phonescoop.com
Blocking out text with ***
As a business owner I am debating allowing phonescoop.com to be on my approved list. I find it very useful for looking up older handsets and I hope some of my posts have been helpful to customers and employees in the industry alike.
The issue is regarding the language. I don't feel like getting sued because I allow an employee access to a site where the language standards are out of control. The stuff you can get sued for these days is ridiculous.
What is your stance here? Typing f**king hides nothing, but yet it seems to be tolerated.
I think some of the ridiculous debates here get out of hand, but I am just as guilty as others for instigating this. I am also guilty of the **** stuff but not for language so harsh like F-bombs....
(continues)
The issue is regarding the language. I don't feel like getting sued because I allow an employee access to a site where the language standards are out of control. The stuff you can get sued for these days is ridiculous.
What is your stance here? Typing f**king hides nothing, but yet it seems to be tolerated.
I think some of the ridiculous debates here get out of hand, but I am just as guilty as others for instigating this. I am also guilty of the **** stuff but not for language so harsh like F-bombs....
(continues)
...
If you look at your post, you will find that is IS blocked out with asterisks.
...
I have never heard of - and cannot imagine the case for - an employee suing you simply because you allowed them to access the Internet. Although many businesses block, most allow free access, and it is usually not a problem.
I simply can't see how that would be an issue - especially for curse words. I mean, if you actively bookmarked a child porn site on your intranet site, sure, you might be sued for sexual harassment... but just allowing access to a site where there might be curse words - and censored ones at that?? I really think you have nothing to worry about.
I simply can't see how that would be an issue - especially for curse words. I mean, if you actively bookmarked a child porn site on your intranet site, sure, you might be sued for sexual harassment... but just allowing access to a site where there might be curse words - and censored ones at that?? I really think you have nothing to worry about.
...
If you were here in the bible belt, you would understand. If an employer knowingly allows access to something that may be deemed offensive they are liable. You would repremand employees for speaking this way to each other in a professional setting, and allowing it to be viewed has the same effect.
Could I fight it and probaly win, yes. Do I want to spend money defending something like this, not really.
Either way, is it policy that these type of posts would be deleted or no? I bring this up because lately you can't scroll through the Cingular forum without seeing f**king or some variation.
Could I fight it and probaly win, yes. Do I want to spend money defending something like this, not really.
Either way, is it policy that these type of posts would be deleted or no? I bring this up because lately you can't scroll through the Cingular forum without seeing f**king or some variation.
...
So no employers in the South allow their employees to simply access the Internet? That's an affront to common sense, and I wouldn't stand for it as a business person myself. I recommend donating to the EFF - they fight that kind of nonsense.
But as to your issue at hand, I would point out that most of the major carriers and companies in the industry that limit employee access at work, do allow their employees to access phonescoop.com. Some block specific pages such as the Lounge forum, but most do not. So you would certainly not be alone.
As for our policy, that's outlined in the Terms of Use, but basically we do try to keep the forum free of profanity and inappropriate content. Our definition of "inappropriate" might differ slightly f...
(continues)
But as to your issue at hand, I would point out that most of the major carriers and companies in the industry that limit employee access at work, do allow their employees to access phonescoop.com. Some block specific pages such as the Lounge forum, but most do not. So you would certainly not be alone.
As for our policy, that's outlined in the Terms of Use, but basically we do try to keep the forum free of profanity and inappropriate content. Our definition of "inappropriate" might differ slightly f...
(continues)
...
Its not a matter of not allowing them access to the Internet, but knowingly allowing them access to a site which may contain potentially offensive material.
If I was asked, as a business owner, if I knew xyz.com routinely displayed vulgar language and that said language offended mr./mrs. employee and I did not remove it I could potentially held liable. Whether you are in a more liberal state such as CA or a more conservative state such as TX, the laws are very similar.
I personally am not offended, but as a business owner I have to worry about what others could reasonably find offensive. Porn is something obvious, but language crosses the line as well. I have had employees file discrimination complaints because someone used vulgar l...
(continues)
If I was asked, as a business owner, if I knew xyz.com routinely displayed vulgar language and that said language offended mr./mrs. employee and I did not remove it I could potentially held liable. Whether you are in a more liberal state such as CA or a more conservative state such as TX, the laws are very similar.
I personally am not offended, but as a business owner I have to worry about what others could reasonably find offensive. Porn is something obvious, but language crosses the line as well. I have had employees file discrimination complaints because someone used vulgar l...
(continues)
...
Well, I see a pretty huge difference between language used between employees at a company, and what is said on the Internet by people who are not your employees.
In the examples you gave, the offensive language was uttered by an employee of that company, and so of course the company could be held liable because they have control over, and responsibility for, their own employees' actions.
But I think it's a ridiculous stretch to extend that kind of liability to things said by non-employees, on web pages that your employees choose to read, on a web site not under your control.
Plus, it's not like a free-for-all here. We do have a published policy that prohibits offensive language. We have an automatic filter that ...
(continues)
In the examples you gave, the offensive language was uttered by an employee of that company, and so of course the company could be held liable because they have control over, and responsibility for, their own employees' actions.
But I think it's a ridiculous stretch to extend that kind of liability to things said by non-employees, on web pages that your employees choose to read, on a web site not under your control.
Plus, it's not like a free-for-all here. We do have a published policy that prohibits offensive language. We have an automatic filter that ...
(continues)
...
I wish it were only that simple.
The precedent is that once there is knowledge of the language, management (or ownership in my case) must make efforts to remove items or remove the site. While one employee may not find it offensive and may read it, another may and could see it from the other's monitor. We are not in cubicles but rather an open store layout. And while I know it is not a free for all, the threads I am concerned with have been up for a week or so.
I have been at this for 13 years Rich, and have been involved as a witness or bystander for too many of these to count. People make issue of stupid things, but it still costs business owners time and money to defend against accusations. Your logic is excellent, unfortunatel...
(continues)
The precedent is that once there is knowledge of the language, management (or ownership in my case) must make efforts to remove items or remove the site. While one employee may not find it offensive and may read it, another may and could see it from the other's monitor. We are not in cubicles but rather an open store layout. And while I know it is not a free for all, the threads I am concerned with have been up for a week or so.
I have been at this for 13 years Rich, and have been involved as a witness or bystander for too many of these to count. People make issue of stupid things, but it still costs business owners time and money to defend against accusations. Your logic is excellent, unfortunatel...
(continues)
...
Also Tex, If Rich did block out words with an *, then people would just become more creative. Intead of f*** it would be fc, fk...
...
I think the context is understood by most all parties. My concern is this instance is more with the title of the threads, since it is seen even if you choose not to view the thread itself.
...
The titles are automatically censored the same way the text is. But when people get creative and do things like "f**k", there's not much I can do. There are infinite ways to disguise such words - it's impossible to create a filter that will catch them all.
But at least the actual words aren't displayed - which I would hope would provide some level of protection for your liability concerns. I mean, who's to say "f**k" doesn't mean "fork"? If your employee makes an assumption that it means something else - something offensive - I don't see how you could be held liable. They're the one with the dirty mind! 😉
But at least the actual words aren't displayed - which I would hope would provide some level of protection for your liability concerns. I mean, who's to say "f**k" doesn't mean "fork"? If your employee makes an assumption that it means something else - something offensive - I don't see how you could be held liable. They're the one with the dirty mind! 😉
...
Actually, the site does automatically censor such words, and you're right, people always find new ways around it.
...
