Leaving a Vulgar Comment Online Might Cost You Your Job
A backlash against anonymous commenters and trolls seems to be underway. Only last month, a court case was settled where anonymous commenters ended up having to pay big fines to the women who they defiled using vulgar, derogatory remarks on an internet forum. And previously, an anonymous blogger in the modeling industry was forced to reveal her identity after numerous malicious posts about a colleague showed up on her blog. Now the latest scandal in this new trend of "giving the trolls what they deserve" is causing a controversy all of its own. And this time, the nasty comment didn't just lead to an embarrassing reveal or a heavy fine, it cost someone their job.
A One-Word Comment Cost a School Employee His Job
A vulgar comment was made by a reader of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's website on Friday on an article about the strangest things you've ever eaten. The headline was practically asking for a juvenile response and, thanks to the anonymity of the internet, that's exactly what happened. In the comments section of the article, one user posted a single word response referring to a part of a woman's anatomy. Of course, the site's moderators quickly deleted the comment but it soon reappeared - obviously this juvenile was intent on having their say.
But this time, instead of just deleting the comment in question, the site's director of social media, Kurt Greenbaum, did a little sleuthing too. He found that the commenter's IP address was coming from a local school...and that's where this story starts to get interesting.
Greenbaum contacted the school and made them aware of the situation. In his defense, he probably thought he was simply tattle-telling on a naughty student who would learn a valuable lesson about internet anonymity and would have to sit through a week's detention or something of the like. Instead, he cost a school employee his job.
Yes, as it turns out, the commenter in question wasn't a juvenile after all, just someone with a juvenile mind. Greenbaum learned of the firing when the school phoned him back six hours later to report their findings. They had confronted the employee and he had resigned.
Crossing the Line? Or Justice Served?
The question being hotly debated now is did Greenbaum go too far? Or did the commenter get what they deserved?
Mathew Ingram, the blogger and communities editor for Toronto's The Globe and Mail, writes on his personal blog that his paper's site has seen hundreds or even thousands of comments, most of which are much worse than the one Greenbaum saw, but he would never - and has never - contacted someone's workplace about them. He calls Greenbaum's actions "over-the-top" and apparently, many commenters on STLtoday.com's website agree, calling out Greenbaum over this incident.
And yet Greenbaum seems to show no remorse, responding to one commenter who accused him of hating moderating so much that he decided to get someone fired by saying: "Yeah, you caught me! I made him log on to his computer at work, visit STLtoday.com's Talk of the Day, read the item, type a vulgarity and hit the 'submit' key."
Sixteen pages of comments now follow that initial interaction, and the majority of them seem to agree that Greenbaum crossed a line, save for the occasional concerned parent who didn't like the idea of this vulgarity-posting person hanging around their children instead of doing his job.
Lesson to Be Learned: Watch What You Say!
We can't blame Greenbaum for the sleuthing bit - any blogger will tell you they've been tempted to hunt down the identities of nasty commenters from time to time. But calling someone's work? That's just wrong.
Yet while Greenbaum may have been seriously misguided to do what he did, this should be another sobering reminder to anyone trolling the net that what you type may come back and haunt you one day. There's no such thing as true anonymity on the net these days, and thanks to new technologies like Facebook Connect, the days where you can hide behind a made-up web handle may be numbered. In fact, Facebook itself may even owe its success to how it forces users to post with their "real" name and identity notes blogger Kent Newsome. "With a name comes accountability, and there is a direct correlation between accountability and behavior," he writes.
That may be true, but the fact of the matter is that the STLtoday website allows anonymous comments. When you make that choice, then you have to expect that some of them will need moderation - it's just part of the job. Regardless of the site's policies about vulgarity, phoning the employer seems like an over-reaction to the incident. But that's just our opinion. What do you think?
Image credit: Troll - flickr user tandemracer;
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
You should never forget that you are never anonymous on the internet. Unless you go through an anonymiser proxy, there is no guarantee of privacy, ever.
In any case, the guy who posted the comment got what he deserved. Seriously, would you want someone so puerile working in your kids school?
Posted by: Dave White
|
November 18, 2009 8:12 AM
Whether any of the actions by any of the parties involved were "appropriate" is the wrong question - I'm more interested in whether they were legal. According to the Dispatch's privacy policy, "We will not share individual user information with third parties unless the user has specifically approved the release of that information." It seems pretty obvious to me that Greenbaum completely discarded that policy, and without even a substantive reason.
Greenbaum should be fired, not for crossing any moral line, but for violating company policies and completely undercutting the reasonable expectation of privacy that comes with commenting on such a site. And the school employee would be totally justified in seeking damages from the Dispatch.
Posted by: bradweikel.com
|
November 18, 2009 8:51 AM
Frankly, anyone who doesn't realise that 1) it's unacceptable to hide behind anonymity in order to harass people online or 2) thinks they are really anonymous when posting content on the internet, deserves a bit of a rude awakening.
While there are valid reasons for anonymity online - bullying, being abusive, causing upset or behaving like a troll are not amongst them. The sooner people realise that this sort of behavior can have consequences the friendlier the web will be for everyone.
It is a violation of privacy, but more than that, it's not worth firing someone for.
So often today we see people "getting into trouble" publicly for things which are neither illegal nor immoral. Who cares if you like to dance naked by the light of the moon? Is it hurting anyone? Is it causing reduced job performance?
Why should the societal norms be set by the most prudish among us, anyways?
I am quite opposed to anonymity on the Internet in democratic countries, but what that guy did was juvenile, not criminal; it was not anonymous harassment either. Furthermore, he might have posted again not just to have his say, but because he thought that his comment had not been properly submitted the first time. The only appropriate response was to delete his comment the first time, then maybe block his IP the second time, and have this procedure clearly explained in the web site's Terms of Service so that people know what to expect. As Brad Weikel suggests above, the moderator's bigoted action (my choice of epithet) may have been contrary to the web site's privacy policy.
Prediction: the newspaper will change their commenting policy based on this one incident.
Pseudo-anonymous posting is increasingly degrading the commons and lowering the standard of virtual living across teh intertubes. And it keeps getting worse. You think they've hit bottom but they're digging hard.
That said, Greenbaum clearly did violate the TOS/Privacy policy, and shouldn't get off easy for that. Nevertheless, I hope that news sites ditch the anonymous discussion boards and enforce some rigor to monitor ID hacking.
--Ax
What the guy said was childish and stupid. However, it is his first amendment right to free speech being squashed that worries me. What next? What if someone gets offended by the criticism of a political figure? What if someone gets offended by the criticism of his/her religion. Do we hunt them down as well and get them fired. Gee while we are at it lets burn some books that offend us too.
Simple solution is to block the IP address from your server and be done with it.
Beware the slippery slope
I wont be vlugar but how about spam comments? I like those..such as check out the best rateed e-cigarette on the market with ProSmoke e-cigarettes. They are at www.ProSmokeStore.com
check em out!
If the site said he was posting anonymously, then they should have treated it anonymously.
If you want your school to hire janitors that are more mature, try paying them more than 6.50 an hour.
Complete break of the privacy policy. The company should be sued and Greenbaum reprimanded or fired. We have rights in this country and freedom of speech is one of them.
People write anonymous newspaper columns all day long ab...out sex, relationships, and dating. They probably offend many conservatives, but it is their right to publish such material.
If you have an anonymous comment area, it is the right of the posters to post anonymously, especially if your TOS or PP say so.
This is ridiculous. We should step away from any line that infringes on our freedom of speech full stop!
I always try to watch what I say when I comment on blogs and web sites. Even if I disagree with something.
On my personal blog though I do use lots of rude words and rant and rave about anything and everything. After all it is MY personal blog for MY personal thoughts.
Of course if I had a job working for a company then maybe I would not be so 'blunt' on my personal blog.
The St. Louis blogs do a decent job of covering this stuff and have actually been trying to bring awareness to the issue of comments for some time.
Check out:
http://www.stlurbanworkshop.com/2009/11/saint-louis-post-dispatch-goes-nuclear.html
http://stltomorrow.org
I am betting that this is a hoax.
Just a month ago Greenbaum wrote an article and tweeted about hoaxes in the media. What motivates people to do them, etc.
Now, it sounds like all the details come straight from Greenbaum. A guy wrote a naughty word on there. Not verified by anyone else. Greenbaum and his unnamed colleague took down the comment. Not verified by anyone. Greenbaum emailed the unnamed school. Not verified by anyone. The unnamed headmaster called back and said the guy quit. Not verified by anyone.
The story is outlandish anyway. No school headmaster is going to do what Greenbaum claims.
I think he's just made up his own hoax to point out the dangers of social media.
It's amazing how much the modern press has forgotten about the value of anonymity. Our founding fathers spent a lot of time thinking about it and some of our earliest publications were founded on it.
@dug Your comment is a bit off the mark, don't you think, given the context of the post. I'm guessing childish, vulgar responses to articles and blog postings aren't what our Founding Fathers had in mind when considering the value of anonymity. But you make a fair point, and I respect it. SO, I ask, why not give your real name?
I wish some of these major sites (including this one) would step up and not allow anonymous comments at all. I understand that sometimes there is a case to be made for anonymity--though usually there isn't it. And I don't mind anonymous comments that add to the discussion, but so often they don't. Comments should be a space to further a discourse, to learn, to connect, not to offend or spam. And if you are so immature that you feel the need to write a vulgar or offensive comment, at least stand behind what you say using your real name. If not, please go away. (@dug, I'm not talking about you here)
How did Greenbaum cross a line? In response to the 4th comment, how does calling the owner of the IP count as contacting a third party?
There's two separate issues here -- neither of which have to do with the "freedom of speech" ideal --
(which, BTW, was coined to address speech related to political and religious issues -- not to protect speech commonly considered obscene, which *continues* to be illegal in many forums -- on radio, a legally prosecutable offense/"hostile work environment" if a company permits it to happen in the workplace, etc.):
1) did Greenbaum act appropriately in tracking down the user. That depends on the site's Terms of Service and policies on visitor data, anonymity, etc. As a general policy, though, I agree that tracking down a troll and reporting him/her to his/her employer, family etc. is highly invasive and punitive. Every single community site out there has this same problem of managing bad behavior, and there are various mediation tools to handle it.
2) the fact that the user was apparently on his employer's time and employer's computer. For a lot of companies, finding out that an employee at work is posting obscenities online -- would be grounds for firing. (And there might be other issues that came into the firing decision, that Greenbaum was unaware of -- the employee might have already been in trouble for other reasons.)
For example, there are people who've been fired when their company found out they'd been surfing porn sites at work, because 1) misuse of paid company time, and 2) bringing obscene materials into the workplace environment, where companies are legally obligated to monitor that stuff due to "hostile work environment" legal requirements.
I hope that teacher uses all his new found spare time to
do something horrible and perfectly legal to Greenbaum
Moderation exists for a purpose and if people are anal enough to go "sleuthing" after a one word comment then commenting on posts is simply doomed.
Why would anyone be willing to comment if this is the repercussion. It doesn't matter if your comment isn't vulgar all it has to do is run *somebody* the wrong way and have them bring it to the attention of your workplace.
The risk just isn't worth it.
The internet is not as anonymous and some might think. We have caught many bad guys red handed.
Regards, Michael
Anonymous Blogger Bounty Hunter
www.rexxfield.com
Place vulgarity here: ____.
Repeat as needed.
Then clean out desk and prepare for unemployment.
["The Heart is a Lonely Hunter"]
The pussy ass douche bag should apologize. if anything, kurt invaded the guys privacy by finding out where the comment came from. he should take responsibility for what happened. he could of just banned the ip. it was not his business to go and find out where the ip came from. i dont go on forums, look for the explicits and pick up my phone.
Juan
*disclaimer*
any attempt to track this machine will lead into me kicking ass.
Plain and simple, the guy shouldn't have lost his job. He didn't say anything that actually hurt anyone, so what's the problem?
I agree with Juan. This guy stepped way over the line. If the site doesn't want vulgar content posted, they have to filter EVERY SINGLE SUBMISSION and if they don't, they will suffer from every kind of troll imaginable at one point or another.
P.S. what is so bad about pu*sy?
Petty, disproportionate, unprofessional behaviour by Greenbaum.
BTW, contrary to what some posters here think, it is quite possible to be anonymous online, with only a small amount of effort required.
Sharia is fascism.
The solution is simple. Stop posting on their site. At all. About anything. Shun them, ignore them, render them irrelevant.
Good grief. To lose a job over a simple juvenile act is absurd. The moderator went way too far over the line... especially over a simple expletive.
All kinds of people use all kinds of language at different moments, including teachers in front of children. It isn't right but it ain't something to get fired over (ok.. resigned, but I'll bet under pressure).
It's stupid rto think you are really anonymous when you make a comment online. It's even more stupid for someone to lose a job over a one word comment to something that has absolutely nothing to do with the job.
What if the guy was just being truthful? Should we get rid of every schoolteather who has ever performed cunnilingus/fellatio?
******
...
he he he
...
Ah, yes sir, boss, sir, you want to talk to me in your office? Be right there.
Almost everyone involved here acted like a child. The entire thing is just silly. It was a word. No reason to resign, no reason to fire anyone. Should not have even made the news.
And then there are the reactions to the story. People act as if someone was murdered and raped. Honestly, it was a single word. It was someone being a bit childish. There is nothing wrong with being a bit childish once in a while, I’d say it is even a good thing.
This is like chopping someones hand off for shoplifting a $0.10 candy.
You do not make the world a better place by being harsh, unforgiving and vengeful.
Too bad he couldn't see the humor in it...
I wonder if it was the San Diego comment... a priceless line from Anchorman...
Ron Burgundy: The Germans discovered it in 1904, and they called it “San Diego”, which in German means “whale’s vagina”.
Veronica Corningstone: No, I don’t think that is what it means. No, it doesn’t mean that.
RB: I don’t know. I was just trying to impress you. I don’t think anyone knows what it means anymore. The translation was lost hundreds of years ago.
VC: Doesn’t it mean “Saint Diego”?
RB: …No. No, that isn’t it.
VC: No, I’m pretty sure that’s what it means.
RB: Agree to disagree.
The very fact that The St Louis Post-Dispatch is inviting reader comments automatically, in my mind, disqualifies them from seeking retribution against any commentators. Deleting the comment should be worst thing that can happen.
If someone's asks you for your opinion, they can take it or leave it. That's it, that's where it stops. Being punished for stating your opinion, when asked no less, is not only a serious blow to our collective freedom, it's also damn insulting!
If it were a crime to be a douchebag then Kurt Greenbaum would be found guilty of douchebaggary in the first degree! Lucky for him though, it's not a crime and he's free to be as douchy as he likes...but maybe not for long, looks like he's painting himself into a corner.
I agree with bradweikel, contacting the school violated the stated privacy policy of the site, whether it was a student or staff. We're talking about a newspaper, for god's sake. A newspaper should be the first to stand behind their privacy policy. Reporters have gone to jail to maintain the privacy of their sources, and while the online equivalent of "letters to the editor" isn't quite in the same league as "Deep Throat", this was still unacceptable behavior.
If you want to be treated like a journalist, you have to act like a journalist.
In the first place, that type of leading question should not been posted at all. Second, show me a man who have not feasted on the grassy acre!!
Hoax theory mentioned above deserves more discussion.
All information comes from a single columnist citing unnammed everyone, while driving traffic to his own columns. No perp, no school, nothing. And no other reporters from his paper on the story.
He says: "[Greenbaum] noticed in the WordPress e-mail alert that his comment had come from an IP address at a local school."
What? Does that make any sense? Then:
"About six hours later, I heard from the school’s headmaster. The school’s IT director took a shine to the challenge."
Local school has an IT director?
Source: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-editors-desk/the-editors-desk/2009/11/post-a-vulgar-comment-while-youre-at-work-lose-your-job/all-comments/
As evidenced by the text above this post, you will find that open, anonymous comment boards invite idiots. They can't seem to help themselves.
It's one thing to be an overgrown man-child at home, but another to do it on another person's equipment and service. The computer involved in this case is likely taxpayer funded. Do you want your taxes paying some dimwit to publicly display his ignorance and immaturity and providing him with the means to do so?
I'm sure the blogger who "caught" him will likely have a severe troll problem before the end of the day. /b/ is probably inbound as we speak.
@bizarre eats Liberace has not experienced that delicacy nor Paul Lynde.
I actually thought the comment was pretty funny because, like this article said, the headline was begging for toilet humour response.
But I have to ask why a school employee is posting lewd comments while at work--sounds a bit like an idiot--but that doesn't mean Greenbaum isn't too for breaking the privacy policy.
Don't ask the question if you don't want the answers.
This is just some admin getting high on his horse. Remove the anonymous posting option if you care about accountability.
Freedom of Expression Police from a newspaper.
Someone DDOS that stupid website into the ground.
We ever forgive.
We never forget.
I was going to leave a comment, but then I decided I was worried about my job....
The way I see it, getting called out for vulgar comments by itself is fine, but then how do you decide what is vulgar and what is not? It is totally conceivable that any comment posted innocently by one person could be offensive to someone else somewhere in the world (it is the WORLD wide web, after all). And if there is the possibility of a severe, real-world sanction, then the ONLY safe thing to do is just to never post anything. Anytime you post ANYthing on ANY website, you are taking the risk that someone somewhere will be offended, and you will lose your job.
I think that falls under the definition of "chilling."
Everybody did wrong in this story:
- The school should not have fired anybody because something that does not affect in any way his job. In fact, there is more danger for his students in firing and uncovering this behaviour of their teacher than in keeping it secret. If it is not known, there is no way for this episode to affect them. Firing the troll may have turned him a hero. I don't know if firing somebody because of something that has no chance in hell to damage his job is illegal or not, but sure as hell it should be. If I were the school principal, and somebody told me that a teacher has made that kind of post anonymously in the web, I would have called him, told about the episode, and shared a lot of laughs with him. And that's because...
- ...Greenbaum behaviour was irresponsible and knee-jerked. He shouldn't have disclosed the troll's identity, violating the site's rules, common sense (his reaction is clearly disproported), his visitor's expectations of privacy, etc. Only a really incompetent moderator would fall in that kind of 'solution' when facing such a feeble threat. Especially when he has the troll static IP, so he can simply block him. Easier, and more effective.
- The troll's behaviour was a bit silly, but I'm sure he didn't mean any harm; he probably thought it was a funny thing to say, with no consecuence. World is full of that kind of remarks, and the sky is still not falling.
So I totally agree with the previous poster who said everybody was childish. It was a joke, people. Probably lacking any kind of taste; but not everybody can be a good comedian.
This is ridiculous. The only thing I see wrong, is that the man submitted the comment during work. Other then that, the site director DID go too far. He should have, at most deleted the comment.
*insert vulger comment here*
fuck you Jean-Michel Decombe you fascist piece of shit
Greenbaum is an a$$hole. now go tell my job!
The kind of people who advocate removing anonymity from the Internet are the same kind of people who advocated removing the Jews from Germany.
But seriously, folks, we have a constitutionally-protected right to free, anonymous speech for a very good reason.
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
The reason trolling works is because a lot of people are new to the Internet and not particularly good at rational argument. They have irrational prejudices, they're quick to anger, and quick to judgment. But those things are a much greater evil than trolling itself.
As the net becomes more and more ubiquitous, humanity will be forced to grow up. They'll learn how to recognize trolls and resist their influence, and in the same process, they'll learn to recognize the same methods when used as propaganda by governments and corporations. Polarize the debate. Divide and conquer. You're either with us, or against us.
Incite unthinking, emotional reactions and you can control the world. Teach people to resist that influence, on the other hand...
Go on, trolls: Do your good work.
1 2 Next