No wonder you went blogging if you can't understand why companies should have a say about what employees publicly disclose or say that can affect them, even indirectly.
If he had instead sent a letter to someone saying the same thing, would/should they have suspended him from using the postal service for two weeks? What if he was at a bar and and simply spoke it loud enough for all around him to hear, would they then suspend him from speaking for two weeks?
Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in court, therefore people are NOT supposed to be ignorant of the law. Another benefit (depending on your point of view) of having a decent understanding of the law is that it will often keep you from getting selected for a jury. Generally one of the two sides in any case will benefit from having less well informed jurors.
There are always some people not ready for the obvious. This isn't something that snuck up on these people, it has been a long time coming. With set top converter boxes almost being given away, there is no excuse.
Sorry Carlo, but once again you are poorly informed and standing on the wrong side of an issue.
I'm curious, did you not read anything he wrote, did you read it and not comprehend any of it, or are you just a really, really bad troll?
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as Jason Still)
Re: Juries don't need to understand the law. (as Jason Still)
Re: (as Jason Still)
Is there a word for telcos + cablecos? Maybe telcos + cablecos = telcabcos? Cabtelcos?
taco bells?
Re: (as Jason Still)