Roenick suspended without pay for comments

[yave1964]

I feel sorry for Barstool sports, specifically Biznasty and Ryan (dont call me ray) Whitney who are absolutely the best podcast team period bar none going when it comes to Hockey- period, no discussion. They are foul, obscene, childish, man boys and I love evey second of their podcast. More F-bombs than any pocast out there, they act like they are sitting in your living room smoning a joint or having a few too many and it seems real.

 

  Now, they get a guest on and instead of someone being able to be real, tell the way it really is they will think of Roenich and the **** he got into and we will end up with more vanilla BS where players talka bout taking one shift at a time and God bless America and all that instead of just having a good time and loosening up. Bissonette has to be sick to his stomach that long time guest Roenick will probably lose his job for comments made on the podcast. so am I.

 

 The other one is Tappen. She is a solid fun character who seems to know her stuff. I doubt if she is the one who complained but if she did, it changes everything. 

 

 Overall just a crappy story.

[JR Ewing]

1 hour ago, yave1964 said:

I feel sorry for Barstool sports, specifically Biznasty and Ryan (dont call me ray) Whitney who are absolutely the best podcast team period bar none going when it comes to Hockey- period, no discussion. They are foul, obscene, childish, man boys and I love evey second of their podcast. More F-bombs than any pocast out there, they act like they are sitting in your living room smoning a joint or having a few too many and it seems real.

 

  Now, they get a guest on and instead of someone being able to be real, tell the way it really is they will think of Roenich and the **** he got into and we will end up with more vanilla BS where players talka bout taking one shift at a time and God bless America and all that instead of just having a good time and loosening up. Bissonette has to be sick to his stomach that long time guest Roenick will probably lose his job for comments made on the podcast. so am I.

 

Yes. Pretty much the only guys who have spoken in an unguarded way are the ones who don't work in hockey in any way. Dustin Penner spoke very frankly (and amusingly) on the show. I hope that Roenick doesn't lose his job, because I really don't think he should. My preference would have been for NBC to handle it all internally, but it is what it is: they pretty much have to make a show of things after their own past screw-ups, and he will over-pay for what he said.

 

1 hour ago, yave1964 said:

 The other one is Tappen. She is a solid fun character who seems to know her stuff. I doubt if she is the one who complained but if she did, it changes everything. 

 

I have to admit I haven't seen an awful lot of her, but she seemed good in my limited viewings. I usually watch games an hour or two after they start, and tend to blast through the TV timeouts and intermissions. I would hope that if she took offense to it, and said anything at all, that it was to Roenick personally.

 

1 hour ago, yave1964 said:

 Overall just a crappy story.

 

Yes.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

3 hours ago, yave1964 said:

I feel sorry for Barstool sports, specifically Biznasty and Ryan (dont call me ray) Whitney who are absolutely the best podcast team period bar none going when it comes to Hockey- period, no discussion. They are foul, obscene, childish, man boys and I love evey second of their podcast. More F-bombs than any pocast out there, they act like they are sitting in your living room smoning a joint or having a few too many and it seems real.

 

In a society with real free speech that's exactly how it is. You should be able to speak your mind without fear. It should feel like you're having a chat with friends. However, the road our society has chosen to go down in the last 10-20 years is a culture of censorship and group-think. A culture where nobody will ever appear on these Podcasts and speak their mind again. You'll get the usual "media managed" interviews that we're all now familiar with and brainwashed into accepting as the norm. Just like post-game interviews with players and coaches that are now so tightly controlled and so tightly managed that even the interviewers are managed/coached into which of a set of pre-approved questions they're allowed to ask the players. The players are fake. The interviewers are fake. Even the locker room back drop that they interview the players in is fake. Which is why I haven't watched a post-game interview in more than 20 years. I care about what the players want to say, but I don't care about what the CBC/TSN/SportsNet wants them to say. 

 

My two cents as always.   

[mojo1917]

Jeremy is so stupid here.

The mic is always on, this is your coworker.

Keep that **** to yourself.

 

Aside from the fact that this is boorish behavior it is something he said about his wife's friend.

This isn't beers with the boys is a nationally distributed pod cast.

 

I have zero compassion for him. Just leave the public eye go to Arizona play golf

[ruxpin]

So, this was on a pod cast?

 

I have no idea what the personal relationship is with Tappen and what is safe and not safe to joke about between themselves.  It really could be the result of inside jokes.

 

But it can't happen on a podcast.    And no while employed at NBC, which is neck-deep in sexual harassment/sexual-related issues that as an HR matter they have to be aggressive in flushing any perception of an issue.   Immediately.    I don't know whether he gets away with it elsewhere---maybe not--but certainly not in the current climate at NBC.

[Icechipper]

When you speak, consider:

1 Is it true?

2 Is it necessary?

3 Is it kind?

Or so I've heard......

[yave1964]

4 hours ago, JR Ewing said:

 

Yes. Pretty much the only guys who have spoken in an unguarded way are the ones who don't work in hockey in any way. Dustin Penner spoke very frankly (and amusingly) on the show. I hope that Roenick doesn't lose his job, because I really don't think he should. My preference would have been for NBC to handle it all internally, but it is what it is: they pretty much have to make a show of things after their own past screw-ups, and he will over-pay for what he said.

 

 

I have to admit I haven't seen an awful lot of her, but she seemed good in my limited viewings. I usually watch games an hour or two after they start, and tend to blast through the TV timeouts and intermissions. I would hope that if she took offense to it, and said anything at all, that it was to Roenick personally.

 

 

Yes.

 

Penner was an awesome interview, Tootoo was great, I think my favorite has been Teddy Purcell because of the obvious familiarity between all the guys, sadly anyone who is involved in the game post career will probably never appear on the show again.

[Brewin Flames]

As someone who defended the right for freedom of speech, I am also smart enough to be aware that while you have the right to "free speech" you also have to be aware enough that the same freedom does not come without consequenses....

 

I was once told to "know your audience", and by that, you have to know who is going to hear what you say...

 

If JR's joke was in a room full of guys, or even tappen herself, no offense might have been taken, but in this overly sensitive society we sadly live in, you can't have something like that broadcast in a podcast....hence the action taken by the powers that be.

 

I sense he will be uncerimoniously sh*tcanned for this.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Brewin Flames

[WordsOfWisdom]

25 minutes ago, Brewin Flames said:

As someone who defended the right for freedom of speech, I am also smart enough to be aware that while you have the right to "free speech" you also have to be aware enough that the same freedom does not come without consequenses....

 

Then it's not free.  You have to draw the line in the sand on this one. He was not at work when he made those comments. The comments were made in his private life and his private life allows him to go on non-NBC Podcasts. That's it. He is not representing NBC when he's not at NBC, and it doesn't matter whether the company, its customers, or its shareholders "feel" that way. He should have "diplomatic immunity" on this one and there should be a law written immediately to make it such. You cannot allow your employer to control your private life. Not now, not ever... and not for any reason. 

 

28 minutes ago, Brewin Flames said:

If JR's joke was in a room full of guys, or even tappen herself, no offense might have been taken, but in this overly sensitive society we sadly live in, you can't have something like that broadcast in a podcast....hence the action taken by the powers that be.

 

That people continue to FEED INTO by condoning NBC's actions on this.  NBC is in the WRONG here. They're not interested in doing the right thing. Their motivation is purely PROFIT ORIENTED. They're going to do whatever they feel they need to do to appease shareholders and customers and that means they bow to outrage culture.  If they didn't have the ability to fire Roenick, then this wouldn't be an issue.

 

If we continue to go down this path, then it's mob rule from here on in.  

 

[mojo1917]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

No it's not.

There are consequences for actions.

JR didn't use his head and spoke out of school about a co-worker in a forum that reaches 100s of thousands of people.

Tappen wasn't there to add to the conversation or tell him to shut his yap.

The easy answer is "I'm not going to talk about my co-worker since she's not here"... and the conversation goes in a different direction.

 

Taking another person's feelings into account before one speaks about them isn't "overly sensitive/ or politically correct".

 

I'm sure NBC has a code of conduct for their on-air personalities, I'm sure saying your co-worker and your wife were having a threesome with you on vacation violates that  CoC. 

I haven't even begun to go down the path of what JR must think of his Tappen and his wife if he thinks this kind of talk about them is okay.

Are they just receptacles put here to please him ?  

 

 

He is a mediocre analyst that won't be missed, if he's saying stupid **** like this it just makes the job of culling the herd easy.

 

I cannot disagree with you more about this situation.

 

 

 

[jammer2]

This whole story came to life for one reason...so JR could stroke his huge ego. Just so everyone knows..Tappen came out today and said JR was still her friend but his comments were off base and unwanted.

 

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

32 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

No it's not.

There are consequences for actions.

JR didn't use his head and spoke out of school about a co-worker in a forum that reaches 100s of thousands of people.

Tappen wasn't there to add to the conversation or tell him to shut his yap.

The easy answer is "I'm not going to talk about my co-worker since she's not here"... and the conversation goes in a different direction.

 

You're right. It's not a "polite" topic of conversation. You should feel personally outraged, deeply wounded, should think less of JR as a human being, and yet JR should still be able to carry on with his job without penalty because the event occurred outside of work and unless JR does something to get himself arrested and thrown in jail (something that would prevent him from being at NBC) then he should never be fired for conduct occurring outside of work. It's none of NBC's business.

 

If anything, Tappen could have filed a defamation suit against JR if she felt offended by those comments and if she felt that it hurt her reputation. That should be the only legal route available here and only because JR was referring to a real person. 

 

To use an analogy: The referee of a hockey game can't give you 2 minutes for roughing if you beat someone up in the parking lot after the game. NBC is like a hockey referee trying to issue you penalties in your private life when you're not playing hockey. They are outside of their jurisdiction.

 

To me it's a very clear line that always existed in the past but that people now seem willing to blur or give away entirely. 

 

42 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

Are they just receptacles put here to please him ?  

 

He has lots of money so who knows? Did he meet his wife before he became rich and famous or after?   

 

43 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

He is a mediocre analyst that won't be missed, if he's saying stupid **** like this it just makes the job of culling the herd easy.

 

I cannot disagree with you more about this situation.

 

I'm deeply offended that you insulted JR by calling him a mediocre analyst and for your view on free speech. You're fired lol.   

(That's the world we're living in now it seems.)

 

Merry Christmas to all!!!  

[WordsOfWisdom]

36 minutes ago, jammer2 said:

This whole story came to life for one reason...so JR could stroke his huge ego. Just so everyone knows..Tappen came out today and said JR was still her friend but his comments were off base and unwanted.

 

 

 

 

How much do you want to bet they're secretly going to have a threesome together now?     

 

Can we bring JR to Hockey Night in Canada?  The show is boring as f__k  with Ron MacLean, Elliotte Friedman, Kelly Hrudey, etc...  The highlight of CBC/SportsNet's HNIC is seeing Tara Sloan (who still looks dreamy) during the intermission. Otherwise it's toilet break time for me now that Don Cherry is gone.   

 

[jammer2]

59 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

How much do you want to bet they're secretly going to have a threesome together now?     

 

Can we bring JR to Hockey Night in Canada?  The show is boring as f__k  with Ron MacLean, Elliotte Friedman, Kelly Hrudey, etc...  The highlight of CBC/SportsNet's HNIC is seeing Tara Sloan (who still looks dreamy) during the intermission. Otherwise it's toilet break time for me now that Don Cherry is gone.   

 

I have watched hundreds of coachs corners over the years. This whole thing has been rough on me. Miss him a lot...and yeah..the panel replacing him SUCKS!!

[IllaZilla]

17 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Then it's not free.  You have to draw the line in the sand on this one. He was not at work when he made those comments. The comments were made in his private life and his private life allows him to go on non-NBC Podcasts. That's it. He is not representing NBC when he's not at NBC, and it doesn't matter whether the company, its customers, or its shareholders "feel" that way. He should have "diplomatic immunity" on this one and there should be a law written immediately to make it such. You cannot allow your employer to control your private life. Not now, not ever... and not for any reason. 

 

 

That people continue to FEED INTO by condoning NBC's actions on this.  NBC is in the WRONG here. They're not interested in doing the right thing. Their motivation is purely PROFIT ORIENTED. They're going to do whatever they feel they need to do to appease shareholders and customers and that means they bow to outrage culture.  If they didn't have the ability to fire Roenick, then this wouldn't be an issue.

 

If we continue to go down this path, then it's mob rule from here on in.  

 

 

Not sure what the rules are in Canada, but the whole freedom of speech thing only applies to the United States government censoring you. It does not apply to a private business entity that you work for.

 

If NBC put a clause in Roenick's contract that said something along the lines of "You're words or actions must not bring NBC into disrepute" or "You must always abide by NBC's Code of Conduct" and Roenick signed the contract, the NBC was absolutely within their rights to suspend, terminate, publicly shame, etc. Roenick. Roenick signed the contract to get the money. The conditions were you have to behave a certain way to get the money. Roenick shot his mouth off acting like the big man on campus and now faces the consequences.

 

There's no right or wrong here. It's a simple matter of breach of contract. Roenick broke the rules of his contract and now faces the consequences of those actions.

[mojo1917]

13 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

If anything, Tappen could have filed a defamation suit against JR if she felt offended by those comments and if she felt that it hurt her reputation. That should be the only legal route available here and only because JR was referring to a real person.

I think this is the dumbest thing I've read this week.

I can't tell if you're serious or trolling .

 

Yes, let's fill the legal system with more frivolous law suits.

 

I think Illzilla has done a nice job of explaining freedom of speech and how JR's wasn't violated in this context.

 

.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

I think this is the dumbest thing I've read this week.

I can't tell if you're serious or trolling .

 

Do you not understand what a defamation lawsuit is and why it exists?  I'm honestly confused. 

 

Defamation lawsuits are the control that reigns in free speech. If you make statements about another person that are untrue or that damage another person's reputation unjustly, then a defamation lawsuit is the legal "hammer" that a person can use against you.

 

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

Yes, let's fill the legal system with more frivolous law suits.

 

So you would rather do away with free speech instead?  This pesky free speech thing results in occasional defamation lawsuits so let's just hand our free speech over to a faceless corporation because they always act in our best interests! Their motivations are always pure!

 

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

I think Illzilla has done a nice job of explaining freedom of speech and how JR's wasn't violated in this context.

 

It most certainly was. The fact that people can no longer see it is the scariest thing I have ever known. A contract that violates human rights or laws is not legally binding anyway. 

 

Again, I don't condone JR's actions... but he has the right to say whatever he darn well pleases and if he does so outside of work, his employer should not be able to do anything about it other than frown.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

2 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

Not sure what the rules are in Canada, but the whole freedom of speech thing only applies to the United States government censoring you. It does not apply to a private business entity that you work for.

 

If NBC put a clause in Roenick's contract that said something along the lines of "You're words or actions must not bring NBC into disrepute" or "You must always abide by NBC's Code of Conduct" and Roenick signed the contract, the NBC was absolutely within their rights to suspend, terminate, publicly shame, etc. Roenick. Roenick signed the contract to get the money. The conditions were you have to behave a certain way to get the money. Roenick shot his mouth off acting like the big man on campus and now faces the consequences.

 

There's no right or wrong here. It's a simple matter of breach of contract. Roenick broke the rules of his contract and now faces the consequences of those actions.

 

I give up. There is just so much wrong with what you've just said.  (Not wrong in terms of the accuracy of the content, but wrong in terms of the logical implications to basic human rights and freedoms.) The battle has been lost. 

 

Anyway, I think I'll bow out of this discussion before I get upset.  Merry Christmas.   

 

[jammer2]

On 12/25/2019 at 9:45 AM, IllaZilla said:

 

Not sure what the rules are in Canada, but the whole freedom of speech thing only applies to the United States government censoring you. It does not apply to a private business entity that you work for.

 

If NBC put a clause in Roenick's contract that said something along the lines of "You're words or actions must not bring NBC into disrepute" or "You must always abide by NBC's Code of Conduct" and Roenick signed the contract, the NBC was absolutely within their rights to suspend, terminate, publicly shame, etc. Roenick. Roenick signed the contract to get the money. The conditions were you have to behave a certain way to get the money. Roenick shot his mouth off acting like the big man on campus and now faces the consequences.

 

There's no right or wrong here. It's a simple matter of breach of contract. Roenick broke the rules of his contract and now faces the consequences of those actions.

Great post...summed it up perfectly Zill.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Speaking About Politics, A Fireable Offense? The Legality of Employee Speech Restrictions in the Entertainment Industry

Chloe L. Kaufman*

Despite the commonly shared belief that Americans have an undeniable right to freedom of speech, private-sector employees receive no constitutional protection for employer regulations of or reactions to their speech and federal and state statutes provide extremely limited protections. Consequently, on-air professionals in the entertainment industry, including Curt Schilling, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Jemele Hill and Tomi Lahren have been terminated, suspended or otherwise retaliated against after making expressions of political speech deemed controversial by the public and their respective employers.

Tomi Lahren’s dispute against her employer demonstrates the severity of a private employer’s ability to restrict political speech under U.S. law. By analyzing Lahren’s complaint and the existing legal framework, this Note highlights how private employers’ unrestricted power disproportionately affects employees in the entertainment industry, risks a chilling effect on private employee speech across industries, and consequently cuts against the foundational values of American democracy.

 

 

Introduction

“I can say what I want—it’s a free country” is a familiar phrase in the United States. This schoolyard retort and its variations are emphatically repeated and believed by American citizens. Children and adults alike frequently utter the phrase to end both petty arguments and serious debates. The prevalence of this aphorism is a reflection of the significance of the First Amendment in American society. Freedom of expression, widely recognized as one of the most cherished constitutional rights,[1] is more than just an aspirational value, it is the foundation on which American democracy rests.

Representative government depends upon an open marketplace of ideas. The ability to express and exchange ideas is essential to establishing an informed and engaged public, who can in turn elect officials to effectively represent their interests. Justice Brennan, a staunch defender of the freedom of speech and a key figure in the development of modern First Amendment doctrine, recognized that the First Amendment “was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.”[2] Moreover, Justice Brennan acknowledged that “speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.”[3] Because of the interdependent relationship between freedom of speech and democratic governance, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that speech relating to public concern is entitled to special protection.[4]

However, despite the importance of the First Amendment, the state action doctrine limits First Amendment protection to the actions of the government.[5] Since the First Amendment does not extend to the private sector, private-sector employees receive no constitutional protection for employer regulations of or reactions to their speech.[6] The combination of the increasing privatization of the workforce, the rise of technological innovations enabling employees to work beyond the physical boundaries of the office, and the burgeoning of social media have introduced new issues regarding private employee speech, particularly speech relating to public concern.

Numerous on-air professionals in the entertainment industry have learned the hard way that the pervasive “I can say what I want—it’s a free country” sentiment is not true in reality.[7] This American belief in unbounded freedom of speech is misguided because, as discussed infra, a significant portion of American society, those working in the private sector, cannot say whatever they want. Private employers have an unconstrained ability to censor the speech of their employees and retaliate against their employees for speech at or outside of the workplace.

Admittedly, there are certain limitations on speech in the private employment context that are reasonable and often deemed necessary to maintain a safe and productive work environment and to protect an employer’s brand and values. For example, it is important that employees follow specific employer-provided directions for communicating with clients and coworkers at the workplace. Still, private employers’ unbounded ability to limit expressions relating to public life and government outside of the workplace threatens a foundational American value in the freedom of expression and the system of democratic governance.

The termination and suspension of employees in the entertainment industry for expressing political speech is not a new issue. However, the heightened political divide within Trump’s America has brought the employment status of entertainers who make controversial, and in some cases distasteful, statements regarding public life and politics to the forefront of the twenty-four-hour news cycle. Curt Schilling, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Jemele Hill, and Tomi Lahren are a sampling of high-profile, on-air professionals who have recently been terminated, suspended, or otherwise retaliated against after making expressions of political speech deemed controversial by the public and their respective employers.[8] While the speech conveyed by each of these individuals varied in substance, form, and decency, the expressions all constituted a communication of views and opinions on public life.

ESPN fired Major League Baseball analyst Curt Schilling in April 2016 after he shared a post on his Facebook page that commented on the then-current debate surrounding a proposed North Carolina law to bar transgender people from using bathrooms not matching the gender on their birth certificates.[9] The post included a meme of a man in a wig and women’s clothing that says, “LET HIM IN! to the restroom with your daughter or else you’re a narrow-minded, judgmental, unloving racist bigot who needs to die.”[10] Schilling added his own commentary below the image: “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”[11]

One month after Schilling’s termination, comedian and actress Kathy Griffin posted on her Instagram and Twitter accounts an image of herself holding a fake, but nonetheless realistic and gory, decapitated head of President Trump.[12] Although the comedian explained on Twitter that she created the image to mock the “Mocker in Chief,” the violent image struck a chord with the public.[13] Following the backlash, CNN terminated Griffin from her 10-year contract as the co-host of the network’s annual New Year’s Eve program, Squatty Potty fired her as the company’s marketing spokesperson, and the venues for Griffin’s remaining scheduled tour dates canceled her upcoming engagements.[14]

In August 2016, Colin Kaepernick, then-quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, sat on the bench during the national anthem before the start of a game. Kaepernick explained his rationale to NFL Media:

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color . . . . To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.[15]

Then on September 1, 2016, instead of sitting, Kaepernick decided to kneel during the anthem.[16] This action inspired other players to follow suit and incited a national controversy. While some praised Kaepernick for his courage, others perceived this action as disrespectful to the American flag. Public opinion polls suggested that many fans boycotted the NFL in response to these protests.[17] President Trump expressed his views at a rally, saying that team owners should fire players who kneel during the national anthem.[18]

The Trump administration maintained a similar stance when White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders weighed in on the employment of Jemele Hill, an ESPN sportscaster, after Hill tweeted, “Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists.”[19] Sanders claimed that by posting this tweet, Hill committed a “fireable offense.”[20] While Hill was not fired for her disparaging comments about the President, ESPN did consider it to be a violation of their social media policy.[21] About a month later, in fact, ESPN sanctioned Hill with a two-week suspension for violating their social media policy once again—this time, by suggesting on Twitter that fans should boycott the Dallas Cowboys’ advertisers in retaliation for Cowboys’ owner Jerry Jones’ statement about benching NFL players who “disrespect the flag.”[22]

The firing of political commentator, Tomi Lahren, is one of the most provocative employment terminations immediately following a highly-publicized expression of political speech. Two days after Lahren expressed her opinion that the government should not make abortion illegal, her employer, TheBlaze, a conservative media organization, suspended her self-titled show, Tomi, and revoked her access to her social media accounts. Lahren sued TheBlaze for wrongful termination.[23] However, the parties came to a settlement before going to trial.[24]

Lahren’s employment dispute demonstrates the severity of a private employer’s ability to restrict political speech under U.S. law and the particular challenges facing professionals in the entertainment industry. This Note analyzes Lahren’s legal complaint against TheBlaze to demonstrate the near limitless ability for private employers to restrict and retaliate against an employee’s political speech in certain, if not all, jurisdictions. Further, this Note highlights how this unrestricted power disproportionately affects employees in the entertainment industry, risks a chilling effect on private employee speech across industries, and consequentially cuts against the foundational values of American democracy.

 

....

....

Full article here:

https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/vol-8-no-2-1-kaufman/

....

....

 

Conclusion

Employer silencing of employee speech relating to politics and matters public concern is particularly unsettling because speech relating to public concern is recognized as “some of the most highly protected forms of speech.”[157] American citizens watch reporters, pundits, and personalities on television, listen to them on podcasts and radio, and follow them on social media to learn about current events and develop their own thoughts and opinions. Allowing employers to limit these influential individuals’ ability to contribute to public discourse is a violation of core American values and stunts the democratic system of government. Though at times frustrating and contentious, political speech is a profoundly valuable form of expression in American society because it allows for a strong and functioning democracy. The recent suggestions by the Trump administration that certain on-air employees should be terminated for expressing their opinions about public life[158] sheds light on the overall lack of protection that these private employees enjoy both within and outside of the workplace.

Tomi Lahren learned from experience the limits of the prized American saying, “I can say what I want—it’s a free country.” She did say what she wanted. And she lost her job for it. Though there are valid and strong reasons for limitations of employee speech in specific situations and circumstances, private employers should not have such strong control over their employees’ expressions outside of the context of work, especially over expressions relating to public life. Perhaps American jurisprudence should better reflect the American aspiration for free speech.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

My take...and without delving down a bottomless rabbit hole....

---I DO believe in freedom of speech...for everyone.
---I also believe that while no entity should control what one says, exceptions are there when one is employed with a big company...particularly if one is a public figure. Like it or not, that is just how it is. Once an employee signs a contract with certain "language" in it (as a condition of working there), then that employee is bound by it...and there may be consequences to any breach or perceived breaches.

---Putting aside all the legal and rights stuff, Roenick exercised VERY poor judgement in his commentary. Whether his comments were in jest, true, completely fabricated...whatever...they simply were not the kind of thing one says on a public forum (even if its not NBC's), when one is a high profile public figure, working with other high profile public figures.

---Putting myself in Tappen's shoes, would I have brought this to the attention of NBC myself?
Depends on what kind of relationship I really had with the person making the comments. If I really were close, I might still be uncomfortable with that person saying those types of things publicly (even in jest), whereas I would have been ok with it (maybe even joked along with it) if it were in a more close knit group of people that we were all familiar with.
Personally, I would have pulled Roenick aside and voiced my opinion on that....NOT taken it to the higher ups.

However, if Roenick and Tappen (or at least JR's wife) aren't as close as JR would have us believe, then maybe this is something Tappen may have brought to the attention of the higher ups.

Bottom line though, as much as I like to listen to Roenick's commentary and analysis, I just think he got a case of the "stupid's" here and ran his mouth just a bit too far....publicly.

NBC can and will do whatever they deem necessary for their "image"....especially in light of other things that have gone on, as pointed out by other posters.

Whether we agree with it or not, again, once JR signed whatever contract to work for NBC, he placed himself subject to consequences for his actions and behavior no matter where he is

[yave1964]

@TropicalFruitGirl26

 

Quite frankly I have been waiting for you to weigh in,  I wanted a woman's point of view on the subject. Pretty much agree with everything you said.

 

YES there is freedom of speech, but there are also consequences, be it fired for inappropriate or vulgar comments or whatever. You are free to say you are going to the state house to kill the governor of your state all over your facebook wall but see how long it takes for men in suits who wear dark glasses at night are knocking loudly on your door. 

 

 Look, I have a long suffering wife, a bunch of daughters, a wonderful daughter in law, a granddaughter,  it took me a long time to get past a lot of the inherited mosaginist views that were bred into me, i used to take pride in defending women against vulgar men but one of my daughters put me on the right path when she said, _Dad, I dont need you to defend me, you just need to see me as an equal and stay out of the way while I defend myself."Really woke me up to the way of the world, and she was right as can be.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

@yave1964

 

Thing is too, I really DO get the whole "talk among boys" sort of thing.
My husband is the type of guy who can get rowdy when around his buddies...particularly when he gets together with old Army Ranger buddies of his..... I think we can all pretty much guess (or some of you may know first hand), how some of that "jostling around" goes....especially the verbal stuff with stories, anecdotes, and knowing military men, things about women as well.

If Roenick felt that way enough to make comments like he did because the comfort of being around playing days buddies, then great.....BUT, he did it in a public forum as opposed to being somewhere out of the spotlight with those same buddies.
Big difference.

NBC would have no right to send some snoop into some get together Roenick was having with buddies and reporting back everything he said.
Just like I wouldn't sending some spy to follow my  husband and friends, have them report back to me, then me giving my husband hell because "he said certain things" (not did mind, you...SAID).
But if my husband goes somewhere (now this is an extreme silly scenario granted) public, tells every Tom, Dick, Harry about whatever, dragging the family into it, something that can be broadcast to who knows how many tens of thousands, then yea, he'd be a jerk for doing that, and I'd be within my rights to give him all sorts of you-know-what-fors once I got ahold of him.

Again, extreme example, but that's pretty much what JR did when he went on that podcast and said what he did....and dragged NBC's image along with him.
And Tappen herself may not have minded...………..if it wasn't so darn public and now she has to likely deal with people either asking questions, treating her differently, or making stupid remarks about her and her character, which COULD affect, even just a bit, her professional career.
And no one has even talked (I don't think), about what HER husband thinks of all this.....

And rowdiness isn't limited to "just the boys"...I can tell you firsthand that us gals can get pretty rank too when we get together, certain personalities mix in, and especially, if there is alcohol involved.
And my husband is aware of how things can get there....but as long as no real harm is done, and I don't go around making a public spectacle of myself and/or embarrassing the family, then all is good.

As for all this, employer's rights to control what one says or does, look, I work from home, for an finance company, doing an assortment of things with sensitive information.
I literally report to an office maybe three or four times a month.....doing what I do for the company from the comfort of my home.

If I were to talk about clients, tell "funny stories" about clients and/or about their private matters, to people, say on facebook or even here, and my job got wind of it, would I be subject to discipline? Even though I may be commenting on facebook or hf.net on MY time?
Absolutely.
Why? Because when I took the job, I signed a confidentiality agreement that not only protects clients, but keeps the company's image as one that guards said confidentiality, intact.

Even if I didn't give out specific names, numbers, accounts, etc...the fact that I hinted at such things on such public forums as facebook, message boards, Instagram, whatever, would be enough for the company to consider me a liability, cause them to take action up to and including firing or even some kind of court suit.

I know a "small everyday" person like me is quite different than high profile sports professionals, but I think the idea still stands:
You work for a company, you sign and agree to certain conditions, you abide by them, or else....and it doesn't matter if you are technically are not doing whatever you are doing on their time/property/jurisdiction.... for all intents and purposes, one's actions are bound by whatever they signed off on if they want to continue to be an employee of that company.

Not sure if any of what I said makes sense.... lol

 

It's what tends to happen when personal freedoms are intermixed with legalities and contracts.
Plus, I am having some left over egg nog….

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

On 12/24/2019 at 10:19 AM, mojo1917 said:

Jeremy is so stupid here.

The mic is always on, this is your coworker.

Keep that **** to yourself.

 

Aside from the fact that this is boorish behavior it is something he said about his wife's friend.

This isn't beers with the boys is a nationally distributed pod cast.

 

 

 

In all my babbling, I suppose this right here is what I was trying to allude to and agree with

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

On 12/25/2019 at 8:45 AM, IllaZilla said:

 

If NBC put a clause in Roenick's contract that said something along the lines of "You're words or actions must not bring NBC into disrepute" or "You must always abide by NBC's Code of Conduct" and Roenick signed the contract, the NBC was absolutely within their rights to suspend, terminate, publicly shame, etc. Roenick. Roenick signed the contract to get the money. The conditions were you have to behave a certain way to get the money. Roenick shot his mouth off acting like the big man on campus and now faces the consequences.

 

There's no right or wrong here. It's a simple matter of breach of contract. Roenick broke the rules of his contract and now faces the consequences of those actions.

 

 

And this too...