Roenick suspended without pay for comments

[yave1964]

NBC Sports has suspended Jeremy Roenick indefinitely without pay for comments made on a recent spittin' chicklets episode.

 

  The gist, 

On the podcast, Roenick discussed a vacation to Portugal with his wife and Tappen where he made repeated references to the NBC Sports anchor’s appearance and joked about the possibility of the three of them having sex together.

Roenick said they went on vacation together because his wife, Tracy, and Tappen are good friends. When another resort guest asked about the situation, he recalled, “I play it off like we’re going to bed together every night, the three of us.”

“If it really came to fruition, that would really be good, but it’s never going to happen,” Roenick said.

Roenick subsequently praised Tappen as “one of the most professional sports personalities I know.”

  So... thoughts? Suspendable or the thought police out there doing there thing again?

 

  

[jammer2]

9 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

NBC Sports has suspended Jeremy Roenick indefinitely without pay for comments made on a recent spittin' chicklets episode.

 

  The gist, 

On the podcast, Roenick discussed a vacation to Portugal with his wife and Tappen where he made repeated references to the NBC Sports anchor’s appearance and joked about the possibility of the three of them having sex together.

Roenick said they went on vacation together because his wife, Tracy, and Tappen are good friends. When another resort guest asked about the situation, he recalled, “I play it off like we’re going to bed together every night, the three of us.”

“If it really came to fruition, that would really be good, but it’s never going to happen,” Roenick said.

Roenick subsequently praised Tappen as “one of the most professional sports personalities I know.”

  So... thoughts? Suspendable or the thought police out there doing there thing again?

 

  

LOL @ JR...Praised Patrick Sharp for being "beautiful" and added he would not say no right away if Sharp asked him for sex....wtf...lmao!

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, yave1964 said:

So... thoughts? Suspendable or the thought police out there doing there thing again?

 

This should be the litmus test:

 

1. Did it occur AT WORK?

2. If no, was he on location presenting himself as a representative of the company?

 

If the answer to those two questions is NO, then it's his private life (or part of his non-NBC public life) and should be outside the scope of NBC's control. ie: No punishment given. A company should not be able to fire you for anything you say outside of work. Period.

 

Now, I know how this WILL unfold (he'll ultimately be fired) but it's the death of free speech if we allow corporations to silence the population. It sets the precedent that ANY speech which a company DISAGREES with, is a fire-able offence. That means nobody will ever be able to have an opinion that runs contrary to "the company" in question that they work for... and since ALL corporations have shareholders, they will ALL hide behind the "public image" excuse as their reason for firing someone, thereby leading to mob justice. So long story short, if you say anything UNPOPULAR, the public will retaliate by getting you fired. That's the new world we're living in. Free speech is dead. 

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, yave1964 said:

NBC Sports has suspended Jeremy Roenick indefinitely without pay for comments made on a recent spittin' chicklets episode.

 

You forgot the part about Sharp...

 

Later in the interview, Roenick called Sharp “so beautiful” and said: “I'd have to think about it if he asked me. ... I wouldn't say no right away.” He then seemed to contrast Sharp's appearance with his and Carter's.

 

“It's good to have a beautiful face that talks well that knows the game because it's totally the opposite when me and Anson get on there,” Roenick said.

 

He also called Sharp, a former teammate, “one of the greatest, greatest guys on the planet” and said, “I think he's been great for NBC.”

 

Roenick played 20 NHL seasons with the Blackhawks, Coyotes, Flyers, Sharks and Kings before moving into television. He has been an analyst at NBC Sports since 2010.

[jammer2]

22 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

This should be the litmus test:

 

1. Did it occur AT WORK?

2. If no, was he on location presenting himself as a representative of the company?

 

If the answer to those two questions is NO, then it's his private life (or part of his non-NBC public life) and should be outside the scope of NBC's control. ie: No punishment given. A company should not be able to fire you for anything you say outside of work. Period.

 

Now, I know how this WILL unfold (he'll ultimately be fired) but it's the death of free speech if we allow corporations to silence the population. It sets the precedent that ANY speech which a company DISAGREES with, is a fire-able offence. That means nobody will ever be able to have an opinion that runs contrary to "the company" in question that they work for... and since ALL corporations have shareholders, they will ALL hide behind the "public image" excuse as their reason for firing someone, thereby leading to mob justice. So long story short, if you say anything UNPOPULAR, the public will retaliate by getting you fired. That's the new world we're living in. Free speech is dead. 

 

 

I agree with you in principal...political correctness is out of control...having said that...prob not wise to include your co worker in a 3 way sex ring dream while on the air...lol.

[JR Ewing]

28 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

This should be the litmus test:

 

1. Did it occur AT WORK?

2. If no, was he on location presenting himself as a representative of the company?

 

If the answer to those two questions is NO, then it's his private life (or part of his non-NBC public life) and should be outside the scope of NBC's control. ie: No punishment given. A company should not be able to fire you for anything you say outside of work. Period.

 

Generally, I agree with that, but he might have (and probably) signed a contract with NBC wherein he agrees not to bring undue embarrassment to the company, including any action or comments he makes which NBC thinks may reflect poorly on them. I'm not offended by what he said, but NBC obviously didn't appreciate it.

 

 

28 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Now, I know how this WILL unfold (he'll ultimately be fired) but it's the death of free speech if we allow corporations to silence the population. It sets the precedent that ANY speech which a company DISAGREES with, is a fire-able offence. That means nobody will ever be able to have an opinion that runs contrary to "the company" in question that they work for... and since ALL corporations have shareholders, they will ALL hide behind the "public image" excuse as their reason for firing someone, thereby leading to mob justice. So long story short, if you say anything UNPOPULAR, the public will retaliate by getting you fired. That's the new world we're living in. Free speech is dead. 

 

 

Let's not be overly dramatic here. Jeremy Roenick has publicly run his mouth enough times that I think we can say that nobody has ever denied him his right to free speech. There's a difference between having the freedom to say what you like and having freedom from the consequences for what you say.

[intheslot]

Up against the WALL..

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, jammer2 said:

I agree with you in principal...political correctness is out of control...having said that...prob not wise to include your co worker in a 3 way sex ring dream while on the air...lol.

 

See, I don't know if she was the one who complained or if NBC took offence "on her behalf" so to speak.  I also don't know whether Roenick mentioned NBC in his comments. 

 

But let's say HYPOTHETICALLY that he wasn't talking about a co-worker.  NBC still would have suspended him for his comments. Even if he spoke about a fictitious woman (Xena the warrior princess for example), I think NBC takes issue with the subject matter of the comment and not the person in question, and they feel "obligated" to be offended on behalf of their shareholders so as to protect their "public image". 

 

But if we go by that standard, then every comment (assuming people hear it) is controversial.  He could have said "I like to vape" and depending on the current climate/state of vaping/public health concerns, it's either an okay comment or a suspendable one. It all depends on whether NBC feels like there will be backlash from anti-vaping shareholders. It's basically a black hole and nobody wins.

 

[Poulin20]

I would like to hope it was a code of conduct thing in his contract.  I am a sports official on the side and I have a strict code of conduct and if I got In a bar fight while I working an event, even though it didn’t happen during play Inwould likely be sent home.  We also could be fired for stuff on social media so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he breached a contract or code of conduct that he agreed to.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised either though if there is a PC element to this as well. If that is the sole reason I completely disagree and if I was JR I would fight it tooth and nail.  While I abhor racism and disrespect of people I equally abhor silencing people with political correctness and the prevalence of the cancel culture.  There are always unintended consequences to these type of things including loss of freedoms for everyone because of a few.  I think we need to be able to hear difficult and offensive things sometimes so we know where people stand and how best to deal with them.

[WordsOfWisdom]

56 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

Generally, I agree with that, but he might have (and probably) signed a contract with NBC wherein he agrees not to bring undue embarrassment to the company, including any action or comments he makes which NBC thinks may reflect poorly on them. I'm not offended by what he said, but NBC obviously didn't appreciate it.

 

There's the catch. Roenick's comments never reflect poorly on NBC... because Roenick owns his comments, not NBC. 

 

It's a subtle but clear distinction.  If you allow it to go the other way, it means that NBC owns Roenick's speech (all of it). 

 

[jammer2]

3 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

There's the catch. Roenick's comments never reflect poorly on NBC... because Roenick owns his comments, not NBC. 

 

It's a subtle but clear distinction.  If you allow it to go the other way, it means that NBC owns Roenick's speech (all of it). 

 

JR is on the air...nationwide on a NBC show in a NBC jacket...thus representing the network...how could he not be? 

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, JR Ewing said:

There's a difference between having the freedom to say what you like and having freedom from the consequences for what you say.

 

If I were to say: "you have the right to your opinion, but if I don't like your opinion, I will lock you up in jail for 25 years"... do you really have free speech? 

 

The only consequence for expressing an unpopular opinion should be negative public feedback.   

 

There shouldn't be any "hammer" with which the public or your employer can punish you with simply for speaking. (Unless the comments happen AT work like with Don Cherry.)

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

6 minutes ago, jammer2 said:

JR is on the air...nationwide on a NBC show in a NBC jacket...thus representing the network...how could he not be? 

 

Well in that case, NBC could fire him.  That's the same scenario as Don Cherry.  

 

But if he made the comments elsewhere on a non-NBC show while not wearing an NBC jacket, and not representing NBC, then he should be untouchable. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by WordsOfWisdom

[JR Ewing]

3 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

There's the catch. Roenick's comments never reflect poorly on NBC... because Roenick owns his comments, not NBC. 

 

NBC is currently dealing with fallout from it becoming clear that they paid off several women who made rape allegations against Matt Lauer, and then did what they could to kill the Harvey Weinstein story that Ronan Farrow was working on. In the wake of that, they're not going to allow Roenick to make those comments without some sort of punishment.

 

3 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

It's a subtle but clear distinction.  If you allow it to go the other way, it means that NBC owns Roenick's speech (all of it). 

 

 

I guess he shouldn't have signed the contract, then.

 

[jammer2]

7 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Well in that case, NBC could fire him.  That's the same scenario as Don Cherry.  

 

But if he made the comments elsewhere on a non-NBC show while not wearing an NBC jacket, and not representing NBC, then he should be untouchable. 

Oh...wait...just re-read the story...he made the comments on a podcast...which does change the dynamic a bit. Still cant make sexual references about co workers in a public forum though.

[WordsOfWisdom]

5 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

NBC is currently dealing with fallout from it becoming clear that they paid off several women who made rape allegations against Matt Lauer, and then did what they could to kill the Harvey Weinstein story that Ronan Farrow was working on. In the wake of that, they're not going to allow Roenick to make those comments without some sort of punishment.

 

Apples and oranges. Speech is never a crime. No matter how outrageous the opinion. The actions of a rapist couldn't be any more different than Roenick's comments. 

 

6 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

I guess he shouldn't have signed the contract, then.

 

So you want NBC to be the corporate version of Kim Jong Un?   We can't have it this way. It's destroying our freedom. The price is not a price I'm willing to pay. I'd rather live in a world where Roenick can talk about threesomes and people can have their jaws drop then to live in a world where we're all verbally "shackled", forced to remain silent out of fear. 

 

[JR Ewing]

3 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

If I were to say: "you have the right to your opinion, but if I don't like your opinion, I will lock you up in jail for 25 years"... do you really have free speech? 

 

How about we keep this grounded in reality?

 

 

3 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

The only consequence for expressing an unpopular opinion should be negative public feedback.   

 

There shouldn't be any "hammer" with which the public or your employer can punish you with simply for speaking. (Unless the comments happen AT work like with Don Cherry.)

 

 

Generally speaking, I would agree with you, except in instances where the employee agreed to those terms. Roenick almost assuredly signed such a contract.

[JR Ewing]

Just now, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Apples and oranges. Speech is never a crime. No matter how outrageous the opinion. The actions of a rapist couldn't be any more different than Roenick's comments. 

 

lol...

 

I'm not comparing Roenick's speech to Lauer's alleged crimes. I'm talking about what kinds of actions we might expect NBC to take in a situation where a public figure who works for them makes sexual comments about another public figure who works for them, especially when it's come to light that they have a history of not taking these things seriously.

 

This is NBC protecting their own ass.

 

Just now, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

So you want NBC to be the corporate version of Kim Jong Un?   We can't have it this way. It's destroying our freedom. The price is not a price I'm willing to pay. I'd rather live in a world where Roenick can talk about threesomes and people can have their jaws drop then to live in a world where we're all verbally "shackled", forced to remain silent out of fear. 

 

 

NBC had absolutely no more power over Jeremy Roenick than he found acceptable to give them. I'm not offended by what he said, but I don't feel the least bit sorry for him.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

2 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

How about we keep this grounded in reality?

 

It's an extreme example, but the point still stands. If you knew there was going to be some form of punishment for expressing the "wrong" opinion, would you still do it? I think most people would remain silent out of fear. That's the world we're living in now. Nobody can speak their mind any more because they're afraid of what will happen to them. 

 

4 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

Generally speaking, I would agree with you, except in instances where the employee agreed to those terms. Roenick almost assuredly signed such a contract.

 

No employment contract should ever be able to supersede fundamental human rights. 

 

I still believe NBC's control of Jeremy Roenick ends when he leaves the NBC studio and takes off the jacket. Anything he says or does outside of NBC is his own life and his own opinion, and in no way reflects on NBC. There needs to be a new law written that prevents employers from crossing that line.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

2 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

lol...

 

I'm not comparing Roenick's speech to Lauer's alleged crimes. I'm talking about what kinds of actions we might expect NBC to take in a situation where a public figure who works for them makes sexual comments about another public figure who works for them, especially when it's come to light that they have a history of not taking these things seriously.

 

This is NBC protecting their own ass.

 

That's why I'm saying this CYA loophole should be closed immediately with a new law written that prohibits companies from firing employees for comments or actions made outside of work. That way, the company can stop using shareholders and "public image" as their excuse and can start pointing to the new law that they wouldn't have the authority to fire him. That way, NBC is off the hook. They could tell shareholders straight up: "you may not like his comments, but we can't fire him for it".  That would be the end of it. 

 

Random smiley to brighten the mood  ----->   

 

[jammer2]

My employers made it clear to all of us...posts on social media involving co workers that are deemed unwise or derogatory can subject us to discipline and or termination. Podcasts are like social media posts...I would imagine the same rules apply to JR.

[WordsOfWisdom]

22 minutes ago, jammer2 said:

Oh...wait...just re-read the story...he made the comments on a podcast...which does change the dynamic a bit. Still cant make sexual references about co workers in a public forum though.

 

• Says who?  Microsoft? Google? Apple? 
• Where is that law written? Can you show me?
• Does that rule also apply to Howard Stern?

Did she complain to NBC about the comments or (more likely) did she get a chuckle out of them?  From what Roenick said, it seems as though they know each other very well. It sounds like a comment she would not have taken offence to. 

 

I'm not trying to be a douche bag, I'm just calling into question that statement you made with such certainty. 

 

Plus, ample smiley faces to brighten the mood before this gets locked lol.  ---->      

[WordsOfWisdom]

9 minutes ago, jammer2 said:

My employers made it clear to all of us...posts on social media involving co workers that are deemed unwise or derogatory can subject us to discipline and or termination. Podcasts are like social media posts...I would imagine the same rules apply to JR.

 

So basically what you have to do these days to preserve your free speech is you have to post under an anonymous name on some internet forum where you can't be identified. Unfortunately, that is where things are at now.   

 

Or you have to be self-employed. Great motivation to start your own business!  

[jammer2]

1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

• Says who?  Microsoft? Google? Apple? 
• Where is that law written? Can you show me?
• Does that rule also apply to Howard Stern?

Did she complain to NBC about the comments or (more likely) did she get a chuckle out of them?  From what Roenick said, it seems as though they know each other very well. It sounds like a comment she would not have taken offence to. 

 

I'm not trying to be a douche bag, I'm just calling into question that statement you made with such certainty. 

 

Plus, ample smiley faces to brighten the mood before this gets locked lol.  ---->      

It's not a written law...but rather a generally accepted cultural shift towards political correctness...AND sexual stuff is at the top of the PC ladder. Most companies have re-written their codes of conduct to cover their asses in this silly environment. The hot word of the day is harassment. The person being mentioned need not be offended...as long as the language makes someone else feel uncomfortable. This type of language is applicable at my work...you can double damn be sure it is covered in the corporate world.

[jammer2]

Bottom line...when you sign up to work for an entity like NBC...you have a lengthy orientation day with the HR dept. These rules are explained ad nauseam...then you sign on the dotted line that you fully understand what has been spelled out for you. That is the way the world works now...like it or not.