[8note]

The Disney example doesn't really square?

She posted in public purposefully, and under her own name, whilst having a job where she's representing Disney with her name

That's a very different case from some private individual speaking privately in a situation where they don't represent their employer

For a more generic case, during your interview, you tell your prospective employer that you agree with their values and want to work together, then after getting hired, you tell them you disagree with their values. Should they still have to work with you?

Eg. You become a teacher at a Catholic school, but you only pretended to be a Catholic in the interview

[unishark]

The poster was talking about hackers exposing anons however. The Disney example doesn't need to prove that particular facet of the danger can happen because we already know it can.

So you think Disney would acted differently if they knew the person had been making an effort to stay anonymous before being exposed? That's not how google handled the gender-differences guy.

[federona]

What are corporate values? The only thing you are legitimately saying to your employer is you pay me and I do the work and we both make money. That is all. Anything more than that infringes on your personal rights outside of your employment, as these comments are my own. The fact that we have the reach of corporations way outside of work in public life is not right in my opinion, it's akin to slavery. This corporation employs people with these sorts of thoughts??? That does not really register in my mind as any sort of sound reasoning for dismissal, for having the wrong thoughts and saying them in public.

[FireBeyond]

I _guarantee_ you she, and any other actor with Disney, or any studio, has contracts specifically stating that she would not make controversial remarks that may damage her reputation, the show, or the studio.

You can argue whether such things are palatable, to be sure, but she absolutely knew and agreed up front to this.

And realize part of the enticement to accept such clauses is the entirely healthy salary that comes with it.

[andrewzah]

There is no right to a job. There is no right to immunity from consequences from saying things online. The end.

If you don't like how Disney operates, then vote with your wallet. That's literally the only thing companies care about, and is the only reason why she was let go in the first place.

Saying we should force companies to retain hires despite what they say online, is ridiculous.

[federona]

If you were to make a general rule, it's saying if you want employment then don't say anything online, period. So it is in fact depriving any employee the right to speak about things publicly all the time. It's like putting a muzzle on a dog so he does not bark. If that's not slavery I don't know what is.

As for right to employment, well how far can you push it. And how does that not violate white privilege principles or corporate privilege principles. We have a corporate class which holds most of the wealth and if you say anything you will lose the right to make a living. That smacks of privilege, in fact white privilege.

Only the corporate class may speak. It's not sound in any way.

[andrewzah]

You are always free to choose another employer. She literally already found work with another employer.

If enough people speak with their wallets, then disney will follow that. It's really that simple.

You are suggesting that corporations are one monolithic entity, which is simply not true.

I have no idea what you mean here by white privilege or corporate privilege. Nobody has the right to a job. Saying dumb things online and getting consequences is applicable to everyone, because corporations only follow the money.