I'll settle for a fast food post - graphic w/ side order of links to go. If a picture is worth 1,000 words, how many words is a link worth?
From Blogs and freedom of speech and the National Coalition against Censorship
Some states have laws that may protect an employee or applicant's legal off-duty blogging, especially if the employer has no policy or an unreasonably restrictive policy with regard to off-duty speech activities. For example, California has a law protecting employees from "demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises."For dessert, lagniappe - a Mark Twain quote on free speech:
There is also a Labor Law statute which protects employees engaged in lawful off-duty conduct which does not materially conflict with the employer's interests. Activities such as union activity, recreational activity, lawful use of consumable products and political and free speech activities are examples.
As an active privilege, it ranks with the privilege of committing murder; we may exercise it if we are willing to take the consequences.
Great cartoon Vanessa! Can honest blogging discourse really get a person in trouble? Or make some uncomfortable? I would think only those persons or institutions having something to hide...
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, honest blogging and othet public discourse that criticizes or questions can and does get bloggers in trouble - even jailed in some countries. The same goes for not censoring readers' comments. But this not China or a Middle Eastern dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteBoth key and conflict lie in what constitutes "lawful off-duty conduct which does not materially conflict with the employer's interests" and who gets to make that call.
Extending free speech to blogging is not, of course, not grounds for posting inappropriate content, offensive or hate language, deliberately spreading damaging misinformation, posting proprietary information and so on, especially when such hides behind freedom of speech.
Blogging and interactive social media are networked rather than hierarchical - individual initiative and information shared among equals vs chain of command and stratified top-down management. That can be unnerving even threatening to those accustomed to exercising control over others. They have the right to their opinion and having their own blogs to express it - and are welcome to post their opinions as comments.
Even a cat can look at the Queen - Dick Whittington's cat was a blogger. Now there's a bumper sticker.
what does that have to do with this one?
ReplyDeleteHi there Anon - I would have thought naught but was wrong. However, if I wanted to be more specific, eg name names, I would have done so in the post. Although apparently a pesky blogger in need of muzzling, I am not without discretion. Besides, the principle natters more important the specific case.
ReplyDeleteHummm..I can't imagine who would be silly enough to try and muzzle you! You provide wonderful and helpful informative posts about this town and those who live here, as it pertains to information for the public good. Very Important.
ReplyDeletehow does critcising help?
ReplyDeleteHi Anon - sorry not to be answering sooner. I'll allow that dissent and question slow down the process. But - in my opinion at least - that is not the only consideration. There's transparency, more input, opening discussion to more than just a handful of deciders. That's before getting to fairness and rights. Do you think it would be fair to say that acceptable secrecy levels might also depend on what kind of organization - how public, how dependent on public funding (eg taking tax funded grant dollars)?
ReplyDeleteBut, as said at the beginning, you raise a valid question. How would you answer your own question? Why?
Let's get not just a dialog going - a polyphonic chorus with everyone chiming in.
Can't the complainers appreciate that you identify yourself?
ReplyDeleteSee A PERSON WHO BLOGS and The Outing of Publius
This is an important issue: kindly continue posting on it.
"[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute… is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment…"
ReplyDelete-US Supreme Court, Terminello vs. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 1949