3 ms·
Is that even a smoking gun? Surely that one text message is not enough to prove that he meant "harass and cyberstalk her" rather than "sue her for libel" or som
by cactus2093 5y ago
Is that even a smoking gun? Surely that one text message is not enough to prove that he meant "harass and cyberstalk her" rather than "sue her for libel" or some other non-criminal action.
- nkingsy 5y agoI just know from my big Corp training manual that things like “crush” and “take down” should never be in corporate communication for legal reasons. From a “reasonable” perspective, there are two possibilities, both of which implicate the ceo. 1. “Take her down” was enough information, in which case he is at fault. 2. It wasn’t enough information, in which case further discussion was had offline. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that there is no option: 3. The employees thought it was enough information incorrectly and began a criminal conspiracy because they’re just so eager to please.
- pyuser583 5y agoBut enough information for what? Let’s say they had previous conversations about how to handle hostile media. Ideas included raising concerns with editors, pulling advertising, raising concerns with platforms/ISPs about “disinformation”, suing for libel, etc. So yes the CEO is implicated. He’s clearly in the decision chain - no doubt about it. But there’s nothing here about how much was deferred to subordinates. I guess that falls into the category of “offline discussion” - but that doesn’t mean anything nefarious.