Slashdot Mirror
The Repercussions of Blogging
hende_jman writes "How much should you be allowed to say in a public blog? There's an article on CNN that looks at different situations in which people have been fired for blogging about their company. The main issue brought seems not to be one of a lack of trust (blogs, after all, are most often public), but rather a lack of policy outlining repercussions for negative blogging about one's company."
It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In Texas, for example, where I grew up and had my first job, the employer has the absolute right to hire and fire at will with only a few narrow exceptions.
Unless you work for;
* military
Yes, its real hard to get sacked there.
Well, the military fires people on a regular basis - for officers, two fail to promotes and your out (unless you have made 04 where you're assured 20 years of service)
Enlisted memebrs can be refused re-enlistment as well.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Most blogs seem quite lackluster and pointless; individuals use these online journals to post ramblings about their menial lives as though some great Internet audience waits on the edge of their seat for johnsmith348 to post the latest exciting update in the saga of his life on livejournal.com and will meet his every cutting comment with great applause.
Then there are these, these controversial blogs. There was one young woman who worked a government office job in Richmond who created an entire blog devoted to her sex-life and the politics of her job and what went on "under the table", to 'euphemize' it. Following the tsunami crisis, you have folks who play on the fame to harass victims of the tsunami and their families with sites such as "I Love Tsunamis", all using blogs to target the masses. Many people would argue that controversial content such as this should not be allowed to be published.
The only real reprocussion is that free speech is being taken to dramatic extremes on these blogs, like it or not.
Donald Ferrone, Ph.D
Professor of computer science
http://www.geocities.com/donald_ferrone/
Ellen Simonetti's blog, mentioned in the CNN article as having "suggestive photographs of [her] in uniform," dies a slow horrible death...
I believe this extends to private companies in Canada. Unless they have due cause, they can't just fire you. They can lay you off because they don't need you anymore, but if they're caught re-hiring someone with your skill set in the immediate future after laying you off, they're fucked.
You see a lot of jobs up here that are just under 35 hours a week up here, because part-time employees don't recieve the same protections. Instead of 3 employees working full time, you hire 4 to work 30 hrs a week and you can screw them over to your hearts content.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Exactly. There is a real threat to people's rights with respect to blogging, but it's not from companies; it's from the government -- in particular, from Campaign Finance Reform. According to an article at news.com (The coming crackdown on blogging), the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (aka McCain-Feingold) could, for example, make a link from a blog to a candidate's site count as a contribution to that candidate's campaign, and therefore subject to regulation.
While I would agree with your main point anyway, I just thought I would point out that this isn't such a good argument since, in 49 states of the U.S. (Montana being the sole exception), you can be fired from your job at any time, for any reason at all (except for illegal reasons, like firing because of gender, race, national origin, etc., or if you have a union or other employment contract). You employer can fire you for writing porn, whether the writing was done on or off of the job -- it's not a freedom of speech issue, it an "at-will" employment issue...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Just FYI, an action for retaliatory firing is limited to retaliating for the following:
1. Attempting to exercise your rights under the Family Medical Leave Act;
2. Whistleblowers (but it has to be whistleblowing as defined under the applicable statutes, and not just you talking about stuff going on at work);
3. Reporting safety violations under OSHA or applicable state laws.
There are some other causes of action for retaliatory firing that differ from state to state, but these are the biggies, and firing someone from venting a company's dirty laundry on the net is not protected in any state...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
What you said is true for the 1st Amendment, but completely ignores its application to states - and other government entities as well as some corporate behavior - through the 14th amendment. (prohibiting the deprivation of life, LIBERTY, or property without due process of law). The 14th amendment is of course much broader.
The 14th amendment and freedom of speech have been applied to corporations- specifically malls, private universities, utilities and such. Usually when a corporation, such as a mall, behaves like a part of the government and does the work the government is supposed to do. Then it has to at least partially observe a citizen's rights, like the freedom of assembly (although it varies by circuit, state, etc.). Otherwise goverments could privitize everything, ignore the bill of rights, and get away with murder (most likely literally, in some cases).
Case in point: During our recent presidential election, there were one or two cases of companies firing people for their political views. This would not happen to government employees, such as a teacher, since government is held to greater scrutiny. It probably also couldn't happen to a teacher at a charter school, even though the school is a private corporation.
The main issue here seems to be not about freedom of speech... but about your right to your job. You don't have a guaranteed right to your job IF your empoyment is at will. Although some whistleblower laws could protect you if what you are saying is in the public interest - maybe.
----
Your observation about your wife isn't necessarily always accurate either. A correct analogy to getting fired would be your wife filing for divorce. Calling her names in most states would be enough, with no fault divorce. However, if you had a covenant marriage like they now have in Louisiana you could, in theory, continue to call her names and she'd have to sit there and take it as long as it didn't become too abusive. Of course, she could say something nasty back to you, and you'd have to sit there and take that. I'm not 100% sure of the laws on covenant marriage, but that sounds about right.
-------
For every rule, an exception, ya' know...
I mean isn't that kind of like eating at McDonald's twice per day and then suing them for making you fat?
Not hardly. In terms of eating you have plenty of choices. You don't have to starve for three months just because you don't want to eat at McDonald's.
In most cases, you can't hold multiple full-time jobs at the same time. If you want to change jobs, you just might be looking at three months of starvation.
The factors involved around the choice are completely different.
Sounds like people are getting dooced.
English is easier said than done.
"Employers aren't "granted" the right to fire you for what you do on our spare time at all. That's a natural right they have, and the government can only step in to intervene when society has deemed those reasons improper[...]"
Corporations are "granted" the right to exist as soon as the state registers their articles of incorporation. The state has a right to confirm or deny articles of incorporation, as well as revoke those articles by court order at a future date. Thus, employers are -- by definition -- "granted" rights by the state. Further, corporations and other organizations can NEVER have inalienable rights; that is something expressed within our constitution that is limited ONLY to human beings. Corporations and other organizations have NO natural rights.
However, you seem to support the notion that businesses should have every right to terminate employment "at will" for any reason whatsoever. And consider the right of an employee to resign "at will" gives equitable parity to this arrangement. I think Adam Smith would disagree. Speaking of the power relationship between the employee and business holder, as well as foreseeing the potential for future unionization disputes. Smith says:
"It is not, however, difficult to forsee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." - Wealth of Nations, Book I, Ch. "Wages of Labor"
Smith was actually quite concerned about power disparities between labor and employers leading to massive immoral conduct by employers. He knew very well who were the "masters" and was quite open to the use of government authority to curb unreasonable abuse of power. And while he is considered a paean of free trade due to his theories on capital allocation inefficiencies due to protectionist policies, he would have been the first to say that certain market inefficiency are still desireable by society, even if the misallocate capital in the process. I suspect he would consider our transfer of high technology manufacturing and engineering skills overseas outright policy insanity.
Anyway, your employer doesn't have a "right" to squat. The owners of that business have the same inalienable "rights" as do us all. The business the own, however, is bound to abide by whatever civil law legislators deem desirable.
Cheers,
--Maynard
1. be anonymous or use an alias
2. avoid using personally related specifics
3. be ready to accept the consequences of being id'd
bloging about where you work in your own name breaks all three of these.
fwiw, an interesting historical fact is that the founding fathers used aliases when submitting letters to the colonial newspapers advocating revolution against england -- for obvious reasons. these days most newspapers will not accept letters without verification of identity, which is one reason online commentary is more popular and expresses more risky opinions.
It was a Miller employee drinking a Budweiser product.
http://queenofsky.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycom ments&dcid=393&entryid=393
these are hardly explicit photo's, yes she looks great in them.
but they are hardly pornographic, sure she looks sexy in uniform isn't this why the uniform was designed this way so old guys in first class get to be attended to by pretty women sexily attired.
perhaps it was more that you could get to see for free which so annoyed delta.
combined with america's moral indignation, should she have been fired when its part of marketings unofficial agenda fly with us we have hot babes to look after you.
for the rest of us if you want to blog with freedom then do it annonymously
my last blog entry was a silent scream of rage hurt and anger, no need for me to direct that at anyone, just having a bad day thats all.
better out then in, well i felt better afterwards.
> that doesn't mean this poor guy's rights were somehow violated. People get fired from jobs for wrong reasons all the freakin time.
There's a term for that: wrongful dismissal, and yes, it's against the law.