Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supermodel Signs Petition To Save Porn Browsing Man's Job

Posted by samzenpus on from the working-hard-and-hardly-working dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Following worldwide attention after being caught looking at pictures of Miranda Kerr at work while a colleague was being interviewed on TV, a petition to save David Kiely's job has started. Stated motives: He seems like a nice bloke, the pics weren't hardcore, he has suffered enough, and, maybe more important, there's just too much political correctness in this world anyway. Showing class and sense of humor, miss Kerr said she will sign the petition."

27 comments

  1. Anyone else by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think it's funny that they're talking about "expecting a rise" in the interview?

    --
    Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
    1. Re:Anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supermodel Signs Petition To Save Porn Browsing Man's Job

      I'm not sure what the news is. This person wasn't browsing "porn", and even if he was it shouldn't be an issue. Nor was this person being interviewed on TV (during, before or after this "incident"). It's all very bizarre. Though the neoconservatives always want to make issues when there really are none.

    2. Re:Anyone else by gujo-odori · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm know I'm just feeding a troll, but getting fired for looking at those sorts of photos at work has nothing to do with neocons.

      Why do most companies have policies under which you can get fired for doing that? Because of past sexual harassment type lawsuits. The phrase is along the lines of "created a hostile and/or intimidating working environment."

      If you violate the rules in a way that could get your company sued, you're quite likely to lose your job.

      Note that I'm not arguing in favor of his getting fired; I also believe that the punishment doesn't fit the crime and a real solid ass-kicking in his manager's office, plus the public embarrassment he has already suffered, is more than sufficient punishment, and should also be more than sufficient to ensure that he - and others - don't do it again.

      However, to say that these workplace rules stem from neocons is ridiculous. Pragmatically, they come from the desire to not be sued. Ideologically, they are more left than right.

      However, looking at racy pictures isn't what he is most likely to get fired for: publicly embarrassing his employer on TV, and all over the world via the Internet, is what he's really in trouble for.

    3. Re:Anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      True, the employer is embarrassed, and therefore mad. But won't more people be watching that news show, in case another incident occurs, which means more eyeballs on commercials. Therefore more money to the employer.

      It may be embarrassing but possibly beneficial to the broadcast in general.

    4. Re:Anyone else by algormortis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, the employer is embarrassed, and therefore mad. But won't more people be watching that news show, in case another incident occurs, which means more eyeballs on commercials. Therefore more money to the employer.

      It may be embarrassing but possibly beneficial to the broadcast in general.

      Which is probably why they're making such a big deal about this.

    5. Re:Anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd have to be pretty fucking dumb to look at photos of supermodels at work.

    6. Re:Anyone else by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > "created a hostile and/or intimidating working environment."

      OK I guess I'm weird but I find a working environment where you could get sacked or harmed just for looking at the "wrong pictures" more hostile and intimidating than one where you might happen to be exposed to the "wrong pictures"- assuming it's not intentionally[1].

      [1] If someone keeps emailing "wrong pictures" to me, or leaving them on my table even though I tell them to stop then that's harassment.

      Otherwise as long as they can do their jobs and don't make so much noise (makes it hard to concentrate), I don't care.

      I personally think people shouldn't go nuts just because they people are looking at "wrong pictures". Then we'd have a safer world to live in.

      If we think playing violent video games isn't going to negatively affect adults that much (and some studies show it doesn't) then why would looking at "wrong pictures" cause so much problems?

      --
    7. Re:Anyone else by geekmux · · Score: 1

      True, the employer is embarrassed, and therefore mad. But won't more people be watching that news show, in case another incident occurs, which means more eyeballs on commercials. Therefore more money to the employer.

      It may be embarrassing but possibly beneficial to the broadcast in general.

      Which is probably why they're making such a big deal about this.

      Yeah, there's a reason "shock jocks" like Stern make more money than all of us put together. It would be a shame to watch the guy lose his job while the employer gets to reap the rewards of the "controversy".

      And as far as what he was looking at, give me a break. If this news channel ever showed a single bikini in a news story, they've "shown" a hell of a lot more than we ever saw on this guys monitor. Talk about a molehills into mountains...

    8. Re:Anyone else by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      No, getting caught in such a spectacular and public way was dumb --- but come on, who amongst us has never, ever looked at one single porn-y image while at work?

  2. Not browsing. That's a forwarded email. by w0mprat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Looking closely he's opening images attached to an email in what appears to be Outlook. He can hardly be blamed for control over what has been sent to him, especially considering all those implicit in the previous hops of the forwarded email (which will be most of the office!).

    If you've worked in a contemporary office environment, you KNOW this kind of email gets passed around just about everyone, even some pretty explicit stuff, and 90% of the time the managers look the other way (some of that the managers would ask not to be left out, especially if she's hot). If he gets fired then he has a hell of a comeback if he wants to use it; this will not be an isolated incident in this workplace, and there will be a precedent of management staff being in on the dirty office emails.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:Not browsing. That's a forwarded email. by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      I've worked in several contemporary office environments and I've never seen this (and I'm a straight dude, etc., etc.), except on TV. I wonder if it's regional?

    2. Re:Not browsing. That's a forwarded email. by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      He can hardly be blamed for control over what has been sent to him

      You're right, he can hardly be blamed for what has been sent to him. However, he can be faulted for continuing to view more images after seeing the first and realizing that it was inappropriate for work.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    3. Re:Not browsing. That's a forwarded email. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I agree. We all have our oops moments where that email comes through or you click on a web link that's NSFW, but honestly, most people have lightning reflexes on closing that stuff as soon as humanly possible. Accidents happen, but stopping and staring weakens your argument that it was an accident at all.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:Not browsing. That's a forwarded email. by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Our director of HR sent our manager this picture[NSFW] via inter-office email once.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    5. Re:Not browsing. That's a forwarded email. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Our director of HR sent our manager this picture[NSFW] via inter-office email once.

      (grabs pen)

      What company did you say you work for..?

  3. Thing I noticed though about this by Kitkoan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is that it's 3 pictures in the same email. In the HD video you can see that all the pictures are being clicked left to right and the email isn't changing. If it was just something forwarded that he accidently clicked on then he should have stopped at the first one and either stop checking it during work (like who's he talking to? A boss or co-worker?) and wait to look at the rest during a break or after work, forward to his personal email or even delete it. It not so much the subject matter of the photo's as the fact that it's obviously a personal email he's checking during work hours in what is supposed to be a professional business. Also isn't this how a trojan virus could be installed? By clicking on attachments that are obviously not work related (like the whole iloveyou virus)?

    --
    Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    1. Re:Thing I noticed though about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA haaaaa. For a second I though you were serious.

  4. Unhireable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may just be bad luck, but he's now unhireable. He's been putting his resume in with other companies this past week - we knocked him back immediately.

  5. Dave has been saved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The petition is over. Dave Kiely has been saved.

    1. Re:Dave has been saved by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      It's a victory for porn in the workplace. Finally the banks have done something useful.

  6. Interest rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that the raised interest rates discussed in the linked video clip are a good thing and will help counter inflation as the economy rebuilds itself, but I fail to see what they have to do with Supermodels.

  7. In the US of A Porn is... by Fotograf · · Score: 1

    bikini shoots. Nuff said.

    --
    God's gift to chicks
  8. Damn Anonymous Presbyterians by FibreOptix · · Score: 1

    Porn? What? These images are from GQ magazine if I remember correctly... Not exactly that type of mens magazine.

  9. Acid test for porn by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    My God! If that is porn, then don't read Sports Illustrated, Ladies Home Journal, and certain not the Daily Mail. Then again, he was looking at them at work AND got caught on tape. Therefore, he should be tried, sentenced, convicted, and executed Internet-style, then promptly forgotten.

  10. Porn lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Porn? That's a laugh.... as Ron Jeremy said... porn = penetration!

  11. Miranda Kerr is not a supermodel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    model, or Victorias Secret Model, but not a supermodel