4 ms·

Propose that a suspended player is a US citizen. This feels unconstitutional / illegal, as Blizzard has taken away the player's ability to earn a living based i

Propose that a suspended player is a US citizen. This feels unconstitutional / illegal, as Blizzard has taken away the player's ability to earn a living based in their political views. The guise of suspension under the violation of "disparagement" feels weak. I'd be interested in seeing how a lawsuit plays out.

umanwizard 7y ago
There is no law or constitutional provision in the US that says you can’t refuse to work with someone for their political views.
- roflchoppa2 7y ago
  idk man it sounds like discrimination to me.
  - gruez 7y ago
    It's legal to discriminate as long as it's not a protected class.
    - montagg 7y ago
      There are some states, like CA, where discrimination based on political views is illegal, but it’s practically-speaking not too hard for an employer to find a more traditional performance reason that may be related to political views. Caveat: IANAL Source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...
      - umanwizard 7y ago
        Even then, that refers to employees specifically, and the person in question is probably not a Blizzard employees.
  - ejstronge 7y ago
    Not all types of discrimination are illegal - in particular, the GP is stating that refusing to do business with people of a certain political leaning is not illegal.
  - chickenpotpie 7y ago
    US law protects against discrimination for protected groups (race, religion, age, etc.). Political views are not a protected group.
  - gms7777 7y ago
    Discrimination is not illegal except when it is discrimination against particular protected classes -- federally, this includes race/nationality/citizenship, religion, sex, age, disability, or veteran status. A private company is free to discriminate on the basis of political belief. That's not to say it is right or acceptable, but it isn't illegal.
- falcolas 7y ago
  A lawsuit doesn't depend on the law or constitution. As a separate note, the player and hosts would likely be considered to be contractors, not employees.
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    A successful or even interesting lawsuit does in fact depend on the law. If you try to sue someone for violating a law that doesn't exist, they will make a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and the judge will throw out the lawsuit.
- dheera 7y ago
  It's kind of unfortunate. It's like there's free speech, but the reality is almost everyone needs to work to live, and by way of working, their freedom of speech is effectively revoked. EEOC makes it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin; why can't political views and speech said outside of the workplace be a part of that?
  - baseballdork 7y ago
    Do you consider nazism a political view?
    - irrational 7y ago
      National Socialist German Workers' Party sure sounds like a political party to me.
      - baseballdork 7y ago
        I agree. I would say that it's not a mistake that political views are left out. Race, color, sex, and national origin are things that you are, not things you believe. Religion is the exception and I'm not sure how I feel about it being included. I think that it's important to not discriminate merely because someone follows a different religion, but some religions have some pretty awful beliefs. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable working with someone involved with WBC.
        umanwizard 7y ago
        There's a joke about a guy who gets stopped at a paramilitary roadblock in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and claims to be an atheist. The thugs respond: "Yes, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" In many societies and for many people, religion is not just a set of "things you believe", but is deeply connected with cultural and/or ethnic identity. The best example in the US might be Jews, which are either a race, culture, ethnicity, religion, or some combination of all of the above. But the same principle can be true for other groups as well.
- coldcode 7y ago
  In this case was there a contract between the player and Blizzard? Did this violate that contract?
  - bcrosby95 7y ago
    The part of the contract they say was violated was that you cannot do anything Blizzard deems to have offended someone or bring you into public disrepute. So, yeah, I'm pretty sure he violated that. And Blizzard's response has too. It's really just a catch-all trivial to violate provision.
dragontamer 7y ago
> Propose that a suspended player is a US citizen. Like Colin Kaepernick? That just happened like 3 years ago, has everyone already forgotten?
- coralreef 7y ago
  If I recall correctly, Colin was never suspended or prevented from playing. He suspects he was blacklisted by owners/NFL by not being signed in free agency, but that may be difficult to prove.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    Players were, and still are, prevented from kneeling during the Anthem. EDIT: It seems like official NFL policy has varied drastically over the past few years. But even if its not necessarily by official policy, you can bet that players are intimidated by the calls of the sitting US President to fire them if they kneel out of line.
    - Rebelgecko 7y ago
      Which players have been prevented from kneeling? Kaepernick famously did it until he left the 49ers. His former teammate Eric Reid is still doing it— I saw him kneel three days ago before a game.
      - dragontamer 7y ago
        Its not as big of a deal in 2019. But here's an article from 2018. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/405497-no-nfl-players-visibly-kneel-during-season-opener https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/405497-no-nfl-p...
  - sp332 7y ago
    The President publicly and privately leaned on the NFL to punish him and anyone else who took a knee. https://outline.com/Z3fhtB https://outline.com/Z3fhtB I think what we already know about that is more worrying than the NFL hypothetically deciding on their own to blacklist him.
Allower 7y ago
That's a bit of a stretch, the 'player' can still get a job elsewhere, no one has a right to work for whatever company they want using whatever platforms they wish...
birracerveza 7y ago
Nope, they can do whatever they want. The contract allows them to. But it's not a matter of whether or not this was a legal move or not, it's the intent and what it has shed light onto that is the actual real problem. China is controlling our media and it is becoming harder and harder to ignore. Companies have to watch their step when saying anything because if China, for god knows what reason, decides that something that comes from you does not fall in line with their ideology, be it a line of dialogue in your movie, or a flag in a videogame, or a winning player's speech in this case... Well, good luck without that chinese market. It could mean death for some companies, so everyone does their best to try to avoid the issue altogether. Now it's fairly easy to do so, but what about the future? Is this not alarming? Sure, keep politics out of games. Let's keep it out of movies as well. And books. Let's not talk about politics altogheter, not even on social media, or China might decide that the company you're working for does not get to work with them until they fire you. It might sound exaggerated and reeks of slippery-slope fallacy. Is it? Personally, I think not. This has to stop.
Svoka 7y ago
Unconstitutional? Like, did you try to read first amendment? Here it is: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So, did Congress of the USA have to do anything about it? No, "free speech" does not mean you can say anything you want without facing consequences from people who hired you or your friends. Blizzard hired player to play in tournament, and they can fire him if they want. There is nothing illegal in Blizzard's actions. Morally, though...
- celticmusic 7y ago
  > No, "free speech" does not mean you can say anything you want without facing consequences from people who hired you or your friends. Blizzard hired player to play in tournament, and they can fire him if they want. There is nothing illegal in Blizzard's actions. The only ones that hold these sorts of views are the ones with nothing interesting to say.
  - spathi_fwiffo 7y ago
    >> Morally, though >The only ones that hold these sorts of views are the ones with nothing interesting to say. I'm confused by your response; what is it you are trying to say? They were making a legal description of why the 1st amendment doesn't prevent a private entity from censoring; not a moral one. From a legal perspective, they are right. The constitution prevents the government (and only the government) from restricting speech. If this guy was going to jail or being fined by the US Government because he said FreeHK, then that would be a rights violation. He isn't going to jail; so, now it is up to the terms of his contract with Blizzard/EA as to whether there is a Civil or Criminal legal violation (and any applicable labor laws in whatever jurisdiction can be applied); and even if there is a legal violation, that would be a contract law issue and not a rights law issue (or a local labor law issue).
    - celticmusic 7y ago
langseth 7y ago
A quick google search suggests that in the US only California, New York, and D.C. protect against discrimination based on political views[1]. But can act if that view affects performance (at least in California)[2]. 1: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-affiliation-discrimination.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff... 2: https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2018/10/articles/discrimination/does-california-prohibit-political-discrimination-at-work/ https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2018/10/ar...
RangerScience 7y ago
Oh damn, that'd be interesting. And since Blizzard is a California company (well, based here?) that might work.... (since such laws are a state thing, not a US thing)

umanwizard 7y ago

There is no law or constitutional provision in the US that says you can’t refuse to work with someone for their political views.

roflchoppa2 7y ago
idk man it sounds like discrimination to me.
- gruez 7y ago
  It's legal to discriminate as long as it's not a protected class.
  - montagg 7y ago
    There are some states, like CA, where discrimination based on political views is illegal, but it’s practically-speaking not too hard for an employer to find a more traditional performance reason that may be related to political views. Caveat: IANAL Source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...
    - umanwizard 7y ago
      Even then, that refers to employees specifically, and the person in question is probably not a Blizzard employees.
- ejstronge 7y ago
  Not all types of discrimination are illegal - in particular, the GP is stating that refusing to do business with people of a certain political leaning is not illegal.
- chickenpotpie 7y ago
  US law protects against discrimination for protected groups (race, religion, age, etc.). Political views are not a protected group.
- gms7777 7y ago
  Discrimination is not illegal except when it is discrimination against particular protected classes -- federally, this includes race/nationality/citizenship, religion, sex, age, disability, or veteran status. A private company is free to discriminate on the basis of political belief. That's not to say it is right or acceptable, but it isn't illegal.
falcolas 7y ago
A lawsuit doesn't depend on the law or constitution. As a separate note, the player and hosts would likely be considered to be contractors, not employees.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  A successful or even interesting lawsuit does in fact depend on the law. If you try to sue someone for violating a law that doesn't exist, they will make a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and the judge will throw out the lawsuit.
dheera 7y ago
It's kind of unfortunate. It's like there's free speech, but the reality is almost everyone needs to work to live, and by way of working, their freedom of speech is effectively revoked. EEOC makes it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin; why can't political views and speech said outside of the workplace be a part of that?
- baseballdork 7y ago
  Do you consider nazism a political view?
  - irrational 7y ago
    National Socialist German Workers' Party sure sounds like a political party to me.
    - baseballdork 7y ago
      I agree. I would say that it's not a mistake that political views are left out. Race, color, sex, and national origin are things that you are, not things you believe. Religion is the exception and I'm not sure how I feel about it being included. I think that it's important to not discriminate merely because someone follows a different religion, but some religions have some pretty awful beliefs. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable working with someone involved with WBC.
      - umanwizard 7y ago
        There's a joke about a guy who gets stopped at a paramilitary roadblock in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and claims to be an atheist. The thugs respond: "Yes, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" In many societies and for many people, religion is not just a set of "things you believe", but is deeply connected with cultural and/or ethnic identity. The best example in the US might be Jews, which are either a race, culture, ethnicity, religion, or some combination of all of the above. But the same principle can be true for other groups as well.
coldcode 7y ago
In this case was there a contract between the player and Blizzard? Did this violate that contract?
- bcrosby95 7y ago
  The part of the contract they say was violated was that you cannot do anything Blizzard deems to have offended someone or bring you into public disrepute. So, yeah, I'm pretty sure he violated that. And Blizzard's response has too. It's really just a catch-all trivial to violate provision.

dragontamer 7y ago

> Propose that a suspended player is a US citizen. Like Colin Kaepernick? That just happened like 3 years ago, has everyone already forgotten?

coralreef 7y ago
If I recall correctly, Colin was never suspended or prevented from playing. He suspects he was blacklisted by owners/NFL by not being signed in free agency, but that may be difficult to prove.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  Players were, and still are, prevented from kneeling during the Anthem. EDIT: It seems like official NFL policy has varied drastically over the past few years. But even if its not necessarily by official policy, you can bet that players are intimidated by the calls of the sitting US President to fire them if they kneel out of line.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    Which players have been prevented from kneeling? Kaepernick famously did it until he left the 49ers. His former teammate Eric Reid is still doing it— I saw him kneel three days ago before a game.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      Its not as big of a deal in 2019. But here's an article from 2018. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/405497-no-nfl-players-visibly-kneel-during-season-opener https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/405497-no-nfl-p...
- sp332 7y ago
  The President publicly and privately leaned on the NFL to punish him and anyone else who took a knee. https://outline.com/Z3fhtB https://outline.com/Z3fhtB I think what we already know about that is more worrying than the NFL hypothetically deciding on their own to blacklist him.

Allower 7y ago

That's a bit of a stretch, the 'player' can still get a job elsewhere, no one has a right to work for whatever company they want using whatever platforms they wish...

birracerveza 7y ago

Nope, they can do whatever they want. The contract allows them to. But it's not a matter of whether or not this was a legal move or not, it's the intent and what it has shed light onto that is the actual real problem. China is controlling our media and it is becoming harder and harder to ignore. Companies have to watch their step when saying anything because if China, for god knows what reason, decides that something that comes from you does not fall in line with their ideology, be it a line of dialogue in your movie, or a flag in a videogame, or a winning player's speech in this case... Well, good luck without that chinese market. It could mean death for some companies, so everyone does their best to try to avoid the issue altogether. Now it's fairly easy to do so, but what about the future? Is this not alarming? Sure, keep politics out of games. Let's keep it out of movies as well. And books. Let's not talk about politics altogheter, not even on social media, or China might decide that the company you're working for does not get to work with them until they fire you. It might sound exaggerated and reeks of slippery-slope fallacy. Is it? Personally, I think not. This has to stop.

Svoka 7y ago

Unconstitutional? Like, did you try to read first amendment? Here it is: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So, did Congress of the USA have to do anything about it? No, "free speech" does not mean you can say anything you want without facing consequences from people who hired you or your friends. Blizzard hired player to play in tournament, and they can fire him if they want. There is nothing illegal in Blizzard's actions. Morally, though...

celticmusic 7y ago
> No, "free speech" does not mean you can say anything you want without facing consequences from people who hired you or your friends. Blizzard hired player to play in tournament, and they can fire him if they want. There is nothing illegal in Blizzard's actions. The only ones that hold these sorts of views are the ones with nothing interesting to say.
- spathi_fwiffo 7y ago
  >> Morally, though >The only ones that hold these sorts of views are the ones with nothing interesting to say. I'm confused by your response; what is it you are trying to say? They were making a legal description of why the 1st amendment doesn't prevent a private entity from censoring; not a moral one. From a legal perspective, they are right. The constitution prevents the government (and only the government) from restricting speech. If this guy was going to jail or being fined by the US Government because he said FreeHK, then that would be a rights violation. He isn't going to jail; so, now it is up to the terms of his contract with Blizzard/EA as to whether there is a Civil or Criminal legal violation (and any applicable labor laws in whatever jurisdiction can be applied); and even if there is a legal violation, that would be a contract law issue and not a rights law issue (or a local labor law issue).
  - celticmusic 7y ago

langseth 7y ago

A quick google search suggests that in the US only California, New York, and D.C. protect against discrimination based on political views[1]. But can act if that view affects performance (at least in California)[2]. 1: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-affiliation-discrimination.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff... 2: https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2018/10/articles/discrimination/does-california-prohibit-political-discrimination-at-work/ https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2018/10/ar...

RangerScience 7y ago

Oh damn, that'd be interesting. And since Blizzard is a California company (well, based here?) that might work.... (since such laws are a state thing, not a US thing)