Originally posted by Digi
Well, the fact that it was a public page aside, which kind of lays this particular scenario to rest, I think we hit on a matter that wouldn't be settled until we brought a legal team in. I tend to think that anything posted to hundreds of people isn't "private" in any sense, even if it's a specifically chosen set of people. It might be in a legal sense, but if one of those people decides to share it - a perfectly legal and reasonable response in social media, especially when the reporter didn't ask anyone to keep it a secret - it can be and will be legally public very quickly.
My background does come from the legal side of things concerning this (digital forensics). If someone does decide to share that posting publicly and her employer cracked down on her (assuming her profile was private), she may have some recourse. She can easily delete the posting. Even if other people kept a screen shot of her status update, there is no chain of custody and no way to prove that the screen-caps are legit (because most people don't know about integrity required for court cases). She'd be pretty safe...unless it when before a jury.*
But I don't know if any laws exist that would allow her any recourse against her employer for "retaliation". I put that in quotes (twice now) because it is not the business sense of retaliation. This is part of why I made the thread but I should have done better research: I thought her Facebook page was private because the article said "private Facebook page".
Originally posted by Digi
As for an example of a personal insult against a third party affecting a company, is it really so hard to imagine? For an example: Chik-Fil-A's CEO speaks out against something unrelated to his business - gay marriage - and people boycott their chicken. Hell, the mayor of Boston specifically denied a Chik-Fil-A franchise, citing their position on gay marriage.
Most people didn't change their habits. The small number that chose to boycott were greatly offset by those that went there even more. I went to 3 different Chick-Fil-A's about a month after that fiasco and all of the employees said they were busier than ever. And the CEO didn't say anything insulting so I don't think that example works too well.
Another example that I do think is an example is that rumor that went around that the Proctor and Gamble CEO was a satanist. That didn't hurt their business, at all.
Americans are too apathetic for those things to matter.
Maybe if a CEO said America sucked and the American people were idiots, would you see a blacklash strong enough to actually make a difference. But, so far, I cannot think of a single situation where a CEO or other upper management person said something that caused the business to lose money over it.
Originally posted by Digi
More generally, public outcry can hurt any enterprise, even if the outcry is against a person or their comments, not specifically with the company in question.
I see your point and raise you Foxconn. Seems that public outcry is just not enough.
*Juries are very very very very very very stupid, generally. The director of our Cyber Security program got called to a case about harassment between this perv and this lady (he was called as an expert). The gent was clearly harassing her and the Director showed that it was clearly his IP address the harassing e-mails were coming from by doing a e-mail header analysis (first year digital forensics students are taught this in their very first semester...including the proper way to present it in court...in other words, easy stuff). The harasser dude was acquitted. 😐 The jury simply did not understand the digital side of things to see that the perv was clearly the culprit. ACQUITTED! smh