Slashdot Mirror
Juniper Sues Message Board Posters
Anonymous Coward writes "Juniper is suing up to 10 message board posters on Light Reading's telecom news Web site." From the article: "Only two anonymous message board users are identified in the complaint. One goes by the name "infranet_rulz" and the other by "exJuniper981." Juniper admits in the complaint that it doesn't yet know the names of any of the folks it's suing, but it will update its complaint with the courts as it gets details." LightReading has also provided a link to the court papers.
From TFA:
These persons, referred to as "Does 1-10" in the court complaint (as in "John Doe," or anonymous), are being accused by Juniper of posting harmful statements about the company and its executives on Light Reading's message boards
Just so you don't think that they're being sued for, oh, installing mod-chips in their routers or something. Basically they seem to be accused of providing inaccurate information in an attempt to influence the price of the stock (directly or indirectly).
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
...all Juniper has to do is prove that these people actually made these comments. Then the burden of proof is on the posters to prove that their statements are true. So remember kids, if you are going to defame someone, do it anonymously with Tor.
For those of you who don't want to chase the link - here's what some of the comments are that have Juniper's undies in a twist -
The company's complaint cites an April 20 message that stated, "the man at the helm seems to be paying (off) attorneys all over the bay area to cover up the scandal which resulted in the terminations of many at the top including the VP of HR. 1) Board of director 2) CFO 3) GM 4) VP of engineering 5) VP of HR and more."
Another message cited in the complaint came a day later. According to the complaint, it said the "top management" at Juniper bribes attorneys, and that "the man at the top should join his buddy Bernie [Ebers (sic)]... "
Another message singled out in the complaint says: "This is a very unethical company."
Of course, Juniper critics can be found at other Internet message boards that aren't, as yet, mentioned in Juniper's complaint. "Arrogance coupled with timidity is a deadly combination in business. So, in short JNPR's problem is Kriens," said one Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO - message board) message board post taking aim at Juniper's CEO Scott Kriens.
Frankly, I don't see where any of these are prosecutable. One is allowed to comment on what one sees in the world, IMHO. Surely if you've had to flush your top managment and start over, there is likely some thing to some of these posts. I personally find it interesting that Juniper has chosen to lend credence to these statements by suing. Since they're suing, my assumption is that it's all true. Ooops, better not say that or Juniper will include me too!
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Lastly, epic provides some great resources on the topic of what peoples privacy rights are: www.epic.org/privacy/drm/default.html
Some users posted on the lightreading.com website forums that Juniper's CEO was bribing lawyers to hide firings of 4 top officials in the company (including a senior HR manager). Juniper is now suing the posters of such information.
Why does everyone always misapply the first amendment?
/., he could do that without violating your right to free speech. This isn't a government controlled forum, it is private, therefor the government has no say as to the content and cannot censor it. The owners of this forum have every right to censor any content they choose as they are not government entities. The government, however, has no right to censor the content on this forum as specified in the first amendment.
Wake up folks! The first amendment protects free speech where it involves government control. That is to say, the government cannot restrict your speech in a forum owned by you or anyone else, or in a public forum (that is, a forum created for public discourse.) The first amendment doesn't apply in message boards (which are privately owned.)
The First Amendment doesn't provide access to private media outlets you don't own. If CmdrTaco wanted to censor every post on
Free speech is great, if you understand it. Otherwise, you're just making a lot of noise and somebody is going to shut you up (as is their right in a privately owned forum.)
I don't understand what everyone is getting their panties in a bunch for. It's a well known fact that in our litigious society you can sue anyone - for anything - at any time - for any reason - while wearing any outfit - while speaking any language.
Juniper is suing two people that it cannot identify. They're not required to prove that the statements made by these message board posters are incorrect, they're just pissed that it was said at all. You could publicly call me a 'sociopathic elitist asshole' and while I wouldn't argue with the validity of the statement, I can certainly sue you for saying it.
You want to get in a huff about something? Do some research on the 16th amendment and discover that it was never ratified.
"Lame" - Galaxar
You are sort of correct. While you are given WAY more leeway when dealing with political speeches (this is done so we can debate politics without fear of persecution) you cannot make bold statements like "Clinton killed a man in Arkansas" without evidence. If you do, you can get sued and lose - big time. Now if you said "Clinton didn't vote for this bill which gave soldiers state of the art bullet proof vests, because he hates soldiers" then you would probably be OK. This is assuming Clinton voted down the bill (obviously) - otherwise you would sound like a complete raving moron when Billy C went on stage and says "Uhm, let the record reflect that I voted for the bill and I did not have sexual relations with that woman" :D
Or a better example "Clinton is responsible for the death of 15 people while he was governer"...and yea, Clinton was responsible for the overall police force of arkansas as governer and someone could stretch the truth a bit and say it was his fault police officers killed criminals.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Malicious intent is only for public figures. For normal people, the standard is lower.
This has to be one of the least informed Slashdot discussions I've ever seen. With a very few exceptions, people who obviously know nothing about the law are spouting off about what they think it is or would like it to be. Here are a few facts about US libel law.
First, only statements of FACT are actionable. You can publish all the negative opinions you like and you're okay.
Second, truth is an absolute defense to libel. This is not true in every country, but it is true in the United States.
Third, there is a difference between public figures and everybody else. In order to win, a public figure must show that the libel was not only false but malicious, that is, that the libeler knew or ought to have known that the statement was false and nonetheless made it for the purpose of damaging the reputation of the person libelled. The idea is that the freedom of public discourse requires that people be able to make reckless statements about matters of public interest without fear of being sued. On the other hand, if the person libelled is not a public figure, he or she can win without proving malice.
Fourth, the false factual statement must be one that would cause the average person to feel injured. Thus, for example, if you mistakenly publish that John Smith drank tea, not knowing that he is a Mormon and that for him this is an accusation that he has violated the rules of his religion, you're probably off the hook.
Fifth, certain types of statements are considered to be intrinsically defamatory. These include allegations of criminal conduct and, interestingly, the allegation that a woman is unchaste.
Sixth, contrary to one poster's assertion, hedging a statement by saying "I think that X" or even "It is reported that X", does not necessarily get you off the hook. From a purely linguistic point you would think that it would, since you are not asserting the truth of the allegation, but libel law doesn't work that way.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I have studied the law of defamation to some extent. A wee bit of googling would turn up the same information.
>but the moment you LIE that company can sue you into extinction.
In a libel case four things must be proved, not just whether or not something was a lie -
1) The statement made was false.
2) The statement made was fact, not opinion.
3) The statement was reputation damaging.
4) Some degree of fault on the part of the plaintiff. (Strict liability in some cases, but more often negligence, or in most cases actual malice)
Statements such as "This is a very unethical company." is opinion, and would probably not meet the qualifications for libel. Definitely wasting their time on that one unless that particular poster of the group being sued made more solid statements.
The other claims of people being paid off are more like supposed facts. However, showing that these posters did any real damage to the company, well. Probably not going to happen. Oh, they can sue, but they probably won't win. So indeed you can go about lying, but if the statement did no damage (whether nobody believed it, or it was too insignificant to do anything)... well, your libel case is toast. The article cites another similar case where a company blamed a stock price drop on a poster, but was awarded nothing.
Of course, if the company is found to be corrupt or whatever the posters are claiming, their case is screwed. Heh.
Even then... in Ollman v. Evans, one thing about determining fact vs. opinion is "What is the broader social context in which the statement appears?" These message boards could be determined as a place for sharing opinions. Now their are 3 other criteria they look at, and the statements about paying people off would seem to be fact, but this might... might... cause it to still be considered opinion. Long shot really, but message boards are a long way from the front page of the New York Times...
I don't understand why the company is bothering to pursue this one.
The first google search on "16th amendment" pulls up this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment16/ .
Click on the "history" link and you'll get a different story than the amendment never being ratified.
Thanks,
Leabre