• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arlington Cemetery pic sparks outrage, calls for woman's firing

TacticalEvilDan said:
If by "complaining" you mean "making the same points they're making here," then -- yeah.
Click to expand...


I think many people ignore the fact that she was on the company's dime when she was at Arlington cemetery. If the thread title was "Employee fired for acting like a dumbass while on the job" or "Employee fired for embarrassing the company while on a company trip" then the only thing people would be complaining about is the fact this story made the news.
 
Last edited:
Behold, a visual graphic of the entire thread:

snake-eats-own-tail.jpg
 
jamesrage said:
I think many people ignore the fact that she was on the company's dime when she was at Arlington cemetery. If the thread title was "Employee fired for acting like a dumbass while on the job" or "Employee fired for embarrassing the company while on a company trip" then the only thing people would be complaining about is the fact this story made the news.
Click to expand...


I'm not ignoring it, I simply don't think it changes anything. She wasn't touring Arlington as part of a group of people from his workplace, she and a coworker were in the area on other business.

Unless she was wearing something indicating where she works (she wasn't) or unless you're arguing that the employer in question is paying her for 24 hours of each day that she was on this trip (because they never, ever do), it doesn't change a thing.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
People have been doing stupid crap since the dawn of man. The difference between stupid crap 100 years ago and stupid crap today is that today it's much more visible. People aren't getting dumber, we're just privy to more of their stupidity. That doesn't give us license to punish it everywhere it pops up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and people have been reaping the consequences of their stupid actions since the dawn of man as well. If something you do threatens your employers image, they're well within their rights to cut your ass loose. People don't have a right to employment.
 
Surtr said:
Yeah, and people have been reaping the consequences of their stupid actions since the dawn of man as well. If something you do threatens your employers image, they're well within their rights to cut your ass loose.
Click to expand...

My point is that stupidity hasn't become any worse an offense since the dawn of man, so the consequences shouldn't be any more swift or frequent simply because technology gives us more opportunities to witness it.

Surtr said:
People don't have a right to employment.
Click to expand...

People have a right to survive, and in the economic model currently employed in the United States, for 9 out of 10 of us that means having a job. Since all of us are harmless idiots at one point or another, it seems to me that you should be allowed to be a harmless idiot every once in a while without suddenly having to worry about how you're going to pay your rent or put food on the table.
 
jamesrage said:
I think many people ignore the fact that she was on the company's dime when she was at Arlington cemetery. If the thread title was "Employee fired for acting like a dumbass while on the job" or "Employee fired for embarrassing the company while on a company trip" then the only thing people would be complaining about is the fact this story made the news.
Click to expand...
Semi-related generic response...

I work in civil engineering. If I participate in a protest about feeding the homeless, I *should* be afforded the courtesy to be left alone about it by my employer. As long as it is on my own time, of course. While I would still defend the right of my employer to discipline me over it, I feel that the fact that it is socially acceptable is an example of how hypocritical our society really is when we prattle on about freedom of speech, etc.

On the flip side, if I were to protest the building of a freeway, even if a company other than mine has the design contract, then that is more directly correlated to my job and my employer. In that instance, I feel the employer would be justified in taking action, no hypocrisy involved.
 
Aderleth said:
Behaving like a childish idiot isn't a crime, and any employer who fires her is looking at a pretty nasty first-amendment based wrongful termination suit.
Click to expand...

what? When did private employers become responsible for facilitating free speech?
 
I live in the US so I can do things like this and not fear retribution.
 
Of course she shouldn't be fired. The old traditions of our history are dying. The inability to recognize something to respect is being lost.
 
Dem said:
I live in the US so I can do things like this and not fear retribution.
Click to expand...

What she did is a violation of the code of conduct for visitors to the Arlington Cementary. She could have been asked to leave immediately and if refused could have been arrested.

This isn't about her freedom of speech but rather her violation of the Arlington Cementary conduct rules. Simple as that.

You will never see the Westboro Baptist Church inside the Arlington Cementary. They can protest outside the main entrance but even they know they could be arrested if they pulled their circus act inside the compound.
 
I think a lot of people are missing the reason she was disciplined (I haven't figured out yet if she was actually fired or resigned, I thought she resigned). She wasn't disciplined for protesting or doing something specifically that disrespected veterans. She was disciplined for showing poor judgement, whether it was disrespecting the veterans (which I don't believe she was really trying to do) or disrespecting authority (which she admits was what she was doing) and then posting evidence of that action on a public media outlet (which every single person out there that gives job advice will tell you never ever do). If we go by what she said was her reason for the photo, then the fact that she has another photo of her doing this just adds more against her. She is blatantly showing that she wants to disrespect authority even if there are good reasons for those signs, which she admits represents to her authority, to be in place. You add to that she was doing it in a place that is seen by many as sacred to veterans, one of the few groups in this country that a vast majority of people show respect for no matter their political or even religious/spiritual beliefs and it was done on company time, and then it gets posted online, likely within close computer space to the employer of the person who posted it, you get an employer that feels that this employee does things that could reflect negatively on their business.
 
roguenuke said:
I think a lot of people are missing the reason she was disciplined (I haven't figured out yet if she was actually fired or resigned, I thought she resigned). She wasn't disciplined for protesting or doing something specifically that disrespected veterans. She was disciplined for showing poor judgement, whether it was disrespecting the veterans (which I don't believe she was really trying to do) or disrespecting authority (which she admits was what she was doing) and then posting evidence of that action on a public media outlet (which every single person out there that gives job advice will tell you never ever do). If we go by what she said was her reason for the photo, then the fact that she has another photo of her doing this just adds more against her. She is blatantly showing that she wants to disrespect authority even if there are good reasons for those signs, which she admits represents to her authority, to be in place. You add to that she was doing it in a place that is seen by many as sacred to veterans, one of the few groups in this country that a vast majority of people show respect for no matter their political or even religious/spiritual beliefs and it was done on company time, and then it gets posted online, likely within close computer space to the employer of the person who posted it, you get an employer that feels that this employee does things that could reflect negatively on their business.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the company was investigating, but she eventually resigned of her own choice. Supposedly.

I don't believe she intended to be disrespectful, but she was. Key word: "intend". I have done things that I didn't intend to offend others, but it was and I didn't realize it until later.
 
Crosscheck said:
What she did is a violation of the code of conduct for visitors to the Arlington Cementary. She could have been asked to leave immediately and if refused could have been arrested.

This isn't about her freedom of speech but rather her violation of the Arlington Cementary conduct rules. Simple as that.

You will never see the Westboro Baptist Church inside the Arlington Cementary. They can protest outside the main entrance but even they know they could be arrested if they pulled their circus act inside the compound.
Click to expand...

Has anyone spoke on this issue? I am curious if the picture also constitutes a violation vs how the rules are worded.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
My point is that stupidity hasn't become any worse an offense since the dawn of man, so the consequences shouldn't be any more swift or frequent simply because technology gives us more opportunities to witness it.
Click to expand...
Technology doesn't change cause and effect.



People have a right to survive, and in the economic model currently employed in the United States, for 9 out of 10 of us that means having a job. Since all of us are harmless idiots at one point or another, it seems to me that you should be allowed to be a harmless idiot every once in a while without suddenly having to worry about how you're going to pay your rent or put food on the table.
Click to expand...

And nobody is taking that away from her, except herself. She was with her company on a company trip, and not only made an ass of herself, but her employer as well. I don't know any employer who wouldn't fire someone who is that recklessly stupid and irresponsible.
 
radcen said:
IIRC, the company was investigating, but she eventually resigned of her own choice. Supposedly.

I don't believe she intended to be disrespectful, but she was. Key word: "intend". I have done things that I didn't intend to offend others, but it was and I didn't realize it until later.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I agree that she was disrespectful to people, whether she intended to be or not. And I have no issue with her being disciplined due to any of her actions, but taken altogether, I would not fault the company in the least for letting her go because she showed extremely poor judgement with this whole incident.

I'm in the Navy reserves. There are some things that I cannot do, most particularly when I am on duty, whether it be my weekends or my month or if I did called back up. At those times, in uniform or not, I represent the Navy because they are paying me. Even in my offtime, they pay for my ticket, my hotel, even a rental car/transportation, and food. I imagine the company this woman worked for paid for at least some of these things for her as well since she was on a business trip. If I do something stupid that makes the military look bad, particularly if I broadcast that stupidity, I will be punished for it. And with the Navy reserves looking to put people out, it is likely that I would be discharged for doing something like this woman did if they could show I did it while on their dime.
 
Dem said:
Has anyone spoke on this issue? I am curious if the picture also constitutes a violation vs how the rules are worded.
Click to expand...

I have not heard anything from the authorities but the Dept of Army is not likely to give a press release on this issue.

But it was a violation according to their regulations:
CHAPTER V: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

SUBCHAPTER D: MILITARY RESERVATIONS AND NATIONAL CEMETERIES

PART 553: ARMY NATIONAL CEMETERIES

553.22 - Visitors' rules for the Arlington National Cemetery.
(13)
f) Conduct within the Cemetery. Because Arlington National Cemetery is a shrine to the honored dead of the Armed Forces of the United States and because certain acts, appropriate elsewhere, are not appropriate in the Cemetery, all visitors, including persons attending or taking part in memorial services and ceremonies, shall observe proper standards of decorum and decency while within the Cemetery grounds. Specifically, no person shall:

iv) Utters to any person present abusive, insulting, profane, indecent or otherwise provocative language or gesture that by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
Click to expand...

She should have gotten her butt kicked out.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
what? When did private employers become responsible for facilitating free speech?
Click to expand...

Yeah. That was my bad. I had thought that the employer was governmental in some way.
 
Surtr said:
Technology doesn't change cause and effect.
Click to expand...

If she'd taken that photo 20 years ago, where would she have put it? Her GeoCities account? My point is that technology has made our individual silliness more accessible to all. The appropriate response isn't to villify it wherever we find it, it's to try to be a little more understanding in light of the fact that all of this connectedness that social media promotes means we're going to see things we wouldn't have seen before.

Surtr said:
And nobody is taking that away from her, except herself. She was with her company on a company trip, and not only made an ass of herself, but her employer as well. I don't know any employer who wouldn't fire someone who is that recklessly stupid and irresponsible.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier:

TacticalEvilDan said:
Unless she was wearing something indicating where she works (she wasn't) or unless you're arguing that the employer in question is paying her for 24 hours of each day that she was on this trip (because they never, ever do), it doesn't change a thing.
Click to expand...
 
It's a still. She probably never made any sound at all. Everyone buried there would be laughing at that picture if they could.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If she'd taken that photo 20 years ago, where would she have put it? Her GeoCities account? My point is that technology has made our individual silliness more accessible to all. The appropriate response isn't to villify it wherever we find it, it's to try to be a little more understanding in light of the fact that all of this connectedness that social media promotes means we're going to see things we wouldn't have seen before.



As I said earlier:
Click to expand...

All irrelevant. She made an ass of herself, it was made public, and to save face her employer fired her. She made her choices, and she paid for them. Actions have consequences.
 
Aderleth said:
Behaving like a childish idiot isn't a crime, and any employer who fires her is looking at a pretty nasty first-amendment based wrongful termination suit.
Click to expand...

Oh really? I never heard of that, tell me about that law.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Do you think it is appropriate, given the current state of the economy, for one moment of off-the-job, entirely-legal stupidity to cost you your job?
Click to expand...

but thats the problem with tooday everything you do can be captured on put on the internet for everyone to see so you have to conduct yourself appropriate manner especially if a camera is around.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Do you think it is appropriate, given the current state of the economy, for one moment of off-the-job, entirely-legal stupidity to cost you your job?
Click to expand...

That's just it--Stone and Schuh weren't off the job. I'd have to know what was in their contracts to understand what their obligations as reps of the org were, but I'll bet there is some amorphous phrase in there somewhere that justifies their "resignations." (I've read both "resigned" and "fired.")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom