Hiawatha Bray has gotten into trouble with his bosses at the Boston Globe for expressing his political opinions on line:

...Bray posted an item under his own name on a blog hosted by the San Jose Mercury News dismissing Kerry's strategy of promoting his Vietnam service record as "moronic.''

Bray promoted many of the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry - some of which were proven false. He questioned his own paper's work, dismissing probes of Bush's National Guard service as "innuendo.''

And in another Web forum after the election, Bray identified himself as a "Bush supporter'' and said he's "feeling pretty good now.''

Emphasis mine. I'm not aware of any that were "proven false." That's the same kind of sophistry--well, lie, actually--that the same folks use when they say that the Independent Council report "proved the Clintons innocent" of everything in Whitewater. As far as I'm aware, the worst that can be said about any of the charges is that they remain in dispute. Few of them can be resolved absent Kerry's service records, which he continues to refuse to release, despite his statement that he would do so to Tim Russert a few weeks ago.

Anyway, that's a side issue. According to the article, Bray "had been told in November his postings were 'inappropriate and in violation of our standards.'''

One can't help but wonder if they would have been more"appropriate" and in keeping with their "standards" if the criticism had instead been directed at George Bush, rather than the hometown boy.

There is a difference between contracting something and disproving it. The Swift Boat Vets were contradicted. Were they disproved? Not so's you'd notice.

Presumably there's also hard evidence (IP addresses, etc) that Bray actually posted these items, and that it wasn't someone posting using his name? I mean, heck, I could change my sig to say that I'm Abe Lincoln posting this comment, but that doesn't mean that they're Abe's words...

But hey, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing... who needs it? (never mind the issue of what he's even "guilty" of...)

Why does he need to be guilty of anything? "Free speech" for any public position is a very tricky issue, especially for a news reporter. I may not agree with their decision to fire him, but I don't see anything illegal to it, and he should have known he was treading on dangerous ground.

VR, I didn't say there was anything illegal going on. I think that anyone can be (or at least should be able to be) fired for anything, anytime. I was simply pointing out the (potential) hypocrisy.

That "free speech" gambit is worthy of Slashdot.

No one's free speech has been violated. This guy spoke freely before he was fired, and he can still speak freely. The Bill of Rights protects your right to speak freely, but it doesn't protect you from the consequences of speaking. I've got a right to publish my opinions of my boss, but I don't have a right to avoid what happens if he doesn't like those opinions.

Besides, if this had been, say, a Washington Times employee ranting about the evils of Bush-led reactionaries, I doubt if we'd have read about it here.

billg,

The problem with your argument is that the newspaper doesn't own his name. Whatever he does in his off hours is his personal business. The only way the paper has any standing is if the blog posting was done in Bray's official capacity as a reporter. Or, perhaps, if he used the paper's computers to do the posting.

- Eric.

... sorry to follow up my own post ...

Another point, I suppose if Bray were a *political* reporter, then there'd be a bias issue (although the leftie MSM has extreme biases, but perhaps they only express that in their reporting). Bray is a *technology* reporter. His politics are immaterial to his reporting.

Finally, IIRC, it's a violation of Federal law for an employer to interfere in any way with an employee's political expression, so long as that expression takes place outside the workplace and not on the clock. The Globe could be courting serious trouble.

- Eric.

"Finally, IIRC, it's a violation of Federal law for an employer to interfere in any way with an employee's political expression, so long as that expression takes place outside the workplace and not on the clock. The Globe could be courting serious trouble."

The Boston Globe is *not* interfering with his political expression, in any way. He is still free to blog and express himself as he wishes.

They cannot retract his statements.
They cannot prevent him from making more such statements.
They cannot prevent others from repeating or rebroadcasting his statements.

What they *can* do, however, is suspend, sanction, or fire him.

There is no First Amendment infringement here. The Boston Globe is not trying to prevent him from sharing his opinions, they're trying to prevent him from working at the Boston Globe. He's free to say what he wants, and he's also free to suffer the consequences.

-S

What federal law is that?

Rand,

I'm not sure. I do know that I've received briefings and docs from my employer that detail what can and cannot be done, and my recollection (which, of course, could be wrong) is that Federal law prohibits punitive action for political expression that takes place outside the workplace. Which, if you think about it, would make sense -- its not like an employer owns you 24/7/365.

I think the point that Stephen Kohls is missing is that free speech is not free if *any* institution can attempt coercion against that exercise of free speech.

- Eric.

Federal law prohibits punitive action for political expression that takes place outside the workplace. Which, if you think about it, would make sense -- its not like an employer owns you 24/7/365.

I don't think there's any federal law that does that, and in fact it doesn't make sense. It's not about "ownership." It's about conditions of employment.

I think the point that Stephen Kohls is missing is that free speech is not free if *any* institution can attempt coercion against that exercise of free speech.

While true in some philosophical sense, that kind of "free speech" has never existed in this country. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from passing laws abridging it--it is silent on what private entities may do. It's not reasonable to expect people, even with "free speech" to expect to be able to live a consequence-free existence resulting from their speech.

You have a right to say anything you want, but you don't have a right to work for any employer you want. They have a right to choose who they want as employees, on any basis (other than race and gender--a situation that should never have been within federal purview).

As far as I can tell, Bray still writes for the Boston Globe. And he's still actively blogging away.

Apparently it is company policy (of the New York Times which owns the Globe) for employees not to comment publically on politics. I think there's a good, legitimate argument here that the reputation of the newspaper may suffer if Mr. Bray were to appear blatantly pro-republican and then later write stories about political matters.

Finally, here's the source article, "Boston Globe reporter used blogs to attack Kerry, support Bush during '04 campaign" that warned us of the fearsome danger of a republican reporter in the Boston Herald. Media Matters for American spends about two thirds of the article rebutting Bray's comments. They do mention several stories that Mr. Bray wrote that were political in nature (eg, he wrote about political computer games, computer security at the Democrat Party convention, a hacking at a Swift Boat Veterans' website).

Still one wonders what the story is when the offending posts in question are often weeks apart. I know my own assaults on Kerry were a lot more frequent than that. And I wasn't trying.

What's really annoying is that the only two emails on the entire page (I checked the source code to be sure) are for Bray's personal email account and the ombudsman at the Herald, both which are ready to grab for spammage. There's something obnoxious about posting a personal email address (even if it is public information) for what appears to be a cheap political purpose. Especially when Bray does have a working email at work (bray -at- globe -dot- com).

I doubt Mass is an 'At will' state. If not, his lawyer can proabally kick the Globe squarely in the nads over this.

Eric, I think a newspaper is perfectly within its rights to fire a reporter who publishes a rant that calls into question his ability as a professional. The same comments in a letter to mom are one thing, but making the comments public is another.

I disagree with your kneejerk description of the media as leftist, but the argument applies regardless of political leanings. If a reporter publishes something weird, it gives his readers reason to question the accuracy of his reporting. That is sufficient reason to be dismissed.

Keeping one's job based on a right to free speech? Isn't that Ward Churchill's defense?

Work for liberal and attack a liberal, get fired. Basis? "Standards"

Work for liberal and attack Amerika, get lionized. Basis? Right to free speech.

The Globe firing Bray only proves the Globe's liberal slant.