Hiding behind the Internet. No anonymity.

[MotoH]

Sexual phantasms? O.O

I think you mean "sexual fantasies".

or "Sexual phantastical orgasms"

 

[DanP]

Sexual phantasms? O.O

I think you mean "sexual fantasies".

You got that right man. That is what I meant.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

... an entirely different scenario than Facebook as is going to your local pub after work and grousing about the people you work with. Those are hardly like-comparisons. In neither of those situations are you committing negative commentary about your workplace/co-workers to print and publishing it under your own name on a world-wide accessible venue. I don't know how people a) have an expectation of privacy in that circumstance

You do not legally have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bar either or any other sort of public place at all for that matter. Websites such as facebook and myspace are not publications. They are not the same as a newspaper or weekly rag. They are not even the same as having your own website with a blog. They are sites for informal gathering and socializing that happen to be (mostly) public. In that way that are not that different from a bar, club, or the barbershop/salon. As I noted earlier the only real functional difference is evidence. Despite it being a "world wide accessible venue" generally speaking no random person at your work or in your community is more likely to know about what is on your facebook than what you said about them at the pub last night. Perhaps even less so. So while there may not be an expectation of privacy there ought at least be some expectation that one not need to be and act as though one is at work at all times in any public locale (including the internet) unless perhaps one has intentionally set themselves up as a representative of their company.

 

[Evo]

You do not legally have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bar either or any other sort of public place at all for that matter. Websites such as facebook and myspace are not publications. They are not the same as a newspaper or weekly rag. They are not even the same as having your own website with a blog. They are sites for informal gathering and socializing that happen to be (mostly) public. In that way that are not that different from a bar, club, or the barbershop/salon. As I noted earlier the only real functional difference is evidence. Despite it being a "world wide accessible venue" generally speaking no random person at your work or in your community is more likely to know about what is on your facebook than what you said about them at the pub last night. Perhaps even less so. So while there may not be an expectation of privacy there ought at least be some expectation that one not need to be and act as though one is at work at all times in any public locale (including the internet) unless perhaps one has intentionally set themselves up as a representative of their company.

I'm sure you are familiar with "employment at will" in the US.

In the United States, employees without a written employment contract generally can be fired for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all;

In legal terms, though, since the last half of the 19th century, employment in each of the United States has been “at will,” or terminable by either the employer or employee for any reason whatsoever.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm sure you are familiar with "employment at will" in the US.



http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

Yes. And you can not be fired for "any reason". You can theoretically be fired for "no reason" but if you can point me to any individual has has ever actually been fired for no reason at all then please do so. There are, nominally, laws against firing people unfairly. The only problem with fighting an unfair dismissal is that you have to have proof and you have to convince a judge that it was unfair. There are specifically protected categories such as whistleblower, sexual discrimination, ect but the law is not at all limited to those categories.

 

[Evo]

Yes. And you can not be fired for "any reason". You can theoretically be fired for "no reason" but if you can point me to any individual has has ever actually been fired for no reason at all then please do so. There are, nominally, laws against firing people unfairly. The only problem with fighting an unfair dismissal is that you have to have proof and you have to convince a judge that it was unfair. There are specifically protected categories such as whistleblower, sexual discrimination, ect but the law is not at all limited to those categories.

Actually, over the years I have known people that were fired for no specific reason other than they weren't liked, or for being negative about work, or "didn't fit in", didn't like to go drinking with the guys on friday night. Not a suck up. It happens.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Actually, over the years I have known people that were fired for no specific reason other than they weren't liked, or for being negative about work, or "didn't fit in", didn't like to go drinking with the guys on friday night. Not a suck up. It happens.

There were reasons though, you mention them yourself (my emphasis above). They may not have had to actually give the reason but that does not mean that there wasn't one. I'm sure that you will agree that a person who is fired because they did not sleep with the boss will still be protected even though the employer did not specify it as the reason for dismissal. The only issue to surmount is proving it. So if you are fired for a reason which you feel was inappropriate or unfair you can sue. Your case will be heard. You may not win, perhaps are not even very likely to win, but it can be done and a judge may decide in your favour.

Here's a site that discusses this very issue (the ability of employers to fire for blogging). Here is a section specifically related to my argument...

Some states provide legal protection for activity outside the work place. For example, California Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from interfering with their employees' political activities. If you blog about something political in California, these laws may protect you.


In addition, we believe that two relatively new provisions of the California Labor Code that address "lawful conduct during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises" could be used to protect employee bloggers. On their face, the provisions prohibit employers from disciplining employees for anything that goes on outside of work so long as it's legal (including, presumably, blogging). See Cal. Labor Code §§ 96(k); 98.6. So far, however, courts have not construed the law so broadly. Some courts and the Attorney General have ruled that these provisions merely help enforce existing rights -- such as the right to privacy -- rather than give employees any additional rights. See Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp., 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 86-88 (2004); Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 525, 534-36 (2003). While the issue is not settled, these rulings suggest that Section 96(k) and 98.6 apply only if, in the course of terminating you, the employer violated some right that you have under other laws (for example, by interfering with your political activities, or libeling you).

Some states other than California (Colorado, New York, and North Dakota) have also enacted statutes that prohibit employers from terminating employees for engaging in lawful activities outside of work, including political activities. But these laws also have broader exceptions than California's and some do not apply to disciplinary actions other than firing. The District of Columbia, Connecticut, and some cities (for example, Seattle, Lansing, and Madison) also prohibit discrimination on the basis of political or expressive activity. For links to these laws and a discussion of the protections they provide, see the Workplace Fairness FAQ on Retaliation for Political Activity.

This is the best source I have found so far. Most of the hits I am finding are not very useful.