Google blogger: 'I was terminated'

[fusangite]

So, in a sense, no infringement on the right of free speech occurred in this case. The only similar right we can easily point to is not to overall free speech, but instead to a right of freedom from government interference in speech.

While I don't dispute anything you have said here -- in fact I very much agree with you here both with respect to your description of the law and your view on this particular issue. However, some government legislation does extend constitutional rights into this realm; most jurisdictions have laws on the books extending these rights into the private sector. Many places have labour legislation or human rights legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in private sector hiring and firing.

So, it's not totally unreasonable to ask if a particular constitutional protection is applicable in a private sector labour dispute. However, I agree with you that it seems highly unlikely that this would be one of them.

 

[mythusmage]

Fusangite,

Are we talking about free speech, or suitability for the job? As far as I know the opinions expressed on his blog, and how they were expressed, could have given his employers the impression he was not suited to the work he was hired for. That, indeed, he wasn't suited to any position with the firm.

Sometimes it's not that you critize your company, but how you critize your company.

 

[Orius]

...and whatever you do don't get caught drinking the competitor's product!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=816&e=3&u=/ap/20050211/ap_on_fe_st/beer_bust

Tastes great!

Less filling!

*snicker*

Though really that's asinine, firing someone for using a competitor's product.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Okay two examples from my life. - as to using a competators product, I worked in a GM parts distribution center, and the rumor was that you didnt buy a new foriegn car. Or if you did dont park it in the company lot. It was a matter of employees rather than management. I have a saturn, but I would never buy any other GM car. The inside is ugly, like not being able to eat fast food after you have prepaired it.

My wife works with a man who for a while was blogging about how much work he had just gotten done on the book he was writting - during working hours. Soon most of the office was reading his blog. Word was unofficially passed that he was facing being fired, and he quit bloging, mostly. This is a reasonable response to an idiot blogger. He has three published books which are relavent to his job, but the book he was working on was fiction.

 

[fusangite]

Are we talking about free speech, or suitability for the job? As far as I know the opinions expressed on his blog, and how they were expressed, could have given his employers the impression he was not suited to the work he was hired for. That, indeed, he wasn't suited to any position with the firm.

Sometimes it's not that you critize your company, but how you critize your company.

If you read back to my first post and the beginning of the one on which you are commenting, you'll notice that I'm indicating my agreement with the majority here that Google acted properly and their employee did not. I just wanted to make clear that the original question was not completely out to lunch.

Another side-note: non-suitability for the job is always grounds not to hire but not always grounds to fire, depending on the contractual and statutory conditions in the specific situation.

 

[mythusmage]

...non-suitability for the job is always grounds not to hire but not always grounds to fire, depending on the contractual and statutory conditions in the specific situation.

Now that's silly.

 

[MonsterMash]

In the UK we had a case of someone getting sacked for their blog. Slightly different circumstances as he was a long term company employee and being in the UK we don't actually have a constitution.

Some more related stories: Legal issues (UK employment law) and opinion piece

 

[yennico]

Here is my humble opinion on this topic:
1. Writing a blog is public publishing of your opinions, etc.. If your write something online which is public you have to live with the consequences of your writing.
2. You have to write only about things that you will say to "everybody"! It is a difference if you say "your boss is an ......." to one of your friends or to the whole world. Your statement also can be read a long time after your writing.
3. Do not write your blog in the time you have to work for your boss.
3. If you are writing a blog you can be certain that google will find it.
5. Persons will read your blog and link to you, if they like your writing, so you will get more traffic and your site become more popular. This traffic fear the companies because all viewers could be their costumers. I personally think that most companies are overreacting when dealing with blogs.

 

[MonsterMash]

Here is my humble opinion on this topic:
1. Writing a blog is public publishing of your opinions, etc.. If your write something online which is public you have to live with the consequences of your writing.
2. You have to write only about things that you will say to "everybody"! It is a difference if you say "your boss is an ......." to one of your friends or to the whole world. Your statement also can be read a long time after your writing.
3. Do not write your blog in the time you have to work for your boss.
3. If you are writing a blog you can be certain that google will find it.
5. Persons will read your blog and link to you, if they like your writing, so you will get more traffic and your site become more popular. This traffic fear the companies because all viewers could be their costumers. I personally think that most companies are overreacting when dealing with blogs.

Very well expressed, particularly as English is not your main language.

Personally I am careful what I post on any public messageboard (and I don't have a weblog) as I know I am accountable for what I say and it is possible to trace these posts back to a mail address and computer.

 

[EricNoah]

And of course the whole reason this situation crops up is that there is a conflict of rights. If "A" has the right to free speech, but "B" has a right to privacy, then whose right gets to prevail? Which, I guess, is what laws and courts are for.