Play nicely on the board, or someone may get you fired.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 10:30am

Auto club fires 27 in message board crackdown -

SAN DIEGO, Calif. (AP) — A California automobile club has fired 27 workers for posting messages on a popular social networking Web site.
The Automobile Club of Southern California fired the employees in one of its San Diego offices after at least one worker complained to management about feeling harassed by the comments, which were written by employees on the MySpace.com Web site on their own time at home.

Club spokeswoman Carol Thorp said comments were made about other workers' weight and sexual orientation.

"When a worker complains about harassment, you take it seriously," Thorp said Friday.

[Marquise]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 10:34am

what a bunch of dumb f*ks.
good for their sorry @sses....

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 10:41am

More from the same article:

"This isn't a free speech issue," said Thorp. "You can't just go on and say anything about anybody — and keep your job."

MySpace representatives could not immediately be reached for comment. The site, recently acquired by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., features brash blogs and seductive photos within chatty Web networks.

Thorp declined to go into details about the association's investigation into the issue but said several employees used their names and posted their own photos on some of the messages. Others acknowledged their participation when confronted, she added.

The workers were fired in the last four to five weeks, she said.

The club has no official policy concerning employee blogging. "We may develop one now," Thorp added.

[M J R]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 11:14am

There's definitely an interesting lawsuit there...

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 11:18am

Good thing I'm unemployed.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 11:45am

MJR - that's what I thought as well when I read this. Taking the internet portion out of it, it seems like someone overhearing what someone said about you in a bar (or anywhere outside of work) and then complaining about it. The only thing I can think of that would be different is if they used real names, and that it could be construed as printed libel in some way.

Ultimately, I just don't really get it - especially with the vagueness of the reporting. I will be curious to see if there's a follow-up. If it stands, I think it's a bit frightening - too much 'big brother' for my taste.

[M J R]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 11:47am

I suppose depending on what was said, it could be construed as defamation of character, but it still could be a huge "freedom of speech" case.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 11:56am

"This isn't a free speech issue," said Thorp. "You can't just go on and say anything about anybody — and keep your job."

Did she just contradict herself or what?

[Plum]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 11:58am

The Constitution regulates government actors, so please don't whip out the old "freedom of speech" banner everytime there's consequences to what a person says.

ETA0- So BlueWizard, she's not really contradicting herself. Updated On: 8/6/05 at 11:58 AM

[M J R]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 12:02pm

Yeah, what was I thinking commenting on anything other than Wicked threads. That whole ACLU thing doesn't really exist, huh?

[M J R]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 12:08pm

Americans have the right to:

*Desecrate the national flag as a symbol of protest.

*Burn the cross as an expression of racial bigotry and hatred.

*Espouse the violent overthrow of the government as long as it is mere abstract advocacy and not an immediate incitement to violence.

*Traffic in sexually explicit erotica as long as it does not meet a rigorous definition of "hard core" obscenity.

*Disseminate information invading personal privacy if the revelation is deemed "newsworthy."

*Engage in countless other forms of expression that would be outlawed in many nations but are regarded as constitutionally protected here.

*Defame public officials and public figures with falsehoods provided they are not published with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

The last one is where these employees will have a case.

Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1974 case Procunier v. Martinezc "The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity but also those of the human spirit — a spirit that demands self-expression."

Concurring in Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that "freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth."

Updated On: 8/6/05 at 12:08 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 12:18pm

I have never even heard of My chat.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 12:59pm

MJR- these employees aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, "public figures." What constitutes a "public figure" can get blurry, but employees at some random company don't qualify. Make No Law is a good primer on the New York Times v. Sullivan cases that set the precedent for this- trust me, the two cases aren't even close. It's been a few months since I was buried in First Amendment law, but I'm still not seeing how this case has anything to do with it.
Updated On: 8/6/05 at 12:59 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:01pm

Plum - does that mean that these people have no recourse but to accept their dismissal?

[Plum]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:02pm

Nope, I'm not saying that. I don't really know much about what constitutes wrongful termination. I'm just saying that turning to the First Amendment doesn't look like a very productive route to take.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:07pm

These times are a changing. Did you guys hear about a company which will not employee people who smoke?
And fired those who would not quit! Updated On: 8/6/05 at 01:07 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:13pm

Based on what is quoted from the news article I would venture to guess that the basis for the terminations is centered on the following:

...after at least one worker complained to management about feeling harassed by the comments, which were written by employees on the MySpace.com Web site on their own time at home...

It's probably being viewed as a hostile work environment, eventhough the comments may not have actually been made in the physical work space. The fact that a group of employees were exchanging these comments regarding a coworker(s), the employer may view that as an extentsion of the work environment in order to protect the person(s) who filed the complaint.

That's my read based on the few facts known to us.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:17pm

Also, if the company could prove that those comments were made during the work shift(s), and if the company had Internet and network policies that prohibited use for personal use, it might have a claim that the terminated employees violated those policiies and thus were dismissed for that infraction.

[Craig]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:19pm

The more difficult issue I think is when the posts were made. Clearly if they were made on company time, then they can dismiss the employees for a multitude of reasons without any fear of backlash. I agree with Jose' that it might be an issue of hostile workplace being extended.

Without knowing all the facts, it's hard to decide who is in the right or wrong. I do think that if full names or whatnot was disclosed that there's a case for libel and/or harrassment. If it's out there in public for all to view, you are responsible for every character you type....

[Beergoggles]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:19pm

if someone writes something (a lie or a case of deformation of character) and it is printed (which a message is technically) then it would be classed as slander and they would be liable for it. Surely though sacking people is a little extreme... unless the comments were a lot more severe than the examples they published!

Updated On: 8/6/05 at 01:19 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:24pm

Craig - it did say that the posts were made on their own time at home: ". . . which were written by employees on the MySpace.com Web site on their own time at home."

[Craig]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:31pm

DG

I understand that. I was merely citing that there would be no argument if the opposite were true.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:36pm

gotcha - I will be interested in whatever follow-up they give.

[etoile]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:42pm

Posting something that denoted their work place, or could be deduced as their workplace, was probably the problem. Yeah...and that using your own name thing... doesn't help.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/05 at 1:56pm

It seems likely that this group was terminated in order for the company to demonstrate they took corrective action to against a hostile work environment.

The fact that a group of co-workers joined in these comments changes the dymanics considerably in this case from similar circumstances had only 1 person been making the same comments on the website.

Rather interesting case.