- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,299
- Reactions
- 4,653
The nature of the damage needs to be unambiguous.A question is how far does it go?
For example Rugby Australia is sponsored by Qantas. As with all airlines Qantas uses a lot of jet fuel and is thus a fairly big polluter in terms of CO2.
Now what if one of these rugby players posts something online urging people to vote for a political party which advocates a carbon tax or other price on CO2 emissions?
Not directly bad for the employer but not good for a major sponsor's business if someone's going to tax them more.
So what's the response? Sack them?
Or the link is too indirect since it's only the sponsor and not the employer itself being harmed by the action being advocated?
My point there is about where to draw the line on this overall concept not about Qantas or climate change specifically, they're just an example. I picked politics given that religion has already been done....![]()
The damages need to be quantifiable.
The source of the damage needs to be verifiable.
The jurisdiction needs to provide a means for remedy.
In your example the linkages appear too tenuous for any liability to be prosecuted.