I wrote that earlier – see the above comment – but in retrospect it seems that I was willing to give the employer a little more control than I would want or that they should have. Frankly, it is not clear that Mr. Ownedoff’s ability to perform or that the employer’s business was impaired in any way by his comments. Some embarassment – maybe.

But it is the NW Examiner’s conduct in exposing him that ought to be the focus of a debate. That exposure clearly stifles free speech. A newspaper’s role – whether it intended that Mr. Owendoff be fired or not – is to protect anonymous comments.

Thus while websites have the right to determine content and to exclude those who violate established rules, exposing those who post anonymously acts as an unreasonable, albeit implied, restriction.

However, free speech is not a right to exercise without responsibility. In this case I am not sure that he meant what he said, that is, one might suspect that he may have gotten some enjoyment out of stoking the fires. But his intent is irrelevant.

It does appear that his ability to perform at his position with this company was impaired by his comments. His employer has the right to expect an employee to be circumspect in public comments about those the employer deems necessary for success of the business.

The right to free speech is not inviolate nor is the speaker necessarily anonymous.

Having said that – it is not clear that the NW Examiner should have gone to such great lengths to expose him. It is one thing to determine the source (appropriate in rare instances), but it is quite another to disclose his identity (never appropriate unless legally required).

What did the NW Examiner gain out of this? Did this increase or decrease the credibility of the publication? Will it reduce posting anonymously? I happen to think that the newspaper is credible and fills a need in Portland, but I feel uncomfortable with their decision.

Newspapers have an important place in our democracy. They are to be defenders of that democracy. And part of that is to defend those who offer dissent. Arguably, this newspaper’s action stifles dissent.

The NW Examiner deserves criticism for engaging in what seems like petty revenge. Criticize me and I will out you. That does little to promote free speech or democracy.

A Perspective