The Energon Pub

Autobot032 wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:Come on guys... we all know free-speech is a farce, right?....
Piss off the wrong person, and watch that freedom fade quicker than waspinators dignity

Free speech is not the issue here. She's free to say what she wants, and did. There's nothing that entitles her to remain employed after being insensitive to her bosses and everyone involved.

Bosses can read your Facebook profile and fire you due to defamatory, insensitive, or otherwise offensive comments and remarks. Some of which reflect badly on the company. That's a punishable offense.

Look at this situation in the same light, for a moment.

She made fun of the people who write her checks. She made fun of the movies that made her famous. She called her director the name of a mass murderer.

To the outside world looking in, it looks like:

1.) It's okay to talk about Hitler in front of the people who were affected greatly by the man's actions.

2.) It's okay to mock the movie and crew working on it, because she did it. (good for the goose and gander, all that jazz.)

3.) It's okay to make crude and offensive comments towards the audience that helped make her famous, and made them money.

4.) It says Spielberg, Hasbro, Paramount and Dreamworks are fine with this. I mean, obviously it must be, because they decided to keep her, right?

That's not how it works. They bent over backwards to keep her, and all she could do was attack them on all fronts. She finally crossed one too many lines and suffered for it.

She's welcome to say what she wants, but she has no right to expect to keep her job. If you and I did the same thing, the same result would happen. For once, a star didn't receive special treatment.

Actually, someone at my partners place of work was fired due to slagging her boss off on facebook, one of the other employees reported it, however she took the company to a tribunal and got reinstated due to a breach of her human rights.

I agree now ive looked into it that she went too far when you combine everything, and maybe the Hitler comment was too far (actually as ive already said it was amazingly bad taste, but something that is commonplace for the working class here), but you cant be sacked for saying something the boss doesnt like (unless racist or blatantly illegal), warned yes, sacked no.

However, as stated it does seem that she was given more than her fair share of warnings, so in light of that, yes, deserved to go. (If in fact she was sacked, and didnt walk off like she stated).

Autobot032 wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:Come on guys... we all know free-speech is a farce, right?....
Piss off the wrong person, and watch that freedom fade quicker than waspinators dignity

Free speech is not the issue here.

You are completely correct, I don't know how it got dragged into this.
Either way, what I said was pertaining to other things, like tv shows and magazines, etc. Not this case really. Oh and thats another thing, I HATE FACEBOOK, AND ALL THIS NEW CRAP THAT INCREASES NETWORKING pretty much AGAINST your will!
You can't even check your hotmail without being forced to sign into messenger!

Pottermus_Prime wrote:Actually, someone at my partners place of work was fired due to slagging her boss off on facebook, one of the other employees reported it, however she took the company to a tribunal and got reinstated due to a breach of her human rights.

I've seen a number of cases popping up where the person has been terminated via social media, and for some reason they seem to be winning.

Guess you can't beat a good old fashioned in your face "YOU'RE FIRED!"

Burn wrote:

Pottermus_Prime wrote:Actually, someone at my partners place of work was fired due to slagging her boss off on facebook, one of the other employees reported it, however she took the company to a tribunal and got reinstated due to a breach of her human rights.

I've seen a number of cases popping up where the person has been terminated via social media, and for some reason they seem to be winning.

Guess you can't beat a good old fashioned in your face "YOU'RE FIRED!"

hehe, lord sugar to the rescue lol.

maybe i was wrong in a part that it wasnt something severe enough to be sacked normally then, either way i dunno, i think rather than firing someone they should be allowed to take em around the back an give em a good old school flushing or a beating with a sharp stick until they stop being pillocks lol.

On a positive note

DOTM WILL SOON BE HERE MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-- Gee, Do you think that Spielberg has like absolutely NO SENSE OF HUMOUR or PERSPECTIVE?!!... One little comparison to some historical tyrant from over 70 years ago, and suddenly HE can't accept his lead star anymore!! -- Why do you think those lousy-A$$ interpretations of 'Transformers' were of any real interest to most people (especially men) in the first place?!... It WAS because of MEGAN FOX and her sex appeal... DUH, DUH, Dumba$$ Spielberg who obviously can not take a simple joke or suffer fools gladly... I think the team over at 'South Park' had it correct, He and Lucas are 'BUDDIES' -- If you know what I mean. Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge, Say no more?!

I'm sorry, why do we need this 'breaking news' every few months revealing another 'real' reason why she was given the boot? Like it's important or anything? This is not some masterful misinformation campaign, it's the same boring story retread over and over and over, and the only changes are like, comma placement or other miniscule crap. "She was fired because......" so what?


Aside from that, Facebook firings and such are assinine. I know it happens, I know, but it's assinine.

Burn wrote:

Pottermus_Prime wrote:Actually, someone at my partners place of work was fired due to slagging her boss off on facebook, one of the other employees reported it, however she took the company to a tribunal and got reinstated due to a breach of her human rights.

I've seen a number of cases popping up where the person has been terminated via social media, and for some reason they seem to be winning.

Guess you can't beat a good old fashioned in your face "YOU'RE FIRED!"

Yeah, it's disturbing that something like having an opinion or voicing an opinion on the internet is enough to get you fired and that such decisions hold up. Yes, "you represent your company and blah blah blah," but if I am expected to represent my profession 24 hours a day, then I should be paid for 24 hours of labor each day. Does that sound stupid? No more so than being able to be fired for expressing an opinion when I'm off the clock.

But universal health care is socialist oppression, right?

Sorry for the morning rant team.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I don't care what all ya fools say, Megan = waaaay hotter than that blonde thing they got starring opposite of Shia Lebeouf now.

leviebaby wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BumAH2rTW-M

Quoting the classics: Kiss my shiny metal *ss!

#3: makes war look too f*cking sad...
WELL WAR AIN'T NO GODDAMN PARTY!! There are always many casualties, tears and much heartache! Why should it be any different in movies!

leviebaby wrote:michael bay please stop making fake ascuses please i know and half you know he fired her because she wouldnt dress sexy its bs youll take bay side rrealy you can say bs about me but i wont see the movie not because no megan fox but it went down hill youll can hating fox but youll imature drunk punks who act like mature go gaga for bay but the truth is he wanted her dress sexy spillberg retire please

I can't believe no one has commented on this post yet! And if they have, I missed it and i'm sorry. PLEASE use correct punctuation and spelling, especially if you are going to make a point (all be it a grossly moronic one), and if you expect people to take you somewhat seriously!

He did not fire her because she would not dress "sexy". That's just epic-ly stupid! She was fired because she is a "no-talent egotistical hooker who needs botox to make her look even more like an Angelina Jolie big lip after-birth victim". You can quote me on that! You may think she is hot, but I think she is ugly as sin just because she is a spoiled little daddy's girl with OBVIOUS deep rooted "daddy issues", AND she has a "ME" complex unlike most Hollywood A-list actors with triple her acting talent. She opens her mouth when she should keep it closed, she bites the hand that feeds, and now she has nothing! Jonah Hex was an epic failure (in my opinion), and that was supposed to be her "redemption attempt" movie.

Michael Bay will do just fine without your money. So by all means, stay home and watch your MEGAN FOX fan fiction. That way, it will make room in the theater seats for people who actually want to see the movie for one simple reason.....BECAUSE WE ARE TRANSFORMER FANS!!!!!!! The collective has spoken.

Good day, sir. I SAID GOOD DAY!

Captain Avatar wrote:-- Gee, Do you think that Spielberg has like absolutely NO SENSE OF HUMOUR or PERSPECTIVE?!!... One little comparison to some historical tyrant from over 70 years ago, and suddenly HE can't accept his lead star anymore!! -- Why do you think those lousy-A$$ interpretations of 'Transformers' were of any real interest to most people (especially men) in the first place?!... It WAS because of MEGAN FOX and her sex appeal... DUH, DUH, Dumba$$ Spielberg who obviously can not take a simple joke or suffer fools gladly... I think the team over at 'South Park' had it correct, He and Lucas are 'BUDDIES' -- If you know what I mean. Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge, Say no more?!

Yes, please say more.

Captain Avatar wrote:-- Gee, Do you think that Spielberg has like absolutely NO SENSE OF HUMOUR or PERSPECTIVE?!!... One little comparison to some historical tyrant from over 70 years ago, and suddenly HE can't accept his lead star anymore!! -- Why do you think those lousy-A$$ interpretations of 'Transformers' were of any real interest to most people (especially men) in the first place?!... It WAS because of MEGAN FOX and her sex appeal... DUH, DUH, Dumba$$ Spielberg who obviously can not take a simple joke or suffer fools gladly... I think the team over at 'South Park' had it correct, He and Lucas are 'BUDDIES' -- If you know what I mean. Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge, Say no more?!

Well this is just a terrible first post. I sure as hell didn't go see the movies because of Megan Fox, in fact I thought the movies could use a little less of her. She's not that hot, I've seen women who are both massively more attractive AND much better actresses than her.

DarthFritter wrote:

leviebaby wrote:michael bay please stop making fake ascuses please i know and half you know he fired her because she wouldnt dress sexy its bs youll take bay side rrealy you can say bs about me but i wont see the movie not because no megan fox but it went down hill youll can hating fox but youll imature drunk punks who act like mature go gaga for bay but the truth is he wanted her dress sexy spillberg retire please

I can't believe no one has commented on this post yet! And if they have, I missed it and i'm sorry. PLEASE use correct punctuation and spelling, especially if you are going to make a point (all be it a grossly moronic one), and if you expect people to take you somewhat seriously!

He did not fire her because she would not dress "sexy". That's just epic-ly stupid! She was fired because she is a "no-talent egotistical hooker who needs botox to make her look even more like an Angelina Jolie big lip after-birth victim". You can quote me on that! You may think she is hot, but I think she is ugly as sin just because she is a spoiled little daddy's girl with OBVIOUS deep rooted "daddy issues", AND she has a "ME" complex unlike most Hollywood A-list actors with triple her acting talent. She opens her mouth when she should keep it closed, she bites the hand that feeds, and now she has nothing! Jonah Hex was an epic failure (in my opinion), and that was supposed to be her "redemption attempt" movie.

Michael Bay will do just fine without your money. So by all means, stay home and watch your MEGAN FOX fan fiction. That way, it will make room in the theater seats for people who actually want to see the movie for one simple reason.....BECAUSE WE ARE TRANSFORMER FANS!!!!!!! The collective has spoken.

Good day, sir. I SAID GOOD DAY!

And this is a good first post! It's like the opposite if the last post I quoted in every way. Good job on that.

Tyrannotaur wrote:Considering Spielberg is of Jewish faith I'd think that the Hitler comment probably offended him.

It was also a golden opportunity to get rid of one of the worst actresses I've ever seen. I don't care why she's gone - I'm just glad she is. Her "performance" in ROTF was embarrassing.

I usually don't say much but I can't remain quiet on this one. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Freedom of Speech is not an issue in this situation. The constitution only protects people from infringement of their speech by the state. Private companies like Steven Spielberg's cannot infringe up on someone's freedom of speech.

Here's the wording (Source:http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1)

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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."

I don't mean to nit-pick but it kind of drives me crazy when people make freedom of speech arguments that don't involve the "state" in any way. Now, she could sue him over it because I am sure, in some convoluted way, that it could be seen as slander and/or libel. I don't think she'd win, but she could try.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that she made a poor choice by comparing Bay to Hitler and the guy who signs the pay checks too offense to it. Hopefully she learned something from it. I doubt it.

well this has certianly developed hasnt it

suppose i should put in my two cents

- As i understand it, megan fox is not an employee of the studio, bay or spielberg. She would have had a contract i presume. Which would make her aan independant contractor, the studio system is long dead and gone. So was she fired, or was her contract terminated. If terminated then she probably doesnt have the freedom of speech excuse or employee legislation in her favour. However she may be entitled to payment of her contract, unless she has specifically broken a clause, confidentiality/moral turpitude/etc

- The double standards of spielberg. he has no issue with the content of the TF movies, which i and others found offensive. I dont want to respark this debate, some feel offended, some dont, but spielberg had no issue with the twins and so on, to claim moral high ground seems hypocritical. I dont remember did he complain about the soup nazi, i dont think so, since he allowed schindlers list be used in an episode where the characters made out during it.

on top of that, he had no issue trivilising Nazis in the indy movies, which made him quite a good buck

- then there is the comment itself. yes it was insensitive, yes it was ill advised, but was she really comparing bay to the man responsible for genocide. No it was more his dictatorial style. Should you say this to your employer, or contract holder, of course not. Is it a dismissal offence in your work place, perhaps not (depends on contract). Is it a bigger issue because spielberg and bay are jewish or part jewish. yes, should it be, no.

- This is not a defence of fox. she added nothing to the movies enjoyment for me (eye candy aside) however her replacement seems even worse an actress. her continued sniping about the movie and the making process may have made her difficult to work with, and this is reason enough to not use her third time round, but i think excuse given is B.S. but thats personal opinion, i dont know the facts

- the argument that its right that rules should apply to all, is unfair on fox. i hark back to an earlier point. would you be dismissed in your workplace for the same offence. Prince Philip said a german politician reminded him of a camp Kommander. Did he face political censure, mild rebuking at best

- finally if im wrong about contract or employment law, thats because im coming from non-us based employment law, so i accept it may not be the same

Burn wrote:She ran her mouth off about the boss and got fired. Plain and simple.

^This. And good riddance. Though, from what I've seen, Rosie Long Last Name isn't any better on the acting front.

So as exec producer, his main concern isnt the fact that his name is attached to sucky movies. But if you utter "Hitler"....

Spielberg should probably make another movie about Jews so people will finally understand. And while he's at it, another couple more films about his deep-seated "daddy" issues.

devlingrey wrote:I usually don't say much but I can't remain quiet on this one. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Freedom of Speech is not an issue in this situation. The constitution only protects people from infringement of their speech by the state. Private companies like Steven Spielberg's cannot infringe up on someone's freedom of speech.

Here's the wording (Source:http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1)

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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."

I don't mean to nit-pick but it kind of drives me crazy when people make freedom of speech arguments that don't involve the "state" in any way. Now, she could sue him over it because I am sure, in some convoluted way, that it could be seen as slander and/or libel. I don't think she'd win, but she could try.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that she made a poor choice by comparing Bay to Hitler and the guy who signs the pay checks too offense to it. Hopefully she learned something from it. I doubt it.

That is one of my pet peeves too so I'm in total agreement.

DarthFritter wrote:

leviebaby wrote:michael bay please stop making fake ascuses please i know and half you know he fired her because she wouldnt dress sexy its bs youll take bay side rrealy you can say bs about me but i wont see the movie not because no megan fox but it went down hill youll can hating fox but youll imature drunk punks who act like mature go gaga for bay but the truth is he wanted her dress sexy spillberg retire please

I can't believe no one has commented on this post yet! And if they have, I missed it and i'm sorry. PLEASE use correct punctuation and spelling, especially if you are going to make a point (all be it a grossly moronic one), and if you expect people to take you somewhat seriously!

He did not fire her because she would not dress "sexy". That's just epic-ly stupid! She was fired because she is a "no-talent egotistical hooker who needs botox to make her look even more like an Angelina Jolie big lip after-birth victim". You can quote me on that! You may think she is hot, but I think she is ugly as sin just because she is a spoiled little daddy's girl with OBVIOUS deep rooted "daddy issues", AND she has a "ME" complex unlike most Hollywood A-list actors with triple her acting talent. She opens her mouth when she should keep it closed, she bites the hand that feeds, and now she has nothing! Jonah Hex was an epic failure (in my opinion), and that was supposed to be her "redemption attempt" movie.

Michael Bay will do just fine without your money. So by all means, stay home and watch your MEGAN FOX fan fiction. That way, it will make room in the theater seats for people who actually want to see the movie for one simple reason.....BECAUSE WE ARE TRANSFORMER FANS!!!!!!! The collective has spoken.

Good day, sir. I SAID GOOD DAY!

no how is french kissing michael bay jack ass you sir pic a better icon

shamone wrote:- The double standards of spielberg. he has no issue with the content of the TF movies, which i and others found offensive. I dont want to respark this debate, some feel offended, some dont, but spielberg had no issue with the twins and so on, to claim moral high ground seems hypocritical.

The Twins weren't racist, since their race is Cybertronian. In fact I've met more white people who acted like them more than any other ethnicity. So if you looked at their characteristics and thought "They're supposed to be black people, since that's what black people act like." guess who the real racist is...

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:- The double standards of spielberg. he has no issue with the content of the TF movies, which i and others found offensive. I dont want to respark this debate, some feel offended, some dont, but spielberg had no issue with the twins and so on, to claim moral high ground seems hypocritical.

The Twins weren't racist, since their race is Cybertronian. In fact I've met more white people who acted like them more than any other ethnicity. So if you looked at their characteristics and thought "They're supposed to be black people, since that's what black people act like." guess who the real racist is...

you obviously didnt read the bolded part. but nice of you to imply those who dont agree with you are racists, the internet check mate

anyway moving on ..............

shamone wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:- The double standards of spielberg. he has no issue with the content of the TF movies, which i and others found offensive. I dont want to respark this debate, some feel offended, some dont, but spielberg had no issue with the twins and so on, to claim moral high ground seems hypocritical.

The Twins weren't racist, since their race is Cybertronian. In fact I've met more white people who acted like them more than any other ethnicity. So if you looked at their characteristics and thought "They're supposed to be black people, since that's what black people act like." guess who the real racist is...

you obviously didnt read the bolded part. but nice of you to imply those who dont agree with you are racists, the internet check mate

anyway moving on ..............

What you want to happen and what does happen are often two very different things.

Second, I'm not saying people are racist for disagreeing with me, since I do think the Twins are annoying as hell. I think people are racist for looking at a pair of CGI robot's characteristics then immediately attaching a specific race to it, though.

HAHAHAHAHA! Megan Faux you should learn not to talk **** to the people who sign your paycheck.....dumbass.

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:- The double standards of spielberg. he has no issue with the content of the TF movies, which i and others found offensive. I dont want to respark this debate, some feel offended, some dont, but spielberg had no issue with the twins and so on, to claim moral high ground seems hypocritical.

The Twins weren't racist, since their race is Cybertronian. In fact I've met more white people who acted like them more than any other ethnicity. So if you looked at their characteristics and thought "They're supposed to be black people, since that's what black people act like." guess who the real racist is...

you obviously didnt read the bolded part. but nice of you to imply those who dont agree with you are racists, the internet check mate

anyway moving on ..............

What you want to happen and what does happen are often two very different things.

Second, I'm not saying people are racist for disagreeing with me, since I do think the Twins are annoying as hell. I think people are racist for looking at a pair of CGI robot's characteristics then immediately attaching a specific race to it, though.

if you want to re-engage a debate which has raged on a number of threads, knock yourself out.

I dont care what you think one way or the other.

if you want to know why i think what i do, look the threads up. if not enjoy your one man conversation

devlingrey wrote:I usually don't say much but I can't remain quiet on this one. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Freedom of Speech is not an issue in this situation. The constitution only protects people from infringement of their speech by the state. Private companies like Steven Spielberg's cannot infringe up on someone's freedom of speech.

Here's the wording (Source:http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1)

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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."

I don't mean to nit-pick but it kind of drives me crazy when people make freedom of speech arguments that don't involve the "state" in any way. Now, she could sue him over it because I am sure, in some convoluted way, that it could be seen as slander and/or libel. I don't think she'd win, but she could try.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that she made a poor choice by comparing Bay to Hitler and the guy who signs the pay checks too offense to it. Hopefully she learned something from it. I doubt it.

Yes, thats the USA version i dare say, but its not the same everywhere. And yes i know she is a US citizen, and it was in the US, but that law you put up isnt standard across the board.