Re: OT: Freedom of Speech?
- From: "A R Pickett" <WOODeSTOCK_AP@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 21:36:40 GMT
Mary wrote in part - it's not a freedom of speech issue. It's the use of
employers' computer network to bother his colleagues. Most
universities (and most companies) have rules about using work
computers for work only,
Before I retired, I was the IT administrator for a small company (about 12
employees, some part time, some full time)
It would have been foolish for me and my boss to think that the computers
would never have been used for personal items, whether email, web browsing,
or whatever. I did remove all games from local machines, but of course
there are many on line games.
In the new employee orientation, I made it clear that if personal use
interfered with work in any way, the use was not allowed. and that the
decision on what "interference" meant was for me and my boss to decide. I
freely admit that our rules were subjective and arbitrary. I told new
employees that in exactly those words. We never had a problem. Perhaps a
broadcast email similar to the one in this situation would not have bothered
our employee group. But if it HAD, I would have been on this guy's case in
an eyeblink. And I know my boss would have backed me up.
My boss bought the hardware, paid for the software, paid me to administer
the network. These were not personal machines to be used at the employee's
discretion. It was for HIM to decide what use was appropriate. The
professor in this situation could have used his own computer to send
anything to anyone he wanted. When he used the college equipment, he was
working with a set of rules in which free speech is not the issue.
A R Pickett aka Woodstock
"Sometimes the facts threaten the truth"
Amos Oz, prize winning Israeli author
Read my book reviews at:
Remove lower case "e" to respond
- Prev by Date: Re: San Diego - crime fiction?
- Next by Date: Re: Dixie or Yankee??
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Freedom of Speech?
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Freedom of Speech?