Marvel could stand to take a few lessons from IDW

[Star_Jammer]

Honestly I don't see the big deal. If readers don't like Sittersons Twitter or facebook posts, don't follow him on twitter or facebook. That's really got nothing to do with liking his comic or not.

Exactly. I kinda got ::eye-roll:: at all the racist stuff Gabby Rivera Tweets and re-Tweets, so I quit paying attention.

[Valamist]

The recent disciplining of the writer of GI JOE Aubrey Sitterson after his incendiary tweets about 9/11 shows how a professionally-run media company operates. You don't dis fans, you don't go around generally making extreme and controversial statements about your personal politics. When fans complain, you listen.

Take note Marvel.

I have heard this said often, but I must admit, most of the times I have seen Marvel writers defend their work etc it has been in understandable circumstances. May one one ask for examples of the type of behavior you and others think is unacceptable?

[Username taken]

Who's dissing fans though? The only people being dissed are those overgrown trolls take attack certain writers so they can have a reason to make their YouTube videos & their followers. Fans know how to have a real conversation with their favorite writers/artists.

Quoted for truth.

I don't know or understand why people want to say whatever they want to creators and expect these people to keep quiet.

No one is compelled to interact with anyone on social media. If you get into quarrels on social media then expect to get shut down.

[WebLurker]

Honestly I don't see the big deal. If readers don't like Sittersons Twitter or facebook posts, don't follow him on twitter or facebook. That's really got nothing to do with liking his comic or not.

I agree. Besides, how many readers even follow comic writers Twitter feeds?

[Username taken]

Honestly I don't see the big deal. If readers don't like Sittersons Twitter or facebook posts, don't follow him on twitter or facebook. That's really got nothing to do with liking his comic or not.

Exactly.

Maybe it's a generational thing but it's beyond ridiculous to me to follow people on social media that you completely disagree with.

[Redjack]

Many people believe that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech, protects their right to say anything they want, online or off. This is incorrect, however. The First Amendment protects us from the government, not from private companies. Within limits, the government may not tell us what we can or can't say; no such restriction applies to private employers.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional protections of speech. A company has every right to terminate any employee of end a relationship with a contractor if they deem that what they said on in public forum can or has had a negative impact on their business or product. True you don't have to sigh an "I'll be good on the net" contract but that does not mean that some one can not be terminated by a twitter post.

You cannot be fired for expressing political views unless those views can be demonstrated to have harmed the company you work for. People can be terminated for nothing at all but not for political speech unless that speech is specifically prohibited by a signed contract or if it breaches some version off a morals clause. Because of the Constitution. If the government allowed such firings to stand they would be giving tacit approval to the censorship free political speech, something the Constitution disallows. it's why we have Supreme Court cases about private companies not wanting to serve people of divergent faiths or sexual orientation. The court only hears cases that have a Constitutional bearing.

[Moon Ronin]

You cannot be fired for expressing political views unless those views can be demonstrated to have harmed the company you work for. People can be terminated for nothing at all but not for political speech unless that speech is specifically prohibited by a signed contract or if it breaches some version off a morals clause. Because of the Constitution. If the government allowed such firings to stand they would be giving tacit approval to the censorship free political speech, something the Constitution disallows. it's why we have Supreme Court cases about private companies not wanting to serve people of divergent faiths or sexual orientation. The court only hears cases that have a Constitutional bearing.

That is a civil rights case not a freedom of speech case big difference it like not serving some one due to the color of their skin. And it is true that you can't be fired for political views such as "Vote for Hillary", or saying "Trump is a scum bag". But you can for say something like "All Muslims need to be rounded up and kicked out of the country" that is a political statement but it can still get you canned. I'm sure your years in HR give you a lot of insight in to such matter though.

[Carabas]

I'm not even seeing what Sitterson did wrong here.

[The Negative Zone]

Read comics not Twitter feeds.

[Redjack]

That is a civil rights case not a freedom of speech case big difference it like not serving some one due to the color of their skin. And it is true that you can't be fired for political views such as "Vote for Hillary", or saying "Trump is a scum bag". But you can for say something like "All Muslims need to be rounded up and kicked out of the country" that is a political statement but it can still get you canned. I'm sure your years in HR give you a lot of insight in to such matter though.

As i said (and you said) the latter sort of speech can be deemed hurtful to the company and is grounds for dismissal as we have seen many times in media. but me saying "Paul Ryan is a hypocrite of epic proportions" is not, in itself, grounds for dismissal. Because of the Constitution.

[JKtheMac]

Read comics not Twitter feeds.

Indeed. I rarely even open Twitter.

[PhantomStranger]

Who's dissing fans though? The only people being dissed are those overgrown trolls take attack certain writers so they can have a reason to make their YouTube videos & their followers. Fans know how to have a real conversation with their favorite writers/artists.

So criticism = troll/"not a fan"...typical.

Heather Antos just mass-blocked 5000+ people simply for following the "wrong people" on Twitter. Dan Slott orchestrated a campaign to have one critic's twitter account CLOSED for no reason other than he was a critic, and now got caught boasting about impersonating a fan to hurt the rep of critics.

This is not the behavior of professionals. Where is Marvel to reassert the discipline of the business place?

[PhantomStranger]

Those same trolls who in the comments said "I hope IDW learns from this and their SJW version of MASK that bombed"

That's not "trolling".

[PhantomStranger]

once again, unless it's specifically outlined in a contract (and it pretty much never is) no entertainment company has oversight over the personal behavior of a freelancer. We can be asked to sign Non Disclosure Agreements to keep secrets of upcoming or ongoing projects from leaking out but that's pretty much the only limit on Free Speech any company can impose. And it's not an imposition if we all agree and sign.

Some folks need to learn how this stuff works before they pop off about what a company should do to "control its employees."

Corporate entertainment isn't anywhere near as fascistic as it would need to be for the trolls' wishes to be granted. Political speech is protected by the Constitution, sweeties. The end.

Many people believe that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech, protects their right to say anything they want, online or off. This is incorrect, however. The First Amendment protects us from the government, not from private companies. Within limits, the government may not tell us what we can or can't say; no such restriction applies to private employers.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional protections of speech. A company has every right to terminate any employee of end a relationship with a contractor if they deem that what they said on in public forum can or has had a negative impact on their business or product. True you don't have to sigh an "I'll be good on the net" contract but that does not mean that some one can not be terminated by a twitter post.

Most professional contracts have what is colloquially known as a "morals" or "reputation" clause, restricting the actions or statements of employees such that if they say or do things that damage the company's reputation they can be fired.

I have heard this said often, but I must admit, most of the times I have seen Marvel writers defend their work etc it has been in understandable circumstances. May one one ask for examples of the type of behavior you and others think is unacceptable?

See one of my responses above. In addition, Mags Vissagio tweeting about beating "cis people" with a baseball bat, or the mini-tweetstorm calling for violence by trans.

[goledensilence]

So criticism = troll/"not a fan"...typical.

Heather Antos just mass-blocked 5000+ people simply for following the "wrong people" on Twitter. Dan Slott orchestrated a campaign to have one critic's twitter account CLOSED for no reason other than he was a critic, and now got caught boasting about impersonating a fan to hurt the rep of critics.

This is not the behavior of professionals. Where is Marvel to reassert the discipline of the business place?

Most of those people are still trolls. They're out here making stupid memes, destroying comics & trying to get people fired over the smallest tweet. Her blocking 5000 is extreme, but why not do it when those certain people just want to add fuel to the flames? If that certain critic initials are C.C., then I'm don't really care about his account getting shut down based on the type of YT videos he puts up.