Nashville Woman Fired for Anti-War Letter (wrote to Charlie Daniels)

Newschannel 5 Nashville ^ | 3/10/03 | staff

[GailA]

Nashville Woman Fired for Anti-War Letter

A woman was fired from her job at Jones Media after replying to an e-mail written by country singer Charlie Daniels.

Tamara Saviano worked for Jones Media Networks and Great American Country on Music row for three years. She was fired last Friday for responding to an e-mail written by Charlie Daniels.

In his e-mail, Daniels blasted Hollywood and the media for protesting a possible war with Iraq. His publicist, Kirk Webster sent the e-mail to people in the music and media industry.

When Saviano got the letter at her personal e-mail address, she wrote Webster and Daniels back outlining her anti-war beliefs.

Webster says Saviano put her company name on her e-mail and that’s why he called Jones Media. But Saviano says it was clear her e-mail expressed her personal beliefs.

Webster says Charlie Daniels had nothing to do with Saviano’s firing.

[Illbay]

Um, I'm sorry, but I failed to find a single spelling error in what I just wrote. It is easy to make a misspelling occasionally, of course, but I think perhaps it is simply that some of the words are unfamiliar to you.

Perhaps you can invest in a thesaurus.

[Spirited]

Thanks, O.C. I suspect that we have a number of items of agreement. Let me elaborate on the part of my post which lacked clarity:
Spirit: "They and many other opposers of the conflict will not desert the troops or forsake the nation if we go to war but if they are mistreated you will drive them not to support any group which is seen to be at the base of the mistreatment, ESPECIALLY REGARDING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION."

O.C. "I got bits and pieces of this, but taken as a whole the thought was somewhat vague."

A goodly number of those against the war are older; I even doubt that their opinions are reflected in the infamous polls.. They won't march or even align themselves conceptually with the likes of liberals. But if they are denegrated for having anti-war sentiments or even if the despised liberal "anti-war" types are kept from voicing THEIR opinions these disaffected conservatives intend fully not to vote for a Bush or with any who have been verbally abusive regarding whatever opinion they expressed. (They fought in past wars to guarantee the freedom of expression for all and forgave the Clinton-type spitters [who by the way appear to be in charge of so much]. They deserve no less from all of us.)

In other words bottom line, votes are at risk. Hillary is well aware of this and "licking her chops".

Another thing, O.C., most of these families watched in horror as Bush I listened to his masters and gave Saddam a "bye" the first go round. Since then American corporations have sold him more "stuff" which will aid him in this war in which their sons/grandsons will give their blood. These constitute too many incongruities.

A majority cannot connect 9/11 with Saddam (Saudi could be different) so they feel it isn't a payback. They can't conscientiously come up with justification and are old enough to view "gung-ho" as a bad idea these days...been there...done that. They are also, in some cases, feeling the weight of handing this kind of world to the teens who will die and the babies whose pockets will be tapped all their lives to finance the debt incurred.

They stood in your position when the Korean, Viet and other wars were viewed as necessary. They do not see that it helped. The politicos ruled and the military were hampered, muzzled and/or hamstrung. They could be called the "enough is enough" crowd.

My dilemna is to accord them honor and respect and acceptance and inclusion. I must admit that many of their proofs of American corporate and government greed and power hunger are compelling. More anomolies.

What I am saying is that tolerance and forbearance are in some sense more essential now than they have been in our history. There is too critical a balance these days. Many times there is astuteness and worth in the gentle word which turns away wrath.

Thanks for listening.. and may God help us all.

[Dec31,1999]

Cry me a river!

[Dec31,1999]

Re 32: Thanks for the belly laugh!

[Mark17]

BTW, how many FReepers do you reckon are using their company time and company computers right now to participate?

Not me, I am too busy working, but we don't have Internet access anyway.

[kegler4]

"What these protesters and their Vietnam era counterparts engage(d) in is not what our founding fathers envisioned nearly 230 years ago."

Could you enlighten us as to exactly what they were thinking 230 years ago? My mind-reading abilities don't go back that far. And I have yet to find the part where they authorized running over somebody with a truck because they were protesting after the fighting started. Maybe it's hidden in one of those pesky amendments?

[Revelation 911]

It's a private company. They should be able to fire her for her pro-war views, her anti-war views, or because her mother dresses her funny.

EXACTLY - EMPLOYMENT AT WILL ! we had one the office snots pull the same stunt last week - she circulated an antiwar petition and it hit the fan when the conservatives blew her in for using the company computer for personal business. Almost got fired.

p.s. - cool screen name

[FreeTally]

His publicist, Kirk Webster sent the e-mail to people in the music and media industry.

hmmmmm, unsolicited e-mail is typically called spam. She responds to an unsolicited e-mail, that was specifically targeted to people in her line of employment, and she gets fired for doing so? And she just happens to work for GAC, who is obviously affiliated in a way with Daniels and the publicist.

Im glad I like CMT better than GAC.

[Oztrich Boy]

A lot of email programs have automatic signatures. It is easy enough to send out an email from your company address with your company name on it without thinking twice

But she's already claimed it wasn't from the company computer. From the article:

She said she responded from her home computer after business hours and made clear the message was her opinion -- not the company's. One of the e-mails did include GAC's name, address and phone number at the bottom.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

I don't know if I agree with this one. She has a right to aspouse her views so long is she is politce and does not come across as a threat. But, technically her employer does have a right to fire her, since she used a company computer. Personally, I wouldn't want to work for such a company, if that's how they treat their employees. That's to PC for me.

[riri]

When you are own my computer at work on my time you don't have any personal views

Power intoxication, eh?

[Oztrich Boy]

hmmmmm, unsolicited e-mail is typically called spam.

No spam is the e-mails I get offering to enlarge my breasts or penis. Sent by people who have no idea who i am. Or those e-mails in Korean because I somehow got onto a Korean spam list.

This started out from a message sent by Daniels publicist to a television producer.

Producers and journalists get sent announcements, media releases, FYI background information all the time. I do it myself. It's part of their job. Indeed part of the balance of nature. Publicists want publicity: Producers want to fill those blank spaces between the commercials.

She responds to an unsolicited e-mail, that was specifically targeted to people in her line of employment, and she gets fired for doing so?

Yep. Most of the time producers/journalists don't respond to me. If they do I don't assume it's because they want to be my friend, but because they are responding as part of the job they are doing for their employer. I will assume they are representing their employer even if they respond from their home computer.

In this case she attached her company name to the e-mail and announced her intention to declare to 2000 people that GAC was PO'd with Charlie Daniels.

Clear case of: "Don't let the firewall hit you in the butt on your way out"

[Question_Assumptions]

Fair enough. Whatever she did, it sounds pretty stupid. While I'm not thrilled with the idea of firing people for stupid political statements, if she went out of her way to mix her personal views with her business identity, she was probably asking to get fired.

(I guess that will teach me to make sure I read thoroughly to the bottom.)