Comments on: Employee Termination Based on Mistaken Belief of Facebook Post Authorship Upheld — Smizer v. Community Mennonite Early Learning Ctr. https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/11/employee-termination-based-on-mistaken-belief-of-facebook-post-authorship-upheld-smizer-v-community-mennonite-early-learning-ctr.htm Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:55:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: Teacher’s Semi-Racy Facebook Photo Doesn’t Justify Firing – In re Laraine Cook | Technology & Marketing Law Blog https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/11/employee-termination-based-on-mistaken-belief-of-facebook-post-authorship-upheld-smizer-v-community-mennonite-early-learning-ctr.htm#comment-629 Sun, 02 Feb 2014 18:55:49 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=11048#comment-629 […] * Employee Termination Based on Mistaken Belief of Facebook Post Authorship Upheld — Smizer v. Commu… […]

]]> By: Nurse Properly Fired and Denied Unemployment Due to Facebook Rant | Technology & Marketing Law Blog https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/11/employee-termination-based-on-mistaken-belief-of-facebook-post-authorship-upheld-smizer-v-community-mennonite-early-learning-ctr.htm#comment-628 Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:57:48 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=11048#comment-628 […] Employee Termination Based on Mistaken Belief of Facebook Post Authorship Upheld — Smizer v. Commu… […]

]]> By: Ralph Haygood https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/11/employee-termination-based-on-mistaken-belief-of-facebook-post-authorship-upheld-smizer-v-community-mennonite-early-learning-ctr.htm#comment-627 Sun, 17 Nov 2013 00:10:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=11048#comment-627 And where was Facebook, Inc. in all this? Did either side try to get support from Facebook? Even if plaintiff wrote the post and deleted it, his actions were logged – it’s unlikely anything happens on Facebook that isn’t logged, although some log data may not be retained for long. If plaintiff could show, for example, that Facebook has no record of his having deleted any post during the period of interest, that would seem to settle the factual dispute (I’m assuming defendants claim plaintiff deleted the post).

I find the principle asserted by the court in this case seriously troubling. Suppose my boss, suffering from undiagnosed schizophrenia, fires me after becoming convinced I’m a cunning ventriloquist and the source of the abusive, threatening voices he keeps hearing. According to this court, I guess, it doesn’t matter that he has no evidence for this belief provided the belief is sincere. Granted, this is a reductio ad absurdum, but accepting belief, however sincere, in place of evidence makes me very uncomfortable.

Actually, I don’t have a boss, because I’m an independent software developer. I’m currently creating a service involving user-generated content. Reading posts like this one makes me question my sanity, but I’m persevering. This blog gives me plenty of food for anxious thought.

]]>