White House Official Tracked Down and Fired Over Insulting Tweets 208
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "BBC reports that Jofi Joseph, a senior National Security Council staffer who was a key member of the White House team negotiating on Iran's nuclear weapons program, has been fired ... after a months-long probe into a barrage of tweets that included caustic criticisms of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top NSC officials, especially Ben Rhodes – whom he accused of dodging questions about Benghazi. Joseph, who posted under the now defunct Twitter name @NatSecWonk, gave a lacerating commentary on anything from policy to personal appearance. 'Was Huma Abedin wearing beer goggles the night she met Anthony Weiner,' he tweeted, referring to the scandal-hit former New York mayoral candidate and his wife, a former aide of Hillary Clinton. He tweeted that Mrs Clinton 'had few policy goals and no wins' in the Middle East. He said Chelsea Clinton was 'assuming all of her parents' vices,' and targeted figures such as Republican commentator Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney's wife Ann for their looks and weight. Many in the foreign policy community reacted with shock to the revelation that Joseph was the mystery tweeter because Joseph was well known among policy wonks and his wife, Carolyn Leddy, is a well-respected professional staffer on the Republican side of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'What started out as an intended parody account of DC culture developed over time into a series of inappropriate and mean-spirited comments,' said Joseph in an apology. 'I bear complete responsibility for this affair and I sincerely apologize to everyone I insulted.'"
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:3, Interesting)
> What grounds would you fire such a person under?
Doesn't every single employment contract in the world contain words to the effect that you'll be fired if you give the employer a bad name?
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently there are repercussions for criticizing the "most transparent administration ever" cover ups.
For months, White House and State department officials searched for @NatSecWonk, a hunt that intensified after he repeatedly expressed doubts about the official administration accounts about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi.
So, why did they force survivors to sign secrecy agreements?
BenghaziGate: At Least 5 CIA Employees Forced to Sign Nondisclosure Agreements [breitbart.com]
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a good rule of thumb: If you'd get fired for yelling it in the office, you'll get fired for doing it online in the office. If you'd get fired for yelling it on the street, you'll get fired for doing it online period.
Most companies would fire someone for going around telling people in the general public that their company sucks. If nothing else, it's a big ol' conflict of interests.
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:4, Interesting)
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference. So seems to be you'd have a pretty nice wrestle in a court if you fought wrongful termination for personal opinions expressed in your offtime, against your employer (or anything else for that matter.)
Enh, just more reason to cover your tracks as BEST you can when you post on the internet and worry someone might object to it.
Speaking of dodging questions. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
I find it amusing people focusing on an event which transpired over a few hours when absolutely no investigation or questions were raised about the two DAY refusal by the Bush administration to send in more troops to block the escape of Bin Laden.
For those that don't know, officers on the ground, both U.S. and British, made repeated requests over a two day period to have more troops dropped in to block escape routes for Bin Laden when they had him pinned down in Tora Bora. They could hear him over the radio telling his people the end looked near and he had failed them. According to one British source, they estimated the troops were within 2 kilometers of Bin Laden [bbc.co.uk].
However, for those two days the Bush administration refused all requests for more troops, claiming the Afghan forces could be used instead of allied troops (which was a complete failure). As a result, Bin Laden ran free for another decade until the Obama administration was able to track him down.
Funny how not one person ever jumped up and said, "We need to investigate why Bin Laden, the man who planned the worst terrorist attack on American soil, was allowed to escape!", yet people are hellbent on talking about mistakes made over a few hours which somehow ranks higher in importance.
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Interesting)
It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference. So seems to be you'd have a pretty nice wrestle in a court if you fought wrongful termination for personal opinions expressed in your offtime, against your employer (or anything else for that matter.)
Enh, just more reason to cover your tracks as BEST you can when you post on the internet and worry someone might object to it.
If you are talking about one of those non at-will States, or some foreign country, then the job for life no matter what comes into play. However, the issue is dissing your employer, which is the least "protected" version of speech out there. Then again, I am not sure who you are arguing against, since I don't think the Pepsi employee has, or should have, any chance of overturning a firing for that. Neither should the fed in question either.
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? (Score:4, Interesting)
so it should never be allowed to fire employees who are critical of it.
When his insults extended to the wives and children of the politicians, he went from "criticizing the government" to "unacceptable behaviour for a political appointee". And if he was leaking insider information about diplomatic negotiations, then he deserves to lose his security clearance, and with that loss goes his cushy job.
The government is not a monopoly employer.