I liked Grant the play-by-play guy, but not so much the radio guy and his over the top NY shtik.
Regardless of thinking the guy was more often than not a first rate jerk, I would never support or defend firing/canceling someone for stating their own opinion on their own social media platform. What Grant said was no more controversial or wrong than those on the other side of the fence who also share the right to share their opinion(s) regardless whether others believe it to be wrong. I mean, Boogie Cousins often said things and behaved in ways that many didn’t agree with but he wasn’t cancelled or fired for it.
This Napear situation helped set a dangerous precedent that I don’t want to see stick. There are many people I disagree with on this site to the point of not wanting to read what they have to write most times. But I’d never want to cancel them or take away their livelihood. I never want to live in a world where those on the other side of the fence are actively persecuted for not sharing ideals/beliefs. That’s just diabolical and wrong. And for those reasons I surely do hope he wins his lawsuit. I’d argue the same for anyone whom I have a personal distaste.
The report was that he didn't use his own personal social media account, he used the one associated with his show. Also, it does make
some sense for a company to be able to not hire / fire an on-air broadcast personality whose name is associated with their brand if they no longer feel that his public persona aligns with theirs or if he's done something which (they believe) might cause their brand to lose value.
I see your point and generally agree with it -- people should be able to express their opinion without having every comment subject to the morality police. It's okay for people to be wrong if for no other reason than we won't ever all agree on what is right. But when you accept a job in broadcasting where you are paid to utilize someone else's platform to voice your opinion, shouldn't the company paying you also be free to terminate your employment at their own discretion?
We already live in a weird meta advertising world where companies pretend that their brand is our friend. That's more insidious to me than anything at stake in this case, but I suppose I would have to consent (somewhat begrudgingly) that even legal forms of social engineering likely fall within the protection of free speech in this country. Since Napear is the one who filed the lawsuit, I would argue that the goal of this lawsuit is actually to
limit free speech -- a ruling in Grant's favor would conclude that Grant Napear was fired unlawfully and that might put additional restrictions on what constitutes legal grounds for termination (unless he's successfully able to argue that his comments fall within existing religious protections).
I would prefer to see a cultural swing back toward nuanced conversation and respectful disagreement in public discourse (instead of careful personal brand management) but I'm afraid the genie may already be out of the bottle for good on that one.
