228
‘Red Hood’ Writer Criticizes DC’s Firing Standards: “You Can Still Get Neil Gaiman’s Work Through Them”
(boundingintocomics.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
228 points (99.6% liked)
News
36439 readers
2414 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
She might have been contracted rather than an employee, and may have already completed her contract. But either way it's fuzzy. She could have grounds to dispute it, because:
She wasn't acting as a representative of the company or it's views.
She was using her independent social media account.
Her sometimes incendiary, political social media presence was a known entity and apparently discussed, and might even be considered part of her brand, unless her contract outlined what she could and couldn't say for x amount of time after completing her contract.
The book was already printed and shipped, their recall could be considered retaliation for her political views, since they don't apply the same rules across the board, and the recall would hurt her worse than them.
Mostly agree with your point except it was still a public account. About 4 I haven't seen any instance that would proove they dont apply the rule accords the board. Also she s a contractor and as so she signed a contract with clause and thoses clause allow them to finish the contract.
Much of the article, and the headline of the article, are about the rules on public image not being unilaterally applied.
I can't parse your last sentence.
The contract she signed has clauses that she must respect and can justify its cancellation. This is very classic.
About the fact that the rule isn't apply fairly accros the board I tend to agree but the other case aren't that similar tbh
Yes, you just described how a contract works. It's pretty clear you didn't read the whole point because that's the same thing I said but in worse terms.
I'm done with this thread, but you have a good one.