The magazine also said in its mail that while the organisation encourages free expression and constructive political debate, it has a zero tolerance policy towards hate speech.
This smells really fishy. They quote her directly when it comes to her taking the side of Palestinians in general (aka, the oppressed population) but when it comes to her supposed support of Hamas in particular, all there is in the article is a paraphrase of THEIR version, not a direct quote.
And what bullshit would that be? Anything that would be a fireable offense?
That’s not rhetorical or sealioning btw. I’m genuinely asking since I’m not familiar with her at all other than clears throat some of her early work several years ago…
I don’t know so I won’t speak to that, and no judgement of right or wrong here, but this is the US. Anything is or can be a fireable offense so long as it’s not one of a few specific protected things. In almost every state. So making a post on social media pretty much regardless of content can be a fireable offense if the company deems it so.
Just because it’s technically allowed doesn’t mean it’s not reprehensible treatment of a mostly blameless person, though. I’m not sure it even IS technically allowed, actually. She might have a good libel and wrongful termination/breach of contract case…
As I said, no judgement from me one way or another. Also we have no way of knowing what kind of contract she had or whether there was some kind of morality clause. Maybe this violated it. Maybe not.
All I was saying was that, whether right or wrong, employment can be terminated pretty much anywhere in the United States for any reason as long as it’s not a protected thing, which this almost certainly is not. So saying something is or isn’t a fireable offense probably needs some context. Because anything could be a fireable offense if the company thinks it is.
Not true. They post hate speech from right wing politicians verbatim all the time.
As for the tweets being somewhere else, it seems that it’s this:
Can someone please tell the freedom fighters in Palestine to flip their phones and film horizontal
To the inattentive and/or wilfully misinterpreting, that might come off as an endorsement of Hamas as “freedom fighters”, but note that she doesn’t mention Hamas by name and that Hamas aren’t usually the ones filming any of their atrocities.
Add her clarification from a few days later and it’s clear she’s talking about regular people filming the atrocities of the Israeli oppressors and isn’t referring to terrorism at all, unless you define it broadly enough to include the Israeli state terrorism:
I just want to make it clear that this statement in no way shape or form is [inciting] spread of violence," she said. "I specifically said freedom fighters because that’s what the Palestinian citizens are… fighting for freedom every day
As I suspected, she didn’t do what they said she did. She just had the temerity to speak up against the apartheid regime.
apartheid wall that has plagued Palestinians and ruined their agricultural lands for years and years is a big no-no.
Not to mention thousands being forced to go through military checkpoints to reach the nearest schools and hospitals, if they’re lucky enough to even be allowed to pass.
This smells really fishy. They quote her directly when it comes to her taking the side of Palestinians in general (aka, the oppressed population) but when it comes to her supposed support of Hamas in particular, all there is in the article is a paraphrase of THEIR version, not a direct quote.
Sounds like a political hit job.
deleted by creator
And what bullshit would that be? Anything that would be a fireable offense?
That’s not rhetorical or sealioning btw. I’m genuinely asking since I’m not familiar with her at all other than clears throat some of her early work several years ago…
I don’t know so I won’t speak to that, and no judgement of right or wrong here, but this is the US. Anything is or can be a fireable offense so long as it’s not one of a few specific protected things. In almost every state. So making a post on social media pretty much regardless of content can be a fireable offense if the company deems it so.
Just because it’s technically allowed doesn’t mean it’s not reprehensible treatment of a mostly blameless person, though. I’m not sure it even IS technically allowed, actually. She might have a good libel and wrongful termination/breach of contract case…
As I said, no judgement from me one way or another. Also we have no way of knowing what kind of contract she had or whether there was some kind of morality clause. Maybe this violated it. Maybe not.
All I was saying was that, whether right or wrong, employment can be terminated pretty much anywhere in the United States for any reason as long as it’s not a protected thing, which this almost certainly is not. So saying something is or isn’t a fireable offense probably needs some context. Because anything could be a fireable offense if the company thinks it is.
You’re right, I should have been more clear about expressing what I actually meant in the first place. I meant should but said would lol
I don’t think a reputable publication would post hate speech verbatim, even if it’s from someone else. There might be an archive somewhere?
Not true. They post hate speech from right wing politicians verbatim all the time.
As for the tweets being somewhere else, it seems that it’s this:
To the inattentive and/or wilfully misinterpreting, that might come off as an endorsement of Hamas as “freedom fighters”, but note that she doesn’t mention Hamas by name and that Hamas aren’t usually the ones filming any of their atrocities.
Add her clarification from a few days later and it’s clear she’s talking about regular people filming the atrocities of the Israeli oppressors and isn’t referring to terrorism at all, unless you define it broadly enough to include the Israeli state terrorism:
As I suspected, she didn’t do what they said she did. She just had the temerity to speak up against the apartheid regime.
Removed by mod
Not to mention thousands being forced to go through military checkpoints to reach the nearest schools and hospitals, if they’re lucky enough to even be allowed to pass.
Tweet deleted, but referenced in this news source
I believe the use of the term “freedom fighters” is the point of contention.
Removed by mod
Yes this exact quote is featured two posts up in the thread