CinePhillyist Reviews... The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Playlist Rewind: Shonen Knife at Johnny Brenda's
BalletX Fall Series Begins TONIGHT
Where Have All Our T-Shirts Gone?
Phillyist Playlist: 311 at the Borgata Event Center
Apparently the Eagles’ decision to let Brian Dawkins walk is having a ripple effect that’s even being felt by staff at Lincoln Financial Field. Dan Leone, who worked on the stadium staff, was fired for posting a Facebook status update that read, “Dan is [expletive] devastated about Dawkins signing with Denver … Dam Eagles R Retarded.”
This is a strange story with many different implications, not the least of which is simple. It’s a situation in which nobody seems to be right. We’ll do our best to wade through this murky situation.
The first issue to deal with is that of free speech, which we only seem to value when what’s being said is something we agree with. People on all sides of the spectrum are guilty of this, but it seems to be a disease of the Left more often than not. The First Amendment that Americans bandy about when we feel like saying what we please is thrown out the window when someone else says something that offends our delicate sensibilities. The situation with Don Imus back in 2007 is a perfect example of that. Even people who normally have their head on straight (Keith Olbermann, we’re looking at you) were clamoring for this guy’s termination. The right to express yourself, apparently, only goes as far as what’s deemed “appropriate”. Evelyn Beatrice Hall (not Voltaire) once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Dan Leone is a fan of the Eagles as well as being an employee. He was not at work, he was in his private life in which he voiced his opinion on the decision by his beloved football team to let a beloved player walk. He had every right to say what he said, that doesn’t make him any less of an idiot.
Another aspect of this story is that it brings to light how stupid the era of hyper-communication is making a lot of younger people. That’s right, for a lot of you reading this, the Internet is making you dumb. We text, we instant message, we abbreviate EVERYTHING, and we’re constantly letting people know what we’re doing via Twitter, harboring the delusion that people actually care. Constant virtual communication is making this generation terrible communicators. Let’s look at this statement, “Dam Eagles R Retarded.” First of all, unless a “Dam Eagle” is a rare majestic bird that holds back large amounts of water for the purposes of irrigation or hydro-electricity, there’s a misspelling right there. The real bothersome thing, though, is the “R” because it smacks of laziness and/or hypocrisy. Either you’re too lazy to add the “a” and “e” to the word, or you legitimately think that’s how the word is spelled which would make you, well, retarded.
Look, we’re not here to play Grammar Nazi (we’ll leave that to the hilarious Proofreading Philly), but this is a microcosm of a spreading phenomena, one that others have noticed as well. Perhaps if we all moderated our Internet use (with the exception of going to Phillyist nineteen times a day, of course) a little better, we could be able to speak to each other or voice our opinions without using monosyllabic letters and numb3rs instead of words. Although, since when we ever been all that good at moderation?
Adding to all of this is the dawning reality that everything a person puts up on a social networking site is something they are now liable for. Privacy settings be damned, the picture of you dressed as an Aborigine shotgunning down an Uluru-sized beer-bong filled with Fosters is gonna find its way to the church social. Is that right? Of course it’s not; it’s an invasion of privacy, but it’s a reality. Social networking sites are a way of sharing things with your friends, not the outside world, but opponents will say the Internet is the Internet and you’re responsible for what you post. Fair point, even if intention and context are completely ignored. Stories like this are going to start becoming more and more frequent regardless of the ethics involved and that’s just something we’re going to have to get used to in the modern world. Dan Leone should have known that, and as an employee of the Eagles (albeit part-time) he should have been more aware of what he was doing.
Honestly, we’d be remiss if we didn’t at least briefly mention the football aspect of this story. What in the name of sweet Cthulhu were the Eagles thinking letting Dawkins walk? Look, we all know he was getting older. We were all pretty sure he wasn’t going to keep up his usual stellar play and be the most dominant safety in the game, but he was still incredibly valuable to the team on the field, in the locker room, and with public relations. Most importantly, the Eagles don’t have an immediate successor at the position, which means they’ll now have to focus on that position as well as the many others they need to address this off-season. It was a dumb move and it’s hard not to get the feeling that the Eagles have entered full “Rebuilding Mode.”
It seems the Eagles either took issue with Leone criticizing the team or they took offense to his use of the word “retarded.” Either way, they were wrong. Not that Leone isn’t at fault for just being a dumb prat, but last we checked that wasn’t a fireable offense (see: Reid, Andy). If the Eagles had an issue with Leone, they should have brought him upstairs or sent him a letter basically telling him to watch himself and not to be so reckless in the future, but in a terrible economy, they decided to boot this guy out the door for speaking his mind. The team was completely within its legal right to terminate Leone, but ethically it was a bad move. It’s a no-win situation, which is kind of like being an Eagles fan.
Image Credit: Flickr user avlxyz.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
That said, I think the Eagles were wrong to Fire Leone. He was not a prominent figure in the front office, so their excuse that "he was not representing the organization in a positive light" kind of falls flat. Then again, I'm not on the letterhead at my company, but if I were to publicly state that the firm sucked, I wouldn't expect to keep my job for very long.
Free speech has nothing to do with this situation, nor did it have anything to do with the Don Imus situation. Freedom of speech does not, and never has protected a person from any and all social consequences that may come from expressing their beliefs; and no law against employment discrimination protects employees for making racial slurs or openly questioning their employer's business decisions. The First Amendment has not, in fact, gone out the window; it's right where it was, protecting citizens from suffering legal sanctions for expressing their opinions.
A point of clarification: Mr. Leone posted that "Dam Eagles R Retarted," with a "t," not "Retarded" with a "d." His offenses against grammar alone merit his termination.
But in all seriousness, I'm with our friend Illuminati on this one. It's about 15 years after the Internet hit a lot of American homes, and people still don't seem to understand that you shouldn't put anything on the Internet that you wouldn't write in a letter or memo and mail to every single person on the planet—including your boss.
The First Amendment exists to protect you from the government restricting your speech. But it has nothing to do with what your boss can and can't do, or what your boss should or shouldn't do, for that matter. If I made disparaging remarks about my company to, say, the whole freakin' world, you'd better believe they would can me. And who's to say they'd be wrong? If you ran a restaurant, would you keep on a waiter who told every guest that the chef was "retarted" when it came to cooking? It doesn't matter whether you work for a bank, or a law firm, or a restaurant, or a website...or a sports team. Talk smack about your company, and you're going to end up unemployed. Having a job (in this economy, especially) is a privilege, not a right.
Ross,
I agree that this guy is a total ass, especially now with the "retarTed" revelation which is high comedy, but to me the Eagles' action was a little extreme. A friend of mine made a great point, saying that if this guy had called WIP and said what he said it would have been the same thing. Thousands of people a day are ragging on the Eagles for their move, some flunky in section 17 is not going to influence the debate one iota. As an organization and as a business, they should have absolutely said something to him, reprimanded him somehow, but termination was a little excessive.
My bigger concern is A.) People in this country feigning outrage over trivial things (Janet Jackson Super Bowl and Don Imus, for example) which suddenly draws an unfair line between what's ok to make fun of and what's not, and B.)the lack of privacy and the larger reprocussions the Internet Age has ushered. I don't like being too connected, but I understand the need for it. That said, Facebook to me is a way of staying in touch with friends, planning events, and looking at pictures of ex-girlfriends to see if you got them at their peak. I view it as a Country Club, a closed community. That's why it has privacy settings. Blogging is something completely different all together, that's broadcasting your thoughts for the world to see, but Facebook, I feel, is a different animal. Be that as it may, that's not the reality of the situation and that dipshit Leone should have realized that. Sorry, realized dat.
The point that Facebook is a "closed" community (which I think is debatable, but that's for another time) makes Leone's comment even dumber. The Eagles had to find out about it somehow, meaning he: (1) was FB friends with someone at the Eagles organization, be it a coworker or supervisor; and/or (2) did not use the site's privacy settings. That means he knew (in the case of option 1) or should have known (in the case of option 2) that someone in the Eagles organization had the ability to see his profile and status message, and he made the remark anyway.
Which makes him an utter moron worthy of scorn, but but (I don't think) worthy of termination. There really is no "right" in this story, just a whole lot of wrong.
Perhaps I should elaborate on what I meant. When I say "Free Speech" I'm referring to the principle of free speech not the actual Constitutional text. I know I didn't quite phrase that correctly in the article, but I'm well aware of the powers and legal limits of the First Amendment. My thinking is that from an ethical standpoint, people should be able to say whatever they like as long as it's not slander (in the legal sense). We can't draw lines about what's OK to make fun of and what's not, which is exactly what happened in the Imus situation. When it comes to Leone, the First Amendment doesn't protect him at all from being let go from his employer, nor should it, but the PRINCIPLE of free speech was violated, even though his comments would never have reached public ears or hurt the organization in any way. In fact, the only way they were made public was through his termination.
Once again, I apologize for being more clear. When I said "First Amendment," I meant that that is usually the cry of those who wish to say what they please, and many of those same people turn on that principle when they don't like what is said. Didn't mean the actual legal terminology, sorry.
"That said, Facebook to me is a way of staying in touch with friends, planning events, and looking at pictures of ex-girlfriends to see if you got them at their peak."
Best. Line. Ever.