Everybody Notice Me ... I Posted A Picture Of A Guy Looking At Porn To Twitter

So you spotted someone in a neighbouring office watching porn at his desk and called all your colleagues to the window to have a look and a laugh. Well, James P, you’re the hero of your office today.

Now you probably feel even more noticed ie. less insignificant, because you’ve put it up on Twitter.

Tomorrow, you’ll go back to being the try hard dork you’ve always been; the adult version of the kid at school who dobbed people in for looking at a porno mag in the bushes or smoking in the dunnies or pissing on the teachers’ cars (and then got bashed).

The guy is certainly an idiot for looking at porn at his desk with an open window behind him. But does he deserve to get the sack (which he probably will when identified)?

That’s the difference between showing a few colleagues and enjoying a communal laugh (which is normal) and being a sad, little attention craving dork and putting it up on Twitter. Now you’ve succeeded in making the guy the next few days’ internet “must watch”, he’ll probably be exposed and fired.

Good work, you sad, little cunt. He’s probably got a wife, kids and a mortgage.

Despite the dishonest and self serving media rants, this is why we need a tort of privacy, to which the defence should be the same test as for defamation: the publication is both true and in the public interest.

This matter would be a reasonable test case. The man was certainly looking at porn at work. But is it in the public interest to know?

It’s almost certainly a breach of his employment contract, but so is stealing stationery, or even using eBay. Is it really in the public interest to know any of these things? Would it affect any reasonable person’s willingness to do business with the company? If not, then one could argue it’s not in the public interest to publish the photo on Twitter.

To argue that the matter is already public domain because several people in a neighbouring office were already watching is not reasonable: putting photos on the internet is orders of magnitude more severe exposure. One could equally argue that because a celebrity goes topless on a yacht and someone else sails past and sees it, it’s automatically OK to splash pictures of her across the internet and every tabloid newspaper.

In his article on the porn watcher, news.com.au’s Matt Young contrived to describe the man’s actions as “an occupational health and safety issue”. Really? How so?

Sounds like news.com.au is trying to establish a flimsy defence against any future privacy complaint.

A more likely OH&S issue would be co-workers slipping on the cum dribbling out of Matt Young’s arse.

I considered whether I should write about this matter at all, thus further exposing the person. I suspect by the time a significant number of people read this post (if that ever occurs), the damage will have been long done.

Better to spread the message that James P is an attention seeking, little twat who deserves his own picture on Twitter … of him sniffing his mother’s panties, or putting Lego up his arse, or whatever he gets up to.