http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/12444605/article-Anniston-council-to-poke-Facebook-issue-again?instance=home_news
City Manager Don Hoyt introduced a policy in January stating that employees should not list their employer online and if they do, they must present the city in a positive light. The policy specifically mentions police officers' postings on Facebook, a reference to Anniston police Officer Roy Bennett’s post that showed a picture of [City Councilman Ben] Little with the title “moron of the year.” Bennett's post led to a July 2010 disciplinary hearing that found Bennett did not violate any police department or city policies with the post.
The policy suggests that employees not list the city as their employer, but also goes further, saying that employees who post pictures or anything else that might allow someone to identify them as a city employee “are obligated to present the city of Anniston, its officials, employees and citizens in a positive light.”
Those employees who post anything “inappropriate or embarrassing to the city or its citizens” would be subject to discipline.
Okay, how clear cut do things have to be? The city is trying to claim that speech can be "free" and still have consequences, something that I agree with, but their argument is specious.
“I have some deep, deep, deep concerns about that,” Little said. “You have your right for freedom of speech. That’s right. Say it. But there can be consequences, and it’s not retaliation or anything like that.”
Here's the problem. The First Amendment protections for free speech were written to protect us from GOVERNMENT limitation of our speech. If we're talking about a private company or group, then they absolutely can fire you for calling your boss a "poo poo head." But the City of Anniston isn't a private company, it's a city government.
If we change the meaning of the First Amendment to ALLOW discipline or firings for speech critical of the government, then there IS no First Amendment left. I understand Councilman Little is irritated because he was the target of the original incident, but he's (supposedly) a big boy now. Suck it up, man! Put on your big-boy shorts and stop being a baby. If you're THAT thin-skinned, you have no business being in politics in the first place.
What the city of Anniston is attempting to do is dangerous and should NOT be allowed. At least the Mayor is against it, but the Council can still override a veto if they have enough votes.
Do you SEE why we must remain vigilant? One Councilman gets his boxers in a bunch over something a city employee says on his own free time, and now we have a draconian and unconstitutional proposal to restrict free speech.
I'm sorry, Little man, but you have no right to NOT have hurt feelings. If you don't want to be called a moron, stop acting like one.
It's a lose situation for Anniston. First, they will lose in court. Then, in public ridicule....they lose. Finally, it attracts state and national attention...mostly to a bunch of folks who would prefer not having that kind of attention.
ReplyDeleteNow, I will add....if you were a employee and put up a picture of your boss with the term "idiot" labeled with the boss....then you've got a fine outstanding case to take into court. The employee would lose and likely have to pay a minimum of $10k plus court and lawyer costs. Insulting folks in public does have a limit.
I'll agree that there's no way for the Anniston government to win. They will lose in court, and I hope my little missive here helps start the process of public ridicule.
ReplyDeleteDepending upon the state, it might matter if the public insulting of a private-sector employer is done on or off the job. In Alabama, it doesn't.
But there's no question that this kind of GOVERNMENT interference in free speech is PRECISELY what the first amendment was written to forbid.