Habs VP of Communications defends Mailloux

[North Cole]

I get both sides of the story, the first twitter user was likely using that term colloquially to encompass all forms of sexual related crimes which is well and good, because ideally you don't want anyone doing heinous shit to women, let alone teens. I also get it from the Org perspective because while you acknowledge the aforementioned you can simultaneously realize you don't want a lesser crime lumped in with something that Ian Cole should be getting 10 years in prison for.

This circular argument between the literal words in Swedish law and how it would be interpreted here seem like a waste of time and just filibustering. I think most people would agree what Logan did was shitty and he got punished deservedly and the Habs f***ed up by drafting him when they did, but also that what Ian Cole was alleged to have done was far far worse. These are not comparable crimes but it also doesn't mean that Logan was just some voyeur in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Both of these guys can be shitty with one being more shitty, it's not mutually exclusive.

Ultimately, in going with my assumption that the purpose of the PR tweet was being less of a defense of the scope of the crime and more of a defense of the severity of the crime, then I don't blame the PR person for the attempt but rather the execution. 280 characters is not enough to take on the nuance of that kind of message, you need to make a statement and embed the image. You can very easily separate the two incidents while also not minimizing what Logan did, which this tweet doesn't really do and that's a fail. I get it if this is some coach making this statement, but the PR head shouldn't be making fails like this.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Interesting... you feel compelled to repeatedly critique someone who is correcting, but have nothing to say to those who are clearly incorrect.

Interesting, you've done the same thing in other threads, only correcting information coming from one side, leaving up posts of clear misinformation (a post saying what Logan did was not criminal at all, for example).

 

[MXD]

This circular argument between the literal words in Swedish law and how it would be interpreted here seem like a waste of time and just filibustering. I think most people would agree what Logan did was shitty and he got punished deservedly and the Habs f***ed up by drafting him when they did, but also that what Ian Cole was alleged to have done was far far worse. These are not comparable crimes.

Ultimately, in going with my assumption that the purpose of the PR tweet was being less of a defense of the scope of the crime and more of a defense of the severity of the crime, then I don't blame the PR person for the attempt but rather the execution. 280 characters is not enough to take on the nuance of that kind of message, you need to make a statement and embed the image. You can very easily separate the two incidents while also not minimizing what Logan did, which this tweet doesn't really do and that's a fail.

Well, to be honest, minimizing what Mailloux did is a bit the point when you're replying to a tweet (after having been @ed -- it wasn't unsollicited) whose sole purpose was to, errrrghhmmm, maximize what Mailloux did?

EDIT : LOL I didn't want to call HFboars user Ed to this thread...

If I ever felt compelled to spend hours “correcting false information” about a creep who took a photo of a young woman performing a sex act and shared it without her consent, I would immediately begin reevaluating all of my life choices leading up to that point.

You're falling in the trap of the Tweeter here.

 

[MBH]

She would fit in well here in the thread where people were arguing Cole wasn't a pedophile because "you need to be attracted to pre-pubescent people to be a pedophile!"

He's not that piece of shit, he's just another piece of shit that I'm arguing purely for semantics.

Well, people wanting to be factual isn't a problem, in my eyes.
Don't worry about facts though.
Some man or woman made an anonymous tweet. Let's all act like we know it must be true.

 

[North Cole]

Well, to be honest, minimizing what Mailloux did is a bit the point when you're replying to a tweet (after having been @ed -- it wasn't unsollicited) whose sole purpose was to, errrrghhmmm, maximize what Mailloux did?

EDIT : LOL I didn't want to call HFboars user Ed to this thread...

Lmao, gg Ed.

In that view yes, but I don't really see the original tweet as maximizing it. I think that was just the most readily available example of a recent and identified player, having committed a sexual-in-nature crime, so that's the branch they grabbed. The message I get from the original tweet was that 'sex crimes are bad and we need to stop them all from happening', which I don't think maximizes Logan's crime, just lumps all of the crimes into a pot together.

I think most of the NA media talking points have shifted in that direction. It creates a much less focused dialogue which I don't blame Habs PR for wanting to avoid. The 'gun violence in America' is the number one discussion that ends up like this.

 

[Pink Mist]

You called it “Sexual misconduct”. It was not. Period.

There are plenty of discussion points, as long as we respect a baseline of facts. Instead, you’re now straying into different subparagraphs of Swedish law that have nothing to do with Mailloux because you want to drag the word “Sexual” into this. Your post is the definition of ‘obfuscating’.

Again, I have no issue with your personal opinion. There's plenty to discuss, but what this is and isn't under the law has been established. My issue is with the indiscriminate use of very serious legal definitions. It's not “Heretofore” versus “Thereafter”. Sexual Offence terminology should be reserved for real sex offenders and shouldn’t be tossed around like cheap clickbait.

You've clearly missed my point or arent willing to address it since you realize your argument is trash, but whatever.

Okay let me ask you this, would Mailloux have been charged with "offensive photography" if instead of taking a photo of her giving a sexual act he took a photo of her talking or playing video games (or some other mundane act) in a private space?

I'm going to wager no, and if you say yes, please find me precedent for someone who has.

The law he was charged with was to criminalize people taking taking photos and videos of sex and nudity without consent. It is fundamentally a crime/charge of sexual misconduct.

 

[PostBradMalone]

Interesting... you feel compelled to repeatedly critique someone who is correcting, but have nothing to say to those who are factually incorrect.

If someone did this to your daughter, would you be spending your day online trying to argue semantics about how they took advantage of her in a highly vulnerable moment?

 

[Lshap]

If someone did this to your daughter, would you be spending your day online trying to argue semantics about how they took advantage of her in a highly vulnerable moment?

You seem very concerned about someone politely correcting misinformation.

You also seem concerned about how I'm spending my day, which is sweet but unnecessary.

 

[Lshap]

You've clearly missed my point or arent willing to address it since you realize your argument is trash, but whatever.

Okay let me ask you this, would Mailloux have been charged with "offensive photography" if instead of taking a photo of her giving a sexual act he took a photo of her talking or playing video games (or some other mundane act) in a private space?

I'm going to wager no, and if you say yes, please find me precedent for someone who has.

The law he was charged with was to criminalize people taking taking photos and videos of sex and nudity without consent. It is fundamentally a crime/charge of sexual misconduct.

Mailloux was charged and convicted of a crime. It was simply not the crime you want it to be. Which means he's not the criminal you want him to be. Why do I object to him being labeled as some kind of sex criminal? Because that label is factually wrong. Because it conflates his actions with real sex crimes, which are far more serious. Because it contributes to the dumbing-down of social media misinformation.

For the third time, there are a lot of legitimate discussion points here. Parroting incorrect information takes the discussion backwards.

 

[Lshap]

Interesting, you've done the same thing in other threads, only correcting information coming from one side, leaving up posts of clear misinformation (a post saying what Logan did was not criminal at all, for example).

Report those posts and I'll delete them immediately. I never saw them. Misinformation on either side is equally bad.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Report those posts and I'll delete them immediately. I never saw them. Misinformation on either side is equally bad.

I did at the time. May not have been your desk the report (I reported it twice, once before and once after you posted in that thread explicitly warning about posting misinformation cam) came across.

 

[Pink Mist]

Mailloux was charged and convicted of a crime. It was simply not the crime you want it to be. Which means he's not the criminal you want him to be. Why do I object to him being labeled as some kind of sex criminal? Because that label is factually wrong. Because it conflates his actions with real sex crimes, which are far more serious. Because it contributes to the dumbing-down of social media misinformation.

For the third time, there are a lot of legitimate discussion points here. Parroting incorrect information takes the discussion backwards.

Cool, so you won't engage with anything I say because you're hung up with what the crime is called and unable to understand why the law was created or what it is for.

So its "parroting incorrect information" when I correct you but its "correcting misinformation" when you totally misinterpret Swedish law. Interesting.

Maybe you should drop your fandom for the Habs for a minute when you enter these discussions to "correct" people because you are far from impartial in your interpretation of "the facts"

 

[PostBradMalone]

You seem very concerned about someone politely correcting misinformation.

You also seem concerned about how I'm spending my day, which is sweet but unnecessary.

That you can't answer the question tells me you know what Mailloux did is wrong regardless of your efforts to split hairs, but you feel compelled to defend him because you're a Habs fan.

 

[Lshap]

I did at the time. May not have been your desk the report (I reported it twice, once before and once after you posted in that thread explicitly warning about posting misinformation cam) came across.

I honestly didn't see them. Sorry if I gave the impression the ice was tilted. This subject is sensitive enough without the two extremes pulling it further apart.

 

[Lshap]

That you can't answer the question tells me you know what Mailloux did is wrong regardless of your efforts to split hairs, but you feel compelled to defend him because you're a Habs fan.

You quoted a bunch of posts whose only goal was to correct misinformation. You asked no question. You added no information. You then avoided answering my point – why you're more concerned with someone posting corrections than others posting misinformation.

You've added nothing to this discussion.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

No doubt what the kid did was wrong. I will never say anything to the contrary. At the same time, I do hope that some of you in this thread find yourself in a similar position where you've made a mistake and there is a relentless mob of people wanting to haunt you for it and ruin you until the end of time.

Good lord.

So you're hoping for more people to be guilty of criminal behaviour and more people to be victims of said behaviour?
Good lord.

 

[Ulic]

Mailloux was absolutely not charged with "sexual misconduct", he was charged with defamation and criminal photography.

Specifically, he secretly took photos of a woman while engaged in a sexual act and shared them with his hockey team all without the woman's consent.

Call it whatever makes you feel better, but that's a really gross and hurtful thing to do to someone. His involvement of his hockey team speaks to the problematic culture of sex within hockey.

 

[Lshap]

Cool, so you won't engage with anything I say because you're hung up with what the crime is called and unable to understand why the law was created or what it is for.

So its "parroting incorrect information" when I correct you but its "correcting misinformation" when you totally misinterpret Swedish law. Interesting.

Maybe you should drop your fandom for the Habs for a minute when you enter these discussions to "correct" people because you are far from impartial in your interpretation of "the facts"

How is a straightforward legal verdict connected to me being a Habs fan? Facts are facts. Your nonsensical tangents don't change that. I've explained why the legal ruling is important; you ignored it.

You're free to disagree with the ruling and the actual law. You're not free to pretend they don't exist.

 

[Lshap]

Mailloux was absolutely not charged with "sexual misconduct", he was charged with defamation and criminal photography.

Specifically, he secretly took photos of a woman while engaged in a sexual act and shared them with his hockey team all without the woman's consent.

Call it whatever makes you feel better, but that's a really gross and hurtful thing to do to someone. His involvement of his hockey team speaks to the problematic culture of sex within hockey.

Thank you for being accurate – in this domain accuracy is very important. I agree what he did was gross and hurtful. Agreeing on the legal and moral realities is a good first step towards a constructive discussion.

 

[Pink Mist]

How is a straightforward legal verdict connected to me being a Habs fan? Facts are facts. Your nonsensical tangents don't change that. I've explained why the legal ruling is important; you ignored it.

You're free to disagree with the ruling and the actual law. You're not free to pretend they don't exist.

Because you clearly have a vested interest in how Mailloux is perceived and its clear in how you've been responding to anyone critical of him or your interpretation of the case? You don't need to be Sherlock to figure this one out.

It also clearly is not so straightforward because I've been ignoring any of the nuance to the legal verdict that I have provided you and are instead obsessed with what the exact name of his charge is. The fact you call this nuance "nonsensical tangents" is pretty revealing

Thank you for being accurate – in this domain accuracy is very important. I agree what he did was gross and hurtful. Agreeing on the legal and moral realities is a good first step towards a constructive discussion.

Lol my god

 

[PostBradMalone]

You quoted a bunch of posts whose only goal was to correct misinformation. You asked no question. You added no information. You then avoided answering my point – why you're more concerned with someone posting corrections than others posting misinformation.

You've added nothing to this discussion.

Keep dodging, your motivation to "correct misinformation" has been laid bare and it's exactly this kind of lionizing of athletes that has led to the number of scandals we're seeing in hockey at all levels.

 

[Lshap]

Because you clearly have a vested interest in how Mailloux is perceived and its clear in how you've been responding to anyone critical of him or your interpretation of the case? You don't need to be Sherlock to figure this one out.

It also clearly is not so straightforward because I've been ignoring any of the nuance to the legal verdict that I have provided you and are instead obsessed with what the exact name of his charge is. The fact you call this nuance "nonsensical tangents" is pretty revealing



Lol my god

Lol... a 'vested interest'. In other words, you're totally out of ammunition and are now creating make-believe agendas.

One last time: The facts are a starting point. They're not up for debate. Accept them and you enter a legitimate discussion. Twist them to suit your feelings and you're wasting everyone's time.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

He should have never been eligible for the draft in the first place and certainly should never have been drafted by the Habs.
It’s just another example of hockey not taking these issues seriously and as a long time fan of Montreal it’s sad that this storied franchise didn’t take the issue seriously.
As for correcting the facts, I have no problem with that as long as it’s not an attempt to minimize what he did and how it affected the victim.
A young woman’s life was heavily impacted by his malicious actions. Society’s views are finally changing. Hopefully at some point hockey catches up.

 

[Lshap]

Keep dodging, your motivation to "correct misinformation" has been laid bare and it's exactly this kind of lionizing of athletes that has led to the number of scandals we're seeing in hockey at all levels.

I strongly suggest not creating an imaginary story for someone else.

 

[HabstuckinTO]

generally i love the Habs and everything that they do,, but stuff like this is embarasing

especially on a day where Ian Cole is accused of terrible things, the Oilers fire a minor league coach for having charges related to assaulting minors, and with all of the hockey canada sexual assault things going on

she quickly deleted her tweet but here it is

For the love of God - how is this even a thread?