Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:07 am #1688534
He can say it - but he should not be surprised to get sacked over it. Nor should he be surprised should his access to social media be curtailed.
That's not quite what I said. He may well be sacked (I would) but that should be for a breach of some well founded policy, such as bringing the organisation into disrepute, not as virtue signalling. One might give cause to rethink whereas the other will build resentment.
Bear in mind that our opinions about what he said don't much matter here, what's important is how that impacts in real terms. Has anyone actually been harmed in real terms? I doubt it. Being automatically offended because of some principle falls into the "so what?" category for me. Surely it is much better if an individual or group is handled in a sensitive way that moves the world on a bit?
Flyin'Dutch' wrote: Freedom of speech is not the same as right to broadcast and expecting not to be held accountable for that what was uttered on social media.I'm not so sure. I like to know who is saying what, and to whom, especially if it doesn't move the world on a bit. It's understandable if some people would rather pretend it isn't there, but it doesn't solve anything if we all do.
As for being accountable, see up. Driving something out of sight removes accountability. For example, anti-Semites were always there, and now we can see them, form an opinion, and do something about it, starting with education.
flybymike liked this