Tiny Tim wrote:I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I must have been lucky to work for places that support and realize that when you are off the clock that they cannot control you. I know quite a few people that feel the same way I do.
I've worked in both types of environments. It really is legitimately different for companies like Disney. When you have a large company which produces intellectual property (IP) and/or branded content/products/services, that company has a fudiciary responsibility to safeguard stockholder value, and as a large company the means of doing that are often undiscerning or brutish.
To start with, as a copyright holder, Disney has a legal obligation to monitor for and react to copyright infringements. If your copyright is infringed and you don't act to defend it, you can lose it in the eyes of the law. That's just corporate 101. So it's pretty much given that they have bots and people searching the internet endlessly for anything pertaining to Disney in all their parts and pieces. Then you have to look at how much of a role their IP, brand and reputation play in the bottom line, you have to know they will be looking for anything that can injure or diminish that. That's why they're watching you even when you're off the clock.
As far as enforcement goes, companies like that tend to have language in your employment agreement telling you that you aren't allowed to damage the company, even off the clock. Think about it this way: If you worked in a small store, your boss probably wouldn't care if you stole from them on the clock or off the clock. Either way you'd be fired. Releasing secrets or information that damaged the reputation of the company is a lot like stealing from the company, and in the case of information on the internet, the damage can be huge.
All that doesn't even get into exposing the company to a lawsuit. If the information posted on the internet could inspire someone to sue, or could provide someone with an active suit additional ammunition, you are again harming the company. The bigger the company, the more likely it is to be targetted by spurious lawsuits. A lot of the people (and their attourneys) don't need a lot of encouragement to launch a suit against major corporations.
While Disney has no right to prevent a CM from saying things that don't damage the company, it's not always easy to evaluate the potential harm. Because of that, you end up with enforcement that can be over zealous. Let's be honest, the easiest thing would be for Disney to make their CM's sign an employment agreement that says they can't say anything about the company to anyone. Zero risk. But that is excessive, difficult to monitor, and likely not legally enforcable. Hence the balancing act that Zazu talks about.
I think it's only fair to acknowledge that Disney has a legitimate concern in what might be said on a site like this. It's also important to realize everyone needs to evaluate any pontential risks to participation based on their own feelings and knowledge of the people in their management structure who are responsible for protecting company interests.
I think whatever we can do to help, it's important that we do it, even if that means changing the focus of the site or seeing it go away. Only the CMs can really make that call.