Holland & Knight layoff tragedy highlights unspoken economic ramifications – And and a moral question about negative on-line commentary
The ABA Journal illustrated the sad after-effects of being laid-off for Holland & Knight legal secretary, Patricia Ann Simmons Kelly.
A blog post I wrote about “HK Law”, exposed in detail how an unauthorized author of negative news online can damage a firm’s reputation. This post is by far the most widely read of those I’ve published. Also, as an African-American woman who was a legal assistant at Goldman Sachs years ago, this so this story is particularly poignant for me.
Holland & Knight’s layoffs are certainly typical of the job loss occurring across today’s businesses. However, I can’t help but wonder what those behind of HK Law’s content think about Patricia’s death. If nothing else, I hope it adds another dimension to the tiered results they’re achieving from their negative commentary.
legal responsibility is even remotely in scope for the authors of negative
online commentary. Still, I can’t help but wonder if those who publish comments designed to damage, can morally disassociate themselves from this type of outcome.
This also brings to question yet another level of how legal matters pertaining to social media commentary going forward. How is the legislation pertaining to these platforms and The First Amendment overall, is going to be effected?
Read a memorial to Patricia Ann Simmons Kelly on iasksisterblog.com
Related Posts:
Legal Firms – Don’t Allow Outside Parties Using Social Media To Control Your Reputation
Ms. Kelly’s photo from iasksisterblog .com
Compass Image from discclonersplus.typepad.com
March 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I’m a little perplexed at the connection you’ve made in this post. Where did you read that her death was indirectly caused by her being let go from her law firm… as in “the sad after-effects of being laid off.”
Given the fact that there were 1,100 people let go on the same day from law firms across the country, and Patricia is the only one who has been reported murdered, I have a hard time believing that this tragic incident would have been averted if she was still employed. This relationship was clearly troubled outside of her employment. Therefore I fail to understand why a responsible blogger would phrase the intro paragraph in this way.
My heart goes out to Patricia and her family.
PS what “tiered” results are you referring to?
March 9th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Thank you for bringing this up and your point is well taken, and I’ve put myself out on a limb here intentionally.
I agree wholeheartedly that it’s very unlikely that Patricia’s death was caused by her unemployment. I am all too familiar with the time it takes for an abusive relationship to cultivate and the personal vindication necessary to remove yourself from one.
As stated, “I’m not saying that when violence or other tragedies occur,legal responsibility is even remotely in scope for the authors of negative online commentary.”
The question I’m posing is simply this:
Can the writers of negative commentary completely disassociate themselves morally when negative events occur to the companies or individuals they discredit?
March 13th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Now I can take heed to the saying, “don’t believe everything you read in the media”.
I know for a fact that:
The loss of her job had nothing to do with her death;
Pat was NOT in an abusive relationship;
and
Kevin had already left the home and had been gone (out of state) for over a week. He had returned several days before her death to pick up more of his belongings.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I truly appreciate your attempt to “set the record straight”, by adding information you feel is important to this conversation. Unfortunately, without your publishing your identity, and some background about who you are and your relationship with Pat, what you have to say really doesn’t have much validity.
Going forward, if you are truly interested in contributing viable information to this important conversation, please do so responsibly.