Racists Getting Fired for Social Media Posts

Hapax Legomenon said:

The internet may be "public" but the idea that absolutely everything said by anyone there should be something they would be willing to say directly to their boss, not just now but into eternity into the future (because as everyone says, the internet is forever) has an absurdly chilling effect on speech.

Click to expand...

How does it have any effect on speech? How is the Internet different from anything else? If you shout it in the public square, someone could run and tell your boss. If you write it down, it exists on paper and someone could get a hold of it. If you say it, someone could be recording it. That someone may hear you is not anything new to the Internet. Nor are the consequences of speech.

Hapax Legomenon said:

It's less that I think that these people being fired is right or wrong, but more that the simple logic of "everything you post on the internet is public forever, therefore I have the right to send anything and everything straight to your boss and am completely morally clean of any consequences, see YOU brought this on YOURSELF for DARING to say anything that would potentially get you fired ever" is very flawed and that there must be a better way to justify it, if you do want to justify it.

This is even more true when you say the internet is forever but consider that people's opinions are not.

Click to expand...

What part of that is flawed?

Everything you say in public or write in public is public. If you write a letter to the editor, there it is and will be. If you make a speech, someone could have recorded it one way or another, or simply report they heard it.

Devil Ledbetter said:

They'd change, believe me. I've had conservative bosses (read, conservative pro-life Catholics, two of them in two different jobs) in the past and you can bet my activities were greatly distanced from my real name at that time.

Click to expand...

Yes but see this is the problem. That was the past, I'm talking about the future. Right now, your website is attached to your real name (is it? If it isn't, let's say for now that it is). You for some reason leave this job and get a job with a super duper conservative boss. Maybe while you were looking for jobs you put a pseudonym up on your site, or made a different site under a pseudonym or whatever. The point is that you took your name off of the original site.

Maybe in their initial background check on you, nobody catches this, or HR decides not to say anything. However, the internet is forever. Even if the name is not on the site currently, if it was ever on the site, someone is probably able to find it because it's probably cached somewhere, like the wayback machine. If someone wanted to, they could show it to your boss and potentially wreck you.

This gets worse and worse if you have a long history online. CrastersBabies now has an over 20 year history on internet forums. At this point there are tons and tons of people who started their lives online as very young teenagers and have said a boatload of stupid things in a forever format.

Perhaps we should allow things that are not immediately inflammatory -- and more just plain embarrassing -- slide, as a society? I don't know.

One of the bizarre and unanticipated consequences of the cellphone is how quickly it led people to forget entirely the value of privacy. We've all heard vast amounts of conversations in public places that should be confined to bedrooms or other intimate environments. Then along comes Facebook, and its superannuated adolescent CEO who has zero regard for privacy of any kind, and made himself ultra-wealthy catering to the willingness of people to post all kinds of information, ranging from silly to dangerous, about themselves out of some kind of ego-gratification. Then came Twitter.

People have been fired from private employment over comments made in public long before there existed an Internet. The Internet and associated technologies have only made it more likely to happen. You say something stupid and offensive that embarrasses your employer, don't expect to be protected from the consequences.

caw

I don't think it's a free speech issue, because people aren't free from social consequences for what they say. And I think people should anticipate that anything they say on a public website under their real name could be seen by their boss or other people whom they'd rather not have read it.

That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the internet vigilantism aspect, mainly because I think people can be prone to jumping on a bandwagon without thinking things through or verifying the story. There have been examples of people faking inflammatory stuff about exes or other people they dislike and using the internet to try to get revenge, so it can be hard to know, sometimes.

I also think that people need to consider what they're trying to accomplish. Though I don't have much sympathy for people who say racist stuff on social media, I do question whether going after these people individually does much good, unless the individuals are in a position of power or their remarks are related to their job somehow.

Hapax Legomenon said:

It's less that I think that these people being fired is right or wrong, but more that the simple logic of "everything you post on the internet is public forever, therefore I have the right to send anything and everything straight to your boss and am completely morally clean of any consequences, see YOU brought this on YOURSELF for DARING to say anything that would potentially get you fired ever" is very flawed and that there must be a better way to justify it, if you do want to justify it.

This is even more true when you say the internet is forever but consider that people's opinions are not.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think people should be cautious about what they say/do online, but some of that is deciding what risks you're willing to take and what type of speech you're willing to stand by.

The thing is, there are a lot of things you could say that could potentially cause trouble with someone. Even stuff that's harmless. I live in a state where there's no protection against anti-LGBT discrimination, so one of my concerns is that if a potential employer googles me, they might be able to find some stuff related to my participation in LGBT-related groups. But I know I have nothing to be ashamed of about that, and I don't want to have to go out of my way to hide that part of my life, so that's a risk I'm willing to take.

There are also things, like my erotica and interest in kink, that I ideally don't want my family or workplace to know about. But I talk about that stuff under pseudonyms, and I figure if I was outed somehow, I would be willing to say, "Hey, this is another part of my life that I've intentionally kept separate, but I'm not ashamed of it in any way."

The key, I think, is being willing to stand by what you say/do if necessary, and to make smart decisions about how open and public you are.

So I agree with you that it's not a black and white thing. Some people say things that are truly vile, but people can get also get in trouble because their boss is racist, homophobic, or otherwise prejudiced. I think making good decisions about what image you project online is more complicated than telling people to never say anything they wouldn't want their boss/grandmother to see.

Hapax Legomenon said:

Yes but see this is the problem. That was the past, I'm talking about the future. Right now, your website is attached to your real name (is it? If it isn't, let's say for now that it is). You for some reason leave this job and get a job with a super duper conservative boss. Maybe while you were looking for jobs you put a pseudonym up on your site, or made a different site under a pseudonym or whatever. The point is that you took your name off of the original site.

Maybe in their initial background check on you, nobody catches this, or HR decides not to say anything. However, the internet is forever. Even if the name is not on the site currently, if it was ever on the site, someone is probably able to find it because it's probably cached somewhere, like the wayback machine. If someone wanted to, they could show it to your boss and potentially wreck you.

This gets worse and worse if you have a long history online. CrastersBabies now has an over 20 year history on internet forums. At this point there are tons and tons of people who started their lives online as very young teenagers and have said a boatload of stupid things in a forever format.

Perhaps we should allow things that are not immediately inflammatory -- and more just plain embarrassing -- slide, as a society? I don't know.

Click to expand...

Meh, I just can't get excited about this.

First of all, the people being called out on their racism, from what I've seen thus far, are being called out for current or extremely recent posts, not stuff they said 10 or 15 years ago. A boss would have a hell of a lot harder time justifying firing someone over shit they stirred up online 10 years ago, especially if it happened during a time when the person was not representing the employer.

Second, "online is forever" is one of those scary sounding ideas that misses a crucial point: If "online is forever!" that means everyone (save for useless Luddites) has an online forever, including your boss. People having "internet history" is so common now that when hiring, it's going to be the person with the squeaky clean online image, or non-existent one, who looks the most suspicious. What are they hiding? Why did they scrub all of their spring break pictures? Give me the intern puffing weed in her Instagram ahead of the one with opportunistic third world philanthropy selfies. I'm not even joking.

And actually, I sort of AM joking because according to our HR department, we are forbidden to Google or dig up social media accounts of people applying for jobs, and we follow that rule here. Here's why: if an applicant's online presence shows them to be of a protected status and you don't hire them, they may file a discrimination suit and subpoena your internet history, proving you went online and found out that they were, say, pregnant with twins.

To me this all goes back to the saying: Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should say something.

People need to take responsibility for the things they say. When I was growing up, there were always consequences for the things I said, and I learned that sometimes its better to bite your tongue. Lisa Simpson said it best "It is better to be thought a fool, than it is to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

CrastersBabies said:

LINK HERE
*WARNING - truly offensive language in link

Essentially, this is a tumblr that shows people making racist comments on social media sites, being "outed" to their employers, and getting fired.

A few possible discussion points:

• Is this a violation of 1st Amendment rights?

Click to expand...

No, I don't see that. Many of these posts are publicly accessible. Some posts such as on Facebook can be set to "friends only" or all posts set to such a default, but that won't prevent a "friend" from doing a copy/pasta to cook one's goose. One might be able to sue for copyright infringement (it was a writing that was only intended for FB friends or whatever), but good luck with that.


But if I were an employer, I'd have to wonder about the motives of the person who forwarded such info about an employee. It's not ILLEGAL to be a racist or to say racist things, and an employer is under no obligation to fire an employee due to what the employee says on social media...

• Is a social media site a "pubic sphere?" (even if you use private settings)
• What about internet vigilantism? "Doxxing" women in gamergate, for example, is seen as invasion of privacy--do the same rules apply here?
• Other?

Lots of discussion potential here.

Click to expand...

Doxxing isn't the same, someone's "real name," address, phone number are considered private info, even though decades ago they might not have been.

Okay, the "private settings" thing may be iffy, as I indicated by the copyright comment.

I've heard of employers asking for Facebook and other social site IDs and PASSWORDS of employees or interviewees, just so they can look for such untoward comments to "friends" and such - giving a password to anyone for any reason is clearly and grossly against the terms of service of ANY site (including AW), and can get your account deleted immediately.

But some people feel that's a fair trade for the possibility of getting a job.

Read the link, and while what was said was pretty vile, I've read and heard far worse.

Thing about free speech is this: you can say what you like, but don't be surprised if what you say comes back to haunt you. It's been said before in this thread and elsewhere, but it bears repeating. I don't think anyone here including me is exempt from things they've said and written here or on other forums in the past. Such is the nature of the Internet.

The Internet was never designed to be private. Never. It's an information sharing engine. That's what it was designed to be. If you want certain facts about you kept private then use a little common sense and say nothing. And that's not because you're saying or even thinking racist things. It's just that these days anything you say or have said can be parsed, twisted, reshaped, memed, and used against you. So if you can't say sumpin' nice, say nuthin'...

benbradley said:

I've heard of employers asking for Facebook and other social site IDs and PASSWORDS of employees or interviewees, just so they can look for such untoward comments to "friends" and such - giving a password to anyone for any reason is clearly and grossly against the terms of service of ANY site (including AW), and can get your account deleted immediately.

But some people feel that's a fair trade for the possibility of getting a job.

Click to expand...

Is there some kind of list of employers that do this?

'Right to Work': the adjective Orwellian seems apt.

Hapax Legomenon said:

Is there some kind of list of employers that do this?

Click to expand...

Alessandra Kelley said:

Hapax, I think the problem is with the "right to work" states.

Click to expand...

That's a good first-approximation (D's seem to think this should NOT be allowed, R's tend to think it should be), but that's not exactly it. I just googled (because I heard about this a year or three ago, and haven't kept up on it since), and more recently some states have passed laws making it illegal for employees to ask this.
https://www.google.com/search?q=employers+asking+for+passwords

I have to say, I find it pretty disturbing when I see people posting things like this publicly on twitter. I know that people have thoughts like this, but when they post those thoughts so that anyone can read them, with their real name, and a picture of themselves, I wonder....do they really think it's socially acceptable to say things like that? Or are they just that stupid?

I don't see how anyone can be on twitter and comment on a current event like Ferguson, and not realize that a LOT of people will see your post.

Celia Cyanide said:

I have to say, I find it pretty disturbing when I see people posting things like this publicly on twitter. I know that people have thoughts like this, but when they post those thoughts so that anyone can read them, with their real name, and a picture of themselves, I wonder....do they really think it's socially acceptable to say things like that? Or are they just that stupid?

I don't see how anyone can be on twitter and comment on a current event like Ferguson, and not realize that a LOT of people will see your post.

Click to expand...

It's probably worthwhile to remember that "society" is not monolithic, and there are indeed subsets of society where saying things that that are not only socially acceptable, but well-regarded by other members of that subset. I've seen statements on Ferguson that curled my hair, but were well-received by a large number of people.

Not that I approve, mind you, just noting the reality.

Don said:

It's probably worthwhile to remember that "society" is not monolithic, and there are indeed subsets of society where saying things that that are not only socially acceptable, but well-regarded by other members of that subset. I've seen statements on Ferguson that curled my hair, but were well-received by a large number of people.

Not that I approve, mind you, just noting the reality.

Click to expand...

Yes, I completely agree. Which, I guess I meant to say, is another reason I find it disturbing. That there are still areas in which that kind of garbage is socially acceptable.

benbradley said:

That's a good first-approximation (D's seem to think this should NOT be allowed, R's tend to think it should be), but that's not exactly it. I just googled (because I heard about this a year or three ago, and haven't kept up on it since), and more recently some states have passed laws making it illegal for employees to ask this.
https://www.google.com/search?q=employers+asking+for+passwords

Click to expand...

I was just thinking, that as long as we were saying how okay it was to publicly shame people on the internet for stuff, that companies that do that should be compiled onto a list and spread on social media.

But yes, "right to work" is horrible. However I have heard little and less about attempts to get it overturned in states that have it, and I think the issues with publicly shaming people for things goes deeper than just making people lose employment. I would consider people compiling personal information about someone, that they did not compile themselves, for the purpose of getting people to go after them, to be harassment and I would hope it's against website's TOS.

http://gawker.com/psycho-frames-ex-with-fake-racist-facebook-posts-1665418226

Before the site realized the trick and issued something resembling a correction, the Brianna smear racked up tens of thousands of reblogs and notes and prompted readers to bombard the real Brianna's workplace with phone calls and tweets. Probably because RGF provided instructions on doing this exactly. AMC Theaters provided a statement defending Brianna, but how many rabid Tumblr detectives read this?

Who cares! Let's get some racists fired, or at least bulk-dox people who appear to be maybe racist based on this screenshot I found on Tumblr posted by a pseudonymous stranger with an anime avatar.

Click to expand...

Well, if Donald Sterling wasn't safe with all his money, I doubt others can get away with it.

CrastersBabies said:

[*]Is a social media site a "pubic sphere?" (even if you use private settings)

Click to expand...

It certainly was for Anthony Weiner when he tweeted his junk to those girls.

And, as an aside, if not a derail: There's at least one case (where I work) where it wasn't some evil third party who got an employee in trouble with her boss over Internet stuff. No, the idiot employee was one of those people who 'friended' anything with a pulse. Including her supervisor. Who didn't have the inappropriate item pointed out to her, she saw it for herself.

derail/

There was a story down here about a gaming journalist who reports her trolls to their mothers. That seemed to work.

"A while ago, I realised that a lot of the people who send disgusting or overly sexual comments to me over the internet aren’t adult males,” Pearce told The Guardian. "It turns out that mostly they’re young boys and the problem is they don’t know any better, so responding to them rationally didn’t resolve the situation. And it got to the point where their comments were starting to make me feel really uncomfortable."

Click to expand...

mccardey said:

derail/

There was a story down here about a gaming journalist who reports her trolls to their mothers. That seemed to work.

Click to expand...

See, I'd consider this a bit different. This is not doxxing or calling publicly for everyone who sees a number to call and report but an individual talking to another individual.

I really hate this "social consequences" thing - it's basically telling people they have to be wary of saying *anything* that someone else might find offensive. No, it's not a freedom of speech issue - that deals only with the government. But forget this "protected class" business. If an employer wants to get rid of someone because they're talking gay rights online - they will get rid of them. They will find something and out the door. Sure, the employee can go to court - and hope they can prove that it was discrimination.

Take away the racism part and insert any other "cause" - if you still feel those folks should be fired, well, that's scary. If you think it depends on the cause - that's even scarier.

And btw - customers forget. Give them six months and they might glare at the racist but they'd still be handing over the dough.