Bravo to ESPN.
Paul Shirley, former NBA benchwarmer, while writing for ESPN decided to offer his venture outside of his sports purview to offer his thoughts on aid to Haiti, birth control, homelessness and other topics in which he was far less than ill-informed in which to comment.
That alone should get you fired from writing for a sports news service. But when you see what he actually wrote, it’s amazing that the ESPN editorial board did not manage to keep Shirley from stabbing himself in a literary sense and prevent it from being published in the first place.
Nevertheless, ESPN did the right thing in the end. Here’s a sampling of what Shirley had to say.
(And before anyone comes with the tired “free speech” argument, this is not a free speech issue. Paul Shirley is “free” to make the comments, and ESPN is “free” to fire him. You are not granted an inalienable right to have a column, only not to go to jail for any viewpoint which might have been expressed in it. No tired “free speech” arguments today please.)
RELATED:
ESPN Was Smart to Fire Paul Shirley
“I haven’t donated a cent to the Haitian relief effort. And I probably will not,” wrote Mr. Shirley on the Flip Collective website. “I haven’t donated to the Haitian relief effort for the same reason that I don’t give money to homeless men on the street. Based on past experiences, I don’t think the guy with the sign that reads ‘Need You’re Help’ is going to do anything constructive with the dollar I might give him. If I use history as my guide, I don’t think the people of Haiti will do much with my money either.”
Dear Haitians –
First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure, and birth control should be applauded. As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a polite request: If it’s possible, could you not re-build your island home in the image of its predecessor? Could you not resort to the creation of flimsy shanty- and shack-towns? And could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Sincerely,
The Rest of the World
27 responses to “ESPN Blogger Fired for Haiti Remarks (Damn Right)”
Ignorance at its finest!!!
Wow! Just wow!!!
His momma should've named him Shirley Paul, because he is SUCH a little girl.
If we outlaw stupid remarks, a whole lot of us are in serious trouble.
Same for insensitivity.
You prove my point Walt. You should know better. To "outlaw" means to make it "against the law." Stupid remarks and insensitivity haven't been "outlawed" and aren't even close to such. They are increasingly "unwelcome." Stupid remarks and insensitivity won't get you jail time and won't get you arrested (except for "bomb" in an airport etc.).
This is the huge rub of capitalism. You want to espouse "freedom" and "capitalism" but forget that capitalism also means that money will be the ultimate arbiter as to what is "stupid" and what is "insensitive" and how they both can impact the bottom line. Capitalism is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
When "stupid" and "insensitive" are no longer variables in the capitalism equation, then in a backwards way, we've moved into a Stalinist state. Until then, businesses are allowed (and should be allowed) to protect their interests.
I as a business am free to NOT allow certain types of behavior. Next month when I'm on my own server and own domain…it is my choice as to what is "allowed" to be posted on my website. It is my choice as to whether I "allow" hate speech, stupid speech or simply anything distasteful to Mo'Kelly speech on the site. It is my choice as to what I allow guest writers to post. Because I wish to protect my interests (all of them). But anyone is free to write as they wish elsewhere.
"Freedom" is not "free to do as you please wherever you want whenever you want." "Freedom" is "being able to pursue your legal dreams" without prosecution. That's the key distinction. The meaning of freedom is LITERAL. Your physical FREEDOM. But persecution is well within the rules, i.e. folks aren't obligated to like you, hire you, endorse you, coddle you, continually pay you for work detrimental to the company name, etc.B
But your FREEDOM (physical freedom as outlined in the constitution) has not been impacted.
There is no meaningful distinction between having a right flatly denied ("You are NOT allowed to smoke cigarettes!") and having it denied "only" if you participate in a common behavior ("You will NOT be hired for this job if you are a smoker!"; "We will NOT sell you life insurance if you are a smoker!" "If you smoke around your children we can take them away from you!")
In other words, the more that corporations flez their "right" to quash uncomfortable speech, the more the right itself comes under threat.
After all, every blog, including Morris', is actually "owned" by the service which hosts it. And though they can't be held strictly liable for what he says here (any more than ESPN could be held accountable for one blogger's comments), they can decide at any time that his speech makes them uncomfortable, and pull the plug.
Sure, he can land somewhere else, until they too decide to ban uncomfortable speech.
If there is no platform for your speech, that is indistinguishable from having that speech inhibited.
As the electronic world becomes the platform for all significant social media, the threat that corporations, not the government, will determine what "freedoms" we enjoy is not only real but palpable.
Walt, you're confusing the meanings of freedoms and rights. ESPN is a business, who has the "right" to the "pursuit of happiness." You will not find a business anywhere that doesn't have an employee code of conduct and much of what is found in it has nothing to do with illegal behavior. It has mostly to do with the working environment within the organization and how it wishes to be perceived outside the workplace.
As a writer, I can assure you there are editorial guidelines (and an ombudsman) for ESPN. This isn't about "uncomfortable" speech. This is about maintaining a business. Once again, nobody's "freedoms" have been truncated here. ESPN under no circumstances is required to provide a platform in which Shirley can pursue his rants. It is their bandwidth, their company name which gives Shirley any "legitimacy" and most importantly their money which supplies both.
To use your own words Walt, "sure he can land somewhere else" is validation of the fact that his freedoms haven't been truncated. Whether he does or not doesn't factor into the equation. The fact is…he CAN. He has that ability. THAT is the definition of freedom. He can start his own blog, his own network and type away to his heart's content.
He was an EMPLOYEE of ESPN, and there are guidelines for all its employees, as is true for the NBA, McDonald's and even Wal-Mart. You are not "free" to represent an employer any way you want AND also keep your job.
OMG! This is absolutely ridiculous! I am appalled at his ignorance. How can you be so mean and insensitive? These people have lost everything. I'm glad they fired him.
Morris,
I was aware of your distinction when I made my comment.
If you can't see how "censorship" can be enforced "sideways" through corporate fear and conformity…
Don't you realize that, once all humans use certain methods to communicate, it will be that much easier to control and restrict speech itself?
Walt,
You are disfiguring the definition of censorship. You have the right to say what you want, not the right to say it on any media platform in which you're not the owner. He was hired to write for ESPN, subject to ESPN guidelines and regulations. If he doesn't like that, he can write elsewhere. He is not guaranteed to be able to write everything on everyone's website. ESPN doesn't pay him for that. In fact, what he wrote didn't even appear on ESPN and ESPN simply chose to end the relationship. That's not censorship. That's good business sense.
When you write "Capitalism is doing exactly what it's supposed to do"
You may never have written a scarier phrase in your life, and I doubt that you actually believe it in all its potential effect.
Capitalism's job is to control speech?
(a) Incredibly scary
(b) Already happening
(c) Unwittingly justified by those who can't see what's coming.
There was an excellent article in The Gleaner a Jamaican newspaper. The title of the article That US $21b Debt to Haiti. It provided great insight into the problems of Haiti. Needless to say that old devil colonialism had much to do with Hait's problems. Too many Americans avoid looking back on the history of things to get a better understanding. When people express attitudes such as this it just proves to me that they have no idea of what a global perspective means. And unfortunately they don't care.
Hey, Walt. I would suggest to you that yes, Capitalism's job is to control speech, but only to protect and sustain itself, specifically any speech that negatively affects Capitalism.
Capitalism's main jobs are to continue existing and to make more money, and the same can be said for a business. Speech- or anything else- that hinders or threatens the success of Capitalism or said business must be dealt with in some way, in order to protect it's interests. Businesses can eliminate or disassociate themselves from the threat or hinderance.
Is that scary? Somewhat, but if you can see it coming, it's less so.
Is it already happening? Sure, for decades, maybe centuries.
Justified by people? I wouldn't say that. Predicting something is not the same as justifying it.
Speak on Paul Shirley, because I'm not sending a dime. And it's funny how Americans run to help but if WE needed help… No One would show up. Trust and Believe…
Oh, you mean except for Katrina and 9/11 right? With the exceptions of those American disasters. Stephanie, there's what you say and there's what has actually happened.
If you are pointing towards the lack of support for the War on Iraq, that was a Bush thing…for an unjust war. So yeah, if you call that indicative of the world forsaking us…bad example to choose.
Morris wrote:
:In fact, what he wrote didn’t even appear on ESPN and ESPN simply chose to end the relationship."
I didn't know that, and it only escalates the stakes.
Dramatically.
Now I know I need to blog about this myself.
Baba,
The implications for what you imply – the crushing of all dissent – is incredibly frightening.
And now I learn that this guy's comments weren't even on ESPN.
NOW what are we dealing with?
To your point Walt,
Tiger didn't even cheat during a Buick commercial and Gilbert Arenas didn't bring his guns to an Adidas meeting. Both still dropped them from their endorsement deals. Granted, it may not be a "free speech" issue but speaks to the heart of Baba Kifo's argument…capitalism is the arbiter. We have the choice to associate ourselves with whomever when it comes to business. If you are a financial liability, you are gone.
Morris,
I appreciate the examples you gave. It helps us move the dialog.
I would counter that neither of those relationships were severed due to Tiger or Gilbert stating their opinion about something.
What we have here is a blogger being "fired" for what he chose to blog about, and worse than that, for what he chose to blog about somewhere else.
No, Walt. He was not fired for what he chose to blog about. I haven't seen his employment agreement but most are clear that if your personal conduct should bring embarrassment or negative publicity to the organization, you can be terminated…including yet not limited to blogs elsewhere. You are making it only about the content of his rant and what I and Baba have been trying to explain is that it's about capitalism…you don't bring negative attention to ESPN, which affects sponsors and money.
If Shirley were to hang around it would have only been a matter of time before people would have been calling for boycotts of ESPN and its advertisers.
Again, Shirley's speech hasn't been limited. He can continue posting whatever he likes in the forum he originally posted it. But it doesn't mean he can continue to write for ESPN. It's a private company with private interests. They are in no way obligated to feature any and all viewpoints.
And neither is Fox News for that matter.
His "personal conduct" was to write a blog post.
Yup…that's more than enough.
[…] that his presence was no longer wanted. Morris was highly in favor of that outcome and dedicated two separate posts to it, the second of which also appeared on HuffingtonPost.com. If Morris saw any […]
You know, another parellel that comes to mind when we talk about this? Remember, not too long ago when Rush Limbaugh wanted to become part owner of a NFL team? To me, that situation seems similar to this one. It even involves a similar financial entity. The NFL reacted to protect itself from what it believed would be an action that would negatively affect business, profits, etc. That decision does not have any direct relationship to the content of Limbaugh's free speech. It is a reaction to the proposed or predicted effect said free speech would have on ESPN's business.
Same thing here.
The fact that Shirley's post was not on an ESPN-owned or -affiliated site is mostly irrelevant. For ESPN to continue a business relationship- of any type- with Shirley, would have exposed the company to the risk of profit loss, the loss of business relationships with sponsors, and the small possiblity of litigation. This is an unacceptable risk for most any profit-driven company, but especially one opperating in a sponsor-driven business market such as a cable tv programming.
Bingo…
Perceptions of racial bias played a bigger role in that scenario than did Limbaugh's conservative views.
When several black players immediately say that they will not play for his team, your problem goes a bit deeper than PR…