spin-off from Hyde-Post thread: social media posts jeopardizing employment

[Pam in CT]

(not sure if that's quite the right title; and also not sure quite how to start the question... suggestions welcome)

Yesterday over on the Mondo Hyde-Smith Thread, @texasmom33 and I dipped briefly into instances in which "regular" people -- not public figures running for elected office like Hyde-Smith -- have experienced real and enduring consequences for content they've experienced for speech deemed by others to be racist or otherwise "offensive"... with real and enduring consequences.  

The image was a sort of Greek Choir, noting and commenting and evaluating the "offensiveness" of other people's conduct, with real life-altering effect.  She wrote

 

While this is sufficiently different from the public-figure-seeking-electoral-office (which has specific degree of scrutiny / expectations of conduct implications) that I think it warrants a separate thread from Hyde-Smith's,  the relationship between speech on social media/other contexts and employment consequences is important in a wider context as well.

The more ubiquitous social media "footprints" become, the more (and further-back-into-youthful-indiscretion-era) fodder for criticism there is permanently Out There, for HR departments vetting before hiring, for grumpy co-workers looking for fodder for complaints, for dissatisfied clients looking for content to add to lawsuit complaints, for bruised-feeling students evaluating faculty.  Somewhere sometime just about all of us has done something that someone can take "offense" at.  What and where and how should lines be drawn?

 

[Guest]

Well, I do think this is somewhat unknown territory, but a couple of anecdotes from my life:

My dear friend won a Teach of the Year award and we were all toasting her at our gathering. One friend took a picture of her and then posted it to FB and tagged her. Since she was immediately aware of it, she implored her friend to remove it; it shows her drinking alcohol and surrounded by people cheering her accomplishment with alcohol. It was very wise on her part, but I confess it never entered my mind when it was first posted by the other friend. 

Another alcohol-related incident: my BIL was talking about a friend of his whose life had really hit the skids due to alcoholism. BIL said after that, he realized it wasn’t useful for him (BIL) to put up posts of alcohol or those funny things one might post like, “Ahhhh! The purpose of Friday night!” with a big pitcher of beer. He modified his behavior - though the alcohol itself is legal and not necessarily always a problem - because he just thought better of promoting alcohol in this manner. 

I also know that my pastor’s wife did take a “side” on a public issue on her FB and I know it did not sit well with some of my friends. I am not friends with her and don’t know her personally, but FWIW, I think it was unwise for her to take this position. My pastor very rarely says anything political; he is the SWB of our church, lol! 

Oh! Actually, that reminds me...I do know that SWB herself did have an outcry on FB in re: gun laws and it did become very heated. I don’t know if she regretted that post; I do know she apolgized from some of the less elegant things in her post. 

Maybe that strays from the point, though, since she is a public person. 

I have found, for myself, I am less and less willing to talk about anything on FB that requires more careful discussion. I post my pictures or fairly benign, average things. It’s very rare that I Share memes, unless they are very positive. 

[J-rap]

It's a tough situation, because obviously we all say and do dumb stuff and hopefully evolve with life and experiences.  I like to give people the benefit of the doubt (and hope they do so for me), believing that most people are doing the best they can given what they know and where they're at in life.  If people are open to change and admitting that they may have been wrong, then that makes up for a lot.

I guess it's when people are stubborn and refuse to admit that anything they did or thought was wrong and continue on the same path, which makes the difference.  

[Pam in CT]

4 minutes ago, J-rap said:

It's a tough situation, because obviously we all say and do dumb stuff and hopefully evolve with life and experiences.  I like to give people the benefit of the doubt (and hope they do so for me), believing that most people are doing the best they can given what they know and where they're at in life.  If people are open to change and admitting that they may have been wrong, then that makes up for a lot.

I guess it's when people are stubborn and refuse to admit that anything they did or thought was wrong and continue on the same path, which makes the difference.  

Yes, back with my eldest, whose FB account I monitored nightly throughout her middle school and high school years ("the dullest 20 minutes of my day," I used to sigh, wearily, before logging on) I very often looked at posts -- not so much hers, she was pretty conscious of the dynamic, but of her friends -- and think, oh honey, someday you'll be up for Senate confirmation and someone is going to find this and project it onto C-SPAN cameras and you will rue this day.

I think there already is, though, a lot more forgiveness for, say, a dated picture of a Senate candidate, longhaired and disheveled in a rock band, than there once was, for concession to youthful "inhaling."  I feel -- maybe this depends on what circles we're in -- that pictures of Dumb Stuff before age ~25ish gets something of a pass.

But for more current expressions of political / ideological views, as TM33 was getting at -- that is now available to the whole world to see and judge, where once it was within the confines of friend groups and coffee klatches.... with potentially very high stakes.

[Pam in CT]

1 minute ago, texasmom33 said:

One other note- corporations are dealing with liability and the potential for litigation on top of everything else which only serves to further complicate things. It's no longer about just dealing with offense and hurt feelings- it's that those offended now have the possibility in many locations to sue and cause great financial damage and even potential demise of the company. 

Yes, this is a very important element.  It's not just the individual employee (or student, in a school context).  The potential liability extends well beyond.

[Faith-manor]

Excellent questions, no answers.

I think that in a competitive job market it matters most. If 200 people apply for the same job and 100 of them are qualified, the employer may end up grasping at straws to narrow it down. Sifting through everyone's private lives is I guess one way to accomplish the goal. But I don't think it is a good one, and on many levels, question the ethics of it. Background checks are one thing. Trying to figure out every single thing someone did privately or when they were a teen or whatever is quite another. But, I think it's important that our young people understand that everything they put on the NET is public consumption. Nothing is private. It is unfortunate because they shouldn't have to be thinking so much about this kind of thing when they are 15 years old, however there is no getting around it. My boys gave up on facebook a long time ago because of it and have not embraced any other social media. I think that makes them unusual for their age, however, I also think it will serve them quite well in the future.

They are like mini-middle aged men. They have email only, LOL. So far none of them have had to belong to a social media page in order to be informed for college classes, activities, or work schedules. I think sometimes because social media is popular for communicating with large numbers of people it can be very hard to avoid. That said, I think that if they had to have facebook pages, they would absolutely nothing with it except receive group messages and would not likely respond with more than the bare minimum answer.

 

[Pam in CT]

particular challenges, and pendulum swings, in educational environments

9 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

What I find interesting, or maybe pathetic is a more proper word, is that it's often the organizations with the least to lose financially- like universities defending a controversial idea- who are the most likely to fold under any pressure at all, with the mildest offense having the potential to end an a career. I'm not an attorney, but I would think in the U.S., that a professor's speech in a class or in a published paper would be extremely unlikely to end up in a viable lawsuit. Yet they are folding like a cheap suit. 

 

The academic environment certainly is where the most pressure around "de-platforming" for expressions of political / ideological views seems to have built -- that's the argument made in the article you linked in the other thread; and Stella has spoken of this here and over on the Poltics board.

I do see a difference in the legal issues and ethical responsibilities of educational institutions serving kids (where the students are minors; where the students are obliged to be there; where the schools are obliged to serve them; where bullying really does result in deaths), versus institutions at the university level, where the maturity level may only be a very few marginal degrees different (LOL, says she who's in the throes of waning-off-parenting of kids just that age) but the range of expression should to my mind be as unfettered as possible.  If the full range of ideas isn't represented in universities I can't imagine where we actually expect it to flourish, KWIM?

 

[regentrude]

42 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

But for more current expressions of political / ideological views, as TM33 was getting at -- that is now available to the whole world to see and judge, where once it was within the confines of friend groups and coffee klatches.... with potentially very high stakes.

The bolded: not unless the person makes it publicly available. Yes, it is true that social media can be hacked, for almost every person, unless a high profile person in a national or international spotlight, that won't happen. Your (prospective) employer is not going to hire a hacker to read your facebook page. Your employer will find the pictures of your indiscretions only if you are dumb enough to make them publicly available. Which tells them something about your judgment.

Edited November 15, 2018 by regentrude

[Pam in CT]

re public v private social media

1 minute ago, regentrude said:

The bolded: not unless the person makes it publicly available. Yes, it is true that social media can be hacked, for almost every person, unless in a national or international spotlight, that won't happen. your prospective employer is not going to hire a hacker to read your facebook page. Your employer will find the pictures of your indiscretions only if you are dumb enough to make them publicly available. Which is a statement not just about what a person is doing, but also about her judgment.

There are limits, though.  My friends and family members and fellow townspeople are free to publish my picture doing whatever Dopey Stuff they see me do.  Perhaps the "tags" won't stick if my own settings are private, but the image itself is out there forever.  A prospective employer is unlikely to look up my kids' and other family members' pages... but any journalist / investigator / nosy neighbor could google their names and do that, in a heartbeat, no hacking skills necessary.  My husband has a prurient streak (no hacking skills whatsoever, just a solid google game) and REGULARLY delivers up hilariously embarrassing photos of all sorts of people, public and private, whatever the settings.

There is no privacy.  That ship has sailed.

[regentrude]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

I have found, for myself, I am less and less willing to talk about anything on FB that requires more careful discussion

I have never found facebook to be an appropriate medium for careful discussions, because the format of the small boxes and the way threads are organized are not conducive to an in-depth discussion that requires longer arguments.

Edited November 15, 2018 by regentrude

[regentrude]

4 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

here are limits, though.  My friends and family members and fellow townspeople are free to publish my picture doing whatever Dopey Stuff they see me do.  Perhaps the "tags" won't stick if my own settings are private, but the image itself is out there forever.  A prospective employer is unlikely to look up my kids' and other family members' pages... but any journalist / investigator / nosy neighbor could google their names and do that, in a heartbeat, no hacking skills necessary.  My husband has a prurient streak (no hacking skills whatsoever, just a solid google game) and REGULARLY delivers up hilariously embarrassing photos of all sorts of people, public and private, whatever the settings.

yes, they could photograph you doing something stupid. And I guess they could screenshot your (general you) racist post and re-post them if they are your friends. That seems far fetched, however.

On the bolded: how would the journalist be able to see something if your kids and family members use basic privacy settings?

 

 

[regentrude]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

And how exactly do you convince your family member to use "basic privacy settings" if they don't want to?  

With reasonable, functional people, you have a calm discussion. I guess if you have unreasonable, dysfunctional family members who insist on being a pain, you are out of luck.

Edited November 15, 2018 by regentrude

[regentrude]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't know that someone has to necessarily be unreasonable or dysfunctional to want to be able to manage their own facebook page how they want.  And, aside from that, I think it's also possible that what someone THINKS they have set up, they really don't.  There's really no guarentee that 69yr old Aunt Sally on the other side of the country who just discovered Facebook last year and gets all her tags messed up actually knows how to set up basic privacy settings the way that you (general you) want her to have them set up.  So you (general you) ask "do you have XYZ set up? " and she says yes, when in actuality she turned off some other setting.

A reasonable functional person will honor your request that no pictures of you be publicly posted without your consent.

Aunt Sally is unlikely to photograph you candidly in a compromising situation.

Edited November 15, 2018 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

There have been a fair number of instances of people hounded out of jobs, or had it attempted, over social media or other incidents.  There was one that stuck in my mind about a guy who was posting a series of photos on Twitter of his vacation, and someone got hold of one which looked odd when it was seen without the series, and he (or she?) was attacked.  And I think ended up fired, even though it had zero to do with his job.  

I also saw a story about another statue controversy out in western Canada, regarding the first Prime Minister - there was a cafe nearby that was named for him and they were harassed about it.  There were threats and so they changed the name, and then they were harassed about that.  A bit different but I suspect there is a similar mind-set.

Anyway - a friend of mine lost a position at a university over a comment he made at a private dinner that was overheard.  It was about a controversial issue, not even something clearly socially decided upon.  Anyway, the students who were upset tried to have him let go directly but their complaint was found to be without cause - so they took it to the Board of Governors and implied they would go to the media (one of the profs that helped them was a media person as it happened.)  Anyway, they didn't like that idea and caved in.  Which was really a shame because he had some really different experiences and viewpoints to offer those kids.

There were also a bunch of dentistry students here who were seriously affected because of some really inappropriate social media posts about other students. It was a private group but someone released it publicly.  I don't think anyone thought they shouldn't be dealt with, but many people felt it was far too harsh, including many of the people who they were talking about.  But advocacy groups were involved at that point.  There is a good chance they will never work here in their careers now.

[Pam in CT]

9 minutes ago, regentrude said:

yes, they could photograph you doing something stupid. And I guess they could screenshot your (general you) racist post and re-post them if they are your friends. That seems far fetched, however.

On the bolded: how would the journalist be able to see something if your kids and family members use basic privacy settings?

Multiple members of my extended family have fully open pages.  My adult kids are semi-open.  And my friends and fellow townspeople... heavens, they do whatever they want.

 

5 minutes ago, regentrude said:

With reasonable, functional people, you have a calm discussion. I guess if you have unreasonable, dysfunctional family members who insist on being a pain, you are out of luck.

I guess I see it differently -- they're grownups, they can set their settings however they see fit, as works for them.  As a practical matter I'm not chasing down the social media presence of everyone I know, straining to find untagged pictures I'm in and asking them calmly to take them down.  Who has time for that, and in any event I'm not even ON most social media platforms, just twitter, and, well, here.

And I, uh, try to refrain from racist posts that could be screenshot.  But dopey pictures?  Super stupid expressions?  Bathing suits?  Sipping a beer?  Of this there are plenty sloshing around out there.  If sipping a beer is an employment deal-breaker to some, or vegetarianism or Judaism or gay pride or all sorts of other inferences that could gleaned from the social media of my family and friends, well, that's out there too.

 

 

(BTW I've "liked" a lot of posts on this thread because the ideas expressed are INTERESTING or thought provoking; not meaning to indicate I "like" job loss or other consequences discussed.) 

[Valley Girl]

4 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

 

If people want to posts pictures of themselves smoking crack or whatever and then rue the day their judgement lapsed that is one thing. But the pitchfork mob mentality when someone else posts something complaining about an individual seems to me to be the bigger developing problem.

 

THIS. It's becoming frightening in its frequency and intensity.

 

[Katy]

These sorts of issues are some of the reasons why the smartest people I know don't let their kids access social media at all and don't pose pictures of their kids on it. I am not that strict about it, but I do limit my social media presence and how many photos of my children I post.

[Bluegoat]

32 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't think this is really true though.  We just had a whole two months where media outlets and government officials poured over and dissected the things people wrote in a yearbook 35 years ago.  Yes, that in regards to an investigation of an accusation.....that everyone kept calling a job interview.  

 

Yeah, in our last election the candidate in my riding for one party was dropped because midway through something came up on his FB from university, not recent at all.  It was pretty innocuous too if I recall correctly, a stupid opinion I think.  

[gardenmom5]

are you talking about cases like the exec. who filmed himself berating a chick-fil-a drive-through clerk during the 'boycott' in 2012, then posted it online?

his employer found out - and promptly fired him.  they didn't want to be represented by someone with that much lack of awareness.  as of 2015, he was still unemployed.  (though I think he'd been hired for another job, and fired from it.) I think employers learned about how much of a jerk he is.

he chose to berate the cashier, video it, and post it online.  his behavior demonstrated a significant lack of judgment.    he was an adult, an executive with a $200K a year job - not a stupid teenager trying to get their first real job.

 

 

 

[Classically Minded]

18 minutes ago, Katy said:

These sorts of issues are some of the reasons why the smartest people I know don't let their kids access social media at all and don't pose pictures of their kids on it. I am not that strict about it, but I do limit my social media presence and how many photos of my children I post.

 

Totally agree.  I don't normally read these posts but this particular post was on the side of the forum homepage and it caught my attention.  I don't have FB, actually no one in my house does and neither do we share photos of ourselves or our kids (showing their face).  Too much facial recognition technology out there.  I'm really trying to protect my kids and when they are grown and gone and want to put something out there, its on them.

My husband has been with the same employer for over a decade, a very large and long-standing company that is worldwide.  Several heads shared with him how they search potential employees online - FB, Twitter, etc.  Good thing is, he has nothing online, but some haven't been so lucky.  Employers are now able to really find out what type of employee they could possibly be hiring by looking at what they FREELY put out there.  I suppose that is beneficial to them and a great tool.

I honestly don't understand the allure of FB but thought I would chime in.

[Pam in CT]

re full spectrum of consequences

14 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

are you talking about cases like the exec. who filmed himself berating a chick-fil-a drive-through clerk during the 'boycott' in 2012, then posted it online?

his employer found out - and promptly fired him.  they didn't want to be represented by someone with that much lack of awareness.  as of 2015, he was still unemployed.  (though I think he'd been hired for another job, and fired from it.) I think employers learned about how much of a jerk he is.

he chose to berate the cashier, video it, and post it online.  his behavior demonstrated a significant lack of judgment.    he was an adult, an executive with a $200K a year job - not a stupid teenager trying to get their first real job.

 

Well, I guess there's a mighty wide range, isn't there.  TM33 first raised the subject in the context of university staff evoking strong feedback from students, and concomitant restriction on the range of viewpoints within the university setting; and over on the Poltics board we've hashed out similar "deplatforming" issues.

Dopey stuff from long-ago juvenile eras seems to be a somewhat different issue; posted self-generated CONTENT on political / ideological views yet a third... and then self-aggrandizing "look what a tough guy I really am" judgment lapses like this yet a fourth.

Hard to figure how to sort... yet as a practical IRL matter, all can have employment consequences...

 

[regentrude]

15 minutes ago, Classically Minded said:

I honestly don't understand the allure of FB but thought I would chime in.

After reading this comment, I am really puzzled by the fact that you have a blog, which you even link on  public forum. One might equally ask what's the allure of posting photographs of your rooms or pictures your kids drew? Other people share stuff like this on fb. Where you can even choose who gets to see it.

Edited November 15, 2018 by regentrude

[Classically Minded]

1 minute ago, regentrude said:

After reading this comment, I am really puzzled by the fact that you have a blog, which you even link on  public forum. One might equally ask what's the allure of posting photographs of your rooms or pictures your kids drew?

I'm sorry you don't see the difference in an anonymous blog and FB that gives your full name, etc.  I'm sure you are coming at this from a viewpoint of trying to "understand" what I said.  You do bring up an interesting point though and I really didn't think about it.  I still don't understand FB's allure because I hear so many constantly talking about the drama going on there, the friendships and relationships damaged or even ruined, political turmoil that I believe have only divided this country even further, etc.  By all means, have at it but I just can't understand the allure.

[gardenmom5]

3 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re full spectrum of consequences

Well, I guess there's a mighty wide range, isn't there.  TM33 first raised the subject in the context of university staff evoking strong feedback from students, and concomitant restriction on the range of viewpoints within the university setting; and over on the Poltics board we've hashed out similar "deplatforming" issues.

Dopey stuff from long-ago juvenile eras seems to be a somewhat different issue; posted self-generated CONTENT on political / ideological views yet a third... and then self-aggrandizing "look what a tough guy I really am" judgment lapses like this yet a fourth.

Hard to figure how to sort... yet as a practical IRL matter, all can have employment consequences...

 

I do think students need to be taught to respect differing opinions.  evergreen state college (it's a very liberal, liberal arts college) is local.  the students tried to force all the white professors off campus, and one stayed.  the students called for him to be fired.   btw: enrollment is down this year.

if people were again taught to discuss differences, instead of deciding what the other person believes and then attacking them becasue their opinion is different than yours, it would go a long way to calming things.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

.

There is no privacy.  That ship has sailed.

Amen Sista.  

[regentrude]

11 minutes ago, Classically Minded said:

I'm sorry you don't see the difference in an anonymous blog and FB that gives your full name, etc.  I'm sure you are coming at this from a viewpoint of trying to "understand" what I said.  You do bring up an interesting point though and I really didn't think about it.  I still don't understand FB's allure because I hear so many constantly talking about the drama going on there, the friendships and relationships damaged or even ruined, political turmoil that I believe have only divided this country even further, etc.  By all means, have at it but I just can't understand the allure.

I have never had any drama, relationship ruined or turmoil on facebook. I choose what I post and to whom I make it visible - which, if it is my personal page, are people with whom I am actually friends in real life and who know my real name and where I live anyway, and with whom I wish to share certain information. For the two public facebook pages I run (one for my work and the other for a hobby), the page functions almost exactly like a blog, except that it gets delivered to peoples' facebook feed if they subscribe.

Edited November 15, 2018 by regentrude

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

This was an interesting case to see play out. Although it involves a public official, it moves away from the university model. 

https://www.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/hunting/article219758365.html

The Fish and Game Commissioner from Idaho went on a hunting trip in Africa and shot several baboons. He shared the photos with some people via email- not on social media. The pictures nonetheless made it onto social media and he ended up being forced to resign. 

That one contains a lot of hot button issues, but it does come down to the question of if you are doing something that is perfectly LEGAL in the country is occurred, on your personal time off and not in the capacity of employment, is it fair for your employer to fire you? 

Probably not 'fair'.  But not unexpected.  Part of this comes from people hiding their true selves.....maybe he wouldn't have been Idaho Game and Fish Commissioner to start with if people had known he thought killing baboons for sport was a cool thing to do.   

[regentrude]

8 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

This was an interesting case to see play out. Although it involves a public official, it moves away from the university model. 

https://www.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/hunting/article219758365.html

The Fish and Game Commissioner from Idaho went on a hunting trip in Africa and shot several baboons. He shared the photos with some people via email- not on social media. The pictures nonetheless made it onto social media and he ended up being forced to resign. 

That one contains a lot of hot button issues, but it does come down to the question of if you are doing something that is perfectly LEGAL in the country is occurred, on your personal time off and not in the capacity of employment, is it fair for your employer to fire you? 

This is not a job/employer situation. This person was a government official whose private behavior in a very job related activity violated the ethics of his government position. I would actually like public officials to be held to high ethical standards even in their private lives (yes, I would like to get a lot of public figures removed based on their lack of ethics that disgraces the office they are representing).

I think an employer should be able to choose employees who carry the ethical values of the company even in their private lives. A child advocate or teacher who is beating his child (legal in the US) should lose their job.

Edited November 15, 2018 by regentrude

[Pam in CT]

re Bret Weinstein/ Evergreen State 

14 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I do think students need to be taught to respect differing opinions.  evergreen state college (it's a very liberal, liberal arts college) is local.  the students tried to force all the white professors off campus, and one stayed.  the students called for him to be fired.   btw: enrollment is down this year.

if people were again taught to discuss differences, instead of deciding what the other person believes and then attacking them becasue their opinion is different than yours, it would go a long way to calming things.

Gracious, that could absolutely be an episode of Dear White People (which, BTW, #Genius).  Here's the NYT for another take on it -- very different orientation from the Washington Times, but both outlets come out in largely the same place on this one.

 

 

1 minute ago, texasmom33 said:

This was an interesting case to see play out. Although it involves a public official, it moves away from the university model. 

https://www.idahostatesman.com/outdoors/hunting/article219758365.html

The Fish and Game Commission went on a hunting trip in Africa and shot several baboons. He shared the photos with some people via email- not on social media. The pictures nonetheless made it onto social media and he ended up being forced to resign. 

That one contains a lot of hot button issues, but it does come down to the question of if you are doing something that is perfectly LEGAL in the country is occurred, on your personal time off and not in the capacity of employment, is it fair for your employer to fire you? 

 

Right, this raises the root cause reality that in the US nearly all employment (outside of union-contracted and a handful of other cases) is "at will."  Employers can fire for virtually any reason (except reasons tied to protected class-status), or for no reason at all.  So as both a practical matter and a legal one, employers CAN fire for "poor judgment" as could be exemplified in social media posts like the one gardenmom5 cited, or for content "not in keeping with the image we want to present to clients" or for content like this that came to the employer's attention, or for no stated reason at all.

[regentrude]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Beating a child is not legal in the US.

Yes, it is. 19 states even allow corporal punishment in public schools.

Edited November 15, 2018 by regentrude

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

See, I would expect a Fish and Game commissioner to be a huge hunter in most cases, as most hunters and hunting/fishing organizations I've known seem to have a very good grasp on ecological matters. If they were exercising their legal right to hunt I'm not sure where the conflict of interest would be. 

Yes, hunting for deer in this country is accepted because we all know we would be over run in a season if someone didn't hunt.  And so that is how we tolerate hunting for sport....but we don't see baboons in the same category even though for all I know baboons in Africa are like deer in OK.   

[Classically Minded]

8 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

The Fish and Game Commissioner from Idaho went on a hunting trip in Africa and shot several baboons. He shared the photos with some people via email- not on social media. The pictures nonetheless made it onto social media and he ended up being forced to resign. 

That one contains a lot of hot button issues, but it does come down to the question of if you are doing something that is perfectly LEGAL in the country in which it occurred, on your personal time off and not in the capacity of employment, is it fair for your employer to fire you? 

When someone takes something shared privately in an email and posts it on social media, I consider that a violation of one's privacy.  Can we trust anyone?  Is anything we want kept private - private anymore?  I'm assuming he wanted it kept private to just those he shared with email or else he would have put it on social media.

[Classically Minded]

4 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Yes, it is. 19 states even allow corporal punishment in public schools.

 

I think you are confusing corporal punishment and beating (abuse) - they are 2 different things.

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

No it's not.  

In all states, beating a  child at home is legal, and there have been exceptions created to laws about domestic violence and battery that exempt the hitting of a child if the perpetrator is a caregiver who does it in the name of "discipline".

[regentrude]

3 minutes ago, Classically Minded said:

I think you are confusing corporal punishment and beating (abuse) - they are 2 different things.

There is no confusion. If you beat an adult with a wooden paddle or a belt or a switch, it is considered assault or domestic abuse.

Edited November 15, 2018 by regentrude

[Ausmumof3]

32 minutes ago, Classically Minded said:

I'm sorry you don't see the difference in an anonymous blog and FB that gives your full name, etc.  I'm sure you are coming at this from a viewpoint of trying to "understand" what I said.  You do bring up an interesting point though and I really didn't think about it.  I still don't understand FB's allure because I hear so many constantly talking about the drama going on there, the friendships and relationships damaged or even ruined, political turmoil that I believe have only divided this country even further, etc.  By all means, have at it but I just can't understand the allure.

Many people don’t use their full name on Facebook.  Especially police officers etc will frequently use a different name or nickname.

[Classically Minded]

3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Many people don’t use their full name on Facebook.  Especially police officers etc will frequently use a different name or nickname.

I was under the impression that FB requires you use your full legal name and a photo id, etc.?  Maybe they have changed the rules.

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, Classically Minded said:

I was under the impression that FB requires you use your full legal name and a photo id, etc.?  Maybe they have changed the rules.

 Nope.  Possibly you have to register your full name on Facebook but you can call yourself something else in your public profile.  You have to put up an image but again plenty of people don’t use a photo of themselves as their profile pic.

[Classically Minded]

1 minute ago, Ausmumof3 said:

 Nope.  Possibly you have to register your full name on Facebook but you can call yourself something else in your public profile.  You have to put up an image but again plenty of people don’t use a photo of themselves as their profile pic.

 

So why doesn't everyone not use their real name?  I guess some choose to put themselves out there and deal with the consequences that entails but that might be prevented by using a pseudonym.

[gardenmom5]

41 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Yes, hunting for deer in this country is accepted because we all know we would be over run in a season if someone didn't hunt.  And so that is how we tolerate hunting for sport....but we don't see baboons in the same category even though for all I know baboons in Africa are like deer in OK.   

then there is the colony of rhesus macquaces in florida.  they are wild, and the colony is growing.   dept of fish and wildlife is quite concerned becasue they are considered an invasive species.

  much like the now multiple colonies of parrots in brooklyn.

 

and the pythons in the everglades . . .

Edited November 15, 2018 by gardenmom5

[Pam in CT]

re role of speed in exacerbating both dissemination of content and backlash to it

6 minutes ago, StellaM said:

The other thing I've been thinking of since reading the thread on the hanging comment, is that the speed of reaction and required response is probably a problem.

I do wonder how someone might respond if the whole thing was slowed down, and the controversy took place over weeks and not hours.

I think the immediacy of the internet encourages a defensive response; sometimes it acually takes quite some time to change position, or decide what the right thing to do is, and the immediacy of the internet kind of disrupts that. 

I don't see much value in ascrbing speed as a virtue in these situations. Just because I might say, within minutes, 'Oh sorry, I didn't realise those connotations, I do apologise', someone else with a very different life experience, starting point and context, might not have the same speed of response. Lack of speediness contributes to more outrage, and that in turn entrenches defensiveness, and slows down reflection.

In general, I think humans reliably behave in inefficient ways, and we approve of inefficiencies which match our values, and disapprove of inefficiencies which don't, but either way - inefficient at reaching mutual understanding.

That is an interesting insight.

I am very aware how slowly I process certain things -- the difficult things -- compared to my husband and eldest in particular.

[regentrude]

45 minutes ago, Classically Minded said:

So why doesn't everyone not use their real name?  I guess some choose to put themselves out there and deal with the consequences that entails but that might be prevented by using a pseudonym.

Because some people want to make it easy for their friends to connect with them. if everyone uses a pseudonym, how do you find them?

I fully choose to deal with the consequences of having my name tied to my fb page and having people know that I hike, sing in choir, support the local arts, and have a cat.

ETA: the information I have on (my privacy protected) facebook is much more innocuous than a lot of other info about a person that is public record: every traffic ticket, what your house is worth, and, for us public employees, our salaries.

Edited November 15, 2018 by regentrude

[Scarlett]

5 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Because some people want to make it easy for their friends to connect with them. if everyone uses a pseudonym, how do you find them?

I fully choose to deal with the consequences of having my name tied to my fb page and having people know that I hike, sing in choir, support the local arts, and have a cat.

My FB is in my real name as well.  I hear from old friends all of the time.  It is nice to let these people see a snapshot of my life.....my kids, my husband, my congregation, our vacations, etc.  

 

[Katy]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

In all states, beating a  child at home is legal, and there have been exceptions created to laws about domestic violence and battery that exempt the hitting of a child if the perpetrator is a caregiver who does it in the name of "discipline".

 

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

There is no confusion. If you beat an adult with a wooden paddle or a belt or a switch, it is considered assault or domestic abuse.

 

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

Beating a child at home is not legal.  In all states, BEATING a child is considered child abuse and is illegal.  It hasn't always been that is true.  But BEATING a child....BEATING anyone...is illegal.  

But, I have no plans to turn this thread into a spanking debate.  

 

 

"Beating" implies a certain amount of force well beyond a spanking.  In all 50 states corporal punishment so harsh it leaves a bruise or other mark is illegal. Whether spanking itself should be legal or not is not only well beyond the scope of this thread, it probably crosses into political territory.

[KathyBC]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

This is not a job/employer situation. This person was a government official whose private behavior in a very job related activity violated the ethics of his government position. I would actually like public officials to be held to high ethical standards even in their private lives (yes, I would like to get a lot of public figures removed based on their lack of ethics that disgraces the office they are representing).

I think an employer should be able to choose employees who carry the ethical values of the company even in their private lives. A child advocate or teacher who is beating his child (legal in the US) should lose their job.

This comment perfectly encapsulates what texasmom33 is saying:
This activity is unethical TO YOU. You have no idea whether or not it is unethical in the country where he vacationed or even among the majority of citizens he represented.

And in this day and age, people can be fired in consideration of the feelings and opinions of strangers, rather than on the merits of their job performance.
It might be useful to consider if the tables were turned. What if you could be fired because someone was against homeschooling?

[Junie]

Another point to consider in all of this is that we don't know what the hot button issues in the future will be.  I think a lot of people got caught off guard by the #metoo movement.  Things that were considered funny in the past are no longer funny.

Photos and other posts that are considered funny now, may not be funny in the future.  Who knows what our grandchildren will be dealing with.  Events or activities or words that we consider normal may become taboo in the future.

[Robin M]

2 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

That one contains a lot of hot button issues, but it does come down to the question of if you are doing something that is perfectly LEGAL in the country in which it occurred, on your personal time off and not in the capacity of employment, is it fair for your employer to fire you? 

My 2 cents. I don't think it's fair. However, there are usually extenuating circumstances such as the employee may have not been performing to expectations and the employer used it an excuse. There is firing without cause which most small businesses can get away with. Gee it's just not working out for us.  Some corporations do have stringent company policies and may see some outside activities as violating such a policy.  Because companies are restricted from asking certain questions during interviews, they have found a work around to find out more about employees through social media.   I remember my nephew was looking for a job and he was posting pictures of him and his friends getting excessively drunk.  None of them had given a thought that it would affect them adversely employment wise.  

There used to be a dividing line - the work persona versus home life and people were expected to act professional at all times during work hours and leave personal life at home. What you do in your off hours is your own business.  I don't know what happened to that work culture or when it changed.  Maybe we can blame cell phones. ?    Everyone is attuned to what's going on all the time and  hence work life and home life blended.   Just a theory. ?

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, regentrude said:

I have never had any drama, relationship ruined or turmoil on facebook. I choose what I post and to whom I make it visible - which, if it is my personal page, are people with whom I am actually friends in real life and who know my real name and where I live anyway, and with whom I wish to share certain information. For the two public facebook pages I run (one for my work and the other for a hobby), the page functions almost exactly like a blog, except that it gets delivered to peoples' facebook feed if they subscribe.

Same here.  No drama at all.  Except for one person (who is really sweet anyway- I got mixed up because she was a friend of my daughter's and had the same name as one of my friends (who she knows too), I know all people too. They are my friends (or at least friendly acquaintances) and also my former students- who I like to support.  

[Pam in CT]

re ubiquity of cell phones / cameras has effect as well

9 minutes ago, Robin M said:

My 2 cents. I don't think it's fair. However, there are usually extenuating circumstances such as the employee may have not been performing to expectations and the employer used it an excuse. There is firing without cause which most small businesses can get away with. Gee it's just not working out for us.  Some corporations do have stringent company policies and may see some outside activities as violating such a policy.  Because companies are restricted from asking certain questions during interviews, they have found a work around to find out more about employees through social media.   I remember my nephew was looking for a job and he was posting pictures of him and his friends getting excessively drunk.  None of them had given a thought that it would affect them adversely employment wise.  

There used to be a dividing line - the work persona versus home life and people were expected to act professional at all times during work hours and leave personal life at home. What you do in your off hours is your own business.  I don't know what happened to that work culture or when it changed.  Maybe we can blame cell phones. ?    Everyone is attuned to what's going on all the time and  hence work life and home life blended.   Just a theory. ?

There's actually something quite real to this.  Back when my husband and I toted actual cameras around, we only had cameras for special events like birthdays / weddings, or on vacation.  Our "handheld" videocamera was like 15 pounds, hauled in a padded bag that didn't fit in the undersea space on a plane.

Now everyone has camera & video capacity right in their pocket.  That has made an enormous difference, for better and for worse.

[SereneHome]

I have FB profile bc that's the only way I have to know about any and all HS events, classes, co-ops, etc etc etc

I do not post ANY personal information nor get involved in ANY conversations.  I don't allow my kids' pics posted in any groups, no matter how "closed" or "private" they are.  Never.  And I will urge my kids to do the same for as long as possible.

There is NO privacy left anymore.  None.  At all.  I find it amusing when people get all huffy and puffy about CIA spying on them, but let it all hang out all over the "world" via all kinds of social media and electronic devices. 

There is also NO FREE SPEECH at all.  This notion that "you can say whatever you want as long as you are willing to deal with consequences", while popular, is completely absurd.  It leaves people wide open to all kinds of harmful actions from employers, strangers and everyone else.

While I am certainly not anti-technology, I think it brought a lot of problems that we don't know how to deal with.  And won't know for the longest time.  So, I am just going to try to protect my family and my kids as much as I can.