This Blog will self destruct in less than twelve hours

May 18, 2006 1:00 AM

Another blogger gets fired for blogging.Blogebrity is reporting that the latest victim is Jessa Jeffries whose blog Jessaisms got her booted. But mysteriously there is no explaination on her blog as to what her offense was and a cached version reveals nothing negative to her workplace or any illegalities. Unless of course they stumbled across some of her anti-Bush rants or pictures of Lindsay Lohan's breasts. Is that now termination-worthy? Furthermore her now-former employer is demanding that not just her offending posts be removed, but her entire blog. How is that possible? The blog is due to disappear at noon today.
posted by tsarfan (215 comments total)

So this is how free speech is going to die. Oh, you can write anything you want in America... it's free speech... but I hope you don't have to work for a living, because you'll get fired for having the temerity to write ANYTHING, even if it doesn't harm your employer (because it could in the future and they're just concerned about the contingency.) Oh, and they'll have the lawyers erase everything you ever wrote as well. Can't be too careful in this cutthroat business market.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:10 AM on May 18, 2006

Can anyone here seriously say "Blogebrity" without violently choking?
posted by Ryvar at 1:11 AM on May 18, 2006

Oh, and it'd be nice if someone would mention who her former employer is, so we can all avoid ever doing business with them again. I'd go through and try to figure it out, but I'd rather stare down an industrial laser than read a blog.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:17 AM on May 18, 2006

My feeling is that people who are fired for their blog, or myspace page, or podcast, or whatever were probably on the way out anyway.

That said I've worked in many places where even engaging in political discussions at the water cooler would get you on someone's list... let alone blogging about it and letting all your coworkers read it. Repeatedly.

I say leave the hobbies at home.
posted by wfrgms at 1:19 AM on May 18, 2006

How is blogging NOT leaving the hobbies at home? She published this on the internet on presumably her own time. That's not her employer's concern, not unless she broke confidentiality agreements or made obvious slander (and I see no evidence of either.)
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:22 AM on May 18, 2006

This is why I work for myself. The corporate world can kiss my ass.
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 1:25 AM on May 18, 2006

Mitrovarr - i don't think you're understanding the concept of a "right". Only govt can limit your free speech. When a person (or company) chooses not to associate with you because of what you say, they are simply excercising one of *their* rights.

that said, i don't see how they can demand she remove her blog unless there is something illegal in it - which there doesn't appear to be. If I were just fired, then they asked for a favor (which is what it would be) id tell em to shove it.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 1:28 AM on May 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

Tryptophan-5ht: Mitrovarr - i don't think you're understanding the concept of a "right". Only govt can limit your free speech. When a person (or company) chooses not to associate with you because of what you say, they are simply excercising one of *their* rights.

You missed my point. I was saying that the way free speech will die is that you won't be able to say anything without being fired and sued, so the fact that you will still technically have the 'right' is meaningless.

This is just another reason to be against the 'right to work' bullshit.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:57 AM on May 18, 2006

well, people have always been fired for things they've said that their employer found distasteful, just that blogs have allowed employers to "hear" what you're saying when you aren't at work. its kind of a risk you accept by publishing to the internet.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:06 AM on May 18, 2006

Bring back the CB radio or any other kind of ludicrous fad like Blogging, except for Blogging. At least you only had to hear a couple of people's opinions with a CB.
posted by catchmurray at 2:09 AM on May 18, 2006

I'm with Mitrovarr- people will go on with "a company can do whatever it wants, it's a free country" until they realized they've managed to argue themselves out of their very own rights in this "free" country...

On the plus side, you can see her nipple in her blogger profile photo. She's kinda cute...
posted by hincandenza at 2:23 AM on May 18, 2006

Look at the time stamps on the posts, it seems like a fair few were posted during what would normally be work hours. Maybe this is what has caused the problem.
posted by scodger at 2:29 AM on May 18, 2006

it's a free country" until they realized they've managed to argue themselves out of their very own rights in this "free" country...

Yeah, and once you accept that companies have and will exert control over what you say outside of the workplace, it's not even really a conceptual leap to deciding the government can do so as well. Once that mindset's in place, changing the law – or the Constitution, even – is just a procedural issue.

That there are posts during work hours may explain the firing, but not so much the lawyering, unless they're trying to exert copyright over "work" done on their time or something...
posted by furiousthought at 2:33 AM on May 18, 2006

Good point on the copyright furiousthought, I bet that's what they did.
posted by atrazine at 2:35 AM on May 18, 2006

That's awesome. I *wish* I would get fired for blogging! Crank up the google adwords income, and suddenly you're blogging for a living. Win-win. However, it does appear as though she did a SERIOUS amount of blogging on work time, which is a fairly fireable offense. I'd like to find out why she's being forced to take it down though.
posted by antifuse at 2:45 AM on May 18, 2006

Why not ask her?
posted by IronLizard at 2:48 AM on May 18, 2006

"people will go on with "a company can do whatever it wants, it's a free country" until they realized they've managed to argue themselves out of their very own rights in this "free" country..."

freedom needs to be a two way street. What you're arguing for is the freedom to say what ever you want and keep your job. There is no such right.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:51 AM on May 18, 2006

Er, I dunno, atrazine, it's kind of a stretch. IANA(IP) lawyer, but I've talked to one in the more or less recent past about that sort of issue, and the impression he gave me (it's late, I'm fuzzy) was that those kind of clauses in employment contracts generally applied to patent law more than copyright. That it would apply to the writings of someone not working in a writing capacity at a given company sounds real stretchy to me... barring further info they may as well be taking a libel/defamation angle, or who knows...

(does find, reads sidebar)

Wait, it's a museum that's going after her like this?

i got fired from a museum in Philly because of this blog, at first i cried, then i laughed, now i want a book deal.
posted by furiousthought at 2:53 AM on May 18, 2006

Furiousthought makes an interesting point about copyright, which I missed through lack of preview. Looking at the cached version of her site - did she work at an aquarium? Did somebody actually get fired from an aquarium for having a blog??? Or was it the museum? I wish there were more details here - there's no mention of her being fired on the cached blog, so the only confirmation we have is that blogebrity site. Anybody have any more details anywhere?
posted by antifuse at 2:57 AM on May 18, 2006

Is anyone going to mention how hot she is? I feel sort of odd being the first, as I'm a het woman and all, but c'mon. Cool job, too.
posted by maryh at 2:58 AM on May 18, 2006

Once again, doy on me for not previewing. :)

And maryh, you're not the first - ok, that comment doesn't specifically say she's hot, but it does say she's cute. :)
posted by antifuse at 3:02 AM on May 18, 2006

Okay, you're right. I guess I was just blinded my my girl crush.
posted by maryh at 3:12 AM on May 18, 2006

hincandenza, very hopeful of you, but that's not a nipple.
posted by tula at 3:14 AM on May 18, 2006

hincandenza, very hopeful of you, but that's not a nipple.

Killjoy.
posted by three blind mice at 3:27 AM on May 18, 2006

Tryptophan-5ht: your argument is you can be fired for expressing your tought out of the workplace out of worktime. You sustain that there is a "right NOT to associate" with somebody, which is a lawyeresque weasel out way to say "right to fire" Indeed there isn't an obligation to hire a person you don't like, so don't hire them ! Yet if you don't like what one person says out of workplace out of working time, you will have to find another excuse to fire them other then "Not liking what they write outside of work and jobplace" because doing so is an interference with their lifes and a restriction to their freedom of speech.

As for the copyright aspects, can't tell much without knowing what are the accusations against Jessa.

freedom needs to be a two way street. What you're arguing for is the freedom to say what ever you want and keep your job. There is no such right.

Not on the workplace in which you are supposed to do what your employer asks you to do, unless he demands you to do something illegal. Given that talking about the employer isn't a required performance, the employer can tolerate this behavior or NOT tolerate this and decide to fire you. ON THE WORKPLACE, but not outside it.
posted by elpapacito at 3:34 AM on May 18, 2006

The big bad company that fired her?

According to her: "i got fired from a museum in Philly because of this blog"

I guess she worked for the wrong Philly Museum. So, someone tell me why this is interesting, and not just a random case of someone being fired for reasons unknown to us and the blog world overreacting?
posted by blahblahblah at 3:40 AM on May 18, 2006

Someone in the comments mentioned the EFF being involved, is this just misinformation or can it be confirmed?
posted by IronLizard at 3:46 AM on May 18, 2006

Did somebody actually get fired from an aquarium for having a blog??? — antifuse

Next up:

Smoky mauls a forest ranger for having a cigar on the weekend.

Although, in all fairness, from the little I know or understand about this story...well, I'd fire her if she was blogging on the job.
posted by Colloquial Collision at 3:47 AM on May 18, 2006

"because doing so is an interference with their lifes and a restriction to their freedom of speech."

You don't understand. Her rights remain intact. Lets be clear - She still has (and had) the right to say whatever she wants. Being fired doesn't change that.

If i blogged about hating a minority group, i think you folks would understand when i got fired. Or if i called my girlfriend unsavory things, you wouldn't say she violated my rights when she left me.

the freedom of speech does not insulate you from the reprocussions of what you say.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:48 AM on May 18, 2006

I think the oddity here is that she didn't really say much of ANYTHING. Which leads me to believe that this is just a hoax.
posted by IronLizard at 4:00 AM on May 18, 2006

Everyone has the right to seek a job, but nobody has the right to any particular job. Think about it from the point of view of the employer: why should you continue to employ some jerk who spends his spare time badmouthing you and your business?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 4:04 AM on May 18, 2006

unless they're trying to exert copyright over "work" done on their time or something...

My understanding of copyright law (IANAL) is that unless her employer had previously signed a contract explicitly stating that any and all "work" she produces while "on the clock" belongs to them and not her, the copyright belongs to her.
posted by effwerd at 4:07 AM on May 18, 2006

hincandenza, very hopeful of you, but that's not a nipple.

So sorry, here you go then.
posted by dgaicun at 4:09 AM on May 18, 2006

"because doing so is an interference with their lifes and a restriction to their freedom of speech."

Note also that there is no such thing as freedom of speech as you imagine it. The first amendment merely limits what the government can do to restrict your speech.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 4:09 AM on May 18, 2006

Tryp: except when you bring a wrongful dismissal suit against your employer. If your blogging doesn't violate your employment contract (revealing company secrets, defaming the company, etc) and you don't do it on company time, I can't see how you can justify being fired based on having a blog. Sure, it's not a violation of freedom of speech, as that only applies to the government. However, it IS a violation of various employment laws.
posted by antifuse at 4:09 AM on May 18, 2006

Tryptophan-5ht: freedom needs to be a two way street. What you're arguing for is the freedom to say what ever you want and keep your job. There is no such right.

Yes, it needs to be a two way street, but my argument does not violate that. She is a person. It is a business. People and businesses do not have the same rights, nor should they.

Think of it this way. If some KKK member doesn't want to associate with minorities personally, then maybe that makes him a cock, but that's his right. If a business run by a KKK member doesn't want to hire minorities, that is NOT all right because the business does not have the same right of association that a person does.

Now, I realize this isn't the same law or the same issue, but that example illustrates my point; businesses do not have the same rights as people. I do not think a law to prevent people from being fired because their hobby annoys their boss is a bad idea. We already have dozens of laws on the books to prevent employers from ruining their employees lives, I do not think this is a bad addition.

If we do not stand against this, contracts against blogging, and later contracts against publishing all other materials will eventually become a standard practice, which will completely undercut the freedom of speech for any but the independantly wealthy. The lawyers will ruin it for them. Attacks against rights do not always come in the form of government action.
posted by Mitrovarr at 4:20 AM on May 18, 2006

I certainly wouldn't take down my whole blog because someone who fired me says to. Something about that seems weird and out of line.

After scanning over her blog (both versions), I didn't see anything worthy of being fired, though maybe they didn't like her talking about her work at all or posting photos of her at work. Still, seems a strange thing to get fired for ... not like she was flaming them for being a crappy employer or anything.
posted by Orb at 4:22 AM on May 18, 2006

I feel for the company. Imagine having to waste all that time, firing someone, dealing with the flack and bad publicity. Having to invest all that time and money advertising for a replacement, going through the interview process. I'm sure the human resources department will all feel happy and safe in their jobs, though, with all that work to do.

Some day, employers will learn.
posted by Jimbob at 4:25 AM on May 18, 2006

However, it IS a violation of various employment laws.That I can agree with (you sound like you know what you're talking about and frankly, im unfamiliar). My beef was with the 'free speech violated' talk.

<my 2 cents>
that said, i personally believe that employers should be free to fire anyone for whatever stupid petty biased reason they please. "its a free country" etc. </my 2 cents>
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:27 AM on May 18, 2006

This thread is just going to be freedom-of-speech supporters masterbating unless we have meaningful evidence stating why she was fired.

I'm sorry but "I got fired for blogging" doesn't even to begin to arouse my anger or sympathy until I have more of the story.
posted by onalark at 4:27 AM on May 18, 2006

bah, 'right of association'. Thanks a lot Supreme Court.
posted by atrazine at 4:27 AM on May 18, 2006

mitrovarr - see antifuse's post just above yours. You're right that it was a totally dick thing for her employer to do, just not for the reasons you think.

re: 'right of association'
I ANAL - but i don't think right of association would apply. There needs to be some pre-determined demographic which is allowed to associate. so unless the museum was founded upon not blogging, they'd have a hard time arguing it.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:36 AM on May 18, 2006

that said, i personally believe that employers should be free to fire anyone for whatever stupid petty biased reason they please.

Well then, you're a morally corrupt arsehole, and I hope you're living in a box on the sidewalk within a year. If you're lucky, some folks with higher moral values than you might throw you a quarter now and again.

People work for a reason, you know. To earn money to pay for a roof over their heads. To buy food for themselves and their children. To live a worthwhile life before they meet the grave. And yet you advocate 100% of power in the hands of the employers, and none in the hands of the employees. Employment isn't about slavery, you know. People don't work for fun. They go to work for a set number of hours, perform a specific task, and then go home so they can live their lives as human beings. It appears that this is all this woman was doing - going to work, doing her job - and then keeping a personal website.

Now this whole case does sound strange. I find it difficult to believe an employer would be so stupid as to fire someone just for this reason, and to be honest I can only assume there were other more legitimate reasons for her dismissal. And we only have one side of the story.

However, to suggest that private citizens, who are just trying to make a living, have to sell their soul and their freedom to an private enterprize, 24 hours a day, is morally reprehensible. A century and a half of union activism on behalf of employees rights have improved the standard of living in the first world to an incredible degree - if these battles weren't fought, we'd still be sending children down coal mines. And these rights need to be upheld. But, I suppose, within your moral scope that's all fine and dandy as well. As long as the employer is happy.
posted by Jimbob at 4:37 AM on May 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

Jimbob: although, to be fair, her blogging appears to have been done during normal 9-5 working hours. Whether or not it was during working ours at the museum remains to be seen (since she was working two jobs, she could have been a part time employee). I've emailed her and pointed her at this thread, to find out what her story is, but if she was fired for blogging during work hours, that is a pretty good reason to be fired.

And yes, I also find tryp's "fire anybody for any reason" to be horrendous as well. I think that unions keep a lot of people in jobs that they should otherwise be fired from (though unions do some good, as well), but I don't think that an employer should be able to fire you because your hair is brown, or because you decline to sleep with them (which falls under "any reason").
posted by antifuse at 4:46 AM on May 18, 2006

jimbob - true or false, liberty is an inalienable right?

true or false, rights should not be curtailed when they infringe upon another person's needs or desires?

true or false, rights should only be curtailed when they infringe upon another person's rights?

if you didn't answer true to all three, you're the morally corrupt asshole.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:48 AM on May 18, 2006

"because you decline to sleep with them (which falls under "any reason")."
im not going to pretend that im going to change any minds here, but just to explain - what you're talking about is immoral, but *should not* be illegal (though it is).

follow me here - people do not have inalienable rights to have a job. People DO have the inalienable right to act freely untill they violate another person's rights. Since no rights would be violated in your example, it should be fair game.

As i said, its terribly immoral, but so is cheating on your wife, or telling a lie. Both legal because they do not violate anyone's rights.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:53 AM on May 18, 2006

(also, the reason you example IS illegal was because a majority of people don't want to be fired for bullshit reasons. however, a majority doesn't make something right. see: interracial marriage ban 50 years ago)
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:55 AM on May 18, 2006

Hrmm. Well it feels like we're getting into semantics now. Technically, we have a "right" (by law) not to be fired for bullshit reasons. The only reason we have a "right" to free speech is because it's in the constitution. All of our "rights" are defined by the laws of the country. I disagree with you that it's right to allow firing for any ol' reason, but I can see where you're coming from.
posted by antifuse at 4:58 AM on May 18, 2006

(at any rate, I am quite enjoying this thread :))
posted by antifuse at 4:59 AM on May 18, 2006

So... uh. Yeah.

I do think it's more than a little strange that people think they can -- very publicly -- do whatever they want on the internet and then be surprised when people who employ them react badly. It's not a question of rights, really. Grownups understand that there are consequences to your actions sometimes...
posted by ph00dz at 5:03 AM on May 18, 2006

"Technically, we have a "right" (by law) not to be fired for bullshit reasons"
true, but getting something signed into law doesn't make it right. Im sure you can think of a few laws that shouldn't be.

"I can see where you're coming from."
more than i was hoping for.

you're a true gentleman.

in anycase its bed time for me. thanks :)
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 5:07 AM on May 18, 2006

Days two and three were spent learning my ways around the seal house and learning to feed and handle penguins, there is, afterall a first for everything. That 2nd night vandals broke into the seal house. Since the seals are housed outside, we have gates and barriers and locks, but


Obviously she works at some sort of zoo. I don't see how they can deman she take down her whole blog though, that's absurd.
posted by delmoi at 5:12 AM on May 18, 2006

tryptophan: indeed the right itself isn't suspend nor is she stripped of it , we completely agree on that.

the freedom of speech does not insulate you from the reprocussions of what you say.

Indeed in practice it does not, as the first amendment protects from government censorship, not from interference by other entities (at least in USA)

f i blogged about hating a minority group, i think you folks would understand when i got fired. I wouldn't unless you advocated violence against
them AND even so I don't see why you should be fired _because_ of your opinion. Certinaly the employer may decide to no longer renew your contract or ask you to leave before its expiration, not necessarily revealing that the cause of his decision is your expressed opinion.

Yet why the abrupt decision to fire you ? Certainly this can have a chilling effect on expression/speech as one doesn't want to be fired, expecially if one needs that work to finance his life. So tentatively I guess that if the Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech" if a law allows an employer to abridge freedom of speech,what we could have is censorship by proxy, even if there is no law directly striking freedom of speech.

Probably this idea on top of my head isn't exactly the most refined intuition and isn't exactly the latest in jurisprudence
posted by elpapacito at 5:13 AM on May 18, 2006

people do not have inalienable rights to have a job

What is the alternative? If there is no alternative, or the alternative is overly burdensome (i.e. trek out to the woods, build your own cabin and hope it doesn't violate any laws or property rights which would incur fines and necessary licensing), then what are you advocating?

Or maybe you are suggesting that people should just start their own business? Of course without prior employment, that would make very few business ventures available. Maybe beading. Also, becoming the employer, you now have the burden of screwing over employees by paying them the market minimum and firing them at whim.

Or maybe you just like the homeless?

I'm not advocating an inalienable right to employment, either, but the whole idea behind fair employment legislation is that everyone deserves an equal and fair chance at making a life for themselves in the very few venues we have as an industrialized capitalist society. This includes not being fired for bullshit reasons, like refusing to sleep with your boss, or saying something that offends your boss. Why would you favor placing all the power over employment in the hands of artificial entities while neglecting the needs of actual humans?

"Technically, we have a "right" (by law) not to be fired for bullshit reasons"
true, but getting something signed into law doesn't make it right.

It may not be right in your mind, but it's fair. Fair and right may be related but they aren't the same.
posted by effwerd at 5:30 AM on May 18, 2006

i wouldnt pay too much attention to the time stamps. US law requires two 15-minute breaks during an 8 hour work day plus a 30-minute lunch. most of those posts could have easily been written up in 15 minutes.

some people smoke a cigarette during their legal break times, some people do something more healthy.
posted by tsarfan at 5:31 AM on May 18, 2006

Metafilter : arguing is better for your coronaries then a cigarette
posted by elpapacito at 5:43 AM on May 18, 2006

Oh, this is ridiculous. Not only has Jessa over-reacted to whatever threat she got (I'm with those who say she got a *threat* to be fired if she didn't remove the work-related posts at her blog), she's also disapeared from her comments after posting an "OMIGOD IT'S OVER!!" That's just lame.

Anyway, it might actually be worth looking at some of the work-related stuff she posted in between the links to booty-shaking sites before screaming that this is primarily a free speech issue:

During this week of stress and fret leading up to the surgery [for her dog], I started in Hippos. I wasn't ready for it. I wasn't ready for responsibility of the variety of animals in the exhibit and I wasn't ready for the massive scale everything was on. When you are dealing with 2 3,000lb animals everything is huge...

I made some pretty big mistakes in hippos that week. I let the porcupine get out. He chewed through a thousand $ powerwashing hose. I flooded the hippos pools. Which in turn flooded the electrical engineering room below. I was preparing the diets for African storks (mice, smelt and raw horse meat) when my radio crackled in "Uh Did Somebody Flood Hippo Holding, We're Getting Pretty WET Down Here." I rushed to find 3 feet of water gushing over the edges of their pools. "10-4 I got it" I replied in the strongest voice I could muster up just before I broke down into sobbing tears. This was the same morning mind you that I opened gates 5 and 2 in the wrong order and nearly caused the Hippos to stampede. The same morning mind you that I hit the wrong lever on the hydraulics and went too far and crushed a pipe on the wall with a 2 ton door. The same morning I dropped Hampton off for surgery.

The Hippos love me all the same, but funny how I'm not scheduled to work in Hippos again until next week.

Good lord. If you were her boss, you'd sit down and talk to her, too. Plus, she's been taking pictures and video of her workplace and posting them online. Did she ask permission before doing that? What do you think?
posted by mediareport at 5:44 AM on May 18, 2006

I was just about to post that tsarfan. However, the time stamps could also indicate that she was not where she was supposed to be at the appointed time. (at 10:07 she should have been in the seal house, etc)

The fact is simply we don't know why she was fired or really any of the circumstances around her need to shut down her blog. I'm curious about being compelled to shut down her blog part of it. One's employment agreement could dictate that all work done on the premises or using work equipment is the property of the employer [my last two jobs had such a clause that included activities that were not related to the company's industry... so if i thought of a cure for cancer during a boring staff meeting, it belonged to the company, not me].
posted by birdherder at 5:52 AM on May 18, 2006

mediareport said: Good lord. If you were her boss, you'd sit down and talk to her, too. Plus, she's been taking pictures and video of her workplace and posting them online. Did she ask permission before doing that? What do you think?

Yes, I would think a good talking to would be the correct action. If no improvements, a written warning for the records. Still no improvement, suspension without pay. Still no improvement? Out.

That said, I still have no idea what happened except that she had a blog, got fired, and now her blog has been severely edited.

But I can totally sympathize with her and her mishaps possibly due to her being distracted by her dog's surgery. My dog has to go in and get a tumor removed from his leg tomorrow and I'm a mess (for example, I am, at the moment, posting on MeFi).
posted by effwerd at 5:56 AM on May 18, 2006

Can we delete this bullshit post until we have a clue what actually happened?
posted by cillit bang at 6:00 AM on May 18, 2006

pictures of Lindsay Lohan's breasts.

so where the hell are they? produce these immediately or i start using the 'false advertising' flag that was just added
posted by poppo at 6:02 AM on May 18, 2006

Note: she was fired from the museum. She still works at the aquarium. She was not fired for blogging during work hours. More details to come, hopefully.
posted by antifuse at 6:04 AM on May 18, 2006

I'm guessing it was this place that fired her. My money is on some sort of idiotic morals clause. You know - "You won't do anything outside or inside your job that gives us a bad rep."

They might have even objected to an entry from when she worked in Baltimore: "...The worst part of my day is dealing with inner city kids that are so starved for knowledge that before I can even answer the ever popular question "What 'dis? What 'dis?" they are swarming me with another furious inquisition. It's so sad to me, sad and frustrating. I hate saying it but when I'm doing a show for a group of Baltimore City school kids, I know they just aren't able to pay attention so I dumb down my presentation as much as possible. Cause, they are dumb. So fucking dumb...."

She did try to save the government money once, but I doubt they fired her for that.

I can't see anything other than a bright, opiniated, open person. Yeah, some of the entries reflect the callousness of youth, but that is part of life.

As far as post here: I would also have liked to see more explanation from the blogger, but Metafilter seems to need a soap opera post of the day every now and then.
posted by ?! at 6:06 AM on May 18, 2006

pictures of Lindsay Lohan's breasts.
so where the hell are they?

You have to look at the cached version. And it's a doctored photo, so don't get too excited. Unless you're into that sort of thing.
posted by effwerd at 6:07 AM on May 18, 2006

poppo: voici

(NB it so does not live up to the promise of the phrase "pictures of Lindsay Lohan's breasts")
posted by cillit bang at 6:09 AM on May 18, 2006

There are enough photos of Lohan's breast NON-doctored (I remember one from YEARS ago when she had fallen out of her top on the way into a club, and there's the one from very recently as well... which was from an auto show? Or a car company sponsored fashion show? Something to do with cars, at any rate)
posted by antifuse at 6:11 AM on May 18, 2006

Well, she's pretty hot anyway.
posted by delmoi at 6:12 AM on May 18, 2006

Wow, someone at her site just lifted my comment above almost verbatim and posted it there under their own name. Now *that's* lame. Jessamyn responded, "i NEVER blogged on company time - are you kidding it's not an office - we don't even have computers."

I'm not sure taking pictures and video at work and posting them online is much better. But I still don't get why she can post that but not bother clarifying the real issues. What's she waiting for?
posted by mediareport at 6:12 AM on May 18, 2006

As always, you need to be careful about what you say and do while on your employer's dime. Most states are right-to-work states and your employer can fire you for just about any reason as long as that reason does not fall under the discrimination rights in the Bill of Rights: discrimination on the basis of religion, gender, social origin and birth, etc.

I learned this the hard way. I was the first person to ever get fired because of my blog -- in November 1997.

My circumstances were very different from Heather Armstrong's and also probably very different from Jessa's. The point is that if you have a blog and if you share personal information on that blog, you may get fired because of what you write. Sometimes the only solution is to find a better and more open-minded employer.
posted by camworld at 6:14 AM on May 18, 2006

At-will employment. Unless there's a specific protection otherwise, you can be fired for any reason or no reason in most states, including Pennsylvania and Maryland. Not liking someone's blog probably falls within this. Making the person take it down doesn't and is another matter altogether!
posted by zsazsa at 6:24 AM on May 18, 2006

I say leave the hobbies at home.

Now that's the spirit of free speech!
posted by spazzm at 6:32 AM on May 18, 2006

Mediafilter: we at media filter are pending from Jessa delicious lips !
posted by elpapacito at 6:45 AM on May 18, 2006

Yep, hottest Marine Biologist I've ever seen.
posted by twistedonion at 6:49 AM on May 18, 2006

Saturday, October 22, 2005:
I'm going to go ahead and say that I work at an Academy of sorts. A scientific one here in Philadelphia. One could even say focusing on "Natural Science." I think it should be known that said Academy has been around for like 193 years.

Its been a rediculously hard transition for me to go from a beautiful world renowned conservation and education savvy aquarium to "this institute was built in 1812." I feel like the building is falling apart. Instead of baby dolphins being born there are diarramas from 1921 of poorly taxadermied animals that are now dusty and quite literally falling apart at the seams. I used to drive right into the city and have my own parking spot directly across from the Aquarium. Now I ride the train and then have to walk 4 blocks in the rain. The aquarium spoiled me with thier clean walls and state of the art equipment and big budget.

I'm training to be a Naturalist right now by people who treat me like I don't know anything about animals. They look to me to clean up tortoise poo when I should be the one who is teaching them. I'm stuck all day in the god damn childrens museum where they want me to act like babysitter - not an educator. Fuck that, I have too much experience, too much knowledge to share, too much respect for myself and my career to just clean poo. I did that already, I paid my dues. I spent 5 years doing that when I was in highschool and college. I deserve better.

God damnit I think I need to go get my masters.

I don't think she should have been fired, but she should probably have been a bit more careful.
posted by washburn at 6:54 AM on May 18, 2006

Yep, hottest Marine Biologist I've ever seen.

Ain't the internets great?

And can we throw some money into the hat to send Jessa some decent beer? I notice she's a Bud Light drinker.
posted by rocketpup at 6:56 AM on May 18, 2006

I'm stuck all day in the god damn childrens museum where they want me to act like babysitter...Fuck that

Whew. Yeah, looks like classic blog-about-work screw-up #3.
posted by mediareport at 7:03 AM on May 18, 2006

Why don't bloggers do what authors have been doing for centuries to escape societal judgement and use a pseudonym? As long as one avoids posting a picture of his or her face they can plausibly (and brazenly) deny ownership of the blog.
posted by solipse at 7:04 AM on May 18, 2006

From an email sent to me by Jessa herself:

Actually I was fired because of the way I represented myself on the internet. I made it public knowledge that I worked at the Academy even though I never specified which one it was - I did have pictures of me wearing my work shirt. I was fired because "I am not the kind of person they want to associate themselves with"

I was told that if I didn't take the blog and my myspace account down that I would a) be sued and b) they have archived my entire blog including hard copies of my writing AND pictures (with highlighted passages) and are threatening to send the entire thing to the Adventure Aquarium and also and future employeers if I ever try to use them as a reference.

How's that for fair. There were far more sketchy things happening behond all of this. They were mean and harsh and judgmental. I was told perhaps next time I would be "more wise in my lifestyle and decision making choices regaurding work"

I'm kinda at a loss for what to do and if I should even make a big deal of this - part of me wants to scream to EFF and the other part wants to say fuck it, I like my full time job with the penguins and hippos and seals at the Aquarium too much to risk them taking issue with my blog as well.

Also I am supposed to get something signed and notarized saying that it has been deleted - I don't really know how and or why I have to do that. I don't want to be bullied into anything but I don't have time to research this further...

P.S. I worked at a Dinosaur museum, you think we even had computers to blog upon? No sir, this was most certainly not a case of misusing company computers.

A nice little bit of extortion going on there, with the threat to take it to the aquarium too.
posted by antifuse at 7:06 AM on May 18, 2006

Based on personal experience around New England, a breeding ground for marine biologists with Woods Hole being out on Cape Code, I can attest that there are plenty of hot marine biologists. And they know how to party.
posted by VulcanMike at 7:10 AM on May 18, 2006

Why the hell is she named Jessamyn? Isn't this place confusing enough with all the sock puppets running around in bare feet? I thought one of her comments said she was going to post over here. I hope so. We really need two Jessamyns here, both net celebrities, both librarians (or marine biologists, or something) . . .

Goddamn interwebs. Begone. I'm going to go read MediaFilter.

Genuine MediaFilter.com (link farm, don't visit) cute dog icon.

posted by fourcheesemac at 7:10 AM on May 18, 2006

antifuse, did you get permission to post that?

Anyway, taking it at face value, some first thoughts:

1. The museum has no grounds to sue, unless she signed some kind of agreement not to speak publicly about her job.

2. Similarly, the museum has no right to insist that she delete old posts, let alone demand a signed and notarized note. She should tell them a clear 'that's not within your rights' on that.

3. The "extortion" is only if she ever tries to use them as a reference. Let's not get hysterical; the museum's not holding it over her head for anything else. If they do, she should tell them, she will obtain counsel.

4. Someone who posts bitchily behind her bosses' backs is in no position to complain that someone else is being "mean and harsh and judgmental." Cry me a river.
posted by mediareport at 7:13 AM on May 18, 2006

i got fired from a museum in Philly because of this blog, at first i cried, then i laughed, now i want a book deal.

/vomit
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:14 AM on May 18, 2006

No wait. We can tell them apart. Our Jessamyn can spell.

What's with calling a gal with a master's degree and a job scooping hippo shit a "marine biologist?" Oh, and I am a website architect and business presentation engineer . . . .
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:15 AM on May 18, 2006

I only read one post from the cached version of her blog and saw this passage:

"That 2nd night vandals broke into the seal house. Since the seals are housed outside, we have gates and barriers and locks, but even a 10 year old kid who was really determined to get in could. And by secure gates I mean a wooden picket fence."

I don't know why she was fired by the museum, but I could easily imagine another firing in her near future for publicising how easy it is to break into her new work place .
posted by Zetetics at 7:15 AM on May 18, 2006

Tryp: except when you bring a wrongful dismissal suit against your employer. If your blogging doesn't violate your employment contract (revealing company secrets, defaming the company, etc) and you don't do it on company time, I can't see how you can justify being fired based on having a blog. Sure, it's not a violation of freedom of speech, as that only applies to the government. However, it IS a violation of various employment laws.

I don't want anyone to get fired because they blog at work. This particular employer behavior is egregious, stuffy and mean. But sorry, the principle some people are arguing for is without basis in law. Clearly there are limits...if I work at ACME corporation and publish a blog called "LIFE IN PRISON, OR: WORKING AT ACME." You can see how old ACME corp might not want to continue to work with me.

But (in the US) in an at-will employment situation, which is what mostly everyone has, you can fire a person for any reason, at any time, unless it is "because of race" "because of sex" or "because of disability (and you didn't attempt to make reasonable accomodation)." It IS NOT a violation of any, let alone various employment laws. It is NOT a First Amendment issue, as much as it may feel like one.

Now: the threat of legal action by the employer. On what can it legitimately be based? Stealing trade secrets, publication of trade secrets, libel/defamation. There are a few other causes of action they could maybe bring, but nothing that would stick. Jessica doesn't seem to have done any of that, and it's probably a case of being intimidated by a nasty letter from the museum's lawyers, which is sad, and understandable. Let her be, for fuck's sake.

The copyright issue is also bullshit, btw.

I see zsazsa beat me to the at-will punch...
posted by kosem at 7:16 AM on May 18, 2006

...hey sorry i just got this site sent to me otherwise i would have posted sooner. The reason I didn't post about this on my site is because I was told not to make mention of the situation or make another post about them or I would face legal action... They didn't say I couldn't explain on mediafilter:

This is for The Academy of Natural Sciences - the Dinosaur museum in Philly. NOT the Aquarium I work for. At the museum in Philly I worked in the Paleontology department - I also taught classes about Dinosaurs and Evolution, I worked with scouts to earn their badges and I did Marine PAleontology research. I was out in the public eye always - we don't even have our own computers to blog on. There is one computer for EVERYone with no internet access. Even if we did have computers, that's not something I would be stupid enough (or have the time) to do.

So nix that theory.

Basically I went in for work in the morning yesterday and was told I had a meeting about forgeting to sign my timesheets. I couldn't teach my dino class and they had someone come and teach it for me. I knew something was going on. I waited an hour before a co-worker came by with a crumpled up note in his hand and passed it to me. "You're meeting is about the discovery of your blog and Myspace accounts, you have been forewarned."

I started crying because I'm a girl and I cry.
I could hear my boss running to her cubicle to call human resources to alert them of the news that I had been "tipped off" - "She knows something, we can't do that now. Well, that's the challanege. She's upset."

It was one of those moments where you just couldn't believe it was happening to you. Honestly I had been waiting for my blog to become an issue for a while but this underhanded blindsiding approach was just staggering.

In my blog I refference work, I took pictures at work - which is allowed - in fact bosses and co-works did the taking. I posted those pictures and wrote about my days at work. I never once said "I work at the Academy of Natural Sciences." I did say however "The Academy" or "The museum" or The Dino Museum in Philly" mostly I referred to it as the Academy. I re-read every single post and never once did I say ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES. Still. It was pretty obvious.

My bad.

My posts about work were mostly like this:
Another time I was putting thigs away in the macabre rooms (creepy, dusty old rooms with cataloged specimins long forgotten...) Among the items I found were a genuine shrunken head, a complete gorilla skeleton, preserved misfigured fetus' in jars, and of course a mummy. An actual human mummy - just chillin' there in the back room behind the childrens play area - covered in a plastic sheet. To think about the history and the story behind this persons life and death and how they came to rest in a musty attic is just beyond my comprehension.

or My Geology classroom tonight was in the Serengeti. This is where I discovered the Rubies had been stolen. I decided against making an announcment to all the troop leaders. I invisioned a massive backpack search that would no doubt end in tears for the little scout who swiped the stones - not realizing thier worth. I just stuck a peice of garnet in it's place and hoped no one would be the wiser.

But even still I wrote about work inbetween pictures of me drinking, opiononated rants on creationism and conservation, I use the words cunt and twat and fuck. I joke about kicking babies and coat hanger abortions. I wax poetic about spring breaks past and Zombie movies.

Once I made it up to the meeting they had to change thier game plan. They had my entire blog printed out with pictures and highlighted passages. I was told as soon as I walked in that I was being terminated. The reason was the content of my blog. My blog had to be removed and my myspace account had to be deconstructed. I had untill noon the next day. I was still sobbing kind of quietly but I didn't want them to think that I was ashamed of what I had written. My parents read my blog. My old college friends keep up with my life through my blog. I took my badge off and looked at the mean HR lady who was smiling smuggly at me. She told me perhaps next time I would be more wise in my lifestyle and decision making choices regaurding work.

I was fired because of the way I represented myself on the internet. I made it public knowledge that I worked at the Academy even though I never specified which one it was - I did have pictures of me wearing my work shirt. I was fired because "I am not the kind of person they want to associate themselves with"

This is the same place mind you whose scientists and employeers all smoke weed out on the loading dock.

They told me that if I didn't comply that they would send my archived blog to the Aquarium where I also work, and if I ever listed them as a reference they would forward the content to any future employeers.

I love my job at the aquarium. I thought about it and I don't think I should be writing about my behind the scenes mistakes with the hippos and such anyway. Bad PR. I'm a 25 year old marine zoologist and I have a long career in front of me, I don't want it cut short because The Academy is out for blood. I wronged them, and I payed the concequences.

Such is life.

comments?

~Jessa
posted by jessajeffries at 7:16 AM on May 18, 2006 [4 favorites]

mediareport: yes I did... I made sure to ask her first. She says she's planning on posting a clarification (somewhere).

Umm, and yes, the museum IS holding it over her head. They threatened to take the blog to her current employer (the aquarium) if she didn't delete it/take it down entirely. Not just with future employers if she tries to use them as a reference (and really, who uses companies that FIRE them as a reference?)
posted by antifuse at 7:16 AM on May 18, 2006

Well, she is certainly looking for something.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:17 AM on May 18, 2006

IANAL, but based on her email above it looks like at least some of what her employer is doing might be illegal. Google says that blackmail or extortion is generally defined as demanding money for not revealing illegal (or disreputable) conduct so this may not apply but it never hurts to consult SWIAL.
posted by rocketpup at 7:18 AM on May 18, 2006

Btw, washburn, how did you find that October 2005 post? I got nothing at archive.org and she's deleted that whole month.

Also worth mentioning: the post's original suggestion that there was "nothing negative to her workplace" at Jessamyn's site is now pretty clearly wrong.
posted by mediareport at 7:18 AM on May 18, 2006

They threatened to take the blog to her current employer (the aquarium) if she didn't delete it/take it down entirely.

Ah, well that's different, and clearly over the line. She should definitely fight back on that, especially if she thinks it's worth keeping her blog hidden from her aquarium bosses. Maybe suggest taking down the bitchy posts about the museum, and threaten legal action if they demand more.

But, you know, my first move in this situation would be to say "Fuck you" to the museum by showing my aquarium bosses the site first, and talking with them about it. Unless, of course, she thinks her aquarium bosses will be angry at her for what she's posted about them, too. And if that's the case, well, Jessamyn really needs to rethink the way she approaches blogging.
posted by mediareport at 7:23 AM on May 18, 2006

thanks for the help with the breasts. wow, i got deja vu as i wrote that.
posted by poppo at 7:24 AM on May 18, 2006

I was told that if I didn't take the blog and my myspace account down that I would a) be sued and b) they have archived my entire blog including hard copies of my writing AND pictures (with highlighted passages) and are threatening to send the entire thing to the Adventure Aquarium and also and future employeers if I ever try to use them as a reference.

I am QUITE certain this is illegal. Personally, I think she should kick and scream and sue, and show them that breaking the law is a far more questionable 'decision making choice' than her having a life (I'm certain some crusty old bitch or grumpy old man is behind this.) Most companies will not take offense at what she's done; it is not entirely atypical for young people to have social lives, and I bet the aquarium won't give a damn. But the police and the lawyers with regard to this threat? Oh, yes. They will.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:24 AM on May 18, 2006

You know, Jessamyn, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for just being a little dumb, and keep encouraging you to fight back on the ridiculous over-reaching of the museum's lawyers and HR people (HINT: they do not have any right to demand you deconstruct your MySpace page or take down your blog), but then you went ahead and posted this:

This is the same place mind you whose scientists and employeers all smoke weed out on the loading dock.

That's just fucking shitty. What did those folks ever do to you? Good bye and good luck to you.
posted by mediareport at 7:29 AM on May 18, 2006

And if that's the case, well, Jessamyn really needs to rethink the way she approaches blogging.

Might I suggest, Jessa, that an impromtu photo session of your former co-workers smoking weed out on the docks would be in order? That whole "fight fire with fire" thing?

Based on this response: They told me that if I didn't comply that they would send my archived blog to the Aquarium where I also work, and if I ever listed them as a reference they would forward the content to any future employeers. I'd say they're a bunch of cumdumpsters but thats just my opinion.

That said, you may want to Google "dooced" and take heed. Blogging about work, no matter how much you think you're obscuring your employer, is a slippery slope covered in ice and Crisco. People need just a nugget of info and then it's off to the races and you have no control over it.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:32 AM on May 18, 2006

They probably found that she had been blogging during the day using her work computer, which implies using her employer's time for personal purposes. I don't see how, if she only blogged from her home computer, and never said anything slanderous about her employer, she could be fired.
posted by Nicholas West at 7:32 AM on May 18, 2006

i for one think it's totally unfair that they're treating such a hot chick so harshly. i mean, don't they see that you're totally HOTT, jessa?

what good is being hot if you don't get preferential treatment for employers? aside from the preferential treatment given you by everyone else, that is.

did i mention you're HOTTTTTTTTTTT?
posted by Hat Maui at 7:33 AM on May 18, 2006

That's just fucking shitty. What did those folks ever do to you?

Ummm. They fired her? I dunno. I got nothin'.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:34 AM on May 18, 2006

"She knows something, we can't do that now. Well, that's the challanege. She's upset."

Now that passage is not clear to me. If I wanted to lecture Jessa on something, I wouldn't have a person on the outlook to check-out her emotional state ; come here in my office with witness, give you reason for being fired, end of story.

Or maybe I can lay a guilty trip on her , make her feel miserable , suggest she is a skank hoar and look sanctimoniously and seriously at her, thus having her feel the best thing to do is to leave this crazed place runned by miserable bigots. Hehe, welcome to mobbing !

"She knows something, we can't do that now. Well, that's the challanege. She's upset."

Still rings wrong somehow.

threatening to send the entire thing to the Adventure Aquarium

Is that written somewhere ? I guess not. I guess a lawyer could tell you if a witness could be of any help..but my gut sensation is that she MAY have been mobbed.
posted by elpapacito at 7:35 AM on May 18, 2006

Can anyone here seriously say "Blogebrity" without violently choking?

I daughed, I DOL'ed. Bingo Ryvar.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:37 AM on May 18, 2006

Ummm. They fired her?

Other employees fired her? I don't think so. She misspelled it, but I think it's clear she was referring to employees, not the bosses, in that throwaway line.
posted by mediareport at 7:39 AM on May 18, 2006

Seriously this is the kind of inexcusable employer frivolousness that needs to be met with legal and political action. There needs to be employee rights and limits. You can't fire someone for being a Jew, you can't fire someone for not sleeping with you, and you should not be able to fire somebody because you are not amused by their blog. Blogs and Internet presences are now and increasingly just a simple fact of life, along with the swearing, sex, and politics that inevitably will be found there.
posted by dgaicun at 7:42 AM on May 18, 2006

They probably found that she had been blogging during the day using her work computer, which implies using her employer's time for personal purposes. I don't see how, if she only blogged from her home computer, and never said anything slanderous about her employer, she could be fired.

We didn't have work computers.
i only blog at home, this is a Dino museum. I put togther bones and teach kids.

RE: the weed smoking thing, I guess you guys aren't used to my sarcastic sense - If I really wanted to be a twat I would have said that in the meeting. I just found it ironic that the museum is so slack about some things and so uptight about others.

I'm not looking for any sympathy here. I consulted some legal advice and I'm still in the process of talking it out with the Museum to find out if I can leave my blog up, because they sound like they are changin their mind about the "entire blog" being taken down. But they are not letting up on the threats of forwarding the archived copies elsewhere.

I made my bed, I'll lie in it.
posted by jessajeffries at 7:44 AM on May 18, 2006

"employeers"

Yeah, that is a head scratcher. If she meant "employees", yeah, pretty shitty. "Employers"? Well I'd be miffed too.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:45 AM on May 18, 2006

yeah my spelling sucks. especially when i am upset
posted by jessajeffries at 7:48 AM on May 18, 2006

I am QUITE certain this is illegal.

Nope. Feels like maybe it should be, but it's definitely not.

But the police and the lawyers with regard to this threat? Oh, yes. They will.

You might be able to find a lawyer who cares. Police? NFW.
posted by kosem at 7:51 AM on May 18, 2006

One time, I was fired from a blog for working.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:53 AM on May 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

solipse: "Why don't bloggers do what authors have been doing for centuries to escape societal judgement and use a pseudonym? As long as one avoids posting a picture of his or her face they can plausibly (and brazenly) deny ownership of the blog."

Maybe because that would be antithetical to the all encompassing narcissism required to catalogue your daily thoughts, add related images, and publish this manifest in a very public space accompanied by a conversational dear-diary tone?

The threats are ridiculous and seem without merit, but I really think the work information is over the line. In the sense that it was entirely unnecessary information for a public space, and the only thing that was gained by way of sharing this was increased scrutiny, leading to termination.
posted by prostyle at 7:55 AM on May 18, 2006

jessa : RE: the weed smoking thing, I guess you guys aren't used to my sarcastic sense - If I really wanted to be a twat I would have said that in the meeting.

Sarcasm ? They may be not the only ones smoking something. THAT's closer to sarcasm. Your look like more slander my dear. Being upset isn't a plausible excuse, watch out for what you write !
posted by elpapacito at 7:57 AM on May 18, 2006

Metafilter: Thanks for the help with the breasts
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:58 AM on May 18, 2006

true, but getting something signed into law doesn't make it right.

Don't want to assume anything, Trypt-5ht, but do you mean laws don't equal rights?

HUH?!? So how else do we get rights ... from God?

These "inalienable" rights you refer to were discussed and debated ... and then codifed into law. You had some what of a point, but then you lost me completely.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:59 AM on May 18, 2006

Question: who's likely to be hurt by the pot smoking revelations/allegations if the employer already turns a blind eye? I doubt the cops are getting ready to raid the museum.
posted by rocketpup at 8:01 AM on May 18, 2006

After reading antifuse's quote of Jessa's predicament, I'm now officially pissed. Like mediareport said, they have no basis for a suit against her and that bullshit about threatening to send her blog to her current employer and future potential employers is both despicable and legally questionable (when given to potential employers given their info as a reference). Fuck them.
posted by effwerd at 8:07 AM on May 18, 2006

Question: who's likely to be hurt by the pot smoking revelations/allegations if the employer already turns a blind eye? I doubt the cops are getting ready to raid the museum.

Upon further thought, answering my own question: this is the Internet. Parents, friends, family might end up reading about the loading dock antics. Anyone with this institution on their resumes might be in for tighter scrutiny by a future potential employer if that employer has read that comment.
posted by rocketpup at 8:07 AM on May 18, 2006

Jessa - perhaps it might be a good idea to approach your aquarium yourself about your blog, to pre-emp any attempt the museum might make. It would depend on how well you know the aquarium as an employer; if you think they would find the museum's actions reprehensible (as do many people here, including me), opening up the situation to them would just get them on your side. What you do in your private life is your private life.

I don't know if what the museum is doing is legal, but it is certainly very immoral. If you can do so without reprecussions from your current employer (which is the most important consideration), then you should definitely keep blogging about The Academy of Natural Sciences, and what a terrible institution they are. They probably don't understand but that this kind of behaviour is far, far more destructive to their image than an interesting blog which makes biology and working as biologist look absolutely fascinating.
posted by jb at 8:08 AM on May 18, 2006

But they are not letting up on the threats of forwarding the archived copies elsewhere.

This is blackmail.
posted by bshort at 8:11 AM on May 18, 2006

thanks jb
posted by jessajeffries at 8:14 AM on May 18, 2006

I am still a little awe-struck : I read they were judgemental with her because of her blog , then I read here Jessa underlining their hypocrisy by pointing out they smoke weed. Dammit I sympathized with Jessa being probably mobbed and secretely judged an hoar, but what's the reason behind your "weed smoking" comeback, Jessa ? I will give you benefit of doubt and assume it's true and that they are hypocrites, but don't you think some people may be upset by allegation that they are weed smokers ?
posted by elpapacito at 8:18 AM on May 18, 2006

But they are not letting up on the threats of forwarding the archived copies elsewhere.

I made my bed, I'll lie in it.

You may have made your bed, but they are demanding the box spring, the mattress, the sheets, and the pillows.
posted by effwerd at 8:19 AM on May 18, 2006

HUH?!? So how else do we get rights ... from God?

Moses seems to think so.
posted by howling fantods at 8:24 AM on May 18, 2006

This is blackmail.

I'm inclined to agree with bshort on this. Where I'm from Blackmail is illegal. I think it's time to turn the tables jessajeffries and start demanding things from them... like a better severance package.
posted by Hanover Phist at 8:26 AM on May 18, 2006

Will pot heads people give the weed-smoking thing a fucking rest? Christ. The point is some truly illegal things were tolerated at her workplace, while this incredibly not illegal thing wasn't. Pretty straightforward and unspectacular point; it's not like she named names or sold somebody out.
posted by dgaicun at 8:34 AM on May 18, 2006

Link to Staff Directory of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia

An email indicating such institutional censorship and blackmail is disgusting, not to mention bad PR, might be in order.
posted by MasonDixon at 8:36 AM on May 18, 2006

Yeah, but an email to them might also get them to carry through on their threats.
posted by drezdn at 8:38 AM on May 18, 2006

I'm surprised people are so outrage. You have, all on the same weblog:

1. Direct association with a nationally known Institution.
2. Pictures of Institution's employee instructing children
3. Pictures of Institutions employee rubbing against cockhard men
a. in a hot tub (between his legs)
b. at a party
c. at Church
4. Incessant talk about sex, fucking, getting busy, etc.

It's more like a bartender's blog than a representative of science.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 8:41 AM on May 18, 2006

"RE: the weed smoking thing, I guess you guys aren't used to my sarcastic sense - "

How could any of us be "used" to your sarcastic sense? None of us have the slightest clue as to who you are and what your motivations for saying anything is. Most things written in blogs are taken at face value, as there is nothing else to go on.

That's the thing about blogging - the narcissism and self-involvement required to maintain an ongoing public blog about oneself usually indicates a person who is blankly and childishly unaware of the feelings and perceptions of other people, and the reactions other people may have to their words. A lot of blogging is just not very socially smart.
posted by Nicholas West at 8:42 AM on May 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

Plus, here's a link to the Board of Trustees. Jessa - how would you feel about a mail campaign on your behalf?
posted by jasper411 at 8:42 AM on May 18, 2006

please dont email them... i'm just washing my hands of it.
posted by jessajeffries at 8:44 AM on May 18, 2006

I'm just surprised that there wasn't a nondisclosure violation involved; they're as common as cat shit these days, even for the most menial of jobs.

Businesses and institutions are wary of independent PR, even when it's positive. They have a right to protect themselves, but firing and lawsuits only amplify the problem, and draw more attention to it. I think it would have been easier for all involved if they simply asked that the work-related entries be deleted. As for the informing the Aquarium, well, the manager in me is thinking I'd appreciate a heads-up if an employee had a habit of spilling the beans; loose lips and all that. From what jessa has said though, it just seems that they're just using that to be bullying assholes, though.

Moral of the story - If you're going to blog about work, either get it vetted by upstairs, or wrangle a pseudonym and throw a disclaimer in there.

And if you want a book deal (And really, don't we all?) start using the spell check.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:50 AM on May 18, 2006

Mitrovarr - i don't think you're understanding the concept of a "right". Only govt can limit your free speech. When a person (or company) chooses not to associate with you because of what you say, they are simply exercising one of *their* rights. [...] freedom needs to be a two way street. What you're arguing for is the freedom to say what ever you want and keep your job. There is no such right.

The government can, does and should limit the rights of businesses. That's why and how we have anti-descrimination laws and OSHA and minimum wage. You correctly criticize the free speech side for for reading the right to Freedom of Speech from corporations into the Bill of Rights, but you're reading extra corporate rights into it, too.

I would argue that the Freedom of Speech from employers may not currently exist, but it should. Freedom really is meaningless if any sufficiently large NGO can also take it away. There's nothing magical about government that makes it the only threat to individual freedom. If the Powers That Be want to end freedom, they could just privatize everything. For instance, defund, then privatize the public schools and you no longer have to deal with the First Amendment Establishment Clause (let alone student Freedom of Speech.)

You might argue that government is a special case because they have the monopoly on the use of force, but there's stuff like Blackwater or Walmart security guards, or Pinkertons.
posted by Skwirl at 8:52 AM on May 18, 2006

You know, there should be an advocacy organization for bloggers. Really. because it sucks when people are fired or harassed for what they write. (And here it happened at a museum, fer crissakes. One with all those classical columns out front as if to imply some link to that grand old tradition of rights and so forth).

Anyway, I'm glad to know all this about the Philly Academy. If I'd read Jessa's blog before today, I'd probably have wanted to check the place out (I love musty old dioramas--seriously!), especially seeing that some of the employees are having fun with life and so on.

But now I see that the place is run by blackmailing authoritarian jerks. People who have no respect for the fundamental principles that should guide a museum. So now I know not to visit the Academy whenever I end up in Philly. Just like I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I have no desire to visit museums that spend their time spying on, blackmailing, or bullying their employees.

I think there should be an organized movement that publicizes employers that act in this way, so that people like me don't inadvertantly patronize or support in any way orginzations who's lack of respect for their employees and antiquated notions about on-line communication are making people's lives miserable.
posted by washburn at 8:52 AM on May 18, 2006

true, but getting something signed into law doesn't make it right.


Don't want to assume anything, Trypt-5ht, but do you mean laws don't equal rights?

HUH?!? So how else do we get rights ... from God?

He said that doesn't make it "right." He didn't say that doesn't make it "a right." There's a difference.
posted by chndrcks at 8:52 AM on May 18, 2006

Jessa,

It sounds like you don't want to make a fight of this, and at this point in your career, I can't say I blame you. Even so...get a lawyer.

At most organizations, even if you're fired for cause, HR departments won't ever give you a bad reference: they'll just confirm your dates of employment, and perhaps state your eligibility for rehire (Which is HR-person code for a bad reference, but they won't be able to get into details.) This is because anything they tell a prospective or current employer that turns out to be false can be the basis for a defamation lawsuit.

Now, they may be able to keep their comments safely legal...but between there being no work-related cause for termination, and evident malice displayed by the HR department....well, if I were them I wouldn't be enthusiastic about defending my actions in court.

I'm not saying you ought to sue them, but you need to make sure they aren't able to further sabotage your career for what are incredibly petty reasons. Once their head of HR and some upper-level folks realize that you have legal counsel, this bullshit ought to stop instantly. I would guess that the administration there isn't aware of the stunts their lower-level management and HR people are pulling; no competent administrator would risk a defamation or wrongful-termination lawsuit just out of spite!

I know lawyers aren't cheap, at the very least, talk to someone: you'll get a much clearer picture of your available options.

(On preview: just saw that you've consulted a lawyer already. Good. But I'd say, before worrying about the blog, make sure to protect yourself. This is best done by ensuring that any further communication from you to the Museum is via a lawyer.)
posted by a young man in spats at 8:54 AM on May 18, 2006

It's more like a bartender's blog than a representative of science.

What?? No seriously, What?? Scientists aren't the secular clergy.
posted by dgaicun at 8:54 AM on May 18, 2006

Mean Mr Bucket: yes, they can theoretically demand that she take down any reference to her employer (I guess? although nothing that she said was false, and I doubt she signed an NDA. Though they are not directly named, she IS in her work outfit in some pictures, and she herself says that it's not too hard to deduce who they are from her references). They could even theoretically fire her, especially if her employment with them was in an at-will situation. However, they have ZERO right to demand that she remove the entire blog (or her myspace profile), and they have ZERO right to blackmail her with the threat of sending this to her other employer at the aquarium.

Jess, chances are pretty good that the aquarium is going to see this stuff ANY WAY (I wouldn't trust those cockfaces at the museum), so I would prepare yourself.
posted by antifuse at 8:56 AM on May 18, 2006

Mean Mr. Bucket: It's more like a bartender's blog than a representative of science.

Spoken like someone who has not known scientists or science majors. They're not all nerds in lab coats, and even those are more wild then you'd normally imagine. When I was in college, some of the hardest drinking groups I knew were the Geologists and the Engineers, and I met the only Marine Biologist I ever encountered in a bar completely smashed (in Wyoming, they are infrequently encountered.) Scientists tend toward having good common sense and impulse control, so they are usually able to avoid trouble, but some of them do behave like this.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:13 AM on May 18, 2006

MOVIE DEAL in 10, 9, 8, 7 ....
posted by R. Mutt at 9:24 AM on May 18, 2006

I know that at my job, I could be fired for ANY mention of work on the internet. I signed endless paperwork about privacy laws and shit that I wouldn't do.

Then again, I teach four year olds. People take the privacy of small children VERY seriously.

I also work for the YMCA, who have policies about the type of person associate for them. Soon after starting my job, I took down my previous livejournal full of off-color jokes and started an anonymous blog that can only close friends know is mine. I've been fired under dubious circumstances before (and Jessa has my full sympathies - it BLOWS) and I didn't want to give anyone any unnecessary ammo.

My advice to Jessa would be to be upfront with the Aquarium about this, arrange a meeting with your boss and say "Look, this happened." Remove any mention of your workplace from the blog and offer to share the address. I imagine that your boss will appreciate the headsup and won't bother to look at the blog.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:31 AM on May 18, 2006

Okay, so I'm coming in after 138 comments, but Lindsay Lohan's breasts, and all her other lovely features, should be discussed in all possible fora and I'll defend anyone's right to do so all the way to the supreme court of whatever country you happen to live in.

That being said, termination due to blog is retarded and it is very sad that there are people out there who can't take real life and the fact that people like to have humourous sarcastic things on the internets.
posted by blacklite at 9:46 AM on May 18, 2006

You know, there should be an advocacy organization for bloggers.

Same problem as an advocacy group for child molesters: no one wants to deal with the clientele.
posted by yerfatma at 9:47 AM on May 18, 2006

You really think I should go to the aquarium and tell them what happened??

I kind of want it all to blow over...
posted by jessajeffries at 9:59 AM on May 18, 2006

I thought they'd claim it was because of her lifestyle.

jessa: Like your blog, this won't just disappear. Get a lawyer. Have her look over your termination papers before you sign anything.

In 10 years it will be just another story you tell.
posted by ?! at 10:14 AM on May 18, 2006

Jessa,
It's a really small world, and it's a good bet someone in the aquarium already knows about this. It's also a good bet that you will bump into someone you have worked with (either from the academy or the aquarium) again in your lifetime, so keep that in mind.

I do agree with the comments about being firm with the academy and communicating via a lawyer. I also agree with grapefruitmoon.

Learn your lesson and don't be so open about workplaces, at least unless it is anonymous (and even then...).
posted by DesbaratsDays at 10:19 AM on May 18, 2006

oh shutup yerfatma, bloggers aren't THAT hated.... ok, except by so-called 'normal' or 'respectable' people in positions of authority like that HR douchebag who was smiling smugly (god I fucking hate smug people). Jessa's story distressed me greatly because the way she was treated reminded me so very much of being in Grade 9 and being disciplined in school for saying bad things OUTSIDE of school (such as 'this school sucks' on my website) as the principal smugly explained the rules. So naturally I just lied, cheated, and pretended to be contrite and secretly hated them the whole time. It just boggles my mind that adults could treat other adults, well, like children. The Department of No-Fun is alive and well in America.

People freaking out over blogs is so last year. Instead of having a hissy fit about your firm's private business being aired on the web, instead develop some agreement with employers about how to do this stuff that isn't detri... fuck it nevermind, nobody will.
posted by tweak at 10:28 AM on May 18, 2006

Oh and eventually, when everyone uses MySpace, this kind of shit will not happen, and it will be normal to have an online presence and profile, as opposed to how it is now: it's normal to fire people who know how to use the internet.
posted by tweak at 10:30 AM on May 18, 2006

uh i was told to deconstruct myspace aswell

in fact im pretty sure thats how the blog was discovered.

at the aquarium all of the husbandry staff has profiles and they ALL have pictures up of them with the animals.

we marine zoologist get paid crap - but we have kickass jobs. just the other day we had a photo shoot organized (by the director of the aquarium) where we could cuddle with the new baby penguin and have our picture taken.

now lets say i post that picture on myspace - is that grounds for fireing? because the picture of me with the snake at the museum was.
posted by jessajeffries at 10:40 AM on May 18, 2006

we marine zoologist get paid crap - but we have kickass jobs

the point of that was - we all like to show it off - everyone has pictures of them training thier favorite seal, or pictures of them feeding penguins...

if i went to the aquarium with this story would i get all of these myspacers in trouble too????
posted by jessajeffries at 10:42 AM on May 18, 2006

I would not delete my web sites for these fuckers. I would take down anything they could possibly say is defamation or slander or anything non-public about the place, and otherwise ignore them.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:45 AM on May 18, 2006

now lets say i post that picture on myspace - is that grounds for fireing? because the picture of me with the snake at the museum was.

This is why it's best to discuss the issue with your employer (the Aquarium).

if i went to the aquarium with this story would i get all of these myspacers in trouble too????

Just don't bring them up.
posted by effwerd at 10:45 AM on May 18, 2006

the problem with the insistence that employers have the right to fire anyone for any reason is that right now, we are in serious danger of the corporate world acting as an unofficial government, replacing the one we have ... if those defending the employer's "right" to fire someone for off-work speech can't see that in effect, this could cause a country in which corporations determine the rights of the people and act as a government with no chance of appeal, then we are in serious trouble

i should point out that corporations are legal fictions and are creations of the government and we the people have every reason to lay down conditions and laws for the privilege of becoming a corporation ... (and don't give me the "freedom of association" crap that some have argued ... people do have the freedom to associate, but they do not have the automatic right for such associations to be recognized by the government and be given legal status or tax breaks ... that is a privilege, and i think that there should be certain rules and conditions laid down for those who want that status ... perhaps under current law they do, but i'd argue that the current law can and should be changed)

second, i don't think it's wise to blog under one's real name

third, this is a power struggle that we will continue to see in the years ahead ... there's nothing more frightening to employers than the idea that anything they do to their employees can and will become public knowledge ... they will continue to fire employees ... and then grit their teeth as the facts they were trying to suppress get wide circulation because of the added publicity

as frightening as the idea of employers controlling what bloggers write is, it's a doomed concept ... too many damn people blog or say things on the internet ... in the long run, if this keeps up, all they're going to do is increase their turnover of employees

eventually, employers are going to have to conduct themselves in a way that will ensure that people don't blog bad things about them if they don't want bad publicity
posted by pyramid termite at 10:55 AM on May 18, 2006

don't they see that you're totally HOTT, jessa?


Agreeance. Very pretty. I would totally share my weed with her. Damn scientists.

People shoud be allowed to write whatever they wanna write. If this place is gonna nitpick about something like this, it would have just been something else later on. Jessa, you'll probably look back on this later and it will have been the best thing that could've happened. In the meantime, hang in there; I'm sure there are many opportunities which will make themselves available to you.
posted by First Post at 10:57 AM on May 18, 2006

You know, there should be an advocacy organization for bloggers.

Same problem as an advocacy group for child molesters: no one wants to deal with the clientele.

Heh. Yeah, but "Blogging" or having a myspace page or a flickr account or whatever is no longer some sort of weird thing, as some still seem to think it is. It sucks that any web presence at all is seem by some as a moral license to treat the "blogger"' as a weird and vaguely treasonous person. It would be nice to take collective action to hold such employers to account.
posted by washburn at 10:57 AM on May 18, 2006

It's more like a bartender's blog than a representative of science.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 8:41 AM PST on May 18 [+fave] [!]

That's apparently what a science conference is like, too. Especially biology. Historians don't have fun like that.

but also to echo the above comment - scientists aren't, and never have been, secular OR even regular clergy. They are people, they get to have lives. Lives that are more informed by the knowledge of the exact chemical reaction in their bodies that is happening as they get increasingly drunk, but still their lives.

Jessa, I am definitely not a lawyer, but it usually is best to tell someone something before they find it out. Is there a direct supervisor whom you trust that you can approach? If you explain the situation with the museum, they may know what is best to do about your other job, based on the attitudes/culture of your other institution.
posted by jb at 11:00 AM on May 18, 2006

I hope this serves as a lesson to others... no, not other bloggers -- other employers.

They've handled this very badly and created a lot of bad PR for themselves. If they had *really* felt the content was objectionable and wanted it removed, they should have asked Jessa into a meeting to discuss it. Firing her and THEN asking for it to be removed is ridiculous.

I wouldn't be surprised if they turn up in some sort of "Worst employer of 2006" type list because of this. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
posted by Stuart_R at 11:16 AM on May 18, 2006

oh shutup yerfatma, bloggers aren't THAT hated.... ok, except by so-called 'normal' or 'respectable' people in positions of authority like that HR douchebag who was smiling smugly

You're right. The self-absorbed are universally loved. Who was smiling smugly that you saw?
posted by yerfatma at 11:16 AM on May 18, 2006

I wasn't fired, but I was recently encouraged to quit, and while there was a pretext other than my blog I'm reasonably certain the blog was the real reason. My employer has done some incredibly boneheaded things in the past, but at least they were smart enough not to cite the blog as a reason for our mutual parting of the ways.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 11:17 AM on May 18, 2006

From the Dutch constitution:

It shall be the concern of the authorities to promote the provision of sufficient employment.
It shall be the concern of the authorities to secure the means of subsistence of the population and to achieve the distribution of wealth.
posted by nomisxid at 11:33 AM on May 18, 2006

It could be that someone saw entries with the "fun" stuff, like the partying and cursing, and then decided they didn't want said author teaching their children.

I know someone who works in HR at a university and recently she was setting up interviews for a job. So just to check out this one particular person, she went to Facebook and looked up the person. The pictures of the person on the Facebook profile were so distateful that she decided not to even ask the person in for an interview. *shrugs*
YMMV.

What you post online will and can come back to haunt you, whether you were a stupid teenager, college student, or adult.
posted by cass at 11:34 AM on May 18, 2006

The only reason we have a "right" to free speech is because it's in the constitution. All of our "rights" are defined by the laws of the country.
Dear God, no.
The right to free speech is an inalienable one. The First Amendment is just there to remind the government.
posted by madajb at 11:37 AM on May 18, 2006

IANAL, but I have a little knowledge of firing...(cough), and, as a young man in spats posted above, most companies HR folks know that to threaten what they are threatening is very risky for them - and if they actually followed through would probably be actionable on your part.
They are opening themselves up to huge liabilities if they give more than hiring and termination dates, and re-hire eligibility.
Don't be bullied by these twats. If you didn't do anything actually illegal, they can fire you and that's it. Any more harm they attempt to do to you than that is probably grounds for a lawsuit.
They should know this; either they are idiots or they think you are.
posted by JAHxman at 11:50 AM on May 18, 2006

"Technically, we have a "right" (by law) not to be fired for bullshit reasons"

Nope. You can be fired for really foolish reasons, just not for protected reasons. You can't be fired because you are white, or Muslim, or female. You can be fired for being too flippant, having a vaguely-defined "bad attitude," or any other spurious charge your employer chooses to make. Unless your employer has policies that require them to have reasons, and most employers have gotten rid of those policies. A union may provide significant protection.

Jess, I recommend you put the facts on your blog. They have no business stopping you from telling the truth as it happened to you. And use your fame, however brief, to recommend that readers of your blog write to the Academy of Natural Sciences and complain. In short order, you are likely to the among the first search results for The Academy of Natural Sciences, and if they have any sense at all, they will stop trying to limit your freedom of speech.

It may have been unwise to make your employer so easily identifiable, and to share information and opinions they find distasteful. But their demand that you take down the site, and their threat to damage you with another employer, is Wrong. A lawyer can tell you if you have a case against them for the threat.
posted by theora55 at 12:04 PM on May 18, 2006

It's not going to ruin your career. I think you should do what theora55 says. Have courage!
posted by mattbucher at 12:15 PM on May 18, 2006

wait, did I get this right: "This is where I discovered the Rubies had been stolen. I decided against making an announcment to all the troop leaders. I invisioned a massive backpack search that would no doubt end in tears for the little scout who swiped the stones - not realizing thier worth. I just stuck a peice of garnet in it's place and hoped no one would be the wiser."
Rubies were stolen? Rocks or no, museum stuff was missing and you decided against embarrasing any scouts? Uhm.. Stuff was stolen right? They might have gotten peeved about that. Your employers. Who 'owned' the stolen stuff. I'm just guessing, please don't take this as a pile-on but it's not making any sense to me. I realize it's taken out of context and I might be misunderstanding it.
posted by dabitch at 12:27 PM on May 18, 2006

yeah thats out of context -
posted by jessajeffries at 12:30 PM on May 18, 2006

I have no p.o.v. on the firing (well, yes I do, but it's not well thought out) but I was reading the cached version and was totally crushing...before I read that the Aquarium in question might be one pretty close to me. In the interest of curbing this interest, I won't try and find out if it is or not. Besides, she's getting married.
posted by Brainy at 12:33 PM on May 18, 2006

antifuse: The only reason we have a "right" to free speech is because it's in the constitution. All of our "rights" are defined by the laws of the country

That's exactly backwards. And it's practically a definition of totalitarianism.

In the US, we (the people) have all the rights, by default. The only rights the government has are those explicitly granted to it. Try reading the actual constitution sometime, it says so right there in black and white.

(Of course, in realpolitik terms, the government has all the muscle, so it doesn't matter whether people have "rights" or not if the government doesn't respect them. But that's not what we're talking about here.)
posted by hattifattener at 12:38 PM on May 18, 2006

...and we have the same favorite movie!

(sorry just saw Jaws in there)
posted by Brainy at 12:45 PM on May 18, 2006

washburn: An advocacy organization for bloggers
posted by hattifattener at 12:55 PM on May 18, 2006

The only way to defeat a blackmailer is to beat him to the punch. She should tell the aquarium.

She also might as well give up the names of those who threatened her, to spare the innocent because now that the internet knows, somebody is going to go after those they believe to be responsible. (vigilante action is a part of life in this here intraweb)
posted by Megafly at 1:03 PM on May 18, 2006

Jessa, if The Academy is really serious about going to the aquarium, would you consider going to the local media with your story?
posted by joegester at 1:23 PM on May 18, 2006

Jessaisims are a sign of the apocalypse, bitches.
posted by airguitar at 1:23 PM on May 18, 2006

Man, I'm sad that she's hot. Because if this had been the story of a fat geeky guy getting fired for his whiny blog...well, the scorching commentary would have been much more amusing.
posted by dejah420 at 1:52 PM on May 18, 2006

I find it sad that there are so many posts going on about how "hot" she is as if it's pertinent to the story.

I was fired from my previous job for something I said on my blog. I can totally sympathize. Since then, I never reference work specifics online. Ever. It's the only policy that makes me feel safe.
posted by agregoli at 1:55 PM on May 18, 2006

Jessa:

I'm really sad about your story--and sorry that you ran afoul of such officious, moralizing idiots, who weren't even good enough to warn you. Is there any other reason they may have wanted a pretext to get rid of you?

That said, maybe you shouldn't answer. Seeing your posts, I begin to wonder what might happen if the same morality police stumble across this thread, which they may see as a thumbing of the proverbial nose. Given their strong reaction to the blog[s], it's a reasonable fear.

That said, I agree that the threat to, in effect, sabotage your entire life outside the Museum--your employment at other places and the like--is outright blackmail. I'm pretty sure Randy Cohen had something about this, stating that it's all right for employers to speak to prospectives who CALL them for references on a prospective employee, but to go out of their way to sabotage employment prospects is not only wrong, it's considered harassment, and using the threat to leverage concessions from you is textbook blackmail--even if sending things to the Aquarium were legal--because of the exchange being proffered.

One piece of advice, honed through a relative's experience with unfair termination suits: always record your communications with your former employer. Otherwise it's just your word against theirs, and they'll win that fight, even if they angrily decide to throw a wrench into your gears ten years down the road.
posted by trigonometry at 3:13 PM on May 18, 2006

i would sue them for a lot of money, then donate the money to your aquarium and get a [marine animal of your choice] enclosure named after you.

suit not just for the wrongful dismissal, but the black mail. thats the kicker. If they had some legal reason to force you to take it down, they could just sue you to have it done. Threatening to show it to other people is criminal.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 5:27 PM on May 18, 2006

In the US, we (the people) have all the rights, by default. The only rights the government has are those explicitly granted to it.

Bill of Rights? I'm still quite confused about these default rights. Where did they come from? Or what are they?
posted by mrgrimm at 6:09 PM on May 18, 2006

I did a search in this thread for the word "drunk" and came up empty (except for one un-related reference). Was I the only person to note the following in her most recent entry?

"i posted pictures of me working with kids and animals inbetween pictures of me crawling on taxi cabs drunk

Doesn't the employer have a right to not keep someone on board who posts pictures of herself crawling into taxi cabs while drunk?
posted by davidmsc at 6:47 PM on May 18, 2006

Well, I realize this was a shock to the original poster and she doesn't want to lose her job at the aquarium, but I think that I would have told them to f#*k off, I wasn't taking the blog down, feel free to fire me and if they so much as open their mouths to me again I would discuss the details from one end of the internet to the other -- and I was going to talk to a lawyer about suing them.

You can't wuss out to this kind of aggression, assuming her blogging was done on her won computer on her own time.
posted by bim at 7:03 PM on May 18, 2006

Doesn't the employer have a right to not keep someone on board who posts pictures of herself crawling into taxi cabs while drunk?


No. No they don't. No they shouldn't.

And somewhere out there, there are Playboy pics. . . not that that's, um, pertinent to the story.
posted by dgaicun at 7:06 PM on May 18, 2006

Man, I'm sad that she's hot. Because if this had been the story of a fat geeky guy getting fired for his whiny blog...well, the scorching commentary would have been much more amusing.


What she said times two; verily, this thread is an impressive yet still pathetic display of the swinish and the swoonish.
Sell-outs.

/Adjusts chip on shoulder, sneers at some passing women.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:47 PM on May 18, 2006

Re: the rubies episode dabitch pointed to, Jessamyn replied, "yeah thats out of context."

What does that mean? Here we have a blog post that clearly indicates that Jessamyn failed to report the theft of *rubies* from the museum. How is an employer supposed to take that? What possible "context" - other than the fact that Jessamyn left out or made up essential elements of the story for public consumption - could there possibly be that would eliminate the obvious implication that she failed to report a theft of *rubies* from her workplace?

Something's still kind of fishy about this. Yeah, the museum over-reacted with truly despicable threats, but it seems pretty clear that Jessamyn isn't telling us the whole story. Looks from here like she gave them *plenty* of reason to be upset with her public statements about their workplace, and if there's a lesson here about standing up for the right to blog, there's also a lesson here about using your brain when posting about work, and not whining when you get called out for posting some really obvious mistakes.
posted by mediareport at 8:20 PM on May 18, 2006

i read it on the internet.
posted by ab3 at 8:21 PM on May 18, 2006

A question: does the museum receive public funding? If so, the fiat it can show in terminating employment is severely complicated.

Anyway, hope it all settles out As It Ought.
posted by trigonometry at 10:14 PM on May 18, 2006

Ya know, I'm pretty sure that if the museum actually found Jessamyn complicit in a freaking jewel heist she would have been in a lot of trouble for that and not so much the blogging about it, dontcha think?
posted by furiousthought at 10:29 PM on May 18, 2006

and not only that but they wouldnt have asked her to delete her freaking Myspace account.

she would have had charges brought against her and they would have probably wanted her blog to remain up so as to use it against her in court.
posted by tsarfan at 10:36 PM on May 18, 2006

These people suggesting a campaign taken to the Board of Directors or the media -- are you thinking the reaction there will be better?

My local paper has run about three MYSPACE IS FULL OF PEDOPHILES stories in the last two months.
posted by dhartung at 11:29 PM on May 18, 2006

You guys need some employment protection over there in the land of the free. If you were fired over something like this, which is basically none of your employers business, in Yoorup, you'd certainly have a case to take to an Industrial Tribunal. They can reinstate you, or demand you are paid compensation.
posted by winjer at 12:06 AM on May 19, 2006

Just sayin that i think someone likes being the center of attention.

Really, at a certain point you gotta say, what did you expect? This is America, 2006. I suspect the naked pix have more to do with this than Ms. J. is letting on.
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:01 AM on May 19, 2006

Having your photo on the net is being in the "center of attention?" Well, then the center is huge and we have an amazing attention span.

The link about talks about a playboy "girls of..." photoshoot from a couple of years ago. Which, I believe, was before she got the museum job.

This is just another example of those in a position of power or authority trying to use "morals" as a reason to force compliance.
posted by ?! at 6:04 AM on May 19, 2006

Ya know, I'm pretty sure that if the museum actually found Jessamyn complicit in a freaking jewel heist she would have been in a lot of trouble for that and not so much the blogging about it, dontcha think?

Um, I don't think we're talking about a "jewel heist." I'm reasonably certain she was referring to sample stones of the type you would see in a museum, perhaps in an interactive setting where you pass the individually labeled boxes of stones around so that kids can see what they look like. They're not jewelry grade stones.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 6:19 AM on May 19, 2006

Whenever someone I know decides to start blogging I always make it a point to give them a lecture about never mentioning anything work related in their blog. And pointing them to examples like this. Your employer, especially the HR department, will screw you for it.

The Internet, with it's opinions and facts and stories, is extremely threatening to pencil-pushers who need to draw a physical line between right and wrong.

I make it a point to never mention anything from work. Because sooner or later someone will screw you over it.
posted by MrCheese!!! at 6:41 AM on May 19, 2006

At least she's hot.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:45 AM on May 19, 2006

Doesn't the employer have a right to not keep someone on board who posts pictures of herself crawling into taxi cabs while drunk?
posted by davidmsc at 6:47 PM PST on May 18 [+fave] [!]

I don't know anything about rights or not (see above discussion on whether companies/corporations/bodies are even people), but why should an employer be upset that an employee was drunk and crawling into a taxi? I mean, if they were drunk and driving that would be really irresponsible (and criminal), but taking a taxi is the right to do.

Or are you saying an employer should be able to tell employees whether they are allowed to drink when off duty? If you're not a Methodist minister or the head of the Temperance movement, maybe it's just none of their god-damned business. If it doesn't affect your job performance, they should not have the right to fire you for it.
posted by jb at 6:52 AM on May 19, 2006

No, don't you get it jb? They're scientists.

Children → Think of → Please → Won't Somebody
posted by dgaicun at 7:28 AM on May 19, 2006

before I read that the Aquarium in question might be one pretty close to me.

Well, it has to be one pretty close to the Academy, and really there's only one Aquarium in this whole area, and it's right across the river. Not to name names or anything.
posted by soyjoy at 9:06 AM on May 19, 2006

I'm reasonably certain she was referring to sample stones of the type you would see in a museum, perhaps in an interactive setting where you pass the individually labeled boxes of stones around so that kids can see what they look like.

Ok, that makes a lot of sense... it's just that some other people were going rubies! ruuubies! and if it were really as serious as all that we wouldn't be looking at a scenario like this one exactly.
posted by furiousthought at 9:59 AM on May 19, 2006

Wow, all this is going on right in my hometown? How did I miss this clusterfuck? From the Parkway to Camden...that could be a great song title.
posted by fixedgear at 10:00 AM on May 19, 2006

The only thing I've read that may have concerned me (as a boss) would be posting pictures of other people's kids. I think it is possible someone at the museum did not like you for some reason and this is a pretext for being fired. I can certainly understand a professional place insisting you remove all identifying data in regards to the place, and issuing a strict warning... you know, making guidelines and boundaries clear, but to outright fire someone without prior warning on an issue is assholeary. which is why I think there may be an undisclosed animosity angle. The blackmailing bit, kind of reinforces this, as well as raises flags the museum may not be confident on it's legal footing.
As a boss, I very consciously DO NOT google potential employees. They have to undergo a background criminal check because of the nature of the work, but outside of that and a reference check you have to base employee value on employee quality of work. I don't give a fuck what my employees do on their off time, as long as they show up sober and do their job well. I strongly believe in the separation of work life and social/family life. There will be some bleedover but as long as that is within certain boundaries no big deal.
posted by edgeways at 10:42 AM on May 19, 2006

Based on personal experience around New England, a breeding ground for marine biologists with Woods Hole being out on Cape Cod, I can attest that there are plenty of hot marine biologists. And they know how to party.

Being a marine biologist "bred" in Woods Hole, I have to say that this general consensus tends towards the truth. It might be the wetsuits.

I recently visited the aquarium where Jessa's employed. The hippos were eating the plastic off the sides of the tank and it was leaking. (I hope you didn't have to cope with that debacle, Jessa.)
posted by nekton at 12:15 PM on May 19, 2006

I just realized that sounded like "Oh yes I am totally a hot marine biologist". I didn't mean it like that. The part about the wetsuits probably still applies.
posted by nekton at 12:21 PM on May 19, 2006

I hope you didn't have to cope with that debacle, Jessa.

Cope with it? She caused it!




Sorry, couldn't resist, after all that (IMO) ill-advised posting of her own awful job screw-ups...
posted by soyjoy at 12:42 PM on May 19, 2006

it's just that some other people were going rubies! ruuubies!

Er, you may have missed the part where "some people" also were going "she's either making stuff up or leaving out important parts of the story." But either way, the point remains that she really shouldn't have been posting about work the way she was posting. Her bosses had a right to call her in and talk with her about the way she was blogging about them, although nothing excuses the extortion and over-reaching threats.
posted by mediareport at 6:35 PM on May 19, 2006

I don't really have a problem with that point, mediareport; I just thought you were reaching a little. Cheers and all.
posted by furiousthought at 7:37 PM on May 19, 2006

I sense a book deal in the works, concerning Hot Girl's comical sexual and nightlife misadventures while toiling in the world of science by day. It has an undeniable Hollywood appeal ... maybe as a Reese Witherspoon vehicle? And as a fired blogger shooting to prominence, it has a precedent in the case of the Washingtonienne blogger, Jessica Cutler, getting fired then getting a book deal.
posted by jayder at 8:59 PM on May 19, 2006

I don't write about work in my online journal. At least, I try not to. There have been times when I couldn't help it, but like... once I wrote about being released from employment. It wasn't just me. The entire floor was let go. I couldn't NOT write SOMETHING. Even so, I purposefully didn't mention names, and I even think I insinuated it might be fiction. Any resemblance to persons blah blah blah etc.

I've noticed recently that I post less and less to my website. Nowadays I work. I go home. I go to work. I go home. Lather rinse repeat it's a very boring lifestyle. Since I can't talk about work, there's not much to tell. Why can't I talk about work? Well, this thread pretty much answers that question. It's not safe, and I have no interest in consciously putting myself in a situation where I might need a lawyer. In short. I'm a coward. I'm also smart enough to realize that in a world where the NSA/CIA or whatever can get away with tapping our phones without court orders, and we all know they'll get away with it, I'm smart enough to realize that "freedom" of the press is only free for those who can afford to buy it.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:51 PM on May 20, 2006

Worse than being fired, I lost my best friend because of something I said on my blog that got him into trouble, even though I am normally very discreet.

It's simple: Never write anything on a blog or in an email that you would not like to see on the front page of the New York Times, or post pictures that you would not want your mother to see.

And don't complain about the consequences when you do write something inflammatory. If you were riding in the elevator with your boss, would you start talking about your drunken exploits over the weekend? Blogging is really the same thing - and it goes for email as well. Blogging is a public activity.

That said, if an employer has problems with somebody's online activity they should have the courtesy to give a warning and explain clearly what it is that has upset them.

And I guess I'm missing something but this Jessa girl seems like an idiot. sorry.
posted by maggiemaggie at 10:31 AM on May 21, 2006

If anybody is still reading: The Monday 5/22 Philadelphia Inquirer has a story about the mummy that Jessa sort of implied was abandoned in a storage room at the Academy. Nice timing.
posted by fixedgear at 7:25 AM on May 22, 2006

youre an idiot maggie maggie
posted by jessajeffries at 8:32 AM on May 24, 2006

rrrrowwrr!
posted by Hat Maui at 9:43 AM on May 24, 2006

Zing!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:45 AM on May 24, 2006

No U!
posted by kosem at 9:54 AM on May 24, 2006

Why does mediareport keep calling jessajeffries Jessamyn? it's very confusing.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:10 PM on May 24, 2006

I was willing to believe that jessajeffries was just unfortunately naïve in the world of blogging...

... and now after :

youre an idiot maggie maggie
posted by jessajeffries at 11:32 AM EST on May 24 [+fave] [!]

I'm forced to side with jessajeffries is unfortunately naïve in the world of human interaction and will probably suffer several more "WHY ME?" episodes before realizing that perhaps, if you're not a jerk, it won't be you.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:39 PM on May 24, 2006

EustaceScrubb: because she was commenting on her own blog under the name Jessamyn, I'm guessing.
posted by antifuse at 8:56 AM on May 25, 2006

Another story about some blogger getting canned because of their blog.

*yawn*

Yeah, it sucks, but welcome to the modern days of the Internet. I'm not at all surprised to read that a blog got someone canned, but the threats of legal action if she didn't take it down were a bit excessive. After they fire her, they can't tell her to do a damn thing. Threatening to go to the current employer is none of their fucking business either. This isn't the first time I've heard of an employer freaking out because an employee has 'interesting' photos on their Myspace account, though.

Maybe the HR woman was just jealous because she's hot. Gnarly old HR battleaxes tend to do that.

Oh well. She'll probably have no trouble getting a new job.
posted by drstein at 9:14 AM on June 1, 2006