Crime Alert: Free speech enemy fascist in Paradise Ca. Enemies of free speech alert

[trident]

What about being branded as a an employer who doesn't hold American ideals?

What about being an American company and not only being against free expression, but actively try to silence it within your company?

This is a crazy statement.

Employee behaviour is a real thing and management has the right to dictate that and end jobs of those who dont comply.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

That kitten can suck a dick, Calvin is way cuter than that. You have no idea. I guess an investigation is a problem though if there is no crime, but I just feel like I'm missing some details. I could be wrong though.

 

[jk7707]

Lol, you made absurd claims about how this bullshit is somehow popular, I responded that it is popular with a small but vocal group, and that their unwarranted influence, is why Dems keep losing. Take your ball and go home if you want.

How is my statement absurd? This is popular with anyone who has any common sense. It's why companies do this ALL THE TIME to employees who hurt their image. The only thing unwarranted is the stupid connections you keep trying to make to completely unrelated issues.

 

[VivaRevolution]

How is my statement absurd? This is popular with anyone who has any common sense. It's why companies do this ALL THE TIME to employees who hurt their image. The only thing unwarranted is the stupid connections you keep trying to make to completely unrelated issues.

Lol. No. It is not popular with the vast majority.

 

[VivaRevolution]

This is a crazy statement.

Employee behaviour is a real thing and management has the right to dictate that and end jobs of those who dont comply.

They do have that right. That doesn't mean it is popular with people to fire Joe blow for legal actions done on his own time.

What makes you think people like the idea of employers policing their behavoir outside of work?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Here's an ugly truth that many people seem too stupid to understand...

If companies keeping doing this it's because it's what their customers want.

If the majority of their customers didn't support this course of action then those companies would go out of business as they lose their consumer base. Yet, that's not what's happening. These companies are doing this and surviving just fine. Anyone who looks at society from a neutral eye should be concluding that these actions represent American ideals because Americans are supporting them. The people who continue to complain about it happening are, unbeknownst to themselves, demonstrating that they are no longer in touch with American values.

Bullshit.

I don't want mandatory arbitration in any contract I sign.

So boom, there goes that silly theory.

 

[trident]

They do have that right. That doesn't mean it is popular with people to fire Joe blow for legal actions done on his own time.

What makes you think people like the idea of employers policing their behavoir outside of work?

There is a lot of shit in life people dont like. I dont see your point.

 

[MPD-Psycho]

Expect the same old arguments about “feelings” and all that jazz...

 

[panamaican]

Bullshit.

I don't want mandatory arbitration in any contract I sign.

So boom, there goes that silly theory.

What? So because you don't want mandatory arbitration in your contracts that invalidates how people feel about companies firing employees over social media posts? That makes no sense.

And most people don't care about arbitration in their contracts. 99% of the population just doesn't care because 99% of the population isn't going to litigate an issue related to most of the stuff they buy.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

They do have that right. That doesn't mean it is popular with people to fire Joe blow for legal actions done on his own time.

What makes you think people like the idea of employers policing their behavoir outside of work?

Were the photos posted outside of work hours and were the photos unrelated to their work? No? Oh, so it has everything to do with the company and their work product and their image. Also, why did you ignore my post about Trump pushing the NFL to silence free speech of a small fraction of players? Where was your thread about that presidential pushed fascism???

 

[jk7707]

Lol. No. It is not popular with the vast majority.

Yea I'm sure if you took a poll of whether people are cool with these guys taking pictures fucking around in the ashes of a town where 88 people just died most people would be fine with it...Why the fuck are you still arguing this? Funny considering you said you didn't care that they were fired.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

They showed the 3 pictures. If there are more, that is a failure of the media and police department in not effectively communicating.

Basically you are hoping that everything we already know is wrong.

The media, and I damn sure know the police, have never been in the business of telling you every single detail of a story. The police have nothing to gain and plenty to lose from it, and the media have constraints ranging from space to cost to narrative.

You've made an awful lot of assumptions just to satisfy your paranoia about a local police office being the harbinger of fascism in the US. LMAO. The NSA isn't sexy enough for you?

Beyond that, I already explained to you that desecrating a corpse is a criminal charge in lots of places, it would make sense to at lest check with the prosecutors whether that statute extends to family pets. It's a potential crime that they did show in the article.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The media, and I damn sure know the police, have never been in the business of telling you every single detail of a story. The police have nothing to gain and plenty to lose from it, and the media have constraints ranging from space to cost to narrative.

You've made an awful lot of assumptions just to satisfy your paranoia about a local police office being the harbinger of fascism in the US. LMAO. The NSA isn't sexy enough for you?

Beyond that, I already explained to you that desecrating a corpse is a criminal charge in lots of places, it would make sense to at lest check with the prosecutors whether that statute extends to family pets. It's a potential crime that they did show in the article.

Putting a bottle next to a dead cat is desecrating a body huh?

FO/KY

 

[VivaRevolution]

What? So because you don't want mandatory arbitration in your contracts that invalidates how people feel about companies firing employees over social media posts? That makes no sense.

And most people don't care about arbitration in their contracts. 99% of the population just doesn't care because 99% of the population isn't going to litigate an issue related to most of the stuff they buy.

Oh, so now people accept things they don't want, even if they disagree with being required to sign away your legal rights, or making employers responsible for employee actions, even when they aren't at work.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yea I'm sure if you took a poll of whether people are cool with these guys taking pictures fucking around in the ashes of a town where 88 people just died most people would be fine with it...Why the fuck are you still arguing this? Funny considering you said you didn't care that they were fired.

I wish I had the words to explain to how little I give a fuck about your delicate sensibilities.

 

[jk7707]

I wish I had the words to explain to how little I give a fuck about your delicate sensibilities.

Since you seem to have no grasp of how the real world functions I have an experiment for you to try. I assuming you have a job (I could be wrong), but while you're at work go ahead and take a piss on some piece of your employer's client's property, take a picture of you doing it and then post it on social media. Make sure you let your employer know and get back to me on their reaction.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Putting a bottle next to a dead cat is desecrating a body huh?

FO/KY

Lol at you defending this guys actions so staunchly itt and you getting this upset. Get a grip.

You really think there's no chance there could be a statute against that? I mean, it's unlikely since it's a cat, but it's certainly not respectful of the dead. By the time I saw the article the picture of the cat had been removed or it was otherwise blocked so I'm just going by the written description.

It would make sense to at least interview his coworkers to see what he might have done off camera as well. The point is, it's the act not the posting of it that's the crime. Which invalidates your entire threat to the first amendment.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Since you seem to have no grasp of how the real world functions I have an experiment for you to try. I assuming you have a job (I could be wrong), but while you're at work go ahead and take a piss on some piece of your employer's client's property, take a picture of you doing it and then post it on social media. Make sure you let your employer know and get back to me on their reaction.

No one pissed on anything. Public urination is Illegal. If they did that, I wouldn't have shit to say.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

No one pissed on anything. Public urination is Illegal. If they did that, I wouldn't have shit to say.

I looked through your post history, no thread started on fascist trump trying to silence the NFL players and forcing a private corporation to silence or fine/fire their employees who did not comply. Did you miss that topic in your fight to stop fascism in the United States? Maybe you didn't hear about it? Let me know, i can provide some links, it was one of the worst attempts at fascism in 2018! Fight with me brother!

 

[VivaRevolution]

Lol at you defending this guys actions so staunchly itt and you getting this upset. Get a grip.

You really think there's no chance there could be a statute against that? I mean, it's unlikely since it's a cat, but it's certainly not respectful of the dead. By the time I saw the article the picture of the cat had been removed or it was otherwise blocked so I'm just going by the written description.

It would make sense to at least interview his coworkers to see what he might have done off camera as well. The point is, it's the act not the posting of it that's the crime. Which invalidates your entire threat to the first amendment.

What act?

What did they do to justify any action by police?