Can someone please fill me in here? In the last decade, it seems that the civil liberties of the people of this country have been in constant bombardment from the government and corporations! I’m sure we can all think of a few good reasons why, but that’s another debate. What I really want to talk about today is what constitutes as a civil right, something personal and private, when it relates to the internet. We all know that the internet isn’t private, however there, in theory, should be some sort of reasonable sense of separation from your personal online habits and the interests of groups such as the government, companies, and other third parties.
So what got me all sparked up by this was a recent court verdict that made use of Facebook “liking” grounds for dismissal from your job or any other organization AND the act of liking not subject to the First Amendment. Liking, for those who don’t use social media, is just clicking the little “Like” buttons on most websites, including mine (HINT), and links that somehow to your personal Facebook page. At the face value, it’s pretty harmless. It’s like favoriting(?) or bookmarking a webpage or article, but linking it publicly to yourself. Really now, it’s just another social media thingy that people are into, but at the end of the day, it’s fairly pointless and doesn’t mean anything. BUT, some jerkwad Sherif decided to fire his employees when he found out that they “liked” through Facebook his opponent during an election. One thing led to another, yada yada yada, and the courts decided that this was fine. Nope, totally not discrimination at all. Even though it is.
Besides finding out how terrible our legal system is set up, what have we learned from this? Well, we have already heard that anything you post, comment, or blog about online can be used against you by a company or organization if it deems it conflicting with their values. So if you say “Company X sucks” on your blog, they can take legal action. If you say “Company X sucks” and you work for them, you can be fired! If you say “Company Y is awesome” and you work for Company X, then you can be fired! Hell, they have gone so far as to request (legally) you Facebook login and password when applying for jobs (and universities). To some, this is a grossly obvious miscarriage of the Constitution. Which, as you know, it is. The First Amendment protects your right to free speech. Sure, there’s some things you can’t say, but those things are very few and far between. The spirit of the amendment was to protect your ability to speak your mind freely and without backlash. While we can argue that it was a bit narrower, meaning you won’t go to jail for spouting off, and while it won’t protect you from getting the cold shoulder from your friends and neighbors, it stands to reason that it would also extend far enough to protect your civil rights in the workforce as well. Even beyond that, you shouldn’t lose your medical insurance if you “Like” holistic medicine. But for right now, it looks like what happens in the hours surrounding 9 to 5, anything and everything you do can get your fired.
Officially, from the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, you can’t discriminate against ” race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (unless advertised upfront, then they can be all kinds of bigots). With a further case law and whatnot prohibiting discrimination based on pregnancy, political affiliation, language, citizenship, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. But that STILL leaves a lot of room for companies to discriminate against you. Heck, in some jurisdictions, they can fire or not hire you because of your height or weight. So stuff like hair color, tattoos, the music you like, favorite color, or any of the hundreds of other stupid reasons people use to perpetuate hate against their fellow man are still available as ammunition for the firing squad.
My point is this… A company has 0 (zero, zed, nada, nothing) rights to discriminate against anything more than how productive you are. Obviously if you don’t do your job then out you go. But if you are in any way different, then logically there’s no reason for all this angst! Really now! What does it matter if I have a mutton chops? If I do the same work as someone sans-mutton then what’s the difference? Besides me looking much cooler…
Back to the original topic though… The internet is probably the single most significant creation of the last, well, ever. It has brought the collective knowledge of the whole of humanity in one place, breaking the bonds of classes, and spreading instantaneous communications between the people of every nation. But with that, we have to take the good and the bad. As it is now, the internet is something of a wild west. The intent and the use are two different things and I guess we need to start clarifying how we plan to regulate and enforce things like civil rights. Because anonymity is pretty much just a facade, we must consider the consequences of our actions and fight for our rights. Above all other things, we HAVE to uphold the First Amendment. It is #1 on the list for a reason. The ability to speak one’s own mind without recourse (besides getting called out for BS or trolled) is the absolute foundation of our most basic human rights. It is the expression of our individuality and it can NOT be used in any shape or form as a means for discrimination. I personally believe that every one of us has a voice and should be able to speak our minds. Sure, there are certain times and places where this may not be appropriate (like, I keep my site mostly friendly, so anything really mean, especially towards yours truly, gets permabanned) but on the level of law and employment, there is absolutely no reason for the things you do or believe in on a personal and public level to be used against you. That means, firing you because you “like” Wallmarts when you work at Target should not get you fired. It is discrimination based on your personal preferences and despite the conflict in interest, as long as you are performing your job at an acceptable level, then there’s no reason for any of these shenanigans!
On the other hand, what if someone was working at a daycare center and Facebook “likes” NAMBLA? Think I might have to play my hypocritical trap card with that one cause I probably wouldn’t be ok with it. But this isn’t about me… I can be contradictory. >)
Oh, and if the lawyers of that Facebook case are reading this, then you should really play the “can’t discriminate against political affiliation” card because even though it’s not, apparently, a First Amendment issue, I’d wager my lunch money that you can get them on a Civil Rights violation. It’s ok if you didn’t think of it. You can send me a 10% consultation fee… XD
Source: Courthouse News
Anyways, what do you guys think?
While I would generally agree, there are cases where other things have to be considered. Many companies including mine have confidentiality clauses. I have been involved in firing for putting up company information on their personal Facebook. The only other people at my company who have been fired for Facebook posted things at work. 1 posted how he wasn’t doing anything today, with other rude information, and the time stamp had him sitting in his office. The others took photos of themselves goofing off while on the job or misusing company property and posted them. I do agree that just liking something or posting your personal information should not be grounds for termination.
ah, very true. I guess the moral of the story is to be careful of the fine print.
Big difference between “can” and “should be able to”.
Some US states have higher protections on their own, but quite a few of them are “right to work” states which severely limit unions. Unions and laws are the only things that ever give protection. In most states it would be perfectly legal to fire someone for tripping on the sidewalk on the way to work, and therefore showing up with torn or dirty clothing. That does NOT make it right.
When this freedom to hire and fire on the part of the employee comes up against the shifting target of expectation of privacy, and the generation that grew up with social media and doesn’t consider privacy to be a thing to protect…. yeah, there’s gonna be some nasty splash damage.
Not true! the mafia provides a variety of protection services! >)
but yeah, being in one of those “right to work” states the union concept seems pretty strange, but I definitely see the value.
I think one of the problems facing this newer generation you’re talking about that will be going into the workforce in a few years, will be dealing with all the tardedness they put online as kids. Stuff doesn’t magically disappear of the internet. why, back in my day, there was no internet to record our misdeeds. so when an employer googles your name and finds all kinds of stupidness, I wonder if it will be used against you even if it was from when you were a kid. kind of a scary thought.
Ah but there is the crux of the matter because if the “BOSS” is from the same generation then they will have just as much to be ashamed of as their new hire. It is the old farts who paid off the local cop so things wouldn’t get in the papers that will take some work. But hey … those interns working there will be from the same generations and could “accidentally” leak some stuff about the old farts as long as we have a wikileaks …… or some such.
Coffin… there is one particular reason why I take special care than my internet identity is difficult to track to my personal life…
Tried googling my name… wasn´t lucky in first 50 pages :-) (yeah well there were people with same name, just not me)
My nick can be traced to me… however I spent hours dooing that and checking only connections I knew I accidentaly made in last years. (And well… I do not have facebook login… and I live :d)
hmm… who on the facebook staffs do I need to pay off?
sigh, sadly I’m all over the place. oh well… at least 90% of what google thinks of me is comics and art. >D
Well this is difficult problem…
You see, you have all “the rights” sad thing is that there is absolutely noone who is obligated to make sure they are fuffiled.
If you force you boss to employ you and he does not really want to (reason is actualy irrelevant) then you are using you are excersing your freedom at excess of his…
Well good old thing… All living beeings have “right to live” but try to explain it to hungry lion you meet on trip in Africe his rigt to eat you to sustain it´s life is the same as you shooting him/her to sustain yours. Fact that you have “right” means absolutely no obligation to other people.
Generaly beeing member of a state means that one sarcrifices some freedoms in exchange for some protection and “force” to excersise his rights.
However this aproach took rather large pounding since it is practicaly impossible not to be associated with any state… on current Earth it is practicaly impossible to get rid of citizenship without getting another one. You are born and citizenship is forced on you, regardless of your future wishes or choices.
So in the end… you definitely have right to work… on the other hand you won´t find anyone who does not have the right to NOT employ you… and he actualy does not need to give any reasons why he does not want to.
(And well… most people in Europe will not give you any reason why they either fire you (they just say they do not need your work anymore) or when you compete for the job, if they do not like you they will simply say, “we have choosen another one” even if they did not…
sometimes… well few people who do not care if they are “politicaly correct” tell the reason… and are prosecuted for that.)
A bit bad world when there are only two options: Be honest and be punished, or lie and be fine. And most of the time people waste time apllying to possition they simply do not have in-born qualities to fit… and when one is honest and says it… it´s “discrimination”….
how much time and resources does this “political correctnes” wastes?
bah, not a fan of political correctness.
anyways, idk… lotta good points there, but it’s kind of hard for a human to find a place. what makes it even harder is when there are barriers to doing that. some people are really good at certain things and I think that they should succeed in life being able to do those things, especially if it makes them happy. but of course this is reality and it doesn’t work that way. so when a person wants to make a living, either by doing the things they love or doing what needs to be done, then external factors shouldn’t stand in their way. I think my overall point here is that we’re all trying to make our own way and we don’t need any more hurtles than necessary. people are people, man. just a bunch of insane hairless apes trying to see what sticks. and I don’t care what the outside looks like, just as long as you can shoot the highest. (yeah… just used poo as a metaphor for abilities… classy!)
I value economic liberty as one of the greatest liberties we (should) have as American’s. Without it, we lose essentially all our freedom because if we don’t have the freedom to earn, buy, sell, and hire then our livelihoods are in continual jeopardy. Basic economic liberty is the principle that I can’t tell you what do with your money if you’re not doing anything in the first place. I can’t (or shouldn’t at least) be able to force you to buy health care, hire employees, invest in a company, confiscate your money, confiscate your labor, or fire employees. There are some violations of economic liberty within our constitution but only as many as are necessary for the nation to exist in the first place (taxing is a violation of your economic liberty but without it there would be no nation). These few violations are the only acceptable violations of economic liberty and anything violating basic economic liberty with a purpose other than preserving the nations very existence going against the overall ideal of allowing people as much freedom as is possible without a collapse of the system.
This basic economic liberty in the case of employees gives us the assurance that we cannot be forced to labor against our will (except again in cases which the survival of the nation is in question like the case of the draft during some wars (also jury duty but we need to find a better system of trying people than getting random idiots of the street to try people so I disapprove of that for other reasons beyond violation of basic economic liberty)). An employee’s labor is his to sell as he wills, not the governments to demand of him. In the cases of employers, basic economic liberty gives us the assurance that we do not have to pay uncontracted employees for labor we don’t wish them to do for us in the first place. An employer’s money is his to pay out to his employees as he agrees to pay them, not the governments to demand he pay to people that he does not wish working for him.
To force an employer to hire or not fire an employee who he does not have a contract with is nothing more than the confiscation of money by the government from the employer. Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government given the power to violate an employer’s basic economic liberty, and confiscate his money to give to someone that he does not want to have working for him in the first place or force him to pay an unwanted uncontracted employee he wished to fire. There is no constitutional provision which gives the federal government the power to violate basic economic liberty and regulate the reason behind firing someone. If an employer wakes up in the morning and is angry about something random, he does not lose the right to fire all his uncontracted employees for no reason other than it makes him feel better about whatever random thing made him mad. If you wish to give the federal government the power to regulate the worthiness of the reason that an employer wishes to fire his employee (a violation of the basic economic liberty of an American citizen) then you give the federal government power that don’t even realize and don’t want it to have. If you allow the federal government the power to violate the basic economic liberty of an employer to hire who he wishes and not hire who he does not wish to, nothing is stopping the federal government from doing the same to the basic economic liberty of an employee. If the federal government has the power to violate basic economic liberty and regulate the must also give the federal government the power to regulate the worthiness of the reason that an employer wishes to fire his employee, in the same way the federal government then has the power to violate your basic economic liberty as an employee to sell your labor to regulate the worthiness of the reason that an employee wishes to quit his job.
If you give the federal government the power to confiscate funds from an employer to pay for the labor of an uncontracted employee the employer doesn’t want because the employer’s reason for firing him is judged to be unworthy, then the federal government also has the power to confiscate labor from an employee in return for the pay of an employer the employee doesn’t want because the employee’s reason for quitting his job is judged to be unworthy. You don’t want your employer to be able to fire you because you made statements against your boss or your company? Then so too the government can judge you unable to quit your job if you want to quit because your boss posted endless derogatory remarks about you on his Facebook.
What you do in your own time is only private if it is just that, private. If you write a bunch of complaints about your boss on a word document and save the document to your computer and it never leaves your computer, then it’s private. If you post it on Facebook, then it isn’t private. If you write about how much you love Hitler and you want to lead the Fourth Reich to godhood in a word document and save the document to your computer and it never leaves your computer, then it’s private. If one starts leading Nazi marches all over the country and is being head of the National Socialist Nazi Party of America, then it isn’t private (AND I SURE AS HECK AM GOING TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST YOU POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND FIRE YOU LOL). But according to the theory that you can’t fire someone for their political affiliation and it is better for the government to violate my basic economic rights and force me to continue to pay the Nazi for the labor I do not want from him than to allow me to exercise my basic economic liberties and fire my uncontracted employee for any reason or no reason as I see fit.
I want the right to sell my labor to whoever I wish and quit whenever I wish (apart from contract of course) because this is the basic economic liberty that is granted unto me. Because of this, I want my employer to retain the same basic economic liberty of being able to fire me at any time for any reason or no reason at all. I want my employer to have that liberty not only because I want to know that my liberty is protected in the same manner, but because I believe that any extra freedom that you can give everyone that does not collapse the system or violate the rights of others (and no you most certainly do not have the “right” to your uncontracted job or the “right” to not be discriminated against, the federal law (which is unconstitutional) may say that you have that but that which is given by laws are just a privileges, not rights (rights are only what is found in the constitution)) is a good thing.
Basic economic liberty, you have it regardless of whether you’re an employee or employer. If someone else’s is being violated, yours is also being violated as well regardless of whether you are actively excising it because you know that if you ever achieve what the person having his rights violated has achieved, you will not have that part of your liberty as well.
Plenty of people get fired for truly stupid reasons, but I will fight for my employers basic economic liberty to be able to fire me for no reason or a foolish reason all day long because as his liberty is preserved, so is my own.
On free speech, you most certainly should have freedom of speech to say whatever you want about your company (unless you contractually signed away that right which you should have the right to do (yes people should have the right to sign away whatever right they want to except for the right to life)). In the same way you maintain basic liberty in having your right to say those things should be maintained, your employers basic economic liberty to fire whoever he wants for any reason or no reason (apart from contract of course) must be maintained. So you have the right to publicly say those things (yes what you put on the internet is public) and you have violated no one’s rights. Your employer has the right to fire you for any reason (that you posted those things) or not reason (because he feels like it) and he has violated no one’s rights.
Be careful in wanting yourself to have some right when it violates the basic liberties of another, it can very easily be turned back on you to violate your own basic liberties in the name of some right that someone else thinks he should have.
In regard to companies requesting Facebook logins, they have every right to ask you for your login and you have every right to turn them down and they (under principles of basic economic liberty which all should have) should have every right to not hire you for any reason or no reason.
On the Civil Rights Act, it is blatantly unconstitutional. If a state wanted to pass some law like that it probably would be constitutional but the federal government has absolutely no constitutional power to enforce such a law.
Free speech… EVERYONE has right to say whatever he wants (if he has the ability to speak at all… and well Stephen Hawking manages even without that!) But what you say has consequences… some people may hate it and prosecute you for it… (that does not take away “the right”)
Because in reality in 99,9 cases ABILITY = RIGHT
And well “Constitution” does not give you any power… power of the state lies in Police, Army, Secret services, in other words branches that can execute some actions to make sure general “will” is satisfied… Wheather they can manage, depends on their skill… and skill of the oponnent.
After the things I have seen, I firmly believe that freedom of speech should not be a right, but a priviledge to be earned be those who know when it’s better NOT to say certain things.
excellent write up again Death my man. this really is a brain twister!
I guess at the end of the day it’s more of a “how many liberties are you willing to part with” sort of deal. many people value privacy and many value free speech. if those don’t mesh well with employers, then we get a kind of sticky grey area. I’ll bet this will all be caselawed into submission in the next few decades, but until then, I’m sure many arguments about it will pop up. personally, I wouldn’t want an employer to have access to all my personal stuff, but I also wouldn’t go spouting off the handle nor do I have any drunk facebook photos either. >)
then again, what privacy is there anyways? they already do background checks and have your social and whatnot… probably will want blood samples too in the future…
That is a common misconseption - the First Amendment of the US constitution only protects a citizen from the government (state or federal). It does not apply to any discrimination or penalties imposed by private citizens or corporations. So - yes, you can get fired for what you say.
BUT, what makes this particular case a valid first ammendment discussion that this particular job is in the public sector. And that can be argued as a penalty from the government and thus a breach of first ammendment.
true, but I’d also argue that there may need to be some separation between citizen and company. probably not going to happen, but getting fired for having an opinion outside of your career seems to be in the area of extremes to me. buuuut then again I might not want the neo-nazi enthusiast working for me either… so idk… I’m kind of mixed on this subject.
ah, very good. since it was with the police force, then I guess the first amendment comes into play… but I’d play the caselaw card before the 1st amendment. but I guess “anti-constitutional” is a bit more buzzworthy.
Also, I fully support firing all alliance pigs ;) LOK’TAR OGAR, FOR THE HORDE.
Psh, humans are the best species of all, ergo: Alliance FTW!!!
LOL! while I do endorse the expulsion of all alliance scum, the “best species” really has to go to the dwarves! those little stout bearded fellows are so cute! and the guys are quite rugged looking as well! >D
it is a right sham that they are entitled to do that, down here in Australia they have whole departments in some company’s that it’s their job to do the big brother on you and your Facebook activities starting from the moment you hand in your resume. not to mention refusing to give consent to friend *coughstalkcough* you on Facebook and/or My Space before after or during employment is grounds for not hiring or even firing you.
seems like a good way to sabotage people as well… hmm… “career assassin” through facebooking… I think I found a new niche market! >D
Woo, got some great rant readin’ in! Good stuff!
hehe, I love when I can get people jabbering about stuff!!
you realize politics even though many say they are for the people
they aren’t they are in bed with big business and because of that they can do so many things they shouldn’t be
doing