TDCNINJA

As a fellow American I'll say this: If the reports are accurate (they are not always) and the guy flipped out and pulled a knife, then sadly, he got what was coming to him. The RTP should check everyone's story and interview neighbors to make sure that the 'brother' is actually her brother and the knife story is not a lie to cover a beatdown. As someone earlier correctly pointed out: no winners here. No woman is worth losing your life.

When are all the Eurotrash going to stop committing crimes in Thailand?

Why would there be?

Hun Sen

I was quoted 50k by an agent for the first 15 months. I asked why the price had shot up and was told it was because of the crackdown on visa exempt entries. In other words: GREED!

Does that mean more or less Russians in Pattaya and Phuket?

Time to deport you.

Indeed. If Thailand aspires to be the premier destination for retirees, its actions do not reflect that ambition. To be honest, the prevailing sentiment from Thailand and its people seems to be: "Just quiet down and appreciate that we allow you to enter."

How Thai. Fine the patrons but not the establishment.

Insanity: thinking its wrong for someone to lose their job for what they said; but what they said was Charlie Kirk should lose his life for something he said...

What many in this thread and others are doing now. The nihilism of the left is astounding.

Freedom of speech does equate to freedom of consequence.

People who share your radical, toxic, beliefs are radioactive and prompting both individuals and corporations to distance themselves rapidly and extensively.

Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequence. Especially in the corporate marketplace.

ABC Pulls 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' Over Charlie Kirk Remarks Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Read the toxicology report. Floyd died of an overdose. What a human scumbag he was.

May God Not Save Your King

I take the opinions of those that would kill me for my political beliefs seriously.

What is it that you dont understand? The WORLD has had it with the left. In the US, the Democrat brand is radioactive. No one wants anything to do with you. I know that for most of you narcissistic cretins self-relection is impossible. However. You have lefft-leaning corporations and institutions that are firing thousands of their fellow leftists. Even the corporations are shunning people who go online and celebrate the murder of someone who was assassinated solely for his political beliefs. The shot that pulverized the neck of Charlie Kirk was louder than 1968. Far louder. You have no conception of the firestorm you have unleashed. Your mere presence causes people to be physically ill.

US courts have consistently ruled that employees can be fired for making vile comments online, especially in the private sector where the First Amendment offers no protection from employer action. For government workers, the First Amendment provides limited protection, but vile comments often lose this protection because they can disrupt the workplace or harm the public's perception of the agency. For private-sector employees For those who work at private companies, there is generally no protection from being fired for online posts. Courts have upheld employers' rights to terminate workers for online speech that violates company policy or negatively impacts the business. Key legal points include: No First Amendment protection: The First Amendment restricts government control over speech, not that of a private company. Therefore, private employers have wide latitude to discipline or fire an employee over social media posts. At-will employment: In most states, employment is "at-will," meaning an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason that is not illegal. Vile online comments are a lawful reason for termination. Protecting against hostile work environments: If an employee's discriminatory, hateful, or harassing online comments are brought into the workplace and affect other employees, the employer can be held liable for creating a hostile work environment. Courts have consistently ruled that employers have a duty to take action against such conduct to protect their workers. Company reputation: Courts recognize that vile online posts, even if made on personal time, can damage a company's public image and reputation. Employers are legally justified in firing employees to protect their brand. Social media policies: Having a clear social media policy strengthens an employer's position in court. If a fired employee signed and acknowledged a policy that bans discriminatory or harassing online posts, the termination is easier to defend. For public-sector employees: For government workers, the First Amendment provides limited, not absolute, protection for speech. Courts use a balancing test to weigh the employee's interest in free speech against the government's interest in maintaining an efficient workplace. In cases involving vile comments, courts have often sided with the employer.

Says Mr. Happy...

Thankfully, the opinions of the federal courts on that long ago settled point of law - including the Supreme Court- differed from yours.

Tell that to Colin Kapernick

Every leftist I know is unhappy, miserable, a drug user, has a criminal record, a history of mental illness, and is sexually promiscuous. In fact, the only time I've ever seen them happy is when someone they disagree with is murdered....

Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequence. Especially in the workplace.