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."
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?
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.
'"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
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.
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.
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
Two fine fellows posting 14,000 messages on 100 message boards is a wee bit over the top, I think. So is sending emails to over 35,000 people.
I know that it's easy to be modded up if you mention the DMCA and how corporations are buying Usia, and actually I agree and I support Mike's view, but in this case I don't think that the people involved who lost their lawsuits can entirely blame the deeper pockets of the corps they were up against. This article is sketchy at best, and laughably light on details, but the kind of lengths that these individuals went to seem ridiculously extreme.
On the other side of the coin, this quote from one of the lawyers left me very disturbed, wondering whether he was aware that he was effectively contradicting himself and believing smugly that everyone would just swallow his bullshit, or if he actually truly has no understanding of the concepts involved:
- "It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd, a lawyer for printCafe, a provider of software and Internet-based products for the print industry. "It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."
Incidentally, this case is the only one where it seems the corporation really may be out of line--only one "lambastation" is mentioned on a single website, and then there's the curious way that "officials say the postings were defamatory and a misappropriation of confidential company information", while the lawyers are harping on about vicious lies. Which is it to be, printCafe?A word can paint a thousand pictures
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
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
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.
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.
i dont think you get my point..
yeah, sending 32k emails (note: to individual people, not a mailbomb type deal) is not the best way to get your point across
but its the principle, not the case
once you allow any type of legislation on the internet, you allow more or less ALL legislation
and furthermore, legislation you like has a great chance of being used against you
sort of related to that tired old ben franklin quote about sacrificing a little liberty to obtain temporary security..
Ratio of replies to old sig content : replies to actual post content > 0.5. Sig changed.
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!
If I protest a business' policy outside their corporate headquarters, but stay on public land, it's free speech. If I hand out flyers on how J. Random Chemical Company is polluting the environment, it's free speech. If I rant drunkenly in a bar about my boss/coworkers, it's free speech. Why does everyone treat e-mail that differently?
Because sending large quantities of email to current employees isn't quite the same as either of these. It's closer to dumping flyers into their internal mail, throwing flyers at people as the enter, breaking in and putting flyers on people's desks, putting flyers on people's cars, etc.
The point is that whilst you may have the right to free speach everyone else has the right to choose to listen or not (which includes not having to take special action to avoid listening.)
Face it, e-mail is the easier to handle. Delete it
If it's so simple why do so many spammers try to hide their identity?
I can't delete protestors or drunken ranting idiots without getting in major trouble, but there is no way they can force me to read e-mail.
However you can tell protestors and drunken ranting idiots exactly what you think of them...
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!"
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.