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

Fearmongering for Fun and Profit

[justin.warren]

This article is amazingly low on details about the cases and resorts instead to standard fearmongering and appealing to anti-corporate sentiment. Throw in a reference to Free Speech and the Internet, mix well and voila! Ratings bonanza.

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.

Re:Why is this surprising?

[D Anderson n'Swaart]

With no offence to Mike, our parent poster, I feel it is important to point out that the circumstances surrounding these lawsuits were not what one could consider standard freedom of speech issues.

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?