Slashdot Mirror


Anniston, Alabama To Censor Employees' Facebook Pages

ISurfTooMuch writes "If you're a city employee in Anniston, AL, you'd better watch what you say on Facebook. Under a proposal being considered by the City Council, employees would be banned from posting anything 'negative' or 'embarrassing' about the city. Note that they aren't talking about official city pages here, but employees' personal pages. Anyone care to educate these clowns on the existence of the First Amendment?"

37 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. 1st A... by msauve · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're not passing a law, they're making rule of employment. You want a job with us, you don't badmouth us. That's perfectly reasonable, whether a private or public employer. If an employee doesn't like it, they can quit. It's that simple.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:1st A... by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I paid taxes in that town, I would be sort of pissed off that the town officials were spending time on something like this, so I wouldn't call it perfectly reasonable.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:1st A... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, it isn't reasonable at all, not when you're a division of the government. The first amendment exists so that individuals can speak out against government acts with impunity - you can't be held accountable for speaking out against the government. By instituting this rule, they're essentially saying that the first amendment doesn't apply. Legally speaking, they have no right to do it, and morally speaking, it's abject in every sense of the word.

      Your employer has no right to censor your speech - period. Even less so when that employer is part of the government who's supposed to be upholding that right in the first place. Conflict of interest.

    3. Re:1st A... by Port1080 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, government employees do have more rights when it comes to speech (due to the 1st amendment) than private employees do. They can't just say any old thing, but if their criticism of their employer or the town is found by the court to be "of public concern" it could be considered protected speech. This law actually probably is unconstitutional, particularly if it's very broad (it could be written in a way that only banned non-protected speech, but my guess is they didn't think it through that well).

      --
      Check out Treesandthings.com for offbeat news
    4. Re:1st A... by deapbluesea · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a major difference between a private employer and a government employer in terms of speech. IANAL, but this guy is:

      The First Amendment applies only to government employers, not to private employers. Government employers are prohibited from terminating employees as a result of their speech on matters of public concern, in most circumstances. However, if the employer can show that it was necessary to terminate the employee to preserve some legitimate employer interest, the termination may be upheld. Speech relating to matters that do not fall within the definition of 'public concern' may be used as a basis to terminate employees, even if the speech occurs on the employee's free time.

      As in all things, it's not as simple as /.ers think it is.

      --
      Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
    5. Re:1st A... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The slashdot solution to challenges to liberty: become a homeless, jobless bum.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    6. Re:1st A... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      it is not reasonable and as a public employer it is indeed different. They are a government, with that comes special powers and special limitations.

    7. Re:1st A... by rjstanford · · Score: 2

      No, it isn't reasonable at all, not when you're a division of the government. The first amendment exists so that individuals can speak out against government acts with impunity - you can't be held accountable for speaking out against the government. By instituting this rule, they're essentially saying that the first amendment doesn't apply. Legally speaking, they have no right to do it, and morally speaking, it's abject in every sense of the word.

      Your employer has no right to censor your speech - period. Even less so when that employer is part of the government who's supposed to be upholding that right in the first place. Conflict of interest.

      That's right. They can't censor your speech.

      You also can't insist that they continue to employ you after you call them asshats. Free speech has consequences too, you see.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    8. Re:1st A... by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In properly civilized countries, you can insist on just that.

    9. Re:1st A... by drachenstern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or do what I did, and move out of the town.

      8 years ago and counting.

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    10. Re:1st A... by base3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whatever. This policy brought to you by Anniston, Alabama 36202 still sucks donkey balls. (Put that into your search engine and smoke it, you oppressive gits.)

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    11. Re:1st A... by Stormthirst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or, the city could take the approach that anything they do is a matter of public record.....

      Then they can pay me 24/7 instead of 8/5.

    12. Re:1st A... by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Funny how we think it's so invasive when an employer looks at (mostly public) speech they don't like and punishes you for it, but we don't think it's so invasive when an employer demands your bodily fluids which for damned sure are not public.

      Fair point, but I expect there's broad agreement that this is at least as invasive on a liberal site such as Slashdot.

    13. Re:1st A... by isotope23 · · Score: 2

      no you misunderstood. I mean anything the CITY does is public record and hence should be subject to scrutiny and criticism, especially by its employees.
      If the workplace sucks, then the citizens have a right to know that their city treats it's people like crap. If the city is doing something questionable by all means the employees should be able to post negative comments about it.

      We have an expectation that government is public and as such it should be held to a higher public standard.

      --
      Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    14. Re:1st A... by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      I don't think your assertion holds water. The right to free speech and assembly are guaranteed. No matter who utters the speech, there are indeed consequences, but the consequences suffered by the government of the City of Anniston might be embarrassment, whistleblowing, and lots of speech that are quite protected. They're not a private employer, they're a public employer, and even government employees have personal lives, although certain parts of their speech can be constrained by federal law-- and are.

      This is irresponsible overreach on the part of their city council. It won't stand up; there's lots of precedent that protect the employees.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    15. Re:1st A... by causality · · Score: 2

      If I hire someone to work for me, and that person is publicly badmouthing or debasing me, I reserve the right to fire that person.

      If you are talking about a private company, I fully agree with you. This should not apply to government, and I'll use your next line to explain why.

      You claim that if I could not fire them, and had to pay them to continue working even though they are costing me customers, is actually more civilized?

      Governments don't obtain their revenues from customers. Governments obtain their revenues from taxpayers. It is a system of confiscatory taxation -- the taxpayers do not have a legal right to refuse to pay taxes. That's why your logic is perfectly valid for a private company that really could lose customers but does not apply to a government.

      If so, I am glad I don't belong to the same civilization that you do.

      I'm glad I am in a civilization that acknowledges reasons why government is not at all like a private company. Governments have a legal right to use force to achieve their goals. Private companies don't. Governments have confiscatory taxation. Private companies must convince customers to willingly do business with them or they fail. They do and should operate under a different set of rules.

      It would be pathological and detrimental to society to blur that distinction. This censorship movement is a step in that direction. Unfortunately, it will succeed and become enshrined in law if we forget these basic principles and start passionately making excuses for it.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    16. Re:1st A... by Danse · · Score: 2

      "Ah, I get it now! I can say what I like, but it is still free if I get imprisoned for it. Because the "free" in "free speech" is the same as in "free will"."

      Don't be an ass. That's not what I wrote. NOBODY in the United States is granted freedom of speech without consequences. As in the famous example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, you can indeed be arrested for speech, First Amendment or not.

      This is not even remotely the same as shouting fire in a theater. This is the government retaliating against people for speech that it doesn't like, not because of anything to do with public safety.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  2. Complete BS by purpledinoz · · Score: 2

    This reminds me of this story, where a teacher who appeared on the Howard Stern show for a contest (ugliest guy and hottest wife) was fired for it. It seems that the state has no problem firing people they don't like.

  3. This is far from settled law by ZipK · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is far from a settled issue; there's a lot of complicated case law wending its way through the courts.

  4. Free speech is pretty well misunderstood by Moof123 · · Score: 2

    You are free to say anything you want, and free to feel the consequences.

    Folks on the private side can get fired for not following a companies PR policies on even non-defamatory public comments (usually translated to mean that anything you say publicly about a company while employed there must be approved first). Public entities are a little different, and are covered by different laws, but the general rule stands that bad mouthing the hand that feeds you is not smart.

    Whistle blowing for real grievances, safety issues, and illegal acts are a different story, and it is unlikely that laws such as this preempt whistle blowing laws.

  5. Standard stuff by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    It's generally understood that you don't badmouth your employer, even if you work for the government.

    ...as yourself, of course...

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  6. It's about time!!!! by Rivalz · · Score: 2

    I think its about time city officials officially get paid to browse facebook during business hours.
    Now if they could just find some reason to keep their farmville farms in top shape while monitoring other city workers crops.

  7. Son of a bitch by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's never a good thing to see my home state on Slashdot, let alone my home town.

    I have to say, I don't like this policy. One is not generally supposed to badmouth one's employer, but badmouthing one's government is patriotic and should be encouraged. That's how things get fixed.

  8. Consequences by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone care to educate these clowns on the existence of the First Amendment?

    First Amendment allows you can say whatever you like, with few exceptions. It does not, however, protect you from being responsible for the consequences of what you said. If you are badmouthing your employer on a publicly visible page with your name attached, you are committing career suicide, regardless of your employer. They can either get rid of you, or make it miserable for you to maintain your employment. If you must vent, do it offline, or privatize your page and be sure you don't have co-workers as "friends". That's being responsible, and shielding yourself from these consequences so many forget about.

    1. Re:Consequences by Port1080 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you are a government employee, the 1st amendment actually does protect you to some degree. Your advice is absolutely correct if you're privately employed, but government employees have more protections when it comes to issues like this.

      --
      Check out Treesandthings.com for offbeat news
  9. I work at the mayors office in Anniston by ohzero · · Score: 2

    and this place sucks a seriously huge bag of dicks. Wait, they only monitor facebook right?

    --
    -- http://www.criticalassets.com
    1. Re:I work at the mayors office in Anniston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      and this place sucks a seriously huge bag of dicks.
      Wait, they only monitor facebook right?

      I live in this town too, As if we don't have enough problems with people around here going hungry an looking for work that will never come, now we have to waste our time an effort on facebook an what a employee does in his off time. I live right on one of the main streets in town an I see homeless people that are facing starvation an frostbite on a daily basis. I tried to call mayor gene robinson, but he's dodging his phone like a plague. I think everyone that feels this is the stupidest thing you've seen in a long should give him a call and or email, here's his contact info.

      Gene D. Robinson
      Mayor

      P.O. Box 2168
      Anniston, AL 36202
      256-231-7691
      citycouncil@annistonal.gov

  10. Re:At-will employment by Port1080 · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

    You don't know much about con-law do you?

    --
    Check out Treesandthings.com for offbeat news
  11. Good thing Alabama's an at-will state by anyGould · · Score: 3, Interesting

    .. they'll never actually fire someone for badmouthing the city - they'll just terminate your employment.

    I'll never understand why people thought giving companies the ability to fire for "no" reason was a good thing - all it does is let them fire you for *any* reason (legal or not)

    1. Re:Good thing Alabama's an at-will state by Burdell · · Score: 2

      You are free to quit your job for any reason (or for no reason), so why shouldn't the company have an equal right to terminate your employment?

    2. Re:Good thing Alabama's an at-will state by praxis · · Score: 2

      This is why some places have labour laws that state a minimum notice for ending employment from either party. This notice period varies based on how long the relationship lasted, started with a week from day one to about six weeks after two years of employment. Of course, if the employer wishes to not keep you around for security reasons, they may require you not to come to work, but they must pay your paycheck for that time period. The same applies to the employee, they must give the same amount of time in notice. I'm not sure how they resolve disputes where an employee doesn't give notice or fails to show up, but I'm guessing there is a system in place, or the people there tend to be honorable enough to uphold the deal (at least marginally).

    3. Re:Good thing Alabama's an at-will state by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      Do you have any clue what a small percentage of wage earners make over $100k? 84% of HOUSEHOLDS make less than that. The national MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD is $44.6k.

      I would say for most people it hurts the company more when someone quits than it hurts a person to be let go.

      I would say you need a reality check. Most people get no severance.

      And that's not even the point. You're operating under the false (and frankly delusional) assumption that my losing $1 is the same as the company losing $1. It's not. If I lose $20k, I'm utterly bankrupt, and probably homeless. If the company loses $20k, they post slower growth for the quarter.

  12. I'm confused by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    Somebody explain to me again how Facebook guarantees the name you sign up for a Facebook account with is your real name and is traceable to your employer. Because you know, anybody stupid enough to use their real name when criticizing their employer probably should be fired for having bad judgement!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  13. My company tried it. Hilarity ensued. by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It was slightly farcical. We argued that it was nothing defamatory and fair commentary. The next day, the entire department posted 'Company X's Media Policy is a joke' as their status.

    Of course, if they tried to monitor Slashdot comments, the entire IT department where I work is going to be looking for a job on Monday.

  14. Psychology anyone? by U8MyData · · Score: 2

    Oh, and another thought. I think it is amazing that we have gone so far down the PC (political correctness) trail that somewhere along the way we forgot how to listen, argue (as in illustrating a point), and resolve issues. Anymore it is a competition of who has the biggest equipment, who is paying the bills, who your friends are, or what organization you belong to. Management (the City in this case) should listen, the employee(s) should be encouraged to argue their grievance, more listening and then a mutually beneficial solution should follow. Not always of course, but at least that should be the goal regardless of sex, creed, affiliation, and all those other things we are not supposed to judge one another by; even though everyone does.

  15. Re:Things not to put on your face book page by phmadore · · Score: 2

    Then the bastards win. Because you're afraid. Fuck all that. This is just another case of the old generation trying to impose its rules and morals and secrets on us. Part of the reason we are smarter than they were is that we have opened all the doors and windows behind which they used to rape their sisters and beat their wives.

  16. I'm from the Anniston area by dgun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I live just outside of Anniston. The local paper. the Anniston Star, runs stories on the city council several times a week. It's awesome entertainment, Believe me when I say that the Anniston city council is a complete joke. One of the council members stated that the reason they want to trample on the first amendment rights of their employees (and understand that this is just not about posting on Facebook at work) is that comments made on Facebook could embarrass the city. Which is completely ridiculous considering the City council has been the #1 source of embarrassment for the city for a couple of years now. The last couple of months they have been conducting an "inquiry" at tremendous expense, apparently on the general subject of "bad stuff" that's going on at the city, But it's really about the ego of one council member who was not happy at the results of an investigation conducted by the police department and who was also attempting to punish a police officer who criticised the council member on Facebook, as well as take revenge on a judge who ruled against him.

    The mayor and the various council members fight and argue like school children continuously. One of the council members files multiple law suits based on idiotic grounds. In their "inquiry" they have issued subpoena after subpoena, many of which are quashed because they're so damn ridiculous. This latest issues regarding Facebook is just one in a long list of laughable shenanigans perpetrated by the council. Honestly, a reality show based on these people would be awesome and would be the one reality show I would watch. You wouldn't even have to edit anything, just broadcast the council meetings live on Comedy Central. The truth is far more hilarious and amusing than any group of video editors could conjure,

    --
    FAQs are evil.