You wanna see some dirty pictures?

Whoa! What Have We Here?
By: Joseph Walther


“Bloggers beware – your boss may not be amused.” This tagline appeared in the Sunday News Journal’s business section. The News Journal, for those out-of-state readers, is Delaware’s premier newspaper. The premier tag has nothing to do with news quality. Sadly, though, it is the only newspaper with statewide circulation. Anyway, talk about startling taglines! This one got my attention real fast because it referred to two employees from different employers fired because those employers did not like the content of their respective BLOGS. Writers refer to web logs posted to the Internet as BLOGS.

The first incident involved a former Delta Airlines flight attendant, Ellen Simonetti. Ellen posted pictures of herself in uniform and in poses termed as “suggestive” by her employer. Naturally, in the interest of justice, I brought up her BLOG to see for myself. What her site suggested to me was that Ellen is a very attractive woman with LEGS TO DIE FOR. My first impulse was to find a reason to fly Delta. I did NOT have impure thoughts, though. All right, I will admit that some blood rushed to the groin area. I’m only human, you know! But other than causing a slight dent in the underside of my computer table, nothing else happened and I went back to checking Ellen’s BLOG for some more of that “suggestive” content. Unfortunately, I did not find any.

It seems to me that “suggestive” is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, I can envision a crotchety older employer, suffering from a prolonged period of, shall we say, forced carnal abstinence. Unable to get any on his own and too cheap to buy Viagra, he decides to punish poor Ellen because HE is having dirty thoughts. All Ellen did was show some leg and, I hasten to add, some nice looking leg at that. (Ouch! Don’t worry, just another blood rush and another dent in the underside of my computer table.)

The First Amendment restricts the government control of speech. So, while it is a constitutionally protected right to refer to the President of the United States as a “former town drunk”, it is not so to refer to your private sector boss as a homely moron unable to make out in a whore house with a handful of fifty dollar bills. More disturbing to me is the question of what constitutes a “private” employer.

The State, Delaware or any other, is an employer. If an employee of the State of Delaware refers to its governor, Ruth Ann Minner, as Cruella Deville of “101 Dalmatian fame”. Could the State of Delaware fire the employee? Suppose further, that a second employee admonishes the first one by referring to Cruella Deville as “one hot lady” as compared to Ruth Ann Minner. Are there grounds for firing both employees?

Suppose, as a hypothetical example, that an employee of Delaware Technical and Community College, a state agency, writes that dead leaves have more brain cells than all of the members of the President’s Council combined. Then, suppose another employee publicly criticizes the first one for bestowing such completely unwarranted flattery on the President’s Council. Can Delaware Tech fire these employees?

Assume that a highly competent professional fundraiser recently resigned from the same state agency. If an employee questioned the merit in letting this happen by writing that, “she became an intellectual threat to two Campus Directors”, could Delaware Tech legitimately fire such an employee? Would it matter at all if, say, the professional fundraiser has more brain cells in her little toe than the two campus directors have in their entire bodies?

Assume, for the purpose of argument, that a state agency decides to hold an annual “mandatory” employee recognition event. Can you imagine anyone doing this? Let’s assume it’s true, though. If one of the employees decided to criticize this practice with a BLOG, would that employee be subject to a righteous firing. Would that employee be subject to dismissal even though most of the agency’s employees had indicated a preference for going to the dentist for anesthesia-free root canals than attend the recognition event?

Please understand. These are hypothetical situations. God knows that I can’t think of anyone actually dumb enough to do this stuff. We all know, though, that weirder things happen with alarming frequency. However, the question remains as to whether the law considers any State as a “private” employer pertaining to the First Amendment? Even more specifically, does the law consider state agencies as “private” employers relative to the First Amendment? This matter is very troubling. The Delaware Attorney General needs to clarify this. Certainly, there must be some kind-hearted soul out there who would be willing to read this column to her.

Oh yes, I did refer to two fired employees at the beginning of this column. The other one was some male dweeb who worked for Microsoft Corporation. Well, it serves him right for not knowing when to stop typing about Bill Gates. Ellen Simonetti, on the other hand, is an innocent victim of ruthless censorship. OUCH, another dent, only this time I felt myself get a bit light-headed with that blood rush! Man, I have to start moving this chair a little farther back from my computer table.

Joe Walther is a freelance writer. You may contact him by clicking on CONTACT ME above or by email at Joe_Walther@comcast.net