What is Digg?Sponsored by Lost University
LOST Season 5 lands on Blu-ray(tm) & DVD for the first time view!
lostuniversity.org/ - Follow the twist and turns of Lost in this 5-disc collection. Perfect gift for lost fans.
76 Comments
- FredFredrickson, on 06/24/2009, -1/+42The first amendment gives you the right to free speech uncensored by the government. It has nothing to do with your employer wanting you to keep your mouth shut.
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -2/+31Sounds like another no ***** sherlock moment. Dont ***** on the company that employs you in a public forum, using your public name & fame.
Its either that or AP can change policy to allow the immediate firing of any employee caught pissing in their pool. - inactive, on 06/24/2009, -1/+22As per Wikipedia,
**As of 2005, the news collected by the AP is published and republished by more than 1,700 newspapers, in addition to more than 5,000 television and radio broadcasters. The photograph library of the AP consists of over 10 million images. The Associated Press operates 243 news bureaus, and it serves at least 120 countries, with a diverse international staff located all over the world.**
Me thinks that even print media eventually dies, AP will still have a place on this planet. - kcdstudios, on 06/24/2009, -0/+17Government oppression= Not optional
Corporate oppression = optional - RegalBegal, on 06/24/2009, -0/+15I get so ***** sick of people twisting their 1st amendment around.
Just don't ***** where you eat, it's as simple as that. - Ostizzle, on 06/24/2009, -0/+13"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Failing to see how an employee code of conduct, which the employees agree to when they are employed by the company, violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. It seems as if few are able to make this distinction, and it is annoying as *****. - FredFredrickson, on 06/24/2009, -2/+12Spanky, do you not understand that without the AP, you don't get news, no matter what the final media it turns up on?
- Cine, on 06/24/2009, -0/+9It means that when you're representing a company, of course you should keep in line. If you don't, and consequently get fired, you're free to say whatever you want. Which alternative do you prefer?
- rocknog, on 06/24/2009, -5/+14How the ***** can a private company deny an employee's First Amendment right? I don't mean that as a statement of outrage, I mean that because it makes absolutely non sense whatsoever. The First Amendment only applies to the government, not private companies. Maybe you could argue it goes against the spirit of the First Amendment, but Jesus, how can there be such a gross misunderstanding of our most basic rights? Did this person not graduate from high school, or what?
- Cine, on 06/24/2009, -0/+8I read the policy. It sounds completely fair to me. It even reads that "Employees must identify themselves as being from the AP if they are using the networks for work in any way," which makes me believe that this mostly applies if you have AP listed as your workplace somewhere on your profiles.
Hey, if you decide to break the rules, you'll just get fired. Then you're free to say whatever you want to! - RagManX, on 06/24/2009, -0/+8I confess to not reading the actual policy, just the Wired discussion of the policy. From what the article says, these don't sound terribly out of line, except the bit about deleting things other people post. Also, I don't think a company laying out restrictive guidelines is a first amendment issue - that's when the gov't tries to limit you.
- jeffness, on 06/24/2009, -0/+7the first amendment guarantees the government won't infringe upon your right to free speech. An employer is not the government, ergo, for all the ballyhoo and hoopla this is stupid.
You work for a company and they have policies, you adhere to those policies or you find alternative employment. - pr0k, on 06/24/2009, -2/+8NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE YOU FAGNUTS
- Julian88888888, on 06/24/2009, -0/+6I reported you! :)
- FredFredrickson, on 06/24/2009, -1/+7A company can ask you not to talk about something, especially if it could ruin their business for them. Whether or not you comply is another thing, but people aren't going to work for you and your business will not succeed if you are too strict. As well, if you break the rules you agree to upon employment, you can be fired. It's not complicated or unlawful.
- oldhick, on 06/24/2009, -0/+5@anononon, your argument does stand. Your argument is simply that "you" don't see how they can do these things. That's tough for you... I can't argue the fact that you feel that way!
Companies can and will interfere with your private life and if you don't like it, don't work for that company. Many companies have integrity and moonlighting rules that you agree to adhere to when you start working for them. These integrity rules include conducting yourself in a way that postively represents the company in your private life.
Don't like it, leave! - inactive, on 06/24/2009, -4/+9Rule #8: When tweeting on the toilet, accurately describe your turds and thoroughly investigate "ghost *****".
- DoubtingThomas, on 06/24/2009, -0/+5That is not what he is saying at all. He is pointing out general ignorance of many people in terms of what the Constitution actually says.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Government oppression = Is specifically forbidden by the Constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights.
Corporate oppression = Is neither sanctioned nor forbidden by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
It is well within the rights of a company to fire you if you make statements or behave in a fashion they feel is detrimental to the company. Most employment contracts outline what behavior they find unacceptable. If you fail to comply, well then that is your own fault. - inactive, on 06/24/2009, -0/+5Does anyone here think Watergate would have happened if Woodward had picture on his Facebook of him with a beer bong in his hand and a post on his page from Bernstein saying "yeah bro, the NYT totally sucks"?
- alamedaman, on 06/24/2009, -0/+5the first amendment does NOT apply to private companies, only to governments.
- ricker2005, on 06/24/2009, -2/+7That's not true at all. You're an employee of the company and what you do reflects on the company itself. Companies can and do fire people for actions outside the company.
- RegalBegal, on 06/24/2009, -0/+5If it doesn't work, said employee gets fired and they pick from the line of people outside for a new expendable rat to put in their place.
How many young agile start-ups turn into successful, stable multi-national companies before the novelty of said start up fades? - inigomntoya, on 06/24/2009, -1/+5From a business standpoint, I can somewhat see where they are coming from. If I worked for Lockheed Martin and Twittered "Designing a new surface to air guidance system" I could understand why I would get fired.
But this is the AP. Because they are THE major media outlet, ALL of the information they have should become public domain. And they should be allowed to use any vehicle available to them to release that information.
And yes, the Facebook policy is stupid. It is YOUR page. Not the AP's. Use it however the hell you want. You can't moderate what a friend is going to say on your wall. Some dude from High School calls you a ***** faced blow jobber and you could get fired?
This reminds me of the time that I worked for FedEx and they came out with a policy saying that I needed to properly represent FedEx at ALL times - whether I was at work, at home, at school, or at a bar on the weekend. - FredFredrickson, on 06/24/2009, -2/+6We know what's going on because media outlets are still over there doing their job, against the will of the Iranian government.
No intelligent person could possibly think that Twitter or blogs are a good source of credible, unbiased, authentic news. Journalism will be long missed if it is ever replaced by a bunch of random ***** yelping 140 character messages at each other. - inactive, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3the AP is waging a holy war against the internet? dude what headline did you read exactly?
- DreKor, on 06/24/2009, -1/+4The AP didn't create, nor does it have a monopoly on, journalistic integrity. Right now, you trust the AP and Reuters brands. You believe there are certain standards that they adhere to. Why, then, could you not trust other, newer, brands of news? For that matter, what makes you implicitly trust the current brands?
This article shows the shortcomings of the 20th century corporate news model. They are vulnerable to a random ***** with cellphones and a twitter account. In this case, the random ***** are their reporters. But, imagine how much more vulnerable they are to the actual sources of news.
I'm not saying well written and in-depth reporting is in danger, I'm saying news companies, as companies, are in danger. - milkmage, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3solution:
one account for your "wear seal skin cod piece, but only to church" activities,
separate account for any communication where there's a chance your employer might figure out who you are in real life.
most companies have a "you are an ambassador of the company" clause in their HR handbooks, get over it. - pw378, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3They can have an employee code-of-conduct that is not a congressional law.
i.e. You could be fired as a secret service agent for tweeting about Obama's bowel movements.
First Amendment is about Congress establishing LAWS prohibiting speech! - pw378, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3There is no infringement on 1st Amendment rights. The employer is just providing "fair notice" that if you say something stupid that reflects on your employer, they may dismiss you.
Speech is a protected right. Employment and stupidity are not. - raitchison, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3Which is why my online persona is strictly for non-work related issues. I have a lot of strong opinions, many of them controversial, many more at odds with the official position of my employer.
But since I never talk about work or my employer (except for comments as vague as the one above) I won't have a problem. - theaceoffire, on 06/24/2009, -1/+3@11oops
I should not be fired because of someone else doing something wrong.
I should be fired if I do MY job wrong.
If your sister or father puts a silly pic of you on facebook (Which shows up on your profile as tagged with you), that is no reason to have you fired.
Not to mention that some people don't check their facebook/myspace/etc every day... and this policy requires us to monitor it constantly to prevent some ass getting us fired, or cut off all communication with friends/family. - 11oops, on 06/24/2009, -3/+5Yes. If you list your employer as McDonalds on your Facebook, and then a friend writes on your wall 'McDonalds raped and gave the Hamburgler AIDS' then that statement is attributed to you since it is posted on your page, and thereby attributed to McDonalds since you list them as an employer. Common sense on the internet is a must, especially once you enter the corporate world.
- frieddonuts, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2Yeah this article is misguided in portraying this as a constitutional question. Typical Wired sensationalism. But it is a moral one- is an employee responsible for what his friends post on his page? Should he really be obligated to delete content that he has not contributed?
I mean, obviously the AP is within its rights on this one, but the question is if they have gone too far. - planetbeing, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2I wish people would stop screaming "First Amendment" on every free speech issue. The first amendment applies only to the federal government. Even to state and local governments, it only applies indirectly via the incorporation doctrine in the current interpretation of the 14th amendment. Even then, it NEVER applies to private entities. They can (try to) restrict free speech all they want.
- 11oops, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2So if you're a P.R. Spokesman for a Christian Non-Profit and you get arrested after you punch out for smoking meth and assaulting hookers you think your employer should just suck it up and continue to employ you? As an employee, you're a representative of your company at ALL times, not just while you're punched in..
Test it out some time -- go home and write on your facebook about how terrible your employer is and how your boss is a complete moron. Or, have a friend write it on your facebook wall if you're too cowardly to do so. Now show your page to your employer and count the seconds until you're cleaning out your desk. With most companies, it's simply common sense and doesn't require a policy. - MtheoryX, on 06/24/2009, -1/+3Let me understand this correctly here...
If someone posts something on MY facebook page (or whatever service), it's up to ME to remove it, or I can get fired? Um, okay...
Then why are there specific laws that protect sites like Digg, Facebook, and even ISP's in general to not be held liable for what their users post or send through the tubez?
Oh, double standard much? - Ostizzle, on 06/24/2009, -1/+3Governments?
- MtheoryX, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1@11oops, let me make this more clear:
***** comcast.
Now, if digg doesn't remove my comment, can comcast sue them? No, they can't.
So if I put "***** comcast" on a comcast employee's facebook wall, should comcast be able to sue that employee?
See now? - pw378, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1Whistle blower laws protect an employee only if the employer is engaging in illegal activities.
*****, why does everyone with a 9th grade education think they are a constitutional scholar these days... - sigsg552, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1I take offense to being called a pile of sticks. Sticks with nuts.
- dfross, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1If your actions outside of hours bring problems to the company (eg you slander them, or you are a known drugs user for instance), they have the right to terminate your employment.
I'm afraid this is the law and you're incorrect. - 11oops, on 06/24/2009, -3/+4If you're going to hold a big-boy job, it's time to grow up and act like a big-boy. If you have a 'friend' that writes stupid ***** like that on your wall, then it's time to reevaluate your friendship. There's also the 'Remove' option for those stupid posts that any reasonable adult would find embarrassing and a poor representation of themselves. I wouldn't hire you if you had postings like that available for everyone to see, and I wouldn't continue to employ you either. This isn't high-school anymore.
- skintigh, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1They were trying to charge people by the word for fair use quotes from their stories.
- BonitaApplebaum, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1I don't think this is a free speech issue, this is a news agency that has an obligation to be impartial, employees could just as easily keep their free speech rights by choosing not to work for the agency. I think it is acceptable for companies to place these kinds of limits within reasonable limits. Things posted in e-mails, on facebook pages and the like can seriously harm the reputation of the company. In this case it inherently harms the companies involved because they have committed to be impartial.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1"Parts of the policy seem to be snuffing out peoples’ First Amendment rights of expression by a company"
A company CANNOT snuff out peoples 1st amendment rights as companies are not subject to the first amendment. - pw378, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1The main point being:
"Congress shall make no law...", as opposed to "employers shall not fire..." - theaceoffire, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1Now THIS sounds reasonable.
If you have email, a website, or any personal outlet that you use for work, then you must act professional... that is far more logical than the implied "Everything you do and everyone you know must follow our rules". - theaceoffire, on 06/24/2009, -1/+2I check facebook maybe once every 4 months.
I don't want to get fired for not wasting time on it. - seanayb, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1Precisely. The 1st amendment guarantees the right to speak freely as granted by a state, not every private organization within that state whose rules one may or may not choose to abide by.
- phoomp, on 06/24/2009, -0/+1This goes way beyond that. It's requiring AP employees *and their friends posting to their online pages* to not violate AP standards.
http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html
This means that you would be in violation of AP policy if you're an AP employee and one of your friends posts a plagiarized comment to your Facebook page, even if that comment has nothing to do with AP. -
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is