Hillary Big Brother?

[Fly Navy]

Hillary Clinton compared to 1984's Big Brother:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259591,00.html

Amusing. I wonder if it indeed came out of a campaign or political office, or just an individual?

BTW, I saw a National Geographic special on North Korea last week... that place IS 1984.

 

[Brett327]

Hillary Clinton compared to 1984's Big Brother:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259591,00.html

Amusing. I wonder if it indeed came out of a campaign or political office, or just an individual?

BTW, I saw a National Geographic special on North Korea last week... that place IS 1984.

Catchy add - double plus good! I wonder if they got permission from Apple for that. Perhaps HJ could brief them on copyright infringement.

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

Catchy add - double plus good! I wonder if they got permission from Apple for that. Perhaps HJ could brief them on copyright infringement.

Brett

From the news article it appears that no regard for copyright law was made, but we don't know that since they don't know who made it

 

[brownshoe]

Catchy add - double plus good! I wonder if they got permission from Apple for that. Perhaps HJ could brief them on copyright infringement.

Brett

Wow… catchy ad… really is, but I’m worried. I guess it’s time to start hoarding food, supplies and stocking that bomb shelter my father built in the 50’s in our backyard.

Steve

 

[schwarti]

According to CNN, it was an Obama supporter who did it on his own.

 

[othromas]

Phil de Vellis; he got fired for it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9072295

 

[JIMC5499]

Phil de Vellis; he got fired for it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9072295

This might prove interesting. If I was this guy I'd sue for a violation of my First Amendment rights. Let's see if he can get the ACLU to take his case.

 

[Brett327]

This might prove interesting. If I was this guy I'd sue for a violation of my First Amendment rights. Let's see if he can get the ACLU to take his case.

He wasn't fired, he resigned. Another bang-up display of journalistic mediocrity from NPR.

Read the real story: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102109.html

At any rate, even if he were fired, his first amendment rights don't protect him from being fired if his free speech is contrary to the terms of his employment (I.E. don't make your employer look like a jack-ass). As with all speech, you have certain rights, but there are also consequences.

Brett

 

[snizo]

My civilian employer made us take annual training that included speaking 'on behalf of the company' and its repercussions.

My belief is - if you aren't at work, wearing a badge for your job, etc, then you should be able to say whatever you want. Similar to our rules about being out of uniform and acting as a citizen when participating in political functions.

But - if he resigned and didn't get fired, this isn't really relevant....

 

[Brett327]

My civilian employer made us take annual training that included speaking 'on behalf of the company' and its repercussions.

My belief is - if you aren't at work, wearing a badge for your job, etc, then you should be able to say whatever you want. Similar to our rules about being out of uniform and acting as a citizen when participating in political functions.

But - if he resigned and didn't get fired, this isn't really relevant....

Granted, but for the sake of argument, all kinds of stipulations and clauses get written into people's employment contracts, especially in the media and entertainment world. If Anderson Cooper started making white supremacy or antisemitic remarks off air, he would be fired by CNN and rightfully so.

Brett

 

[JIMC5499]

My mistake. I still don't see what all of the hassle is about. If he would have used Bush, Cheney or Rove's face in this, the media would be loving the guy instead of roasting him. No standard like a double standard.

 

[snizo]

I know that is how it is - and that it is included in employment terms ... but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it

Most of the time, it doesn't matter. Clearly there are some cases where linking the statements to a public figure causes irreversible harm - even when unintentional. This case with the Big Brother commercial and your example are among them ... but if the commercial creator had been a design engineer for Ford Motor Company, then I'd have to take exception to him being fired.

 

[Brett327]

My mistake. I still don't see what all of the hassle is about. If he would have used Bush, Cheney or Rove's face in this, the media would be loving the guy instead of roasting him. No standard like a double standard.

The problem is that his firm was working on the Obama campaign, so you get into the finer details of election and campaign finance law etc. You can see how it could present all kinds of issues if a firm hired to do media for a campaign had a bunch of its employees putting out promotional material under the table like that. This guy is hardly being roasted - I don't know where you're getting that.

@ Snizo: You may not agree philosophically with those kinds of stipulations, but when you sign your contract, it means you agree legally, as you know.

Brett

 

[Cate]

What I find interesting about this, purely from a political standpoint, is that the De Vellis who just got chastened for going negative without (purportedly) the approval of the Obama campaign is the same De Vellis who, on Sherrod Brown's Ohio Senate campaign last year, e-mailed a negative newspaper article about Paul Hackett to a bunch of rightie blogs - without the approval of the campaign - and got in trouble for it.

If he did, as Blue State's managing director said, get fired, it may have been because he obviously doesn't learn from his mistakes and no company needs a doofus like that on staff.

 

[boobcheese]

I am no constitutional scholar, but I don't see free speech as being an issue here. From my layman's understanding, freedom of speech only protects an individual from governmental intervention (ie Big Brother). A private entity should have the right to hire or fire as they please for any reason they please as long as it is not based on race, religious conviction or sexual orientation. Organizations like NAMBLA, even though there message is particularly vile, are protected under the 1st amendment. However, I would certainly fire an employee if I found them posting on their website at work. Now granted, if this guy was a contract employee, he would have to violate some term of his contract to be fired outright but I'm sure a PR firm would have stipulations about releasing unauthorized commercials referencing a client.