Curt Schilling, ESPN Analyst, Is Fired Over Offensive Social Media Post

Last Wednesday, ESPN Analyst and Former MLB Pitcher Curt Shilling, was fired from ESPN after a post he made on Facebook on his opinion on transgender sexuality. The post he made included a meme of a transgender man along with his own comment on how transgender people should go about going to the bathroom in public places. It seemed like he was responding to the new law in North Carolina that keeps transgender people from using bathrooms and locker rooms that don’t correspond to their birth gender. The post drew immediate criticism given the fact it is a sensitive topic throughout the country. His comment was that, “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the p****, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”

ESPN has made it known that this type of behavior from their employee’s will not be tolerated and that his employment was terminated immediately. Curt Shilling has been on thin ice a lot due to his constant presence on social media and his controversial opinions he posts about, including recently posting how he compares Muslims to Nazis and how Hillary Clinton should be “buried in a jail somewhere.” He has been a notoriously outspoken person who sees no reason to hide his true feelings about topics in the world, but this time it came back to bite him back.

  1. Do you feel that he should have been terminated because of his social media posts?
  2. Should work places, such as high end places like ESPN, make an emphasis on conduct outside the work place (including social media) and how their social media accounts should be managed?
  3. Is the fact of having people (with such strong opinions about sensitive topics) post their opinions on topics like this a good idea for social media? Does this cause more problems for society?


4 thoughts on “Curt Schilling, ESPN Analyst, Is Fired Over Offensive Social Media Post

  1. From the business standpoint, it makes sense to fire him especially since he’s a public figure for ESPN so he’s got to realize everything he says and does is a reflection of ESPN. There are times when companies can enter politics like the companies who threatened not to film in Georgia if the discriminatory laws were passed, but usually it’s best to stay away from one extreme or another.

    I was talking to the person we’re doing our project on, Greg Pak, and his use of Twitter, specifically last week on the day of the New York primary. He didn’t tweet anything support one candidate over another, or even Republican vs. Democrat, but he did encourage people to just go vote. Especially since he’s now got a Kickstarter campaign going on, if he did voice support to one candidate over the other, chances are he would lose potential backers.

  2. I think it’s better to know people’s opinions, especially if they are ignorant, than to watch them on TV for years without knowing what is really going on in their heads. I think this guy is an idiot, and should have been fired. Research also shows that not managing employees’ social media accounts, and instead allowing them to interact with consumers or viewers freely, is actually very beneficial. This type of independence is good for the company, but of course, it must be monitored to be able to react and neutralize situations like this.

  3. Of course Shilling should be terminated. We are now in 2016, and everything posted on social media can be tracked back to a person, their employer, and even their families, and assumptions WILL be made about how accepting and positive these people are. If you’re a public figure working for a mega corp like ESPN, you will be held to the highest standard as far as political neutrality, and Shilling should have known this. These days, toeing the line is not tolerated by the majority of active internet commenters, and any misstep will look terrible for a company like ESPN.

    As for if posting strong opinions on social media is positive or negative, I’d say it is mostly positive because it allows a discussion to take place where it sometimes may not be possible. People can defend themselves equally on social media if they are able to articulate their case properly. And it is much easier to shut down a bigot these days thanks to the huge library of scientific studies available to the public that can be used to back up any case with valid factual basis behind it.

  4. In my opinion, firing him was totally justified. Doing a comment like that goes against the company’s ethic code and against morals worldwide. Having a spokesperson of your company constantly voicing his controversial opinions gives bad rep to the company.

    I think that celebrities/public figures social media accounts being managed by a third party is good in order to avoid any controversy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s