http://theleftyline.blogspot.com/

The “on or off the clock” distinction is likely to be the most important one in this case Charles. Consider that the basis of the complaint is an allegedly hostile work environment.

Do you mean "on or off the clock" when the offenders post something? Or "on or off the clock" when the victims read the site? It seems to me that it doesn't matter when they post the offending material (on or off the clock) if the question is "hostile work environment". The question will be, how does reading a website at home create a hostile work environment at work? If the answer is, "because I know who writes this nasty stuff, and then I have to go to work the next day and work with them", it hardly matters if they've been nasty during office hours or not. For example, the court couldn't hold that posting there creates a hostile work environment, but only when the post's timestamp is during office hours.

Of course, that could lead to a ruling that, in the comfort of his own home, on his own time, and using his own property, a man may not post, anonymously, to a website, because someone may voluntarily navigate to that site and become so offended at what is written that they have a hard time at work knowing that the person who wrote the mean things may be among them. Like Pod people. It seems pretty clear from the Complaint that the plaintiffs don't know who McQ is, precisely, nor who the other posters are; otherwise, they'd have identified them by name, wouldn't they?

My problem with the Bilal suit is the breadth of the relief sought. There is a difference from permitting Philly cops to post racist thoughts on Domelight (on or off the clock) and permitting them to post on Domelight at all.

Don't hold your breath on either count.