How can we address a poor but highly voted answer with potential legal implications

Question

https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/44592/16

This answer lack references and appears to be wholly the personal opinion of the poster despite the statement as though it was all fact. A multitude of people have tried to challenge these claims in comments only to have the comments removed but nothing done about this highly voted answer.

It is the right of every person to get to hang out with who they want after work.If they choose to do an all guys group that is their deal. All Asian guys, still their deal. Whatever sexist, racist, whatever group someone has out of work has nothing to do with work

This statement needs a reference. Where does that right come from? Who says its a right? How far does that right extend? None of that is addressed in the question. Someone reading this answer based on this statement could choose to make a very dangerous decision that could end up with them in legal trouble if it is, as many I and many other commentators believe, incorrect.

Since comments are being suppressed (understandably it just sets off more discussion in the comments) I think this answer needs a banner pointing out the need for references for this reason.

Answer 1

The following applies to Revision 3 of the linked answer, the one that was current at the time of this post.

The answer uses the fuzzy term "right". Sometimes when people say something is "your right" they're speaking morally or about "human rights" -- the US declaration of independence, for example, asserts rights that were clearly not legal rights at the time, hence the ensuing war. Other times when people say "right" they mean "legal right".

Assertions of moral rights can be problematic because they're opinions and we're looking for answers that are more than just opinions of random people on the Internet. Assertions of legal rights can be problematic because they imply authority that isn't present. We are not the only SE site where following bad advice can be dangerous, though, so "delete wrong answers" isn't automatically the preferred response, either.

I don't see this answer as dispensing legal advice. It could be made even more clear by changing "It is the right of every person..." to "It is the moral right of every person..." or something like that. It's ok to edit other people's posts so long as you don't change the meaning; why not try it?

If the answer instead said something like "Under US law it is the right...", then it would be quite reasonable to ask in a comment for a citation. If it got flagged the mods would most likely drop a "citation needed" annotation on it in the meantime. You complained about comments being deleted, but it hasn't been wholesale. We've deleted an awful lot of back-and-forth argument, but a comment asking for a source (or for any other clarification in a post) isn't something we intentionally delete (until it becomes obsolete, anyway). But don't start an argument in the comments; instead of "you're wrong because of X, Y, Z" one can say "how do you account for X, Y, and Z?". You can challenge without starting a discussion thread.

(All "you"s in the previous paragraph are generic; I'm not talking specifically about the OP here.)

We've talked before about the subjective nature of answers here. We don't require sources if an answer can be supported by (stated) experience or by reasoning. This answer demonstrates reasoning, in my opinion -- it may or may not be reasoning either of us agrees with, but it's not a non-answer and to my eye it's not even a legal claim, let alone a dangerous one.

On all SE sites, following some answers could be dangerous and it is up to the reader to do due diligence. The best answers will provide readers with the means to check them. But not every answer does, and people should vote based on their perception of a post's value.

Answer 2

This probably won't make me friends over here, but I believe that at this point, question should be closed and deleted, so that whatever is there in the answer(s) won't matter at all.

As far as I can tell, it falls squarely into "Questions that focus on ranting about problems rather than trying to solve them" off-topic category listed in Help Center. It was right there from the very beginning...

I'm not looking to take any action on this. I just want to validate my feelings more than anything. It hurts...

...and with further edits it was getting there more and more, along with "commiserating" upvotes that encouraged this:

^{...pretend hair dye doesn't exist. and pretend you can't shave your head. let's say your manager has blonde hair, and this other manager has blonde hair, and the manager above them even has blonde hair. and your manager decided to start drinking with a group of co-workers after work, not everyone, just people they're friends with... but one rule: only people with blonde hair. but you have brown hair; you were born this way and cannot change it except with a full hair transplant and you kinda like your brown hair. annnd to add to that, most of the people you work with in your whole area, maybe 85-90%, all have blonde hair. you've never worked too closely with another brown haired person just because it hasn't worked out that way but that's really okay, you're fine with it. so... hair color doesn't truly matter anyway, right? so you ask to go to the blonde hair only drinking group bc why not, right? and you sort of feel left out and it is with the managers (who just happen to be friends, there's no conspiracy going on here or anything) so.... it'd be nice to be friends with them on the same level other people are bc they kind of control your career to a certain degree. but nope. no blonde haired people allowed. sorries. would you get butt-hurt over that? i mean... i guess it is true blonde people have more fun and you having brown hair would just be a complete buzz kill to be there, right? totally understandable.}

^{just trust that they make no work decisions there. trust they make no decisions based on friendships cultivated there. trust that they don't carry over these feelings of "blonde people only" to the workplace in terms of project assignment, career advancement, and opportunities. trust that the inside jokes and references don't make any difference. trust that if your manager had to choose between you and a blonde co-worker for a position, with the same qualifications, that he wouldn't pick the other person because of an on-going relationship developed outside of work that you were explicitly excluded from due to something unchangeable and biological. trust that you're still valued. trust that they still respect you. trust that they don't actually view you differently because of your hair color. trust that you are equal. trust them when they say hair color does not matter...}

---

Granted, first revision of the question suggests that it had a chance to be cleaned up and reworked, if only timely closure protected it from getting answers. But it's too late now - there's just no way to do this without invalidating existing answers.

Answer 3

I've addressed this in my answer to the question, but to recap: I think what's wrong with the question is it really is three different questions in one:

1. Are these gatherings work gatherings or private social gatherings?
2. If these gatherings are work gatherings, does she have the right to attend?
3. If (2) is true, what can she do about it?

I think these are serious questions that should be answered, but the way the question was written was somewhat emotional and didn't make the distinction between those three questions. I think that's why there were emotional (and not very factual) answers.

I also think that, because the internet is (in general) unwelcoming to women, the fact that there was alleged sexism made this question even more controversial. However, the sexism isn't very relevant to the question in this case -- a similar issue would exist if a male worker was told that he couldn't attend a gathering with his boss and selected co-workers.

Basically, there are too many things going on in this question, and it needs to be simplified to receive better answers.

My recommendation would be to create a new question, but just focus on what boundaries a boss has when including his workers into his "social life." An example title could be "What boundaries do I [as a boss] have when including employees in my social life?" That title could and should be improved on.

I've spend a lot of time on this question -- I finally understand this xkdc comic. This question is important to answer, and I hope we can do so in a accurate and productive way.

Answer 4

As noted by blankip, the First Amendment of the Constitution protects the right of freedom of association -

Freedom of association is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The relevant portion states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

On Freedom of Association - Foundation for Economic Education

As far as "what should be done" about an answer that is absolutely correct and has zero negative legal ramifications, and was up-voted extensively because it is a good answer..... down-vote it if you don't like it. Nothing else needs to be done.

No one has the right to force me to socialize or not socialize with any individual on my own free time, as an adult. The "poor" answer states exactly that. My mother forced my older siblings to allow me to tag along when were were under the age of ten, but minor children don't have the same rights and freedoms that adults do, and moms can be scary. I'm not sure why OP of this meta thinks adults can be forced to play with others like children, but that's not the case in the relevant nation of the question in question (United States).

Answer 5

In the US we have something called the Constitution. The first amendment is how far you need to read. If an employer tries to infringe on an employee's 1st amendment rights outside of work that leaves them open to substantial litigation. It is only when those actions effect the workplace does the employer have a right to act on them.

Also an employee and an employer especially would find themselves in very sticky territory claiming that a group of men that worked for them were sexist or engaging in a sexist act. Not that I agree with the guy's night out because I don't - but if I wanted to put one together for coworkers, I would without a worry. If my company called me a sexist or said I put together a sexist group/activity it would be defamation and harassment if I wanted to pursue that avenue. This is after my company (and almost all companies) allow women's groups, groups for minorities (I don't even know what this means anymore with global companies), and age based groups.

So the answer is the 1st amendment.