Not the brighest bulb in the package

[WhatThe]

Were they there escorting residents or were they on their own. I understand they were by themselves while visiting the area for a conference of some sort

[Fancy]

Were they there escorting residents or were they on their own. I understand they were by themselves while visiting the area for a conference of some sort

Doesn't matter - they were there on their employer's expense.

[WhatThe]

Doesn't matter - they were there on their employer's expense.

It does matter. Just because a company sends you on an "excursion" at their expense doesn't mean they own your *bleep* 24 hours a day. If they were sight seeing on their own time it's not on company time like your arguing.

It seems the truth is that these girls actually broke no laws, acted in a way the harmed the residents or failed in their duties caring for the residents. All that has happened is that self rightgeous people got all uptight about something that isnt their business and made a stink about it. If one is offended,That's one's problem, not the girls. I'm offended that there are people that made a point to get them fired. but I guess that's my problem, then again I'm not acting out in a malicious manner and calling for loss of livelihoods.... For a tasteless joke meant only to be shared among friends.

[Fancy]

If one is offended,That's one's problem, not the girls

Obviously it was the girls' problem for posting an offensive photograph. You are failing to address the fact that there was a code of conduct in place and these girls needed to set an example. The other probability is the girls were there with the residents - 40 of them and 8 staff. There are veterans serving on staff and on the board of trustees. Same opinion? If so, it's just not shared with the employer who states what they are all about on their webpage.

[oneh2obabe]

It seems the truth is that these girls actually broke no laws, acted in a way the harmed the residents or failed in their duties caring for the residents. All that has happened is that self rightgeous people got all uptight about something that isnt their business and made a stink about it. If one is offended,That's one's problem, not the girls. I'm offended that there are people that made a point to get them fired. but I guess that's my problem, then again I'm not acting out in a malicious manner and calling for loss of livelihoods.... For a tasteless joke meant only to be shared among friends.

Employees may claim that they have 1st Amendment “Freedom of Speech" rights under the U.S. Constitution. However those constitutional rights do not extend entirely to certain types of postings on an employee’s private Facebook page.

The practice of employees who have listed their place of employment on Facebook, and then engage in questionable behavior may through association harm their employer. Many U.S. courts as well as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have issued a variety of opinions which underscore that an employee’s right to post photos, words, or other unflattering portrayals do not offer them protection from being fired.

Therefore, as social media becomes more and more an integral and embedded part of American society employees like a Lindsey Stone cannot go out and do whatever immature and uncaring disrespectful act that fancies them. In fact, according to Career Builder, a website for job seekers, “New England Patriots cheerleader Caitlin Davis was dismissed from her position, “over controversial pictures that were posted on her Facebook page.”

Proofpoint, an internet security company, established in its 2009 study that approximately eight percent of firms with more than 1,000 employees discharged an employee for engaging in questionable social media postings. That number had doubled from the previous year.

The verdict is in. Lindsey Stone’s dismissal was not only legitimate; she and her coworker did not appear to have a U.S. Constitutional leg to stand on. It is indeed unfortunate, that you cannot legislate respect. But you sure can require it from your employees.

So this is a future warning for employees who feel the notion to engage in behavior that is “prankish” and disrespectful. Your next posting on your Facebook page may list your current occupation as unemployed.

[Fancy]

The First Amendment was never intended to guarantee consequence-free speech. When the amendment was ratified in 1791, the Founders understood, for example, that individuals would continue to be liable to defamation lawsuits if they engaged in slander. And that’s a good thing. Imagine if you had to stand idly by while others trashed your reputation. Or if employers were powerless to discipline or fire employees who disparage the company brand or divulge trade secrets.

The very essence of freedom is the obligation to accept responsibility for our choices. The Constitution does not shield us from that responsibility.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/ ... z2DQa3dr8J

[Fancy]

LIFE issued its own statement:

"On Nov. 19 at approximately 6 p.m., we became aware that one of our employees had posted an offensive, inappropriate photograph on her personal Facebook page. The photo was taken at a national historic site in October by a fellow employee during a trip to Washington, D.C. attended by 40 residents and eight staff. The photo has since been removed from Facebook, and both employees have been placed on unpaid leave pending the results of an internal investigation.

"This photograph in no way reflects the opinions or values of the LIFE organization, which holds our nation's veterans in the highest regard. We are proud to have veterans serving on our staff and board of trustees, and we value their service. The men and women who have selflessly fought and sacrificed their lives to protect the rights and lives of Americans deserve our utmost respect and gratitude. We are acutely aware that this photo has done a disservice to veterans and we are deeply saddened that it was taken and shared in a public medium."

Just because a company sends you on an "excursion" at their expense doesn't mean they own your *bleep* 24 hours a day

It does mean a company is entitled to expect their employees to have respect and to represent them in a manner befitting their position.

[coffeeFreak]

The woman is stupid, and likely didn't think past the words "silence and respect" in her actions...but what these soldiers did, goes beyond anything close to her action, yet their punishment is basically a slap on the hand?

The US military announced on Monday that no criminal charges would be brought against the US marines in Afghanistan who videotaped themselves urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters. Nor, the military announced, would any criminal charges be filed against the US troops who "tried to burn about 500 copies of the Qur'an as part of a badly bungled security sweep at an Afghan prison in February, despite repeated warnings from Afghan soldiers that they were making a colossal mistake".

In doing so, the US military, as usual, brushed aside demands of Afghan officials for legal accountability for the destructive acts of foreign soldiers in their country. The US instead imposed "disciplinary measures" in both cases, ones that "could include letters of reprimand, a reduction in rank, forfeit of some pay, physical restriction to a military base, extra duties or some combination of those measures"...read more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/28/us-israel-justice-whitewash-state-crimes

[cliffy1]

US-Marines-allegedly-urin-007.jpg

The US military announced on Monday that no criminal charges would be brought against the US marines in Afghanistan who videotaped themselves urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters. Nor, the military announced, would any criminal charges be filed against the US troops who "tried to burn about 500 copies of the Qur'an as part of a badly bungled security sweep at an Afghan prison in February, despite repeated warnings from Afghan soldiers that they were making a colossal mistake".

In doing so, the US military, as usual, brushed aside demands of Afghan officials for legal accountability for the destructive acts of foreign soldiers in their country. The US instead imposed "disciplinary measures" in both cases, ones that "could include letters of reprimand, a reduction in rank, forfeit of some pay, physical restriction to a military base, extra duties or some combination of those measures"...read more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/28/us-israel-justice-whitewash-state-crimes

Yup. God bless America, nobody else will.

[fluffy]

It seems the truth is that these girls actually broke no laws, acted in a way the harmed the residents or failed in their duties caring for the residents. All that has happened is that self rightgeous people got all uptight about something that isnt their business and made a stink about it. If one is offended,That's one's problem, not the girls. I'm offended that there are people that made a point to get them fired. but I guess that's my problem, then again I'm not acting out in a malicious manner and calling for loss of livelihoods.... For a tasteless joke meant only to be shared among friends.

That's the meat of it for me too. Were it not for the landslide of indignance created by by a ravenous pack of officious busybodies this would never have gone anywhere. It was just a bad joke.

[Fancy]

Apparently the landslide started with their friends.

[fluffy]

That's not surprising in the least. The very fact that she was short-sighted enough to think a tasteless joke like hers would go unnoticed tells me that thinking things through is not her long suit. It would follow to reason that the same short-sightedness would extend to her choice of friends.

[Fancy]

It is disturbing to read people aren't satisfied that the girls lost their jobs.

[Lady tehMa]

True - I think their stupidity causing their job loss was enough. That and the fact that they are now notorious may make finding another job difficult. Hubris causes the fall - let us hope they learn from this and come out as better people.

[fluffy]

At the very least they have likely had their eyes opened as to the potential of "mob-think".