> I think each employer would need to make their own decision.
I agree. But the decision should be based on reliable information. What's more, I would say it should be based on reliable information that is related to the person's job performance.
> I think your critique really points away from 'cancel culture' and towards a more robust set of employment protections.
To the extent that "cancel culture" has an impact on people's employment, the two are related. Of course a company isn't going to come right out and say "we fired this person because we were afraid of being shamed on social media". That doesn't mean there isn't causation involved. Would Bradley have been fired if there hadn't been a social media firestorm? If someone had just privately informed Wizards of the Coast (or any other company he was doing artwork for) about what Bradley had done in the past? That's the key question, and I'm not sure it's addressable by more robust employment protections, since there's no way to prove causation even if it's there.
I agree. But the decision should be based on reliable information. What's more, I would say it should be based on reliable information that is related to the person's job performance.
> I think your critique really points away from 'cancel culture' and towards a more robust set of employment protections.
To the extent that "cancel culture" has an impact on people's employment, the two are related. Of course a company isn't going to come right out and say "we fired this person because we were afraid of being shamed on social media". That doesn't mean there isn't causation involved. Would Bradley have been fired if there hadn't been a social media firestorm? If someone had just privately informed Wizards of the Coast (or any other company he was doing artwork for) about what Bradley had done in the past? That's the key question, and I'm not sure it's addressable by more robust employment protections, since there's no way to prove causation even if it's there.