GA - Marketing Exec Fired Due to Racist Facebook Post About Coworker's [3 YO] Son

link

I am so glad they are getting consequences for their actions. I saw this yesterday and was thoroughly disgusted. It's horrifying enough that people think these thoughts, but to then post them on a public platform?

Since he was a marketing exec, surely he was fired for stupidity as well as racism.

I've been following this story but didn't want to post it until it was properly covered by msm, and that's taken an awful long time. I'm so glad it's here now. The Daily Mail also covered the story, I see.

I really did not like the way the first stories were completely from Gerod Roth/Geris Hilton's point-of-view. This was a man who took a photo of his co-worker's young child without mom's permission or her being present - in a private workplace room - and then posted it online. Without any comment but it sure looked pretty strange to me and I'm surprised no-one alerted police, frankly. Exactly why was he shutting himself away with someone's child, taking photos?

Once the hurtful comments from his online friends started coming, he failed to remove it. In fact, he answered one of them, suggesting that the little boy was a feral child he'd just picked up somewhere. deaf and dumb to boot too. He did NOTHING to protect the little boy who he had plastered all over the Internet, then when called out, pleaded that he, Gerod Roth, was the victim. He's now posting photos of himself with notes saying 'My name is Cayden'...but it ain't and never will be.

It is a very suspicious thing to do, in my opinion; shutting himself up with a child and then taking an illicit photo and posting it for his friends to abuse. I think he's lucky he just lost his job and didn't suffer any further legal repercussions. Why the heck none of his friends called him on taking illicit photos of a child I don't know.

Amongst Gerod Roth's FB friends joining in the abuse/racial abuse of this little boy was an alumni of Oxford College, Emory University and someone of quite extreme views who seemed to revel in targeting a child,amongst others. Roth continued working alongside mom for weeks and didn't say a word of apology or explanation, despite knowing his photo post was catching fire on social media.

Mom Sydney Shelton is a sweetheart and so is her handsome little boy. This is really unpleasant but that little one's so loved, I don't think it's going to do him any harm. He's going to grow up into a fine young man and make his mom proud. Which is more than you can say for Gerod Roth and friends, in my opinion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...black-colleague-calling-little-boy-slave.html

This twitter lady here was instrumental in drawing attention and putting a stop to this online abuse of little Cayden Jace.

https://twitter.com/IfeJohari

i think the lesson here is dont leave your kids unattended, even at work, even if you work in marketing, unless you want your kid's name & face out there & you happen to work in marketing.

Who in the world would think to start such a post?

What kind of people are his friends and acquaintances who would pursue a racist course?

Where did this ex- marketing person think this kind of FBing would take him?

Why would a person skilled in marketing attempt to sabotage his career?

1&2&3 said:

Who in the world would think to start such a post?

What kind of people are his friends and acquaintances who would pursue a racist course?

Where did this ex- marketing person think this kind of FBing would take him?

Why would a person skilled in marketing attempt to sabotage his career?

Click to expand...

Because some people are so racist and stupid that they cannot see how offensive they are to rational folks. And sadly, they have supporters who are equally as stupid.

tangelo said:

i think the lesson here is dont leave your kids unattended, even at work, even if you work in marketing, unless you want your kid's name & face out there & you happen to work in marketing.

Click to expand...

Huh? This situation is the parent's fault? What planet are you from?

zwiebel said:

It is a very suspicious thing to do, in my opinion; shutting himself up with a child and then taking an illicit photo and posting it for his friends to abuse. I think he's lucky he just lost his job and didn't suffer any further legal repercussions. Why the heck none of his friends called him on taking illicit photos of a child I don't know.

Click to expand...

When I saw the photo it looked like the kid was walking by his cubical. Why do you think he was "shut in with a kid for illicit photos?". If it was in a cubical then it wasn't private and the mother could have been 5 feet away.

I don't think it is good form to take ANYONE'S photo and then post it without their permission, but this certainly doesn't imply any illicit activity, especially since the child appears to be walking by behind him.

Sonya610 said:

When I saw the photo it looked like the kid was walking by his cubical. Why do you think he was "shut in with a kid for illicit photos?". If it was in a cubical then it wasn't private and the mother could have been 5 feet away.

I don't think it is good form to take ANYONE'S photo and then post it without their permission, but this certainly doesn't imply any illicit activity, especially since the child appears to be walking by behind him.

Click to expand...

CJJ appears to be standing behind Roth, not "walking by." Whether or not Roth is in a cubicle is, of course, debatable. Nonetheless, I completely agree with zwiebel's characterization that Roth was engaging in illicit activity (i.e., disapproved of or not permitted for moral or ethical reasons).

Otherwise put, the man took an unauthorized photo of this child, proceeded to plaster the photo to a public facing FB page, joined in the resulting derogatory commentary and then whined about the quite unsurprising backlash, claiming he is a victim, too.

So, yeah, afaics, "illicit" pretty much sums up his behavior.

As for the legal (or not so) angle? I ran a quick search to see if there were any Georgia statutes regarding unauthorized photographing of minors. All that I could find was criminal code § 42-1-18, which appears to only apply to SXOs as opposed to the general public:


From my read/search, had Roth done this prior to 2012, his "illicit" behavior may have triggered the aforementioned statute, as it was narrowed down to SXOs in 2012.

shadowraiths said:

(b) No individual shall intentionally photograph a minor without the consent of the minor's parent or guardian.​

From my read/search, had Roth done this prior to 2012, his "illicit" behavior may have triggered the aforementioned statute, as it was narrowed down to SXOs in 2012.

Click to expand...

Probably because the original version wasn't thought out and was just plain ridiculous.

Basically it would be outlawing all photos in crowds/events/theme parks/parks etc... Heck if you wanted to take photos at a family gathering or a birthday party you would need to get signed waivers from the parents of any children present.

And then there would be the problem with news coverage of various events, that would be illegal too if children could be present. Oh and what about surveillance cameras in private businesses? Did the parents grant permission when their kids were videotaped eating their happy meals at McDonald's?

Sonya610 said:

Probably because the original version was crazy. Example: you are at a restaurant or sporting event, or your kid's little league/soccer game, or a park and you snap a picture that includes a child in the background then taking the photo would be a CRIME.

Basically it would be outlawing all photos in crowds/events/theme parks/parks etc... Heck if you wanted to take photos at a family gathering or a birthday party you would need to get signed waivers from the parents of any children present.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I personally would not post a photo of a child not related to me, but making it illegal could put people in prison who took photos of themselves in a park, etc, with some child on the background (which would obviously be insane).

Sonya610 said:

When I saw the photo it looked like the kid was walking by his cubical. Why do you think he was "shut in with a kid for illicit photos?". If it was in a cubical then it wasn't private and the mother could have been 5 feet away.

I don't think it is good form to take ANYONE'S photo and then post it without their permission, but this certainly doesn't imply any illicit activity, especially since the child appears to be walking by behind him.

Click to expand...

I don't think a photo was illicit in any way, shape or form. It's still not a good idea to post it on the internet (even if there were no comments made). Seems like nowdays everyone is snapping photos and posting them (which I don't think is appropriate without getting permission from people in the photo)

Sonya610 said:

Probably because the original version wasn't thought out and was just plain ridiculous.

Basically it would be outlawing all photos in crowds/events/theme parks/parks etc... Heck if you wanted to take photos at a family gathering or a birthday party you would need to get signed waivers from the parents of any children present.

And then there would be the problem with news coverage of various events, that would be illegal too if children could be present. Oh and what about surveillance cameras in private businesses? Did the parents grant permission when their kids were videotaped eating their happy meals at McDonald's?

Click to expand...

Agreed. I had similar thoughts when I read that the original statute, which went into effect in 2010, was narrowed down to SXOs, in 2012.

Let us not forget this is not only about posting some crowd shot wherein a child just happened to be in the frame:

Gerod Roth, who was listed on Facebook as Geris Hilton, posted a selfie with Sydney Shelton's 3-year-old son Cayden on Sept. 16. Roth's friends soon started making extremely racist comments on the picture, saying things like, "I didn't know you were a slave owner" and "But Massuh, I dindu nuffin." Roth himself commented that Cayden "was feral." The post has since been deleted, but not before countless screengrabs were taken.

Click to expand...

Boy, that guy is a laff a minute. Those little darkie kids are comedy FODDER. For the neo-Nazi crowd.

Oh, and "Geris Hilton"? Stop! I am doubled over with convulsive laughter! This guy should have his own show!

In Hell.

http://www.people.com/article/gerod-roth-geris-hilton-fired-racist-comments-cayden-shelton

As a teacher we had a form that parents signed allowing me to take pics of their child for a book I made of each child . They had to sign that it was ok if their child was in a group photo that would be put in another child's book as well.

Then they had to sign if the child could be in publicity photos. We had groups that volunteered that liked to make photos for their events.

I had families that were in hiding from abusers. And some people don't want their kid's pics with anyone else,

It is a whole different world out there nowadays