Gawker-Happy Now?: ‘Good Employee’ Lindsey Stone Fired Over Facebook Photo

[Ptarmigan]

If you think DU is nuts, try Gawker.

Happy Now?: ‘Good Employee’ Lindsey Stone Fired Over Facebook Photo
http://gawker.com/5962796/happy-now-good-employee-lindsey-stone-fired-over-facebook-photo

GREGORYABUTLER1003… and 21 more
Reply

I wonder if these assholes who worship the military as an institution actually ever lift a finger to help veterans?

Have they given a job to an unemployed vet?

Do they volunteer at a military hospital or a VA medical center helping wounded warriors?

Have they helped a homeless vet find an affordable apartment?

Probably not, because that would involve actually helping a living breathing ex serviceperson.

So much easier to rant and rave when somebody doesn't bow and scrape before the graven image of militarism.
What a bunch of assholes.

Why are you whining?

skt.smth  4 days ago
 I think it's time for Congress to pass a law which prevents employers from disciplining or firing workers for expression that occurs outside the physical workspace. It would protect a lot of assholes (insane racists come immediately to mind), for sure, and that comes with the territory, but I think it's necessary for protecting people like Lindsey Stone in the age of social media, where we've got lynch mobs ready to assemble on the most trivial of "offenses" and ruin peoples' lives by appealing to their employers' base, bottom-line instincts. Let's remove that shit entirely from the equation by simply making it illegal to fire somebody for any expression that occurs outside of the workplace or the work context. We aren't on the clock 24/7. We deserve to have free lives, and unfortunately, it's becoming clearer and clearer in this day and age that we don't actually own our lives outside of work. We are under surveillance, and are not at liberty to express ourselves in even trivially jocular ways without worrying that we'll lose our jobs over it, either because our employers seek out "offenses" directly themselves, or we inspire digital ragers to do the job for them. Pass legislation now.

The First Amendment cuts both ways MORON! She is free to take that photo and LIFE has the right to fire her. What part do you not get? Sounds like Communism! 

monkeysanonymous and 2 more
Reply
 And these same 30,000 assholes that were screaming for her head would also likely freak out over any challenge to their freedom of speech. Hypocrites.

Free speech cuts both ways! 

anthonybarger and 1 more
Reply
 its just a ridiculous photo. its bullshit to make a fuss over it. holding someone professionally responsible for a private photo is insane. and the attention it is getting nationwide is ****ing ludicrous. its a lot of people looking for shit to complain about, complaining about it, for the sake of complaining.

isaiditsfine and 2 more
Reply

So what ever happened to freedom of speech? You know, the idea that you may not be agreeing with what someone says, but defending their right to say it? That not a thing anymore?

I mean, thumbs up to Gawker, but I sincerely doubt the people clamoring for these people's jobs are as angelic and as perfect of citizens that they are allowed to call someone else out.
I'd like to see an article about the guy who started that Facebook group and see what skeletons he has in his closet.

You mean free speech cuts both ways. What a moron! 

Nick  4 days ago

I get people being upset, but this is being blown WAY out of proportion. This is a collective, mob-rule hunt for an enemy and someone to get angry at. Just reading the comments is proof enough, how people have seemingly made the logical jump from jokingly flipping off a sign (it's the sign, not the tomb itself… that's a huge, significant distinction, both in terms of people's misplaced anger and the joke she was making) all the way to flipping off the entire armed forces.

People aren't mad at Lindsey Stone for making a joke and posting it on Facebook, they're mad about something more abstract—treatment of the troops/veterans from the government, militarism, lack of respect for those who serve, etc.—and are using this story as a channel for that anger.

This wasn't made to be printed in a magazine or shown on late-night television, and this wasn't someone famous or influential making this photo, this was a joke meant for Lindsey's friends who would understand the irony of fake-shouting and flipping off a sign that says "silence and respect". I would have found it funny, and I have nothing but respect for the troops. The fact that it was spread around Facebook isn't a consequence of our new media that she should have been mindful of, because she shouldn't have had to worry about people fitting the joke to their own angry interpretation and becoming indignant enough to spread it around.

I guarantee you that if you have a Facebook account, you can look through your friends' pictures and find something that you can turn into a mass outrage with enough "creative interpretation". Actions have consequence, yes, but misinterpreting a joke to fit your own indignation and joining the witch hunt with your pitchfork is an action with consequences too.
Would a photo like this have mattered 20 years ago? Even if it had managed to spread around and people were upset about it, the fact that there wouldn't have been a petition to get her fired would not have been because of the lack of opportunity, it would have been because of the lack of instant-access, instant-indignation mob-mentality that the Internet has created.

You mean Lindsey Stone brought it on herself. You sir are an idiot! 

[Chris_]

Gawker is ****ing stupid.  All they do is reprint stories from other websites.

[Ptarmigan]

Gawker is ****ing stupid.  All they do is reprint stories from other websites.

 

[wasp69]

**** Lindsey Stone, **** the idiot that took the picture, and **** the rest of the filth in this country that doesn't get the fact that there are some places you just don't act like a douchebag.  She lost her job for being a ****ing idiot - good!  When you are on a business trip and on the company dime, you don't act out in a manner that could bring disgrace to your employer.  You are the face of that company when you are out on a business trip and you should act like an adult, not an overgrown teenager.  I'll personally be satisfied when she has shown some real remorse and does something positive to atone for her stupidity and stubbornness.  Some people are heroes, some are examples of how not to act, Ms Stone has just learned the difference the hard way. 

Further more, any lurking retard that whines about "freedom of speech", I have a simple challenge for you:  Repeat for me the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment (without looking it up) and I might listen to whatever you have to say.  I might listen, but you can count on a reply of "actions have consequences" or "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences" and "what the **** about respecting the interred remains of those who gave their life for your freedom of speech did you miss, asshole?"

[cmypay]

skt.smth  4 days ago
 I think it's time for Congress to pass a law which prevents employers from disciplining or firing workers for expression that occurs outside the physical workspace. It would protect a lot of assholes (insane racists come immediately to mind), for sure, and that comes with the territory, but I think it's necessary for protecting people like Lindsey Stone in the age of social media, where we've got lynch mobs ready to assemble on the most trivial of "offenses" and ruin peoples' lives by appealing to their employers' base, bottom-line instincts. Let's remove that shit entirely from the equation by simply making it illegal to fire somebody for any expression that occurs outside of the workplace or the work context. We aren't on the clock 24/7. We deserve to have free lives, and unfortunately, it's becoming clearer and clearer in this day and age that we don't actually own our lives outside of work. We are under surveillance, and are not at liberty to express ourselves in even trivially jocular ways without worrying that we'll lose our jobs over it, either because our employers seek out "offenses" directly themselves, or we inspire digital ragers to do the job for them. Pass legislation now.


That's all fine and dandy, except that she was on a business trip, meaning it was NOT on her own time or her "free expression that occurs...outside the workplace." She was there on her (now ex-) employer's dime

[DumbAss Tanker]

Free speech means you can say whatever you want, without the government interfering with you, though if you actually work for them then anything you say that is so notorious, outrageous, or fundamentally inconsistent with your employment that it brings public discredit on them and you both is legitimate grounds for a job action like removal.  It definitely doesn't mean free of consequences with respect to everyone who ISN'T the government.

It's ironic that a Greek chorus like DU, so quick to drop the ban hammer on anyone who sings off-key, of all places is up in arms about an employer firing an employee for shameful public misbehavior.

[NHSparky]

Tell ya what, DUmmies and Gawkeratzis:

Let's see how you feel when someone like, say, Lindsey, or better yet, the Phelps clan, show up at the funeral of a loved one of yours and disrespect THEM (or you.)  How you like THEM apples?

[Duke Nukum]

My guess: Her employer needed to downsize anyway to protect themselves from 0bamaCare and Lindsey Stone simply made it easier to choose who to let go of first. No doubt more to follow.

[AprilRazz]

skt.smth  4 days ago
 I think it's time for Congress to pass a law which prevents employers from disciplining or firing workers for expression that occurs outside the physical workspace. It would protect a lot of assholes (insane racists come immediately to mind), for sure, and that comes with the territory, but I think it's necessary for protecting people like Lindsey Stone in the age of social media, where we've got lynch mobs ready to assemble on the most trivial of "offenses" and ruin peoples' lives by appealing to their employers' base, bottom-line instincts. Let's remove that shit entirely from the equation by simply making it illegal to fire somebody for any expression that occurs outside of the workplace or the work context. We aren't on the clock 24/7. We deserve to have free lives, and unfortunately, it's becoming clearer and clearer in this day and age that we don't actually own our lives outside of work. We are under surveillance, and are not at liberty to express ourselves in even trivially jocular ways without worrying that we'll lose our jobs over it, either because our employers seek out "offenses" directly themselves, or we inspire digital ragers to do the job for them. Pass legislation now.

By your definition your law would protect me if I went and campaigned for my favorite Republican candidate in my military uniform then.

[Chris_]

skt.smth  4 days ago
 I think it's time for Congress to pass a law which prevents employers from disciplining or firing workers for expression that occurs outside the physical workspace.

It's called ethics... I'm not surprised your dumb ass isn't acquainted with the concept. 

[thundley4]

It's called ethics... I'm not surprised your dumb ass isn't acquainted with the concept. 

A lot of employers have morality clauses in their contracts and those are perfectly legal.

[GOBUCKS]

I'm sure Lindsey Stone won't have any trouble finding work at some progressive company.

[Mr Mannn]

Free Speech? Is that what DU thinks this is all about?
These are the same DUers who call anyone racist who disagree with Obama's political agenda.

DU can call for someone's head over phantom "dog whistles," but a lib behaving poorly is somehow protected?
DU lurkers, you are HYPOCRITES!

rank double standards and hypocrisy are just two of the many reasons I cannot respect a "progressive."

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Gawker?

My, what hypocrites:

Should Teenagers Have Racist Election Tweets In Their Google Results For Life? Jezebel Votes Yes. 

Over at the Gawker properties, lady blog Jezebel came up with a creative post-election social media story: Tracie Egan Morrissey decided to make members of the high school set accountable for racist tweets that they sent out after Barack Obama was re-elected.

...

Morrissey collected the offensive tweets, along with the names of the students (the majority of whom are assumedly younger than 18), a gleeful accounting of the activities they’d likely list on college applications — such as their sports teams and pageants — their schools, the responses from school officials — the few who responded expressed disapproval — and the news that in most cases, the student had since deleted their Twitter account.

But that deletion will do them little good. For at least two of the teens, the article, headlined “Racist Teens Forced to Answer for Tweets About the ‘******’ President,” published just four hours ago, is already on the second page of their Google search results. It will surely rise to the first page for all of the teenagers mentioned and will probably haunt them for the rest of their lives, and certainly in the short term. College admissions officers are increasingly researching candidates online after all; these 12 high school students now have a rather nasty addition to their application packages.
 

www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/11/09/should-teenagers-have-racist-election-tweets-in-their-google-results-for-life-jezebel-votes-yes/

Tell us again, DU, about how freedom of speech means freedom from consequences.

Or is the military open to disrespect?

Or is Obama above his subjects?

[FlaGator]

Rush got canned from ESPN because he stated that Donovan McNabb was being rated to highly because he was black. Were you libs demanding for him to get his job back because he was merely exercising his first amendment right?

[DumbAss Tanker]

Consequences, DU.  Actions haz them.

[GOBUCKS]

And as always, Rush was right.