# Meet Lindsey Stone



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

Take a look at Lindsey. She thought this would be a funny thing to post on Facebook.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=32934



> Of course, the reason that you think this is funny is because popular culture tells you that the more outrageous you are, the more popular youll be. I believe your generation calls it pushing the envelope or something. Congratulations, Lindsey, you found the outer edge of the envelope, outside the limits of what we as a civilized society will  accept.



Unfortunately, Lindsey was also in DC on a business trip and the negative publicity generated by her "challenging authority" may very well cost her a job.

"Challenging Authority"...who's authority? The Tomb Guard?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2012)

Just another idiot with no manners looking for their 5 minutes of net-fame.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

The FB page of the company she works for is getting bombed with posts.

https://www.facebook.com/LIFECapeCod/posts/535344506494326


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

In this new age of instant worldwide sharing, viral videos, photos, and text, there is a new paradigm regarding freedom of expression and the practical limits thereof.

In previous times, a photo like this would be seen by a few of the person's friends, who might react with laughter or ridicule, acceptance or condemnation, but the behavior would remain essentially unknown to the rest of the world.  She would have (and has, as far as I know) broken no law by her actions.

However, in this new world, there will be a system of societal punishment meted out, and it is likely to be quite severe.  Although most who see this information will simply be disgusted with her actions (as I am) and think she is not a very nice person (as I do), when millions see it, the number of unstable people who are not capable of reacting in accordance with social norms goes up.  This means what we see here.  Her employer has already been discovered, and is being inundated with demands that she be terminated from her employment.  If she is, many will see this as some sort of 'victory', that she has been made to pay 'the price' for having offended them.

Some tiny percentage of wackos may take it even further.  I would not be surprised (but I would be disappointed) to find that she has been targeted for personal acts of vengeance or violence.  People with her name may find themselves threatened or assaulted, even if they have no relationship to her at all, and simply share the same name.

It would appear that we are returning, enthusiastically, to an age of the 'Scarlet Letter', and moving beyond it.  Now public shaming is not enough; we are actively trying to destroy people we find objectionable.  I would be willing to bet that if she were to take some drastic act like self-destruction, or if someone were in fact to commit a crime of violence upon her, there would be those who would feel that she most definitely had it coming.

And regardless of whether one simply joins in the general condemnation or is further along the path of instability and violent behavior, howling mobs are howling mobs.  They all bear the same guilt for the ultimate actions taken by the mob.

Personally, I am offended by her behavior.  Uncouth, boorish, childish, disrespectful, and mean-spirited.  However, it is also useful to reflect on the irony as well as the fact that those who have fought for our nation and died have guaranteed that she has the right to behave this way.  She may not realize it, but she is proving the correctness of their sacrifice, demonstrating that the freedom to even express hateful statements is protected.  It is we who demand her employer terminate her, who howl for her blood, who demonstrate the opposite; that freedom of expression will only be permitted in this new world of instant communication if one is aligned with the current Zeitgeist.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

What I find disturbing is her self identifiation as a "douchebag"...I seem to see more and more people thinking of that sort of label as a good thing. The Jersey Shoreing of society.

People also seem confused about what the first amendment protects them from and what it does not.

I'm with you Bill. A disgusting example of what I see as a distrubing behavorial trend, and an example of how the media has changed the consequences of our behavior. But in the end nothing worth storming the castle over.

If I was an employer though, I would have to question this persons common sense and good judgement.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

And are that many people really so ignorant about FB security settings?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> What I find disturbing is her self identifiation as a "douchebag"...I seem to see more and more people thinking that sort of label as a good thing. The Jersey Shoreing of society.



It may well be true, and I see your point.  But I also think that finding the most offensive thing possible and then doing it with great gusto has been a hallmark of the young seeking freak out the older generation since approximately ever.



> People also seem confused about what the first amendment protects them from and what it does not.



Well, it is quite true that the First Amendment protects a person's right to freedom of expression, but does not protect them from the consequences of their actions.  In other words, if she gets fired from her job because of people expressing their anger at her employer, her rights have not been violated.  But society has effectively imposed a practical limit on that freedom, where the government does not.  See where I'm going with this?  The government says such public speech is protected.  Society says if she in fact engages in it, the price will be heavy indeed, such as it will serve to have a chilling effect on anyone thinking of expressing their opinions in a similar way.



> I'm with you Bill. A disgusting example of what I see as a distrubing behavorial trend, and an example of how the media has changed the consequences of our behavior. But in the end nothing worth storming the castle over.
> 
> If I was an employer though, I would have to question this persons common sense and good judgement.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Well, I spent some time at Gettysburg National Cemetery some time ago with family and friends.  I saw the same sign, and found it powerful and moving.  Of course, I was both silent and showed respect.  However, I noticed families wandering around chatting away on their cell phones, kids running over graves with their parents doing and saying nothing about it, people making funny or snide comments about facial expressions on statues, and so on.  None of them had their disrespectful behavior recorded and posted online as far as I know, but they were all (to my way of thinking) disrespectful.  Are they not also worthy of losing their jobs?  Do they not also lack common sense and good judgment?

My point here is that there was a time in America and indeed in the world, when one did not dare step out of line, because the social consequences could be severe.  Being ostracized by one's church, by the town, by society in general, could have devastating effects.  If one held conflicting opinions, one kept them to oneself.

Then we had all this freedom stuff, and people went nuts with it.

Now we seem to be returning to a sort of instant societal thumbs up / thumbs down model.  We (society) are Caesar.   The act performs, and we either give it it a thumbs up, in which case their video does Gangnam Style dancing all over Creation, or we give it a thumbs down, in which case the performer soon has no job, no house, no food, and in fact if they are found in a roadside ditch with their throat cut, so much the better.

One dare not anger Caesar, eh?  Woe betide anyone who expresses a strong public belief that others find objectionable.

Last point:  we also live in the land of 'all my sins remembered'.  Everything we say online may be recorded somewhere and available to one who is looking for it.  One may find that not only do they lose their job (perhaps justly) for an act of youthful indiscretion, but that one is punished for the rest of their life for it.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

Thing is Bill...young? While she's younger than us, she's old enough to be a money manager on a DC business trip. By her apparent age I was already a married father. I get what you are saying, but hesitate to minimize her behavior due to age. I think that if she were a HS student on a field trip the disussion would be different here.

And what people fail to see is that the internet is the public square. If your Gettysburgh people got in front of a news camera and made statements that would be different from what they were doing. Its the "mass media" display of our behavior that is the example of poor judgement...more than the behavior in itself in most cases.

I see no error in what you are saying, but what is going on here is what we have to live with...these are the facts. Other than bemoaning the state of affairs what should be done?

IMO what has changed here is technology more than human behavior.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Thing is Bill...young? While she's younger than us, she's old enough to be a money manager on a DC business trip. By her apparent age I was already a married father. I get what you are saying, but hesitate to minimize her behavior due to age.



Yes, she is young only in comparison to some of us.  I guess what I am pointing out is that the consequences of her actions will reverberate for a long time, possibly the rest of her life.  Appropriate punishment for her error in judgment?



> And what people fail to see is that the internet is the public square. If your Gettysburgh people got in front of a news camera and made statements that would be different from what they were doing.



Or if I had merely videotaped them and put it online, along with some comment that allowed personal identification by intrepid net-savvy people (I'm one of them, very good at finding such stuff out).



> I see no error in what you are saying, but what is going on here is what we have to live with...these are the facts. Other than bemoaning the state of affairs what should be done?



Quite right, very little to be done about it, other than perhaps to sound the warning bell so that some few might examine their thoughts before joining in the general hew and cry.  I am a commentator on what appears to be a growing trend, and I ask only _"Is this the path we wish to tread?"_  I cannot stop it in any case, but perhaps a few people might take notice.


----------



## granfire (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, she is young only in comparison to some of us.  I guess what I am pointing out is that the consequences of her actions will reverberate for a long time, possibly the rest of her life.  Appropriate punishment for her error in judgment?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Lindsey who?

I think if we bothered - collectively - more with our problem and ignored the idiots of the world more (the harmless ones, naturally) we would give them a much smaller stage on which to perform their antics.

(In other words, I am sorry I even clicked on the provided links, since this person has no influence n me what so ever)

At least Alexandra Wallace caused the discovery of a wonderful talent....


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

Would...should...could. 

I agree, but the fact is that what we see here is what IS. Ignoring the effect of new media is like saying "television? Interesting but it will never catch on". Lol!

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

Have situations like this reduced the use of social media in any way? Remember, most of these incidents are the result of a person deciding to post their own dirty laundry (vs a third party posting it).

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## decepticon (Nov 20, 2012)

How the pendulum swings. Earlier in the 20th century people's behavior was judged by those around them, sometimes harshly. Then it became politically incorrect to pass judgement (or at least to vocalize that judgement) on others - "live and let live" and all. Now, with electronic media creating the option for everyone to anonymously pass judgement, we are back to societal conscience judging behavior again. It frightens me to think about the lack of accountabilty there is for those self-appointed judges.

The Stone woman meant for everyone to see how cool and fearless she was. What they saw was the disrespectful, "rebel without a clue" and a lot of very poor judgement beneath the bravado. As is so often the case, people who enjoy a tremendous amount of freedom forget that freedom isn't without consequence. The freedom to express yourself comes hand in hand with the freedom to humiliate yourself.

Although I don't think Stone deserves to lose her job due to the fact that she expressed herself in a rude and inappropriate way, I do hope her job performance will be given careful scrutiny. She demonstrated a serious lack of judgement and lack of self control. Not exactly skills one would hope to find in a money manager. I hope her employer will base their decision on job performance and not on the vitriol spewed their direction from a bunch of anonymous rabble rousers, many with a slow week on their hands and nothing personal to lose.

For the record, it disgusts me that she felt the need to disrespect the very people who died to enable her to have the freedom to do what she did.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Have situations like this reduced the use of social media in any way?



Well, I personally have chosen not to say certain things online, based on my understanding of how jobs can be lost.  People on MT have said some interesting and absolutely untrue things about a company I do business with, and I will not, under any circumstances, respond.  Not even to correct the record.  My lips are sealed regarding anything with my employer or my employer's clients names on them.

Why?  I certainly have the right to express an opinion, and I have the right to have an opinion that is not favorable towards the above if I wish.  I might even have information, not proprietary or secret information, that would set the record straight.  However, you will never hear it from me.

All it takes is one angry person who decides to figure out who I work for and go direct to my employer to complain, and I have no job anymore.  Do you think that affects my decisions to voice my opinions?  Yes, it does.  It makes me afraid.  So afraid that I will not say certain things, no matter how much I want to.

Is that how we have free and open discourse in this world now?  If we can't win an argument by persuasion, reason, and logic, we just go get the a-hole fired from his job?

It would seem so.

And I will bet that I am not the only person who has figured out that it's not hard to get someone angry enough to call your boss, your sensei, your spouse, your relatives, or anyone else they can find and make your life a living hell, just because they cannot best you in conversation.  Note my disclaimer.  There's a reason for it.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

Yup.

I find this a fascinating example of the changes the internet is causing in our world. And I wonder...what has really changed? Isn't this just tar and feathering on a digital level? Has the net changed "us" or or we just the same ole folks with a new medium of expression?



Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm still of the opinion that free speach does not mean freedom from consequences.  Do something stupid and offensive you don't get arrested, but if you lose your job because others find your behaviour stupid and offensive then put on your big boy (or girl) pants and deal with it.  Maybe you should have thought about that before performing the action or posting it on Facebook.  Similiarly, anyone threatening her or her employer should be held to the same standard...and also suffer the legal ramifications of threatening others.  It gets kind of old the douchebags of the world's cry of persecution because society is holding them accountable for thier own bad behaviour.  It really isn't that hard a concept to understand.  Many two year olds already have a firm grasp on it.  Bad behaviour has negative effects.  don't want to experience those negative effects, don't behave badly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I'm still of the opinion that free speach does not mean freedom from consequences.  Do something stupid and offensive you don't get arrested, but if you lose your job because others find your behaviour stupid and offensive then put on your big boy (or girl) pants and deal with it.  Maybe you should have thought about that before performing the action or posting it on Facebook.  Similiarly, anyone threatening her or her employer should be held to the same standard...and also suffer the legal ramifications of threatening others.  It gets kind of old the douchebags of the world's cry of persecution because society is holding them accountable for thier own bad behaviour.  It really isn't that hard a concept to understand.  Many two year olds already have a firm grasp on it.  Bad behaviour has negative effects.  don't want to experience those negative effects, don't behave badly.



Ah, but the rub is that one does not have to behave 'badly' to be punished in such a manner.  One can merely behave in a way which someone else finds offensive.

In this manner, ALL behavior can have negative and over-the-top effects out of all proportion to what has been said.  Every crank, essentially, is punished for behaving badly, yes, but every person who has a strong opinion but is NOT behaving badly is subject to the exact same retribution.

How would you address that?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> it is also useful to reflect on the irony as well as the fact that those who have fought for our nation and died have guaranteed that she has the right to behave this way.  She may not realize it, but she is proving the correctness of their sacrifice, demonstrating that the freedom to even express hateful statements is protected.  It is we who demand her employer terminate her, who howl for her blood, who demonstrate the opposite; that freedom of expression will only be permitted in this new world of instant communication if one is aligned with the current Zeitgeist.



I'm with you. Her employer would be well within its rights to terminate her for this dumb move--but if you're in uniform for any other reason than to protect my right to burn a flag, insult the president, and moon my congressman, you're not truly fighting for my freedom but rather for your vision of "our way of life". Whether I want to do any of those things or not, knowing you've helped maintain a country with strong freedom of expression rights is the reward, not an insult.

We need to figure out privacy in the digital age.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> And are that many people really so ignorant about FB security settings?



Also a good question--though once it's up, it can go anywhere even still.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, I personally have chosen not to say certain things online, based on my understanding of how jobs can be lost.



I'm a tenured full professor. I can say (almost) anything and it would be very, _very _hard for them to fire me because of it. I have a very strong guarantee of job protection under academic freedom. The outrageous things I say on Facebook under my own name--well, if you think I'm anti-religion and anti-GOP here, you wouldn't want to see the offensive stuff I post there. (Bob Hubbard will back me up on this.) I can swear at my boss, as long as I teach my classes (and don't go _too _far).

It's been very freeing for me in this digital age, and _I appreciate that my position is unlike that of most people_. My wife largely shares my religious and political opinions but she works for a county govt. agency and is more circumspect about who she adds as a friend and what she posts, while I have the Dean of Faculty--the boss of my boss, politically but not socially conservative--on my list (not that he logs on much). It's great for me to not have to worry about what I say or who hears it--but I counsel my kids quite differently.

I've used my academic freedom for good, as when I swayed the religiously conservative crowd at my Midwestern college enough toward partner benefits for gay employees to see it pass by speaking up and voicing my opinion. (I was untenured then, but academic freedom still buys you a lot of room.) It was very unpopular with a bare majority of the faculty--some departments have as many as three weekend evangelical ministers on their faculty even though we're not religiously affiliated in any way--but I could speak my mind there, talking about how things had been at other schools I had taught at (including a Jesuit university that was very open-minded). I use it in discussions of curriculum all the time. But it also let's me speak freely here. I couldn't be fired for posting a picture like that--I couldn't be fired for posting a picture like that with me stark naked and hugging Kim Jong-un.

It would be beneficial for more Americans to have this kind of freedom. Social media is a main carrier of public discourse, and the First Amendment is there to both protect _and encourage_ political discourse. Private conversations, small-town public speeches, and reading the newspaper to follow discussion of major issues, are all being challenged by the discuss-it-on-the-web model. If people can't do that freely, we lose.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 20, 2012)

I try to be careful, and make sure that there are a couple of removes to identify my employer from my on-line activity.  I'm not saying nobody could determine who I work for -- just that it would take a couple of steps.  Even so -- I have a disclaimer, to further separate my employer from my posts.  And I generally avoid posting anything I'd not be willing to stand in front of the chief and explain.

This young lady showed rather poor manners, and worse judgement -- but I also agree that her actions and decisions have been fueled by the dumbing down of our society in response to the popularity of shows like Jackass, Jersey Shore, the feuding motorcycle builders, and the gate crashing DC "power" couple whom nobody had heard of and are in bankruptcy.  Behavior that once would have been cause for ridicule or shunning is instead rewarded by more fame.  So... it's no real surprise when we get people with no clue about proper behavior and people who think that being outrageous is cool.  And then they often don't understand why they're not being applauded -- because J-Wow or whoever would have been.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

She self admits to being a "douchebag". I dont know if I want to employ one of those in a position that involves contact with my customers.

I must admit though that "there but for the grace of God go I'...who knows what sort of trouble I may have gotten into if I could have published photos/vid instantly for all to see? However THAT is exactly the sort of world we live in now so it behooves all of us to think before we hit that "SEND" button.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

I kind of like the comment made by "MCPO NYC USN (Ret.)" on the originating site.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=32934



> Obviously she meant no disrespect.
> 
> The problem with douchebags  they were raised by douchebag parents, schooled at douchebag institutions of lower education, and most of their friends are douchebags. Their close relatives are all douchebags, most of the holiday cards and greetings they recieve throughout the year are from fellow douchebags. No doubt their siblings are all douchebags too. They support and vote for douchebags and shop at stores owned by douchebags. When douchebags go to hell, as they all do, they will be in good company  with every other douchebag that had gone before them  kinda like an eternal douchebag association.



:uhyeah:


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 21, 2012)

I really don't like what Ms Stone did, nor do I like the fact that she thought it was so cool that she posted it online.  I am not sure that what she did raises to the level of a statement that is protected by free speech, or at least should be.  I don't know if she walks through life making anti-government statements at every opportunity.  Even so, it would appear that what she did may have been protected.

The come those who disagree with her completely, without reservation, nor fear of saying so.  Do they have the same rights to free speech?


----------



## granfire (Nov 21, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I really don't like what Ms Stone did, nor do I like the fact that she thought it was so cool that she posted it online.  I am not sure that what she did raises to the level of a statement that is protected by free speech, or at least should be.  I don't know if she walks through life making anti-government statements at every opportunity.  Even so, it would appear that what she did may have been protected.
> 
> The come those who disagree with her completely, without reservation, nor fear of saying so.  Do they have the same rights to free speech?



It depends on how they voice their opinion.
Sending her threats is not a protected means of speech. (and calling for her to be fired from her job is over the top, but probably not illegal)


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 21, 2012)

As an 'anti governent' protest it was pretty feeble, she needn't be pleased with herself as it cost her nothing. All she would get back is comments as she lives in country that allows her to make anti government statements. If she'd done it in a country where such things are punished by imprisonment or worse it would have meant something. 
It was also a pretty pathetic attempt too, if she'd actually shown some thought, highlighted a particular issue or something she'd really wanted to protest about it would have made her look less like a young child finding out that they can say a 'rude' word and make adults react. I think the reaction to her should be along the lines of 'yes dear aren't you clever...now get your crayons and draw me a nice picture/go play with your dollies/have a nice little nap', she should be treated as the little child she actually is, when she grows up she can be treated like an adult.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2012)

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121120/NEWS11/121129978



> HYANNIS &#8211; A Plymouth woman who posted a photo of herself making an obscene gesture at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery has been placed on unpaid leave from her job at a home for the disabled.
> 
> *Lindsey Stone, 30,* and her co-worker Jamie Schuh &#8211; who took the photo &#8211; were placed on unpaid leave while their employer, LIFE &#8211; which stands for Living Independently Forever &#8211; investigates the incident, according to a statement by executive director Diane Enochs.
> 
> Stone is listed as a case/money manager at the LIFE home in Hyannis, and Schuh, of Mashpee, is listed as a supported independent living director.



30....this is a 30 YO woman. I think the "youthful indescretion" excuse is invalid here. 

But adding to what Tez said. A phenomena I see more and more of is these "30 something" year old "douchebags". Man Children mostly, but apparently some women are in the ranks as well.

As a matter of fact I have one in my family. In his 30's but acts like hes in his early 20's. No real job, supported by mommy, partying every weekend, getting arrested at least yearly, drug use, dating/abusing girls who are far too young for him. Soon he will be that wierd "old guy" at the bar hitting on the 21 yo girls. 

What happened to acting like an adult?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2012)

I see that we've finished our introspection and are moving straight back into 'she should be boiled in oil and flayed alive' territory again.  Sad.

Here's a refreshing perspective.  By the way, folks, 'perspective' is a good word.  Think about getting some at some point.  This one comes from a slightly different point of view; that of the outrage specifically directed at those who appear to be disrespectful of veterans.

http://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-stone-2012-11



> No, Lindsey Stone's Life Shouldn't Be Ruined Over A Stupid Facebook Post
> ...
> When we came across the photo yesterday of Lindsey Stone raising her middle finger at the Arlington National Cemetery, we decided to pass on making comment or adding to the viral storm around it. Gawker's refreshingly reasonable question was, should the woman in the picture, Lindsey Stone, have her life ruined over the photo?
> We figured she had enough on her plate without us adding to it.
> ...



...


> The *blind adoration of the military and its personnel is getting creepy*, and I'm talking from the inside looking out. While correcting the ugly way Vietnam veterans were treated is good, the over-compensation needs to stop. Putting on a uniform doesn't change who you are and questioning institutions and individuals, including the military and its troops, is good and healthy.



Yeah, as a military veteran myself, I get it.

Not only that, but I also feel strongly that most of the adoration and public ***-kissing of the military of late is completely fake.  It's phony.  It's disgusting.

I see the signs people put on their cars, and the 'love' they say they feel for the troops.

Then I go to the Detroit Veteran's Day Parade and see maybe 100 people lined up to see the parade on a several-mile route, about 1500 or more veterans marching in it.




IMGP9116_v1 by Wigwam Jones, on Flickr

But people get upset if someone says or does something that appears to be disrespectful to the military.  Hmmm.  I wonder where all those patriotic people are on Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and so on?

I didn't see them at the parade.  I didn't see them at the cemetery.  I didn't see them wearing a uniform or carrying a rifle.  But they're offended on my behalf if someone does something to disrespect the war dead.  

Hmmm.

Come up to me at the Memorial Day service at Great Lakes National Cemetery and tell me you love the troops; I'll believe it.

Get angry and demand some young idiot be fired for doing something moronic at a National Cemetery and I don't think so.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I see that we've finished our introspection and are moving straight back into 'she should be boiled in oil and flayed alive' territory again.  Sad.



Who's said that?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2012)

Instead of simply rewording the same thought Ill re-post a response to that webpage Bill:



> *Jose Gonzalez                                                        *                    on                                                                                        Nov 21,  7:59 AM                                                                                    said:                                        Shocked at the defense. While  you defend her right for freedom of speech, the author also absolves Lindsey  Stone of personal responsibility. Yes, we Americans have the right of freedom of  speech....However, that right must also be tempered with the responsibility of  your actions. Generally, it can be agreed that a non-profit relies on donations  and drives to achieve the funding necessary for it's mission. Pulling a pr stunt  such as Lindsey Stone can put those donations at risk. You mention doing a  rebellious act when you were in High School. She is not in High School. Lindsey  Stone was on a office trip to the United States and was standing at a cemetery  that is designated for those that have died so that we, who live, may have  certain freedoms and rights. But we are all responsible to exercise those  freedoms with responsibility. You claim that the military is reaching a blind  adoration but I disagree. People are becoming more aware that the soldiers are  people and they have families. If people had such blind adoration, equipment  would be better for the soldiers, life on base would be better and not run by  civilians who don't care about military personnel, etc. As former military and a  military brat of 3 generations of Army soldiers, I can tell you there is a  difference between standing at the edge of a cliff next to a sign that says,  "Don't stand here" and giving the bird and mocking a sign next to a Tomb that  houses the dead that will not get the proper recognition they deserve due to  their anonymity.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more:  http://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-stone-2012-11#ixzz2CrywvWvh



While I can be with you on the "lets be reasonable" stance on what she did..I don't know if Im ready to go down the "blind adoration for the military" path.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Who's said that?



I exaggerate to emphasize.  We're back to 'actions have consequences' without regard to the fact that people are howling for her to lose her job (apparently she and her manager have been suspended now) and she and her family are receiving death threats (despite having apologized repeatedly).  What nice people we all are.  Everyone's outraged.  Everyone wants something done.  Get out the pitchforks and the torches, we're gonna fix her wagon right now.

At least she was AT a national cemetery.  When I visit them, I seldom see anyone but veterans and their families.  All these outraged people?  I doubt they've ever set foot in one, let alone worn a uniform or gone in harm's way.

I'm starting to get a little irritated by this nonsensical jingoistic display of righteous indignation over a young woman's stupid mistake.  Like they have anything to be indignant over.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2012)

To be honest. If I was actually standing there and observed her posing for this shot...while I would roll my eyes at yet another "douchebag" in the world...I doubt I would have bothered thinking much more about it.

Again. Is this really "new" human behavior or is it simply "tar and feathering" in the digital age?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2012)

I wonder how this "got out"..sure, unsecured FB pictures are in the public square, but in "real world" what usually happens is that someone she "friended" took offense and sent it viral.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2012)

:uhyeah:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> To be honest. If I was actually standing there and observed her posing for this shot...while I would roll my eyes at yet another "douchebag" in the world...I doubt I would have bothered thinking much more about it.
> 
> Again. Is this really "new" human behavior or is it simply "tar and feathering" in the digital age?



Well, yes, I agree.

Yesterday, I was making the point that we've created a new society where 'peer pressure' has turned into the Scarlet Letter of days gone by - and worse.

Today, the article I just linked to was making the point, which I had not thought of, but I agree with, that this particular incident is yet another example of extreme patriotism or military-worship gone too far.  And while I am old enough to remember with what disrespect the military was held in the years during and immediately after Vietnam, and I'm glad they are over, I think we've gone way, way, too far now.

Worse, it's a surface-level patriotism.  Real lovers of the military would be out actually supporting the troops or showing their respect for them, rather than simply taking the easy road of mouthing platitudes and becoming outraged when the military is disrespected.  I frankly feel horrible inside when I take my annual photos at the Veterans Day parade and see how empty the streets are.  The few people I see watching who are not family of those marching are generally passers-by and homeless people who happened to see a parade going on.  Damned few people make plans to come see the veterans march.  They don't have to; it's a free country.  But when they tell me how much the love the military, yet have never done one thing to show their support except run their yaps,  I don't really see it.  This attack on a stupid young woman is vicious, cruel, over-the-top, and frankly, done by hypocrites.  At least she was *in* a national cemetery.  I'll bet a lot of the people ripping her a new one have never even set foot in one, nor do they know where the nearest one is to them.  They're SO patriotic, aren't they?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> :uhyeah:



I've seen this before.  And yet, none of THOSE people are losing their jobs.  Are they not disrespectful too?  Do they not also deserve to be dragged out in the street and beaten like dogs?  No?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've seen this before.  And yet, none of THOSE people are losing their jobs.  Are they not disrespectful too?  Do they not also deserve to be dragged out in the street and beaten like dogs?  No?



Well to be realistic Bill. There's a difference between this video and a person clowning and "mocking". I get your point but there was a difference in intent here. Did Lindsey have any "real" intent to be offensive or to be insulting of the deceased Vets? I doubt it. Should she be fired? Thats not my call and I really don't care if she is or isnt. But I do agree that some people seem FAR too interested in stringing her up. I don't think it's worth the hassle.

My thoughts have been centering around how people like her..a 30 YO woman on a business trip..lack the ability to maintain decorum. Maybe as I age Im getting more crotchety and just see it more...maybe my job has made me more cynical...but her behavior and the mentality of sharing it depresses me a bit.

Shes the one who "put it out there", and it is in the media so I feel no shame in expressing my opinion on it. As is my right too.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2012)

I don't know if its really "military adoration gone too far". I think that there are simply many people who have loved ones in the military or killed on deployment. I attended the funeral of a fallen commerade and I think most of us have a connection to someone who made the ultimate sacrifice in some way. And parades in general just dont get the attendence they used to Bill. I had to work my fair share of them...its not like when we were kids. I don't know if parade attendence is a fair barometer to judge peoples attitude towards veterans.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Well to be realistic Bill. There's a difference between this video and a person clowning and "mocking". I get your point but there was a difference in intent here. Did Lindsey have any "real" intent to be offensive or to be insulting of the deceased Vets? I doubt it. Should she be fired? Thats not my call and I really don't care if she is or isnt.
> 
> My thoughts have been centering around how people like her..a 30 YO woman on a business trip..lack the ability to maintain decorum. Maybe as I age Im getting more crotchety and just see it more...maybe my job has made me more cynical...but her behavior and the mentality of sharing it depresses me a bit.
> 
> Shes the one who "put it out there", and it is in the media so I feel no shame in expressing my opinion on it. As is my right too.



Yes, people are less respectful than they once were, and seem to mature more slowly.  I guess our society permits it.  Frat-boy college behavior by young men and women seem to go on into the middle thirties these days, but it might just be my observation looking back from my fifties.  I recall not being very mature myself until rather later.

Of course it is your right to express your opinion. I even agree with it, for the most part.  My statements revolve around those who seem to be pre-occupied with making sure she is properly 'punished' for her behavior, posting on her employer's FB page to demand she be fired (looks like they might win that one) and those few clot-heads making actual threats of violence against her family.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I don't know if its really "military adoration gone too far". I think that there are simply many people who have loved ones in the military or killed on deployment. I attended the funeral of a fallen commerade and I think most of us have a connection to someone who made the ultimate sacrifice in some way. And parades in general just dont get the attendence they used to Bill. I had to work my fair share of them...its not like when we were kids. I don't know if parade attendence is a fair barometer to judge peoples attitude towards veterans.



My wife an I also attend the Thanksgiving parade in Detroit.  Same street.  Hundreds of thousands was last year's estimate.  Hundreds of thousands.  Versus a couple hundred, tops, for the Veterans Day parade a few weeks earlier.

And it's been like this for years now.  I am part of the group that organizes this parade - I don't do the planning - because I am not a Vietnam-era veteran and they run it - but I send letters to the various news organizations and try to get them to run announcements, put it on their calendars on their web pages, do an interview, provide coverage of the parade, ANYTHING.  It's like pulling frickin' teeth.  This year, Fox news was there, first time that I can recall, and it was great to see them.  I did not see our fine friends at ABC, CBS, NBC, and the other major networks; to them, it just didn't exist.  I contact them; many of us contacted them.  I didn't even get the courtesy of a response.  No coverage, no spectators, no respect.  And yet everyone is outraged about what some young moron did in a photo in front of a sign at a national cemetery.  Hmmm.  Yeah, not buying it.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> To be honest. If I was actually standing there and observed her posing for this shot...while I would roll my eyes at yet another "douchebag" in the world...I doubt I would have bothered thinking much more about it.
> 
> Again. Is this really "new" human behavior or is it simply "tar and feathering" in the digital age?



Exactly.  I'm certainly not joining the bandwagon to crucify the woman.  Should her company discipline her for screwing around when she was on the clock, in a manner that has come back to reflect poorly on them?  Yep, if they want.  Should that discipline include termination?  Probably not, unless there are other problems.  And if they choose not to do so, to essentially say that "yes, it was company travel, and a company activity, but it was done on what amounts to break time", well, that's there business, as well.  Might be some unofficial sanctions, like not getting to be included on the next trip or squashed promotional options, until her judgement improves.

I'm rather more concerned with the general atmosphere that says a 30 year old woman should pull high school stunts, though.  That's more of a problem to me.  
This seems to be the kind of thing that a person with some maturity might have thought of -- and then went "nah, too juvenile."


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> I'm rather more concerned with the general atmosphere that says a 30 year old woman should pull high school stunts, though.  That's more of a problem to me.
> This seems to be the kind of thing that a person with some maturity might have thought of -- and then went "nah, too juvenile."



Whilst I agree with you, it seems to me to be more of a personal problem on her part than something 'we' as society need to be taking a hand in personally correcting for her.  The general issue with frat-boys-until-age-30 thing is worrisome to me, yes.  But I don't really know how to address that other than one-on-one.  I'm really more concerned with this 'pile on' mentality we seem to have of jumping on those seen to have stepped out of line socially until we as society feel they are sufficiently punished.  That is some scary crap right there.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2012)

To segue onto a slight tangent...

This topic brings to mind stroies of LEO's being terminated for their off duty behavior.

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/2304790-Posing-performing-and-conduct-unbecoming/


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Whilst I agree with you, it seems to me to be more of a personal problem on her part than something 'we' as society need to be taking a hand in personally correcting for her.  The general issue with frat-boys-until-age-30 thing is worrisome to me, yes.  But I don't really know how to address that other than one-on-one.  I'm really more concerned with this 'pile on' mentality we seem to have of jumping on those seen to have stepped out of line socially until we as society feel they are sufficiently punished.  That is some scary crap right there.



Let me posit this. Isn't this exactly what social media is intended to do? Dont companies like Stones' create FB pages (and post comments) intending to generate comments? Isn't this simply a chance for everyone to "post" what they would otherwise just have "thought" in the past? 

25 years ago I may have seen something like this and been pissed off, but it wouldn't have been worth the time or effort to write/type a letter...research her background...find an address to mail to..etc. Now all I have to do is go to a website and type.

I think this is really just a matter of easier accessibility to forums that allow us to vent than it is a "new phenomena".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> To segue onto a slight tangent...
> 
> This topic brings to mind stroies of LEO's being terminated for their off duty behavior.
> 
> http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/2304790-Posing-performing-and-conduct-unbecoming/



When I was in the Marine Corps, a young female Marine was thrown out for posing nude for Playboy (Sgt Bambi Lyn Finney).

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...P1NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2694,2755247

However, the military, like many civilian organizations such as police officers, often have a requirement to behave in ways which do not bring discredit upon their employer.  This is generally well-understood and made very clear to the employee, if not actually written into the employment contract itself.  With civil servants, even the appearance of impropriety can be disallowed; so one must not only avoid doing something off-hours which might reflect badly on their employer, but anything which might be construed that way.  It doesn't give one a lot of room to do as one pleases on one's own time.

And again, one has to ask the question, what is objectionable behavior?  Is it illegal behavior?  Is it distasteful behavior? And if the latter, who gets to decide?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Let me posit this. Isn't this exactly what social media is intended to do? Dont companies like Stones' create FB pages (and post comments) intending to generate comments? Isn't this simply a chance for everyone to "post" what they would otherwise just have "thought" in the past? 25 years ago I may have seen this and been pissed off but it wouldn't have been worth the time or effort to write/type a letter...research her background...find an address to mail to..etc. Now all I have to do is go to a website and type.
> 
> I think this is really just a matter of easier accessibility to forums that allow us to vent than it is a "new phenomena".



In my opinion, yes, and then again, no.

We, as a society, are apparently rediscovering the power of the masses to effect change.  This has a good side and a bad side.  The good side is the part that works for social changes that positively affect others.  Highlighting evil and wrongs in our society, making others aware of things that might effect us all in a negative way so that people can get involved.  And it's all been massively multiplied from the days when people gathered in public squares and held up signs and marched down city streets.   This can be done with many more people, with much less effort.

The bad side is that we have groups like Anonymous, who seek to punish any corporation, government, or individual they see as their enemy, and often with the cheers of the mob urging them on.  They operate in extra-legal ways, but their supporters howl like monkeys on social hangouts like Twitter, Facebook, and etc, encouraging them to do more.  We see 'pile on' behavior such as this with the young moron in the OP, where people are not just 'commenting' or exercising their free speech, but actively working to make sure she is damaged to the fullest extent possible.  As I said earlier, most of these people would be thrilled if they read that she had taken her own life.  They are cyber-bullies; and it's not just about free speech anymore, but the thrill of behaving like a mob and forcing people and companies to do things at their command.

In the new online society that is forming, we will behave online and in real life as we are permitted to by the mobocracy.  If you have an objection to the wars, you may protest - if it is OK with the mob.  Otherwise, you'll be excoriated online, your employer will be inundated with demands you be terminated, your family with be stalked and threatened, and in some cases, actual violence will arise from the public scourging.  Everything we do will no longer be conditioned upon notions such as 'is this legal' or 'do I have the right to say or think this', but 'will the mob be OK with this'?

If you don't see that as a problem, I certainly do.  I have no idea what to do about it, but I see dark days ahead for the human race if we don't knock this crap off.  Individually, we're nice, reasonable, sane people.  Collectively, we're all Stalin, apparently.  As the meme goes...


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 22, 2012)

Ms. Stone has been placed on unpaid leave from her job along with the coworker that took the photo...

http://www.insideedition.com/headli...ign-at-the-tomb-of-unknown-soldier-goes-viral


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 22, 2012)

> [h=5]LIFE- Living Independently Forever's status.[/h]21 hours ago
> We  wish to announce that the two employees recently involved in the  Arlington Cemetery incident are no longer employees of LIFE. Again, we  deeply regret any disrespect to members of the military and their  families. The incident and publicity has been very upsetting to the  learning disabled population we serve.  To protect our residents, any  comments, however well-intentioned, will be deleted. We appreciate your  concern and understanding as we focus on the care of our community.



.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 22, 2012)

Well, I guess justice has been served.  Now maybe people can find out where she lives and throw rocks through her windows.  After all, she's evil and must be destroyed.  Great work, people.  Nice.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 22, 2012)

Personally, I'm ok with that decision.

She had her right to free speech.
Others expressed their disgust with her, again, free speech.
She by her actions, created a problem for her company.
Her company, which operates as an at-will employer, choose to part ways with her of their own free will, as a result of her free expression.

She will maybe learn from this and grow up. Maybe not.

But no ones rights were harmed, IMO.

If I had an employee who did this, I'd dismiss them too. Right of free association and all that.

Now, if it progresses to threats of violence, property damage, etc, no that's not all right.  We all have the right to be an ***. We don't have a right to hurt someone because our feelings were hurt or we were offended.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 22, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Personally, I'm ok with that decision.
> 
> She had her right to free speech.
> Others expressed their disgust with her, again, free speech.
> ...



Bob, no one's rights were infringed upon, that's correct.  And the people howling for her to be fired had every right to express their opinions.

But as I've tried to explain, this demonstrates to me (and I would think to you too) what kind of world we're headed into.  One where you have every legal right to speak your mind, but you damned well better not, if the mob doesn't like it, because they'll f'ing destroy you.

History is replete with lessons such as these.  I would mention a few, but Godwin's Law would immediately be invoked.  Suffice to say that when societal pressure keeps people from doing and saying outrageous things, you may find that quite acceptable.  You won't find it so acceptable when the mob decides that something you do or say or think is not to be permitted.

And the death threats have apparently continued.  Mobs, once aroused, seldom draw the line at niceties like the law.  Break a few shop windows, paint a few slogans on walls, eh?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2012)

Agree all around--they were within their rights to fire her and they have to think about blowback on them--but it's an increasingly chilling environment for political speech and public discourse as practiced in 2012 and that's bad social policy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 22, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Agree all around--they were within their rights to fire her and they have to think about blowback on them--but it's an increasingly chilling environment for political speech and public discourse as practiced in 2012 and that's bad social policy.



Imagine a world where we don't have 1984, where the government keeps everyone in line.  Instead the government protects our right to express ourselves as we please, and our own citizens kick the living crap out of everyone who offends the daily Zeitgeist, whatever it may be that day.  We don't need no stinking government oppression, we can oppress ourselves just fine!


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2012)

Exactly. Look at Puritan attitudes and their effects on the sex lives of people--it went well beyond the letter (and certainly beyond the effective reach) of the law. If we censor ourselves, we still get the same effects as if we had a weakened First Amendment. That still sucks.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 22, 2012)

Bill, I have people on 3 continents who want to kill me, beat me up, or take my property, because of things I said, or my staff here did.  I've lost friends, "friends", and clients over my expressed views on political, social and religious topics. So, I understand where both you and Arni are coming from.  I don't want to live in a country so stuck on 'correctness' that you run the risk of fine or jail time for "offending the public good". It's bad enough parts of the US are going in that direction now.   My argument isn't that the mob should rule, but that we should be aware of the ramifications of our actions and learn to deal with them.  But those ramifications should never be violence because someones feelings were hurt.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 23, 2012)

Has she been 'suspended/sacked' because of the photgraph or because she was doing it when she should have been working for the company who paid her? It could be that the company doesn't care about her views on anything but do care that when they are paying her to work she's off skiving.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 23, 2012)

Rather strange dichotomy we have nowadays. While I don't condone distasteful behavior in a cemetery (such as children running, unchecked, at the Arizona memorial in Hawaii), I don't think overreacting is appropriate either.  

The mob mentality is scary - on both sides of the matter.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 23, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Agree all around--they were within their rights to fire her and they have to think about blowback on them--but it's an increasingly chilling environment for political speech and public discourse as practiced in 2012 and that's bad social policy.



I agree.  We won't have the Thought Police; we won't need them.  Anyone who does something that offends enough people will be summarily punished by employers or society.

I would much rather have seen the company discipline the two employees, and send them to some sort of training.  That would have been an appropriate and reasonable discipline.  And, as I said before, they're going to be under close supervision for a  while.  And I would encourage the company to develop a social media policy.  Firing them this way does nothing positive, except shut up the public uproar.  

I kind of wonder whether they wouldn't have a case for unlawful termination...


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 24, 2012)

My thoughts,... and bear in mind, I don't give two figs what this woman did, she's an idiot in my opinion, and that is that... I wouldn't waste my time trying to get her fired, but if she showed up at my place for a BBQ I'd tell her to GTFO.

It was stated above (By Bill, I believe) that we are moving into an era where maturity is lacking well into our thirties, and it was stated earlier that we as a nation are moving twords a "Jackass/Jersey Shore" level of mentality in our adults.  If we assume that this type of self-proclaimed Douchebaggery is detrimental to society, How do we steer it back on course?  Social Pressure seems like it should be a viable way to do this. ("I'mma go scream at the Cemetary Guards!" "I dunno man, that one chick lost her job over doin that kind of ****..." )  But at the same time can be taken too far. ("I'mma go to the Democratic Candidates Q&A and ask hard questions they aint prepared for."  "I dunno man, some dude lost his job for that last election")  

So unless there is a way to root out the real douchebags from the people who disagree with you... It may remain a crapshoot.


----------

