is it right/fair for us to judge/Punish someone just because of their bad tweets in the past that caused them to lose their job?

My personal take, there's precedent for social media screenings in the hiring process for jobs, there's precedent for employees being fired for things they post that reflect poorly on the company in real-time, and knowing those two precedents exist, why would being fired for past outrageous posts suddenly be exempt once you have the job?

I don't believe everything is a fireable offense (which is the actual issue IMO) but the simple act of someone getting fired for shitty past stuff is fair game.

Depends on the situation and faults.

Nobody's faultless. You can look at pretty much any celebrity and find dirt on them. This is probably even more true ( at least in terms of the statements we make ) for your average joe.

No. You shouldn't be fired for posting a "bad" Tweet, especially nowadays. Your Tweet doesn't at all reflect the way you work. Personal life and Job life are not the same thing. I could be a very hard worker, but thinks Transgenderism is mental disability. Doesn't mean I should be fired for it.

I personally think there's always space for improvement but it honestly needs to come from understanding the wrongs of your actions and demonstrating change, now some people might be uncomfortable following that person and I don't blame them.

But what if you are working with a transgender? Would it not create a terrible work environment if everyone is aware of your views on the subject and has a transgender person in the employees?

Depends on how old it was or if they're still bad.

Depends on what it was, how old it was, did they even understand what they were doing, etc.....

Depends on a lot of factors really

@rbt: Not necessarily. There's a difference between on-the-job attitude and off-the-job attitude; so long as the person-in-question doesn't impose their outside beliefs upon that transgendered person, then there shouldn't be any issues. Technically, that goes both ways. It's only a terrible work environment when either side creates drama over it.

Depends on what they said, when and if they actually believed it(I don't think jokes should get people in trouble).

Obviously that's not how it works. I doubt everyone would be okay with, say a known KKK member, just because they don't say racist stuff while they are on the job. You can't expect a black person to be respectful to him knowing full well what his opinions are only because he won't voice those opinions while on the clock. That's not a fair thing to ask from anybody.

@rbt said:

Not at all the time, no. If said person doesn't voice their opinions on the clock, that shows restraint and the willingness to work alongside another person with which they disagree with. I've been in that position before and know the feeling, and it's not a difficult thing to do. Knowing that someone doesn't like you because of your political opinions isn't going to kill you; knowing someone doesn't like you because of your skin color isn't going to kill you, either -- reporting a co-worker after they posted "I hate transgender people," isn't a logical or even a moral reason for getting them fired. Life isn't fair, but working isn't about "feelings," it's about doing the job. Again, it's only a terrible work environment when a side creates drama over it.

@baldur_odinson:

Not at all the time, no. If said person doesn't voice their opinions on the clock, that shows restraint and the willingness to work alongside another person with which they disagree with.

This isn't about which Football team is better or which TV show is better. Its not something that you can end with a "Oh well, lets agree to disagree." You can't say to someone your life is worth less because of your race or gender and when they obviously not agree with that, you end that with a "lets agree to disagree." At least that's how I see it.

I've been in that position before and know the feeling, and it's not a difficult thing to do. Knowing that someone doesn't like you because of your political opinions isn't going to kill you; knowing someone doesn't like you because of your skin color isn't going to kill you, either -- reporting a co-worker after they posted "I hate transgender people," isn't a logical or even a moral reason for getting them fired. Life isn't fair, but working isn't about "feelings," it's about doing the job. Again, it's only a terrible work environment when a side creates drama over it.

I don't know how a drama will not be created over it. But more so than that, why would any employer ever risk it? Maybe you're right. Maybe there are people with enough self restraint and professionalism in themselves that they are willing to spend 40 hours a week with someone who hates them for their race or gender or country and not feel uncomfortable. But there are likely very few employers who would bet that all of their employees are capable of that.

Why should an employer risk their work environment becoming toxic and hence less productive over one person's view of who is mentally sound or who gets to live? They shouldn't have to make that gamble if all of their employees are going to be alright working alongside someone who hates them. The scenario you are presenting is far less likely to happen, so its not a good gamble either.

There's so many different factors to answer this and no two situations are going to be the same. There's no yes or no answer to this as a whole and you have to look pretty case by case imo.

1) Yes it is, and sure you can. Free speech grants you the ability to say whatever you want, and no one, not even an employer, can take that away from you. There's also this fun little thing called "ignoring" someone when they've said something you don't agree with. Words can't hurt you unless you let them; physical actions are what's primarily a concern, though.

2) The best way is to ignore the drama, which anyone can do. If they ignore the drama someone else starts with them, the drama is going to fade away; I'm not saying that that happens regularly, but possibly more than you think. Why should an employer risk it? Well, the employer doesn't actually know whether risking it is good or bad or in-between; all they can do is hope that it doesn't spiral out of control when it occurs, then they're forced to take the necessary steps in dismantling it. Like I mentioned before, working isn't about feelings, it's about the job; I personally don't care if someone I work with has a hard-on for hating me based on my appearance, it doesn't stop me from working alongside them. I wish others had the same work ethic as I do.

3) That depends on who creates the risk. If one employee posts an anti-religious image of Jesus while off the clock, and another employee sees it and reports the former employee to their employer, then begins gossiping with other employees about it while on the clock, should the former employee be punished? No. That's why the employer should figure out where the potential risk is at. Which, in this case, would be latter employee. You're right, though. The employer has to be smart enough to recognize problems before they happen; although, I'm a strong believer in that, whatever is said outside of work, has no place at work, and anyone using Free Speech (and not inciting violence), can't be punished by an employer outside of the job. Anything and everything is far less or far more plausible events.

not unless u wanna be judged, I don't judge people who support BLM

Depends on quite a few factors, most of which have already been outlined. I would go on a case by case basis.

I might forgive someone like Sabrina Claudio because while what she said was clearly offensive, she was also 14 years old at the time. James Gunn on the other hand...no way in hell am I ever overlooking those tweets. I'll probably never watch a movie he made again. I sure as hell skipped Brightburn.

@indomitableregal: What did Gunn say?

@baldur_odinson: 1 or 2 years back, a lot of decade old James Gunn tweets resurfaced -- at least a couple dozen. Basically, they were a bunch of homophobic, and pedophilic tweets, and included...jokes about rape, molestation, AIDS, the Holocaust, masturbation (to children), etc. I won't post any of the tweets here because they're nuts, but they're still online if you feel like looking for yourself. Some people excused them because they were old, but James Gunn is in his mid 50s. He was already in his 40s when he tweeted all of that.

Pretty much this. I don't think something that was tweeted by someone as a kid shouldn't be taken seriously although it can be argued if this person still maintains these views.

A lot of private companies pre-screen their potential employees' social media for things like this anyway, so it's not a novel concept. If some tweets are highly offensive or become highly publicized to the extent the company thinks you're hurting their brand, they have the right to fire you. But like others have said, there are factors to consider.

It's just public relations

Not your real relations

Salutations

Hallucinations

Fooling nations

I mean I think it depends but I also think everyone should be held to the same standards.

Like I've seen bad but not too bad tweets from one group of people and they are fired and ostracized but then another person says something a million times worse and nothing is done.

It depends on the situation and context, always. However, it is your responsibility not to say things you shouldn't say on social media.

No, people say terrible things all the time it’s not a crime. I think people get offended way too easily, I understand saying something while at a job but to get fired over something you said years before you even thought about applying to said job, that’s a little crazy

People aren't allowed to learn from their mistakes no matter how much time has passed, we know this

It just Depends On what you posted and when you posted it. Although most companies just fires people because it’s easier then trying to see if someone’s changed or to try to protect them from the media.

Depends upon various factors.

The problem is that with time... movements change. What people kind of thought to be ok back then becomes worse as time goes on. Nobody took edgelords seriously until things actually started happening. To a lot of people, it comes as culture shock. That is why you are seeing PLENTY of cases with this happening. I mean PLENTY, this means at some point this was kind of normal depending on the community they are in.

With tweets, I am not saying all, but often times tweets are taken out of context, because they are just tweets. The bear words that have a connection to the bad, but don't really have the intent of malice at all. The reason people are getting kicked out, most especially actors, is a case of saving face. It doesn't seem about what is wrong and what is right to do but when you are a figure who holds bad publicity, it will reach towards the company who holds you, thus affecting their reputation and profits. Even if it was a past post and the person supposedly learned long ago to not do that, it is not something a very large amount of people will have and would prefer anyone who did any wrong in their lives, be outed immediately.

To me with what is right or wrong, don't support the wrong, but to be perpetually condemned for what you do, is no way to live life, especially for a tweet.

I feel like of they didn't do a proper background check it shouldn't apply. If they do it AFTER they're hired it's fair game but if it's like a retcon it seems kinda dumb.

I feel I should add something else. There's a problem concerning Grammar and Punctuation on social media. Because Grammar and Punctuation is a sign of intelligence and education, it also makes "context" a hard subject to take seriously, since people love misconstruing what is said and transform it into something it's not. Has anyone else seen this?

Hell no.

Very situational but as a general consensus I'd say forgiving is very much possible. It's not a past is the past thing but people do indeed change. What someone said years ago may reflect nothing about how they are today and they may even be disgusted with it but are unable to take it off the internet. I'd say get to know how the person is currently before punishing/judging them based off their past or past statements.

Situational, but largely, unless you're outright endorsing violence, it shouldn't affect your work. People have a right to their personal life, no matter how wrong their views are.

@indomitableregal: what about Hartley Sawyer? His past tweets were bad but I think they should give him a second chance. CW is about giving people a second chance. If they could do it for Amber Heard and Ezra Miller. Why can't Hartley Sawyer?

People can change. It's not fair to judge people based on every stupid thing they've said in the past. But if they're still saying those stupid things today, then it's fair game

It’s wrong to judge but it’s good to hold famous people accountable for their words and deeds

Like I said, case by case scenario. You just brought up 3 completely different cases. And how did you come to the conclusion that "CW is about giving people a second chance"? And who's the "they" that gave a second chance for Heard and Miller? Realistically, neither is in need of a second chance because they never lost their first one. You're kind of all over the place here.

Anyway, it's not like someone dug up 1 or 2 tweets from Sawyer. There were a lot of them, and they were homophobic, sexist/misogynistic, and racist. And they spanned 5+ years. Even assuming he's changed, there should still be some accountability. I don't even see the point in mentioning Ezra Miller because as far as I could tell, there were zero consequences. He choked -- sorry, gently guided by the throat -- a woman, apparently spit on people, and had to be escorted from the premises. And nothing happened. No threat of losing Flash or anything of the sort. That story came and went without so much as an apology. And that wasn't "the past", it was 6 months ago. Amber Heard is an ongoing case, but it seems to be split between support for Depp and support for her. And neither seems to be losing too much work considering she's working on Aquaman 2 and he's working on Fantastic Beasts 3.

Time for cancel culture!

No, people change. Your past self doesn't always reflect the present.

@indomitableregal: DCCW show, is about giving people a second chance. When I say them, I'm referring to the CW Producer / showrunner. I must add James Gunn. The man got his job back. Both at DC and Marvel.

Again, how did you come to the conclusion of "CW is about second chances"? And what do CW producers have to do with Heard and Miller? And I don't know why you brought up Gunn. He was literally the example I used of someone I wouldn't give a second chance to.

Like that chick that said she would kill Trump supporters yeah she deserved to be fired and blacklisted..