Article: Two FHM Writers Fired

People make jokes about everything. They make jokes about racism and murder and hijacking and a whole lot of other sorry subjects. Just because these two morons made jokes about rape on their private facebook page and people took offence is no reason to fire them.
 
DJ... said:
They are writers whose opinions are subject to public scrutiny. They are very much public figures in that sense, and their jobs hinge on a good rapport with the public. The analogy isn't quite as binary as you're taking it...
Click to expand...

I often see DVDs, articles and audio tapes stating that the opinions held within these contents are not the opinion of the organisations publishing them. Surely as a magazine, these writers could be held responsible for what they write but outside of their business life, they can be anyone they choose to be, so long as it fits in with the law?

What laws were broken in their jokes and comments?

Are we going to get everyone that is a homophobe or racist fired too now? There would be a fair amount of people on mybb losing their jobs if what happened to these writers becomes acceptable
 
Maverick Jester said:
You are not privy to the details of the hearing nor their employment contracts, therefore cannot apply such a broad analogy to this situation. Them being fired is not an issue of right or wrong- it is an issue of contract, as DJ mentioned.
Click to expand...

We're not discussing contract obligations, if the writers have a clause in their contract saying that any personal facebook controversies will lead to dismissal, there is no arguement here (who'd sign such a thing anyway?). We are discussing normal social interactions and the power companies have over employees personal online accounts outside of contracts.
 
D3nz said:
People make jokes about everything. They make jokes about racism and murder and hijacking and a whole lot of other sorry subjects. Just because these two morons made jokes about rape on their private facebook page and people took offence is no reason to fire them.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a private facebook page and that misunderstanding is why people end up in these situations.
 
2012 said:
--------------

To extend this further, I shall show an example:
Hellen Zille, on her twitter feed, says that there should be a vote for no confidence in president Zuma.

This offends the presidency. Having a meeting mostly controlled by Zuma supporters they decide that tweeting such things has shown division in the Governments goals and embarrassed the presidency which ultimately is decided (by the "employers") this is offensive.

Zille is then fired.
-------------
Click to expand...

Um, Helen Zille is not employed by the Government. You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you.
If it was the DA, then yes, but not the Government. She is the Premier by Popular vote.
2012 said:
-------------
Example 2

I run my own business, we make cupcakes for victims of drunk drivers. One day I look on my employees facebook profile and see a picture of them at a braai, holding a beer.

Beer... that is unacceptable, it goes against the values of my company (I'm a real prick) and alcohol is not something we support at pink ponies cupcakes, especially since we are involved with drunk driving cases!

I will now fire this person for having a beer and misrepresenting my company!

Doesn't this look absurd?
Click to expand...

There would have to be a disciplinary inquiry before you could dismiss him for drinking a beer.
And most likely he would be exonerated at the disciplinary inquiry, or he could appeal the outcome of the inquiry.

So yeah, both of your examples are actually absurd.
 
Garyvdh said:
Um, Helen Zille is not employed by the Government. You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you.
If it was the DA, then yes, but not the Government. She is the Premier by Popular vote.
Click to expand...

Fine, replace Zille with some lowly Home affairs employee... FFS you really want to divert the issue.

There would have to be a disciplinary inquiry before you could dismiss him for drinking a beer.
And most likely he would be exonerated at the disciplinary inquiry, or he could appeal the outcome of the inquiry.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't even get to this stage.



Ok, I'm done with these examples. The fact is there is a conflict between the rights of a company to protect itself and the rights of the person to have freedom of expression.

I side with the personal rights (because it's a slippery slope when you start taking these away bit by bit), you side with the corporate rights. No amount of discussion is going to change anyones opinion because no-one (including myself) would really change their opinions of "what is right legally or morally"
 
2012 said:
Fine, replace Zille with some lowly Home affairs employee... FFS you really want to divert the issue.
Click to expand...
Uh no, just wanting to clarify the issue and make it actually realistic. If you are going to propose examples, then at least make them accurate.
2012 said:
It shouldn't even get to this stage.
Click to expand...
Sure it should, they can't be fired without a disciplinary inquiry. Otherwise they should have just gotten a warning.
2012 said:
Ok, I'm done with these examples. The fact is there is a conflict between the rights of a company to protect itself and the rights of the person to have freedom of expression.
I side with the personal rights (because it's a slippery slope when you start taking these away bit by bit), you side with the corporate rights. No amount of discussion is going to change anyones opinion because no-one (including myself) would really change their opinions of "what is right legally or morally"
Click to expand...
Where did I say I side with corporate rights?
I side with doing things according to the law... whether for the individual OR the corporate.
Yes, these guys are individuals, but they cannot escape the fact that they have become celebrities through their company representation.
If they don't like that then they should have resigned long ago.
But they were quite happy to add thousands of "friends" to their facebook pages because of their [company provided] status.
Would they have had all those "friends" on facebook without FHM? No.
And if something goes wrong, then who gets the fallout? These guys or the company? yes, the company. How is that fair?
The very fact that people were blasting FHM over what these guys said is proof that it was not just a private convo.
FHM was having to take damage control steps. That means that it was NOT JUST about these two guys little joke.
As much as you want to whine about private rights, the fact is the company took steps to protect themselves...
And they had every right to do so.
 
2012 said:
Ok, I'm done with these examples. The fact is there is a conflict between the rights of a company to protect itself and the rights of the person to have freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences.

They were free to express themselves how ever they wanted to in public, it doesn't mean they are free from the consequences of their company deciding they don't want to be associated with such expression.
 
icyrus said:
Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences.
Click to expand...

:confused:
No man. That is utter BS.
By that definition almost every person in the world has freedom of expression rights, it's just the consequences that differ.
 
RaptorSA said:
:confused:
No man. That is utter BS.
By that definition almost every person in the world has freedom of expression rights, it's just the consequences that differ.
Click to expand...

Well exactly, you're free to mouth some big chap off but if he smacks you, that's the consequence.
 
RaptorSA said:
:confused:
No man. That is utter BS.
By that definition almost every person in the world has freedom of expression rights, it's just the consequences that differ.
Click to expand...

Working for FHM is not a human right.
 
Celine said:
they are representatives of the magazine, therefore they should behave in an appropriate manner and not tarnish the reputation of the magazine. especially on a public platform such a facebook.
Click to expand...

If you are the cleaning maid for IBM that makes you a representative?

Just because you work for someone doesn't mean everything you do represents the company.
FHM said this themselves in their statement.
 
Keeper said:
If you are the cleaning maid for IBM that makes you a representative?

Just because you work for someone doesn't mean everything you do represents the company.
FHM said this themselves in their statement.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that if a cleaning maid for IBM did something that brought IBM into disrepute, she would be fired.
 
joelus said:
I'm pretty sure that if a cleaning maid for IBM did something that brought IBM into disrepute, she would be fired.
Click to expand...

Like making an offensive joke for her friends on facebook?
She should be fired for that?
 
Keeper said:
Like making an offensive joke for her friends on facebook?
She should be fired for that?
Click to expand...

If there is a huge public outcry about it then yes, she will be fired, since she brought the company into disrepute.
If there is no public outcry and no-one notices it she won't get fired.

That's what you keep failing to understand - the fhm guys were not fired for the 'joke' they were fired for bringing the company into disrepute.
 
At worst they should have been tasked with issuing a public apology and volunteering at an organisation that deals with rape victims. They're being fired for a joke/figure of speech taken too far (from the perspective of the offended), which is ridiculous.
 
Corrective rape is not a figure of speech. They went for plain old shock value. And it shocked, alright. So much so that the public lashed out at them.

Contractually, the issue isn't the shock value. The issue is the repercussions thereafter, which considering they intended shock value, they knew the repercussions thereof. They after all signed an employment contract with standard disrepute clauses.

Ignorance of what one has signed is not a defence...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X