Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Your Rights Online

Share FIles? Get Fired. 31

Posted by Hemos from the the-joys-of-correct-speak dept.
The_Other_Kelly writes "The Guardian is running an interesting story, 'File-share defender fired over TV show', where a news organisation, upon discovering that someone who spoke publicly elsewhere to defend p2p file sharing, was one of their employees, promptly fired him. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Share FIles? Get Fired. More

Share FIles? Get Fired.

Comments Filter:

  • He didn't get fired for sharing files (Score:5, Informative)

    by slavemowgli ( 585321 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:12AM (#12978721) Homepage
    He didn't get fired for sharing anything. He got fired because he earlier run what seems to have been a BitTorrent tracker in his spare time, was sued over it (in a civil case, not a criminal case), and didn't tell his employer when they interviewed him, so they only found out when he talked about it on a TV show.

    He argues that he didn't have to mention it since it doesn't have anything to do with his employer, and I think depending on how the interview went exactly, he's probably right. If they actually asked him about whether there were any civil cases pending against him and he lied and said no, then it's understandable that he got fired (it's not like it's a personal question, after all); but if they didn't, then I really think it's their own fault, and he's right in any case when he says that the whole thing simply doesn't affect his employer in any way.

    In any case, it's important to note that he did not himself share any files.

    • In any case, it's important to note that he did not himself share any files.

      Suuuuuuuuuuure he didn't, we all believe him...
    • You can't be asked whether or not there's any civil cases "pending" against you. In fact, in the US you can only be asked to disclose any felony charges that have been *judged* against you.

      Even asking the question is illegal, and both asking AND denying employment because of it would be doubly illegal.

      Not to mention, until you've had a judgement ruled against you, you're innocent. If I sued you for stealing my PC (even though I don't know you, or I'm mistaken,) would you go and tell everyone you inter

  • Interesting legal question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) * on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:20AM (#12978760) Homepage Journal
    To what extent can an opinion about intellectual property (or any other law) form grounds for dismissal?

    IMHO it is the right, indeed the obligation of anyone living in a democracy to question the laws that govern them. Intellectual property laws are increasingly valid targets for such scepticism.

    There would be an uproar in most countries if someone was fired for expressing their opinion on abortion, or religion, why should someone's opinion on intellectual property law be any different?

    • Re:Interesting legal question (Score:4, Informative)

      by NexusTw1n ( 580394 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:37AM (#12978833) Journal
      If the company was an abortion clinic and the opinion expressed by the employee was anti-abortion, then there would be no uproar if they were fired.

      He expressed anti copyright and IP views, while working for a firm that relies on copyright and IP. In addition he was only working there for a week, all companies insist on a probabtion period of at least a month to see if your face fits, with instant dismissal if you don't. So he is going to have trouble winning his case.

      Yes it isn't nice that your freedom of speech is curtailed by your employer, but there are plenty of precedents for it - from the aforementioned abortion example, through to the Police in the UK at least not being allowed to express racist views even when not on duty.

      • Re:Interesting legal question (Score:4, Informative)

        by fuzzybunny ( 112938 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:49AM (#12978886) Homepage Journal
        Sorry, but it's disingenuous to compare racist comments to what this guy was saying. Frankly, unless these comments were made in a work environment, it's none of the employer's business if the gentleman in question is a card carrying member of the national front, american communist party, or whatever other radical group you can think of, unless he commits blatantly illegal acts and is prosecuted for it.

        Last I checked, the UK has several anti-hate speech laws, and I imagine that police (and other similarly sensitive) employment is tied to fairly stringent standards of personal behavior. We're talking about a civil suit, not prosecutable views.

        Similarly, the idea of comparing anti-abortion statements made by a hypothetical employee of an abortion clinic to this is a huge stretch. Naturally, the man's company "relies" on IP. Most companies do, it is in the nature of many technical companies. He is, however, not questioning the fundamental nature of IP, nor can you compare the issue of IP in any way shape or form to the abortion debate, no matter what side of it you are on.

        As far as being allowed to dismiss him for whatever reason, although the UK has fairly lenient employment laws, I do not believe that it has the equivalent of what in the US are called "at-will" states, in which you can fire anyone for any reason (assuming the reason is not discriminatory or otherwise against the law.) In this case, you could, for example, ditch an employee for having a sticker of a political candidate you do not support on his/her car in the company parking lot--IANAL, so feel free to correct me.

        • Frankly, unless these comments were made in a work environment, it's none of the employer's business if the gentleman in question is a card carrying member of the national front, american communist party, or whatever other radical group you can think of

          I used the Police and racism as a random example. If you want others - the Police and Armed Forces are not allowed to be members of any political party, they are allowed to vote of course, but not be card carying members of any political group.

          If you w

          • Probationary periods in UK companies are fairly standard and usually from 3 to 6 months. During this period it is relatively easy for any firm to get rid of an employee they feel they have made a mistake hiring. After that period, _even if you then get a contract_ (which while the law, frequently is delayed for as long as the firm feel they can get away with it), you effectively have absolute minimal rights until you have worked for the company for 2 years continuously.

            Even then, in the UK it is standard t

      • Re:Interesting legal question (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Sanity ( 1431 ) * on Monday July 04, 2005 @09:09AM (#12978980) Homepage Journal
        If the company was an abortion clinic and the opinion expressed by the employee was anti-abortion, then there would be no uproar if they were fired.
        If the employee had not allowed their opinion to affect their work performance, then I see no justification for firing them, and I strongly suspect that the law wouldn't either.
        He expressed anti copyright and IP views, while working for a firm that relies on copyright and IP.
        Ah, so you can only be fired if your boss happens to disagree with you. Right...

        My firm relies on copyright, and I am extremely critical of intellectual property law. I believe that many aspects of intellectual property law hurt my company.

        all companies insist on a probabtion period of at least a month to see if your face fits, with instant dismissal if you don't.
        Um, wrong, mine doesn't. Either way, having a probation period is not a license to fire someone for whatever reason you like.
        through to the Police in the UK at least not being allowed to express racist views even when not on duty.
        Ah, because criticising intellectual property law is just like expressing a racist view. Is this were you accuse me of being just like Hitler?

        • Ah, because criticising intellectual property law is just like expressing a racist view.

          Well no, I never said that, it is just one of thousands of examples the exist. Any sane company will have a clause in their employee contracts that covers bringing the company into disrepute in or out of work.

          Is this were you accuse me of being just like Hitler?

          Good grief. Over react much? Congratulations on invoking Godwin's law. This thread is now over.

          • Well no, I never said that, it is just one of thousands of examples the exist. Any sane company will have a clause in their employee contracts that covers bringing the company into disrepute in or out of work.

            And such a clause would be unenforceable if used to stifle employee's political opinions.

            Good grief. Over react much? Congratulations on invoking Godwin's law. This thread is now over.

            You haven't actually read Godwin's law [wikipedia.org], have you? You probably should before you start accusing people of i

        • If the company was an abortion clinic and the opinion expressed by the employee was anti-abortion, then there would be no uproar if they were fired.

          If the employee had not allowed their opinion to affect their work performance, then I see no justification for firing them, and I strongly suspect that the law wouldn't either.

          Here's a story [canadianchristianity.com] that erupted up in Canada some time back , regarding the cancellation of a hospital cleaning contract which seemed to result from the fact that one of the company

      • If the company was an abortion clinic and the opinion expressed by the employee was anti-abortion, then there would be no uproar if they were fired.

        Anti-abortion -> no abortions for anyone.
        Anti-copyright -> people still make creative works and profit by them.

        Plus, I wouldn't fire someone in my abortion clinic just for expressing anti-abortion opinions; if it interfered with her ability to provide safe abortions to women who choose to get them, then she'd be gone, but until then, meh.

        • Plus, I wouldn't fire someone in my abortion clinic just for expressing anti-abortion opinions; if it interfered with her ability to provide safe abortions to women who choose to get them, then she'd be gone, but until then, meh.

          Yes, but... I would have some nagging doubts about why she wants to be there.

      • "If the company was an abortion clinic and the opinion expressed by the employee was anti-abortion, then there would be no uproar if they were fired."

        Huh? If that was his personal opinion, yes, it *would* cause an uproar.

        "all companies insist on a probabtion period of at least a month to see if your face fits, with instant dismissal if you don't."

        O, I see, you are talking about the anglo-saxon system. That explains a lot of your reasonings.

        Well, since it's in the UK: fair enough.

        Note, however, that mos
    • He probably signed a contract accepting that he could be terminated at any time for any reason that his employer saw fit.

      Private companies do not have any obligation to keep employees, and can fire them on a whim. The government just doesn't have the right under the constitution to regulate the private sector's hiring and firing.
      • It really depends if they are an "at will" state. You can lay anybody off for any reason (which means govt unemployment insurance) BUT firing means they have to have violated certain state regulated principles. STuff like stealing, injuring, and that sort of thing are usually on at-will state mandages.
    • The /. summary is misleading. He didn't just express views; he actually ran a tracker at one point and was sued over it.

      Now, you can argue about whether or not it was right of the employer to fire him for that, but they did NOT fire him merely because he spoke out in support of file sharing.
      • Sorry! "Upon mature reflection", I phrased that quite badly. The article itself is fairly clear ...
        • He ran a Torrent tracker site
        • He got subponaed
        • He ignored the subponae, on the quite reasonable basis that he is not subject to US law
        • Yes, he did not inform his new employer, that he could be party to a civil lawsuit in another country.
        • He gives an interview on TV covering the issue.
        • His employer (or just the IT director) sees this interview and freaks, kicking him out.

        Perhaps he should have informed hi

  • ...and I got fired, too.

    Er, no, wait...

  • Yo Hemos! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How about acting like an editor for a change and getting rid of the capital 'I' in the story title?!
  • Nothing is going to change until we shoot the bastards.

    Andy Out!
  • From the Article:
    "Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate."

    If true, then they have a good reason;
    else begin defamation case
  • At least my story [slashdot.org] got more than ~80 replied!

    :-p
  • At least my story [slashdot.org] got more than ~80 replies!

    :-p

Slashdot Top Deals

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Close