5 ms·
If you post harassing comments, this probably should happen. People are going to be concerned about free speech, but harassment isn't free speech, and I honestl
by s73ver 9y ago
If you post harassing comments, this probably should happen. People are going to be concerned about free speech, but harassment isn't free speech, and I honestly don't believe it's a "slippery slope".
- maxpblum 9y agoWhat do you mean when you say you don't believe it's a "slippery slope"? That the proper boundaries are obvious to everyone? I think the reason this is okay is that notifying a school or employer of your behavior is not the same as persecution.
- subway 9y agoI see no problem with giving someone a heads up that they've employed an asshole.
- pyre 9y agoThe problem with this is that things change from time to time. Replace "asshole" with "Japanese sympathizer" during/after World War 2, or "Communist sympathizer" during the reign of McCarthyism. Would you be so quick to say that this is a good thing then?
- chrshawkes 9y agoWho's your employer?
- subway 9y agoIt's readily available if you google my name and usernames; available in my profile.
- makomk 9y agoThere's this idea I've seen a lot lately amongst social justice activists that the correct boundaries are obvious and a simple matter of common decency, and that anyone who dares to question this by asking where they should be placed is simply obfuscating to justify bigotry and harassment. Of course, no two people's idea of where the obvious, clear boundaries are is actually the same, it's just they don't generally realise this because it's never discussed. Occasionally something happens that different members of the community do see differently and all hell breaks loose.
- s73ver 9y agoMany times, the "asking questions" thing is done not in good faith, and that's why it's dismissed out of hand.
- drspacemonkey 9y agoThe problem comes down to the definition of "harassment". I've encountered my fair share of people, some in positions of authority and/or should know better, who honestly believe that disagreement or impolite comments constitute "harassment". Frankly, I'm not at all comfortable with a global media outlet reserving the right to try to get people fired in private for internet comments.
- mavdi 9y agoHow about we start with racism? Some things are a grey area but some are downright harassment.
- MrZongle2 9y agoWhat about pornography? Some things are in a grey area but some are downright naughty. Same thing: the extremes are easy to label. The question is where do you draw the line between showing an ankle or face, and full-out copulation in 4K?
- MichaelGG 9y agoSeeing how the label "racism" is thrown around like crazy, I hardly find that to be a non-grey area.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoAre critical comments about Islam, as a religion, racism? How about pointed comments about Israel's settlements? Because I've heard people try to construe both as such.
- s73ver 9y agoMost people who claim they're making critical comments just aren't.
- drspacemonkey 9y agoA racist comment can be rude, disrespectful, mean, or ignorant without being harassment. Then there's the more complicated issue of the term "racism", which I think you'll concur does not have a universally-agreed-upon definition. By all means, delete such comments and ban the offending commenters (or even report them to the police if applicable), but reserving the right to try to get people fired is going too far. Internet vigilante justice is ugly and brutal, and I am not at all comfortable with the BBC getting involved in that game.
- utternerd 9y ago> If you post or send offensive, inappropriate or objectionable content Unfortunately it's not confined to simply "harassment" but anything "offensive, inappropriate or objectionable" by their own wording, which is highly subjective. If there's a legal issue, BBC should contact law enforcement, but beyond that informing others feels entirely punitive.
- Zenst 9y agoBBC staff caught watching TV without a TV liscense are subject to instant dismissal. Been the case for eons that company rule and that seems perfectly fair. But that is clear cut and defined upfront in the employment contract. This as you highlight is subjective and no clearly defined lines and that as you say is the job of the police. Indeed this action by them does open them up to the police being involved against them. If anything, this opens up many opportunities of abuse from nefarious and mischief inclined people. Lesson to take from this is, don't do personal stuff upon work computers period. That should be the take away message about this type of issue. Remember many an employment contract prohibit that and it is often overlooked if not abused, this may just become that abuse nail example you encounter with HR. Let alone the security aspects for you and your employer, your cloud drive getting a malware payload not impossible and vice versa.
- DanBC 9y ago> This as you highlight is subjective and no clearly defined lines and that as you say is the job of the police Defamation is unlawful and is never investigated nor prosecuted by police.
- logfromblammo 9y agoThat doesn't seem "perfectly fair"; it seems needlessly stupid. If it is really that important, the company should just purchase the licenses for their employees, as a perquisite. Then it no longer has the need to police the private lives of its workers, in order to see if they need to be fired for illicit, unlicensed television-watching.
- chrshawkes 9y agoI'm glad you don't call the shots.