« And a parking meter shall lead them | Main | MS Office 2007 – is it time for another upgrade? »

Getting "Dooced" by a blog

OK, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I've neglected my blogging duties due to a sticky travel schedule. My last stop was Ft Lauderdale, which for July visitors is like hell with flowers. I'm glad to be home in Eureka where God leaves the air conditioning on most of the time and humidity is tolerably low. I will make up for my neglect by posting two or three blog entries this week instead of my customary one. Today we will look at the phenomenon of losing one's job because of what he or she says in a blog. The most notable example of this happen to Heather Armstrong who maintained a personal blog called Dooce. Now, when someone gets fired for mouthing off in a blog, the colloquial phrase is that they got "Dooced." I don't think Heather ever imagined (or wished) that her blog name would be turned into a verb. This is a fascinating study of free speech versus employers' rights.

My business is working in courts. My travel schedule this week took me to Ft Lauderdale to attend a national court management conference, and the subject of getting Dooced came up in two separate conversations. The first involved a court staff member working in a self help center who would regularly chronicle the activities and idiosyncrasies of customers on his personal blog. As in many discussions of this sort, the outcome hangs on the context and severity of the offense, and in this case it was clearly over the top. The blogger would comment on the attractiveness (or lack thereof), degree of endowedness (even though there is no such word) and the percentage of obesity of the women frequenting the court service office. He would regularly refer to clientele as losers, tweekers and dweebs, and mock the circumstances that brought them into the court. OK, want to guess what happened to him? (drumroll) ... he got Dooced.

The other example came up in the context of writing on this subject for the purpose of providing guidance to court managers when they encounter blogging indiscretions. While this professional association's quarterly publication runs a regular ethics column, the editors felt this was too important a topic to leave to a mere column. To their credit, they decided to run a "point / counterpoint" piece showing both sides of the argument. After all, courts are here to protect our constitutional rights, aren't they? Yet in the case of the aforementioned Dooced victim, don't court customers also have a right to their privacy and do they waive their protection from ridicule just because they walk into this guy's office to resolve a legitimate legal problem?

And lest we leave this discussion with the false impression that blog authors alone are subject to being Dooced, rest assured that those who post comments on blogs are equally liable for scrutiny by their employers. And frankly, the comment sections of most blogs are way more uncivil compared to the original posting that prompted the comments. Fellow local blogger Eric Kirk recently lamented the lack of civility by those posting comments ... and the emperor of local blogs, Captain Buhne, even stopped accepting comments because they were so over the top. Fred's Humboldt Blog is still allowing comments, but said he would reconsider if things got out of hand.

So be safe out there little cowboys and cowgirls. The classic example of where free speech ends is when someone shouts "fire" in a crowded theater. There are reasonable interpretations of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable when exercising free speech, and I (for one) strongly advocate for less rather than more restraint. Just be aware that personal liability is not limited to a slander lawsuit. We may be talking about your job here.

Chris Crawford
www.justiceserved.com

Comments

That's just another perk of being self-employed.

Amen, Robb. I may work for a jerk and it's hard to call in sick, but being self employed is MUCH preferable to the alternative in my view. I may be hard to work for, but it's unlikely I'll fire myself.

In case you hadn't noticed, Cap'n Buhne starting allowing comments to his blog a couple days ago.

Thanks for the update, Fred. I note that the comments on the Cap's blog are once again frantic, personal and nasty. I wonder how long he'll keep it up. If the blog author starts editing or selectively deleting comments, he/she gets accused of abridging free speech. Maybe a good start would be to not accept anonymous comments. Even so, folks could still spoof and make themselves look like someone else.

I guess I still err on the side of more rather than less free speech. Sophomoric and slanderous comments are just part of the package.

Chris wrote: "Even so, folks could still spoof and make themselves look like someone else.".

Indeed. If you look at the first series of comments after Buhne started them up again, you'll see what appears to by me making a comment. Except I didn't. My name is misspelled. I believe most of the comments there are spoofed, at least when he started them up again.

I did make one comment there the other day regarding a misspelling.

Check it out people! Now Michael Smith wants to shut you all down if you even mention his bloody name! We can look forward to swift action from our District Attorney to protect his poor beleagured Oregon-based supporter from the big bad bloggers and their terrorist free speech. Glenn Simmons would be proud.

Michael Smith Threatens Humboldt Blogosphere

what your this happens during menstruation

what your this happens during menstruation

proactiv orchard

proactiv orchard

Post a comment