David -
I agree you have very quickly come to a new consensus with Niall, but I profoundly differ with the thinking that defines it.
Individuals must be permitted a private life outside of work, where what they say as private individuals is interpreted as exactly that. We, in the blogosphere, should collectively assert that truth over and over, and resist the blurring of the line between personal and corporate expression, or else, inexorably, corporations will determine what employees can say, either through direct coercion or more subtle forms of mind control.
The fact that Niall has come to believe that there is no such distinction possible in the modern world is a perspective that should be argued against whenever it crops up, even if he fervently believes it after this flap. He is wrong, and it is wrong if he gets kudos for his new understanding of the dissolution of the private self.
Just as important, employers should support individual free expression of their employees even if the sentiments being expressed are unfashionable or objectionable to others, so long as they are not illegal. And the observation has been made at various places in the blogosphere (like my blog, www.corante.com/getreal) that the use of copyrighted icons is fair use for parody and satire under first ammendment protections, so there is little chance that Technorati would be harmed in that way, even if it had been posted ata Technorati blog, which it wasn't, anyway.
While this has not turned out to be another "doocing" (the firing of an employee for blogging) and you may never have even raised the issues of Niall losing his job over this, I think it sets a bad example. Even in the heart of the blogosphere, employers like Technorati are not standing by the principle of individual free expression and liberty.
I hope next time that some critic complains about objectional content on an employee's blog, you instead tell the critic to reread the first ammendment.
- Stowe
1. T on March 17, 2005 04:43 PM writes...
I disagree with you.
When you say "reread the first ammendment", it's spelled *amendment*.
The first amendment refers to the government abridging free speech, not a company.
If you are in the employ of a company and you badmouth the company in a public way and the company terminates you, then that is not only not against the first amendment but it's common sense on the part of the employer.
If you do stupid things that annoy people and those people know you are a senior person at a company their impression of the company is lessened.
If you personalize it, to where you are running a small cash strapped business and you hire a guy who starts putting out offensive stuff, why is this guy working for you again?
My USD.02.
Permalink to Comment2. Stowe Boyd on March 17, 2005 05:21 PM writes...
Actually, there are five states (and a sixth on the way) that specifically have enacted laws that would make it illegal for companies for sack you for what you do on your personal time, no matter what their corporate policies are. I personally believe it should be a federal law.
Thanks for catching the typo.
Permalink to Comment3. T on March 18, 2005 09:43 AM writes...
So, if I run a company, I hire a guy and he has a blog and every day he decides to write up in detail how the managers are buffoons, here is what I had for lunch, my favorite color is blue, I bet the company is running out of money, some competitor is cleaning our clock, I went to the movies last night, the company might go under in 3 months...
Then a major prospect of mine says, I was thinking about signing a huge contract with you guys, it seemed like a nice product you have, but then someone forwarded me a link to this blog... so no thanks, forget about it.
And that is supposed to be OK with me? I should encourage him to express those opinions - not to me or his boss but to anyone with a browser?
It could be federal law that it's ok for him to be paying for his kid's shoes with the company payroll, then ridiculing our company in public, costing us business, when it might be mainly that he does not get along with someone, or he might not understand our finances?
This is very counter-intuitive to me.
His behavior is irresponsible and threatens the company which seems to me an outstanding reason for him not to work for the company any longer. You get enough employees like that and the company is what will be sacked.
Permalink to Comment4. Stowe Boyd on March 18, 2005 09:53 AM writes...
You are misinterpreting what I am saying, Mr. T (none@none.com).
I am not suggesting that employees have the right to reveal confidential information, like the company is running out of money, or what is going on in some project.
What I am saying is that employees should be able to blog about their political views, their love for kinky sex, or their anger about global warming: even if it offends the sensibilities of their bosses or their companies' customers. Just because I work in accounting at GM shouldn't prohibit me from marching against automobile pollution, or blogging about it, either, for example. And If GM fired me for that (totally hypothetical case by the way -- I am not singling out GM except as an example) it would be wrong, and in several US states, illegal.
Permalink to Comment