It seems to help with my own HR department. “I flat out state this this isn’t a corporate twitter account and that the opinions on it are mine alone…” versus “Well, the person works for your company and they seem to be a spokesperson for it on twitter” in a complaint.
If I may interject:
I think the two of you are talking past each other.
@TheChineseWatch, if you meant to say, “The Constitution doesn’t address whether you have the right to a lawyer when you’re just ‘talking’ to law enforcement,” you may have a point, but you expressed that point poorly.
@AcerPlatanoides, of course the First Amendment addresses talking: it even uses the word “speech.”. However, in context, I don’t think that’s what he’s referring to when he says “The constitution does not address ‘talking.’”
That quote was in reply to this one:
The Constitution only says that you’re entitled to a lawyer to represent you in criminal proceedings, not necessarily for a friendly chat. However, absent criminal proceedings going on, the developer is also free to refuse to come in for that friendly chat altogether.
I think that’s the point that @thechinesewatch was trying to get across.
1 Like
I’m glad you’re here to do his work for him.
Doesn’t excuse the personal comments. (eta: since deleted by a mod I guess)
1 Like
I don’t think a disclaimer would have helped any. Maybe if they included it in every single post. It was more about documenting the drunken behaviour than anything else.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
