Bozeman Requires Applicants to Give Up Social Site Passwords

Every time I think I have heard it all, I hear something new. Slowly but steadily, our constitutional rights have been eroded, and we have let them. People say either that a) if you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't matter, or b) it's worth it to keep us safe from terrorists (or whatever is the fear of the moment).

I read on L'Atelier about new rules passed by the City of Bozeman, Montana. The new employment application for city jobs includes a place to list all websites, social networking sites and forums, including but not limited to Facebook, MySpace, Google, and Yahoo, including user name and password, as a condition of application. Just to have your application processed, this section must be filled out.

I thought this was a little extreme, so did a little checking. What did I find? An article on Montana dot com has the same story.

According to the city, it's important that they hire candidates who will "ensure the public trust." City Attorney Greg Sullivan stated,

"So, we have positions ranging from fire and police, which require people of high integrity for those positions, all the way down to the lifeguards and the folks that work in city hall here. So we do those types of investigations to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the City," Sullivan said."

An attorney said this? Maybe he needs to read the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), or the numerous other laws relating to employment discrimination. The key point he needs to understand, is that social networking sites, websites, etc., will likely suggest race, age, and possibly sexual orientation. They very likely (and almost certainly) tell marital status, and whether or not someone has children. Disability isn't always evident, but people often join forums or other groups to network with others who share a common condition.

Interviews will obviously tell an employer your gender and possibly your age - although not always. Many people earned a degree outside of the "normal" timeline and even though applications ask for high school graduation dates, they are not required. Anything on an application that suggests age, marital status, sexual orientation, or disability does not have to be included and cannot be asked in an interview or be asked of your references.

Actually, disability does not have to be disclosed at all. Ever. Even after employment. I've had employers hand employees pages to fill out asking for an entire medical history, current diagnoses, prescriptions taken, and doctors someone is seeing. Some states have specific laws dealing with employees working with substance abuse clients, etc., but I'm talking about employment in general.

What is interesting about this story, is that:

"Article 2, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution reads "the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest."

I'm having a hard time seeing that the City of Bozeman has a compelling state interest in checking up on what someone is posting on Facebook or what discussions they may be posting to.

If it's legal, isn't that enough? Since when does our employer get to tell us what is moral? Who gets to make that decision? By what right? What if my idea of moral is different than yours? What if I think it's immoral to kill someone by executing them, and you think it's immoral to have the state pay to house them for life instead? What if I think it's immoral to force a 9-year old to carry a child resulting from a rape by her father, and you think it's immoral to abort it? Who gets to decide? By what right? Who says?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Jeffery Beauregard Sessions III

Well aren't we lucky. We've increased the number of (supposedly) Democratic senators by one, and in exchange, have gotten Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not only does this committee hold hearings to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice now that Justice Souter has retired, but it also is responsible for civil rights cases. Joy.

Why do I say supposedly when referring to Arlen Specter, our newest Democratic senator? After crossing the aisle last week to join the Democrats, Mr. Specter was reported to have told President Obama that he was a loyal Democrat. This was reported by the Washington Post and by George Stephanopolous. Four days later (an extraordinary amount of time to let such a statement go unchallenged in Washington) Mr. Specter appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday claiming "I did not say that. I did not say that I was a loyal Democrat." hmmmm. I see problems ahead. Where does that fit into this post? We'll get to that.

Anyhoo. Mr. Sessions. Twenty-three years ago, Sessions appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as an appointee to a Federal Judgeship under President Reagan. Unfortunately for Mr. Sessions (extremely fortunately for the rest of us as these judgeships are lifetime appointments - think Jay Bybee) he was not confirmed.

Sort of an interesting turn of the circle that Sessions went on to become a Senator and then this week to be appointed to this committee, right? Actually, although committee assignments are all about seniority, this one is all about history. The Republican leadership received a massive amount of pressure (although they certainly didn't need it - they saw the exquisite irony of this appointment) to appoint Sessions to the Senate Judiciary Committee, so they did. The deal? He sits on the committee until 2010, at which time he gives up the seat to Chuck Grassley who would normally have taken the seat. Neat huh? Just long enough to seat a new Supreme. And Specter? At some point, the full Senate votes on whomever the Committee has confirmed. So, will Specter be a Democrat or a Republican?

So why wasn't Sessions confirmed as a Federal Judge? Think racist. Extreme racist. His issue (they all have an issue) was voting rights. At the time, he had prosecuted 3 men for voter fraud in the 1984 election - 1 of whom had been an aide to Martin Luther King Jr. This after finding 14 possibly fraudulent ballots (out of 1.7 million cast) and hours spent interviewing black voters in predominantly black counties. (By the way, all three were acquitted after 4 hours deliberation - that jury wasn't stupid. They knew how hard he had to search to dummy up a case). He referred to an African American Assistant US Attorney as "boy." He claimed that the NAACP was un-American and communist inspired. He called a white civil rights attorney a "disgrace to his race" for litigating civil rights cases (remember, the Senate Judiciary Committee is responsible for civil rights cases). I could go on, but I have other stuff to do this week.

A couple of interesting points. Many articles are being written all over the blogosphere and in the mainstream press (and the not so mainstream press) about who President Obama might choose to replace Justice Souter. Many articles are being written about Senator Sessions and many, many talk shows are discussing both of these issues. You have to do a little digging to find out the details of Session's history.

MSNBC's "First Read" penned by White House political reporters including Chuck Todd would - you would expect - go into some depth, right? Today, the article posted is called SCOTUS POLITICS: Meet Jeff Sessions which you can read here which barely references this controversy, simply stating that "...Sessions had once called the NAACP an ‘un-American’ group, while another raised issues about remarks Sessions made about the Ku Klux Klan.” Not a thing about his direct, racist comments to others which are a little more potent than third hand, watered down remarks that really don't give any depth to the issue of his racism.

As a senator, Sessions was one of only nine to oppose Senator McCain's anti-torture amendment. He supported Vice-President Cheney's proposal to exempt the CIA from any anti-torture legislation. When the bill to repeal the estate tax was failing, he wanted to use Hurricane Katrina as a push-back, saying that businesses who had had a death might now be more likely to support the bill. What a delightful guy. He scores the lowest on immigration, environmental protection, global warming, and of course, civil rights. When the Republican party in the form of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talk about the purity of the party, this is who they mean.

Want to find out more? Here are some links.
The Senator Who's Worse Than Lott
Profile of Sessions by CQ Politics
Looking for a Corpse to Make a Case

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k