Canadian Sports Anchor Damian Goddard Fired for Tweet in Support of Anti-Gay Hockey Agency

Goddard

Canadian broadcaster Sportsnet has fired its host Damian Goddard following a tweet in which he expressed support for "the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage."

Tweet_goddard

Goddard's tweet was in response to a tweet from Uptown Sports Management, a major hockey agency, in which it condemned New York Ranger Sean Avery for his support of the campaign to pass marriage equality in New York.

The Toronto Star reports:

Attempting to skip over the controversy, Sportsnet suggested in a release that their problems with Goddard did not start with his decision to share his political views online.

“Mr. Goddard was a freelance contractor and in recent weeks it had become clear that he is not the right fit for our organization,” the sports giant’s communications director, Dave Rashford, said in a short statement.

Goddard hosted the Sportsnet show Connected.

Comments

  1. Randy says

    I completely and whole-heartedly support Sportsnet for its traditional and TRUE meaning of the word fired.

  2. Abel says

    My hope is that the clients of the Uptown Sports Management agency will start bailing. The sooner the better. If the bigots get hit in the pocket book, maybe they’ll start to see their bigotry as a bad thing.

  3. Tim says

    Don’t be naive, Abel. All that will accomplish is adding ammunition to their argument that we’re all bullying everyone who disagrees with us.

    Honestly, the more people we get fired for expressing political views we disagree with, the more we look like the intolerant thought police. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t fight back, we certainly should, but perhaps we could be a bit more classy about it.

  4. InExile says

    Hate speech is hate speech and people are getting tired of it. Wake up and smell tolerence and the future generation’s vision for our country!

  5. RJP3 says

    Tim this is not our fight at this point in this type of case. This is now the fight of the corporation he works for and chose to work for I assume after going through Diversity training. I would be very surprised if they do not have an existing Corporate Values statement that employees are required to uphold. Can any of who are employees of the majority of the major corporations us be active and open members of the KKK and still keep our jobs??? For most of us I assume not.

    So this guy is just learning the new rules of civilized society in 2011.

    I do hope they have had something in writing that restricted this behavior before firing him without a warning.

  6. Jamie says

    He didn’t have a great reputation, so I’m not surprised that Sportsnet says that says that the problems didn’t start with that tweet.

  7. HadenoughBS says

    I don’t get your comment, Tim, because such firings will accomplish getting mouthy homophobes off the airwaves. Let them fend for their homophobic selves out in the open market after having this kind of firing on their work record. Good riddance to each and every one of them. Firings is one way to fight back!

  8. Ricco says

    No one got anyone fired but Damian Goddard. He just happens to work for a company that has a certain image in mind they feel he does not uphold. It does not necessarily mean that they are any more supportive of gay rights than Uptown Sports Management is . . . only that perhaps they recognize that there is money to be made and lost in the gay community.

    It is fascinating to see the same duality of pacifism and militarism in the the fight for gay rights that marked the Civil Rights movement. But here is the thing. While Martin Luther King gets all the cred for . . . and he certainly deserves a lot of credit (that should go without saying) I don’t think the movement could have done without Malcolm X.

    I agree Tim, only to the extent that I do not like this overly sensitive politically correct environment that is rapidly growing in this country . . .but the variant ways we choose to fight for our rights has nothing to do with class . . . because we need our sensible gay folks with their modulated tone . . . and we need our angry fags.

  9. Jim says

    I am somewhat torn about this. On the one hand it is a matter of free speech (however misguided), on the other hand his Twitter page was very much work related and not personal. While it won’t make any difference here in Canada (or little), it will be used by our enemies in the US as ammunition in their battle against our rights.

    It should be noted that Sportsnet is part of the Rogers Communications group in Canada. Rogers is the largest cable company, a major owner of radio and TV networks, and the number three cell phone company. Rogers is also a big supporter of gay causes. I suspect this decision to fire him may have come down from on high.

  10. woodroad34 says

    Marriage has a traditional meaning, but it not a TRUE meaning. It’s a man-made device and has not been around since the beginning of time as Piggie Gallagher would have it–she’s not that old, she just seems like an old fart.

  11. Ricco says

    We can’t all be martyrs, rolling over and letting them kick us to death, putting us in hospital and in the ground.

    Here is what I know of human nature . . . it goes from one extreme to another. What we have suffered, and are still suffering in the loss of our beautiful young gay boys and girls who cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel, has been extreme. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, for our species to go from one extreme in our world perspective and not go to the other extreme when attempting to redress past wrongs, to create a more equitable society.

    It’s simple physics. A pendulum never swings from its outer arc to settle dead center of that arc.

  12. TampaZeke says

    Wow, in America Cicadas are coming out of their 13 year hibernation in swarms; in Canada the Conservatives won a majority for the first time in years last week and the homophobes and bigots are already coming out of the woodwork in swarms.

  13. Paul R says

    @Tim: Why, because they’re so classy?

    Boycotts and firings are perfectly acceptable ways of expressing disagreement. People are allowed to say or think whatever they want, but when those views can be taken to reflect on their employer and/or they’re a public figure, they deserve whatever sanctions they incur. Most companies aren’t eager to be viewed as employing and thereby tacitly supporting bigots.

  14. Francis says

    No, we don’t need to be classy about exposing and eliminating bigotry. These bigots are not classy. They hate us, they look down on us, the spit on us and their existences. Well, now that FINALLY we are gaining some widespread support and social power, it’s time to make the world a better place for all decent human beings to live. No-one said you can’t be a bigot but if you go out of your way to proclaim it, there are consequences in a civil society. That’s the way I see it. You either stand up or get run over.

    And, ultimately, now that we are gaining more acceptance, companies are crossing their T’s and dotting their I’s to make sure they don’t cross us. And realize that we have a voice—-and we have pocketbooks and are ready to send a clear message with them. This sends a great example that no, it’s not acceptable to be anti-gay. It’s that simple.

  15. ricky says

    Tim – How do you propose injecting class into an arena where two grown men have taking to venting — like teenage girls – on Twitter — not their opinion — but their opinion – ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE’S OPINION — and then – like gossiping housewives of the 50s- at least in Ms. Reynolds’ case – whining about how they should be able to say something about Avery’s beliefs – but no one has a right to say anything about theirs?

    Both of these cowardly buffoons are more than welcome to have conversations about their personal beliefs with their families, their friends, and the boys they pay to sleep with them – but if you take to your companies’ account – or you, as a television commentator, take to your twitter account – and criticize someone else’s beliefs – or how you support someone else’s right to criticize someone else’s beliefs — you will be criticized and you will be held responsible.

  16. says

    “This isn’t to say we shouldn’t fight back, we certainly should, but perhaps we could be a bit more classy about it.”

    We didn’t fire him, his Canadian broadcaster did, so it’s not a question of us being classy. Most of us think we’re quite classy enough, thank you very much. His Tweet was asinine–not to mention, CLASSLESS, and if he thought it wouldn’t get him in trouble, he is very naive. Gay couples can get married in Canada, so the TRUE meaning of marriage includes them. To suggest otherwise is false and ignorant, blatantly bigoted. If he’d agreed that other minority groups should not be allowed to marry, whatever Canadian law says, he’d be out of a job just as fast, or faster.

    He’s still free to speak his mind. But that doesn’t mean anyone should be forced to keep him on as a “freelance contractor.”

  17. TampaZeke says

    @JIM, first, This was in CANADA, not the USA. Canada does not have a constitutional right to free speech. Second, even if this were in the USA, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the “right of free speech”, which is specific in forbidding GOVERNMENTAL/legal suppression of speech (you know, like an elected official, Ruben Diaz, using his office and official position as a legislator to try to shut down a news paper). Private companies have right to limit the speech of their employees; particularly on company time and on company equipment and NO ONE has a right to UNCHALLENGED speech. I’m surprised by how many idiots think that free speech means people have a right to express an opinion without challenge or consequence.

  18. Jeff Kurtti says

    The First Amendment says the CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

    When are people going to figure out that the right to free speech has nothing to do with being permitted to say any assholey thing that comes to your mind and letting it hit your mouth like some kind of gumball machine without any consequences?

  19. Tim NC says

    It’s wonderful to see the pendulum starting to swing our way. More and more we are seeing full public support for us an consequences against those that make bigoted public statements.

    To those of you who may think that these bigots aren’t being treated with enough “class…. just take their public comment and modify it to make it about race. See if you think they would have seen a different result.

    It’s finally starting to happen on a regular basis, polite society is no longer willing to put up with the bigots and their outbursts and it feels GREAT.

  20. ratbastard says

    @TAMPAZEKE,

    Right. Presumably, he violated some aspect of his contract, or it’s coming up for renewal. The company is within it’s legal rights to terminate his employment. As for his tweet, he did it from his ‘business’ account, and no doubt his employers did not appreciate the publicity.

    Canada soes legally restrict speech to an extent the U.S. does not, however. I don’t agree with this. I think people should be able to express their opinions even if others find those opinions offensive. Adults shouldn’t be thin skinned. And I wouldn’t want to see in the U.S. any extra-judicial so-called ‘Human Rights Tribunals’ like Canada.

  21. ratbastard says

    @JEFF KURTTI,

    Actually, yes, the First Amendment does legally allow you or anyone else to say any ‘assholey’ thing, as long as it doesn’t fit the legal description of libel, in which case you risk being civilly sued. What’s so hard to understand?

  22. JAMES in Toronto says

    “I’m surprised by how many idiots think that free speech means people have a right to express an opinion without challenge or consequence.” – TampaZeke

    It’s one of the most surprising things about the US approach to these things.

    Three words: “Westboro Baptist Church”.

    No… I’m too tired to really get into it.

    …but? Don’t you think that people hurting others should be stopped?

    Anyway, in this much milder case, Goddard violated Canadian accepted social and moral standards (and what really is the law), and expressed a social commentary on behalf of the organisation that he works for, without approval.

    YUP. I’d have fired him too.

  23. Jeff Kurtti says

    Ratbastard, that’s my point. First Amendment extends to STATE interference, not as a protection of the ability to say assholey things WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE–consequences such as libel, or termination because said assholey conduct took place in the workplace.

    You may say whatever you wish, but you may be sued, you may be fired, so watch what you say because it is NOT a First Amendment issue. What’s so hard to understand?

  24. GregV says

    “Canada does legally restrict speech to an extent the U.S. does not…“

    “Ratbastard: And the U.S. also restricts free speech to an extent that Canada does not.

    In Canada, you cannot put an ad in the paper suggesting you want an innocent minority group killed. You also cannot air a news show which invents lies to slander others without risking losing the broadcast license. (The information in news shows in Canada which are not parodies has to be TRUE, not edited to intentionally create false impressions.)

    However, in the US, FoxNews can intentionally mislead viewers with impunity (Remember the completely false Acorn scandal they invented with a fake pimp and prostitute, or the government official whose comments were edited to create the false impression that she had said she would not help white farmers.)
    But the Broadcast decency Enforcement Act signed by George W. Bush in 2005 threatens fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars for uttering in passing many common and relatively innocuous words that might offend a few crotchety conservatives.

    Those network-protecting time-delays that have made actual live TV and radio broadcasts a thing of the past in the US are completely unnecessary in Canada, since the bar that has to be crossed is not one that a responsible human being would ever cross, anyway.

    Many (I`d venture to guess most) Americans say things on a regular basis that would be fineable offenses if said on US broadcast TV. In Canada, those words are not an issue that the government considers any of its business.

    I know which policy seems more sane and reasonable to me.

    But, back to the case in this article: “Canada“ did not censor him in any way. His EMPLOYER wasn`t satisfied with him. And considering his actions, that should be no wonder.

  25. Hue-Man says

    The most highly rated reader comments on the linked Toronto Star article support the Right to Say Stupid Things and Remain Employed! I wonder if they would be as supportive if the announcer had tweeted how great it was to be a KKK member and how much more superior he was to Canadians of color…He is essentially saying that the 100,000+ gay and lesbian married Canadians are not “real” marriages (multiply by 10 to get U.S. population equivalent).

  26. ron says

    The company that currently owns Sportsnet also owned a hardcore gay porn channel called HARDTV. There are powerful gays behind the scene in this story.

  27. Jim says

    @TampaZeke, I am quite aware this is in Canada (as I am). Contrary to your statement, Canada does have a constitutional right to free speech (see section 2 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (part of the Canadian Constitution) which states under “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms” … “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”. I did not saw any where in my post that he should not be challenged on what he said nor that he should suffer the consequences, but he did have a right to say it.

  28. Bastian says

    Yes, he is free to speak his mind. No one has arrested him. However, Sportsnet is also free to fire him at will.

  29. kodiak says

    You don’t tweet not to be read. I like my sports and newscasters to remain purveyors of facts, figures, etc, without injecting their personal opinions, beliefs. Just the facts m’am. But not being a tweeter, I’m not sure about what’s right or wrong. It seems tweets are meant to be followed and have a more personal nature. That said, he was tweeting from the broadcasters source, and should represent the company, not his own self. I think he failed to make the distinction. Or something. But I would not want to watch his broadcasts knowing he is against me getting married, or considers me less deserving than him of rights. It’s weird, the right of free speech saying another person doesn’t deserve a right.

  30. wimsy says

    This is no different than Neanderthal broadcasters who have been fired for using the “n” word, or calling women “ho’s” or attacking any minority group. If you speak for my company and you express bigoted views, you are fired.

    Want free speech? Stand in the unemployment line and spout anything you want.

  31. ratbastard says

    @James in Toronto,

    What about the word ‘Free’ don’t you comprehend? What about the phrase ‘Fre Speech’ don’t you comprehend, James. I’m assuming you’re an adult. Get a backbone,buddy.

  32. ratbastard says

    @Jeff Kurtti,

    He didn’t say or do anything that constitutes libel. Libel must be irected at a specifically named individual [not a group] and in the U.S., the laws regardeding libel are much looser pertaining to ‘public’ personalities [politicians, so-called entertainment stars, etc.,]

    He simply expressed his opionion against same sex marriage. That’s not libel… LOL

    However, presumably his employer has a legal right to terminate his contract,which was probablt up for renewal. He also used a business oriented twitter page, which I’m sure his employer didn’t appreciate.

    Businesses aren’t necessarily pro-gay or even PC, they simply don’t want to deal with hassle of protests, possible civil suits, etc., so they play the game. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

    ==========================

    @GREGV,

    You buddy are all over the map.

  33. ratbastard says

    @WIMSY,

    What about when ‘minorities’ say ‘mean’ things about, say, so-called white people or heterosexuals? They get a pass? These forums are full of posters saying ‘mean’ things all the time. ‘Radical’ and not so ‘radical’ minority individuals and organizations say ‘mean’ infammatory things all the time.

    Some posters here are funny. You often say nasty, vindictive, ‘mean’ things, then p*ss&moan when anyone says stuff you don’t like. Grow up.

    =============================

    The U.S. is a Nanny State to a large degree.

    Canada is an even bigger Nanny State. Canada is one of the western world’s premier Nanny States. The way ‘radical’ so-call progressives [ideological leftists] have a grip on the average Canadian is they managed early on the pass legislation like universal healthcare [a HUGE Sacred Cow in Canada; for many Canadians this defines them] and other socialist entitlement programs. Canadian politicians were able to do these things because they outsourced Canada’s sovereignty [and defense] to the U.S. and international agencies. Canada in 2011 has indeed universal healthcare [but it’s far from free or particularly good]. And it’s incapable of defending it’s sovereignty and territory. It’s a trade-off they made back in the 60s. Now, the average Canadian is terrified at the thought they might have to take on more responsibility for things like their heathcare. Add to this Canadian politicians have used anti-U.S. rhetoric for a long time [playing on Canadians sense or irritation and dare I say inferiority ( DISCLAIMER: I don’t thing Canadians are inferior) in regards to their much bigger and more powerful neighbor, whom they rely so much on] as a way of whipping up nationalism and political power for themselves. Now, just the threat of change, even a little tweaking of the system, is enough to freak a lot of Canadians out. But along with the social welfare entitlements like universal healthcare are attached things like Human Rights Tribunals and gay marriage. Many Canadians will look the other way and accept the whole package as long as they get their universal healthcare, etc., This is repeated in other countries also.

  34. Tim says

    Wow. My insinuation that classy, dignified behavior may yet have a place in public discourse seems to offended many of you, so let me ask you all this question: What exactly does his firing accomplish? What does this prove and what does it show our opposition?

    Sure, it shows that Sportsnet has a marked interest in retaining it’s homosexual viewers, but what does it say about US? It says that instead of trying to change public opinion, we have resorted to merely forcing it. Is that not the same thing they have been doing to us for time immemorial, threatening anyone who dares oppose them with social ostracization and institutionalized shunning? Do you think this changed Mr. Goddard’s opinion of us? Do you think this changed the opinions of his friends and family, or do you think that this might only have the effect of reinforcing their hate, in essence creating even larger and more dedicated enemies for ourselves?

  35. Tim says

    (continued from above)
    There are those that may argue that this is all good riddance. Why should we hold ourselves up to a higher standard of behavior when they quite obviously do not do so themselves? Why should we not fight fire with fire? Because “fighting fire with fire” only feeds the fire. It’s simple logic. It’s important to remember that these people are not expressing intellectually formed opinions; they are only expressing emotional reactions to their fantasy of life being threatened. It would do us well to not simply react with more emotion and demand that everyone everywhere issue insincere public apologies and fire all employees who don’t make us feel safe. It’s childish behavior and if we cannot rise above that nonsense, what have we truly earned for ourselves? We have earned NO MORE than they have.

    It seems to me that the knee-jerk reaction many of you had to my “classy” comment is rooted in a deep-seeded fear of self reflection and the moderation of one’s behavior. This is no surprise; the gay community has become infamous as of late for intentionally avoiding such things. If you read any gay news blog on the internet, you get the idea that the gay community is absolutely without it’s own faults and that the only problem we face is other people’s opinions. The only cause we need get behind, apparently, is public outrage over someone or another’s remarks and demanding that everyone involved be punished as we see fit. This doesn’t change anyone’s opinion of us and I realize that many of you don’t care about such things, but consider this: Every single social and political gain we make using this tactic is temporal. It merely engages us in an eternal game of tug o’ war with the opposing side. It’s all temporal and depends on whichever political party is in power at that given moment. Democrats are in charge – we win. Republicans in charge – we lose. This cycle, for those who have no sense of history, has repeated itself MANY times and will only continue to do so if we cannot come up with a better game plan. We DO NEED to try and change public opinion of us. I know this is difficult for many of you to accept because it requires that we focus on fixing the problems within our own community and you seem to be of the opinion that ANY admission whatsoever of internal problems in the community will just add fuel to the anti-gay fire. That, I would argue, is no good reason to avoid self-improvement. Any loss that we suffer due to that admittance will be soon overshadowed by the gains we will receive by actively trying to improve ourselves and our public image.

    We NEED to address the problems in our community. They are real, they are poisonous and they are not worth holding on to simply out of fear for what ‘the others’ might think.

    There is a disturbingly high rate of infidelity within gay relationships.
    There is a disturbingly high rate of substance abuse amongst gay males.
    There is a disturbingly high rate of irresponsible, unprotected sexual behavior amongst gay males that furthers the spread of HIV and AIDS. There is a disturbingly high rate of domestic abuse within many lesbian relationships.There is a disturbing LACK of self-esteem and self-worth in the gay community that results in a disturbingly high rate of depression and suicide.There is a disturbingly high rate of racism in the gay community.

    We need to focus on these problems to make our community healthier for ourselves and others. I am not saying that this is ALL the gay community consists of, but until we address these problems they will continue to plague us.

  36. Jeff Kurtti says

    Ratbastard: Exactly as I said. People say things at their peril of social ostracism, libel lawsuit, or professional termination, there is no protection for them in the First Amendment other than “Congress shall make no law.” What’s so hard to understand?

  37. GregV says

    “What about the word ‘Free’ don’t you comprehend?“

    “Ratbastard: He`s free to say exactly what he said and Rogers Sportsnet is free to choose not to renew his contract. I don`t understand what it is that you would like changed in the law to make more freedom.
    The company said that over the weeks they had been dissatisfied in general with his work as a freelance contractor.
    Do you want the government to step in (as “nanny“) and force this private company to offer him a permanent contract? Is that the kind of government interference that makes you feel more “free?“

  38. GregV says

    “What exactly does his firing accomplish?“

    Tim: When people realize when others are appalled by what they say, they often start to examine and re-evaluate their own views. George Wallace, for example, went from yelling `Segregation forever!“ to eventually apologizing.

    “There is a disturbingly high rate of infidelity within gay relationships…There is a disturbingly high rate of racism in the gay community.“

    Tim: Some of the things you named (not all of which I quoted) I agree need to be worked on (but often the key to that is working on ending anti-gay attitudes that are at their source).

    I don`t know how much infidelity there is in gay relationships. The Netherlands have had equal marriage long enough now for statistics to come out showing that male-male marriages have been staying together longer than male-female marriages.
    And for every gay man who asks his partner for permission to fool around on the side, there are surely fifty Newt Gingriches who are sneaking around and cheating, breaking their vows and then dumping their wives.
    I don`t know that infidelity is any worse among gay people. Of course it exists in EVERY community. But doesn`t that just make it a human problem?

    Racism? Well, every shread of evidence I see suggests that there is a lot less racism in the gay community than in the larger society.
    One of many examples: Same-sex relationships have quadruple the likelihood of opposite-sex relationships of being between people of different races.
    I`m in such a relationship. Have we encountered racism? Yes, occasionally. And every example has come at us from homophobes (I find that those brands of bigotry tend to go hand-in-hand).
    But have we ever encountered in-person racism from anyone in the gay community (and don`t point me at some anonymous troll on the internet who could just as well be NOM`s or FOTF`s staff planting turds on blogs): No, not one time, ever.
    That doesn`t mean it will never happen, because racism exists in every community. But if, say, 24% of straight people could be classified as racists and 6% of gay people could be classified the same, would it make any sense to say that this is “a problem in the gay community?“ Only in the sense that it exists, but otherwise that kind of wording could tend to give a misleading impression.

  39. Stuart in Vancouver says

    For those who think that Canada does not have a constitutional right to free speech … may I please point out that the Canadian Charter of Rights (our constitution) does in fact award Canadians with the right to free expression … which includes speech. Nonetheless, it is not a Charter issue, it is a social issue … and I’m glad they fired him … whatever the reason!

  40. says

    “What exactly does his firing accomplish? What does this prove and what does it show our opposition?”

    Once again, we didn’t fire him. Sportsnet did. Their business choice, one they are entitled to make.

    It shows our opposition that if you make bigoted and false statements (gay couples marrying is not TRUE marriage, for instance) on a public forum you may pay consequences for your ignorance. If he’d said that black people or immigrants or straight white Christians should not be allowed to marry, he would have been equally fired. He can say whatever he wants, but his employer doesn’t have to put up with it when his comments could be read as representing them.

    His firing is not a referendum on the gay community. So I’m not sure why you turned his clearly classless statement into a diatribe against gay people. Letting people get away with ignorance is neither classy nor dignified.

    We don’t have to prove ourselves to homophobes, particularly in Canada, where gay people are equal under the law. The homophobes are the ones who need to defend their harmful behaviors to society, not us, Tim.

    Those of us with self-respect have no problem looking ourselves in the mirror.

  41. Derek Pearce says

    Ratbastard, this is off topic, but as to this idea that Canada has “outsourced” its defence to the US: If Canada and the US were enemies and the USSR had decided to invade Canada during the Cold War (what? over the North Pole? as if) then the US would’ve counter-invaded to keep the Ruskies from being next door anyway. You should THANK your lucky stars to have such a cooperative neighbour. Would you rather have a fractured, guerrilla-war state next store spilling violence over into your quaint northern suburbs? Please. I’m so tired of that argument– you sound like Anne Coulter. Sure Rat/Anne, invade us, and see what it’d be like to have 200 years of Guerilla warfare in your midst with people who would be best in the world at blending in with you.

    Anyhow, Sean Avery is awesome.

  42. Camelot says

    People speak of tolerance. But once you speak agaisnt gay issue, watch out. You’ll get fired… crazy!!!!!

  43. Dave in Maine says

    According to this site: http://awfulannouncing.com/2011-articles/may/canadian-sports-reporter-fired-for-same-sex-marriage-tweet.html , Mr. Goddard was voicing a personal opinion on a Twitter account that was his own and was not affiliated in any way to his employer.

    I am a gay man fighting the fight in Maine, but I do think that it is unwise to go after people who express ideas that we don’t agree with. If they are acting as representatives of a company or organization, that’s one thing, but as individuals who have a right to their opinion, then no. Based on what I have read on this, I don’t think Mr. Goddard should have been fired.

    And, of course, this sort of witch-hunt plays right into NOM’s hands, as we see in Mr. Brown’s latest email blast.