But even still I wrote about work inbetween pictures of me drinking, opiononated rants on creationism and conservation, I use the words cunt and twat and fuck. I joke about kicking babies and coat hanger abortions. I wax poetic about spring breaks past and Zombie movies.
Once I made it up to the meeting they had to change thier game plan. They had my entire blog printed out with pictures and highlighted passages. I was told as soon as I walked in that I was being terminated. The reason was the content of my blog. My blog had to be removed and my myspace account had to be deconstructed. I had untill noon the next day. I was still sobbing kind of quietly but I didn’t want them to think that I was ashamed of what I had written. My parents read my blog. My old college friends keep up with my life through my blog. I took my badge off and looked at the mean HR lady who was smiling smuggly at me. She told me perhaps next time I would be more wise in my lifestyle and decision making choices regaurding work.
I was fired because of the way I represented myself on the internet. —Jessa Jeffries —This Blog will self destruct in less than twelve hours (Metafilter)
I looked briefly at Jeffries’ blog before it went down, and quite frankly I can’t say that I’m surprised.
It’s not a First Amendment issue if an employer decides your blog makes you the kind of person they wouldn’t want to hire. Jeffries called the kids for whom she presented “dummies,” she linked to porn and myspace exhibitionists, used a church-sign generator to publish offensive messages, posted photos of herself and friends drinking, etc.
While none of these activities is illegal, and while the behind-the-scenes view of working at an animal museum is well written and entertaining, quite frankly I’m not at all surprised that her employers took this approach.
Threatening to sue her unless she deletes her entire blog — including the entries that have nothing to do with her workplace — strikes me as overkill.
Still, Jeffries showed very poor judgment.
View Comments
Anyone can sue anyone.
The way I understand the story, her employer canned her at the same time they first confronted her about the blog. I don't think she had actually named the company, but the photos she posted included company logos, so it's possible that a clever lawyer could countersue her for using the company's intellectual property without permission.
My point is not to defend the company, but to indicate that choosing to express your freedom of speech may result in consequences. This is an extreme case, of course. You may not think those consequences are fair, but that doesn't make them any less serious.
Clearly this entry has invoked some strong feelings.
#1:
Okay, so at which point do we draw the line? How much power are employers allowed to exercise over the private lives of their employees?
This was bullshit. She took down all the references to her employer and they still canned her. The problem wasn't that she was saying negative things, it was that some members of management disagreed with her lifestyle. And that's clearly an illegal dismissal. Had she taken it to court, she would've had a slam-dunk win. She probably still can sue - at least until the statute of limitations runs out. I hope she will.
I'll be goddamned if I'll ever let the prudish powers that be tell me what I can do during my off-duty life.
I can certainly support an employer's legal right without approving of every case in which an employer exercises that right, just as I support a citizen's constitutional right to free speech without approving of every instance in which the citizen uses that right.
When you've worked your way up the corporate ladder, Will, I hope you'll find yourself in a place where you can put your passion into practice.
Aaaaah...so it's *only* professors who need access to new ideas, whereas a "normal person" not only doesn't need new ideas, but also doesn't need to be able to express themselves in their personal life.
I'm obviously playing devil's advocate, but I genuinely find it disturbing to repeatedly hear that employers have the right to fire you because they don't like you expressing yourself outside of work.
Well, you partly answered your own question. A university is supposed to generate new and interesting ideas. Just as a firefighter needs access to a lot of water, a professor needs access to a lot of ideas -- including ones that some people may find offensive, threatening, or ridiculous.
Among the ideas that have been called offensive, threatening, or ridiculous is the idea that faculty members who've proven themselves after years of effort shouldn't be fired for being eccentric or voicing outlandish opinions (so long as they are still performing the duties for which they were hired).
I think the first poster had a very good point. Why is it that when a professor says outlandish things, it's all "They can't be fired". But when a "normal person" does does something personal outside of work that someone they work for disagrees with, it's like "well, the employer has the *right* to do that".
As someone in the working world, my employer really has no right to but into what I'm doing in my personal life if it isn't directly affecting what I'm doing while I'm working. Legally, you've said that they can, and I'm sure you're right. But ethically and philosophically, your job is just a job. If you've ever worked in the corporate life, then you may be familiar with the fact that a corporation is no place to develop an interesting personality or new or interesting ideas.
It doesn't matter what percentage of the population finds porn and exhibitionism offensive. What mattered is that the employer did.
If I ran a science lab that studied evolutionary biology, and an employee used a weblog to say I was going to hell for disagreeing with the Bible, or if I ran a Holocaust museum, and an employee used a weblog to praise fundamentalist Islamic attacks on Jews, then the content of the blog would certainly be one of the things I would consider as I asked myself whether I wanted to give this person another paycheck.
I have personally chosen to work in higher education -- an environment where the principle of academic freedom protects faculty members from this kind of thing. But a mom & pop grocery store or the local Wal-Mart doesn't need to promise academic freedom in order to attract employees who will do the required work for the going rate.
My point in blogging this is not to support the employer, but rather to point out the fact that the right to free speech does not include a magic powerup that protects people from the consequences of their choice to speak freely.
Just because you *have *the freedom of speech doesn't mean that it's always wise to *use* it.
Jeffries wasn't a high school junior or a college sophomore. She was a college graduate, and a professional. While she didn't mention the name of her employer, she did mention the city and the line of work she was in, and she did post pictures of herself in her work uniform (with the logo visible).
You're right. We are going to see more and more of this as more and more youth culture moves online.
Poor judgement? Yes, if by poor judgement you mean assuming her activities outside of work were none of her employer's business. Would it be a legitimate firing if she was a political blogger whose views clashed with those of the management? The fact that she linked to porn and exhibitionism is irrelevant. So are the church sign generator prank and the drinking. Just because a segment of the population finds the things she writes about distasteful doesn't mean they're fireable offenses. Would you be comfortable with someone being fired for a religious blog? What if the management found it "distasteful"?
That being said, "at will employment" means she's fired, no matter how stupid the reason. Watch for this to happen more and more as the generation lives on facebook and myspace enters the workforce.