Slashdot Mirror
Courts Begin To Frown On Online Badmouthing
Whistler's Mother writes: "Employers are winning key legal victories against former workers who criticize them online. Rulings in the waning days of 2001 could have a chilling effect on workers' use of cyberspace for years to come, civil libertarians say. The battle over Internet free speech also is heating up as more firms crack down on grousing by laid-off staff. Read the whole story here."
How about pheasanting?
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
...for FuckedCompany. That's their bread and butter.
-72
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
Now not only can we get laid off in massive swarms, we can also be forbidden from expressing our ideas! WOO FRICKIN HOO!
Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
Oh WAIT!!!!!
I'm sorry!
I'm sorry!
I'm sorry!
I'm sorry!
I'm sorry!
There is a difference between grousing and slander. If you have a grouse with your employer, maybe you should discuss it with your boss. If that doesn't fix the problem and there is some regulation in violation, consider whistleblowing. If you can't get away with printing it in a publication, what makes you think you can get away with it online?
You can't keep people from expressing thier opinions... of course, that doesn't mean you can chase after them if they slander you...
In other words, we already have laws to deal with this, we don't need diffrent ones.
If I need to tell the truth about an employer that I don't even work for anymore, than nobody should be able to stop it. If I quit or get fired, what more do they want? If it's true, than it's not slanderous. This sets a bad precedent: why couldn't movie studios hire thugs to make sure a given film gets a high rating...?
and has very little content.
Basically, yes, employers don't durn a blind eye to online badmouthing anymore.
Hello!!! If you make shit up and start making wild accusations at your former employer, especially if you do it in hundreds of forums and via spamming people... of COURSE they are going to do something. It amounts to you launching a negative PR campaign against them.
If you can back up everything you say, you have nothing to worry about.
The guy sent 35,000 emails to the employees of his ex-company and the court ruled that it was spam. Maybe this isn't such a landmark ruling against free speech after all.
I think anyone who's aware of the first thing about speech law knows that libel and slander are not protected by the First Amendment. If it were to be shown to be true that the managers of each company were, in fact, sexist and homophobic, then the disgruntled employees would have a fair chance at winning. Unfortunately, that kind of accusation is difficult to prove without tangible evidence, and these jokers had none.
Of course there is a ton of evidence that the Slashdot moderators are a bunch of homophobes judging by the type of comments that typically get modded down.
between defamation, libel, disclosing company sensitive information, and true grievances. There was nothing in the article to show that any of these people were airing legitimate greivances. To the contrary they stated that many of the postings were out-right lies. I would spare full comments until I knew the exact circumstances of each case.
So basically, I don't have to worry because everybody else I know badmouths them for me. :P
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's about time the corporate world enjoys some measure of protection against those who worked from within, and now work from the outside, to bring them down.
If people are badmouthing a company and the company decides to take action, then you just have to make sure that you can prove what you're saying...
How is this either
Think, people - it may be the only way to get some of these gripes to be provable.
If, on the other hand, you are genuinely offensively libeling(?) either a company or an individual in the company, don't they have rights to defend themselves?
As always, I think it comes down to how the laws are applied. And that's where I get really scared for my liberties...
but how do you prove that someone is lying about someone else being homophobic or being unfair to pregnant people. I know alot of employers that don't like to hire pregnant people because they are assured of having to take time off at some point. This isn't something you can prove. You can't prove that the guy is lying. If you have to document everything that is said not only at work, but you could get sued at home for slandering your neighbor's or whatnot, then what first ammendment exists?
"It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd, a lawyer for printCafe. "It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."
Well, what if what someone was writing was in fact true? Why can't they just state up front that they're protecting shareholder value, which everything ultimately comes down to? Whether or not something is true, they don't want to anger/upset/educate the current employees, because they fear the repercussions (especially if what is sent is truthful).
creation science book
It's rather frightening to realize that there are people who only obey the law or social norms because they are too lazy to do otherwise until internet makes it easy.
'"Officials say the postings were defamatory and a misappropriation of confidential company information...It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd..."It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."'
Interesting. So these employees are spreading 'vicious lies' that contain actual 'confidential company information'. Perhaps they're spreading 'vicious truths'?
Nick
I know that I will probably get slammed for this, but I am not sure that the article is really fair about most of the situations it's discussing. The case of the Intel employee emailing his grievances over and over to all the employees at Intel is a fine example. I don't see that what he was doing was any different than any other spammer, nor did some of the people who work there.
It's tough when people take advantage of anonymous posting to state things that they'd never be allowed to in print, since they'd be immediately sued for libel. There is no easy answer, of course, but companies should be able to stop truly libelous statements, and they should also be able to stop idiots like the Intel spammer. At least, they should be able to answer the detractors in the same public forum that the libel was stated.
I'd still rather see them able to just interleave the supposed libel with truth, which seems fair enough, rather than exposing anonymous posters. I truly prefer to protecct anonymity, even when abused, as some folk do, so that those few who truly need it will still find it available.
The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and a seal. (Mark Twain)
If someone tells the truth, that's good. If they lie. That's bad. The US legal system will make sure that no little guy who says something a big guy doesn't like will ever get a jury to decide truth or lie. The biggest legal budget will win. Moral of the story: Tell the truth at your own risk.
More firms also are taking action to unmask anonymous posters. Pittsburgh-based software firm printCafe is taking legal action to learn the identity of anonymous posters ...
... "It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."
"It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd,
That's a pretty funny quote, considering that the most legally interesting First Amendment cases are ones that involve libel (vicious lies). That aside, you have to wonder who's liable for AC postings once the forum has "forgotten" the poster's identity. Say I run a weblog, and someone posts something deeply libelous to my weblog anonymously, and I don't keep access logs, or delete them within a few weeks. Am I now responsible for the comments because I've forgotten the poster's identity?
If so, then that is going to affect... Slashdot.
If not, then every weblog in the world should stop tracking poster's information to spare themselves the legal hassle.
Another quote that bothered me:
The court ruled Hamidi's e-mails basically amounted to trespassing.
"We were very pleased. Our view is that this was the equivalent of spam,"
Well, which is it? Trespassing is illegal, and spam isn't, except in California, and certainly not in this court. If email is trespassing, how do you ask permission to send email? His email didn't even meet California's standard for spam because he wasn't trying to sell anything, and it wasn't libel because no one, not even Intel, says that we was lying.
If you can trespass with E-mail, we're going to be living in very uncertain times. Or perhaps the lesson is merely: don't mess with corporations, they bend the law to their will.
If the URL is cryptic, then it's private, e.g.: http://www.foo.net/203e29be2c571dabb41f651fdcc103/
But if it's easier to guess? What if Mike describes his experience on angrymike.com? And what if it's veryveryangrymike2002.com? Is it the number of visitors that matters?
So, it's still okay to badmouth how Slashdot editors reject all my stories, right?
"The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once." -me
"It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd, a lawyer for printCafe, ... . "It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."
What part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" don't you understand?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
These rulings may not be quite so awful. They're both a little chilling on speech, but you'll note that in both the cases cited the former employees went to extreme lengths to announce to the world their opinions. In the first case, the judge specifically noted that they "acted with malice". This does not prevent anyone from criticizing a former employer, or probably even putting up a publically-accessible website. But spewing messages across USENET or spamming the email accounts of one's former (or soon-to-be-former) employer are way out of line.
So picketing an employer you're unhappy with is illegal then? Hm, that's news to me. Probably to the AFL-CIO et. al. too.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Usually people don't have that kind of time to waste standing on a street corner, but they have some time to make a web page that says that
Now, if somebody is up there saying that their boss was on crack at work, and it wasn't true, that's another story..
Free Mac Mini
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how 14,000 posts to 100 message boards is anything but harrasment. If it were a single web page, or a couple of groups sure. I'd also require some convincing that their accusations were even honest. It sounds like they were frustrated and spammed a bunch of message boards with some inflamitory bull shit.
--
It's rather frightening that things protected by the first amendment can be made illegal. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
It's also kind of frightening that leaflets, newspapers, and megaphones today seem to be legally limited only to large corporations, and the medium with the most promise of letting the average citizen compete on an even footing is being unlawfully restrained in this manner.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
slander
1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
v. tr.
To utter a slander about.
v. intr.
To utter or spread slander.
1.
a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
b. The act of presenting such material to the public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
Jon Katz might start a lawsuit Vicious lies...
"Last month, a California appeals court ruled against a fired Intel employee, Ken Hamidi. He had sent e-mails to as many as 35,000 workers airing grievances; Intel officials say they took legal action only after asking him to stop."
(My bolding, clearly)
It seems as though the cases highlighted were approaching a point where they could be considered spam, harssment, or something like that; an unreasonable level of mails/messages, anyway. No doubt many people not reading the actual story will run away with the idea that any derogatory postings will be punished, but 1) That's stupid, and 2) It would be impossible to track the people and you know it.
Anyone sending out this much derogatory mail should expect some retaliation. And sheesh, 14,000 messages? 35,000 emails? How pissed off can a guy get (without even suing his company for something-or-other)? Never mind whether I worked for any company, if I sent out that much stuff about anyone or anything I would be surprised if they didn't want a little word in my ear.
So don't worry, you're still safe to flame Jon Katz ;-)
Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
bill gates is a cunt!!1
he likes to eat small children!!!
oh yeah, he's also a raging homersexual!!!
this information is posted by an Anonymous Coward, so it's got to be true!!
All this article means is that people in general are taking the Internet more seriously and those who abuse it for personal gain are more likely to get nailed for it. Sending 35,000 messages of a potentially libellous nature is not the same as putting up a personal opinion on a website. So is making outrageous claims based on hearsay or completely lacking in evidence.
Yes, there is sometimes a fine line between simply venting a personal opinion and libel. I don't see anything in this article that says Free Speech is in danger. Getting your panties in a bunch over this when there are far more real threats out there is folly.
We now return your knees to their previously un-jerked position.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT after you.
Our government today is almost totally owned by the corps. To the point that VERY unpopular, and illegal (If you believe at all in interpreting the Constitution as written) law like the DMCA can sail on to passage with no debate to a unanimous voice vote.
Corps don't like to be badmouthed. It used to be that courts by and large threw out almost ALL slander/libel suits brought by corporations, because libel and slander law by and large apply to PERSONS, not quasi-entities like a corp.
In these days of out of control litigation, those who can afford legal teams (like corps) can pretty much deny civil liberties to anyone who can't (like a laid off worker). This is because today, NO ONE has any rights unless cleared in a court...
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
The writeup says,
But you know, Whistler's Mother actually just cut and pasted it from USA Today's page. No thought, no additional quote marks, no attribution to the actual writer, Stephanie Armour, just a quick dump to the submission form to get their name on the Slashdot front page.
And if you think this is off-topic, we're discussing 'online publication integrity', which would include slander, libel, plagiarism and general complaining. If people would respect each others rights, and don't take the lazy or litigious way through life, then we'd actually get somewhere.
[
... Whistleblower legislation?
I believe certain countries specifically protect the livelihood of employees who call attention to illegal, improper or immoral activities? Often there is a public perception shift (e.g. slavery is now considered abhorant) but the initial persecution for people speaking out can be quite intimidating. Given that certain companies (again hersay) have a policy of not committing any sensitive information to permanent records like email, the only way is to encourage individuals to step forward and speak the "truth". Creating legal precedents which hinder the principle does not support the public good. Is shareholder value so important that you have to silence critics (both internal and external)?
Given the lack of corporate-employee loyalty, shouldn't prospective workers have a chance to study both points of view? Trial by litigation (as the modern form of trial by combat) seems a rather inefficient way of resolving such angst.
LL
In my facist startup, we pass "speech"[1] in napkin notes, rot-13ed!
/var/log/messages`.
It is a risky business, and the unfortunate[2] ones
end up in the server cell, with nothing but a terminal over null modem, and `tail -f
==
[1] Also known as "libel" and "defamation"
[2] Scott was nailed, after he posted the names of the C*Os,
in the "fuck yous" section of a cracking tutorial.
Fuck HP.
All I am saying is that if Mr. Katz leaves his job at /. he might get caught up in a legal battle, thus the lawyer.
It appears that in most cases if you slander a company, or libel a company (or officers of a company) then you should be held accountable for your actions.
Spamming 35k messages at Intel employees is not the same as saying Intel sucks, even if the message is Intel sucks. Posting 14000 messages on a message board is not the same as say walking around with a sign in front of the company.
The size of the response, even if it was technology enabled (ie, bot generated) does cross the line from being a 'Free Speech' to harassment.
If it was five or six messages that got these people in hot water then we have an issue, but let's face it, they were being vendictive online, and it got them in trouble.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
People are willing to do and say things online that they would NEVER do in person. I will not stand for my free speech to be denied, but until internet users can be better behavied we'll continue to see annoyed congress types. The internet is a public forum, and as many people have proven in the past, you can say what you want just not always in public.
If you have something to say, say it.
If you haven't, don't ruin the internet because you want attention.
:P
Fuck the fucking fuckers.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
So a company who has no legal grounds to sue an ex-employee for libel, because what the ex-employee is saying is true, uses the law to punish them by suing them for trespassing.
That's fair.
The first section talks about two employees who apparently posted several thousand messages that were not true to make the company look bad. This is illegal. It probably should be. I don't think it offends the First Amendment, though ianal.
The second is about a guy sending 35,000 people at Intel emails about how bad the company is. While I don't agree it is tresspassing, I don't see how sending thousands of emails to former coworkers is an expression of free speech. Maybe the scale of it blows the idea for me. If it was even 1,300 emails to people he at least had contact with I could understand it. Spamming the entire company isn't acceptable. Imagine all the time it would take to reinstall Windows 2000 and Exchange Server after that killed it =)
The third section is good: anonymous posters can't be unmasked unless there is proof they did something wrong. Circulating a true, but undesirable pamphlet about your former employer shouldn't be illegal unless it is false and not done in good faith. The same goes for Internet postings and judges have upheld that.
There's nothing to see here, please pass through.
#include // thank goodness!
The article mentions 3 spesific suits. I would ask you to consider what would happen if the statments made had instead been made on a major TV network. I submit that the results would have been approximatly the same.
Liable, Spreding false information with the spesific intent to devalue something, has been an exception to the First amendment from the begining. If your speach is intended to devalue something (or someones good name a.k.a. slander) you the speaker have a responsibility to speak the truth. In the first case had the defendent been able to show either that what he said was true, or that what he said was not intended to devalue the Co. he would have been found inocent.
The next case is pure spam. If this gentleman had e-mailed a few of his Co-workers he would have been ok, but the mass mailing of an entire company with anti-compant propaganda is illegal both for a former employee or anyone else.
The last one is a bit more sticky. printCafe must prove that the information on the websight is not true and intended to devalue the company. then they have a right to prosicute for Liable and therefore supina the identity of there harraser.
So what is the moral of this story. If you wnat to bad mouth your former company you may do so provided you follow the rules. If you want to lie about them do it to people who you have a personal connection with this is protected. If you want to tell everybody you must tell only the truth, and you must use only legal means of communication (ie you may violate Terms of Service, or state anti-spam laws). As long as you stick to those rules you ought to be legally ok. As always Check with a lawyer before attempting anything stupid.
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
Ok, there's been lots of post mentioning about the sheer volume of the said "libel" behavior(14000 messages on various boards, and 35000 messages to former coworkers)
This is an issue for the various boards amd the coworkers(though the latter might be a little iffy since it might involve servers owned by intel). But if the board owners doesn't mind that there is someone posting obnoxious messages on their respective message boards repeatedly then there is no issue. End of story.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Trouble is, the net isn't exactly like any of those things. It's a little like printing leaflets; it's a little like a conversation in a pub; it's a little like newspapers; it's a little like a coffee morning; it's a little like chatting to the queue at the supermarket; it's a little like carving your name on a tree; and it's a lot like something completely new.
So you can't just apply every existing law you like to it willy-nilly. Some existing laws will still be appropriate; some will best be applicable after modification; and some won't work well at all.
And then there's the problem of jurisdiction. If we here in the UK pass laws governing net use, will you in the USA abide by them? Thought not. But of course we'll need to abide by your laws, won't we...
And it gets more complicated. Who has jurisdiction if a German citizen visits Finland, dials into an Irish ISP, connects to a web site hosted in Mexico and uploads some dodgy stuff that's then downloaded by an American in Paris?...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
You make a good point in number 2.
Everyone throws those two words around like they are the same, when they aren't. But even I can't keep them straight in my head.
From Dictionary.com:
Libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. (libel is from the same the same root as 'liber' or book, hence written.)
Slander: Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. (slander is from the same root as scandal, which at the time would cause more spoken gossip than written.)
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
And I'm not karma whoring, I just love etymology. And it can be either "libeling" or "libelling", according to the above listing.
..with all these stupid lawsuits/laws being passed, it's probably a good time to get into litigation and corporate law. I wonder what these sleazeballs make per year on average.
Before anyone could become a hacker of minds who really cared about the first ammendment, but now that everyman a potential media giant by sniffing out the shit and throwing it back at them to be into competition for the sake of reliable and free flowing information, those interested into hacking minds and maintaning control will have to dig deep into their psychological warfware bag of tricks to win in the long term battle for mindshare.
--Slay the AntiChrists with your lips
I'm a libertarian (beyond even just the civil libertarian moniker). And I do believe that if you post to a website that guarantees anonymity, you should be offered the ability to air your grievances in an anonymous fashion.
OTOH, if you're fired, and you use the corporate network to send out 3500 e-mails, that IS trespass, no matter how you look at it.
We have to address these issues the same was as if you had posted an article in a newspaper (or a classified ad?).
If its slanderous or libelous, there SHOULD be warranted repercussions against the "poster." But if the poster can back up his information with fact (or if its an opinion, parody, or other 1st Amendment protected speech), I don't see how anyone has a right to prevent it.
I am up in the air about the whole "right to know" who posted an article. It doesn't make sense to me where in the Constitution it gives anyone the right to know who is passing out information... I do believe we are protected to say anything we want to as long as we aren't libelous or slanderous, and even in those situations I think the speaker has been infringed more than anyone else with these excessive 1st Amendment infringing laws.
Remember, the Bill of Rights doesn't give ANYONE a single right -- it prohibits the Government from taking away these rights. It should have been called the Bill of Prohibitions.
.. they focus on extreme cases, like people who post thousands of messages across hundreds of message boards, or that guy Intel fired who sent hundreds of emails to Intel's corporate email address book.
While I do think the cases of people getting in trouble for over-posting crosses the line of first amendment, I feel the case of the former Intel employee was justified because he was harassing Intel directly and stealing the services their email systems provided.
The article also focuses on anonymous posting, which I see as a Good Thing (tm) when used correctly (eg - whistle blowing), but is just as easy a bad thing because it opens the door for things like competitors posing as former employees and post damaging stuff about the competition. For example, while this example problably wont happen -- Ford is about to lay off 20,000 people, GM could pose as former Ford employees and forge some nasty stuff about Ford to gain ground on them.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
http://www.Taubman-Sucks.com/
http://www.giffordkrassgrohsprinklesucks.com/
He was forced to take down his original site (www.taubmansucks.com) which described in full detail, including court documents, the legal battle ensuing when a big corporation forced him to take down another web site he had produced.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Employers could do this, and they could drug test all employees, and crack down on their personal freedoms. But then what do they end up with? A group of robot employees who don't think for themselves. This can't be good for any company. Eventually they will realize this, remove the stick from their rear ends, and hire people who are not perfect, since perfect people don't exist. (Except CowboyNeal ;-)
Reality has a liberal bias
He quit?
read the stories, they were posing thousands of messages. One of the guys had posted more than 35000 messages - that sounds like spam to me..
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Look, it comes down to this: if you want to say something on your website (not an email you send to the staff), you are free to do so as long as it is
1. True
2. Not protected by a NDA or the like.
Over the past few years I've seen countless websites fall victim to corprate lawyers for one thing or another. Sites that have done nothing more than parody a company's product have fallen victim to the threats of lawsuits.
And that's where the problem lies. The threat.
Corporations know if they sue you in some district court in California, odds are you aren't going to even be able to show up to represent yourself, much less hire legal counsel to do it for you and fight a protracted battle against highly-paid corprate lawyers.
So, a letter to a website or software project leader can be as effective as a trial, because the assumption is, you are too poor to shell out tens of thousands of dollars in expenses to fight to protect your freedom of speech. Because 99.999% of the time, it is obvious to anyone that the company in question has virtually no basis for their allegiations and the potential lawsuit would be totally frivilous, yet they hold this enormous power over people with few financial resources to fight a court battle that they shouldn't even be dragged into in the first place.
Corporations use this as a weapon against all who oppose them. Piss them off....and a letter from their legal department will follow. It costs them a few dollars to have their guys fill out a form letter and post it and it protects their precious company image from all of those who wish to exercise their rights as human beings to present crticism, satire and counterpoint to the multibillion dollar PR juggernauts these companies run.
It's sick, it's sad, but there is little you can do.
But one thing you can try, is to pick out any errors in their threats. Run it by someone who knows about legal procedure. Do they say you are barred from revealing the contents of the legal threat to anyone else? (to protect their image, no doubt). Well, fuck them. Unless they have a court order, there is no way they can impose such terms on you. Did you sign an agreement with them? No? Then let people know what they are doing. Write a letter to their state bar assoication's ethics department. Do this every single time for any **valid** reason you can scrounge up. Eventually, the complaints might just pile up.
It's our only hope against these tyrants.
Sad, but true.
My pr0n folder currently contains 4,072,014,057 bytes (3.79GB) of pr0n. That's 59,061 files in 3,267 folders! My pr0n collection has actually tripled in filesize in the past six months alone, because this past fall I finally got DSL (w00t!). Broadband is wonderful for trolling TGPs, but it really pays off when download movies. DSL has revolutionized my wack-off experience almost as much as the Windows 2000 thumbnail image gallery feature.
When you have as much smut as I do, proper organiztion is essential. I won't reveal my porn-ganization secrets any more than I'll reveal my favorite download sites, but anyone with any common can develop a similar system. My only advice is, every three months or so, go through your archives and reorganize if necessary. For instance... if you've recently started collecting more black lesbian porn, where does it go? Under "black?" Under "lesbian?" Should you create a new category, "black lesbians?" This process is time consuming due to your tendency to start masturbating after ten minutes of work, but is well worth it in the long run!
I invite other trolls to post their pr0n statistics. And please, no exaggeration -- I'm really curious how much pr0n the average Slashdot troll has!
-- The_Messenger
"that don't fit the good ol boys profile. "
as opposed to hiring fucking retards who spend half of their life ranting against social order they are beneficiaries of ?
~~~
"Well, what if what someone was writing was in fact true? "
Compete ?
Are that stupid?
Corporations are FUCKING PEOPLE.
Gee, some people definately do not deserve to live.
I went to a school called Wesley College located in Dover, Delaware (In my opinion, you should go there as I think it is a wretched excuse for a college). We in the student government found out the President was using our student activity money to pay off some private lands, we called them on it and the administration was out to get each on of us. I made a webpage detailing these facts and I was promptly kicked out of school and they threated to sue me for "disparagement of business" meaning I was badmouthing them and costing them money (it was a private school). No real moral to the story here, I contacted the ACLU about suing for freedom of speech, but again it was a private school, and appealing the suspension would have kept me out of school too long. Turns out it was the best mistake I ever made, I transferred to Arizona State and had a grand old time. But look for a lot of these business to claim "disparagement of business", or a similar applicable law in your state, to try and shut you up. Be steadfast and speak your mind, it is your God given right. I'm glad I spoke up about Bad Things.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
CmdrTaco: "Fuck Burger King!"
Police: "Sir, I'm afraid you'll have to come with me..."
"Who has jurisdiction if a German citizen visits Finland, dials into an Irish ISP, connects to a web site hosted in Mexico and uploads some dodgy stuff that's then downloaded by an American in Paris?... "
Simple , the one with the biggest gun.
Dare to prove otherwise ??
I don't see anything wrong with what has happened.
I think this is a case of the people involved being way to stupid for their own good!! If they had just post a couple of time would they get in this much trouble? I doubt it! But to post it 14,000 times!! What were they thinking?? And to email 35,000 people, which I'm sure a lot of he would never have met, but did so just cause he could!
These people got what they deserved! They were just stupid!!
sorry bout that, got a little worked up.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
I'm saying if these people can't prove the management said this or that, or did this or that, then they are labled as telling "vicious lies". Because they have no proof of what they are saying, they get tried for liable, so the point I was trying to make is, wouldn't it really suck to go around having to document that this manager did this or said that before you made a statement so that they can't say that you are lying. Just a thought.
For instance, I know the best defense against a libel charge is that what was said is the truth. Lucent Technologies (to pick a name out of the hat) would have trouble making a libel charge stick if I were to mention that they were doing so badly for awhile that upper management wouldn't approve a ~$20 expenditure for some extension cords to relieve the fire hazard of 10 workstations chained into one 3-hole outlet.
Also, there was plenty of sofware burned onto CDs going around the company, apparently without valid licenses (although to be fair, just because the managers didn't show some of the employees valid licenses doesn't mean that none exist).
Anyway, the evidence and probable testimony from former and current employees would be enough to establish truth, and therefore nullify a libel charge. But what's defamation and how is it different?
-Legion
There, is that enough badmouthing for ya? Too bad I'm an AC.
...y'know what I say: "Fuck the courts!"
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I would like to announce a giant FUCK YOU to the governments of the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
...these particular cases don't worry me too much. Consider:
Let's face it, folks: there is no right to anonymity. Check the Constituion if you want. It's not there. Come to think of it, there's no right to privacy either, but that's a different debate. The whole notion of rights is based on assumptions about responsible use of those rights; check Locke et al for that one. The right to free speech does not imply the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater (Oliver Wendell Holmes, I think); similarly, it does not imply the right to commit libel or breach a valid confidentiality clause in an employment contract. Non-competes might be unenforceable, but that's totally irrelevant; the validity of confidentiality as a term of any valid contract has never been seriously challenged in the courts.
Now, should employers be able to punish employees for statements made on their own time, at their own expense (if any), that are neither libelous nor a breach of confidentiality? That's a whole different question. So far the answer is no, and so far the law still recognizes that. Don't count on that lasting very long, but that's the way it is today; none of the case in the article imply otherwise. The only thing that's threatened by such precedence is the non-existent but much-presumed right to be an anonymous asshole, and the quicker people learn that they have no such right the better.
P.S. For those who are using this as an excuse to go on an anti-corporatist rant, consider this: if a company posted 14,000 defamatory messages about an employee, they'd be just as liable. The only reason we don't hear about such cases is that such behavior requires a certain level of obsession, and companies tend toward a shortage rather than an excess of attention paid to employees.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
The objectionable thing about the article is that it lumps together widespread legitimate grievances--including pregnancy discrimination, which is highly illegal and rampantly practiced -- with the blundering manner in which these fools from Intel handled their comparatively petty grievances (and the high-handed manner in which the company dealt with it--tells you something right there, doesn't it?).
Lame newspaper articles like this misrepresent how widespread serious wrongdoing on the part of employers can be successfully reduced. Yes, keeping notes on what people actually say and do, and when they say and do things, backed up by tape recordings if possible--these are extremely important. IANAL but it is legal in many states to tape someone without their knowledge--you only need the permission of *one* party to the call in certain states.
Why not tape/video managers engaging in illegal discrimination (e.g. recommending hiring and promotion decisions on the basis of a female candidate's marital status or potential for childbearing, telling racist jokes, etc.), put it up on an overseas page anonymously, and publicize its whereabouts anonymously?
Then it's not "badmouthing"--it's just letting the perpetrators of the real injustices speak for themselves.
Oh, by the way, the jurisdiction that applies in taping phone conversations is the state from which the call was made. So if you want to catch them on tape...so make the call from New York, not Maryland, eh? If Susie in marketing calls you crying that she's about to get canned because her boyfriend started beating her, and she broke up with him, but he's the Big-ass VP of somethingorother and now he wants to get rid of her because she's left him, and she's in Maryland and you're in New York? Tell her you'll call her right back, and get your tape recorder ready, because you is about to gather some EVIDENCE. Bob calls you in the NY office from Chicago and wants you to look for a replacement for Charlene "black and pregnant...AGAIN" whom you KNOW hasn't announced any intention to resign (and whom you know definitely can't *afford* to lose her programming job, which she does admirably) tell Bob, "I'll call you right back" and get out your tape recorder, because guess what? You're about to get him to incriminate himself and probably about three or four of his higher-ups.
But AAWWWW stuff like this goes on all the TIME! you say. Yeah. THAT'S THE POINT. It shouldn't.
Obviously, retaliation for objection to an unlawful practice is itself also illegal -- it will not stop them trying, however. If you've ever observed the "we've got deep pockets and you don't" yawning response large companies have to grievants, you'll realize that for every case that even gets mentioned to your union rep, hundreds of cases with merit have been quashed. Make no mistake: even the way these incidents are reported are intended to put a chilling effect on the legitimately aggrieved.
This is what they're *really* scared of: You can get more with a kind word, an incriminating tape recording and a kick-ass lawyer than you can get with just a kind word. Especially if you are able to put up an MP3 of their company's proudest moments up on the web.
So it's not about whether one loose cannon has the right to tell lies on the internet. It's whether the vast majority of the legitimately aggrieved will be empowered against companies which can and do discriminate unlawfully (and rarely even in their own best interests!). Obviously, in the face of this kind of closing ranks among the private sector, the courts, and the fourth estate, anyone attempting to face down a serious injustice needs to work smarter not harder.
I recommend that before you talk to your boss, if you have any serious complaint, that you have a new job not only lined up, but with a signed contract.
Actually, I recommend that you not talk too bluntly even then. Remember, you're going to want good references.
In an employer-employee discussion, all the aces are with the employer. With that kind of power imbalence, it may not be wise to do something to offend the (fill in your favorite adjective).
And even before this decision, the cards were stacked in favor of the employer, even after the employment has been terminated.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The danger is when employees are forced to sign documents which they otherwise might not, simply because the other three guys who interviewed for the job were willing to sign it. This is increasingly common, the only good solution to this problem is either to prevent employers from discriminating against those who won't sign certain types of NDA (just as they can't discriminate against people on the basis of their sex or race), or to educate people such that nobody will accept signing an over-broad NDA (the former is more realistic).
But what can one do about anonymous slander (a la FuckedCompany?) Even if one could get a court order for Pud to cough up some records I doubt there's even records to cough up.(And an IP address and posting time would be brutally difficult to track down, especially if a week has passed and there's no logs.)
Cowardly anonymous lies and slander online can be every bit as damaging to a person or company, yet recourse seems impossible?
Should web sites be held accountable for anonymous posters? I'm all for freedom of speech, but people should be held accountable when it reaches the point of slander, whether anonymity is attempted or not.
I can understand why the decision in, at least some of these cases, came down the way it did. And if it didn't create precedent, then I'd say it was reasonable.
Unfortunately courts have a tendency to decide in the same way that courts have previously decided. And generalizations from these cases would be vile indeed. We can hope that this won't happen, but recent history does not give cause for us to expect great things. Power is being centralized. It doesn't matter which party is in, they just emphaise things differently. They both act to centralize power and they don't overturn that acts of the prior party which also centralized power.
I'm not always sure that conscious evil is involved. I'm certain of the long term effects.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
But then what do they end up with? A group of robot employees who don't think for themselves. This can't be good for any company.
You've never worked in retail, have you?
"There's nothing wrong with standing on a street corner with a megaphone saying that my ex-employer laid me off and I think they suck for doing so.."
Yes, but it WOULD be wrong if you stood out front and said that they were homophobes, or discriminated against women, and it WAS NOT TRUE. Just like it would be illegal for your employer to post on the front of their web site that you were fired for peddling kiddie porn via corporate servers, and were really just laid off because the company was running out of money.
The street works both ways. Neither of theirs are cases in which someone was out there spreading the truth in a journalistic intent, these cases are merely sophomoric harassment, and garner no protection under our laws.
Look around! Everywhere you look freedom is slowing being eroded. Courts are ruling against the people. Congress and the President are passing laws against the people. WHY? Because the people are LETTING THEM!! "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence".
IMHO, one of the problems with our society, and with our planet is that people don't use their brains. Imagine how history would have been different if a few people in Germany had questioned their leaders in the 1930s. (To cite the most extreme example)
Reality has a liberal bias
Its important to note here that there are two different standards for libel.
If the plaintiff is a public figure (and it is probably fair to say that a publicly traded corporation is), then that plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, that is, that the defendant was aware at the time of publication that the statement was false.
If the defendant is not a public figure (and some mid-level manager is probably not one), then the plaintiff must only show defamation by the defendant.
Of course, who is a public figure and who is not is a tricky point that is not well defined.
The messages accused managers of being homophobic and of discriminating against pregnant women, officials say.
Lesson One: If you say something libelous, you may be liable to receive notice of a libel suit, mm-kay?
"Companies have a free hand to tout their organizations," says defendant Michelangelo Delfino. "A little guy like me comes along and says 'I disagree' or 'the CEO is ignorant,' and I'm squished. It's a free-speech issue."
Lesson Two: Disgruntled former employees seldom have nice things to say about their former employers, mm-kay?
He had sent e-mails to as many as 35,000 workers airing grievances; Intel officials say they took legal action only after asking him to stop.
Lesson Three: If you are doing something so obnoxious as spamming your former employer, stop when they ask you to, mm-kay? This is just like the rule not to pee in the pool, mm-kay, and it has nothing to do with you personally, or your grievance against your employer, mm-kay?
Saying the ruling stifled free speech, some civil libertarians predict the decision will be used by other companies that want to bar former workers from e-mailing staffers.
Lesson Four: Civil libertarians always say that, but that's a good thing, mm-kay, even when they're wrong, mm-kay? Whatever you think of their views, start worrying when you don't hear from them at all anymore on things like this, mm-kay?
"It could prevent organizing between former and current employees," says Ann Beeson, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. "They allow hundreds of non-work-related e-mail to reach employees, but they singled out this one guy."
Lesson Four: If you're a spammer, and you really want to get noticed, include libelous statements about specific individuals or organizations in your spam. Not only will your name get mentioned in the news, but your marketing message might even get shown on TV! MMMMMM-KAY!!
Edith Keeler Must Die
You mean like Hitler?
Why don't you cite an example you're actually familiar with instead of Godwinizing your own argument?
That's not right, in general. Except regarding a "matter of public concern," the plaintiff does not need to show that the statement was false. Rather, truth is an absolute defense: if the defendant can prove the statement was true, he escapes all liability. But the plaintiff can win not only if the defendant was not at fault, but even if the factfinder is unconvinced as to whether the published material was false at all.
The definition of "public concern" is obviously not simple, but there are relatively few cases governed by the negligence standard: most defamation involving non-public figures does not involve "public concern." The typical case that does is the private figure involved in some way with a story about a public figure.
Lionel Hutts, J.D.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
Other have already noticed this, but the article was totally devoid of facts arount the case:
1. Varian case: 14,000 messages is huge effort, but if the claims were both pretty hard to call one way or the other... For all we know, the manager accused of be homophobic may have been gay, or something like that. There could be something wrong there, but we weren't given enough info to tell.
2. Intel case: I may be remembering this wrong, but all Intel went after and got was a court order to stop sending e-mail. I don't think it was a lawsuit...
3. printCafe: They haven't won this case, yet. They haven't even gotten the court to tell them who it is, yet. Companies have been trying to do this all along, until they succeed (when they shouldn't), it doesn't contribute to the conclusion.
Bottom line, there is no trend to back up the article's claim, MAYBE one case...
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Well, it looks like I'm finished.
People disgruntled with their current or former employers should consider using Freenet to espress their grievances.
With Freenet, strong encryption and sophisticated routing ensures the near-impossibility of determining the actual author of anything published.
Also, with the growing number of websites with public Freenet gateway pages, it's almost as good as publishing on the web anyway.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Folks, you're not going to get even 1/10 of the story from usatoday.com
1 _a ppellate_decision.html
Go here for a legal brief on what happened with Intel :
http://www.eff.org/Cases/Intel_v_Hamidi/2001121
The bottom line is that this 'person' that Intel stereotypes as if he were a mass junk mailer, was in fact representing a large number of Intel employees.
You can pretty much expect large corpse to lie, and lie a lot, and squash little people with their big corporate lawyers and their fund raisers for politicians and unsrupulous judges.
The people ultimately have the power, but that is only useful if they (you!) use their critical thinking skills and dont buy off into mass media spin doctoring and lying corporates.
In order to prove your statements are true you need to pick up a roster of Execs and board members of the company suing you.
Then, when you get your day in court, call each to the stand one by one and let the fun begin.
Start with the obligatory "Have you ever kissed a man?" question to show the obvious homophobia. Move on to "Have you slept in the same bed as another man?" and "Do you prefer to shower at the gym or at home." At this point the exec should be squirming, but they have to answer each question truthfully so that you can show they are homophobic SOBs.
Have a list of every pregnant person the company has fired and grill the exec on how well they new these people. Find and present each execs alimony/child support payments or lack thereof to show a pattern of contempt for the endless task of motherhood. Call in each of the CEOs five ex-wives so they can spill the beans also.
There's no end to how fun a lawsuit can be. Proving what you know to be true can be an engaging barrel of laughs.
I had copied the html, but 'tis long gone now. This was back in '95 so it was pretty much just text, it gave a simple overview of what was going on at the school, I've since gotten rid of everything that was even associated with the school, but I was amazed how vigorously they pursued the issue. College Campuses are supposed to be the bastion of free speech, but they are now simply machines, give us your money and we'll give you a piece of paper saying how smart you are so once you do something to possibly threaten the cash flow, I've sinced learned will draw the ire of the President and Dean *grin*
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Not only are the employee's in the article participating in slander and libel what they were doing was abuse. 14000 emails is a little more than just free speach. Not to mention sending and email to 35,000 employees at Intel. Come on these people were loosers and there is a reason they lost this case.....they deserved to loose.
There is a fine line between free speech and abuse in these cases....and they abused that line.
Today the US Supreme Court held an unprecedented press conference, clarifying certain important issues in the Constitution.
"After completing several years of scholarly research and deliberation, it turns out we were wrong. The First Amendment is actually all about a FREE PEACH." said head Justice William H. Rehnquist.
"So therefore," continued Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "we will be issuing no further judgements that allow anyone to say what they want." She paused to take a large noisy bite from a delicious peach and let the juice run down her chin. "Mmm, free peach." Justice Clarence Thomas nodded in agreement as he recalled the beautiful peach groves in his home town of Savannah Georgia.
"In fact, anyone who wants to say something, will have to pay us first. The highest bidder will win any case that comes before us." O'Connor added between mouthfuls. "It was quite amusing to think that we actually wasted so much time and split so many hairs on this subject before. Now the free market can work its magic."
The Supreme Court also will soon be issuing notices to all newspapers and web sites, informing them that they are now under control of the government.
Furthermore, all peach growers will be subsidized by the government, so that all citizens may enjoy their right to free peach.
Anyone criticizing these changes will be shot.
The danger is when employees are forced to sign documents which they otherwise might not, simply because the other three guys who interviewed for the job were willing to sign it. This is increasingly common, the only good solution to this problem is either to prevent employers from discriminating against those who won't sign certain types of NDA (just as they can't discriminate against people on the basis of their sex or race), or to educate people such that nobody will accept signing an over-broad NDA (the former is more realistic).
What if I'm making a statement like this: [true]
My former uber-boss Colleen Carr, of the Cincinnati Enquirer, knew not only about the supervisor sleeping with sales reps [which is strictly forbidden in the handbook!], but that she let the woman [Kim Gordon] keep her job after she slept with someone under age! That is plain illegal in this state. Not only did she not report the situation to the police, but she let her keep her job.
There are also rumors that she was going to fire a whistle blower. The whistle blower was a beloved co-worker and, to our knowledge, quit before she could have been fired.
So basically I can't say this? Oh, ok I can say this because I've not e-mailed the company, lied, acted with malice [maybe a little[JOKE!]], or tried to be anonymous. [e-mail me Enq, if you want].
So I'm safe because the story is true and they won't want to bring it up in court since they could be sued, and the whole story would come out
Get your Unix fortune now!
I know I am.
I just wish that people didn't have to waste points modding people like that down.
I think that anyone with a link to goatsex in their post should be perminately modded down to -1 and not be able to be modded up.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Always amazed me that once could preach freedom of speach, and not believe it.
When are they going to ban preaching freedom of speech?
Please terminate paranioa() at favourite recursion level
IMHO, one of the problems with our society, and with our planet is that people don't use their brains. Imagine how history would have been different if a few people in Germany had questioned their leaders in the 1930s. (To cite the most extreme example)
They would have been shot.
IIRC Roe vs. Wade was argued on the basis of a right to privacy.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Basically, it looks like this is what you get when you take a group of kids and let them run around in the court system. IMHO, Delfino should have grown up and just walked away - when you get fired from a job, for whatever reason, it's really stupid to sue for your job back. Sue for damages, sure, but for crying out loud don't work for people that you know hate you!
The relevance to the internet is extremely minor. Most of the activity regarding this case occurred on the job, and simply dragged on in various message boards on the internet.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge SPAM?
No, I'm trying to tell you that when your legal team is ready, you won't have to.
This drug testing business is fairly tightly related to the US of A and would (indiscrimenately and on a large scale) quite likely be illegal throughout the EU.
Besides that, it's just outright rediculous. You catch a guy, who commited the horrible crime of smoking a doobie four weeks ago, while the cop with a serious booze problem (and a loaded gun on his side) or the air traffic controller with a knack for pills goes undetected.
And before somebody chimes in with the usual crap. No I don't appreciate to be flown by a pilot who has smoked some nice, orginically grown weed. Same as I don't apreciate pilots who drink, take mind altering pills, let their 15 year old son fly an Airbus or fscked their brains off all night instead of getting sleep prior to a flight.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
At one point, yes. "A few people" isn't enough. It would have taken a significant percentage of the popularity not to fall for Hitler's populism. But the basic idea is correct.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
If the biggest gun is nukes then are three of those that have the biggest gun (remember MAD?)
/Mikael Jacobson
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
ISP would inter-cooperate by putting up an alternate default gateways that NATed everything behind it. This gateway would, in turn, route packets through to another ISP's default NATing gateway. Taffic issues? Have the edge ISP alternate NATing gateways round robbin (through gateways on other continents) through a list of 100s of second level NATing gateways. The edge ISP could offer the alternate NATing gateway with no service guarantees.
You want anonymity. Just click on a button or manually change your default gateway (without having to log out or reauthenticate).
I think every ISP should be required by law to have one of these alternate NATing gateways!
Back on 3rd Oct a post was made to the Irish Linux Users Groups Social Mailing list supplying simply the URL errorcom.com. Unfortunatley within about 48 hours the site was gone. A bit of digging discovered that the site was created by a minor and one phonecall to the person whose credit card purchased the domain from Irelands former/still monopolistic telco who it was parodying had the site taken down :-( Now luckily there are lots of people in Ireland who care about the state of our telecommunications industry so mirrors sprang up nearly instantly, but alas the domain is gone. You can see the site at here as it was mirrored right/left and center within minutes of going down, because every Irish telecoms user can see the humour! If you want to see some more of it yourself you may also want to look at Eircom themselves and maybe Irish Director of Telecommunications Regulations.
The key here is that one phonecall which stated the site was "very offensive" and threatened to take further action and this fair satire dissappeared in a puff of smoke. To prove how important this site was, please find the I-Stream which was set to Launch at the Beginning of November (amidst publicity, freephone publicity numbers +3531800512128. Unfortunatley as Eircom knew would happen the ODTR prevented the launch as Eircom had not agreed wholesale prices for the I-Stream Service. As Errorcom carefully informs you, I-Stream is a Eircom brand name for the broadband technology commonly known as Always Delayed Slightly Longer. At the current time the service is still not open for business, and will not be for at least one month after the agreement of wholesale structures by Eircom and the ODTR (so it is back to at least 8th February but more likely 6-12 months time).
It's time lawyers were employed by the courts, this sort of legal posturing and bullying based not on the law but how it can be used is wrong.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Boy, some of you guys are going to look like monkeys on crack when they start searching through old slashdot stories.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
... or else Bank of America would no longer have a presence in Tampa.
Just from experience... The best way to defend against things like cease & desist letters is to simply post them on the site in question.
Its amazing how fast a cease & desist letter from company X can instantly become a PR nightmare.
If you had enough readership to get the company's attention in the first place, you probably have enough eyballs to really make a dent in their reputation. If this starts to happen to just about every company that frivulously sends cease & desist letters, maybe they'll start to slow down and THINK before they act.
For example, before sexual harassment became a millions-of-dollars problem to companies, no company paid any attention to it. Now when they hear "sexual harassment" everything stops and they proceed with caution, making all the necessary checks to assure they're not at fault. Maybe some day "freedom of speech" could be like that and companies won't be so quick to bully the innocent.
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
> Imagine how history would have been different
> if a few people in Germany had questioned their
> leaders in the 1930s.
Or you can imagine how our future could be different if a few more people in the USA would question their leaders RIGHT NOW.
If the messages are classified as spam, and it's a matter of spam and not of free speech, as the company states, I can't understand why the company is wasting money to defend the rights of other people (the ones that receive the spam!). May I call them when I receive spam so that they do the lawjob for me? The arguments of the company to avoid being called "anti-free speech company" are rubbish! Employers are not against spam, they are just against any damage to their corporate image.
Boy, some of you guys are going to look like monkeys on crack when they start searching through old slashdot stories.
...
Yeah, like they'd hire anyone with weird names like xdroop or pyramid termite anyway
Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement.
Is there a reason why a corporation shouldn't be considered a public figure here? Aren't they "well-known" and often involved in "specific public controversies"? Has anyone ever attempted to argue this in a libel case?
You missed the last half of it: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That means you would show your employer respect whether or not he respects you. That's what the majority of people miss when they think of that piece of scripture. Only doing good to other people who do good to you is simply selfishness.
Godwin's law is stupid, and I don't follow it.
The events of WWII can often be cited as a good example in many different types of arguments.
Reality has a liberal bias
Thats always been the requirement for court action.
The cases sited here have been false and damaging.
Electronic communication accelerates the making of claims and discovery of prepetrators.
"You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it!"
From "Know Your Rights" by The Clash
You know, this blows. I can list companies on one hand that could use some bad mouthing to change thier best practices (worst practices) in regards to employees and missions. Now, if we can't voice our opinions because we can't afford the right to defend ourselves, what is that telling our kids? Sorry, son, you have to wear this gag because the WeSaySo Corp doesn't want you to critisize them. It's one thing to critisize a company when you're working for them, quite another when you aren't. Orson Wells didn't have a clue.
I guess fuckedcompany will have to change its name to monetarilychallengedcompany.
All former employee comments will state something to the nature: "I am angry, but thats OK!"
The company I work for has done nothing but lose stock and become even more of a horrible work environment. Some of the pissed off employess started http://joelkocher.com (Joel Kocher) is our new CEO. When the site is up it's pretty funny and includes a shockwave rap of our bafoon CEO.
Companies like people have a need and a right to protect themselves against libel and spam. The story cited above is bogus. There's got to be real stories out there (given the general sliminess of many corporations).
where the loser of a lawsuit can be (and usually is) held liable for the winner's court costs. What this prevents is blatant misuse of the legal system. If you really have a strong case and know you will win, then by all means take it to court... if you are on shaky legal ground you had better think twice about it 'cause you can wind up paying the whole tab.
Like them or not, Labor Unions are the only thing that keep employers in check. I've worked both as a Union member, and as a Non-Union member and having been on every side of the fence I can promise you being Union is definately the best position to be in, esspecially if you have a good union with good member participation. That's key, without there is no Union and you can't reap the benefit of organized labor.
Like it or not the only real thing keeping employers in line is that they need employees to get the work done. Labor unions don't always do the job. There are a lot of examples world-wide of unions (eg, most Japanese labor unions) that are virtual mouthpieces of the employer and there are a lot of examples of labor unions (in the US) that don't have the interests of their members at heart. Why should I belong to a labor union if the only thing it's doing is taking a piece of my paycheck?
For example, the Teamsters and the AFL/CIO both were controlled pretty much by the Mob (you might recall the missing Jimmy Hoffa) during the 60's (and probably much earlier). It was only with the clean-up at the FBI (due to the death of J. Edgar Hoover, a Mob stooge) that law enforcement really started to fight criminal infiltration of US labor unions. One wonders if the decline in power of US labor unions is due to aggressive employers or to the fact that they no longer are a revenue producing device for organized crime.
I guess it depends on the industry. I have mobility so I don't need labor unions. My suspicion is that this is the case for most jobs in the US.
Yet again someone seems to be making the assumption that there is such a thing as absolute freedom of speech in the US. There isn't and there never has been absolute freedom of speech in this country.
Also....your quoted text is irrelevant because Congress isn't making any law in these cases to bar free speech.
Please look up 'slander' or 'libel' in a dictionary and then tell me if you think there arent already laws on the books that prevent certain types of speech. The point you seem to be forgetting is that people are pretty much free to say whatever they wish....that doesn't mean they won't have to face consequences for doing so (as in the oft-used 'yelling fire in a theater' example).
My blog: http://jkratz.dyndns.org/~jason/blog/
...for the republic and those who cherish freedom. Like Kurt Vonnegut says - give to the ACLU. It is not charity but insurance for freedom of speech.
However, printCafe's chances of actually getting any useful info are slim to none, as long as FC functions like its admin claims. Thing is, FC bulletin boards are (supposed to be) completely anonymous; no need to login, web server logs are either disabled or kept to minimum, and hopefully purged daily if any are stored in the first place. It is possible to create a registered account, but that's just storing name/pw pairs, no additional contact info is asked (or stored I hope). I don't think ISPs by default log contents of traffic flowing between web servers and clients, so at best printCafe could perhaps obtain list of IP-addresses of people who have browsed FC. With the volume FC gets proving that a single user (deduced from an IP-address; possible if they get lucky) actually wrote one of the messages specifically mentioned is... well, quite a task, and should be legally next to impossible to prove effectively enough (in civil suit I guess they don't need "beyond reasonable doubt" but still).
Of course I have no inside info on how it REALLY works, ie. are www-server logs directed to /dev/null or not... but it is much more anonymous than, say, Slashdot.
It's a good reminder, though, for all admins of anonymous chat rooms/bboards; companies will try to get info from your system via legal system. About the only sure way to prevent that is to get rid of that information (not collect in the first place being better than rm'ing it later on).
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
I can't believe you are saying that the relevant issue here is whether they spoke to a small or a large audience, and the implication is that a statement about a company that is okay with a small audience is not with a large one. Imagine if, for example, you were allowed to point out flaws in Microsoft OS's only if you don't spread the information too widely - a scary precedent. No, ALL THAT MATTERS in this case is whether the statements they wrote are true. If so, then they have every right to publicly decry their former employer. If not, then they are guilty of slander. That's all that matters. The size of the audience does not.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The thing that bothers me the most about complaints of indecency on the Internet is apparent ignorance to the difference between going out and looking for a certain kind of information, and having that information shoved in your face.
Suppose you're walking down the street in the city with your kids. That building to your right is a local strip joint. That's okay, though, because rather than having half-naked girls outside the buildings actively trying to attract patrons, the strip joint simply lets the customers come to it.
This is comparable to the difference between porn spam and a porn site. Granted, I don't morally approve of either, but porn sites are all right because people have to come to _them_ if they're going to get smuthered in smut. They have to first send a request to the site's server before receiving any "improper material".
Porn spam, on the other hand, actively looks for people, and I would say such mail violates the rights of minors (and others, for that matter) on the Internet because it causes people to be exposed to things they may be uncomfortable with without such materials being expressly requested.
So stop the spam; I'm all for it. But I still believe that people running servers on the Internet, just as people running outfits on the city streets, have the right to show their patrons whatever they want, as long as they don't actively seek people on the outside.
where the loser of a lawsuit can be (and usually is) held liable for the winner's court costs. What this prevents is blatant misuse of the legal system.
Except in that case, if the ??AA wins a case on grounds of an unjust law or a technicality, it can overbill its lawyers through creative accounting to run up legal fees. I'd suggest that in cases where one party's ability to pay is orders of magnitude larger than the other's, basing part of the legal fees on ability to pay may have merit.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I would only support such a system if there was a reasonable cap on how much lawyer fees you would be responsible for if you lose. Otherwise you can scare people into not suing by threatening to hire really expensive lawyers - leading to uneven stakes - if the company loses it takes on the piddly additional cost of the individual's small-time lawyer. If the individual loses he takes on the additional cost of the company's big-name expensive lawyers, and he knows he can't take that risk.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The first myth of anarchy is that it is possible.
In an anarchy, either the bullies start rising to the top and taking over, and then *poof* - no more anarchy, or the decent folk band together to stop the bullies and then that banding together becomes the framework for a new government, and *poof* no more Anarchy.
SOMEONE will be "in charge", whether we like it or not. The question is, what criteria is best for determining who that ends up being? THAT is what all the different systems of government are about. The dream of no government is a myth. Ideally, the best system is one in which companies are open to operate as they wish with ONE very big exception - the government forcing them to keep a level playing field that prevents monopolization.
(Monopolization happens when the setup is such that past success ends up being a guarantee of future success, so that once a company rises to the top they are no longer beholden to the same market forces that put them there.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The circle model is better than the line, but still not very good. ANY model is going to be terrible because in reality there are multiple axes of swinging opinions on different issues and this is impossible to graph given the difficulty with drawing an N-dimensional graph for N > 3.
The realistic model isn't possible in 3-D space.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
and all this time it was "Do unto others before they do unto you"
How wrong I was.
The previous has been a secret message to my comrades.
Looks like the courts are going to have to cram it. They wrote the law that says we can say what we want. It's too bad the nation doesn't have the b@lls to stand up to a government that's walking all over us. We're too busy paying the hefty penalties so Mr. Jollypants can stuff his pockets with a little more green. Washington was right, we shouldn't have formed political parties and definately not become the world's referee. Fighting other people's wars is not our business. If the courts don't like what I have to say, go find a hobby...
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
I like what I saw recently on "Justice League". An advanced civilization has gotten rid of the lawyer problem. The solution: the losing lawyer(s) faced the same penalty as the loser. It would certainly cut down on the abundance of hungry lawyers. :)
Simple.
The German is *in* Finland, and is therefore bound by Finnish laws. The American would be bound by French law.
When you are in another country and do something that is illegal in that country, it is still illegal and you can still be prosecuted.
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
If a defendant ever successfully uses the "but I turned the apache log directive off" defense, you can bet that a law will be passed that requires all server operators to keep logs. Too onerous, you say? No more so than collecting income taxes from every person in the country, or other such tasks.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Fuckedcompany.com offers a subscription service whereby a paying customer has access to all the 'tips' that Phil "Pud" Kaplan receieves on a daily basis. Since these are 'publicly available to subscribers,' is this information considered 'non public information' for securities regulation purposes? Can you use it to buy/sell securities, especially short/on margin, for profit without being guilty of 'insider trading?'
- Done on purpose, to uphold anonymity / privacy of the sources for the newspaper (web sites possibly being included in the same category), or
- Done to save disk space
No one really knows how judges would react (umh, well, unfortunately I can guess... those dirty little foolmouthed slanderers says the judge), but there's nothing obviously wrong here.And, well, if some day courts will force normal people to act as snitches for police (mandatory web logs, to be stored for N years), then we'll have to cope with that. For now there is no such requirement. And to always keep logs just to prevent log-keeping from being mandatory doesn't sound good to me?
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
How the story is written appears to presume that this means some think to express hyperemployee concerns is of argument within court.
IANAL, but if you ...win in court and end up bankrupt due to legal fees. Then the loser pays your legal fees.
Wil,
m
I have a question for you, which is somewhat related to this. As an actor, are you also subject to these kind of restrictions on speech? Not only for fear of being sued, but even the simpler reason that it could affect your career?
For example, you had posted a glowing comment about the quality of the Star Trek : Nemesis script on your website. I don't doubt that you thought the script was great, but your opinion seems to be in the minority compard to other script reviews I have seen - for example, see this one:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/reviews/t010815a.ht
this is no hack review - its a well thought out piece by someone who is a fan and who has made a comprehensive analysis compared to previous films in the franchise. I urge you to read it and comment, I am extremely interested in your rebuttal.
In a related question: Do you feel obligated to promote the script? Suppose you had thought the script sucked donkey balls, would you be comfortable expressing those opinions? This is a moot question since you liked the script anyway, but (especially in light of the main topic) there's a murky interface between you as an actor, participating in a production of Paramount's intellectual property, and you as an individual with a website and a clever nick name (sic.) on Slashdot.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
oh, yeah? well fuck my former employers. they suck. *shrug?* i don't get it. this'll never be 'law'; it infringes too much on freedom of speech. telling the honest-to-god truth about your evil former employers is necessary to the working man's freedom in the capitalist system.
besides;
the simple fact that you have former employers is testament to the fact that they are stupid assholes who couldn't hold onto you. what the fuck; are they going to sue you for firing you?!?!?!?!!? what the FAAWWWKKK!?!?!?!? give me a fucking break already. go pass the bar or something, bored asshole.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee