Slashdot Mirror
Vulgar Comment On Newspaper Site Costs Man His Job
DeeFresh writes "ReadWriteWeb has an article up today discussing an incident in which a school employee lost his job after leaving a comment on the website of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper. After the school employee responded to the newspaper's poll of 'the strangest thing you've ever eaten' with a feline-inspired vulgarity, Kurt Greenbaum, the site's director of social media, tracked down the commenter's identity through his IP address and reported him to school officials. When confronted, the school employee resigned from his job."
Some one should track every thing Kurt posts and report back to his boss and wife.
Time to start using TOR: http://www.torproject.org/.
Here kitty, kitty!
Yeah, it will come handy for e-fooling around while on the clock using work assets <sarcasm>
Your personal freedoms and right to anonymity end when you use equipment that is not your own (but your company) and you are doing it while on the clock for purposes other than those tasked to you while on the clock.
At home (or out of your company's equipment) and while off the clock, certainly, protect your privacy and right of anonymity.
While on the clock and/or using your company's assets, sorry dude, you have no right to that.
The issue to debate here is not whether someone should lose their job over posting a vulgarity on the internet.
The issue to debate here is whether someone should lose their job over posting a vulgarity on the internet while at work.
And if anyone would RTFA, they would have noticed that he made the post twice. The first time, they just deleted it w/o a second thought, but he reposted it. Again, he did it while at work.
And, does anyone know what else was he doing on company time?
RTFA
he did delete the comment and the guy from the school kept posting the same thing multiple times
So what? How hard is it to delete it multiple times. That guy could be replaced by a shell script. And anyway, these reader feedback forums on newspapers' websites (and elsewhere) are just an open invitation for every crank, crackpot and wacko in town (and the whole internet) to post whatever vile, stupid, racist, crazy, nonsensical comment they can come up with.
First, we had letters to the editor. You had to take pen or keyboard in hand, crank out a physical copy, mail it in and even then the editors only posted a sampling of the feedback on any given subject. Usually, the editors even tried to get a balanced discussion on controversial topics -- at least in terms of number of letters.
Then we get the phone-in comment line. Any loser with a phone and time to burn could rant to his hearts content. The messages were kept short by the recording time limit, so the paper could print a bunch on the comment page. Uninformed illiterates could finally voice their ill-considered, illogical opinions in a public forum. But at least the finite amount of space on the page and the fact the editors had to choose which ones to print kept things to a dull but stupid roar.
Fast forward to on-line comments. Space is practically unlimited, so the editors no longer even bother to review comments prior to posting. Anything and everything gets put up for all to see until someone comes around to delete the really bad stuff (racism, threats, pointless profanity, rabid non-sequiturs, etc.)
Again, I say, if you create such a forum, you are begging for this kind of thing. Hunting down one guy for double-posting a profanity (and a slightly funny -- but cliched -- on-topic one at that) is really overkill, when there's plenty of really bad stuff to be dealt with. "Pussyman" was clearly singled out for personal reasons on the part of the newspaper employee for special treatment. Poster was a little stupid and childish, but the editor was mean and spiteful.
I am not a crackpot.
The newspaper did the right thing. Someone repeatedly posting something after it has been deleted should be addressed. It was vulgar, and a large part of society thinks so. He did not get the poster fired, the poster resigned because he was discovered doing something he knew he shouldn't be doing and thought he couldn't be found out. Tough shit.
The newspaper did the wrong thing. They got really close to doing the right thing, but what seems like a vengeance motive pushed them over the edge.
The wrong thing, that they elected to do, was to attach personal consequences to allegedly anonymous speech. If it is anonymous, it is off the record, and should bear no weight in the real world. This concept is similar to that of the informant, the whistle blower, the confidant, etc. In the Slashdot context, we're not usually anonymous, though there is an option for that. I'll come back to this point...
The right thing, or perhaps an opportunity for a right thing done, was to call out the behavior in question without providing the means to attach any punishment to it. Perhaps they could have informed the school that someone violated their rules on multiple occasions and that if the behavior continued they would ban the school's IP from being able to contact the site. There should have been some kind of a track that gets the site the desired effect (the comments stop) without exacting severe negative consequences on the offender. Because again, there was the illusion of an anonymity pact.
As an example of this pact, imagine if Slashdot were to go back to all the comments you have posted AC over the years, match them by IP to your ordinary comments, and 'out' you publicly. Would you not feel betrayed? I certainly would.
By offering the option, you are allowing the free expression that comes along with it. The simple solution is to require users to log in, thereby allowing you the accountability desired without setting up a false covenant.