Toronto FC: HOME OPENER Sunday, May 10, 2015 AT 5PM Toronto FC Vs Houston On TSN

[Vexed]

So if you flip the bird to a driver that cuts you off and he snaps a picture of it, sends it to your boss...your boss has the right to fire you for that?

Technically yes. Especially so if the images circulated publicly and the company was forced to worry about public reprisal.

There is nothing in law to protect you from punitive action when you act like a moron, particularly when you are caught breaking the law on national tv and no, that doesn't have to be proven in court before a company can act.

 

[William Hylander]

I would like to present exhibit A-Z on why no one ever signs with the Leafs.

A. Media
B. Media
C. More Media
D. Media that isn't actually covering a story but is pretending to cover a story
E. Media that is interviewing a player in a rude manner
F. Media that follows anyone who makes over $2 million and harrases them.
G. Media that isn't covering anything interesting so they entice drunk people into making a fool of themselves.
....
Z. Media that makes it look like they are the victims.

Such a non story. This has happened like 100,000 times on the news and I bet Toronto is the one place that fired the person on camera saying the phrase.

 

[BleedsBlueAndWhite]

It doesn't matter. You are always representing who you work for

Sorry, but I find the firing quite preposterous. Next thing is that they'll be firing people for the party they vote for if the company disagrees with it.

 

[Vexed]

Sorry, but I find the firing quite preposterous. Next thing is that they'll be firing people for the party they vote for if the company disagrees with it.

Which is why you have the right to keep that information to yourself. People (not government) have every right to judge you based on such information

Also Apples and Oranges.

He would have also signed a document agreeing to all of this at the time of his hire

 

[William Hylander]

Not to say the guy isn't an idiot, but it doesn't deserve a firing. I have posted some pretty stupid things online, doesn't mean I should have gotten fired for it as long as I wasn't specifically mentioning my employer in the statement.

 

[BleedsBlueAndWhite]

Which is why you have the right to keep that information to yourself. People (not government) have every right to judge you based on such information

Also Apples and Oranges.

He would have also signed a document agreeing to all of this at the time of his hire

This is just a way to shut down freedom of expression and freedom of thought.
This is so wrong in many ways.

 

[CanadianSuperPromise]

Not to say the guy isn't an idiot, but it doesn't deserve a firing. I have posted some pretty stupid things online, doesn't mean I should have gotten fired for it as long as I wasn't specifically mentioning my employer in the statement.

Twitter mobs won't be happy until he commits suicide.

Do you guys not understand the problem with internet justice? There is no limit, no concept of rehabilitation. Only black and white, either his life is destroyed to extent that he can no longer be functioning member of society or the twitter folks have failed and the bad guys have won. For someone like Bulleyes, all it takes for him is a meaningless click of retweet or a quick but abrasive 160 character tweet. But very seldomly do people think about the consequences of their actions over the internet.

I'm not defending what he did, but I have a big problem with internet mob justice, in any situation, regardless of the crime.

 

[William Hylander]

This is just a way to shut down freedom of expression and freedom of thought.
This is so wrong in many ways.

There is no privacy and freedom of speech. Just nod and be polite and you can keep your job. Big Brother is watching.

 

[William Hylander]

Twitter mobs won't be happy until he commits suicide.

Do you guys not understand the problem with internet justice? There is no limit, no concept of rehabilitation. Only black and white, either his life is destroyed to extent that he can no longer be function ing member of society or the twitter folks have failed.

I'm not defending what he did, but I have a big problem with internet mob justice, in any situation, regardless of the crime.

The funniest thing is that probably no one is offended by the statement. The "social justice warriors" or SJW for short think they are doing something for good when they are just wasting everyone's time.

 

[Vexed]

This is just a way to shut down freedom of expression and freedom of thought.
This is so wrong in many ways.

Contrary to what many people believe, not all rights are equal under the law.

Freedom of expression and Freedom of thought comes secondary to Freedom of life, Liberty and Security which these people violated.

The voting thing you mentioned was a slippery slope fallacy which of course has nothing to do with this.

This all isn't new, its been well traversed in the courts and the line is very well defined

 

[BleedsBlueAndWhite]

Contrary to what many people believe, not all rights are equal under the law.

Freedom of expression and Freedom of thought comes secondary to Freedom of life, Liberty and Security which these people violated.

The voting thing you mentioned was a slippery slope fallacy which of course has nothing to do with this.

This all isn't new, its been well traversed in the courts and the line is very well defined

All I saw was drunks acting like idiots.
I didn't see anyone's life, liberty or security threatened.

 

[Vexed]

All I saw was drunks acting like idiots.
I didn't see anyone's life, liberty or security threatened.

That is the core of the problem.

Some people don't think what those guys did was blatant sexual harassment when it clearly us even under the loosest of definitions. Sexual harassment effects the security part

 

[Pilky01]

Hah! That loser was on the Sunshine List?!

Good riddance.

 

[BleedsBlueAndWhite]

That is the core of the problem.

Some people don't think what those guys did was blatant sexual harassment when it clearly us even under the loosest of definitions. Sexual harassment effects the security part

If it was sexual harassment, why weren't they charged?

 

[LeafsTFC]

The funniest thing is that probably no one is offended by the statement. The "social justice warriors" or SJW for short think they are doing something for good when they are just wasting everyone's time.

I think the company has a different perception of who was offended by the statement. PR rules over all

Also I don't even think the Charter (i.e. where the right to free expression/life, liberty and security comes from) even applies to this whole thing. It's why people get fired for saying stupid things quite often. The whole Big Brother stuff is kinda ridiculous too IMO

 

[Vexed]

If it was sexual harassment, why weren't they charged?

The police officer on CBC listed off 5 possible charges I think it was but said they cannot officially open an investigation unless the reporter files a claim herself which I read she wasn't planning on doing.

The company they work for do not need to have wait until a charge or conviction though. All you have to do typically is something that could tarnish the image of the company you work for or in some way effect their bottom-line.

Its pretty standard because that is where the line is in the law.

The standard that here is 'reasonably believe' that a violation has occurred not "beyond reasonable doubt"

 

[Vexed]

I think the company has a different perception of who was offended by the statement. PR rules over all

Also I don't even think the Charter (i.e. where the right to free expression/life, liberty and security comes from) even applies to this whole thing. It's why people get fired for saying stupid things quite often. The whole Big Brother stuff is kinda ridiculous too IMO

lol what Big Brother stuff? They literally put themselves on camera, its not like there were cameras watching them secretly.

In that sort of situation they would be protected under the law since they would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. That case out East where those dentist students had that sexist, but private, facebook page is an example where the issue was hovering right on the line between the two rights which was why it was such a messy situation for the school.

 

[8816 others]

Not surprised the PC nazis and feminists have turned FHRITP into an attack on them. In reality it is meant as a way to highlight what a pathetic joke the media has become. People like Jon Stewart wouldn't have the success he has if the media did its job. The media has turned news into a commodity. They have lost all respect and the way they present the "news" is more offensive, disrespectful, and harmful than mere words.

 

[Puckstuff]

The police officer on CBC listed off 5 possible charges I think it was but said they cannot officially open an investigation unless the reporter files a claim herself which I read she wasn't planning on doing.

The company they work for do not need to have wait until a charge or conviction though. All you have to do typically is something that could tarnish the image of the company you work for or in some way effect their bottom-line.

Its pretty standard because that is where the line is in the law.

The standard that here is 'reasonably believe' that a violation has occurred not "beyond reasonable doubt"

I would rather be charged then publicly shamed... there's not much more you can do then get the pitch forks out. Honestly... feel bad for the guy in the glasses. Stupid? Yes for sure... but this is all quite extreme.

 

[Cor]

My Thoughts;

- The firing was ridiculous. The company is simply trying to take advantage of the good PR
- The news company is also taking advantage of this. All do. However, this one is taking it to a whole new level.
- This wasn't sexual harassment. There was no one being sexually harassed. The phrase doesn't specifically mention anyone particular. It's not directed at the reporter. Is it idiotic? Yes. Is it sexual harrassment? No. (Well, I mean, it's on the line. I'm sure there is a way to spin it into harassment, but it's in no way meant to be harrassment, and by the majority, up until now, hasn't. I mean, the views these things get, especially the three(?) times the original guy did it
- These 3 people are taking the fall for every idiotic person who has done it. Which quite frankly, is wrong.
- Some people took this to a sexist place, when it was simply a drunken guy, doing a drunken idiotic thing.

None of this is a surprise though. It was bound to happen. The world these days literally can't handle anything. It's quite pathetic.

I mean, we are now trying to remove and prevent any sort of physicality to youth. No one seems to realize that physicality is a good things.

Same with trying to reward every kid. Reducing the winning and losing aspect of life. Kids are no longer challenged to find what they are good at, because they are told "they are all winners, and are all good".

 

[Vexed]

I would rather be charged then publicly shamed

I agree but it could also be both

 

[LeafsTFC]

lol what Big Brother stuff? They literally put themselves on camera, its not like there were cameras watching them secretly.

Another poster mentioned that this was reminding them of Big Brother and I thought that was a bit far-fetched

 

[Vexed]

My Thoughts;

- The firing was ridiculous. The company is simply trying to take advantage of the good PR
- The news company is also taking advantage of this. All do. However, this one is taking it to a whole new level.
- This wasn't sexual harassment. There was no one being sexually harassed. The phrase doesn't specifically mention anyone particular. It's not directed at the reporter. Is it idiotic? Yes. Is it sexual harrassment? No.
- These 3 people are taking the fall for every idiotic person who has done it. Which quite frankly, is wrong.
- Some people took this to a sexist place, when it was simply a drunken guy, doing a drunken idiotic thing.

None of this is a surprise though. It was bound to happen. The world these days literally can't handle anything. It's quite pathetic.

I mean, we are now trying to remove and prevent any sort of physicality to youth. No one seems to realize that physicality is a good things.

Same with trying to reward every kid. Reducing the winning and losing aspect of life. Kids are no longer challenged to find what they are good at, because they are told "they are all winners, and are all good".

This is so wrong dude.

Seriously I want you to lay down a solid defense of that statement.

Was it a sexual statement? Yes.

Harassment occurs when someone:

- makes unwelcome remarks or jokes about your race, religion, sex, age, disability or any other of the 11 grounds of discrimination.
- threatens or intimidates you.
- makes unwelcome physical contact with you, such as touching, patting, pinching or punching, which can also be considered assault.

- Source: Canadian Human Rights Commission

Was it harassment? Clearly yes.

The bully doesn't get to claim no crime was committed because they are okay with what happened.

 

[Vexed]

Another poster mentioned that this was reminding them of Big Brother and I thought that was a bit far-fetched

Misquoted sorry

 

[LeafsTFC]

advantage of this. All do. However, this one is taking it to a whole new level.
- This wasn't sexual harassment. There was no one being sexually harassed. The phrase doesn't specifically mention anyone particular. It's not directed at the reporter. Is it idiotic? Yes. Is it sexual harrassment? No. (Well, I mean, it's on the line. I'm sure there is a way to spin it into harassment, but it's in no way meant to be harrassment, and by the majority, up until now, hasn't. I mean, the views these things get, especially the three(?) times the original guy did it

I hadn't actually heard of this Youtube joke thing until after this event, so maybe there are just a lot of people who don't know about it. It's not like the guys tried to explain that they were just referencing something on Youtube - although they were drunk so it's probably harder to be coherent.

Maybe the reporter had never seen this Youtube joke thing. As someone who had never seen it, my first assumption were they were trying to say something about what they wanted to do to the reporter. So maybe she thought the same thing and I bet she probably hears gross things like that every day.