As someone already pointed out; and as is pointed out in the article: his comments got him canned.So tell us what is the definition of an acceptable legal defense fund to donate to without getting fired?
As someone already pointed out; and as is pointed out in the article: his comments got him canned.So tell us what is the definition of an acceptable legal defense fund to donate to without getting fired?
As someone already pointed out; and as is pointed out in the article: his comments got him canned.
I don't censor
At some point you will self-relaize that this behavior is destructive to your person that you will censor yourself
Its called maturity
Cite your source indicating that they are not being pursued. I suspect they can't be punished until they are caught.So tell use why the hacker of the database is not being pursued and punished?
Bad hacker! There.This person committed a felony. Where is the condemnation of the hacker.
The donors should expect the privacy that is laid out in the site's terms and disclaimers, which I'm sure donors must agree to, even if they don't read them. Those terms define exactly what the site means by 'anonymous.'Shouldn't the donors have reasonable expectation of privacy being the donations are anonymous.
Depends on the language of the policy he broke. The policy may not indicate that dumb comments are OK, as long as the forum you post them in 'says' they'll be anonymous.If this cop had donated and boldly posted his statement all over social media bragging about his donation -- then I would say there is a fairly good case for firing him over the comments since the officer should not be publicly speaking for the police department.
So tell use why the hacker of the database is not being pursued and punished? This person committed a felony. Where is the condemnation of the hacker. Shouldn't the donors have reasonable expectation of privacy being the donations are anonymous.
If this cop had donated and boldly posted his statement all over social media bragging about his donation -- then I would say there is a fairly good case for firing him over the comments since the officer should not be publicly speaking for the police department.
Based on this being an anonymous donation with a reasonable expectation of privacy I don't thing the firing will stick on appeal since his intent was not to publicly represent the department.
It was a private website... the cop can take it up with the website if he wants to sue him but what case could he win getting fired for saying something fireable but having his comment be released when it was supposed to be anonymous....
hackers are usually anonymous themselves and hard to find. I am sure the charity filed its police report but thousands of sites get hacked, I doubt this case will be cracked more than any other hacking case out there.
What is amazing is you are more concerned about the hacking than a cop claiming all cops are in full support of a felony murderer.....
The cop is a big boy and he played a stupid game and lost.... he does not need you worrying about the hacker. He could have just donated the money and shut his fucking mouth but no.... most cops like him thankfully are stupid and pull shit like this and get caught.
I'm sure you've seen my posts about the fallacy of the 'slippery slope' notion.The problem is the slippery slope.
The line is in the law, rules, regulations, handbooks, and manuals.Where is the line -- that establishes when a government employee be fired for donating to or supporting a private or political cause.
Free speech. Your point?We already see Democrats urging that anyone who donated to Trump should be fired.
Donating to an organization, is not equivalent to donating to an individual.Nearly half this country would support a government employee being fired for donating to BLM. BLM supporters have murdered cops.
What?So if a government administrator does not support BLM then should a cop or other government employee be fired for donating to them.
So tell use why the hacker of the database is not being pursued and punished? This person committed a felony. Where is the condemnation of the hacker. Shouldn't the donors have reasonable expectation of privacy being the donations are anonymous.
If this cop had donated and boldly posted his statement all over social media bragging about his donation -- then I would say there is a fairly good case for firing him over the comments since the officer should not be publicly speaking for the police department.
Based on this being an anonymous donation with a reasonable expectation of privacy I don't thing the firing will stick on appeal since his intent was not to publicly represent the department.
GWB: condemn donation hackers!
Also GWB:. No, not those DNC hackers