A Southwest Airlines gate agent did not care for a passenger's tweet, so she had him removed from the plane until he deleted the tweet.
Duff Watson's ticket was marked for priority boarding. But Watson said the agent wouldn't let his children board with him, forcing them all to wait. Watson tweeted "Something to the effect of, 'Wow, rudest agent in Denver. Kimberly S, gate C39, not happy @SWA,'" he said.
The agent allegedly told Watson that she felt her safety was threatened. I hope she feels safer now. Perhaps the arbitrary bully powers of the TSA have infected airline employees too.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Streisand Award to Southwest Airlines for Suppressing Tweet
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 63 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @10:40PM
The gate agent was right.
The man posted her full name and the gate number where she was working. It was a passive-aggressive way to say, "I'm going to try to get thousands of people to hate you personally. If I'm lucky they will dox you and make your life suck for months, maybe even years."
Some people will argue that her name was "public" because it was on her nametag. But "public" is not a binary function. [medium.com] Her name was only public to the people at the gate, not the entire internet.
Sure, the agent was an uptight douche for being super-strict about SWA's boarding rules. But he was 1000x more of a douche for trying to personally focus the internet rage machine on her for what was really a very minor problem in the scheme of things.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @10:54PM
I disagree. People post uncomplimentary reviews all the time and try to be specific about the employees who made their life difficult. A complaint lacks credibility without details. I happily consume this kind of information when choosing a doctor, painter, or yes, airline.
It sounds like this employee abused her position twice and tried to restrict the customer's freedom of speech on top of it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Kilo110 on Friday July 25 2014, @11:34PM
Sending a complaint to the airline with her name is fine.
Posting it on Twitter is not.
And no, a person manning a gate is nothing like a doctor. You don't share an extended one-on-one relationship with the gate attendant. Publishing her name like that was the bigger offense.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 26 2014, @04:57AM
Why is it not fine? People serving in official capacity who throw their weight around ought to be publicly shamed. If we did like this guy more, perhaps we'd see deleterious behaviors by those in positions of authority curbed.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday July 26 2014, @05:43AM
heh - I posted essentially the same sentiment just a few moments ago. rebalancing of power is needed and overdue.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @05:57AM
> Why is it not fine? People serving in official capacity who throw their weight around ought to be publicly shamed.
Because expecting him to follow the rules is not "throwing her weight around."
All she did was not cut him a tiny bit of slack. At worst his life was made a little more uncomfortable by having to board when his kids were scheduled to board rather than when he was scheduled to board. It was a trivial inconvenience. So trivial that I am having a hard time even thinking of an even more minor convenience - it isn't like they forced him to check a carry-on or forced him to board separately from his kids. The plane still would have left at about the same time no matter what.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:56PM
Actually we don't know the detail of what she did, beyond tying to have him thrown off the plane.
Seems he was sold a combination of tickets that couldn't actually be used as-issued because the rules probably said that he _had_ to board _with_ his kids (due to their age) even though they had _different_ boarding on their tickets. But he didn't even complain about the rules or the ticket combination he'd been sold - all he complained about was the she was rude. Maybe she was. There are a wide variety of ways of telling someone they have fallen foul of the rules.
Suppose she said: "hey retard, these tickets don't have priority boarding, this is the priority boarding queue, you need go to the back of that queue over there with the other morons who can't read their tickets"
Should he complain ? After all, all she did was not cut him a tiny bit of slack... ??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @09:36PM
> Should he complain ? After all, all she did was not cut him a tiny bit of slack... ??
Even if your worst case scenario, aka moving-the-goal-posts, is true, it does not justify identifying her to the public rather than to management. Public complaint of rude treatment --- absolutely fine. Publicly identifying the person so accused, totally not fine.
What he did was completely out of proportion to any possible interpretation of her 'offense.'
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Monday July 28 2014, @03:13PM
Nowadays, complaining to the public seems to get a better response, from management, than complaining directly to said management.
This also seems to be directly related to number of Twitter (etc) followers.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Saturday July 26 2014, @07:03AM
Excellent point. Reminds me of "Unintended Consequences" (the book).
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @07:57AM
> Excellent point. Reminds me of "Unintended Consequences" (the book).
No it is nothing like that book. In the book an ATF agent abuses his authority.
In this case a gate agent tells a customer to follow the rules he agreed to when he bought the ticket.
Do you seriously think that a low-ranking employee who does their job by the book deserves to be publicly shamed and threatened?
What is wrong with you? Would you be OK with someone doing that to you just for doing your job?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by choose another one on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:29PM
Corporations themselves are responsible for this - these days there is often no other effective way to complain.
- Complaints call xxxxx-xxx-xxxx = main switchboard IVR
- No complaints option anywhere in the IVR maze
- Complaints email not answered
- Complaints web form ditto
- When you finally get through to support they say there is no complaints number you have to call support...
--- "ok, I'd like to complain about your poor support, refusal to escalate and let me speak to a manager, and that you won't put me through to the technical department who have been allegedly dealing with my problem, to no effect"
--- "yes, our managers don't take phone calls and the technical department don't have phones, anything else I can help you with today sir ?"
One post on facebook or twitter and within minutes your inbox has messages from the technical-people-without-phones wanting to solve your problem.
Reap what you sow.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @04:56PM
> Reap what you sow.
Well, the employee had to reap what her bosses have sowed, so it isn't really a case of just deserts.
But in general I completely agree. This "customer support as PR" approach encourages people to make a 'public scene' whenever they are unhappy. Still does not excuse him for going way over the line. All he had to do was make the same post on twitter without any of those identifying details and then reveal them directly to whomever contacted him in response.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Saturday July 26 2014, @06:06PM
Many companies use their twitter accounts for customer service these days, whether they want to or not. There are also many public forums, like the infamous Travel Advisor and other review sites. Doing complains in public seems to be the way we are headed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by mvar on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:46PM
What's with twitter? Seriously, with the exception if this guy were super-famous with 100k+ followers, nobody would have known what happened and nobody would have given a shit for either him or the agent. This is a story of who has the bigger dick and who's gonna have the last word on something that happens on a daily basis on every airport around the world. The agent, like every dickhead who's in a position of power and control, wants to have the last word. Well fuck him, this shit happens, it's in the job description.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Friday July 25 2014, @10:59PM
Agents change gates all the time, so your point is fully moot.
Other passengers are not going to make the agent's life "suck for months". Even movies stars can't create that kind of reaction against someone just being annoying by doing their job. How may people listen to that guy, and would travel before they forgot?
"the internet rage machine" for enforcing a boarding rule? If he was carrying his cat maybe, but not when a guy believes himself entitled to extend his earned privilege to his kids...
It's just f-ing Twitter! Can people stop treating twitter posts as if they had any importance?
TL;DR: Your reaction is as overkill as the agent's...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @11:21PM
> Other passengers are not going to make the agent's life "suck for months".
That's right, they won't. It isn't about other passengers. It is about the internet at large.
The fact that he only had a little chance of winning the internet rage machine lottery doesn't make it any less of a threat.
If he had said to her, "I'm giving your name and where you work to a bunch of pyschos, I hope you get what you deserve" nobody would be taking his side. This is the same thing.
(Score: 2, Informative) by bob_super on Friday July 25 2014, @11:42PM
> "I'm giving your name and where you work to a bunch of pyschos, I hope you get what you deserve"
"sure I work behind the hour-long security line, surrounded at all times by people who just want to get on with their trips. 'rudest agent, not happy' is clearly a threat to my life equivalent to engraving my address in the bathroom at Arkham"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @11:52PM
You appear to be naive.
Knowing where someone works is often enough to uniquely identify them. Once you've done that you can generally figure out all kinds of other things about them like their home address, their phone number, their email address, often enough to commit identity theft in their name. Modern vigilantism has many forms.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:01AM
Yes, I always destroy the lives of people who cruise on the left lane.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:07AM
> Yes, I always destroy the lives of people who cruise on the left lane.
You appear to be naive.
The internet is a big place. There are lots of people with all kinds of different motivations and triggers.
For all you know there are a 100 people with burning grudges against SWA and seeing that tweet would have been enough to set them off. Or maybe just some bored teenagers with too much time on their hands and a misguided sense of justice.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:19AM
After "think of the children", "beware of the commies" and "watch out for the terrorists", AC Productions is happy to present to you "Watch out for those anonymous internet maniacs"
I'm leaving you with your objective fears, I need to go use explosive gases to bring metals to branding temperatures and generate cancer-causing agents, with a side of brain-impairing chemicals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:29AM
> After "think of the children", "beware of the commies" and "watch out for the terrorists",
> AC Productions is happy to present to you "Watch out for those anonymous internet maniacs"
You appear to be obtuse.
There is a big difference between political grandstanding about the existence of those risks and specifically threatening to apply them to you.
For example, making a threat against a person's child can easily get someone arrested.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @01:07AM
You appear to be a douche. An obtuse, naive douche.
If having someone's first name is enough to identify them at an airport where thousands of people work then let me ruin the lives of Alice, Bob, Sally, Danny, Jane, and let's not forget John! There are two Johns at that airport and now both their lives are ruined.
Posting something negative about SWA could be enough to set someone off who already has a grudge against SWA? So can seeing a SWA commercial, or hearing a plane go overhead, or even seeing someone dressed in a uniform that just might resemble a pilot or flight attendant. You know what else could set them off? If their toaster refuses to talk to them today, or their radio doesn't mention their name between very song, or even if their mailman doesn't use the secret knock when he delivers their medication today.
Even worse than the internet maniacs are the anonymous cowards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @01:11AM
Like the previous poster you don't understand the nature of a threat - it involves intent.
You tell Alice, Bob, Sally, etc that you are posting their name in order to get them attention from "internet maniacs" and they will consider that a threat.
Let me illustrate: give me your name and where you work and I will go over to 4chan and give them that info and explain to them that you don't think that you have anything to worry about.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Friday July 25 2014, @11:36PM
Actually Southwest will make her life suck, not other passengers. (Seriously, who looks at name tags anyway).
SW has already apologized and other reports indicate she has been re-assigned.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @06:21AM
> Agents change gates all the time, so your point is fully moot.
Just because he might not have identified her with 100% certainty doesn't make it any less threatening. So internet vigilantes might get the wrong Kimberly S who works at SWA, that was neither his intention nor of any comfort to anyone else who ends up in the crossfire by "accident." [gawker.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday July 28 2014, @07:14AM
Did you just equate "OMG she didn't let me abuse my privilege, what a bitch" with the search for a domestic terrorist on the loose after a deadly bombing?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lagg on Friday July 25 2014, @11:16PM
Do you know how many people named Kimberly S. could be working in a large airport? Plus these people don't exactly stay in one place through their whole career or even the same day. It's about as public information as it gets. I could even understand if she had a unique last name that could be searched, but all that was revealed was that it starts with an S. I don't like it when people do stuff like try to tell 4chan to ddos someone for no reason nor do I like entitled pricks but this is quickly looking like someone who decided to abuse their position for a really dumb reason. And she certainly didn't help that by bringing out the vague safety card. It's like another version of the "but teh terrorists!".
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @11:34PM
> It's about as public information as it gets.
No it isn't. It isn't even close to "as public as it gets." Front page of the newspaper is public, television is public, TMZ is public. But name, employer and location of a private individual barely qualifies as public. It is information that is specifically known to only a handful of people, mostly just her fellow employees. It is information that is seen, but immediately forgotten by thousands, completely ephemeral. There is not much else that is less public but still qualifies for the label of "public."
> but all that was revealed was that it starts with an S.
That seems to be true, but
(a) Still extremely useful to someone doxing her, she's probably the only "Kimberly S" working for SWA at that airport.
(b) He actively tried to get her lastname, [go.com] if he had got it he was going to post it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:15AM
That would be true if she were somehow required to have both her first and last name on there. But that wasn't the case and this was an employee nametag. These are specifically meant for things like sending feedback to the employer. It also serves the purpose of being more "personal" but we both know that its primary purpose is feedback. So public information it is. I know the employer requires the name tag but that doesn't matter, nor does how "forgettable" the name is. Other than that though it is pretty unforgivable that he was trying to get her last name. I didn't have any sympathy for this guy in the first place but now I actively consider him just as bad as the agent is. What an asshole. I mean I have my name public but that is both my choice and I need it for web of trust purposes and things like that. If someone doesn't want their last name public that's their own choice and not his. Still, him being just as bad does not mean she isn't.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:22AM
> These are specifically meant for things like sending feedback to the employer ... So public information it is.
The later does not follow from the former, if anything they are in contradiction because "feedback to the employer" only involves the sender of the feedback and the receiver of the feedback, the public is not involved.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:47AM
Technically, the public is involved via the funding to the NSA who's logging the conversation.
More seriously, the name tag is provided ONLY for the public's convenience, since her airport badge is the legal document. If this guy only has 10 followers, that tweet might be more private than her name tag.
And "rudest ever (...) Very unhappy" is childish, not a threat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:54AM
> the name tag is provided ONLY for the public's convenience
Incorrect. The name tag is for the passengers's convenience. Individual passengers are not "the public."
> And "rudest ever (...) Very unhappy" is childish, not a threat.
Correct. If someone says, "I am going to kill you because you are rude and made me unhappy" the "rude and unhappy" part is not a threat.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday July 28 2014, @07:09AM
> Incorrect. (...) Individual passengers are not "the public."
In 2013, Southwest carried 108 millions [swamedia.com] passengers (you know, about a third of the US).
They did it using 45k people. If half of these were customer facing, and a customer sees 8 employees on a trip, that means about 40000 passengers would would have seen her wearing her name tag, if she worked the full year.
Even dividing by 10 to go overkill when accommodating repeat flyers, you'd still be at 4000, not even counting other airport dwellers.
What's your threshold for public?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Saturday July 26 2014, @04:15AM
At the gates? As many as one.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Friday July 25 2014, @11:24PM
Unless her last name was 'S', no he didn't.
Southwest apparently doesn't agree with the gate agent either, RTFA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @11:38PM
> Unless her last name was 'S', no he didn't.
Ok, a minor correction. But it really isn't a significant difference, see my other response to Lagg explaining why.
> Southwest apparently doesn't agree with the gate agent either, RTFA.
Right, because employers never throw bottom-rung employees under the bus in a snap-judgment PR move.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Saturday July 26 2014, @05:19AM
He tried to get her last name to report her to her employer. Failing that, he tweeted. I don't see where he did something wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @05:51AM
> He tried to get her last name to report her to her employer. Failing that, he tweeted.
That's some cognitive dissonance on your part. He didn't need her last name to report her to her employer - firstname, last initial and gate number are sufficient for that purpose because they have an internal schedule of who works where when. He probably didn't even need last initial since there were unlikely to be two Kimberlys at that particular gate for that flight.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday July 26 2014, @07:21AM
It was right there in the link you supplied.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @07:49AM
The dissonance here is your acceptance of what he said at face-value. Of course he's trying to spin it, he knows what he did was not OK.
Again ... Not knowing her last name did not prevent him from making an official complaint.
There was no "failing that" because he didn't even try.
After all, as you pointed out, she's been punished by SWA even though he never learned her last name.
If they can do that without a full last name, they can certainly take an official complaint without a full last name too.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday July 26 2014, @07:26PM
You seem really desperate to bend over backwards to defend someone who dragged a family off of a plane on false pretenses in order to censor free speech. Is that you Kimberly?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @09:41PM
> You seem really desperate to bend over backwards to defend someone who dragged a family off of a plane on false pretenses in order to censor free speech.
You seem really desperate to bend over backwards to defend a person who publicly threatened someone because she was "rude."
That's not false pretenses. He's lucky the police weren't called because those things tend to go a lot worse for people like him in positions like that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @08:16AM
the entire tweet was
there's no threat in that text, he simply stated his opinion of the encounter
getting him off the plane till he deleted the tweet on the other hand is clear abuse of power by the ticket agent, and a direct attack on his free speech rights
(Score: 3, Informative) by Horse With Stripes on Friday July 25 2014, @11:53PM
Threatened? In danger? You can't even get a bottle of water past security. There are armed guards through out the airport, security check points, surveying the gates, etc. Was she really in danger? No. He was in much more danger when he was pulled from the plane. Any level of resistance could have gotten him injured or killed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @11:55PM
Sure, the agent was an uptight douche for being super-strict about SWA's boarding rules. But he was 1000x more of a douche for trying to personally focus the internet rage machine on her for what was really a very minor problem in the scheme of things.
There's always a bigger douche. So don't be a douche.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:00AM
> There's always a bigger douche. So don't be a douche.
Corollary: There's always a psycho, so don't do anything that might set off a psycho, like tell anyone "no."
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday July 26 2014, @04:34AM
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday July 26 2014, @05:41AM
so, 'zero tolerance' only works one way, from the power base to the less powerful (ie, most of us)? he had this option and he used it (posting what happened) after she had her option, took it and should not have (picking a fight with a customer and a good customer, too). she is being punished by public eye. yeah, what's the problem? I don't see a problem.
score one for all of us against power-hungry 'authority' figures.
we need more reminders like this.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Saturday July 26 2014, @03:05PM
tl;dr: Both of them misbehaved but the passenger started it.
I wouldn't say the agent is right. It was revenge for humiliating her: "You humiliate me and ill humiliate you". Imagine if someone tweeted that you suck at your job. I know it would piss me off. But I wouldn't aim for revenge. It's unprofessional and shows a lack of tact.
I would have left the employee's name off the tweet, she was just following airline policy. Instead just complain about the shitty service of the airline. Targeting individual employees for following policy shows a lack of tact. It would be like saying "Police officer john smith is a jerk for giving me a speeding ticket instead of a warning." If she were behaving in an unacceptable manner that was personal and not due to any policy then by all means, shame her and complain. She should not be working with people if she can't handle that job.
This is a case of cry-baby nonsense.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday July 25 2014, @10:54PM
Security theater at its lowest. Invoke the safety excuse to stop something that has nothing whatever to do with safety, not even the safety of children. Most "safety" measures, like red light cameras, appear to have at least a little something to do with public safety. Well, maybe a tweet brought down Malaysian Airline Flight 370.
Everything can be about fear. It wouldn't be safe for municipal budgets to stop collecting fines for red light violations. Evidently the airline employee felt the safety of her continued employment depended upon suppression of free speech. Or maybe she was just enjoying being a tyrant, ruling through fear not of her but of dire consequences, like so many who are attracted to the security industry.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bob9113 on Friday July 25 2014, @10:57PM
The agent allegedly told Watson that she felt her safety was threatened.
By the Tweet, or by the asshole passenger? If it was the asshole passenger who was threatening, it was reasonable for her to threaten to have the man arrested, but not to require that the Tweet be deleted. If it was the Tweet that she found threatening, the threat of removal from the flight and arrest was an abuse of authority far out of proportion to the threat.
As someone put it elsewhere, they had a "Who's the biggest dick" contest and it was a close and high-scoring match. She should get fired, and he should get so much Internet scorn poured on him that he deletes his Twitter account. She has no place in a position of authority, and he has no place on social media.
(Score: 1) by crAckZ on Saturday July 26 2014, @04:38AM
Interesting. I have seen a tweet saying someone is going to kick someones ass .... Literally said that and the prosecutor said nothing could be done. I raised all types of Hell and I was asked to leave because I was getting loud.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 26 2014, @05:06AM
There is so much asymmetry of power in airports, with travellers treated like cattle, strip-searched, irradiated, fondled, humiliated, brow-beaten, and all this after having paid handsomely for the privilege, that you would have to go very, very far to make yourself a bigger asshole than the airport, TSA, and airlines have made themselves as a matter of policy. The man hit no one, he threatened no one. He didn't throw things. It's likely he didn't raise his voice or cause a scene. He complained on social media. It's an entirely normal thing to do these days. So saying they were both equally big assholes, when she was using her power to deny him the right to a flight he had paid for, strikes me as false equivalence.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by redneckmother on Saturday July 26 2014, @05:46AM
DoublePlusInformative (ran out of mod points).
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Saturday July 26 2014, @05:41AM
Actually, more importantly than that, if she felt threatened by the tweet, then there was no reason to deny him boarding, since boarding a flight doesn't affect one's abilities to tweet, nor does it make previous tweets disappear.
If she actually felt her safety was threatened, she should have immediately filed a police report, and let them decide to throw him in jail, or let him go.
Tip: Next time, ask for an employee number. That's what they'll give out to you in-lieu of a full name. The public won't have any way to turn that into personal identifying information, but the airline will when it sees the tweet, and the public will notice if the same employee number comes up, repeatedly.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @06:07AM
Typical black and white thinking where only the extreme options are viable.
You know the cops would have backed her up and made him delete it or arrested him if he wouldn't.
99% of the time the cops back the people in charge anyway.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @11:36PM
But they were both wrong from what I have seen. And thanks to the Internet debate who was the bigger asshole.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @02:49AM
"On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. "
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html [ceasespin.org]
(Score: 1) by hellcat on Saturday July 26 2014, @09:46PM
The internet and the web are still young.
Freedom of information means exactly that.
We should know who she is and what she did, because she did it in public.
We should know who he is and what he did, because he did it in public.
Think of all the articles and stories we hear of cowardly ACs and worse, those who abuse and degrade women in tech.
http://www.bulbsecurity.com/wordpress/guess-you-thought-i-was-someone-to-mess-with/ [bulbsecurity.com]
It's time to do what she did, and use the web for what it does best - report and record information.
Don't want to be negatively rated? Don't be negative.
HellCat - aka Steve
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @11:45PM
If what you propose were to happen, the result would be the most lifeless and oppressive society ever known to man because everyone would self-censor to the point of killing even a hint of deviation from the most bland social norms.
> Don't want to be negatively rated? Don't be negative.
Since your entirely public post is offensive and rude and extremely negative, I'm sure you won't mind if my buds from Anonymous out you fully, dig through everything you've ever done and report that information as they see fit, right?
(Score: 2) by redneckmother on Sunday July 27 2014, @04:07AM
In the book an ATF agent abuses his authority.
As I recall (sorry - don't own the book - wish I did) there were several characters of either sex who abused authority and incited a response from other characters.
Do you seriously think that a low-ranking employee who does their job by the book deserves to be publicly shamed and threatened?
The abusive characters in the book were also "only following orders." As I read the account, there were no "threats" made by the offended passenger, the agent erred by not being considerate to another human being, and reacted poorly to resolve a situation that was clearly beyond the scope of the "rules".
Would you be OK with someone doing that to you just for doing your job?
Most emphatically, YES. If I were acting like a sanctimonious and inhuman prick, I sincerely hope someone would question my "authority" and remind me of my place on this earth and within society.
The only service the customer received is the kind a bull gives to a cow.
Mas cerveza por favor.