Subnautica developer fired over "many hateful statements"

Sound designer Simon Chylinski was dropped from underwater survival game after history of insensitive tweets

[Vits]

He was fired because he made the "attack helicopter" joke, denied the "pay gap" and is anti-immigration. All of that on twitter.

Jesus, the guy is basically Hitler.... /joke

[PEEPer]

Did you miss his tweet about 3rd world level - IQ? I think this was the deciding factor.

[Vits]

This is along with the rest of his anti-immigration post. And honestly, I do not think that is offensive in any way, I mean, is a statistical fact that the IQ in third world countries is in average lower. Having said that, I don't think it's a very strong argument in the immigration debate either. I imagine that most problems with immigrants have more to do with cultural differences than with an arbitrary measure of cognitive abilities.

But I'm not defending the guy either. While expressing your opinion is always great, we are not free from the consequences of what we say and in an age where we see more and more people losing their jobs or being persecuted by mobs for expressing the wrong opinion, this guy could have been a bit more careful.

On the other hand, I think that firing someone on account of some tweets is an exaggerated attitude. And the fact that he was fired just two weeks after Subnautica was finished does not smell good either.

This whole situation is kind of unreal and funny to be honest.

[BadElf]

Because 3rd World Countries have soooo many Libraries and Schools to learn? Because most of the people in those Countries are getting their College degrees, right? Because Internet Access and Computers are available for ALL those people with "high" IQ...right?
Ohhhhhh. So again...why was that a "deciding factor"??

[antikbaka]

wouldn't it naturally go down as people with higher IQ flee those places? High immigration decreases the average number of IQ greatly

[Gunstar75]

IQ is cultural.
Otherwise we would all be admitting that the Chinese are the superior race

[Dee_91]

@Vits
"a statistical fact"
Dear god... then you go on the proclaim how an large part of the human population should be looked down upon, or for whatever idiotic reason you bring up that "statistical fact", because of "low iq". Stats consist of analytical data, with many varying factors to determine said stat. So to claim a stat to be factual in itself is asinine. I really don't care about this either way, I just hate to see people misuse statistical data, and I hate it even more when you people misuse statistical data to force some idiotic bigotry you believe in.

OT
I think they used the wrong word. I was thinking, stupid instead of insensitive. He's clearly not that bright and I don't think he should have gotten fired over that.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@Vits-the developers free to fire this dude because of those comments they don't want their company attached to this type of discriminatory Behavior

I mean that person's free to think what they want and say what they feel like..... At another company.

I would do the same thing. (Thankfully I've never had to fire anyone from my business.....yet)

[TheCommentator]

Can we fire Trump then? THAT would be awesome!

[Doughhead]

No, you have 7 more years of him.

[TheCommentator]

@ disagrees

Really? No one thinks Trump's Twitter account is worse than this guys?

I don't want to go on a political rant, but look up how much hate-filled ignorance Trump spews (and his actions as an individual) if you disagree.

[Servbot41]

Those all sound hilarious and somewhat true.

[Drithe]

The only thing I have to say is that a company needs to let it's employees know of it's "values" before they hire a person. But you have to be smart too. Just remember to treat people with respect, whether you agree with them or not. In other words, keep your politics to yourself except when voting.

[CrystalFantasy]

How is my comment inappropriate but not yours? Smh.

[S2Killinit]

lol I have no idea. (:

[Vits]

I think because mine has a summary of what the guy did and a joke. While yours only have a joke?
Or maybe is because I flagged the joke with a "/joke" or most likely is because my avatar is very charming.

[bluefox755]

SJWs strike again.

[NarooN]

Him being fired makes perfect sense. Think whatever you will about his ideological and political stances, but he was an employee of that company and the stuff he said is sensitive and offensive in nature because those are topical issues which are fairly taboo and sensitive in nature. As an employee if you put that type of shit out there, it makes the rest of the company look bad as a result simply by association. That can lead to PR blowback and they don't want to upset investors.

If he wanted to not get fired, he should've simply decided to not be a dipshit in a public setting.

[bigmalky]

So many people losing jobs for their right to freedom of speech.

Surely that's wrong, no matter what anyone's views are. Companies should not be allowed to use social media to spy on their employees. It's an invasion of personal thought to do this.

[Majin-vegeta]

Yes you're able to say What you want but doesn't stop consequences from happening to you.

[EatCrow]

There should be no consequences for inconsequential comments.
Now if he was actively bullying people on twitter then yes...there should be consequences there. Voicing your opinions that are shared with many others should not be consequential.

[AnubisG]

So if the best doctor on the planet who is this close to cure cancer sais screw SJW's and gender pay gap is made up, than he should be fired and prevented to be a doctor because he said something the far left nutcases who are the loudest today don't like? Do you really believe that?

[fiveby9]

But you can bet that if his comments were in support of the notion of a pay-gap, pro illegal immigration, and pro sjw, he would not have been fired. Those are controversial opinions just as well but you can't be fired over them. If anything, you're promoted.

[Sono421]

fiveby9 couldn't have said it any better, it's all about having the "right" opinion which is simply toxic. This is where america is heading, simply sad.

[frostypants]

@EatCrow: "There should be no consequences for inconsequential comments."

So you should be forced to employ people you can't stand and who you feel hurt your company's image? Interesting...

And define "inconsequential". If even just one person doesn't buy the game because of a dev's social idiocy, that is consequential. Or perhaps a potential job candidate is lost because they see this. Or maybe it gets used as evidence of behavior in a discrimination lawsuit later. Plenty of OBVIOUS avenues for consequence here. Think like a business owner.

Sorry people, but the reality is your social actions have always impacted your employability. And blabbering on social media is a social action. Nobody wants to employ a jerk, and what constitutes a jerk is rightly subjective.

[Ogygian]

Freedom of speech means the freedom to share thoughts without consequences. To say otherwise exposes a grave misunderstanding of the concept itself. By your logic, freedom of speech exists where your government executes you for it, as this is a consequence.

I'm surprised your post has so many upvotes, to be honest.

Besides, how does this benefit anyone? You can't punish someone into changing their mind about something. Is he to remain unemployed? Go homeless? For some naive idea about corporate freedom?

[JackBNimble]

This person is a known developer for a company, which means this person under that profile that he or she was using, is representing their company.

Had this person said these things under a profile that was not in anyway linked to the company he works for , then there wouldn't be a problem.

There is freedom of speech and then there is just plain stupid.

[Hungryalpaca]

Cool so you’re fine if I go through your comment history and send it to your employer?

Alright. I’ll get right to it.

[Ashlen]

@AnubisG

First off doctors are bound by a code of ethics so if they violate that then yes.

Let me put this into practice. In Nazi internment camps lots of completely inhumane "medical research" was done on unwilling participants do you personally think that is correct and acceptable if it cured cancer?

[rainslacker]

@SPARTAN

freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Freedom of speech by law, only prevents the government from persecuting people for expressing their opinion. Freedom of speech is in no way required to be adhered to by the individual, and any indivual or company....Since they are now considered individuals...Is free to dole out any consequence it feels suitable for someone expressing an opinion....as is their right under free speech laws.

People act like the company here doesn't also have a right to express how it feels about this man's opinions, where I see it as them doing just that by diaassociating themselves from him.

Freedom of speech has to go both ways, and that's something a lot of people often forget. In any case, when it comes ofnthe rule of law, freedom of speech is only relevant from the government doing something about the man's opinions.

[generic-user-name]

"Go ahead, say whatever you want" says man holding a gun who will shoot you if you say something he doesn't agree with.

[ThanatosDMC]

Well hopefully someone will sue a company and win for discrimination or however lawyers would spin it.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@Anu- yes but you have to understand is the board of directors of the hospital is free to hire or fire who they feel like it many times.

I don't know why anyone believes that Simply Having a really good job or important job somehow means that somebody is allowed to keep you hired regardless of what you say 😂😂😂
28514; yeeeeea no, the world doesn't work that way buddy.

If I hire someone and it's my company and they have these views I very much have no problem firing them because I do not want that type of attention or stigma attached to my company.

If you have those views trust me you're free to continue to have those views and I'll even put in a great recommendation but you're not going to be working for my company.

@Spar- "without consequences" it means without consequence in regards to government agencies if you're actually freely expressing it in a way that is not to purposely deceive.

Soooo no, it does not actually mean you're free to have any type comments you feel like it will working at a company because freedom of speech does not actually supercede a company's rights if they decide to hire you (or fire you because of those views).

It is not a free pass to say anything and then have zero consequences whatsoever in regards to another company.

The part about 0 consequence has to do with government, that has nothing to do with a company that decides to hire you especially if that is a privately owned company in which you're literally writing in a contract that you can be fired at THEIR discretion.

@Rain- good read, best comment here.

[starchild]

@ rainslacker

The problem with that is that it represents a form of discrimination. The current laws are extremely inconsistent when it comes to discrimination. Why can the government force a private entity not to discriminate on the basis of things such as race or religion, yet people are not protected from discrimination on the basis of their political views?

If an individual person or company can discriminate against someone for their political views they should also be free to discriminate for any other reason they choose.

Either private companies should have the right to discriminate for any reason (and only government institutions be forced not to discriminate) or private businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against somebody for their political views.

[RacerX]

This guy lost his job for tweeting statistical facts from the Department of Justice website.

Facts Trump feelings.

[munchmiller]

I say this in all seriousness and with all due respect. When you post something on "social media"? It's no longer "personal thought". It's now...... public though. Consequences for your public opinion is nothing new.

Protip? Keep it to yourself.

[Omnisonne]

Yeah this should be obvious by now. Social media is NOT the platform of free speech that it once was, anything said on those platforms that doesn't fit the current social narrative can and will be used against you if others wish to do so. On top of that it's proven to be heavily surveillanced in the past.
You could try create an anonymous account, but covering up your personal data requires a bit of know-how.

Either keep things to yourself or avoid it entirely, better safe than sorry.

[Sono421]

but firing someone for having different beliefs to your own is simply wrong. How is that any different then firing someone for the religion they believe? I'll tell you.. it isn't, just because he has in their eyes the "wrong" opinion he is being fired, and that in and of itself is wrong. Pure liberal sjw garbage, we need to move past this phase in time already it's only toxic.

[fiveby9]

@munchmiller I personally don't post political opinions in my name publicly. It' just not how I like to conduct myself. But how often do you hear of someone who takes what would be considered controversial progressive opinions get fired? I think the consequences are not being levied equitably. That is partly what is at issue here. Can you imagine the backlash if a company fired someone over posting their controversial progressive comments? Only people who hold non-progressive opinions have to live in fear of posting their opinions. That is wrong.

[Ogygian]

No, that's complete nonsense. The dichotomy is not public/private, but professional/private.

What is said when at work, or as a representative of your workplace is professional (I mean, using a professional social media account, as opposed to a private one). Everything else is private.

Enough nonsensical rhetoric. This decision is indefensible.

[garos82]

yeah be a good boy and shut up! Its a fantastic world we live in when we cant even share a "controversial" opinion without the thought police coming in to take our livelihoods away.

Whats next? putting people in jail for wrong think?

Freedom of Speech is dead

[Ashlen]

@Sono421

"but firing someone for having different beliefs to your own is simply wrong. How is that any different then firing someone for the religion they believe? I'll tell you.. it isn't, just because he has in their eyes the "wrong" opinion he is being fired, and that in and of itself is wrong. Pure liberal sjw garbage, we need to move past this phase in time already it's only toxic. "

So when Trump fires judges and other political appointees who don't agree with with his opinions that's wrong?

[BadElf]

Exactly what the PC, Liberal, Feminists want...for ALL opposing views to be SILENCED and demanding people keep it to themselves.....
Yeah.....no thanks.

[antikbaka]

comunistic USSR totally would have agreed with you.

[rainslacker]

You can still express opinions, but they need to be respectful and not targeted...although there are cases of targeting...like someone saying they dislike a politician. It's usually the people that say things in inciteful ways that causes problems, although there are timetimes when things get blown out of proportion on extremely volatile issues of the moment which tend to only be relevant for a couple weeks.

More generally speaking though, if you are publicly associated with a company, it's usually just better to keep it to yourself. For the most part, the people on the internet aren't your friends and don't really care what you have to say. It's people looking for validation for their opinions they likely can't get elsewhere that usually act stupid in social media, and eventually run into problems like this when others who don't actually care about this person end up getting pissed off at what someone else has to say

@sono

Most companies.that have a public face have rules against making inciteful comments if a person is associated with that company publicly. It's wrong for them to fire someone for having an opinion
, not for expressing it publicly while associated with the company at the same time.

Heck, for some of the criticism I give to me on here I could be fired by my company who is a partner of ms. But since I don't have a public face and I'm not publicly associated with the company I work for on here or elsewhere, I can pretty much say what I want.

[Orionsangel]

It's not about freedom of speech when you're representing a company. The guy put himself out there promoting and representing the game. When you're a company trying to maintain a positive image and trying to sell games you don't want a person spouting negative comments. For example, if she Shigeru Miyamoto was tweeting, i hate Jews. That wouldn't fly over well and it would effect the company. The same way Trump's mouth is effecting the Presidency. Words matters and they have consequences.

[bigmalky]

Life is not about your job. As workers are asked to respect their employers while at work, employers should respect a worker's rights to be an individual human being with independent thought when not at the desk.

Harming a brand name is corporate claptrap. Everyone is their own man/woman for every hour they do not get paid at work. Saying otherwise is to shun your freedom to be an individual.

[JackBNimble]

Bigmalky
This is what happens in the real world, there is no such thing as freedom of speech when you're representing your employer.
You kids need educated yourselves because it wouldn't matter who you work for, if you say utter shit on a public forum while using a profile that directly links you to your employer then expect to be fired.

[CorndogBurglar]

Freedom of Speech does not mean your words won't have consequences. There's a big difference and this is something that people on message boards never seem to get.

Is the company he works for really SPYING on him? He posted his comments on social media for everyone to see. That isn't spying.

Also, when you are employed by a company, you are representing that company even when you are not at work. If you are saying things that go against the company's opinions or stance on a certain subject then they have every reason/right to fire you if they feel the need.

I just find it hysterical at this point that ADULTS still don't understand that social media is not a private forum. Its like that friend that everyone has on Facebook that is constantly documenting their entire life but then gets mad that people don't mind their own business.

If you are putting your opinions and political standpoints on social media then don't be surprised when people see it and act on it. Social Media os nothing new and we see stories like this all the time, and people just never learn lol.

[Nitrowolf2]

Nobody prohibited him from exercising his right to freedom of speech.

Why do people have such a hard time understanding that just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean there are consequences. Somebody tells me where it says that you have freedom of speech and anything you say excuses you from any consequences

[Omnisonne]

When people get fired and/or attacked for stating unpopular opinions, it tends to disincentivise others from sharing similar thoughts aswell, be it politics or other.
Now if you would say something outragous like ''I enjoy murdering people in this and that way, and i'm looking for my next victim'' then yeah, consequences are to be expected.
But people sharing differing political opinions should be encouraged rather than suppressed, which is what situations like these tend to do.

[rainslacker]

@omni

Yes. That is what happens. Parties exercise their rights of freedom of expression, and while doing so, a society and it values or ideals are shaped.

In this case the company expressed itself, thus showing that having such an opinion may prove unpopular and have consequences do people think twice before posting such a thing.

Is it right to influence opinion in such a way? Does it matter? That is how society has been shaped for a long time now, and its not something new that came along with social media.

[Omnisonne]

@rainslacker

"Is it right to influence opinion in such a way? Does it matter? That is how society has been shaped for a long time now, and its not something new that came along with social media.''

Yeah, and that's also how echochamers are created, and all the ''great'' societies that were born from such circumstances if you take it to extremes.

[CorndogBurglar]

Put it like this: If you owned a company would you want your employees going on Social Media and promoting racial superiority? Even though they are not forcing anyone into their way of thinking. They are simply making these comments on Facebook and are a representative of your company. You would be okay with that?

Because what would happen next is that your company gets accused of hiring pro-nazi supporters. As a business owner, is that what you would want? Probably not.

This is no different.

[bigmalky]

Declaring your views on subjects is not the same as victimisation. You should not be sacked for an opinion.

There are consequences to freedom of speech, yes, but there is a huge difference from speaking your mind and going out of your way to victimise someone... Something that both sides do frequently.

If you are found guilty if harassment, yes, your position should be put into question. If your opinions offend someone who doesn't hold your mindset, then no, it should hold no consequence in your employ.

If everyone was allowed to be sacked for saying things online that disagreed with one person or another, very few people would have jobs.

It's unfair to sack someone if you just disagree or feel offended by their comments if not direct abuse.

[Omnisonne]

Affiliating yourself with a movement that caused millions of deaths is obviously the exact same as denying the wage-gap.

I get that it puts the owner of the company in a tough situation, but if it's something as mild as being critical of the wage gap and immigration, its a really crappy reason to fire someone.

[EatCrow]

He doesn't claim racial superiority. If anything he claims individual superiority. I just call that pride.

It's the whole accusation culture and labels that have companies and employees in fact all of society in such an awkward mess of a bind.

[JackBNimble]

You can't be fired for your own opinion, but you sure as hell can be fired the second you voice that opinion on any public forum while representing the company you work for.
Disagree all you want, but this is how it is.

[Fiddlerblue]

The first amendment only protects free speech/expression from government persecution. Private institutions can pretty much do whatever they like unless they are acting on behalf of a government or otherwise pushing things like employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary with coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union. Things like that.

Whether or not it was right for him to lose his job over an opinion is up for debate. I will say that it's pretty common knowledge that if you're in a high-profile position and you post in a public forum then yeah, it becomes the company's business what you're saying mostly because what you say can have a direct impact on sales if people out there start boycotting your game (also freedom of expression) over that employee's public posts. I don't think anyone at the company really cares about his personal opinions. They care about the bottom line. It's what makes the business world go 'round.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed

I've never had to fire anyone yet from my business but trust me if something like that showed up on one of their social media profiles, I would have no problem firing them.

[ShottyatLaw]

If the viewpoints you "share" on social media affect a business in any negative way, your employment may be in jeopardy.

The best example is when your opinions are not shared by an important client/customer. I'm sorry, but if your personal musings costs someone business, you're going to be told to exercise those freedoms of expression while working elsewhere.

You can choose not to be censored, just as employers can choose not to employ you. You're entitled to your opinions, just don't think your employers aren't entitled to fire you for them.

And to the young people applying for jobs, keep that stuff private or delete it all together.

[Kumakai]

Companies have a right to ethics and moral clauses. You agree to them when you accept the job. If you don’t follow them and your values don’t line up with th mission statement of the company, you can be fired. It’s at will employment. Just like how have a right to Not wear shoes but a restaurant can kick you out. And technically his rights weren’t violated. He lost his job as a consequence of his employers ethics clause but he didn’t get arrested or go to jail. The company has a right to protect its own values and image.

[bigmalky]

Sorry, but uniform code and how you think and your opinions are left at the door when you leave work.

If work wants to control our opinions and what we post on our personal accounts online, then the must pay us for each hour outside the workplace... It's as simple as that.

An employer has no right to control what you do or think in your personal time, as long as it is not breaking the law.

Employee rules only apply when you are being paid, and the only way they should be allowed to act on personal thought, is if you are using work equipment on work time to so so.

This needs new laws.

[JackBNimble]

This person used the same twitter account to give progress updates as well as voice his opinion and that's where he went wrong. That twitter account made him a representative of his company. Had this person used a different Twitter account not linked to his employer and voiced his opinion then that would be different.

[bumbleforce]

Free speech is ok as long as it's approved by social justice warriors

[Christopher]

Free Speech is related to the actions of the government taken against those who speak out, not the public's response to what you've said.

[frostypants]

Yeah, you like so many others don't understand how the First Amendment works. You have freedom from government persecution for your statements. Guess what? Your employer ain't the government (well, unless it is, I guess). People get fired for being generally stupid all the time, e.g. getting a DUI even while off-the-clock can get you fired from your job.

[bigmalky]

Getting a DUI is a criminal punishment... Having an individual viewpoint is not.

[JohnnyRakete]

Yeah and seeing your boss as an asshole is also an individual viewpoint, but when you post this on twitter and your boss sees this, you will be fired

[starchild]

Yes, but why are other anti-discrimination laws applied to private companies? It's one thing to say discrimination should be prohibited in public spaces and government run businesses and institutions, but to force private businesses not to discriminate in certain ways but allow it in others is inconsistent and hypocritical.

[KillBill]

Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from accountability for said speech. Freedom of speech is to prevent governments from restricting your speech... not from non-government entities who hold you accountable for what you talk about or promote.

[ShadowWolf712]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, and the only protection it provides is protection from government restriction and punishment.

You can't go into someone's company, sound off willy nilly, and expect zero retribution for it. Especially if you're presenting yourself as a representative of their company. They have rights too, they're not required or beholden to keep someone employed if they make comments that they deem will hurt their company. They're just as free to do nothing to them as well.

Nobody's "rights" are being trampled.

[bigmalky]

In work, you do as you are told, you are being paid for that respect.

Outside of work, your opinion is your own and if a boss tries to sack you for an opinion that is not criminal, nor victimising anyone, then you have worker's rights to seek tribunal if loss of employment is the end product.

Your employer does not own your thoughts. There are working rights acts that protect your individualism.

The only way you can hurt your company, is by speaking up against them directly in a public forum, committing a criminal act that changes your standing with said company, or wearing your uniform while going against company rules outside of the workplace.

If I got sacked for stating that I don't think gender fluidity is scientifically factual, immigration should be more controlled, man has never walked on the moon, or the sky is green and the sea is red, then I would damn sure be heading for my lawyer.

[ShadowWolf712]

Head for your lawyer all you want. You'd be laughed out of court.

Because this isn't illegal.

[rainslacker]

Most states are at will work states. Believe it or not, a company can hire or fire you for any reason that doesn't involve race, religion, gender or sexual preference.

Every company with a public face has a moral and ethics clause which one had to agree to that explicitly states that if they say something that the company doesn't agree with, or causes them problems they can be let go.

So, despite What you may think milky, this guy could be fired for saying he dislikes chicken If the company deemed it inappropriate. That's what he probably agreed to when he started an account that represented the company itself.

Sucks for him, but it's the way it is at many companies....even for the fey cook at mcdonalds.

[_FantasmA_]

You don't know what free speech is. Being an ahole is your right, but that doesn't mean someone isn't going to punch in your mouth. Free speech means the government can't come after you for your opinions, it doesn't mean a brown person or gay person won't beat the snot out of you for saying something hateful to them.

[CorndogBurglar]

So when Hulk Hogan makes racist comments in private and while being recorded without his knowledge, and those comments become public, you mean to tell me that WWE or any other company shouldn't have the right to no longer employ him? They should HAVE to keep him on as their employee?

No. Sorry but that isn't right. Hogan wasn't victimizing anyone either. He just used the N word in a sentence while talking about black people.

No company should be forced to employ someone that is willing to publicly make offensive comments.

They aren't firing these people for having an opinion. They are firing them for the potential reputation impact their company can take because of the employee's comments.

Say what you want. But if you owned your own company and one of your employees was making public offensive comments then you would not want that person representing your company. It sends the wrong message about the company.

[bigmalky]

No, totally different. Hogan was using a derogatory term, classed as hate speech.

Voicing views without being derogatory is an entirely different kettle of fish.

People really are brainwashed into this 1984 stuff these days.

[ShadowWolf712]

@bigmalky

He literally said people from developing nations can't just become part of a modern society. It's impossible due to "hardwiring" which supposedly included IQ among other factors.

[rainslacker]

His freedom to say those things hasn't been restricted. Just his employment was terminated because the company didn't want to be associated with him because of what he had to say. In this, the company itself is expressing it's own right to free speech.

[kneon]

Freedom of speech, as defined in the US constitution only says that the government won't pass any laws to infringe your freedom of speech. Companies are not the government, yet.

[yellowgerbil]

There are laws against discrimination. Soon as a precident is set that political opinions is protected all this bull will end. So hopefully this guy sues and it can go all the way up to the highest courts because if religion and orientation should be protected so too should political opinions.

[Cuzzo63]

The reasons people get fired. It hurts the image of the business...

[Rimeskeem]

Freedom of speech is a government thing. Private organizations can do what they please. I thought people didn’t want he government getting in their lives anyways?

[KING85]

This is the issue. I agree anyone should have their freedom of speech and be able to voice their opinion how they see fit. Yet as others have said they’re consequences both good and bad for said voice. The thing is people are representative of the company and when you voice your opinion whether others agree or disagree they are consequences.
I pose to you this question. If a racist goes on his personal facebook page or other public forums ranting on about minorities should they not be held responsible for their words. Or because they’re doing it on their own time and not company time those words or actions don’t count?
I think what most people particularly western society don’t realize is that for every action there is a reaction to freedom of speech. Certain rhetoric just won’t fly in most circles. You can voice your beliefs and people can listen to said beliefs, but it doesn’t mean people have to accept it and go along for the ride.

[warriorcase]

I hear you and not saying I that I disagree with a lot of his statements at all but with freedoms such as freedom of speech also comes other freedoms such as a freedom for employers to choose who they employ or in this case not employ. Freedoms aren't exactly always free.
I see that having your own personal opinions pointed out and compared along side your employers views isn't fair at all but at the same time if I where say a Latino or African who owned a business and someone applied and was fully qualified but was a lout spoken Nazi party supported would that not sway your decision as his views as an employee don't align with yours as the employer?

To say anything is exactly right or wrong I think comes down sometimes to circumstances and environment but rarely is anything just black or white.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Let me mention that this is not saying this individual is not allowed to say this he's actually free to continue to say what he feels like it no one's actually stopping him.

I also believe that company also has the right to fire who they feel like it in a company they own.

Freedom of speech does not mean you are free of all consequences of things that you say.

Any company that is privately owned should be free to fire whoever they feel like it based on those discriminatory views. (Or really whatever they feel like it)

I'm not entirely sure why this persons right to say something has now superseded the entire rights of the company. Lol

He could say whatever he wants no one's going to stop him.... But the company that hires him is not going to put up with what he States.

It would be like trying to give away secrets from inside of a company, sooooo no. You cannot actually just say whatever you feel like it while working for a company without consequence, but however you could say whatever you feel like it freely.....

I think many people have a confusion about this and they really believe that freedom of speech basically means they're protected to say anything with zero consequence of their actions

No

I cannot call the police and make up false reports under the strange protection of " freedom of speech."

I think you guys have a very very strange understanding of what you think is freedom of speech actually means.

[Leeroyw]

Thought police at work. This sacking wouldn't fly in any other industry.
I'm not pro or anti his comments.
This is just ridiculous now.

[fiveby9]

I have since removed this game from my expected purchase list / wishlist on Steam. It looks like a good game. But too many other games to play to bother supporting a company such as this which takes such measures to control thought.

[Michiel1989]

I am all for freedom of speech. But I can sympathyze that companies don't want their employees making stupid statements/edgy jokes with their company name under their twitter handle.

[EatCrow]

Yes of course. The appropriate action would be to reprimand or put on some kind of warning. Not fire. I sympathize with employees who lose their jobs because of personal opinions and beliefs. Opinions and beliefs that hurt no one.

[Michiel1989]

Yeah it imght be a bit of an overreaction. But on the otherside on the internet it cannot be unseen.
It wouldn't surprise me if in this day and age something is written about this in their contract around social media statements etc.

[munchmiller]

Kinda reminds you of... oh, I dunno, "deal with it" from a certain somebody? When you have a company name tagged to you, you are representative.

People need to stop thinking there are no consequences to words and/or actions.

You wanna say what you want with no consequences to your job? Self employ. You can say anything you want then, and let your brand take the heat for it.

[Sono421]

Change his beliefs from being about politics to being about religion and we would be hearing a completely different tune, why is that?... Just blatant hypocrisy coming from this pc outrage culture.

[Christopher]

We don't know if this was his first issue within the company.

[fiveby9]

@Christopher This is true we don't know the history. Does the company have a policy of posting anything online which they consider offensive? I'd be curious to know if they take the same stance with progressive postings online? Sure the company has a lot of latitude in the U.S. to hire / fire. But it is also true that I don't have to support them by purchasing their products either. Sure it's not generally a good idea to post one's controversial opinions online for all to see when you represent a company. But we all know backlash from employers is decidedly one way on this. Do you really think anyone would get fired for posting their opinion in support of illegal immigration? Progressive ivory tower morals influencing corporate policy being applied selectively.

[rainslacker]

@fiveby

It's not selective. It's the company not wanting to be associated with this person because of their views. The company is free to choose what views it has on things, and in the US, companies are considered individuals, and can express their own views in ways they see fit....which includes disassociating themselves from the individual in question.

You can't claim it's selective because this company happens to do something, but some other company decides not to take action in a similar instance, or the same company doesn't do anything for other views which they don't feel offensive.

Freedom of speech has to go both ways. You can't say this guy is being repressed, without repressing the company itself. The company itself actually has more working against it when firing someone, as it's a costly endevour to hire someone new, and face possible legal consequences if they don't follow laws in the termination process. Companies are restricted much more from expressing their own views than the individual is, which is why they generally don't. But when a representative of the company says something inflammatory or vitriolic, or against the companies own viewpoint, are they not allowed to exercise their own freedoms by taking which actions they feel appropriate?

While I'm not familiar with the company, a pretty standard boilerplate employment contract says that you don't say things which can be offensive with a public handle attached to the company....or sometimes even on your own private accounts which the public can see. I don't know a single game company beyond the small indie company that doesn't have codes of conduct clauses. Almost all companies nowadays have some similar clause, particularly those that attempt to keep a good public face.

[EatCrow]

@rainslacker

"inflammatory or vitriolic"
This is muddy water your delving into because the statements in question dont have to be inflammatory or vitriolic.
I get what you are saying but where is the line drawn. Its lack of understanding of core values and at this point shared or understood base ground level values, which every society needs to function properly, that are missing in these types of conversations.

For instance, I am against abortion. To many that is understood as I am against women rights. Which is completely untrue. I'm simply not in favor of what I view as murder.

My stance or belief could essentially get me fired from a job. This is not right. I should not be fired because of my individual values. Where would that lead us? Essentially a world under hitler rule where only accepted views are allowed and you are punished if not abiding or following said rules.

Companies should not be held as having values like individuals. The only values should be to uphold the law. Discrimination against another persons beliefs is against the law. Hiring for diversity, (ie race, color) is discrimination...these are the types of things companies should be concerned with which currently are being widely ignored.

However, if a company sees that one of their employees have broken the law then they should act accordingly.
Following the law leaves little room for real problems to be ignored.

WE already separated state and church which means state and personal beliefs but now companies are bringing personal beliefs back into the mix. Big mistake.

[Ogygian]

Good, moral companies protect their employees. Bad, greedy companies toss them into the streets at the first sign of trouble.

Your sympathies are not justified.

[SubZtx]

Not that I was interested in this game anyway I will be sure to steer clear of them for future purchases.

[Kumakai]

Long story short: you have the right to say whatever stupid shit you want to say, but don’t expect people to support you when they don’t agree or it affects their own reputations and or business. That is your employers right to its own branding and values. You wanna hate and be a douche it’s you’re right, but it’s your employers right to not have to keep you around.

[bigmalky]

That would be unfair dismissal if disagreeing on personal opinion outside the workplace.

Every human being has the right to opinion, and should not be punished for non victimisation. No employer has a right to control any individual by threatening unemployment because views differ.

[Kumakai]

big boy jobs comes with more responsibility bro. you agree to the terms with you take the job. thats the employers right, because guess what free speech rights don't exceed other people or businesses rights to be represented how they see fit. a company has every right to fire you if your public values are contradictory to the messaging, branding and well-being of the reputation of said company.

read about it. Im under one of these with my current employer contract myself:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...

[bigmalky]

@kumakai

I'm pretty certain at 38, I have worked 'big boy' jobs.

If you choose to sign your individuality away to an employer, you have just handed your freedom away from work to them.

If you can't see that as a form of slavery, then maybe you are not a smart boy.

No employer should be able to control you outside of the workplace, and if there are no laws against that, there should be.

[Christopher]

***No employer should be able to control you outside of the workplace, and if there are no laws against that, there should be.***

His twitter account is not out of the workplace as he A) presented himself as an employee of the company in his profiel and B) answered public questions related to his job using that account as well.

Furthermore, the business is not allowed to control you outside of the workplace. But, they are allowed to fire anyone for unlawful behaviour or breaking their ethics clauses. These aren't, "you can't like republicans" but statements where the actions of the individual will bring unfair criticism to the company due to their association.

[S2Killinit]

@bigmalky
when he posts stuff on his account and people know him to work for a certain company, he is speaking on behalf of the company. The company has the right to fire him if they do not wish him to represent them. Its that simple. This is not an infringement on your right to speech.

You are free to say what you want, just not on behalf of other people, when you start to affect someone else's reputation, they have a freedom of speech to stop you from speaking for them. The company is well within its constitutional rights.

[Hungryalpaca]

Except he didn’t say anything stupid. He just said some opinions that a lot of people hold.

Just like the wage gap. It’s not real. It’s an earnings gap. It literally doesn’t take very long to figure this out. Once you look at ANY OTHER FACTOR like you’re supposed to, it becomes clear it has next to nothing to do with sexism.

[Atticus_finch]

Correction Stupid opinions

[Kumakai]

It’s all right here guys:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...

A company can fire you if you don’t align with their agenda. Like it or not. Both sides have rights. When you get a real job, you’re held to different standards.

[bigmalky]

Wikipedia... Well done. Just because a contract dictates what you do at work, it is not right that it extends to your personal time.

What is not a 'real job', by your standards?

[Christopher]

Most companies will have policies about ethics and behaviour and will give them the right to fire you for getting into situations that may look unfavorable to the company (an arrest, public intoxication, statements made to others or publicly, etc.).

Considering this person made these comments on a profile that was used to talk about the game/company, denoted his professional association, it's not at all unheard of him to get fired for creating any bad PR for the company.

I don't know what Kumakai means by real job, but any job that has you sign such a contract, which many do in the U.S., will have such a clause in the contract.

[rainslacker]

Who cares if the source is Wikipedia? It's still a real thing. I've signed many in my life, and as such, I don't associate my career with my public profile. I work in the gaming industry, and I know a lot of the things I say here would get me fired within minutes. My employer is aware that I post here. But, my posts here are not associated with any personal profile, and as such, not associated with my professional career.

A morality clause is generally there to specifically prevent you from casting an image on the company that goes against what the company stands for. This extends to both your public and private life. There were a couple high profile ones in the NFL the past couple years, and morality clauses have been around for a long time.

The reason they exist is because people's personal opinions can indeed affect the company in some way. This is because some people don't understand that individuals have a wide variety of opinions, and they believe that the company is supportive of those opinions just because they employ the person in question.

Obviously, this is an ignorant view of people, and many try to cause those with differing opinions problems by putting pressure on companies to discipline them in some way. This causes unwarranted and unwanted pressure on the company, but for the most part, no one person is worth dealing with the backlash that may be caused by callous expression of one's opinions that may go against the norm.

That's the real world, not some idealistic utopia where everyone gets along and can respect other people's opinions. Thus, there are morality clauses to try and prevent as many cases as possible, otherwise, these companies would be berated on a constant basis to remove their entire staff who can't hold their opinions in check in public forums, with public faces.

Is it right? Probably not in a lot of cases I've seen. But a morality clause is a contract with your employer. You can choose to not sign it, and the company can choose not to employ you. You can choose to break the contract, and the company can choose to terminate you for doing so. That is also the real world we live in, and such things are becoming much more common, because nowadays, social media has empowered and enabled more people to express their opinions in hateful and vitriolic ways. Furthermore, it's likely that such things will become even more prevalent going forward, because too many people today have no filter, and feel that they don't have to remain respectful just because it's on the internet.

If you don't like the morality clause, how about we also get rid of the boilerplate anti-harrassment contracts that people sign when getting new jobs too? I mean, people should be allowed to treat others poorly, because such actions are usually based on people's opinions of others and how they view them in the world.

What it comes down to is that you seem to want the ideal, while you ignore the reality. There are plenty of cases where companies have had to give time to a public outcry because one of their employees said something that incited people. Sometimes, those people's terminations were unjustified....like the guy in GamerGate who had an opinion but expressed it in a way that wasn't an attack or disrespectful and the SJW went ape-sh*t and got him fired. Other times, people say things which cause companies to have to expend resources on addressing the issue, or those views can paint the company in a bad light, and cause them to lose sales or reputation in some way.

[starchild]

Then why can't companies fire you for having religious views they don't like?

If private companies can discriminate on the basis of one's political views then they should be allowed to discriminate in other ways too.

[EatCrow]

"The controversy followed a 2016 poll by Cleveland that resurfaced over the weekend, asking whether players would prefer the ability to play Subnautica as a woman or have the studio improve upon the core game. "

Perfectly good question. This will give them a sense of what is important to their interested base.

"Chylinski responded to this back in 2016, saying: "we need a 'diversity' slider in the options. It will make the character progessively [sic] darker more feminie [sic] and less sexy". Cleveland called out his behaviour, as well as several other past tweets, as "trolling" earlier this week."

He considers it trolling I consider it a satire of the times.

" messages that decry immigration from third-world countries, make light of pay inequalities between genders and reference 'SJW logic.'"

All perefectly fine. Third world country immigration should be looked at carefully, pay inequalities have been disproven simply by the nature of men and women making different choices and SJW logic is only logical in SJW environments. So it is a specific kind of logic.

"He also makes several references to attack helicopters, a meme used to mock transgender issues."

Mocking is not exactly true. More like placing its logic upside down with a simple sentence that obviously sounds ridiculous.

All in all I see no real problem here.

[Ogygian]

I hope the devs get bombarded with bad reviews for this decision. It's cruel toss someone out of a job for saying things you don't like.

[Christopher]

Is it also cruel that his opinion gave the company bad PR as well considering he promoted the company in his profile and spoke about the game using said profile regularly and therefore developed that association himself?

[Ogygian]

That was incidental. No one forms their opinions with the aim of harming their friends or employers, but being true to themselves, and their internal logic. You cannot control your thoughts (reason is its own rule).

So the cause of disclosing those beliefs was honesty, which aims at justice, without having any material impact (discussion is how we arrive at truth, so people have a duty to be honest in the pursuit of truth).

I'm not blaming those who complained about him either, though. They sought justice as far as their reason was capable of concieving too, and dutifully spoke their minds. They may have been wrong, but in the end, all they did was complain.

The blame here rests solely with Unknown Worlds, who had a very clear choice between firing someone for their personal views, thus chilling the honest discussion essential to any society, or being a tolerant, inclusive company, which might have disagreed with its employee, but chose not to physically damage his life for being open about his thoughts.

[starchild]

Well under the current laws they may have the right to discriminate against him and fire him over his political views, but it's also our right to boycott their game and call out their bad decision. They're giving themselves more "bad PR" than that employee's twitter remarks ever did.

[Christopher]

***That was incidental.***

Nothing is incidental. Even when I put somewhere that the posts are my views only, N4G can fire me for what I say online if I identify myself as such in any way, shape, or form.

[killswitch80]

All because he hates things. I guess I will only write things that I like now on twitter.

[Christopher]

If you've got your company name in your profile and talk about work as a notable person of a company online, yes, perhaps that's what you should do.

[Profchaos]

Welcome to tech where it's notoriously left. Listened to a few guests like Colin Moriarty and James damore on the Joe Rogan experience podcast and they were fired for much less but on the podcasts they came across as completely reasonable innocent guys that just made the mistake of voicing an opinion.

As a result now everyone thinks these things but just keeps their mouth shut so if you had to work with someone what would you prefer an honest person or someone saving face

[Silly gameAr]

Ahh, he's just one of those anti-sjw people that are almost as annoying as the actual sjws. They're neck and neck now in days with how annoying they are, though the sjw's still edge the anti-sjw out a bit.

[_FantasmA_]

Good ridance. No one will miss you. There's billions of people on this planet, and while not all of them are sound designers, you can bet there are plenty of people who are willing to take that spot who aren't a-holes, so why keep him around?

[Jules__Badguy]

Idiot fired for moronic comments lol. Freedom of Speech means freedom from government leveled punishment. News Flash: Your employer has the right to fire your ass for blatant ignorance. Talk about snowflakes... cry harder.

[Fist4achin]

This cat's sipping the haterade!

[Mithan]

We live in a world where you have to be nice to everybody, even if they are wrong.

[Gunstar75]

Wow....an N4G thread where most people seem to agree. Now if only we could harness this energy into telling this dev that they are out of order?

[Cobra951]

Didn't buy the game. Now I never will.

[Sm00thNinja]

Yeah this society is too damn sensitive nowadays

[Avengerz43]

Good for him f#&" all the SJW PC liberal pussies.

[S2Killinit]

Wait, so, if dude makes insensetive comments and gets fired for it, other people who agree with it are SJW ?

[medman]

What a moron. What a loser. Good riddance.

[Atticus_finch]

This is the Trump effect. People think they can do and say whatever dumb sht they want with out consequences.

[OffRoadKing]

"insensitive statements" = hurt feelings = out of a job. Welcome to the new world order.

[S2Killinit]

OR maybe read the Constitution so you would understand why there are limitations on the freedom of speech. "insensitive statements" lead to more than just "hurt feelings" and YES you would be out of a job if you can't respect people enough not to infringe on their Constitutional rights.

This is not the "new world order" its the same world order created by Freedom of Speech Clause of Constitution that the founding fathers put in place, and for good reason.

I LOVE how some people think allowing someone to make insensitive comments will lead to a MORE FREE society. Its so beautifully ignorant.

[OffRoadKing]

Ok so in your opinion the Constitution only applies when needed to protect sensitive snow flakes from getting their feelings hurt but doesn't apply to someones freedom to express their opposing personal views or opinions on a subject. So you cherry pick from the constitution what you personally want and throw out the rest, ok got it. No according to you the way we get to a free society is by shutting up those who dont tow the line. Also please dont dictate to me the constitution on a game site as if you're the authority on it.

[S2Killinit]

No, it's not my "opinion" I'm telling you how the First Amendment works. The Freedom of Speech is not absolute, there are limitations. You are free to speak your mind as much as you want, but if you are doing it within the scope of your employment, you are speaking on behalf of your employer. Your employer has a freedom of speech also, and that includes his right not to be spoken for by someone who uses his speech in an offensive way. The company is within its Constitutional rights to fire an employee if the company does not wish to be represented by him.

This is not cherry picking, this is how the 1st Amendment works. No one has stopped him from expressing himself. He is free to speak his mind, but the consequences of that speech, are his and his alone. In the same way, if you go and tell your friends that you think their IQ is lower than yours because you were born in the U.S. and they were born in India, you are free to do so, but the consequences of that are yours, because they are also free to stop speaking to you if they are offended. You see how that works? Its the same with the Company that employs you, they don't have to tolerate you just because you have offensive beliefs.

So, this talk about snow flakes and what not, is pure Starbucks talk, as they say in law school.

[lociefer]

Wow that's retarded , so either we all sjws and pro diversity or we all racists and hitlers, there's no middle ground.

I mean... going out of ur way to include a woman in ur video game just for the sake of showing how "normal" and "progressive" it is, and not focusing on core mechancis.... that's.... rich.

WTF IS HAPPENING TO THE GAMING INDUSTRY / THE WORLD !?!?1111

[xX1NORM1Xx]

Thats what happens when you make offensive and public statements, employers won't put up with it anyone who thinks this is strange is delusional people are fired for this kind of thing every day.

[CDbiggen]

Sounds like he was fed up with the publishers or whatever forcing a diversity agenda into the game.

[inxine]

freedom of speech is an illusion. sure what he said was insensitive but if he believes what he says thats his right to do so. rhats why i never share my social media with amyone from work.

[S2Killinit]

No its not his right to say whtever he believes. The freedom of Speech is guaranteed but its not absolute. By speaking on behalf of a company he is speaking for the company and the company has a right to freedom of speech as well, and that includes the right not to have their employee speek ifrom their mouth. They are FULLY AND COMPLETELY within their rights.
Furthermore, other people have a freedom of speech as well, to be free from his “insensetive” speech.

Lets say you own a grocery store and your employee is telling your customers that “people from 3rd world have lower IQ”, is that fine with you? As long as he believes what he says, your totally cool with that? I would fire him in a heart beat.

Only reason i made this comment to YOU, as opposed to some of these higher IQs above, is that you sound like your heart is in the right place.

[inxine]

lets agree to disagree, its his own fault he shared his twitter account with his company and spoke out. ur example is weird since he didnt speak to any of his costumers directly nor was it addressed as such. free speech is complicated, since as u said, its not ok to say things like that publicly, yet, freedom of speech means that, no matter what u say, its ur opinion and you have rights to state ur thoughts. good and bad. but tbh, i dont care. i dont know the man, nor will i ever have the chance to. if u disagree with me, great whatever, make ur comment and feel special, or ignore it and move on. im not here to bash people or start weird console wars, im just here to drop off my thoughts. nothing more nothing less

[FartLover420]

I wonder if they have fired anyone who has tweeted the opposite beliefs? Like that there is a pay gap and its horrible cuz of the male patriarchy. Or no matter what laws we have people should come here illegally. Or calling ppl stupid for having some kind of view point that doesnt tottaly support every trans/social justice ideology. If this is going on from ppl at that company w/o the devs taking action then i would have to say that this decion is biased and discriminitory and kinda shows an agenda that is left leaning. Having said all that i tottaly support a company being able to hire and fire who they want when they want it is their company.