The right to post on YouTube: Is what you do outside work your own business?

my point is that different company’s can have apply different levels, as to what is acceptable in public by their employees.
So that if a:
Archbishop did this- booted out of the church immediately.
Primary School teacher did this- parents would be outraged, teacher probably sacked.
This Case- presenter asked to remove the footage.
Todd Carney did this- High Fives all around at the Raiders.

And Jakez,
I have decided to retroactively boycott 2CA for the last 20 years.

Is this another attempt at viral marketing by 2CA? Remember they allegedly used this site last year with a post claiming to be “the gay station”. This latest post seems to go against that original post. And a few days out from Mardi Gras, as well. All too convenient, isn’t it?

I think the difference here chewy is that while I personally don’t believe there should be such laws against discrimination in this context (public stripping etc), most others do. As such while I say they have the right but it is wrong, most would say it is wrong so they do not have the right.

In the context of believing in anti-discrimination laws, the difference is that people don’t accept discrimination on the basis of gender, sexuality, or race. Battery by urination is an entirely different matter.

I of course also draw this distinction, however if I did not I would still apply the same remedy (boycotting and ostracism).

“What I am saying is that an employer gets to decide what is acceptable behaviour for an employee that is in the public eye and representing the employer’s brand.”

Yes, but in this case, the corollary of your argument is that it’s okay for an employer to act as if stripping was morally equivalent to pissing on someone.

The employer needs to abide by reasonable standards of acceptable (private) behaviour rather than acting in order to ‘head off any (in this case, probably homophobic) criticism at the pass’.

Regardless, 2CA is sh1t.

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

Who Cares.

There is no difference. It’s the employer’s image that is important.
Saying that people strip at the mardi-gras and it’s part of the event is a cop out.
What if Todd Carney just stripped, would that be OK?
I don’t remember Todd Carney being charged with assault either.

You think pissing on someone is morally equivalent to stripping?

No Jim,

What I am saying is that an employer gets to decide what is acceptable behaviour for an employee that is in the public eye and representing the employer’s brand. For a recognisable public figure this can be while at work or not at work. I am not comparing the morality of the two, of course Todd Carney’s was worse.

chewy14 said :

Jakez,
im not listening to 2CA right now as type in protest.

Excellent, you should email them and let them know.

chewy14 said :

Who Cares.

There is no difference. It’s the employer’s image that is important.
Saying that people strip at the mardi-gras and it’s part of the event is a cop out.
What if Todd Carney just stripped, would that be OK?
I don’t remember Todd Carney being charged with assault either.

You think pissing on someone is morally equivalent to stripping?

Jakez,
im not listening to 2CA right now as type in protest.

chewy14 said :

Yes,
but it is the employer who gets to specify what they consider acceptable behaviour for a public figure representing their brand.
Some company’s would accept his behaviour, others wouldn’t but it is up to them.

That’s right, and I’m going to use my power of protest and ostracism to punish them for their decision.

Was he portraying or representing his workplace in any way shape or form at the time. Did he mention his workplace or endorse anything from them or make a statement that could be taken to have come from them ?

If not then it should be none of their business.

Given that Sydney Hotshots bills itself as “Australia’s no. 1 girls night out” and from the screams and squeals the audience was mainly women and it was held in Canberra I’m not really sure what the video being pulled really has to do with gay rights or mardi gras – except perhaps to act as an ad for it.

Yes,
but it is the employer who gets to specify what they consider acceptable behaviour for a public figure representing their brand.
Some company’s would accept his behaviour, others wouldn’t but it is up to them.

chewy14 said :

Todd Carney pissed on some guys leg, reflecting poorly on the image of his employer’s, the Canberra Raiders and Rugby League. He was given multiple chances to change his behaviour and on refusal was sacked.

2CA presenter strips in public at an event, reflecting poorly on his employer’s, 2CA. He has been told remove the footage of this from the internet.

What part of the comparison don’t you get?

One is a form of assault – or at the least being a public nuisance, the other a person providing public entertainment at an event in his own time where people were obviously quite happy to be there.

BTW according to the video the event did not occur at Mardi Gras, but here in Canberra.

Heck stripping worked for Jamie Durie I don’t know why the radio station would be getting it’s knickers in a knot.

chewy14 said :

Who Cares.

There is no difference. It’s the employer’s image that is important.
Saying that people strip at the mardi-gras and it’s part of the event is a cop out.
What if Todd Carney just stripped, would that be OK?

It would be okay with me.

Who Cares.

There is no difference. It’s the employer’s image that is important.
Saying that people strip at the mardi-gras and it’s part of the event is a cop out.
What if Todd Carney just stripped, would that be OK?
I don’t remember Todd Carney being charged with assault either.

Chewy, don’t be stupid. There’s a world of difference. Things like this happen at the mardi-gras, it’s part of the event. No-one was harmed. Carney, however, essentially assaulted someone.

phototext said :

“I didnt see any sympathy from people when Todd Carney pissed on a guys leg.”

LOL.

We should sympathise with Todd because he pissed on someones leg ?

Weird ass comparison to make.

Todd Carney pissed on some guys leg, reflecting poorly on the image of his employer’s, the Canberra Raiders and Rugby League. He was given multiple chances to change his behaviour and on refusal was sacked.

2CA presenter strips in public at an event, reflecting poorly on his employer’s, 2CA. He has been told remove the footage of this from the internet.

What part of the comparison don’t you get?

Who was the poor fellow pissed on by Todd?

Jim Jones said :

jakez said :

Deadmandrinking said :

Is his *image* associated with the business? Isn’t he on radio?

That’s too narrow a definition of image Deadman. It’s not image as in physical image. It’s image as in

“the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., esp. as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.”

But if a company is founding its argument that its ‘image’ has been tainted on the fact that someone is gay, then that’s clearly discrimination and is illegal (and immoral, natch).

But if sexuality has nothing to do with it, then that is presumably a different story.

I find it a little hard to believe though.

Mind you, I do hold an eternally burning hatred for commercial media.

Absolutely I agree. I was more making a technical point.

Deadmandrinking said :

But if the guy who re-posted the video hadn’t identified him, would this be as much of a possible hoo-ha. Small-time radio presenters are often less likely to be identified by sight alone.

This whole thing stinks of someone setting up the guy anyhow. Somebody claiming to be associated with this guy posts a story about him being told to take down the video and posts a link to a repost that clearly identifies the guy. A little too clearly, to be honest.

Mmm, which is what made me think of the other thread from a few weeks ago about the poor closeted radio presenter. This whole thing smells fishy to me.

jakez said :

Deadmandrinking said :

Is his *image* associated with the business? Isn’t he on radio?

That’s too narrow a definition of image Deadman. It’s not image as in physical image. It’s image as in

“the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., esp. as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.”

But if a company is founding its argument that its ‘image’ has been tainted on the fact that someone is gay, then that’s clearly discrimination and is illegal (and immoral, natch).

But if sexuality has nothing to do with it, then that is presumably a different story.

I find it a little hard to believe though.

Mind you, I do hold an eternally burning hatred for commercial media.

“I didnt see any sympathy from people when Todd Carney pissed on a guys leg.”

LOL.

We should sympathise with Todd because he pissed on someones leg ?

Weird ass comparison to make.

But if the guy who re-posted the video hadn’t identified him, would this be as much of a possible hoo-ha. Small-time radio presenters are often less likely to be identified by sight alone.

This whole thing stinks of someone setting up the guy anyhow. Somebody claiming to be associated with this guy posts a story about him being told to take down the video and posts a link to a repost that clearly identifies the guy. A little too clearly, to be honest.

Deadmandrinking said :

Is his *image* associated with the business? Isn’t he on radio?

That’s too narrow a definition of image Deadman. It’s not image as in physical image. It’s image as in

“the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., esp. as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.”

Deadmandrinking said :

And I think stripping at a mardi gras is a bit different to pissing on a guy’s leg and starting a huge fight, all things considered.

I’d much prefer the pissing/fight option, given the choice.

Is his *image* associated with the business? Isn’t he on radio?

Ready for the stages of grey? The business can require him to remove the offending video (or other personal information) if it will have a negative impact on the business. It’s one of the standard conditions in an employment contract.

If however online content only reflects on yourself, then the business doesn’t have a leg to stand on, outside of work hours you are your own person.

Here is where the real shades of grey come in, what can be deemed as having a negative impact on a business is very fuzzy. Depending on the persons position within the business, the persons public image, and if their image is associated with the business all come into question when deciding on any negative impacts.

Mr Evil said :

Mr Evil said :

He could always quit and go and get a ‘real’ job?

How is his present job not a ‘real’ job (Jakez asks knowing he is about to take the discussion off topic simply so that he can rant about his bullshit economic views)?

I put ‘real’ up as a bit of a lighthearted jab at how some people on RiotACT like to think their job is the only really worthwhile job in Canberra.

Which seems now even more appropriate as we’ve now wandered into the realm of public servants vs private sector, blah, blah, blah> 🙂

Ahhh, okay no worries then.

If you are in the APS and posting online, they do have some guidelines covering this http://www.apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular088.htm under the heading “Private use of online media”

Mr Evil said :

He could always quit and go and get a ‘real’ job?

How is his present job not a ‘real’ job (Jakez asks knowing he is about to take the discussion off topic simply so that he can rant about his bullshit economic views)?

I put ‘real’ up as a bit of a lighthearted jab at how some people on RiotACT like to think their job is the only really worthwhile job in Canberra.

Which seems now even more appropriate as we’ve now wandered into the realm of public servants vs private sector, blah, blah, blah> 🙂

I will gladly not listen to a radio station I don’t listen to anyway.

And I think stripping at a mardi gras is a bit different to pissing on a guy’s leg and starting a huge fight, all things considered.

Fight The Power Jakez!!!!

chewy14 said :

How is this a Gay Rights issue?
Surely the business has a right to decide what is a minimum behaviour for people that are in the public eye, whether at work or not at work.
Whether he likes it or not he is representing the company brand at all times.
He can always go and get another job that does not require this.
I didnt see any sympathy from people when Todd Carney pissed on a guys leg.

Well my position is that the business does have that right and the employee has the right to leave.

However just because somebody has the right to make that choice, doesn’t mean I have to like that choice. That is why I will ostracise and boycott. I won’t initiate force (or have someone initiate force on my behalf) to take away their choice, however I will use my own non-violent power to affect the change I want to see in our society.

This really doesn’t appear to be a gay rights issue at all: it seems to me that 2CA just don’t like their DJs to be plastering the internet with images of themselves stripping in public.

Jim Jones said :

So, the public service is a kind of wonderful make-believe magic fairy land?

So I respond negatively to someone who uses the term ‘real job’ just a few posts above, and you decide the best course of action is to play the literal card to me?

How is this a Gay Rights issue?
Surely the business has a right to decide what is a minimum behaviour for people that are in the public eye, whether at work or not at work.
Whether he likes it or not he is representing the company brand at all times.
He can always go and get another job that does not require this.
I didnt see any sympathy from people when Todd Carney pissed on a guys leg.

So, the public service is a kind of wonderful make-believe magic fairy land?

I think in Canberra, the public service jobs are the only jobs that AREN’T real.

I think, in canberra, the only real jobs are the public service. Four months of living in another city really showed me how everyone else despises the pube attitude in Canberra.

I think 2CA must be sniffing a ‘scandal’. I’m sure the Canberra times are putting on their snorkels to sink to new lows over this.

Deadmandrinking said :

I agree, Jim.

I don’t know if they are, Jake. I’m sure entertainers are protected by at least some of the law in regards to discrimination.

In retrospect you’d think so. I’d say it would have to be related to the job in some way (ie, you can discriminate against an Aboriginal actor when casting for someone to play Gough Whitlam). I don’t think gay radio broadcaster would qualify. Then again, it’s more about ‘naked broadcaster on Youtube’.

I still want to boycott.

Mr Evil said :

He could always quit and go and get a ‘real’ job?

How is his present job not a ‘real’ job (Jakez asks knowing he is about to take the discussion off topic simply so that he can rant about his bullshit economic views)?

Or…he could continue his work with 2CA without anyone giving a flying f-k about his sexuality.

Do I wish for too much?

Stripping would pay more money, and provide more job satisfaction as well.

I agree, Jim.

I don’t know if they are, Jake. I’m sure entertainers are protected by at least some of the law in regards to discrimination.

He could always quit and go and get a ‘real’ job?

I think entertainers are exempt from the anti-discrimination laws aren’t they?

Besides, bugger those laws. I want to use non-coercive boycotting and ostracism. RIOT!

Media outlets still do interfere in people’s personal lives and ‘discourage’ them from coming out of the closet.

In Canberra alone I can think of about 4-5 media personalities that are closet gays only because it would be damaging to their careers to come out.

Really sad stuff.

The whole idea of a ‘closet’ tends to be a bit stupid. It doesn’t matter what you do in the bedroom or on Oxford St. – as long as it’s not illegal. He shouldn’t feel pressured either way. If he wants to announce it, fine, if he doesn’t, fine. If 2CA is interfering with his personal life, they should be subject to the full force of anti-discrimination laws.

I have heard of a number of agencies who handle classified information, that active discourage staff form having any online presence – including UTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc. The theory is that putting too much of yourself out there can provide either leverage, or information for baddies get into the system.

Deadmandrinking said :

I was just wondering…it says 2CA announcer. Could it be that 2CA are trying to control their announcer’s public image? If so, that’s probably technically part of the deal. But it’s also ridiculous. Who gives a hoot if the announcer is gay? If someone is comfortable with their own sexuality and confident enough to express it, that only adds to them being a prime candidate for the job.

Wasn’t there some thread on RiotACT a few months ago about a prominent radio announcer who was a closet gay? It was some sort of complaint about him not being able to come out of the closet or something like that I think.

Hmmm on reflection Balmainboy should rename himself Balmain MardiGraspromotionboy.

I was just wondering…it says 2CA announcer. Could it be that 2CA are trying to control their announcer’s public image? If so, that’s probably technically part of the deal. But it’s also ridiculous. Who gives a hoot if the announcer is gay? If someone is comfortable with their own sexuality and confident enough to express it, that only adds to them being a prime candidate for the job.

Depends on what sort of job you have, really, and there’s no way near enough information given to know whether it is “fair” or not (and no, I don’t think we need any more information that might identify the individual, nor their place of employment). Was there an employment contract/conditions of employment? It’s quite common to have something in them which basically says you cannot do anything in your own time which may reflect poorly on your place of employment.

I don’t think it matters what sort of activity/content would be depicted in any video/website – it’s the potential consequence or damage to reputation of both employer and employee that is the issue.

It is very bizarre that an employer could do this. Is there any info we don’t have, like that the individual is a well-known rep of the employer, or something of that nature? If not, it’s ridiculous and I hope he/she does something about it.

It doesn’t particularly strike me as a gay rights issue (unless his managers objected on those grounds).

If your friend would like to go public, unless there is some valid reason that I don’t know about for the command I’d be happy to boycott.

Failing that, yeah it sucks.

You are ridiculous. Your ‘friend’ has already been busted at work for this issue and you go and spread it around the widest Canberra audience possible.

He must be white faced at this moment, making desperate phone calls to JB to have this taken down.

You have no escuse turning this into a ‘gay rights issue’.

You have made a very grave error. I hope your partner and his friend never speak to you again.

That is very ordinary…goes beyond a gay issue even, that’s a violation of his rights full-stop.

I read online recenty about a woman who was banned from xbox live for identifying herself as a lesbian….

http://consumerist.com/5160187/identifying-yourself-as-a-lesbian-gets-you-banned-on-xbox-live

Worse was the reports of players being harrassed by others for simply saying they were gay. Grow up world…seriously, grow up.