Trolling Doesn't Pay

I'm not sure the practicality question is really worthwhile here given how quickly it leads to, "This argument is being had on a porn site, none of this matters."

But hell, I'll give something similar a shot - create a "protected activity" clause to go alongside "protected status" and add "expression" to that list.

And this would qualify, I understand, but the position opposite to the one I'm arguing seems to be:

That would seem to say that it's irrelevant whether she was on the clock or not. My point in my reply to you is that the company would likely receive the exact same pressure they're receiving now, and apparently should feel free to fire her anyway - as in the Amanda Todd case. The specifics of this case might not match exactly the broader point I'd like to make, and I apologize for that. I can only orchestrate elaborate scenarios to back up my arguments to a certain degree, unfortunately.

The outrage over this thing (not necessarily coming from this forum) reminds me of this.

It's possible it could just be adopted wholesale into American law just by states passing laws and courts in wrongful dismissal cases looking to the cases from other jurisdictions until a body of caselaw develops on its own in America.

Ha. Awesome.

Its just that Americans are much more comfortable with the "dog eat dog" way of doing things. The word 'civilized' has an air of effeteness to us Yanks.

I thought he was talking about Canada. But now that you mention it, people in Europe are probably less aggressive and in your face on online forums too.

And yet, still manage to be dickish. Weird.

Wow. What is it with this thread?

I don't know about that - I think the company would have a good argument that she harmed their reputation, which could affect them financially, since they are a NPO.

ETA: Particularly if she lists the company as her employer, or it's common knowledge.

Ohhhh, my friend. No. This is not really a possibility in American Jurisprudence, I'm afraid.

And I don't mean that it's not feasible just because 47% of our electorate would freak the fuck out because a court looked to foreign law as authority. I mean because the Constitution of the United States would likely forbid it. It is my opinion (though I can't say for sure) that the Supreme Court would find that such a rule would violate the First Amendment's prohibition on freedom of association. Certain limitations on freedom of association set aside (like anti-discrimination laws), I think you'd be EXTREMELY hard-pressed to staple Just Cause firing for all employees onto our current legal system.

I honestly believe you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment to make that change. Quite frankly, that ain't happening. Moreover, (and I say this as someone who routinely represents employees in wrongful termination lawsuits) I'm not sure it should.

Anything is possible. but we have constitutionally protected freedom of association as well.

SG fired for being a SG

So...it hits close to home. She committed no crime, she already left SG so this was her past and yet she got fired. I personally think this is bullshit. I completely agree people should be held accountable for their actions but causing a young girl to commit suicide and posting naked pictures is so incredibly different yet, the results are the same....

From what I hear, they already knew she was an SG, too - so she got fired because it finally came out

I've been avoiding commenting in this thread because... complicated.

But O.M.G. the stupidity of that article. Seriously. The show is named Pawn Stars... get it? The play on words I mean. Right? And she gets fired for having been on SG. Which isn't even porn, by the way. Erotica? Yes. Porn? No. Seriously, what the fuck? These two things even go together. Seriously! Look in any military town in the US, and what will you find? Pawn shops and strip joints, for fuck's sake!

[This last little twist needs to move to a new thread. This has less to do with trolling and more to do with the fucked up attitudes toward sexuality in the US.]

OliviaBlack is on the site. You could probably just ask her if you are concerned.

When reached for comment the justices were quoted as saying "next we drown her in water to see if she is a witch."

At least, that's the kind of thing I would expect them to say since it seems to follow the same line of outdated gender biased reasoning they used to make their initial ruling.