Bradley, regarding Hobbs I feel that what happened to him was unjust and reactionary. His employer knew full well for quite a while what Hobbs was blogging about, they only forced him to resign because of the “hit” piece by Spragens.

As I said earlier, I don’t like what he did but he does have a right to express himself outside of work. What happened to Hobbs, sends a chilling message to other bloggers – that they had better be careful and watch every word they write as to not offend anyone. They should also take care to stay out of the media spotlight because that will make them easier targets for “journalists” like Spragens.

Bradley – I replied to your comment at chez Diva regarding the WaPo article.

Agreed!

BTW, I went to Chez Diva and read the WashPost story on angry liberal bloggers. I left a comment about the story, which didn’t prove what it claimed.

On that note, one of the things I like about your site and Cathy’s is the civil tone set by the site operators. Cathy has an understated, humorous way of responding to attacks that make her look reasonable and recoil on the attackers.

Because it has happened (and likely will again) does not mean it is right. You’re a journalist and I think you’re seeing it from a journalist’s perspective.

Meaning nothing personal at all here (and I mean that), this is not a profession I have had a real high opinion of in a lot of years now. One of the reasons I dislike the profession is because of the “gotcha” mentality that has become the major driving force in journalism ever since Watergate.

While I believe in personal responsibility, I also believe in decency, and this attack is beyond what I personally can tolerate. While I would not have posted the same thing as Hobbs, I do not know what he was thinking at the time, so I do not presume to judge him. As I said I used to read him, but haven’t in a while now. When I did read him, I thought he was quite good and very rational.

So lets agree to disagree on this one.

I shall certainly visit Chez Diva, after this longish post. Thanks.

Chez Diva’s belief that “employers should keep their noses out of employees private lives” is one that I generally agree with. However what is on the Internet is by definition not private. There is no more public forum imaginable than the Internet.

“I think what Hobbs did was tasteless but he should not have been “fired” for what he does at home on his own time.”

Personally, I agree. A sincere apology might have been sufficient. But that decision is not mine or yours, it is the employer’s. Also, Hobbs didn’t do this at home. He did it in cyberspace.

My main point has always been that Hobbs acted in an extraordinarily stupid manner by not checking what his employer might think of his Mohammed cartoon. Either he didn’t think his employer might have a problem with it (a sign of carelessness or stupidity) or he knew the university would object and hoped it wouldn’t be noticed (a sign of even greater stupidity and lack of consideration for his employer).

“His employers punished him for an activity that took place outside of work. If that is allowed to stand what will come next? Employers firing employees because they smoke, drink or over-eat at home?”

Some employers are indeed firing people who smoke, or charging them more for health insurance, because of the cost in health benefits. And as I pointed out, this was not done “at home”.

“How about firing someone because they are gay or promiscous or because they worship Scientology, solely because the employer doesn’t espouse those same views?”

I certainly don’t agree with those kinds of firings. But these are different kinds of cases than Hobbs’. He took an ill-considered public action that was obviously controversial without notifying his employer. Morover, there are laws against workplace discrimination on grounds of religion and to a lesser extent, sexual orientation. So again, your examples are not comparable.

Let’s get back to the theme of the BCB post: that conservatives are now being targeted in a new and unfair manner for their personal Web site postings. I have shown that people getting fired for what they put on their Web sites is nothing new, and that it doesn’t happen only to conservatives. Certainly, a liberal Democrat who posted a cartoon of Jesus throwing a bomb would be just as vulnerable to an attack from a Republican conservative operative.

Everybody needs to think about what they put up on the Web. There are lots of people who put all sorts of embarrassing personal stuff on their Web sites — at least it will be embarrassing and potentially job-limiting when prospective employers come across them.

And in my own profession, news reporters are often subject to severe restrictions. Some news outlets require their employees to ask for permission to have blogs, some don’t allow the practice at all. I am fortunate that my paper doesn’t have such onerous restrictions. The operative phrase at my paper is is, use your common sense.

And this common sense applies in all settings, not just the Web. It is to be expected, for example, that a reporter who covers politics should not go around announcing his or her political affiliation or endorsing a candidate. A politics reporter in Florida, Buddy Nevins, was recently taken off his beat after he announced at a Republican meeting that he had joined the G.O.P., and said he would be voting for a particular candidate in an election.In a similar context, some reporters who took part in antiwar protests were fired.

With all this background in mind, I am acting carefully with my own nascent blog. I told my editors of my proto-blog, told them I would be careful to state this is my personal site, that I would use discretion, and would ask them if anything seemed iffy. Had Hobbs done the same thing, he’d still have his job.

All of this is blindingly obvious to me. But not, it seems, to everyone.

Now for Chez Diva!

Gauis isn’t coddling the reporter who was forced to resign because of the stick figure drawing of Mohammed. He disagrees with Hobbs but Gauis is right in defending free speech. As Voltaire has been credited with saying :

“I disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death
your right to say it”.

I disagree with Markos, and the newly famous Maryscott of “My Left Wing” but I would defend their right to say what they please – even if it includes rants or expletives in place of debate. I don’t care what they say or how they say it only that they can freely say it.

I think what Hobbs did was tasteless but he should not have been “fired” for what he does at home on his own time. His employers punished him for an activity that took place outside of work. If that is allowed to stand what will come next? Employers firing employees because they smoke, drink or over-eat at home? How about firing someone because they are gay or promiscous or because they worship Scientology, solely because the employer doesn’t espouse those same views?

Employers should keep their nose out of their employees private lives. Those who support what happened to Hobbs or Dooce (the first “famous” blogger to be fired for her blog) will one day find themselves at the receiving end of a pink slip because the day will come when their “away from work” behavior will be scrutinized and subsequently punished by their employers.

That Spragens is now being subject to the same retroactive digging is exactly why this is bad for everyone involved.

I went back and reread your post, links and updates. Sorry, but I can’t feel much sympathy for this “Regular Joe” whom you coddle. The consequences of his action was easily foreseeable. You treat Hobbs like an imbecile when you defend him.

This graf from Flank Two Position is particularly ridiculous:

“Is the world a better place because Hobbs may have to sit at his dinner table with his family (which as I recall includes two children), look them all in the eye and tell them about all of this, with the addiitional baggage that he may have a hard time finding another job for quite a while?”

Cue the violins. I need to get my hanky.

Hobbs did something extremely stupid, and he learned a hard lesson — if you don’t want to share something with the rest of the world, don’t put it on the Internet!

If Hobbs were some kid who just didn’t know any better, I’d feel much more sympathy for him. But this is a grown man who has taken on the responsibility of raising a family. That demands maturity. Aren’t conservatives supposed to be big on personal responsibility?

And of course, commentators like Riehl have to drag in the inevitable persecuted conservative line:

“Some conservative bloggers are crying foul. While no one can know Spragen’s mind when writing the piece, his history, extending back to his high school years, as a liberal activist and Spragen’s involvement in at least one previous protest which resulted in the resignation of a college colleague in a political context will do little to reassure conservative bloggers this wasn’t a political hit job, as opposed to simply journalism. Additionally, some writings of Spragens’ call into question his sudden attention to polite rhetoric in media, including blogs.”

How pathetic. Yes, a political activist torched Hobbs. But nothing would have happened had Hobbs not first doused himself with gasoline.

No, Gaius, Hobbs does not makes a very good victim. He’s a right-wing version of Ward Churchill.

Liz Garrigan, editor of the Nashville Scene, responds to the news of Bill Hobbs’ resignation: The Nashville Post and Channel 2 have both reported that local blogger Bill Hobbs has resigned from his position at Belmont University following a Scene……