Yeah...sometimes Twitter just isn't the best place to make a cogent argument:
> 1. Bullying someone into quitting: Illegal.
If that bullying falls under the legal definition of harassment, then yes, it is illegal. But that's kind of begging the question a bit (e.g. Bullying someone is illegal because it is harassment). The thing is, some/much what Horvath described was assuredly captured in electronic records. If she believes something is illegal, and she is not afraid of speaking out, she should take the next step and file a lawsuit.
> 2. Asking an employee to relay private conversations between her and her partner: Illegal.
OK not sure what that refers to. Again, Twitter is not great for these things.
> 3. Justifying the harassment of an employee because of her personal relationships: Pathetic.
Who justified what?
> 4. How does it feel to make money for liars and cowards?
OK and then the rest of this seems like free association. I agree that a third-party investigation instigated by the accused is not automatically the truth, but neither are accusations. The word illegal has real meaning and if Horvath has the proof, then let's see it, rather than have a TechCrunch retelling be the canonical source of facts.
> 1. Bullying someone into quitting: Illegal.
If that bullying falls under the legal definition of harassment, then yes, it is illegal. But that's kind of begging the question a bit (e.g. Bullying someone is illegal because it is harassment). The thing is, some/much what Horvath described was assuredly captured in electronic records. If she believes something is illegal, and she is not afraid of speaking out, she should take the next step and file a lawsuit.
> 2. Asking an employee to relay private conversations between her and her partner: Illegal.
OK not sure what that refers to. Again, Twitter is not great for these things.
> 3. Justifying the harassment of an employee because of her personal relationships: Pathetic.
Who justified what?
> 4. How does it feel to make money for liars and cowards?
OK and then the rest of this seems like free association. I agree that a third-party investigation instigated by the accused is not automatically the truth, but neither are accusations. The word illegal has real meaning and if Horvath has the proof, then let's see it, rather than have a TechCrunch retelling be the canonical source of facts.