Uncool
Bill Hobbs tells the tale of Chris Clem, whose personal life was targeted after he posted comments on a blog. Says Chris:
Apparently, a student or faculty member of Georgetown University (in Washington D.C.) took it upon himself to click onto my name and determine that my email address was [email address snipped because I hate Spam Bots – Ed]. He then tracked down my employer. My employer is the law firm of “Samples, Jennings, Ray and Clem.” We do not have a web page. This person then started emailing the senior partner. He never contacted me or tried to debate me. He went after my job.
Careful out there. Chris’ comments were not hateful nor derogatory. In that case, I can understand maybe targeting someone but, still, it’s a cowardly thing to do. Bob Krumm points out that this kind of thing happens on the other side as well.
Politics can get so ugly.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:35 pm
I wonder if Bill Hobbs cut back his own political blogging as a result of pressure from his employer? Wouldn’t surprise me.
November 1st, 2005 at 10:25 pm
On the contrary — his comments *were* hateful; that was the reason I decided to send the e-mail, not because of any policy or ideological difference. As a matter of policy, my position on TennCare is probably rather close to his. I responded in the comments thread rebutting Mr. Clem’s allegations — he included some blatant falsehoods that might skew someone’s perception of the issue.
Also, for what it’s worth, I never asked, explicity nor implicitly, for Mr. Clem to be fired.
November 1st, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Thanks for the response. I read his comment at bill hobbs’ and noted nothing hateful. Disagreeing is not hateful. I don’t think it warrants tracking down an employer because you disagree.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:14 am
Agree with Uncle. I read the thread at Hobbs and nothing Clem said could remotely be construed as hateful. Here’s the thread.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:06 am
Joe, regardless of WTF you were hoping to accomplish, you were out of line.
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Xrlq, I’m willing to accept that’s possible.
But let’s say you see someone post, online, something you view as not politically or ideologically disagreeable, but morally repulsive; something akin to white supremacist chatter.
And let’s say they sign that post using their work e-mail address.
Does it mean nothing that they use their work e-mail address? And assuming you’re not trying to get them fired, merely trying to get their employer to rein them in on what they post from their work e-mail, what conduct counts as acceptable?
Do you believe there are any differences between when someone posts as a private citizen and when they post as an employee of a corporation?
The method I went about taking issue with Clem’s writing might have been hasty, I admit, but I think a fair argument can be made for it.
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Unless that work email address is associated with your company, one in which you own stock, or some other company you have good reason to care about, then yes, it means nothing. Or no, it doesn’t mean anything – or at least, it shouldn’t. If you were a major client of Clem’s firm, that would be one thing, but given that you’d probably never even heard of it, there was no reason for you to stick your nose where it didn’t belong.