posted May 17, 2013 05:36 AM            

If you're a teacher, and want to keep your job, don't insultyour students on Facebook. If your boss is a Jewish community leader, and you want to keep your job, don't post photos on Facebook of yourself covered in swastikas. And if you're anyone who wants to keep your job, don't go on Facebook and insult a police officer.

A waitress at an Oklahoma City Chili's made that error, when she posted a photo of three Oklahoma County Sheriff's deputies on her Facebook page along with the comment: "Stupid Cops better hope I'm not their server FDP." (A handy abbreviation for F*** Da Police.)

The woman, Ashley Warden, might have had reason to hold a grudge against her local police force. Last year she made national news when her potty-training toddler pulled down his pants in his grandmother's front yard, and a passing officer handed Warden a public urination ticket for $2,500. (The police chief later apologized and dropped the charges, while the ticketing officer was fired.)

More: 1 in 3 Employers Reject Applicants Based On Facebook Posts

Warden's Facebook post quickly went viral on law enforcement sites, reported Oklahoma City TV station KWTV, and Chili's was barraged with calls demanding that she be fired. Chili's agreed. "With the changing world of digital and social media, Chili's has Social Media Guidelines in place, asking our team members to always be respectful of our guests and to use proper judgement when discussing actions in the work place ...," the restaurant chain said in a statement. "After looking into the matter, we have taken action to prevent this from happening again."

posted May 17, 2013 05:53 AM            

quote:

---

The woman, Ashley Warden, might have had reason to hold a grudge against her local police force. Last year she made national news when her potty-training toddler pulled down his pants in his grandmother's front yard, and a passing officer handed Warden a public urination ticket for $2,500. (The police chief later apologized and dropped the charges, while the ticketing officer was fired.)

---

That should be a reason to LIKE the police, after all they not only dropped the charge and apologized but fired the officer who issued it for having such poor judgment and/or obviously on a power trip.

I wonder if she had a reason to dislike those 3 deputies...or if it was over what a police officer did as described. Still, it was stupid, even if she had a plausible reason for feeling as she did against those 3 deputies that wasn't revealed, and I don't blame Chili's for firing her (for showing very similar poor judgment as the cop who ticketed her).

Where it gets EPIC in stupidity is things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaNuE3DsJHM

posted May 17, 2013 09:53 AM            

Secondly isn't it scary how people not on other people's 'friends' lists can easily snoop around other people's business....i mean i know FB isn't private, but it isn't for everyone and their mother to look through it either.

I don't have FB, the one time i did, it wasn't me who did my 'profile' and by the time i complained to FB, the only thing they could do, was not grant access to anyone to email that thing, (thankfully i managed to get someone to at least change the name to gibberish and delete any pictures if they were on, as even that photo theft from other people's profiles is a line being crossed.)

posted May 17, 2013 07:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by doommlord:
And arent employers stick to not always so reliable sources to make quick judgements?

---

I got the impression that public opinion had a lot to do with this.

Even so, her own words is that she wouldn't serve such customers or serve them poorly. Or that example I gave of very bad advertisement. How is it that their own words not reliable?

quote:

---

Originally posted by doommlord:
One must ask.....isnt freedom of speech being hurt here?

---

No. For freedom of speech to be threatened, she'd have to monitored, arrested, fined, or harassed by government agencies (such as the IRS, or if the deputies were to arrest her for posting that). Freedom of speech means you're free to say what you want, but it doesn't make you immune to the social consequences. For example, the ACLU has defended very unpopular organizations like NAMBLA and the KKK for making their positions clear without government retaliation, however if someone made himself publicly known to believe it was ok to molest little boys got fired from a daycare center as well as parents telling their kids to stay away from him as a result then that's the social consequences, not a political consequence, and the ACLU only concerns itself with political consequences. (Granted, a government school firing a publicly known member of NAMBLA would be a gray area...though I'd support the school firing such a person in such a case, but I can understand from a purely theoretical point of view, as opposed to practical point of view, why someone should think such a teacher should have his job protected until he was actually caught breaking the law.)

IOW, freedom of speech is meant to protect you from government censure and harassment, but that doesn't mean people are required to like you or want to be around you or that they have to make their businesses suffer because they're seeming to endorse the offender's message or not caring that they've made their hostility to customers known.

Think of the trolls that get banned from LL. Their freedom of speech is protected so that the government can't come after them for saying horrible, insulting things here but Randall can still get rid of them as a social consequence. They're free to say horrid things but that doesn't mean we as private citizens MUST therefore let them harangue us, just that we shouldn't be able to pass "jail the trolls" bills (a political consequence rather than social consequence).

posted May 18, 2013 02:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I got the impression that public opinion had a lot to do with this.

Even so, her own words is that she wouldn't serve such customers or serve them poorly. Or that example I gave of very bad advertisement. How is it that their own words not reliable?

---

Well first of all people can say things they dont really mean....especially on social networks like FB....so an impression might be made that does not represent the person himself.

Also thhis method is not always so clear cut that the employer finds the very inxulting post and fires the employe.... sometimes they can use FB to fire you on grounds that might not seem fair.

posted May 18, 2013 10:26 AM            

PJ -THANK YOU for pointing out that the 1st Amendment only applies to governmental action.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I hate it when these discussions devolve into, "[Private individual or corporation X] infringed upon my 1st Amendment rights!"