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."
...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.
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?
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.
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
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...
"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)
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.
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
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'.
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.
[
Yes, you can chase someone for libel. Try reading some laws. The article doesn't deal with slander, since slander is verbal, not printed. Notice the article says that anonymous posters' identities cannot be exposed unless there is proof of damage. The companies can chase, it's just that they won't get anywhere without proof that the allegations are untrue and can cause damage. There's nothing about new laws in the article, just new precedents set. You can take someone to court for anything, even if there's a law saying you can't. The judge still has to rule on the case. Throwing the case out for being something that shouldn't be in courts is a ruling.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
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
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.
..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.
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
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.
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
...y'know what I say: "Fuck the courts!"
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
...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.
Nitpick: Spam ain't illegal. Sounds to me like this guy was convicted mainly on gut instinct rather than any specific legal clause, although the article is really sparse with the detail. Legally, the volume of the messages is irrelevent with regard to whether or not it's libel, although I imagine it can be used as evidence of malice. On the plus side, depending on exactly how the ruling worked, this may be a useful precedent in stopping real spam.
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'm trying to avoid making assumptions about the case in light of how little hard info there is in the article, but the volume of the posts has nothing whatsoever to do with it being libel or slander. Which of these would most apply to the Internet, anyway? Email sounds more like slander, message board like libel....
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).
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.
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
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.
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).
On your Enquirer example, reporting hearing hearing that someone did something, and some did something is different. Though both are harmful, they are not the same.
Fight Spammers!
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!
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
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
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,
At least in theory. There are more than a few examples of university administrations who appear to more think they are running independant nation states. e.g. such things as students being punished by internal procedures over issues where civial and criminal courts have found them either not guilty or even that there is no case to answer.
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...
Really? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or the press". Please point out the clauses regarding libel and slander in there.
Laws against disemination of lies (and for that matter harassment) predate the US constitution.
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".
There is a difference between "speaking the truth", including by publising, and "spamming".
Creating legal precedents which hinder the principle does not support the public good.
A better analogy would be restrictions being passed on firearm usage to prevent idiots shooting themselves in the foot.
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
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!"
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?
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
I don't know if this should qualify as normal spam. The information was targeted at a specific audience(people that worked for the company) and dealt with that topic.
This isn't much different from any other spammer. Plenty of spammers claim that they are sending "targeted material". How many of the 35,000 people do you really think this was relevent to/ (Probably well under 1%...)
Be that as it may, they are not mentioned in the US Constitution. To say that they are is patently untrue.
Dyolf Knip
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.
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.
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.
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
- 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
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