Surprised Employer Fires Sex Blogger

[Liberal_in_LA]

Surprised Employer Fires Sex Blogger
A St. Louis blogger thought she went to great lengths to keep her office life and her personal life separate -- but then it all went wrong. A cautionary tale of using Twitter, Topsy and other social media.

By Courtney Rubin | May 4, 2010


A St. Louis-area nonprofit has fired a 37-year-old office worker – after discovering that in her own time, the woman blogs about her polyamorous escapades.

The blogger – a single mother whose blog is called "The Beautiful Kind" – told St. Louis's The Riverfront Times she "really was Clark Kent" about keeping her office and her extracurricular life separate (and the extracurricular life was anonymous). But she made one fatal mistake: Using Twitter.

TBK, as she's known, refers to what happened to her as a Twitter "glitch." But her webmaster clarified to Inc. that her downfall was really "in the failure of how third party search/archiving sites work."

When TBK created her Twitter profile, she filled out her real name expecting that only her handle would be visible, not her true identity, her webmaster explained. The moment she saw her name pop up, she immediately removed it and adjusted the name field of her handle accordingly.

But unfortunately, the Twitter search engine Topsy already had cached the details and was displaying her name alongside her handle all this time. (If you visit a profile on Topsy, there is a sync button on the right and a user has to manually select that in order to update any changed profile information.)

-----------------------

According to TBK, her boss – at the suggestion of top management – searched the web for information about employees, and discovered the sex blog. When she arrived at work April 27, she was fired on the spot.

Per an account TBK posted on another website, Aagablog, her boss was furious. “I need to let you go," the woman said, according to TBK. "Corporate office suggested I Google employees. I typed in your name and it took me two seconds to find your website. How COULD you put that stuff out there? What were you thinking?! I feel like I’m talking to a 14 year old! We’re DONE.”

http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/05/nonprofit-fires-woman-for-blogging-about-sex.html

[LiberalLoner]

1. Yikes. Scary stuff. n/t

[RKP5637]

2. Oops! n/t

[MrScorpio]

3. Jeezus, a girl can't have a little fun.

This country has too many tightasses running it.

[krabigirl]

37. yep, it is horrible

[villager]

4. "How dare you have a private life away from work!!? You're fired!"

n/t

[krabigirl]

38. seriously..not sure why others aren't incensed by the amount of control employers think they have

[fishwax]

71. no kidding

:wtf:

[DBoon]

5. I told you so

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8298704&mesg_id=8299191

[JoshieR]

6. I'm a little surprised....

...that HR allowed this girl to be fired. Heck, if people were regularly fired for being promiscuous, we'd have a lot fewer executives running around these days.

[Occulus]

7. This is why such behavior on the part of employers should be

absolutely and unequivocally illegal. In a just country she would be able to sue her former employer for an amount equal to her pay up to retirement age, as well as 24/7 back pay plus overtime for more than forty hours per week. In other words, a huge chunk of change.

NO employer should have any say over what their employees do on their own time, and no employer should be able to fire employees for otherwise legal activities. Talk about wage slavery....

[Egnever]

10. Agreed

We are a country of wage slaves.

[seabeyond]

31. we were looking into a company for a water filtering system. thousand dollars to begin with

then an annual payment. that is a significant investment to us. we hadnt heard of the company so googled. two people came up. one manager of this location and one manager of sales. one was gang shit and trash, and one was naked, video of two people having sex in truck and trash

we didnt invest in that company.

it matters

you may not want it to matter. but it does. that company lost business because of their internet play and they being so stupid to put place of employment on site, that took us there.

a company has the right to not want to mess with that shit.

just sayin

[Occulus]

141. That isn't even close to being the same as what I was talking about

Nice try, though.

Oh, and- pick up an English text or two. Your spelling and grammar are so bad I can barely understand you.

[seabeyond]

144. i didnt say it was the same. story told. relevance to companies.

this case is a, meh, to me.

and fuck that on the english book. read or dont. your choice. you seem to do fine, you had a snarky comment.

[Arctic Dave]

8. But if you are a guy, you would get a high five and a beer. n/t

[Ian David]

23. Depends on WHICH non-profit org it was. n/t

[NeedleCast]

26. Not True

I (a guy) was fired for my blog from a federal contracting job. Said job required a lot of travel and since most of the people I traveled with tended to be a pretty wild, crazy bunch, there were a lot of stories about drinking, strippers, partying, etc.

I got terminated for it with a near (but not quite as vocal) moral tounge lashing.

[Egnever]

9. This is why you dont use real life information on the net

Who knows what will be acceptable 10 years from now and the internet doesn't forget.

[Liberal_in_LA]

11. it was an accident she corrected immediately but the web had picked up her real name

[Kalyke]

12. Along those lines, I kind of worry about how it will embarrass

her children.

Can it cause them to be less hirable, picked on in high school, etc.?

[seabeyond]

32. one of my sons has already googled my user name, without me knowing. he didnt

think it was an invasion. not a thought. every sense i ahve been mindful of what i post.

reality

[Initech]

135. I was hesitant to get a facebook account for the longest time for this very reason.

[Chulanowa]

13. The other day, my boss comes up to me...

He asks "Hey, do you use any social networking stuff? You know, like facebook or twitter?"

Of course, this sets off alarm bells all over in my head. Thankfully, aside from a really ridiculous livejournal or something way back when I was 18 or so, I've never used anything of the sort. So I told him no, and he looked a little crestfallen.

Not that I actually DO anything worth mention... But still.

[Fleshdancer]

14. OMG! A single woman had a sex life with other people!!???!?! How dare she!

:wtf:

She didn't discuss work on her blog and she didn't discuss her sex life at work. This boss (who I'm guessing isn't exactly the most innocent person in the world either) creeps me out for spending the time trying to find dirt on the employees in the first place.

[Echo In Light]

20. +1

[Trillo]

15. Is it time yet for 24/7 hourly compensation from employers? nt

Since they want so much control. Everyone understands them having control during paid hours. But control over unpaid, off-the-clock time, time spent in a legal activity, writing?

It seems the only fair way out of this is to require 24-hour pay for 8 hours of bodily labor, with the other 16 hours spent to compensate the employee for otherwise unreasonable control by the employer over those hours.

I'm reminded of the tip-of-the-iceberg metaphor.

[Brickbat]

16. And people say they don't need unions anymore.

Huh.

[Speck Tater]

17. The definition of a moron:

Someone who puts embarrassing personal info on the Internet and the acts surprised when somebody see it.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Fleshdancer]

18. what makes you think she's embarrassed by her own sex life?

Should she be?

[SoCalDem]

19. The internet is the postcard of the 21st century

anyone can read it:)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. Yeah, blame the victim.

I'm fucking sick of that.

[Rebubula]

34. Sort of lose victim status..

...when you create the situation.

Of course, I am old and wanting you young whippersnappers off my lawn.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

45. Wow. Just wow.

Victims of disproportionate retribution ARE victims.

And no, being old is not an excuse. Most old people are NOT extremist punishists.

[Speck Tater]

90. Guy walks into a bar in a rough part of town and starts insulting everybody in sight.

He gets shot.

Is he a victim or a moron?

People who set them selves up for victimization are hardly entitled to use the "I'm a victim" defense. Stupid is as stupid does.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

107. Attempt at analogy fails to be analogous. Here's a better one:

Guy walks into a bar in a rough part of town infested with violent wingnuts, he is gay, tries hard to conceal it and speaks in a low volume, but someone shouts "hey, he's a f****t!" and the guy is beaten to death.

[WinkyDink]

67. The issue isn't embarrassment; the issue is job termination for legal non-job-related activity.

[Speck Tater]

91. So when a prominent fundamentalist minister gets caught in a non-job related gay love affair...

... that's a non-issue, because his gay affair was not job related?

I'll believe Democrats adhere to THAT standard when I actually see it happen here.

(ed:sp)

[laughingliberal]

94. I missed where she was a member of the clergy. nt

[Matariki]

97. It is a non issue but for their hypocrisy.

And I believe you took a wrong turn and ended up on the wrong website.

[Kali]

124. was he preaching against evil homuhSECKshuls?

then is is kind of job related, isn't it? Besides Dems commenting on the hypocrisy of wingnuts is not the same thing as somebody getting fired for legal activities on their (supposed) own time.

[Withywindle]

139. Was her job in ANY way related to promoting a specific, narrow form of sexuality?

Did it have to do with promoting hate at any group of people? I doubt it.

If she worked for the KKK and wrote a blog about how much she likes sex with Black people, yeah, I bet she would be fired, and we'd all be gloating at her exposure. That's your Rekers example.

If she worked for a canned soup company and wrote a blog about how much she enjoyed classic movies and hiking, that would be more analogous - presumably her hobby had no connection whatsoever to her job.

[Dogtown]

147. And I'll believe you're a Democrat

when monkeys fly out of Madonna's butt...

[Speck Tater]

152. I'm not. I'm an independant progressive.

And I'm NOT saying the situation is right, I'm just making an objective observation of the way the situation IS. Yes it's wrong, but it is what it is, and lacking the power to change it one must accept the rules of the game or not play the game at all.

[Dogtown]

155. I don't believe you're a progressive.

I don't believe you're here for honest or honorable reasons.

[Speck Tater]

158. You're right. I've been posting as a sleeper agent for SEVEN YEARS

just so I could jump out of the bushes TODAY and disagree with you! You've caught me. Wow. Seven years of deep under cover deception shot to hell!

And I thought Limbaugh was paranoid about anyone who ever disagreed with him. I'm so glad you are here to guard the gates against infiltrators like me.

[Dogtown]

162. How grandiose!

Nobody accused you of anything as dire as being a "sleeper agent". I merely suggested that your honor is as questionable as your progressivism.


If I wanted to guard the gates, I'd be a moderator. (BTW, longevity is no security against banning. I believe Mr. Pitt was your senior. AND your superior, but that's just my opinion. ALL of this is just my opinion.)




Also, to be accurate, you didn't disagree with me. I disagreed with your pronouncement of progressiveness. I have *no* idea why you brought Limbaugh into this discussion. Maybe you can explain that; more likely you'll just explain it away.


So, you can relax, Sleepy. No need to get all defensive.

[Ikonoklast]

165. 'Progressives' usually don't side with Authority.

Nor do they blame the victim, especially when the alleged 'victim' did nothing illegal.

It is what it is, all right.

"By their fruits shall you know them."

[Speck Tater]

167. I'm not SIDING with anybody. I'm merely OBSERVING the way things are.

I'm not saying the "victim" did anything wrong, I'm saying that given the reality of the world, the way it IS, not the way we wish it were, a certain amount of caution is necessary, even if it is wrong, distasteful, objectionable, etc.

I NEVER said this is the way it SHOULD be, I merely pointed out that, like it or not (and I DON'T LIKE IT), this is the way the world works right now. And in spite of our lofty ideals, we DO have to live in the world, the way it is, like it or not.

I am as outraged as the next liberal about her being fired for doing nothing wrong. I agree that it's totally unfair and completely wrong. But in spite of that, to be oblivious to the dangers, roght or wrong, of exposing oneself to public view is just plain stupid.

Be a liberal, yes, but don't be a stupid liberal. Don't walk around with a target on your back carrying a sign with your social security number and bank account number just because you believe we SHOULD live in a world where we can trust everyone we meet.

Everybody is jumping all over me because they think I agree with the boss in this matter. I DO NOT, for Christ-sake, agree with the boss. I think it was a horrible miscarriage of justice. All I'm trying to say, all I've ever tried to say from my first post is exercise some caution because we live in a world populated by dangerous lunatics and radicals, some of whom are our neighbors, coworkers and bosses. And that anyone who doesn't exercise a reasonable amount of caution is a moron.

[Matariki]

95. Obviously NOT embarrassing - nor should it be. Her employers are assholes.

[Speck Tater]

110. Asshole bosses are a fact of life.

Hungry alligators are a fact of life. So whose fault is it if I get eaten walking through the Everglades with raw meat hanging around my neck?

It's not the way we wish is was, but it is the way it is. Adapt or die. Deal with reality on reality's terms or face the consequences. Above all, don't be a weeny by whining and complaining about being a victim. Especially when MOST people have the common sense NOT to flaunt their stupidity and play chicken with reality.

[LanternWaste]

148. What then are the specific and relevant activities...

What then are the specific and relevant activities one should not do on their own time to avoid losing their jobs? On what objective assessment is this based on? How many dates may one go on without fear of losing their jobs? How many times per year may a person have sex without losing their jobs?

[Speck Tater]

151. It's up to each person to decide if the job is important enough...

... to make it worth while to abide by stupid, unfair, and arbitrary rules.

If you don't want to play by the stupid, unfair, arbitrary rules, find a different job where the rules are not so rigid. In the end, it's up to you what you want to put up with to keep your job. Stay and obey or leave. Your choice.

[ninety lives]

142. Who says she was embarrassed??

Maybe her employer was embarrassed.

If she was embarrassed she wouldn't be doing it.

Who says she acted surprised, either.

Let's have no blogging at all then.

What's more embarrassing - being openly polyamorous, or blogging about your brand of deodorant?

[Speck Tater]

153. Having a job is like playing a game. Abide by the rules or don't play.

It's not right. It's not fair. Such arbitrary behavior on the part of the boss goes against everything I believe in.

That said, lacking the power to change the rules, either follow the rules or quit the game. That's just basic survival instinct.

[Toasterlad]

159. If the Shoe Fits, Doll.

I find your post embarrassing in the extreme. And yet, here it is, on the internet.

[sadbear]

21. Doug Stanhope:

"Have you been having fun on the weekend? Are we not enough fun for you here at the Verizon Wireless family? You need to seek it elsewhere? I don't think you're a team player."

[Forkboy]

114. LOL @ the Stanhope reference.

Be careful, he's not politically correct, and around here that can lead to friendly fire. ;)

[sadbear]

120. Doug is the preeminent social commentator of my generation

Jon Stewart's not politically correct, either, but he seems to get love on DU.

[Forkboy]

123. Stewart is more politcally correct than Stanhope.

And to be fair, Stewart is the better of the two in many ways. But Doug is still a funny bastard. I saw him live a couple years ago and it was hilarious. A multiple joint night, to say the least! :)

[Ian David]

22. make sure you search for yourself on Topsy.com

Make sure your name doesn't come up.

[tanyev]

27. I've never tweeted in my life, but four people who have the same name I do came up.

I hope any employer all excited by their sleuthing skills would try to check if they had the correct Jane Smith.

[pitohui]

44. a GREAT many people do share my name

some of them are actually employed but i wonder for how long...

[Blue_Tires]

30. i don't tweet, but still google myself from time to time

my name isn't *that* common, but evidently it is shared with a LOT of internet superstars: the world-famous photographer, the nuclear physicist, the video game reviewer, the IT blogger/writer, the hockey blogger, etc...

good to have a little insulation, lol...

[SmileyRose]

182. you google yourself from time to time?

Can I watch?




:evilgrin:

[Love Bug]

33. So what do you do if your name does come up?

Is there a way to delete it once you've changed your twitter profile?

[pitohui]

48. the whole point of the story is that you're screwed

she deleted her name INSTANTLY, it was already somehow magically cached within milli-seconds

anyway, most of the time when "your" name comes up, check it out, it isn't actually you having the adventure -- i've found many blogs news articles etc. abt people of my same name, which is apparently more common elsewhere in the usa, doing their thing -- i can't stop them from using their own name just because it's the same as my name, even tho it annoys me

my friend just googled himself and learned that he'd been arrested for illegal gambling in an underground card room, his name is not that common and since this friend is in fact a professional blackjack player living in the same state as the other dude, most anyone googling him would believe it WAS him -- what can he do to clear his name, since it wasn't in fact him? fuck all, that's what


just think if anyone in your state with your same name gets arrested for something, arrest records are public records, someone could very easily believe it was YOU

and there's nothing you can do about it except hope that employers get somehow sanctioned for firing people based on "google" and "twitter"

if i didn't like you, i could make up some very convincing websites, blogs, etc. that could make you look very adventurous to an employer indeed...what could you do about it? again, not much, even if the site removes the blog, it's still floating around in various caches -- i've known several people whose identities/photos were stolen and photo-shopped to put them online in PORN -- again, what can you do about it?

employers need to be restricted in how they can use bullshit, it's my guess that MOST sex blogs that are not hidden behind passwords etc are not gonna be true stories, they're gonna be bullshit meant to smear the victim

[Ikonoklast]

175. But what if you're a Bottomsy?

:P

[Blue_Tires]

24. I get the feeling if the blogger was a straight male the boss

would ask for advice on how to score...

[Lance_Boyle]

25. What did she do wrong, unless she was using company resources

to maintain her blogging activities? And it sure doesn't seem like that was proven...

[KonaKane]

28. She was extremely stupid and cavalier.

You don't put ANY personal info you don't want to get into the wrong hands, online. Period. I have to agree with her one time employer - the woman is savagely stupid and probably not worth retaining.

[Lucian]

36. ...

:eyes:

She did it on her OWN time. Not on company time. There's no reason for her to get fired.

[Ron Green]

43. Depending on the non-profit she worked for, "her own time" was still

about her as a representative of the organization. I can imagine that keeping her on would have been too much of a p.r. struggle.

[krabigirl]

46. Yeah, can't have women who enjoy sex employed, everyone has to be a Puritan Amerikan.

[Ron Green]

55. I don't disagree with that. But "enjoying sex" and blogging about your

activities are two different things. And as I said, certain non-profit organizations depend on a very specific image of their programs and personnel.

[krabigirl]

58. Well, big deal, she made a mistake and honestly, how can the prove it is her? So many ppl with ro

the same names. And I don't care about a non-profit's "image." I'd like to know the name of it so I can boycott it.

SO GLAD to be a freelancer!!

[KonaKane]

62. You don't care about their image, but they do.

And they are the ones running their show. Also, even as a freelancer (I am one too) you have an image to protect because if you didnt you would never get work again.

[KonaKane]

52. Exactly. It has nothing to do with a personal judgement of her lifestyle.

[krabigirl]

59. sure...lmao

[KonaKane]

64. lmao? Where did you detect a judgement about her lifestyle from me?

Please post any actual evidence you have for that. Because I can tell you for sure, there wasnt any. It was only about her incredible lack of discretion and smarts in how her publicizing it would affect her job.

Try not to imagine things.

[KonaKane]

49. So? Employers can still fire for cause.

If they think the activities of one of their employees, on or off the job, are potentially injurious to their business they have every right to fire that employee.

It was really stupid to put something like that - especially about your private sex life - on the net for all to see. Very stupid.

[Raineyb]

63. What employees do off the job that's not illegal is none of the employer's fucking business.

Stupid is swallowing whole the notion that every minute of your life is your employer's to scrutinize.

[KonaKane]

65. Really? So if I work for an antismoking advocacy group.....

and then post a blog of how much I smoke and how much I love cigarettes, you don't think my employer has a valid concern about that?

Are you joking?

[Raineyb]

68. No I am not joking. I don't find the intrusion into people's personal lives by employers

to be the least bit funny. And unless you signed some document about how you're such an anti-smoker I really wouldn't give a flying fuck what you do outside the work day. When I leave the job what I do is MY business. My employer doesn't own me they merely rent my services for the time I'm there. Anything else is MY time and I'll do what I damn well please.

[KonaKane]

69. SHE intruded into her own life by her stupid choices to twitter

That's what you're not getting. Her employer never said a thing about her lifestyle nor had a call to when it wasn't plastered all over the internet. Choosing to make her lifestyle public directly and obviously threw the issue at her employer who obviously has to deal with the public, and the image their organization has to the public.

This has got to be obvious to you.

[Raineyb]

72. SHE intruded? How by giving an interview where she did NOT mention her employer at all?

No, she didn't intrude on them.

Someone deciding to Google her for no fucking reason other than because they can is what brought her activities to their attention. There are lots of things that go on that are not secret that still fall under the rubric of none of the employers bloody business. THEY went looking for her name and didn't like what they saw. Well what she was doing was none of their business, she didn't bring it to work and THEY found the information while minding HER business. The employer is not entitled to dig into their employees after hours doings then complain when they don't like what they see.

[KonaKane]

74. She sure did.

Anyone with a smidgen of sense should know that what you say headed for the internet means you have just broadcast to the entire world. That means there is an extreme likelihood that your comments will end up in front of the eyes of someone you may not want them to. If I had a single doubt that one of my personal activities might negatively affect my employment, I would simply keep it off the damn internet.

Having a personal lifestyle is no sin. Insisting on publicizing it with no expectation of blowback is simply foolish.

[Raineyb]

75. And yet you post here. n/t

[KonaKane]

77. Sure I do. But who am I?

You don't know, because I have taken steps to see to it that you don't know. Unlike our unfortunate former employee here.

[Lucian]

79. It's not right.

Private lives are no business of work lives. No matter what. Once you punch out, or leave for the day, that's it. What you do is your business. Not the employer's. I wouldn't work for a company who thought that my personal time away from work was their business.

[seabeyond]

88. private = internet? i am not getting htis association of private = internet. nt

[Lucian]

101. She used a fake name on that blog...

to hide her identity. She made a mistake, fixed it right away, and it cached. Her work was purposely looking for shit on its employees, which is wrong to begin with. And what she does on her OWN time isn't any business of the workplace.

[seabeyond]

109. all those arguments are fine. but privacy isnt going ot happen. nt

[KonaKane]

111. It's their business when it can HARM their business.

That's the whole point. She made some lousy choices, there is just no getting around that. Let me list a few of them:

1. Choosing a job which very well might conflict with her sexual lifestyle, or at least working for a person with whom it might conflict.

2. Choosing to advertise your sex life across the internet.

3. Signing up to do so with your REAL NAME and other private info.


If I were her employer, I personally wouldnt give a damn about her sex life, but her lack of judgement and discretion would certainly make me question her further employment.

[Lucian]

126. What you're saying sounds familiar to what Republicans say...

censoring her sexual lifestyle and penalizing her for it. :wtf:

How would you like if if your employer fired you because you got drunk one night after work and puked on a sidewalk? Or how would you like it if they fired you because they found out you participate on a Democratic message board? Would you support that then? Same principle.

[KonaKane]

128. Do you have fingers and a hand? Wow, so does a Republican!

Clearly suspicious.

[Lucian]

131. Way to ignore the topic.

:eyes:

[KonaKane]

134. Your analogy was a ridiculous stretch.

And warranted a similar ridiculous stretch.

[MattBaggins]

118. No they don't have the right to fire for what a person does on their own

we have to stop accepting that bullshit as "just the way it is".

[KonaKane]

121. They do if it negatively impacts their business.

It's called firing for cause.

[Richard Steele]

56. Thanks for expressing your opinion. That's very useful stuff right there.

nm

[Pushed To The Left]

104. If somebody walks into a bad neighborhood at night (knowing how dangerous it is) and gets murdered,

should the killer be set free? After all, the victim did something "stupid". I realize that the employer didn't murder anybody, but they did wrong somebody and I think what they did should be illegal. Wrong is wrong, regardless of whether the victim did something stupid or not.

[MattBaggins]

117. I can do all the savagley stupid shit iwant on my own time

My employer can go suck rotten eggs

[Lucian]

35. This should be illegal.

People shouldn't be fired for doing things on their own personal time. When they are clocked out for the day, that should be it for work.

[Pushed To The Left]

105. If America had any common sense, that's how things would be. Unfortunately, even some Democrats want

employers to have absolute power over their employees.

[The Straight Story]

39. Here in Ohio Scott's lawn can fire you for smoking at home

So things like this are not surprising.

[northzax]

116. do they provide health insurance?

and are therefore paying higher premiums because of smokers?

[krabigirl]

40. This is absolutely horrible..she did everything right IMO. Glad to be a freelancer.

I also can't stand the uptight Puritans who think they run this country...(not for long IMO).

[marions ghost]

41. Do not hire this person

if you value security re. ANY information. Seems reasonable to me.

Blogging about one's sexcapades is an extremely narcissistic activity. Thinking that the world has to know is just kinda adolescent.

[krabigirl]

42. uh, even anonymously? Why not?

[marions ghost]

76. I think the question is...

why?

Narcissistic behavior --not the sex, the sexting. Usually left behind in the teens. The woman's trying to enhance her charisma by using a big lure. Indicates too much identification of the self with sexual attractions and conquests. Integration of personality problem. Could get worse when she gets older and REALLY has to work at it. Pathetic to see this in 50 year olds. Sure, it's her private life, but well, now it's no longer private.

Narcissism is not a desirable condition is all I'm saying. It oftens damages theirs and others lives. This is beyond the obvious stupidity of making it public, however unintentional.

[KonaKane]

53. I agree. Breathtaking lack of discretion and judgement on her part.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

127. We look too - it isn't the sex, drugs or drinking, it is the pictorial

There are no adults on the internet,

My company has had some huge internet embarrassments over the years, such as the fairly explicit myspace page of a grown woman chasing frat boys being widely circulated industry wide. The photos of her deep throating a wine cooler bottle and sprawled on the hood of her car were particularly popular. This individual wasn't fired but it was just as embarrassing for the company as it was for her as she was a high profile employee.

We weed out a lot of potential employees based on the shit they post online, the latest to be weeded out was a young woman who seems to feel the need to post pictures of herself and others peeing in public, dozens of them. Also recently was a guy who was damn near thirty who posted pictures of his dick using the same email address he has on his resume. A few years ago an email address also uncovered an unbelievable racist screed from the unsatisfied owner of a device for stealing Dish Network.

And oh yeah, if you are applying for a job... don't apply for jobs with [e-mail]

[KonaKane]

130. Unbelievable.

Yet, believable. I have worked with similiarly reason-challenged individuals. Most seemed to be in a stage of arrested maturational development.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

132. narcissism, exhibitionism and a giant megaphone are a bad combination

Everyone wants to show the world how wild, sexy and cool they are and it has never been easier - but that also doesn't reflect well on your employability or judgment.

It isn't that they lack ability or even maturity in other aspects of their lives, it is just showing everyone how fucking cool they are comes first.

And then there are just the people of all ages who are so horny that all judgment just goes out the window in their pursuit of sex online.

Meanwhile, I freaked the fuck out when my girlfriend posted a G rated picture of us and another couple in a hot tub online.

[pitohui]

66. in what way does this seem reasonable to any reasonable adult?

sex between healthy, consenting adults is playtime, it is not a comment one way or another on how secure they keep JOB information, only an idiot would think so

how old are you, if i may ask? once you are an adult, you are going to learn that sex is not just watching "twilight" movies and holding hands until you're married sometime in your 30s, sex involves a lot of playful and hard to explain impulses

exhibitionist behavior, such as filming/blogging one's sexual activities, is simply a fetish that some people have, that has nothing to do with how exhibitionist they are in REAL LIFE on the job, quite the opposite, a great many exhibitionists are quiet people on the job, butter wouldn't melt, part of the thrill is that they have two lives

there is absolutely no proof that the only people qualified to work jobs in security or dealing with privileged information are those who have sexual hang-ups such that they can't admit to ever having sexual impulses...that's just silly

who is really more likely to go postal and blow away half your staff with an uzi? my first three guesses would be the mixed-up guy who has NO sex life and NO sex adventures to take him out of the real world, the guy who has NO alternative life and no way to play and blow off steam

if you only hire stiffs, you only hire hypocrites, mostly GOP hypocrites, a policy of not hiring people who write sex blogs, what kind of person is hurt by that? i'm gonna go out on a limb and say your policy hurts liberal, decent, large-hearted people and rewards prune-faced haters -- great way to create morale on the job...

it reflects on YOU and your personal issues with sex if you're going to turn away good people from good jobs because they're sexually adventurous, seems petty, jealous, and just a generally shitty thing to do

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

81. +Graham's Number

[marions ghost]

86. whew OK

glad you got that out of your system...

OK so we agree the problem is not sex but "exhibitionist behavior" (beyond adolescence) which you say is harmless? I say, only to a point and that point is when it goes REALLY public. There's not much that I would call "exhibitionism" that is without danger of backfiring. The need to put one's sexual exploits out to the world in a way that feels dangerous is immature and narcissist. Thrilling I'm sure, but risky. She's got to be smart enough to know the risk. She blew it. Too bad. Grow up sometime. Or get a job where maturity and discretion is not important if she really feel abused--I can think of plenty of jobs that qualify. But that's no fun--the fun's in flirting with danger. She's got some issues about sexuality = identity.

Famous men with similar problems whose fantasies/exploits got out come to mind--

Bill "Loofah Man" O'Reilly
Bill "Cigar Man" Clinton
Charles "Tampon Man" Windsor
Senator "Diaper Man" Vitter
John "Document This" Edwards
Larry "Wide Stance" Craig

All were living dangerously as far as exposure of salacious details because they are public figures. All are classic Narcissists. Narcissists think they will never be caught. Not a good way to go down in history.

OK tear me apart. I'm not talking about "rights"--I'm talking about mental health.

[Withywindle]

140. We don't know what she was really writing in her blog.

I swear, some people hear that it has to do with sex and think that must mean all intelligent thought and analysis must go out the window and it's always all about narcissim and exhibitionism.

Polyamory is a movement. There have been numerous books written on the subject over the last 50 years. There are conventions. There are magazines. THere is a LOT of rich psychological material being written. Why do you assume her writings were exhibitionist and pornographic? Chances are she was keeping a blog about issues that come up in her life, and probably had regular commenters and other blogs on the subject she read.

Newsflash: one thing people use the Internet for is networking with other people with similar interests all over the world, even if there aren't any right there in their area. Another thing people use it for is reading about issues of interest to them even if there's no one to talk with about it face-to-face in their area.

Why assume her blog was just brainless prurience? Sex is a FASCINATING subject, very important to human life (that's the understatement of the decade, no?) and some people think about it deeply, a lot, in all sorts of ways, and write about it eloquently. Other people love reading such writings.

So why assume anything pathological about what she was doing? Do you think writing frankly about sex is too risky to be worthwhile? Do you think it has no redeeming value?

if so, WHY?

[marions ghost]

150. You're missing the point

I respect that this is something you take seriously and feel passionate about and I appreciate your speaking up, because you speak for many who feel they must defend sex from its detractors.

First of all I never said anything was WRONG with sex, talking about sex, writing about sex, viewing or reading about sex. OK do we have that clear?

I give you that we don't know exactly what she wrote, but since people were offended, I'm taking it to be fairly graphic, relative to the average social norms of today. It got attention, therefore I assume it was explicit.

Two reasons I suspect she's narcissistic and immature:

1. She put the writings out into unprotected cyberspace, which I'm sure she knew was risky and part of the thrill. She didn't use a condom, y'know. She didn't practice safe sex blogging. Not a crime, just dumb in her case, assuming she didn't secretly want to get fired over it. Tweeting it? Come on. That's just narcissist, look at me adolescent behavior, not adult conversation.

2. She expects big sympathy instead of just moving on and learning something about how to keep your private life separate from your public life. She's going for publicity, wants to make it an issue because she feels so "wronged." One of the classic characteristics of narcissism is that it's always somebody else's fault. Boo Hoo. Clearly she goofed as far as understanding the consequences relative to her job. Now that she's unemployed she has all the freedom to write whatever she wants, and the freedom to find an employer who has no problem with her pastime. She could also just become the spokesperson for this particular crusade. Good job for a narcissist. Narcissists often make good crusaders, loving the attention. She has plenty of options.

I have a friend who has a bunch of tattoos all over but he works in a very button-down conservative profession. He's smart enough to make his body art not show outside a dress shirt. Too bad he has to do that, but he wants the job. Lots of compromises are made to fit into the social norms of the average working environment. We are monkeys--we react to unusual and distracting stimuli.

It's not being savvy enough to understand how to prevent colliding worlds, when in a restricted situation. I wouldn't want such a dumb employee. Keep networking, by all means, but understand the realities of the internet and social media. If stuff gets out, you have to own it. Sounds like you would have the maturity to own it--she doesn't.

OK I said my bit. Thanks for writing. I agree with you about peoples' right to express however they wish--but we do NOT live in a society where expression, on any subject, is without risk.

[Posteritatis]

160. Meh. Plenty of people say blogging *at all* is just the same thing

Those people are paranoid and overreacting too.

[liquid diamond]

181. You hate sex. Go back to free republic. You're no progressive.

:sarcasm:

[Unvanguard]

47. This kind of employment discrimination should be illegal. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. And now I will translate half of this thread's posts into non-code, non-disingenuous parlance:

"Yay! One of those dirty pro-sex people was nabbed! Score! Go Prudes!"

[Forkboy]

54. LOL...some people, even on the left, really fear any expression of sexuality they don't agree with.

Always great for a laugh. :)

[krabigirl]

61. Yep. Makes me so embarrassed to be American.

[KonaKane]

112. I fear stupidity, not someone's sex life.

.

[Forkboy]

113. Then you have a lot to fear.

:)

[KonaKane]

115. We all do.

[seabeyond]

57. geez commie, it isnt like i haven't already talked to my KIDS to be mindful of what

goes on the net. that it can effect college choices and jobs

gotta be prudes

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

70. Fine. You side with the prude, privacy-invading boss. I'll side with the wronged employee.

[seabeyond]

73. "privacy-invading " when did we decide the net would be "private"? nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. The blogger took efforts not to link herself to the sex posts, made one mistake...

...quickly corrected it, but a permanent cache of the previous state remained. That's what the boss found in his very deep rummaging to find crap about the employees.

Again: she made a great effort to stay anonymous, and the boss made an even greater effort to find her out. That means invasion of privacy to me.

Do go on. All you're doing is confirming the truth of my post #50.

[Lucian]

80. +1

:thumbsup:

[seabeyond]

82. i agree. bummer that it is, .... it is. hence me telling my boys to be aware what they are doing

could result in too pricey of an ooooops.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

83. Good advice, just like not walking in seedy neighborhoods at night is good advice.

The asshole POS predator who mugs, rapes and kills people who don't listen to that advice is STILL an asshole POS predator, though.

[seabeyond]

89. ok. that works. but as i said in a post above. two managers of a business

put where they worked on personal blogs. we saw the trash and gang and sex in a truck on their sights, we decided to spend our money elsewhere. it was the first impression we got of this company. and because these people were stupid, beyond stupid, they lost a customer

if i were running a business, i would be pissed.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

92. Don't run a business in Wisconsin.

A friend of mine from there told me this:

"As long as she wasn't blogging at work, she'd have a HUGE lawsuit in Wisconsin -- it's explicitly prohibited for an employer to dismiss an employee for legal activities while not on the clock."

What an awful, awful place. They don't allow the oh-so-righteous defenders of propriety and purity to enforce Chaste Justice against the hordes of heinous sex fiends.

No wonder it's a (gasp!) blue state. Unlike the state in the OP article (Missouri), which is part of Real True-Blooded America and therefore allowed Just Retribution to be served.

[laughingliberal]

96. Perhaps all workers should consider Wisconsin. Sounds like the kind of protection all workers once

had.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

100. Wisconsin is a wonderful place.

I felt like I was in an European country when I visited there. Highly recommended.

[Book Lover]

103. *kisskisskiss*

You are on *fyah* in this thread. Thanks for doing it so I don't have to.

[northzax]

122. so, just to clarify

you are sending your son off to summer camp. good times. you find out the name of the counselor after paying the deposit, and your son googles him to find more information about the guy who will be taking care of him. you're watching, of course, as a good parent. the first hit is his bio on camp Wantachokee. he likes swimming, volleyball and telling ghost stories. great. second hit is the local chapter of NAMBLA, where he's the Director of Outreach. Excellent, well, now they have something else to share. you are actually going to send him? membership is perfectly legal, and the camp can't fire him for activities outside the office.

now your teenage daughter made the soccer team, which is great. turns out that the coach writes a blog where he details his fantasies, in very graphic detail, about having forced sex with teenage soccer players. of course, the disclaimer always says 'all participants in this story are of the age of legal consent' so it's not kiddie porn and therefore illegal. the School can't fire him, it's perfectly legal to write pornography, after all, as long as he does it at home. so, does she play?

[Art_from_Ark]

137. Just to clarify a bit more

You do realize that personal information in various websites/databases can be "pwned", don't you? Let's say the camp counselor has some hacker friends (or enemies, as the case may be) who either want to play a horrendous practical joke on him, or want to get back at him for some reason. All they'd have to do is slip something like that into his profile, or link it to his profile, and voila, every parent who looks at the profile or the link thinks he is going to be lusting after their kid, even if he is a perfectly normal guy who just wants to be a camp counselor.

[northzax]

149. Ok, you call the camp.

And they say 'yep, that's Ted. He likes little boys, but as far as we know, he's never done anything, and under state law, until he breaks the law, we can't fire him. He's great with kids though.'

your call.

[Art_from_Ark]

183. Do you REALLY think that a summer camp would wittingly

hire an officer of MBLA, an organization that encourages its members to commit illegal acts with children, to be a counselor??? They would be opening themselves up to all sorts of potential trouble.

[seabeyond]

146. northzax, hadnt looked at it like that. what do the advocates that say this doesnt matter

think about these scenerios. would the person not send kid to camp? would the camp lose customers? should the owners of the camp know this about their employee?

i would like to hear from people that demand private (on net) stay private. interesting questions.

i am more middle road especially on this case since the woman tried to fix mistake and company searched. i see it more as a reality we live in, so think it thru before doing, what repercussions will be.

but your questions take it to a new level

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

156. Simple: I think these scenarios are NOT the scenario in the OP.

Are there children involved? Hell, we don't even know what the nonprofit is or what it does.

[seabeyond]

157. of course it isnt the scenerio, nor did the poster suggest otherwise. just as my posts werent

particularly about this specific scenerio. just as many posters are doing a grand sweep of "privacy" on the net that has nothing to do with this scenerio.

people want it specific when it doesnt mesh with their generaliztion.

[northzax]

179. The post I responded to

Said that Wisconsin Law banned using legal outside of work activities to fire someone. I was pointing out some legal outside of work activities to see if the support extended to those, as well. So, do you?

[Posteritatis]

161. Equating the person who was fired with pedophiles and rapists?

And dragging in the "think of the children!" kneejerk too.

Classy!

[northzax]

178. Not at all

I don't know the woman in question or anything about her save what's in this article. The argument was made that legal activities engaged in outside the workplace should not be considered in retaining an employee. I was taking it to the logical conclusion. Neither of the people I made up were engaged in illegal activities, and yet I think reasonable people would have issues with their employment. You want to claim a right? Let's se you defend that right fr someone who makes you sick, someone potentially threatening those least likely to be able to defend themselves, those you are responsible for. Otherwise, it ain't much of a right, is it?

Here are two fictional people, fully qualified for their fictional positions, who are most certainly endangering their employers' businesses by their perfectly legal outside activities. If you can't tell me that you would send your son to that camp, or your daughter to that coach, then you are agreeing with that premise. Would you then argue that an employer is forced, under Wisconsin law as stated above, to continue to employ someone who is actively hurting their business? Ok, let's take children out of it (sortof) what about a family planning clinic that discovers their receptionist blogs for the local chapter of Operation Rescue? Still cool? What if you discovered that your accountant, a fine one, who has always served you well, spends his offhours as the local grand wizard? You still paying him?

[Forkboy]

84. +1

[krabigirl]

60. +1

[Ignis]

87. THIS

Good translation. :thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

98. +1000 nt

[Pushed To The Left]

106. Pretty sad that so many DUers side with the right wing when it comes to the rights of workers n/t

[KonaKane]

125. I've always sided with workers. But I dont side with stupidity.

And its clear that it was very stupid of this lady to broadcast her sex life and link it to her real name, even if she thought it was "safe" to do so.

[Pushed To The Left]

136. It may have been stupid, but that doesn't excuse the employer's actions. What if the next employee

to be fired for what he or she does off the clock is fired for writing a letter to the editor? Or going to a rally? The real question here is whether or not an employer should have the right to fire an employee for conduct that doesn't take place during work hours and doesn't affect job performance. I am willing to have laws protect the rights of even a "stupid" employee to ensure the personal freedom of all workers.

[KonaKane]

170. The employer has to show cause for firing, in most cases.

If she didnt or couldnt, the woman could take her to court for wrongful termination. But that gets murky because in many employed positions, they have you sign something up front that says you can be fired at any time for whatever the boss determines. Stinks sometimes, I know, but that's the way it is.

[Fleshdancer]

166. How does this impact her job exactly?

and where does one draw the line at firing employees for what they do on their own time outside of work? Can she model nude for an art class? Can she moonlight as a stripper? Can a photographer take artistic yet some what sensual pictures of her and post them on his/her photography website with her permission? Should she get fired for any/all of these activities even if they don't impact her job?

[KonaKane]

171. That would be a question for her former boss.

If she doesn't have a good answer for that, then I would say the fired one has a great court case.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

168. What about an employee who admits he's a liberal within earshot of a known teabagger boss?

That, too, would be indisputably stupid.

Would you still "not side with stupidity"?

[KonaKane]

172. That raises two questions:

1) How would their status as a liberal negatively impact the business in such a way that firing them would be warranted?

2) What liberal of any spine would knowingly work for a teabagger?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

174. OK

1) The exact same question may be asked about the OP case.

2) One that needs a job. You make it seem as if getting a job is easy for everybody.

[NeedleCast]

164. Hehe, Exactly.

[Forkboy]

51. "Polyamourous" sounds like a cologne designed by DuPont.

[Jkid]

85. I bet her employer was not subjected to the same fate.

The employer's bosses googling up his name and does the same thing with his life.

[KonaKane]

129. Somebody should try it.

Google up her name. And if she was similarly stupid and broadcast her sexual appetites to the world via the internet, under her real name, she deserves the same fate.

[DefenseLawyer]

93. Workers of the world unite. n/t

[laughingliberal]

99. +1000 nt

[Pushed To The Left]

102. I would love to see the ACLU or other civil rights group file a lawsuit against this employer. What

she does on her time is her business! If what they did is legal, the laws need to be changed.

[Nikki Stone1]

119. I'm with you on that.

This is not right, unless she's a nun in a convent.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

176. exhibitionist morons are a protected class now?

It is nobodies business but hers if she wants to have polyamorous relationships with the Travelocity garden gnome and Erin esurance, but a sexually explicit blog is a giant neon sign announcing you have terrible judgement and quite a valid reason to fire somebody.

[The Damned]

108. Why the Hell do People Feel the Need to Do This???

"Yeah, I banged my cousin Rachel last night."

WTF?????

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

133. Because their cooler, edgier, sexier than you and want to make sure you realize it

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

169. That was a very revealing post.

[KonaKane]

173. Actually they bring up a good point.

Smearing your sex life all over the internet is something I'd more expect from a teenager, not a working adult. Just an opinion.

[BreweryYardRat]

138. Ugh.

Here's the deal regarding personal/sex lives, people.

If it's off the clock, it's not hurting anyone, and it doesn't affect your performance on the job...it's none of the employer's goddamn business.

We need to start suing the living shit out of employers who try to impose rules on their employees' personal lives.

[JNelson6563]

143. Losing a job over it is extreme.

But looooong before there was any such thing as the tubes the old wisdom "never put anything in writing you don't want to the rest of the world to see" was good advice. Still is.

Julie

[Hannah Bell]

145. why can someone be fired for having a sex blog?

[Rex]

154. Well then that is one place I wouldn't want to work, papers please!

Sounds like a company out to find dirt on their employees...and did anyone search the web to see what top management is up to? No, I'm sure they will remain immune to 'normal person stuff'.

[NeedleCast]

163. Says a lot about the puritanical stance of many Americans

This thread is a glowing example of the still stuck in the Victorian Era view that many Americans have on sexuality. The fact that there are people arguing that "the image she gives could hurt the non-profit" is both sad and at the same time totally expected in this country where violence is glorified and sex is taboo. -

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

177. Would you take somebody in your industry seriously...

if photos of them deep throating a wine cooler bottle had been circulated far and wide?

It isn't puritanical, it is a fairly modest expectation of judgement and maturity, public displays of immaturity and bad judgement don't reflect well on your potential performance in the workplace.

This chick is a moron: http://twitter.com/TBK365

[Canuckistanian]

180. Anal-retentive bastards

They're everywhere.