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."

Comments

It's Not About Your Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about the companies rights. They can fire you for whatever reason they like.

It's a two way street, you can leave whenever you want, and the company can leave you.

Stop this bellyaching about your freedom. You don't have the "right" to keep your job.

Re:It's Not About Your Rights

[ScrewMaster]

Um ... yes, under many conditions you do. The Federal Government isn't much concerned about that, but the States certainly are. A wrongful firing suit can cost a company a lot of money. So don't assume, as an employer, that you have the right to terminate any employee, at any time, for any reason. For that matter, so far as blogs are concerned there are laws to protect whistleblowers. Still ... if you dislike your employer enough to want to badmouth them in public you should probably just look for another job and be done with it.

Re:It's Not About Your Rights

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Re:It's Not About Your Rights

[ShieldW0lf]

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.

Re:It's Not About Your Rights

[Kesh]

Because overall, Americans value the rights of the individual to earn as much money as they want. Which inherently means that a business can conduct itself how it wants.

True capitalism would avoid any governmental regulation, and I've known folks who actually want that. Because, when you get down to it, a restriction on businesses means a restriction on you as well, if you have any plans on becoming well-to-do. Donald Trump has made an entire career (and TV show) out of hiring and firing people as he sees fit.

We're a mixed-market economy, but we still lean towards capitalism when given a chance. People here balk when you want to regulate companies, even if it's to their benefit as an employee... because it then limits their potential to be a business owner themselves.

Re:It's Not About Your Rights

[Jason Earl]

As an employee your job is to please your employer. It's really as simple as that. My personal opinion believes that this extends to how you talk about your employer in public. Employees are always talking about how they want their employers to separate their private life from their professional life. I personally don't think that it is too much to ask to extend employers the same courtesy. Use your free time to blog about something besides work. If you absolutely have to say something about work, at least make sure that it is something positive for crying out loud. If your employer is so horrible that you feel the world should know the depths of their depravity why in the world are you still taking their money?

This has absolutely nothing to do with big business, other than it's only idiots that work at large corporations that think that they can get away with this kind of crap. No one is talking monitoring your every move. Heck, even if you worked at a lemonade stand your boss would expect you to not badmouth the business in public. It doesn't have anything to do with blogging either. If these idiots got up to the pulpit in church and bad mouthed their employers the same thing would have happened. You have the right to say any crazy, stupid, or inane thing that you want, but that doesn't mean that you don't have to face the consequences on Monday.

This is about being stupid, pure and simple. If you work for an employer that is so horrible that you can't help but say terrible things about them in a public forum then you need to find another job. It's really that simple. If you are caught saying bad things about your employer in a public place you shouldn't be surprised if you find yourself looking for another job. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Everyone has had a job at one time that they didn't like. Most of them keep the job until they find another job because they keep their mouths shut in public. That's not really too much for an employer to ask. They are, after all, paying you a salary. The classy (and smart) folks even go so far as to not badmouth past employers. You never know when you might need an old job back, and venting private problems in public rarely solves the problem.

Whats so different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blogging is just a different form of communication; the same rules still apply. An employee wouldn't tell a newspaper that people should buy the company's stocks because its doing well. Same applies to blogging: say whatever you want to say about your personal life, what you ate this morning, or whom you hate so much...just don't say any sensitive info.

duh?

Well, duh.

[rah1420]

My blog (full of cobwebs) are stories about me, not my employer. I'd fully expect to be fired if I told the story about

NO CARRIER

Re:Well, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misspelled CAREER.

This one's easy

[Capt'n Hector]

If you've signed a NDA or any other legally binding agreement that compells you to STFU about a particular subject, then you're not allowed to talk about that subject, be it to your family around the dinner table or to the world via a blog. Seems pretty simple...

Re:This one's easy

[ABeowulfCluster]

And from a scene at 'Career Day' at the elementary school:

So, what do you do?

I'm an engineer at leading Search Engine Company.

So.. how's your job.

I'm sorry, but I'm not at liberty to discuss that.

Is there any subjects people should study if they want to work at Google?

I cannot confirm nor deny that I work at Google. As for subjects to take, I cannot divulge any technolgy which may or may not be employed in my work.

Do you like your job?

Sorry ma'am, don't ask don't tell.

Re:This one's easy

[Tim Browse]

Joke away, sparky - I once went to an interview like that at Logitech. We were paired off with existing employees for an informal chat about their jobs. The guy I got worked in the space eqpt division at Cambridge(?) and wasn't allowed to tell me anything about his work :).

He did say he enjoyed it though.

Re:This one's easy

[renehollan]

I once had a late stage job interviewer where the interview wanted to see samples of code I had written.

"You're kidding, right?"

"No, why?"

"Well, all the code I've written for other employers is owned by them. It would be improper for me to disclose it. I have written GPL code for some of those employers, but they did not distribute binaries to me so I can't disclose that either.

I understand that you probably want to see if I can "cut the mustard", right?"

"Duh!"

"Then give me a coding task that should take, oh, a week or two. I'll likely get some working code back to you in 48 hours. We can even do some refinement cycles in that week, to see how flexible I am, and how open to expandability my designs are."

"You're hired!"

"No review of my code first?"

"No, not necessary! Anyone that bold must know their stuff!!"

"O.K. Put an offer in writing. I've got a plane to catch."

Later...

Wife: "So, you gonna take the offer?"

"Not unless it's so good that I could stand to work for idiots who don't even check my creds. Sheesh!!"

Yes, I would have sent them a custom sample of code -- even assigned rights to them: they took the time and effort to fly me in and intervew me, after all: worth a KLOC or two. No, I will not work for people that don't check their final cut interview candiate's skills. I have been known to turn down jobs on the basis of the incompetence of the people interviewing me. I have been known to accept jobs precisely because the interviews were "tough" and the interviewers sharp.

The problem is not a lack of trust, but

[Anonymous Coward]

lack of common sense by the blogger.

Family repercussions to be considered too

[saskboy]

The possibility of having one's blog data mined by identity theives, or your family's enemies is something to keep in mind when writing too. If you wouldn't want your Grandmother discussing what you're talking about, it's probably a better idea to vent verbally to a friend [as long as you don't know Linda Tripp], than to put your rant into writing for potentially hostile people to read.

Rules

[orangeguru]

1. Never fuck anyone from the office.
2. Never blog about your work either.

Re:Rules

[flyingsquid]

1. Never fuck anyone from the office. 2. Never blog about your work either.

Waitaminit- are you saying I should NOT have used my blog to post photos of me and the bosses' daughter at it on top of the copy machine?

Re:Rules

[FLEB]

Others know that legally, they don't have that right.

Clarification, before 2 or 3 people call me on something I am aware of: Yes, I know that you do have the right to talk about your work (barring NDA/Trade Secrets), but you don't have the right to duck reprocussions.

(Editor's note: The remainder is just a rant, and mostly unrelated to the topic at hand. Read at own risk.)

Personally, I'd be happy if business owners and stockholders would stop being such profit-hungry, penny-pinching assholes, and have a little pride and recognition for their workforce. That, unfortunately, is not an option for many in landscapes where it's in both the interest and the power of the "big players" to make crunchy bits of anyone who doesn't want to play that hard of hardball.

Still, though, I'm really suprised that nobody's stepped up to the plate to advertise that "We might cost more, but we're not evil". Saturn tried that in the '90s, but they kind of fizzled out. I want to see someone take off the gloves. Start naming names and calling people out. Go at it with all the vitriol and spite of a mudslinging political campaign.

Re:Rules

[kinema]

3. Definitely never blog about who you fuck in the office.

Obligitory Seinfeld reference:

In the boss' office.

Boss: I'm going to get right to the point. It has come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?

George: Who said that?

Boss: She did.

George: Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you I gotta plead ingnorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frouned upon, you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices and I tell you peope do that all the time.

Boss: You're fired.

Re:Rules

[ucblockhead]

No. Using the copy machine for personal purposes is almost certainly against company policy.

policy?

[csimicah]

This isn't kindergarten... nobody should need a 'policy' to tell them that if they badmouth their employer in public (or otherwise reflect badly on them), they're not going to be welcome at work for much longer.

It's called 'biting the hand that feeds you', and it's never a particularly smart idea.

Re:policy?

[M.C. Hampster]

Ive always said corporations are just like mini communist nations, non-elected leader with its circle of generals and its spies

Wow, you're right. They are so smiliar. Heck, they are pretty much the same thing. Oh yeah, except they can't execute you. Oh, and they pay you for all the work you do for them. And you can leave the company whenever you want, while many communist nations will severly punish those trying to escape. Yeah, other than that, they are totally the same!!!1one.

Re:policy?

[laughingcoyote]

Please don't tell me that a corporation "feeds" me. I make them a fair trade-I do my work for them on their terms for a certain number of hours a day, and they pay me a set amount of money for those hours. Once I go home, they are not obligated to continue paying me for the hours I spend there, so why should they have any say in what I say or do with them?

Re:policy?

[csimicah]

They certainly don't have any say in what you do at home.

But them continuing to employ you is a courtesy, kind of like you refraining from slurring them online is a courtesy.

Public discourse

[BWJones]

The problem of course is that blogs are accessible world wide and can potentially reach a much larger audience than if you were simply talking to friends about how crappy your company is. To some extent, the fired employees deserve some of the blame as they would have to realize the potential implications of posting the information they did, but this IS the problem with technologic advancement. There are always teething problems associated with new technologies being used within existing methodologies and communication paradigms. The trick is, always be careful of what you say and be willing to take the heat for it......even if it is on a personal blog that might be accessed by hundreds, or thousands of individuals. I am always amazed at the traffic my blog receives for a non-commercial ( I would rather keep it commercial free), personal site. Articles like my What is the iPod are some days getting a hundred hits or more from all over the world, so one should expect that some attention may come your way even with what you may consider minor posts.

Alternative power resource.

[adolfojp]

Before we continue with this discussion, I propose that we wrap Jefferson's remains in a dynamo. Then, when he starts rolling around in his grave, we can all benefit from this endless free power resource.

Cheers,
Adolfo

Re:Alternative power resource.

[Leo McGarry]

Um. Before you continue this discussion, I propose that you spend a little time reading what Mr. Jefferson actually wrote. Then you might realize that if he were here today, he'd say that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. The fact that the government does not prohibit you, or anyone else, from saying whatever you want doesn't mean that your words won't have consequences, consequences up to and including the loss of your job.

Jefferson was a lot bigger on personal responsibility than you seem willing to give him credit for.

Re:Alternative power resource.

[Leo McGarry]

If people looked at the intentions, as written, of the founding fathers, they would see that neither party is actually good for this country.

No offense, but that sounds like pretty typical college-student blah-blah. I say that as somebody who, when I was 20, spouted exactly the same kind of nonsense.

Clue #1: You are not the first person to read our nation's heritage documents. We've all read them. We all know that the founding fathers envisioned a much different country from the one we live in. But we also know that the founding fathers recognized, above all else, the limits of their vision. The Constitution isn't inscribed in stone. It's a living, changing document. The process for amending it is strict, but straightforward. It was intended from the start to be a document that could adapt to changing times and changing situations, not one that would be so rigid that it might someday have to be thrown out.

The Constitution, in other words, was meant to last forever. And so far, it's done very well.

Clue #2: We no longer live in an agrarian nation of a few hundred thousand people scattered from Georgia to New York. Our situation is neither better nor worse, objectively, though different people have different opinions. But our situation has changed, drastically. Merely looking at documents written in the 18th century and concluding that things are different today is not insight, and it's not wisdom.

Clue #3: What you euphemistically refer to as "citizenship classes" went by some different names in older days. We called it "slavery" and we called it "male suffrage." Blacks weren't allowed to vote because they were considered property. Women weren't allowed to vote for basically the same reason. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who would say with a straight face that it's a great idea to go back to the days before universal suffrage.

Bottom line: You sound like a nice kid, but I think you've read Starship Troopers too many times. Recognize the limits of your understanding. Remember that the people around you, both your peers and those who were born before you, are not idiots, and that we do things for good reasons. And above all, try to be a little more humble. You don't know half of what you think you know, and you don't know a tenth of what you'll think you know at 30. You're just getting started. you've got a long way to go.

Re:Remember when...

[Leo McGarry]

You are allowed to say whatever you want, and if your employer doesn't like it, he's allowed to fire you.

Freedom of speech, as the saying goes, does not mean freedom from consequences.

Who is responisble

[flopsy mopsalon]

I think part of the issue here is people have this perception of the so-called "internet" as a sort of anything-goes space of freedom where ordinary rules of human conduct are relaxed. People on-line say the most outrageous things and have access to images and descriptions of extreme situations and behavior that you would never see in real life.

In reality, the internet is just a bunch of computers linked together. But what happens is people only concentrate on the wild stuff and the exhortations of so-called "freeedom" advocates who push the internet as some sort of intellectual wild west or something, and they do things like spread work gossip or post naughty pictures of themselves in their work uniform. Then they get fired.

I think we all share some of the blame for this and need to be more thoughtful about what we say and do online. Remember, the next time you link to goatse, it could cost someone their job.

Re:Remember when...

[daVinci1980]

If I had mod points, I'd mod you up to +1000000.

Seriously, why don't people get that? It's not that hard.

You have freedom of speech. You're not going to be imprisoned or tortured for what you say. On the other hand, you can be fired from your job. Your s/o might leave you. Your kids might hate you. You might blow through your entire life savings unable to get another job.

It bears repeating, in BOLD. Freedom of speech is not a license to do something illegal, unethical, or even for you to say things otherwise inappropriate for a person of your particular position in society.

Not "Duh." What about postings unrelated to work?

[maynard]

From the article:

"In 1997, blogging pioneer Cameron Barrett lost a job at a small marketing firm in Michigan after co-workers stumbled upon "experimental" short stories from his creative writing class on his site. Now, he's much more cautious, and he suspended his blog while campaigning for Wesley Clark during the Democratic presidential primaries."

Yes, employment is "at will". Does that mean that employers should have the write to fire an employee for publishing a novel written on personal time? Or should society place limits on employers rights to fire employees over off work hours speech unrelated to their job? Personally, I think giving employers the right to squelch employees by threat of arbitrary termination hands them a bit too much power. What you say (unrelated to work) on your own time is your own business and not that of the employer. JMO. --M

Blogging policies

[tongue]

Most companies do have them.

They're called NDA's.

Re:Jeez..

[Cabriel]

I don't know. If I circulated flyers around my workplace that said it sucked, do you think I would be able to keep my job?

Repurcussions to just get the job

[cwikla]

I go through alot of resumes.
With the advent of blogging, I can't believe:

1. The number of people who give a link to their website on their resume
2. Have a blog
3. Refer to themselves negatively in their blog :
"I couldn't find the motivation to get out of bed".
"I'm a loser, I can't find a job".
"I just don't feel like working".

Hey, let's call these people...

Re:Repurcussions to just get the job

[gentlewizard]

The one case where I can see putting a blog on a resume, is if it's professionally related and the traffic is a testimonial to others' opinions of your expertise. I know people with database-focused blogs that's be crazy not to list their blogs as credentials.

But then, they don't use their blog to wail and gnash their teeth about their personal lives, either.

Take blogs out of the equation

[nysus]

If I started handing newsletters out on the street corner that had articles about the inside dirt about my company, could I be fired? Of course I could and with good justification. Corporations are under no obligation to uphold the First Amendment. (And that's one big reason I'm against privatization of government services.)

Blogs are simply a more efficient means of communicating a message, nothing more. Why is this even controversial?

Re:Take blogs out of the equation

[Brandybuck]

Corporations are under no obligation to uphold the First Amendment.

Non sequitur.

No one but the *government* is under any obligation to uphold the first ammendment, because it is only the government that the first ammendment applies to. Let me quote: "Congress shall make no law..." The Bill Of Rights is not a universal document, rather it is a set of restrictions upon the government, and only the government.

And why are you picking on corporations? Your observation applies to all non-government groups, regardless of corporate status. Heck, it even applies to your *spouse*. Tell your wife she's a whore, and expect all your marital benefits to immediately cease.

Gentle Bunny

[rah1420]

Mildly offtopic, but it does reflect on the blogsphere a bit. (Did I just use that word?)

I am a gentle employee bunny.

1) I am a gentle bunny. I will listen carefully before I speak. In so
doing I might get some faint clues from my manager as to who is going to
get screwed next, and so take steps to make sure I am not in the penumbra of
blame when it happens.

2) I am a gentle bunny. I will think before I speak. I will make very
sure I don't violate my employer's non-disclosures or talk about the stock
during blackout periods. Nor will I reveal what I know about management's
little hobbies. I will remember that my employer is *not* a gentle bunny, but
is part wolf, part rat, and part Emperor Palpitine; and his lawyers are
even worse.

3) I am a gentle bunny. I will remember that when I speak I can hurt
others. Will what I say cause others pain? Will they take it out on me in
my next review?

4) I am a gentle bunny. Can I change the way I say something to avoid
hurting another yet still say it? I will strive to remember that in these
situations, precise factual accuracy must give way to the survival instinct;
it's a lot more important not to tick them off.

5) I am a gentle bunny. The things I love are not loved by all. I will not
force the things I love onto others. Not even if it is honesty, decency,
and fiducial responsibility, and the people lacking these things are thereby
risking jail time.

6) I am a gentle bunny. If I wish to show others the things that I love I
will check with those present in case they do not wish to be involved.
This is especially true when I am comtemplating whistleblowing.

7) I am a gentle bunny. I will accept any gift freely given, yet I will
never ask for a free gift. The last time I did, I was fired, and I learned
from that.

8) I am a gentle bunny. I will remember that though I may not love
something, that does not mean another may not love it. Everyone has their
own take on these things, and just because I don't like fraud, doesn't
mean the CEO isn't into it bigtime.

9) I am a gentle bunny. I will listen and think on everything a person
says, not just the parts I wish to fight with or the parts with which I
already agree. If I find that everything presented is utter fantasy and
absurdity, I will still carefully consider that this is, after all, my
employer, and that in fantasy one may sometimes find humor, especially in
schedules.

10) I am a gentle bunny. What I believe in is important to me. I will
remember that what others believe in is important to them. And if they
believe that lying to the employees is important, then I will remember
that "gentle" is not the same as "gullible".

11) I am a gentle bunny. Another person may hold dear to their heart a
view that contradicts mine. This does not mean that their view or mine is
wrong for each may be the right choice for each of us. After all, there
are no ethics in my workplace, so how can there be right and wrong
choices?

12) I am a gentle bunny. I will remember that words hurt worse and longer
than blows. I will remember that this is occasionally useful, and is
frequently the only response which is both legal and rational.

13) I am a gentle bunny. If someone speaks to hurt me, have I given them
cause? Is there something I have said or done that has caused them pain?
Probably not; they probably weren't doing it intentionally, and simply
wounded me in blithe, unconcerned self-interest. They are, after all,
management.

14) I am a gentle bunny. If I find myself wanting to hurt someone to make
my point, I will look at what I am saying to see what is lacking in my
view that I must harm another that they might agree? And if what is
lacking is a modicum of intelligence in the other party, I will nonetheless
remember that punching out the mentally enfeebled is neither gentle nor

Re:Gentle Bunny

[myowntrueself]

That was a true classic.

If it wasn't so long, I'd print it in blood on rabbit hide and nail it too the wall of my cubicle.

Meanwhile...

[kureido]

Ellen Simonetti's blog, mentioned in the CNN article as having "suggestive photographs of [her] in uniform," dies a slow horrible death...

Re:Remember when...

[mvdw]

I agree; and had almost this exact same discussion a few days ago here at work. People seemed to be under the impression that they could yell the proverbial "FIRE!!" in a crowded theatre without consequence.

PS: About your .sig: "Writing Games is Fun!" (presumably referring to authoring computer software with a focus on entertainment); one could also say "Writing Games are Fun", referring to Slashdot...

There are outlets.

[gellenburg]

This is precisely why I started http://www.novoice.org/.

To provide an outlet for those who are afraid to speak out about their jobs.

Why would I say bad things about my company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people say bad things about my COmpany, but not me. My boss is an absolute saint, and my coworkers are knowledgable about software and increDibly talented. really I feel blessed, in that I have a job for life, and my stock purchase plan can only increase in value.

People are sometimes envious, and ask me how i was lucky enough to leverage my skills into an exciting company like SCO, to which I reply, "I'm just lucky, I guess!"

You must blow the whistle...

[grant murray]

I believe that if you discover that your employer is:

• unethically exploiting employees
• conducting business in an illegal manner
• killing people in the course of business
• about to kill people in the course of business
• conducting business in a non-competitive, monopolistic fashion

you are morally bound to speak out about it, on your blog, to the press and to whomever will listen. (If your employer is a Chinese mining company, you should just quit your job and become a full-time blogger.)

Re:Remember when...

[swv3752]

And you see nothing wrong with that? And where do we draw limits? Should you get fired because you support a different political party?

If we let our rights get eroded away this is what is going to happen.

Work is Work, but what about School Blogging

[MatthewNewberg]

If a company doesn't like you I would understand they could fire you. Part of your job is to make the company money, and you can't do that by causing harm to the companies image. What I am really interested is in relation to blogging and school. If someone goes out and blogs a bunch of information about how a school sucks (which I think could happen quite a lot) is the students education and freedom of speach be protected. I feel this is much more interesting considering the fact the student is not employeed by the school, but the school is employeed by the student.

Digital Ghosts

[Sundroid]

The CNN article can be distilled down to a couple of chilling sentences: "Annalee Newitz, a policy analyst at the civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation, said employees often 'don't realize the First Amendment doesn't protect their job.' The First Amendment only restricts government control of speech. So private employers are free to fire at will in most states, as long as it's not discriminatory or in retaliation for whistle-blowing or union organizing, labor experts say."

The problem with blogging is that the words are documented. An employee can badmouth about his company or chat up the company's trade secrets in private settings and probably get away with it, but if he types those gripes or company secrets into his computer and hits the "publish" key, then he'd better realize that those words are permanently stored in a server, and the possibility that they might come back to haunt him is there.

Re:Remember when...

[FLEB]

Government construction? I'm gonna say "no".

Although the idea of a corporation is legislative, the government does not supply structure or support to any-given-corporation enough to make it a government institution covered under "Congress shall make no law".

By that logic, a "taxpayer" is a government institution, and telling someone to STFU would be government-endorsed oppression.

Re:Jeez..

[laughingcoyote]

Once again, the distinction:

Are you doing it AT WORK (on company property) and/or DURING WORK (on company time)?

If YES, it is your company's business, and justification to fire you. If NO, it is not. This is not similar to your analogy, since it (presumably) wasn't done during work or on company property-a more appropriate analogy would be "If I tell my friends how bad my day at work sucked at the bar after work, and it gets around to my boss, should he have the right to fire me?"

Re:Remember when...

[rizzo420]

you cannot say "i have a bomb" on an airplane and not expect to be taken into immediate custody, or otherwise... you cannot sit in a theatre and yell "fire!" and not expect to be arrested for public disturbance...

free speech does not protect all speech... you cannot work for a company and go on TV and publicly say "our product sucks, buy from this other company" and not be fired. however, if you say "our product has a strong chance of injuring you", that's completely different.

Re:Remember when...

[mabinogi]

> Considering you are posting under a pseudonym, your non-support for free speech is interesting.

why is it interesting?

and besides, there was no indication that he was against free speech, just against people that think that freedom of speech is also freedom from responsibility.
You are free to say what you want, but you have to accept the responsibility for your actions.

Most (decent) people don't use psudonyms or screen names in forums to allow them to escape responsibility, they do it to raise the barrier to random arseholes looking them up and harrasing them.

The fact that he posted using a logged in account means that he is willing to take responsibility for his words, otherwise he would have posted anonymously.

What I find hilarious

[mcc]

CNN mentions the guy who got fired from google for blogging.

What they don't mention is that the guy who got fired from google for blogging seems to have been violating SEC regulations by publicly posting certain information relating to Google's financials...

Common sense really needs to become an issue at some point.

Re:Remember when...

[Macadamizer]

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...

Re:Remember when...

[Macadamizer]

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...

Re:Remember when...

[Macadamizer]

Again, just FYI, "wrongful termination" means being fired for membership in a protected class. So, if you get fired because of your race, religion, gender, national origin, age (if over 40), whatever else is in Title 7 (can't remember off of the top of my head), that's wrongful termination. Plus there are some states that grant further protections, such as marital status, sexual orientation, etc.

Wrongful termination is different from, and often confused with, being fired for "cause" or not. Firing for "cause" only impacts whether or not you can collect unemployment benefits, and varies from state to state. Wrongful termination is a cause of action that allows you to sue your former employer for damages, and is limited (generally) to firing for being a member of a protected class.

Again, this is all U.S. law, and won't necessarily count if you are a member of a union or have a bonafide employment contract.

Re:Jeez..

[Macadamizer]

"If I tell my friends how bad my day at work sucked at the bar after work, and it gets around to my boss, should he have the right to fire me?"

But the answer to this question -- at least in the U.S., and in 49 of the 50 states -- is yes, your boss does have the right to fire you. Unless you are a member of a union, have a bonafide employment contract, or live and work in Montana, your boss can fire you for any reason at any time -- that's "at will" emplyment for you.

Now, whether your boss "should" have the right to fire you, that's another question altogether. But under current law, your boss CAN fire you for any reason at all, including off-duty badmouthing of the company.

Re:Remember when...

[nolife]

I'm using an example from a poster already in this thread...

Boss sees you walking into a strip bar on a Saturday when you are off work. He does not like it and fires you.. It appears based on your comment, that is perfectly acceptable.

Now back up a few months in time to your initial interview with that same boss. He can not ask you in that interview if you visit strip bars after work.

It seems odd that he could be allowed to fire you because you go to strip bars but he is not allowed to ask you that in an interview.

What this appears to boil down to is, he can fire you because he wants to but he better not admit it was because he saw you go to a strip bar after work. Where this would become questionable is if he specifically mentioned his dislike for strip bars many times to you and you happen to see him see you go into one. If you got fired for "no reason" the next Monday, you'd have a good case to fight back. There are a lot of people that can sense when something is going downhill at work and they get a strong feeling the shit is about to hit the fan. If you can prove you were fired for something not directly work related, you do have an appeal process. The hard part is proving it.

Good sense

[yuri benjamin]

It's good sense not to dis your employer in public.

Re:Remember when...

[pete6677]

Baylor is a private religious institution, and therefore allowed to discriminate. For the same reason, Bob Jones University was allowed to continue their ban on interracial dating until they dropped it a couple of years ago due to public pressure. Religious institutions are one of the only groups that do not have to follow civil rights laws and most other labor laws, since the government has been hesitant to regulate religious groups. And yes, you will find cases where people have abused this situation, disguising a business as a church.

*NEWSFLASH*

[Lonath]

I've figured out three simple rules about this wacky IntarW3b thing that help guide me when posting things online.

1. Everything you post will be there forever.
   
2. Everyone will eventually know who you are.
   
3. Anyone who cares will eventually read what you post.
   

Seriously, do people think that because there's a new and easy way of updating their websites (which is all that blogs are...simplified website management) that somehow they magically get a +5 Shield of I Can Say Whatever The Fuck I Want Without Repurcussions? Blogga, please.

Re:Remember when...

[timeOday]

it's not a freedom of speech issue, it an "at-will" employment issue...

Obviously it is a freedom of speech issue. And it's a freedom to fire issue.

Why can't people just see the obvious - many freedoms are mutually incompatible. Redefining words to avoid the dilemma doesn't change anything.

So the only question is whose freedoms trump whose.

hints for safe speech

[edward.virtually@pob]

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.

Hmm

[Chanc_Gorkon]

I can see being fired for a lewd picture taken in the workplace. I can see being fired for revealing a hot new product on the web. I can see being fired if you revealed other corporate secrets on your blog but I cannot see why the Queen of the Sky was fired. First off, the pictures on the blog don't even reveal to me that she worked for Delta. So what that she showed a bit of cleavage. I have seen more cleavage when the attendent was serving my drink! Maybe we do need to revisit the first amendment. It should be allowed for you to state your opinion of your boss on your web page....just don't reveal his name! ;)

Mass media desperately trying to scare bloggers

[michaelmalak]

So CNN is jumping on the bandwagon of scaring bloggers. The Washington Post did it last month. See the latest in my "media desperately trying to ignore bloggers" series, Wash Post desperately trying to scare bloggers. Actually, we can see that the mainstream media has now progressed from the ignore phase to the badmouth phase (analogous to Microsoft's behavior toward Linux).

Regardless that the risk of losing a job is real, the CNN and Washington Post stories fail to mention the benefits to society of news blogs like mine that highlight the relevance of buried stories, and even break stories from time to time.

The press is supposed to be acting as the unofficial fourth branch of the U.S. government, to keep the other three in check. This is eloquently summarized in a 2002 6th Circuit Court decision:

In our democracy, based on checks and balances, neither the Bill of Rights nor the judiciary can second-guess government's choices. The only safeguard on this extraordinary governmental power is the public, deputizing the press as the guardians of their liberty.(1) "An informed public is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment[.]" Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936). "[They] alone can here protect the values of democratic government." New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 728 (1971) (per curiam) (Stewart, J., concurring).

[...] [Footnote 1] A draft of the First Amendment specifically referred to the press as "one of the great bulwarks of liberty." New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 716 (1971) (per curiam) (Black, J., concurring).

If the mainstream media were doing its job to serve society, it would picking up the stories from blogs rather than trying to scare bloggers. The bloggers are the ones on the front lines defending democracy, not the mainstream media. The mainstream media is interested only in defending its bottom line. (Which actually -- at least for those that are publicly traded -- they are required by law to do. How did we end up with such laws that strike at the heart of the First Amendment?)

The mainstream media is scared. After the tenth anniversary of Yahoo!, they haven't figured out yet what to do with the Internet. In a desperate bid, the Washington Post just bought Slate -- a marriage as divine as AOL/Time Warner. Here are two quick suggestions for any mainstream media moguls who happen to be reading this:

1. Provide deep links to primary source documents like the bloggers do (court decisions, legislative bills, corporate press releases, etc.)
2. Allow the readership to vote stories up to the front page. (Advanced: provide for affinity groups, in the manner of Amazon.)

It's not that simple, of course. The mainstream media is afraid of losing access to information sources who also happen to be subjects of news stories from time to time -- e.g., the White House. There is also probably a bit of old-fashioned snobbery, that they're here to tell us the news, not to give us primary sources nor to let us participate in editorial decisions.

The first mainstream media outlet that can leverage its brand, overcome these hurdles, and embrace the nature of the Internet (namely, linking and collaboration) stands to make a financial killing while simultaneously living up to their charge by the founding fathers of being our "guardian of liberty."

Employers' control ends at clock out.

[CherniyVolk]

I'm ex-Navy (US Navy). One thing I noticed while serving was a distinct reaction us "smurfs" had when "kahkis" (officers and chiefs) were present. Neither group could relax. Relax in the sense of lowering formalities, we continued to show the exact same military bearing and the excessive drinking didn't start till the cheifs and officers left. I learned, that there is good reason to seperate your social life and your professional life and gaurd this seperation fiercly.

Companies enforcing their regulation beyond the scope of their assets (workspace as far as I'm concerned) is both ignoble, and if it's not illegal it should be.

Instead of companies accepting the fact they are increasingly subject to public opinion (Internet, blogs, free communications to Hong Kong etc.), they prefer to oppress us and fire those that pop off hints that investors and share holders might not have known. I bet companies wouldn't like it one bit if I told them that if I am to abide by their corporate policy, on my free time, then they should pay me the overtime ontop of my salary for 24hrs work per day; 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Microsoft wouldn't even last long with employee pay being that high!

I very much disagree with the extortion these companies are pushing onto the workers. But, there is a precedent that the companies might use.

I'm a government worker. I hold a clearance. I'm not paid 24/7 all year round to... maintain my clearance... however, I gladly do so becuase I work for the government and the nature of my job. It's complicated I suppose, here's the difference in another way... I gladly pay taxes to support my government, but I do not want to live under the thumb of a corporate monopoly. That's the best way I can put it. Companies are different, and they are in NO position to enforce their policies on me while I'm not on the clock.

I say that every person that works for any public company should open up a blog. Every one of us, and talk about our work on our blogs. They CAN'T fire the entire work force, even if they tried the government would step in and settle matters.

Watch out, here comes Big-Business!

Re:Remember when...

[ultranova]

Freedom of speech, as the saying goes, does not mean freedom from consequences.

Actually, yes it does. If it doesn't, then each and every nation that has ever existed has had absolute freedom of speech; after all, even in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China and North Korea, you could go to the nearest town center and shout "$(LEADER) sucks !". You would be shot or sent to Siberia for it, but hey, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, right ?

Please note that I'm not commenting about the right (or lack of it) of the company to fire whoever they will for whatever reason. I'm simply pointing out that the parent posters claim is completely nonsensical.

Re:How about brand preference, etc?

[Mycroft_VIII]

This seems a fairly good place to point out that the first amendment is an injunction against the government, not against private companies and individuals. Though there are laws that extend limited protections, such as whistle-blower laws.
So yes your employer can fire you for saying things he doesn't want to hear, but the government can't lock you up for your opinions (in theory, exceptions do exist).

Mycroft