I know the answer already, but there are reasons why I want to solicit others’ responses.
For not including enough information in his reports?
Because he didn’t post a poll?
First poll, sorry.
The situation is this:
“Reg” worked for a company for over 20 years.
One day, he was called into a meeting, fired, and escorted out by security.
Law enforcement came to search his office.
The management said it was due to “inappropriate web content” on his office computer.
He would never give a straight answer about this.
The company in question apparently struck a deal with him to avoid a P.R. nightmare.
I already know what happened but have reasons for asking others to comment.
So, we’re supposed to just guess?
Guess the content.
No, they didn’t make it up.
Answer: Because the employer can fire any employee at any time, without explanation. If they feel like offering a reason, any reason will do, including but not limited to those proffered by the poll.
The only one it that list beside “other” that might be a PR nightmare would be child porn.
jtur88, they wouldn’t call the cops in if they just didn’t like the guy, or they wanted to give his job to somebody else.
I’m voting for radically inappropriate extremist political literature. Not porn, as I don’t think they’d call the cops over porn, either. They found plans for the White House and How to Make Bombs kind of stuff.
I’m going with “posting a vague poll on an internet message board.”
This game isn’t very fun.
“Adult porn” (of the barely legal variety) makes the most sense.
Law enforcement was called in to determine if it was child porn - if they thought it was, “Reg” would have been arrested, not just sacked.
Inappropriate web content makes no sense in the context of threatening or aggressive behaviour to colleagues, because that would be material originated by him to colleagues, but “web content” is something originated by someone else, downloaded by him.
Of course, it could have been “three steps to a homemade nail bomb” :-o
Adult porn is the only one of the four choices where I think they wouldn’t call the cops. Adult porn is against the rules in most companies but not against the law.
In order of probability, I would choose threats against someone in the workplace, child porn, and threats against someone in authority.
Actually, it was child porn (apparently he had downloaded something) after all.
As I said earlier, the company must have worked out some deal where this wouldn’t go public. This was in 2012.
A friend of mine, “Layla,” worked with Reg for years, claimed that nobody knew what he had done (not that she really pursued it), and she wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. So she kept hanging out with him but never confronting him, yet all the while telling us (friends) that she didn’t know what he had done and it really bothered her. At one point, she joked, “Maybe he Jared Fogled somebody.” (I did not find this amusing.)
A mutual friend in the same industry soon found out what it was from someone in Reg’s dept. Layla didn’t seem the slightest bit fazed by this. We kept urging her to dig for info at work but she never did.
Fast forward to April 2018: Reg was arrested by his home by FBI agents, arraigned and indicted, now under house arrest, but nobody talks to him anymore, so we don’t know what the deal is. We do know that he committed multiple violations:
18:2252A(a)(5)(B),(b)(2)
Layla was a wreck over this. She asked me why they had waited so long. I said they were probably building a case.
Turns out he had retained a lawyer right after he was fired because he knew this day would come.
Layla continues to insist that she never had no clue, had no proof, and that she is a victim in all of this because she has lost Reg. I countered that the children are the real victims.
In the meantime, she told our friend “Sue” that Reg’s arrest wasn’t surprising, given the nature of his firing. 
This has been a mess, obviously.
This is like the opposite of a zombie.
That’s some fast forward, all right.
It’s a new Marvel Superhero. Fast-forward, who can travel one year into the future!
Not enough solid firsthand information. I’m not convinced you know beyond a shadow of a doubt the CP charges he’s up against have anything to do with his firing 5 years ago.
At least he has time to prepare.
At this rate, I guess she really did look eighteen to him.