Before someone starts rolling his eyes at what are seemingly extreme
examples, there are, in at least a couple of countries I know,
'police' who routinely go about caning and disrupting concerts because
music is considered irreligious.

Ramapriya

[Uday Rajan]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:07:41 PM UTC-4, Mike Holmans wrote:

> I'm a bit nervous about a company rule which says "no swearing". "No
> swearing where customers might hear", I can understand, but I'd far
> rather deal with bad language in private by peer pressure. It's a bit
> too easy for "no swearing at all" to get used as a disciplinary
> offence to get rid of someone - you could have someone who is vaguely
> irritating fired for saying "fuck" when they've just dropped a heavy
> object on their toe, which would be extreme; I'd agree that persistent
> foul language could be a disciplinary offence, but I'd rather have it
> prosecuted under a more generalised "offensive behaviour" clause which
> would require the employer to show reasonable cause rather than have

> binary criterion which could be abused.

Oh, certainly, an employer seeking to dismiss an employee should be prepared to show cause and defend the decision in legal proceedings if need be. I don't know what the laws in various countries are, but I'd be sympathetic to an employer who wants to dismiss an employee for repeatedly swearing at people.

> > I think rsc should be completely unfettered, for example.

> I don't, though I don't care about the language. There is of course no
> means by which it can actually be restricted, but I think we're
> entirely within our rights to complain bitterly about
> non-cricket-related posts, especially those dedicated to bashing some
> political or religious drum. As those who know me can attest, I have
> some pretty strong views in those spheres, but rsc is not the place to
> be trotting them out.

Yes, indeed, one is within one's rights to complain as much as one wants --- freedom of speech cuts both ways there. And I agree that I'd rather rsc focus on cricket. There have been attempts to restrict rsc --- remember rec.sport.cricket.moderated? It lasted for a few years and then died out. Any attempt to "control" discussion on a forum like rsc will IMO inevitably lead to dissenting views being suppressed, and I think the overall effect is more likely than not to be negative.