Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Outing the Internet's worst troll.

<< < (2/9) > >>

40hz:
No. We have "at will."

But we also have an unemployment/labor bureaucracy that does everything in their power to keep an additional person from being added to our already high unemployment rolls.

Then there's the CHRO - one of the most ridiculous kangaroo courts ever created.

Check this out from their website:

It is illegal for employers, employment agencies or labor organizations to discriminate based on a protected class. That means that factors listed below as protected classes cannot be used when making decisions or taking actions related to recruitment, hiring, referring, classifying, promoting, advertising, discharging, training, laying off, compensating or establishing other conditions or terms of employment.

Protected classes in employment are:

Age
Ancestry
Color
Criminal Record ( in state employment & licensing only)

Gender Identity or Expression
Genetic Information
Learning Disability
Marital Status
Mental Disorder
Mental Retardation
National Origin
Physical Disability
Race
Religious Creed
Sex, including pregnancy and sexual harassment
Sexual Orientation

You may be a victim of illegal discrimination, if one or more of these factors was considered in an employment decision that adversely effected you.
--- End quote ---

All you need to do (no matter what you were dismissed for) is to file a complaint that any one of the above factors was "taken into consideration" (and with no more proof than you "felt" it was) and the bureaucratic wheels start turning...and turning...and turning...

And this commission (as it's currently constituted) has never met a government entity or business it likes (or believes) when it comes to testimony being given against a CHRO complaint filer.

Filing a CHRO complaint is almost like playing 5-card stud with Aces, Deuces and one-eyed Jacks all wild! Seriously. How many cracks at making a full flush can you not get with a game rigged like that?

--------------------------

Going back to Brutsch - considering some of the pictures he's posted, I think losing his job may be the least of his worries considering how so much of his antics involved photos of minors. With the publicity that's bound to ensue once the main newswires start picking up on this story, somebody in some official capacity is going to be forced to consider charges and possible prosecution. Be interesting to see if it's the feds or some state that goes first. (It's an election year. Spanking somebody like this guy makes for good campaign copy.)

But that's assuming somebody doesn't come gunning for him first and make it all very simple.

wraith808:
Going back to Brutsch - considering some of the pictures he's posted, I think losing his job may be the least of his worries considering how so much of his antics involved photos of minors. With the publicity that's bound to ensue once the main newswires start picking up on this story, somebody in some official capacity is going to be forced to consider charges and possible prosecution. Be interesting to see if it's the feds or some state that goes first. (It's an election year. Spanking somebody like this guy makes for good campaign copy.)

But that's assuming somebody doesn't come gunning for him first and make it all very simple.
-40hz (October 14, 2012, 01:29 PM)
--- End quote ---

I don't disagree that someone might *try*, but as long as (a) the photos are not in the child pornography range and (b) they were obtained from the sources he says (facebook, twitter, etc), then it's not going to fly.  From my understanding, they were sexualized, but not explicit.  And considering what I see on facebook, twitter, and even at malls, that's not going to hold up.  And truthfully, I don't think that either side is pristine in that regard, i.e. adults shouldn't be looking at tweens in that way, but (and I know this is not considered PC), they shouldn't be dressing in that way either.

40hz:

I don't disagree that someone might *try*, but as long as (a) the photos are not in the child pornography range and (b) they were obtained from the sources he says (facebook, twitter, etc), then it's not going to fly.  From my understanding, they were sexualized, but not explicit.  And considering what I see on facebook, twitter, and even at malls, that's not going to hold up
-wraith808 (October 14, 2012, 03:11 PM)
--- End quote ---

Depends on where it goes to court if it eventually does. Some states are more "right-thinking" and "right leaning" so he'd have a better chance there. But just because a photo was obtained from Twitter or wherever is no guarantee that it was put up there with the subject's consent. He'd be co-liable in any event. Then there's copyright and privacy issues since I doubt he ever bothered obtaining written releases for any of it - especially from a parent or guardian in the event it was a minor in the picture.

Of course Reddit stands to get burnt a bit too. But I really can't feel sorry for them. And their spiel about allowing this animal to continue what he was doing in the name of protecting a contributor's privacy and providing a safe haven for discussion rings just a bit hollow to my ears. But I'm of the "if you ain't part of the solution you're part of the problem" school of thought when it comes to social issues like this one.

I personally hope Reddit gets their all too smug butt kicked royally for dancing with this troll as much as they did. Funny how they finally came to realize he was about to become a liability once it became obvious somebody was onto him. Because they sure ditched him shortly before the story broke. So I assume he tried to cry on Reddit's shoulders about it before it went live.

Nope. This story isn't finished yet. What's gone down so far isn't even the opening act.

wraith808:
Called It.  He's done.

40hz:
^Yes you did!  :Thmbsup:

Can't wait to see how many otherwise intelligent people in the web community end up making total asses and hypocrites out of themselves attempting to defend this moron.

I do find it amusing how so many in the web community claim to be defenders of free "give & take" and have a "let the fur fly" philosophy until somebody points the same gun at them. Almost like the old joke about how to turn a diehard conservative into a screaming liberal - just have the police stop one of them at 2:00am for a bogus traffic violation with no witnesses around to testify about what really happened shortly afterwards.

I'm waiting to see how long it takes before that "hang tough and screw you" response he's offering starts to fray. I give it about six weeks since the more that comes out about this guy, the worse it looks for anybody standing behind him. And I'm sure we'll hear plenty fairly shortly. Before it's done, this guy is going to become the poster child for everything that's wrong with allowing an open and virtually unregulated Internet.

Really sad part is that Reddit, by some of its recent behavior in this incident, is falling right onto the trap set by those who are arguing for greater legal restrictions on web activities and usage. Hard to argue for the sufficiency of self regulation and policing when it appears a surprisingly large group of savvy and vocal webmins are giving Brutsch's type of behavior their tacit approval.

Only a matter of time before some politicos start asking the old question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. And reach the inevitable conclusion that some new custodes are now required - and preferably be on the judicial branch's payroll.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page