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."

Comments

Re:Slander

[Detritus]

The problem is that you can sued for making true statements that some corporation or wealthy individual finds inconvenient or offensive. Do a google search on SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) or see this. You may win in court and end up bankrupt due to legal fees.

Found references to Varian case

[Chagrin]

The litigation on this one is extremely long, starting with the wrongful firing by Varian Medical Systems (as ruled in court) of Michelangelo Delfino. Michelangelo's site regarding the case is at geocities. It's long, really silly (includes "harassment" claims of Michelangelo making funny faces and "phone gestures" - one Varian manager complains in a deposition that Delfino holds up his hand to his ear like he's talking on the phone when he passes her office), and continually goes back and forth with wins on Delfino's part and Varian's part.

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.

Re:IANAL, but...

[pyramid termite]

"Of course there is [a right to anonymity], and the Supreme Court has upheld it."

There is not, and they have not.

You are wrong.

"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

U.S. Supreme Court, McIntyre v. Ohio (1995).

I found this at http://www.gilc.org/speech/anonymous/.

must be false and damaging

[peter303]

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.