@rednrowdy: Heh. It's like the trouble we had when I was pickpocketed in Paris (isn't that a Hammerstein tune?) was finding somebody who thought it was a crime.
You know what is surprising? Fox News either hired the guy knowing he had been arrested for child pornography- or they NEVER googled him. There was no need for any serious investigation to see he had a record and dropped out. All they had to do was type his name and state in which he said he attended school to discover all the dirt.
(BTW- for some reason Gawker is acting funny with Safari- can't read comments. It's okay with Firefox.)
@lil red: As someone who has never done anything remotely like this, I am not comfortable with the idea of every prospective employer Googling my name. Because frankly, what I do on my own time is my business.
Now, yes, in this case, obviously what this guy did in his own time was not really only his business, and in fact he was doing it on company time too. But that doesn't (or shouldn't) give employers the right to judge every prospective employee by every little thing they see on the internet about them. What if there's a photo of me out there somewhere that shows me clearly inebriated? That's a perfectly legal, normal thing that people do on their downtime, yet there are employers out there who will disqualify candidates for things like that.
In fact, there are legal issues surrounding wrongfully disqualifying candidates, so a lot of employers *don't* use Google because they don't want to be held responsible if a person sues over an overzealous HR person disqualifying a candidate because of a swear word they found on their blog. That could be Fox's position.
@BookishLookish: The claim is that they didn't institute background checks until 2003- a year after he was hired. This doesn't make any sense when you consider that 9/11 happened in 2001 and I would think Fox would be ultra concerned in people's background after that.
And- all you would have to do is google the guy. No need for an "investigation"- it would have taken about 10 mins tops to find out all the dirt.
@FormerEnglishMajor: Dude served out his punishment...I know child porn is the worst of the worst, but it's not like they hired him to work with kids or anything.
@lil red: Everyone gets a background check by HR. EVERYONE. If only to make sure you're not a murderer or (in Fox's case), a closet Democrat. Who did he know who did him a favor?
@IamnotStarJones: 'but who wants to work with person who gets on seeing little kids having sex with adults?'
Seriously. We'd be in the cafeteria line at lunch and he'd turn to me and ask what looks good and I'd say, 'You know, I'm not sure we have the same taste. I like the roast veggie sub and you like seeing 4-year-old naked girls get sodomized by grown men.' Awkwarrrd.
@tigolbitties: Some say we aren't supposed to admit to ourselves that one who looks as dumb as Dohbya or as crazed as Coulter probably is. It's profiling. Not nice. Saves you a whole lotta trouble, though.
I made the mistake of reading the affidavit and I can not for the life of me understand how these things are made, what demons are distributing it and how I have not found them all and began torturing them.
Jail and psychology are no matches for these pigs. But painful and torturous death is. If this country goes broke, can we start bringing out the Lions Den again?
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
Say, what size are you?
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
(BTW- for some reason Gawker is acting funny with Safari- can't read comments. It's okay with Firefox.)
02/13/09
Safari so good here!
02/13/09
Now, yes, in this case, obviously what this guy did in his own time was not really only his business, and in fact he was doing it on company time too. But that doesn't (or shouldn't) give employers the right to judge every prospective employee by every little thing they see on the internet about them. What if there's a photo of me out there somewhere that shows me clearly inebriated? That's a perfectly legal, normal thing that people do on their downtime, yet there are employers out there who will disqualify candidates for things like that.
In fact, there are legal issues surrounding wrongfully disqualifying candidates, so a lot of employers *don't* use Google because they don't want to be held responsible if a person sues over an overzealous HR person disqualifying a candidate because of a swear word they found on their blog. That could be Fox's position.
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
And- all you would have to do is google the guy. No need for an "investigation"- it would have taken about 10 mins tops to find out all the dirt.
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
Excuse me, I'll need a spoon for this delicious irony.
02/13/09
I know he has a right to make a living but what about my right to not work with a pervert who can't control his urges?
02/13/09
02/13/09
Seriously. We'd be in the cafeteria line at lunch and he'd turn to me and ask what looks good and I'd say, 'You know, I'm not sure we have the same taste. I like the roast veggie sub and you like seeing 4-year-old naked girls get sodomized by grown men.' Awkwarrrd.
02/13/09
02/13/09
Oh, wait.
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/11/09
Jail and psychology are no matches for these pigs. But painful and torturous death is. If this country goes broke, can we start bringing out the Lions Den again?