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?
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...?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
from the article:
/.ers tend to hail and celebrate. in a post to a story about spam laws, i predicted something like this, and here it is. the general slashdot attitude toward internet legislation must apply at all times: keep your laws off the internet. even when the laws are about spam. otherwise, shit like this happens.
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," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy says.
this is basically an offshoot of the spam laws -- those very same ones which
Ratio of replies to old sig content : replies to actual post content > 0.5. Sig changed.
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.
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.
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
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.
I think that printCafe (one of the companies mentioned in the article) is actually going after FuckedCompany (which wasn't), so it's a bigger bummer than you might have thought...
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
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.
[
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
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.
Sending 32 000 emails is simply NOT an acceptable way to get your point across. I can see why Intel is pissed and they have every right to be.
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
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
...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.
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 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.
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
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).
Offshoot my butt - Hamidi was spamming.
"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
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...
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
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.
I don't really see why the company shouldn't be able to make the person in question stop, in this particular case. Although there would be ways to block emails technically, the basic question is (like you said) similar to spamming; why should the receivers have to pay for spammers privilege to send them (uncalled for) email? One problem is that whereas talking to someone is usually impossible (or difficult) without receiver's will, sending email/fax/calling is much easier. So, if the company had tried to prevent the person from contacting ex-coworkers in person, the judge would probably have just dismissed the case.
In fact the line between having the right to voice one's concern and trespassing is not all that clear; anti-abortion people have been prevented from picketing (in cases where they were shouting their propaganda in residential neighbourhoods); it was considered harassment more than practicing peacefully their right to free speech. The balance between your right to speak and my right to ignore is a difficult one to maintain.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes