3 ms·

Strongly disagreeing. Which of us has not privately cursed their job at some point in frustration? The consequences for letting fly some profanity privately as

Strongly disagreeing. Which of us has not privately cursed their job at some point in frustration? The consequences for letting fly some profanity privately as an expression of human emotion cannot be so high in any reasonable civilization.

wil421 5y ago
How’s it any different from writing a letter to 25 coworkers saying F** my employer? If one of the 25 recipients showed the letter to my employer I’d be fired. How’s a private snap any different than a private letter?
- thissorthatt 5y ago
  The employer is not bound by the 1st Amendment. Whereas the school (functioning as a part of the government) is.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Communicating with coworkers about workplace conditions could be a protected labor activity.
    - teawrecks 5y ago
      What would/should actually happen in this case is HR/the manager would meet with the employee and ask them to vent any apparent frustrations. If the statement was made publicly, they would probably be fired outright for making public statements about the employer without permission. If it's only internal, they wouldn't be fired outright, but they will likely be passed over for promotion. Makes sense, why should a company invest in someone who apparently isn't invested in the company? If they are ever fired, the reason given would be for some other unrelated infraction that they are legally allowed to terminate for.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Protected labor activities are protected in the US by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, not by the Constitution.
- anaerobicover 5y ago
  I believe that I have not made my point clearly: simply, you should not be fired for that letter.
- virgil_disgr4ce 5y ago
  The snap self-destructs. The correct analogy would be showing a photo of the letter to others.
- wnoise 5y ago
  The by-default ephemeral nature?
- teawrecks 5y ago
  The difference is, one is a private company that you are gainfully employed at of your own volition. The other is a public school that students are legally obligated to attend. The two have nothing to do with each other.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  > How’s a private snap any different than a private letter? I thought that letters had a copyright? The recipient has ownership but cannot publish. If they do copy and distribute (as a screenshot of a Snapchat message) does this not break copyright? Edit: In New Zealand (where I am), an employer screenshooting and distributed an employee’s Facebook messages breached privacy laws. https://privacy.org.nz/tools/knowledge-base/view/366 https://privacy.org.nz/tools/knowledge-base/view/366
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    Copyright generally doesn't protect usage of a work in criticism of it, even if it is basically verbatim usage without added commentary. I think Hughes v. Benjamin is salient here.
kstrauser 5y ago
I don't completely disagree with you, FWIW. I do see it as fundamentally different to gripe about your job to a coworker in your living room or at a bar after work. That's the most natural thing ever. It's a different animal to make a public post telling the world that your company sucks and f- the company and your boss. In Levy's case, she made a public post (even if she didn't mean for it to be public). And to be clear, I'm not going to judge a 14 year old for doing things that I'd be annoyed with a 30 year old for doing. A kid got frustrated with her school and complained about it? Ooh, stop the presses and clutch some pearls! I have a much harder time sympathizing with people twice her age who complain publicly about how much their job sucks, then complain that their boss has relieved them of the burden of ongoing employment.
- neogodless 5y ago
  I've always thought of Snapchat as "hanging out on your back porch with a beer". On the other hand, I've never sent any Snaps to more than like... 3 people. Sending it to 250 is a bit like hosting the entire class from your school at a party, and then getting on a microphone and saying "F--- all of you and f--- cheer!" and then someone recording that on their phone and showing a coach. I don't think it's fair to call her action "making a public post" because she did not make it public. Someone else did.

wil421 5y ago

How’s it any different from writing a letter to 25 coworkers saying F** my employer? If one of the 25 recipients showed the letter to my employer I’d be fired. How’s a private snap any different than a private letter?

thissorthatt 5y ago
The employer is not bound by the 1st Amendment. Whereas the school (functioning as a part of the government) is.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Communicating with coworkers about workplace conditions could be a protected labor activity.
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    What would/should actually happen in this case is HR/the manager would meet with the employee and ask them to vent any apparent frustrations. If the statement was made publicly, they would probably be fired outright for making public statements about the employer without permission. If it's only internal, they wouldn't be fired outright, but they will likely be passed over for promotion. Makes sense, why should a company invest in someone who apparently isn't invested in the company? If they are ever fired, the reason given would be for some other unrelated infraction that they are legally allowed to terminate for.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Protected labor activities are protected in the US by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, not by the Constitution.
anaerobicover 5y ago
I believe that I have not made my point clearly: simply, you should not be fired for that letter.
virgil_disgr4ce 5y ago
The snap self-destructs. The correct analogy would be showing a photo of the letter to others.
wnoise 5y ago
The by-default ephemeral nature?
teawrecks 5y ago
The difference is, one is a private company that you are gainfully employed at of your own volition. The other is a public school that students are legally obligated to attend. The two have nothing to do with each other.
lostlogin 5y ago
> How’s a private snap any different than a private letter? I thought that letters had a copyright? The recipient has ownership but cannot publish. If they do copy and distribute (as a screenshot of a Snapchat message) does this not break copyright? Edit: In New Zealand (where I am), an employer screenshooting and distributed an employee’s Facebook messages breached privacy laws. https://privacy.org.nz/tools/knowledge-base/view/366 https://privacy.org.nz/tools/knowledge-base/view/366
- mannerheim 5y ago
  Copyright generally doesn't protect usage of a work in criticism of it, even if it is basically verbatim usage without added commentary. I think Hughes v. Benjamin is salient here.

kstrauser 5y ago

I don't completely disagree with you, FWIW. I do see it as fundamentally different to gripe about your job to a coworker in your living room or at a bar after work. That's the most natural thing ever. It's a different animal to make a public post telling the world that your company sucks and f- the company and your boss. In Levy's case, she made a public post (even if she didn't mean for it to be public). And to be clear, I'm not going to judge a 14 year old for doing things that I'd be annoyed with a 30 year old for doing. A kid got frustrated with her school and complained about it? Ooh, stop the presses and clutch some pearls! I have a much harder time sympathizing with people twice her age who complain publicly about how much their job sucks, then complain that their boss has relieved them of the burden of ongoing employment.

neogodless 5y ago
I've always thought of Snapchat as "hanging out on your back porch with a beer". On the other hand, I've never sent any Snaps to more than like... 3 people. Sending it to 250 is a bit like hosting the entire class from your school at a party, and then getting on a microphone and saying "F--- all of you and f--- cheer!" and then someone recording that on their phone and showing a coach. I don't think it's fair to call her action "making a public post" because she did not make it public. Someone else did.