I’m an ardent supporter of free speech; I always have been, and I always will be. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I understand the concept of free speech — and what’s important about it.
On the Internet, there are about 8 million weblogs covering just about 8 million topics; about 25% of the Internet-connected public read these weblogs. The topics covered range from kittens to basketweaving to (now fired) airline stewardesses to (now fired) US Congressional secretarial sluts: nothing’s taboo in the blogosphere.
But “nothing’s taboo in the blogoshpere” doesn’t mean that there are no consequences for your actions. In the US, you are free to have your own opinion, free to speak your mind, and pretty much free to do as you will — so long as it’s legal. Yes, even Recto-Cranialism is perfectly legal.
But if you work for a private firm, your words are not as free as you might think: every company has private, proprietary information — much of which would keep it alive in the marketplace — that needs to be safeguarded. Blogging such information, really, is pretty close to industrial espionage if you think about it. It’s a real good way to get canned: break the rules you’ll pay the price — your job.
Consider this: the company has vouchsafed this sensitive information (warranted it as safe) with you; break that confidence with your blog and you’re gone. Period. Not only have you broken that warrant, you’ve compromised your own integrity by doing so, both in the company’s eyes — and your readers’.
In fact, even the courts have agreed that free speech does not extend to the worker in the workplace — or about the workplace. You can’t just write about this stuff and expect to hide behind the guise of free speech and get away with it. Common Sense should tell you that.
Now, I’ve heard the preposterous argument that if you work for the US Government that you have the protected right to free speech. Find me one soldier or CIA agent that proves this point. Find me the one person whose very life depends on absolute secrecy and tell me that anyone in his/her governmental office (department, division, etc.) has a protected right to free speech about the sensitive goings-on in their line of work.
They don’t.
Remember “Loose Lips Sink Ships“? (For those of you who don’t recall this one, during WWII the US Government propaganda machine rolled out this slogan, along with at least two dozen others, in order to protect our soldiers fighting for each and every right enjoyed by our citizenry today, with the idea that if we all minded our own business, we’d fare a lot better. We did.)
I’m not saying that the notion of free speech is a myth; it isn’t. The idea of free speech, historically, is that you are free to read whatever publications you choose to read, obtain information from whatever sources that you wish to cull, form your own opinions and ideas and discuss them with your peers without fear of repercussions from the government. Further, the concept provided that the government could not censor any information printed in newspapers and periodicals, nor could they shut down newspapers or periodicals for merely printing an opposing political view.
At the time when this issue became part of our culture, we were ruled by the King of England, not the US Government. Private firms are not the US Government, and they never were. Hopefully, they never will be.
Further, free speech was not the main impetus behind the American Revolution. Neither was freedom of religion, another hot issue of the time. Freedom from taxation without representation was the key, mobilizing issue; the other two issues were more related to the oppression of the King of England at the time and merely added fuel to the fire; you can thank Thomas Jefferson and James Madison for the addition of the speech and religion issues to the US Constitution — some 13 years after the Revolution.
Moreover, that First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The emphasis above is mine, as it is Congress that is restrained from abridging the freedom of speech; this amendment says absolutely nothing about a private business curtailing its employees’ freedom of speech as a condition of employment!
Think about this the next time you read about a blogger complaining that an employer trampled their First Amendment rights: what specifically was written (or shown) that would cause harm to the company’s reputation, either by revealing corporate secrets or by acting in a non-professional manner — and if you were the employer, would you be inclined to seek redress — especially if that individual was thought of as a de facto representative of your company because of the particular forum in which he/she participated?
Moreover, just as an individual has the right to free speech, so do corporations. And just as an individual has the right to be protected from damage caused by the exercise of free speech of others, so do corporations. In reality, there is a balance between the two.
Those bloggers fired for blogging about private workplace issues weren’t the first people fired for communicating sensitive corporate issues outside the companies for which they worked.
They were just the first fired for doing it in a new, more powerful medium.
