![The Media The Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/themedia_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Share FIles? Get Fired. 31
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.
"
He didn't get fired for sharing files (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:He didn't get fired for sharing files (Score:2, Funny)
In any case, it's important to note that he did not himself share any files.
Suuuuuuuuuuure he didn't, we all believe him...
Re:He didn't get fired for sharing files (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Interesting legal question (Score:1)
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
Re:Interesting legal question (Score:1)
Even then, in the UK it is standard t
Re:Interesting legal question (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Um, wrong, mine doesn't. Either way, having a probation period is not a license to fire someone for whatever reason you like. Ah, because criticising intellectual property law is just like expressing a racist view. Is this were you accuse me of being just like Hitler?Re:Interesting legal question (Score:2)
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.
Good grief. Over react much? Congratulations on invoking Godwin's law. This thread is now over.
Re:Interesting legal question (Score:3, Insightful)
And such a clause would be unenforceable if used to stifle employee's political opinions.
You haven't actually read Godwin's law [wikipedia.org], have you? You probably should before you start accusing people of i
Re:Interesting legal question (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Interesting legal question (Score:1)
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.
Re:Interesting legal question (Score:2)
Yes, but... I would have some nagging doubts about why she wants to be there.
legal questions (Score:2)
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
Re:Interesting legal question (Score:1)
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.
Re:Interesting legal question (Score:2)
RFTA: He didn't just speak; he ran a tracker (Score:2)
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.
Re:RFTA: He didn't just speak; he ran a tracker (Score:1)
Perhaps he should have informed hi
I shared work's OpenOffice ISO image... (Score:2)
Er, no, wait...
Yo Hemos! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Yo Hemos! (Score:3, Informative)
Jeesh, now "editors" can't even type!
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/04/11
In SIlicon Valley: Profits up. Employment Down.
Businesses | Posted by Hemos on 04/07/05 12:45
Nothing is going to change until we shoot the bast (Score:1)
Andy Out!
Defamation ? (Score:2)
"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
dupe! (Score:1)
dupe! (Score:1)