Which comes closest to describing your position on Jeffrey Toobin’s just deserts

[fusnik]

This is an odd definition of "not innocent". Crazy me, I thought that issue had something to do with intent.

Falafel has taken over JLs account.

[falafel]

This is an odd definition of "not innocent". Crazy me, I thought that issue had something to do with intent.

Yeah, you're crazy. Weird hill to die on, Lebowski!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, you're crazy. Weird hill to die on, Lebowski!

Lol. Touche'.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sorry Dude, I'm aiding with fusnik on this one. Toobin could claim Costanza ignorance, but it should be well understood - especially by an attorney - that masturbating during a Zoom call is cause for termination. That should easily cover any "for cause" termination requirements at the New Yorker.

Are we debating whether they should fire him or whether they can legally fire him? I definitely agree with the latter.

[frank ryan]

Fire him because he's a liberal wanker hypocrite? lol. I think we should all aim to not wank on camera, democrat or republican.

[falafel]

Fire him because he's a liberal wanker hypocrite? lol. I think we should all aim to not wank on camera, democrat or republican.

The hypocrite part comes in because the left would call for the immediate firing of any conservative white male who was caught doing this.

[Northwestcoug]

He's on TV and print because he's a well-known personality who happens to know something about law. The zoom-wanking incident is embarrassing and likely innocent, but still very weird. His employers will likely make the decision about his employment based on his relevance to his audience. If he's a one-of-a-kind legal analyst who has great insights, then it would make sense for his employers to have him go to the desert for a bit and bring him back. But c'mon, how valuable is Toobin? How many up and coming legal analysts are out there that could use a hand to get exposed in the national press?

[Katy Lied]

I enjoyed how Fusnik backed JL into a corner defending Toobin, something JL probably cares next to nothing about. I also kind of agree with JL--Toobin was unaware that he was being observed doing something in his home where he had the expectation of privacy. Kind of like that honeymoon couple who had sex in their hotel room in that ballpark during the world series-- They did not realize that they could be seen through the glass, and had an expectation of privacy.

[SeattleUte]

I agree it's not a cancel culture issue. It's pretty disrespectful to his colleagues even if he doesn't have the video on. Probably he was thinking, what a bunch of wankers. He was to a large extent right, I bet! But they are his colleagues, and he owes them respect and attention; even checking your iPhone is unacceptable nowadays.

But while cancel culture is terrible, nor is it wholly without justice. Now that nobody except crazy Trump disciples believes in religion, we rely on media and artists in the various disciples to tell us what's right and wrong. They're our prophets, apostles and priests. It's an exalted privilege, and high honor. Credibility must be impeccable. Nobody has a right to retain such distinction. Once society raises you to that level, it can tear you down.

[Applejack]

The hypocrite part comes in because the left would call for the immediate firing of any conservative white male who was caught doing this.

I’m not seeing a whole lot of libs saying it would be unfair to terminate this great American journalist.

[SeattleUte]

I’m not seeing a whole lot of libs saying it would be unfair to terminate this great American journalist.

I've seen some tweets from liberal women with many followers calling him a liar and saying he did it on purpose, that he did it harass and intimidate the women on the call. One posted a web page for a book called The Myth of the Bumbling Man.

[Pelado]

Are we debating whether they should fire him or whether they can legally fire him? I definitely agree with the latter.

I'm not a master debater, so I wouldn't want to expose my ignorance in such an exercise.

Should he be fired? Yes.
Can the New Yorker fire him for cause? Likely.
Can CNN fire him for cause? Possibly.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[falafel]

He's on TV and print because he's a well-known personality who happens to know something about law. The zoom-wanking incident is embarrassing and likely innocent, but still very weird. His employers will likely make the decision about his employment based on his relevance to his audience. If he's a one-of-a-kind legal analyst who has great insights, then it would make sense for his employers to have him go to the desert for a bit and bring him back. But c'mon, how valuable is Toobin? How many up and coming legal analysts are out there that could use a hand to get exposed in the national press?

Use a hand... get exposed... [emoji23]

[Sullyute]

Now that nobody except crazy Trump disciples believes in religion

[rolleyes]

[frank ryan]

The hypocrite part comes in because the left would call for the immediate firing of any conservative white male who was caught doing this.

OK, it doesn't read like that. It called him a hypocrite, not all liberals (or the left) hypocrites. I'm not seeing many people jumping to his defense.