Meet Lindsey Stone

[jks9199]

To be honest. If I was actually standing there and observed her posing for this shot...while I would roll my eyes at yet another "douchebag" in the world...I doubt I would have bothered thinking much more about it.

Again. Is this really "new" human behavior or is it simply "tar and feathering" in the digital age?

Exactly. I'm certainly not joining the bandwagon to crucify the woman. Should her company discipline her for screwing around when she was on the clock, in a manner that has come back to reflect poorly on them? Yep, if they want. Should that discipline include termination? Probably not, unless there are other problems. And if they choose not to do so, to essentially say that "yes, it was company travel, and a company activity, but it was done on what amounts to break time", well, that's there business, as well. Might be some unofficial sanctions, like not getting to be included on the next trip or squashed promotional options, until her judgement improves.

I'm rather more concerned with the general atmosphere that says a 30 year old woman should pull high school stunts, though. That's more of a problem to me.
This seems to be the kind of thing that a person with some maturity might have thought of -- and then went "nah, too juvenile."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm rather more concerned with the general atmosphere that says a 30 year old woman should pull high school stunts, though. That's more of a problem to me.
This seems to be the kind of thing that a person with some maturity might have thought of -- and then went "nah, too juvenile."

Whilst I agree with you, it seems to me to be more of a personal problem on her part than something 'we' as society need to be taking a hand in personally correcting for her. The general issue with frat-boys-until-age-30 thing is worrisome to me, yes. But I don't really know how to address that other than one-on-one. I'm really more concerned with this 'pile on' mentality we seem to have of jumping on those seen to have stepped out of line socially until we as society feel they are sufficiently punished. That is some scary crap right there.

 

[Tgace]

To segue onto a slight tangent...

This topic brings to mind stroies of LEO's being terminated for their off duty behavior.

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/2304790-Posing-performing-and-conduct-unbecoming/

 

[Tgace]

Whilst I agree with you, it seems to me to be more of a personal problem on her part than something 'we' as society need to be taking a hand in personally correcting for her. The general issue with frat-boys-until-age-30 thing is worrisome to me, yes. But I don't really know how to address that other than one-on-one. I'm really more concerned with this 'pile on' mentality we seem to have of jumping on those seen to have stepped out of line socially until we as society feel they are sufficiently punished. That is some scary crap right there.

Let me posit this. Isn't this exactly what social media is intended to do? Dont companies like Stones' create FB pages (and post comments) intending to generate comments? Isn't this simply a chance for everyone to "post" what they would otherwise just have "thought" in the past?

25 years ago I may have seen something like this and been pissed off, but it wouldn't have been worth the time or effort to write/type a letter...research her background...find an address to mail to..etc. Now all I have to do is go to a website and type.

I think this is really just a matter of easier accessibility to forums that allow us to vent than it is a "new phenomena".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

To segue onto a slight tangent...

This topic brings to mind stroies of LEO's being terminated for their off duty behavior.

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/2304790-Posing-performing-and-conduct-unbecoming/

When I was in the Marine Corps, a young female Marine was thrown out for posing nude for Playboy (Sgt Bambi Lyn Finney).

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...P1NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2694,2755247

However, the military, like many civilian organizations such as police officers, often have a requirement to behave in ways which do not bring discredit upon their employer. This is generally well-understood and made very clear to the employee, if not actually written into the employment contract itself. With civil servants, even the appearance of impropriety can be disallowed; so one must not only avoid doing something off-hours which might reflect badly on their employer, but anything which might be construed that way. It doesn't give one a lot of room to do as one pleases on one's own time.

And again, one has to ask the question, what is objectionable behavior? Is it illegal behavior? Is it distasteful behavior? And if the latter, who gets to decide?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Let me posit this. Isn't this exactly what social media is intended to do? Dont companies like Stones' create FB pages (and post comments) intending to generate comments? Isn't this simply a chance for everyone to "post" what they would otherwise just have "thought" in the past? 25 years ago I may have seen this and been pissed off but it wouldn't have been worth the time or effort to write/type a letter...research her background...find an address to mail to..etc. Now all I have to do is go to a website and type.

I think this is really just a matter of easier accessibility to forums that allow us to vent than it is a "new phenomena".

In my opinion, yes, and then again, no.

We, as a society, are apparently rediscovering the power of the masses to effect change. This has a good side and a bad side. The good side is the part that works for social changes that positively affect others. Highlighting evil and wrongs in our society, making others aware of things that might effect us all in a negative way so that people can get involved. And it's all been massively multiplied from the days when people gathered in public squares and held up signs and marched down city streets. This can be done with many more people, with much less effort.

The bad side is that we have groups like Anonymous, who seek to punish any corporation, government, or individual they see as their enemy, and often with the cheers of the mob urging them on. They operate in extra-legal ways, but their supporters howl like monkeys on social hangouts like Twitter, Facebook, and etc, encouraging them to do more. We see 'pile on' behavior such as this with the young moron in the OP, where people are not just 'commenting' or exercising their free speech, but actively working to make sure she is damaged to the fullest extent possible. As I said earlier, most of these people would be thrilled if they read that she had taken her own life. They are cyber-bullies; and it's not just about free speech anymore, but the thrill of behaving like a mob and forcing people and companies to do things at their command.

In the new online society that is forming, we will behave online and in real life as we are permitted to by the mobocracy. If you have an objection to the wars, you may protest - if it is OK with the mob. Otherwise, you'll be excoriated online, your employer will be inundated with demands you be terminated, your family with be stalked and threatened, and in some cases, actual violence will arise from the public scourging. Everything we do will no longer be conditioned upon notions such as 'is this legal' or 'do I have the right to say or think this', but 'will the mob be OK with this'?

If you don't see that as a problem, I certainly do. I have no idea what to do about it, but I see dark days ahead for the human race if we don't knock this crap off. Individually, we're nice, reasonable, sane people. Collectively, we're all Stalin, apparently. As the meme goes...

 

[dancingalone]

Ms. Stone has been placed on unpaid leave from her job along with the coworker that took the photo...

http://www.insideedition.com/headli...ign-at-the-tomb-of-unknown-soldier-goes-viral

 

[Bob Hubbard]

[h=5]LIFE- Living Independently Forever's status.[/h]21 hours ago
We wish to announce that the two employees recently involved in the Arlington Cemetery incident are no longer employees of LIFE. Again, we deeply regret any disrespect to members of the military and their families. The incident and publicity has been very upsetting to the learning disabled population we serve. To protect our residents, any comments, however well-intentioned, will be deleted. We appreciate your concern and understanding as we focus on the care of our community.

.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, I guess justice has been served. Now maybe people can find out where she lives and throw rocks through her windows. After all, she's evil and must be destroyed. Great work, people. Nice.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Personally, I'm ok with that decision.

She had her right to free speech.
Others expressed their disgust with her, again, free speech.
She by her actions, created a problem for her company.
Her company, which operates as an at-will employer, choose to part ways with her of their own free will, as a result of her free expression.

She will maybe learn from this and grow up. Maybe not.

But no ones rights were harmed, IMO.

If I had an employee who did this, I'd dismiss them too. Right of free association and all that.

Now, if it progresses to threats of violence, property damage, etc, no that's not all right. We all have the right to be an ***. We don't have a right to hurt someone because our feelings were hurt or we were offended.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Personally, I'm ok with that decision.

She had her right to free speech.
Others expressed their disgust with her, again, free speech.
She by her actions, created a problem for her company.
Her company, which operates as an at-will employer, choose to part ways with her of their own free will, as a result of her free expression.

She will maybe learn from this and grow up. Maybe not.

But no ones rights were harmed, IMO.

If I had an employee who did this, I'd dismiss them too. Right of free association and all that.

Now, if it progresses to threats of violence, property damage, etc, no that's not all right. We all have the right to be an ***. We don't have a right to hurt someone because our feelings were hurt or we were offended.

Bob, no one's rights were infringed upon, that's correct. And the people howling for her to be fired had every right to express their opinions.

But as I've tried to explain, this demonstrates to me (and I would think to you too) what kind of world we're headed into. One where you have every legal right to speak your mind, but you damned well better not, if the mob doesn't like it, because they'll f'ing destroy you.

History is replete with lessons such as these. I would mention a few, but Godwin's Law would immediately be invoked. Suffice to say that when societal pressure keeps people from doing and saying outrageous things, you may find that quite acceptable. You won't find it so acceptable when the mob decides that something you do or say or think is not to be permitted.

And the death threats have apparently continued. Mobs, once aroused, seldom draw the line at niceties like the law. Break a few shop windows, paint a few slogans on walls, eh?

 

[arnisador]

Agree all around--they were within their rights to fire her and they have to think about blowback on them--but it's an increasingly chilling environment for political speech and public discourse as practiced in 2012 and that's bad social policy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Agree all around--they were within their rights to fire her and they have to think about blowback on them--but it's an increasingly chilling environment for political speech and public discourse as practiced in 2012 and that's bad social policy.

Imagine a world where we don't have 1984, where the government keeps everyone in line. Instead the government protects our right to express ourselves as we please, and our own citizens kick the living crap out of everyone who offends the daily Zeitgeist, whatever it may be that day. We don't need no stinking government oppression, we can oppress ourselves just fine!

 

[arnisador]

Exactly. Look at Puritan attitudes and their effects on the sex lives of people--it went well beyond the letter (and certainly beyond the effective reach) of the law. If we censor ourselves, we still get the same effects as if we had a weakened First Amendment. That still sucks.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bill, I have people on 3 continents who want to kill me, beat me up, or take my property, because of things I said, or my staff here did. I've lost friends, "friends", and clients over my expressed views on political, social and religious topics. So, I understand where both you and Arni are coming from. I don't want to live in a country so stuck on 'correctness' that you run the risk of fine or jail time for "offending the public good". It's bad enough parts of the US are going in that direction now. My argument isn't that the mob should rule, but that we should be aware of the ramifications of our actions and learn to deal with them. But those ramifications should never be violence because someones feelings were hurt.

 

[Tez3]

Has she been 'suspended/sacked' because of the photgraph or because she was doing it when she should have been working for the company who paid her? It could be that the company doesn't care about her views on anything but do care that when they are paying her to work she's off skiving.

 

[shesulsa]

Rather strange dichotomy we have nowadays. While I don't condone distasteful behavior in a cemetery (such as children running, unchecked, at the Arizona memorial in Hawaii), I don't think overreacting is appropriate either.

The mob mentality is scary - on both sides of the matter.

 

[jks9199]

Agree all around--they were within their rights to fire her and they have to think about blowback on them--but it's an increasingly chilling environment for political speech and public discourse as practiced in 2012 and that's bad social policy.

I agree. We won't have the Thought Police; we won't need them. Anyone who does something that offends enough people will be summarily punished by employers or society.

I would much rather have seen the company discipline the two employees, and send them to some sort of training. That would have been an appropriate and reasonable discipline. And, as I said before, they're going to be under close supervision for a while. And I would encourage the company to develop a social media policy. Firing them this way does nothing positive, except shut up the public uproar.

I kind of wonder whether they wouldn't have a case for unlawful termination...

 

[Cryozombie]

My thoughts,... and bear in mind, I don't give two figs what this woman did, she's an idiot in my opinion, and that is that... I wouldn't waste my time trying to get her fired, but if she showed up at my place for a BBQ I'd tell her to GTFO.

It was stated above (By Bill, I believe) that we are moving into an era where maturity is lacking well into our thirties, and it was stated earlier that we as a nation are moving twords a "Jackass/Jersey Shore" level of mentality in our adults. If we assume that this type of self-proclaimed Douchebaggery is detrimental to society, How do we steer it back on course? Social Pressure seems like it should be a viable way to do this. ("I'mma go scream at the Cemetary Guards!" "I dunno man, that one chick lost her job over doin that kind of ****..." ) But at the same time can be taken too far. ("I'mma go to the Democratic Candidates Q&A and ask hard questions they aint prepared for." "I dunno man, some dude lost his job for that last election")

So unless there is a way to root out the real douchebags from the people who disagree with you... It may remain a crapshoot.