unfortunately, an entirely different sean higgins, also of woodstown, new jersey, suffered collateral damage thanks to so-called internet sleuths, who quickly found and disseminated his address, while sean m. higgins was already in police custody. the innocent sean higgins was at a concert with his daughters when word got out and was later subjected to unfettered abuse and harassment .
admittedly, this is a unique set of circumstances and would not likely have happened had the gaudreau brothers not been beloved public figures. nonetheless, it demonstrates the ease with which one’s reputation can be tarnished in our perpetually connected world. indeed, the internet is always mere minutes away from derailing a career, irrespective of whether the target of the attacks deserves it.
advertisement
thus, it is perhaps only fitting that this online vilification of an innocent man came on the same weekend that brazilian lawmakers banned elon musk ’s $44-billion social media platform, x (formerly known as twitter), claiming it to be a tool for the rampant dissemination of misinformation and hate speech.
while brazil’s move will undoubtedly be criticized as a threat to free speech, i suspect that, individuals who have experienced anything close to what sean higgins did will see merit in reining in social media . such sentiment is amplified when you consider the frequency with which employers are anchoring personnel decisions on the basis of public discourse in the social media space.
as i have previously opined in my criticisms of workplace investigations , employers routinely take a flawed, self-serving approach investigating allegations against staff. too often, they rely on selective evidence to achieve their desired outcome, broader facts be damned.
take, for example, the hamas hate rallies that have occurred nationwide over the past year. i have consistently maintained that if you can positively identify (either by photo/video evidence or by their own admission) a public facing, client facing or managerial employee participating in this type of misconduct, it is grounds for termination with cause , as there is no obligation for an employer to tolerate hate speech or related conduct.
advertisement
advertisement