What an employee does after work hours away from work location is nearly inviolate. Other than maybe for criminal conduct – the employer should have no opportunity to circumscribe the employee’s conduct nor to censor speech.

And, it is not good company policy to attempt to draft “rules” that are not likely to survive any legal challenge or otherwise damage the employer-employee relationship. To consider promulgating anything other than guidelines is sheer folly.

Mr. Owendoff’s recent exposure as an anonymous poster critical of the mayor and others points out a dilemma. Arguably he posted comments carefully hiding his identity and his association with his employer. The exposure apparently cost him his employment. It should not have. And, I would argue that it was wrongful conduct on the part of the NW Examiner to expose him.

That exposure operates to stifle free speech – and in a legal battle – Mr. Owendoff might have won the day. He might even have had a lawsuit against the NW Examiner. Frankly, it is not clear that he could not still have performed his job despite the comments. It is not clear either that his employer’s business was impaired.

Free speech is too valuable to be circumscribed unreasonably by an employer. Public comments, anonymous or not, should present a nearly insurmountable hurdle to retribution by anyone including the employer, and in Mr. Owendoff’s case, the publisher.

A Perspective