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.
IANAL, but I think if you "stood outside the company grounds with a picket sign saying "Juniper Kills Children" then nothing could be done about it," you could be sued for libel, seeing as you present it as a fact. If you had something like "I think Juniper Kills Children" then you would be OK, because you are presenting it as an opinion.
hey slashdot editors, stop letting through crap that don't even explain what the fuck something is about. why are they being sued?
Is a meaningful summary too much to ask? The links are slashdotted already, so all I see is a summary that carries as much meaning as "Some organization is suing some guys."
Great, I'll get right on caring about that.
Juniper also has the burden to show that these statements caused harm, and economic damages. At least in my jurisdiction. Also, the defendants would have a defense that their comments were made without negligence. IANAL yadda yadda.
Hey, excellent article summary! I'm glad you included the aliases of two of the people named in the suit. You know what might also be pertinent? WHY THEY ARE BEING SUED.
don't anonymous comments are supposed NOT to have any validity? I mean, we have Anonymous Coward, and anything said by an AC is generally classified as "troll" or "flamebait". Why bother to sue them?
I mean, for crying out loud, it's like if you go to a bar and say something bad about a company, and it turns out the CIA has the bar all wired and the police is out to get you because something you said while you were drunk. That's what anonimity is about.
If anonimity is broken, then what use is posting as AC?
Certainly these data retention laws defy free speech in the net.
So, if people make anonymous posting praising Juniper as a company, can those same people be sued for artifically inflating the stock price? And why do libel laws apply to corportions and not just human beings, enyway?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Is this yet another round of using the court system as the corporate playpen? I think so.
Think of the money M$ could make on /. alone given this precedent!!!
Well, the problem is if Juniper was unethical and bribing lawyers, who's to say they would particpate in a fair discovery process. But I am glad at least for now here in America truth is an absolute defense.
comming out of Santa Clara, when will the madness end?
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
Actually, political free speech triumps over libel laws. That's how you can get away with saying Clinton killed a man in Arkansas. Also free speech triumps over copyright laws, you are allowed to make satrical versions of songs. Thank you 2 Live Crew. Most decency laws on the books have been declared unconsitutional. Yippee for sodomy. Hate speech is still legal. Unlike other countries, in this country it is perfectly legal to say Jews are evil and the Holocaust never happened, and feel free to collect Nazi memorabillia.
okay "i have evidence that gid13 rapes children"
still okay with that?
And why wouldn't he be? You're just an anonymous coward, without any kind of reputation nor proof. You can be dismissed as a troll and liar, and without violating your right to free speech.
I think free speech is just like freedom of movement.
As the saying goes "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
Likewise, your freedom to say what you like ends where your lies harm me and mine.
I'm not so much proud of "free speech" per se; it's an inalienable right, after all, not something I can take credit for. Rather, I'm proud of being involved in a political system that seeks to strike a reasonable balance between individual freedom and individual freedom to harm each other.
But tell us, what political system active in the world today allows for greater freedom of speech and expression, and also performs as well or better, in general, than the American one, in your opinion?
Maybe we could learn from it.
Or move there.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
You're mistaking freedom of speech for freedom of responsibility for speech. If someone yells "Fire" in a crowded theater and then is arrested for reckless endangerment is that a violation of their freedom of speech? If a doctor tells a patient that certain pills will help their heart condition, when they are truly a deadly neurotoxin, should the doctor be arrested for what he said? After all, he did not force anyone to take any poison pills.
Freedom of speech has always been limited, but the courts have a whole list of contingencies. For example, commercial speech is given less protection than non-commercial speech. I can write that Crest toothpaste not only whitened my teeth but caused me to lose ten pounds and grow more hair. Crest, however, can be sued for saying the same thing, if they know it is untrue. The highest form or protected speech is political speech. If I were to claim the CEO of some company was evil and immoral, I can be sued for slander and might lose. If I say the same thing about the president or a member of congress, there is little chance that I will lose.
If these people truly did commit libel, and have cost a company and its shareholders money with lies, then they deserve to pay that back. If they are telling the truth, then not only should the courts find them innocent, but Juniper should be charged with barratry. The problem as I see it, is that the courts are not a level and impartial field. Large companies with lots of money are more likely to win a case and are almost assured of never being found guilty of barratry. This is due to a system corrupted by money and purchased laws. Freedom of speech is relatively intact, it is just that the courts do not do a good job of making sure certain laws protecting it are actually enforced.
Seems to be. That describes a perception, which is opinion. In my opinion
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I fail to see how making a negative or derogatory comment on a message board is any different than the statement made in conversation. If these people are posting, then these thoughts are making themselves heard around the watercooler, in the restaurant at lunch, and at the bar after work. If JNPR knew what was going on, they'd realize that a great deal of internet commentaries are just personal opinion, and frequently not given much credence if at at all. The last time I checked, stating your opinion was still legal. We're not living in 1984 just yet.
One should certainly be free to say whatever they want; however, they should also realize that they will be held accountable for any harm[1] which that speech brings about. For example, if I started claiming that you were a child rapist, you might end up on the wrong end of an investigation and/or lawsuit. The statement I made was false. And the direct result of that false statement was that you ended up going through a lot of trouble. I have harmed you. I should be responsible for some sort of restitution for the harm I caused you. That is why we have libel/slander laws, to allow a party harmed by malicious false statements to receive some compensation for the harm done to them.
That said, such laws can be abused. Whether the case mentioned in the article is libel or an abuse of such laws to silence critics will be decided by the courts. In all, this seems like a non-issue. Juniper feel's that the statements made about the company fall under libel laws. As such they have filled a lawsuit. Because of the semi-anonymous nature of internet boards they must file a "John Doe" suit. Which is how such things are supposed to work. Now the courts get to decide if Juniper has enough of a case to force the message board operator to divulge the details of its users. If the court feels that standard in not met, they will send Juniper packing.
On the larger question of free speech in general, I think there needs to be a bit of a balance somewhere between "anything you want" and not causing harm. For example, around the begining of the 20th century we had snake-oil salesmen selling concoctions which, they claimed, cured everything from arthritis to the common cold. Not only were all of these claims false, some of the concoctions were dangerous or deadly. As such, truth in advertising and package labaling laws were introduced (along with a host of other reasons). While some might argue that people should just be better consumers, I think it's fairly obvious that no one person can be an expert on every subject. As such, some common rules for advertising are good to keep unscrupulous people from scamming and/or harming other people.
The problem, of course, which this sort of limitation brings about is: where do you draw the line? There is no easy, single, answer for this. Certainly, as the US courts have held for a long time, commercial speech has different standards than anything else. Allowing businesses to lie serves no valid purpose. On the other hand, individuals should be allowed to lie to avoid persecution. (e.g. 1940's Western US. Lying about being of Japaneese ancestry.) Also, social lies tend to be viewed as acceptable, as they prevent conflict. (No one wants to tell a woman she looks bad in a dress.) In the end, it's this grey area that we have handed over to the courts to sort out. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it's about as functional as we have.
[1] I am using "harm" in a general sense, not in a physical sense. i.e. the time and trouble faced by a person defending themselves in a lawsuit is considered "harm".
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
What this really seems to be about is whether Juniper can make Light Reading give up its posters' names.
TFA says that Light Reading's TOS suggests they will cooperate with criminal investigations, but doesn't say anything about civil proceedings...
On the other hand, Mike Lynn, a partner at Lynn Tillotson & Pinker says the threat the companies feel from message board posters is real. "As individuals involved in commercial speech become so powerful that they can move stocks and affect the value of companies, you'll see more of these lawsuits," he says.
When your investors place more trust in "infranet_rulz" than in you then you've got much bigger problems than some punk bad-mouthing you on the internet.
Nonsense. Freedom of speech means freedom from government persecution concerning your speech. Enforcing a civil judgement is a government action. The government makes the civil laws that are applied in these direct-action lawsuits.
Now, it is disputable whether "freedom of speech" applies to libel/slander. However, to say that the constitution doesn't protect you from the consequences of your actions is preposterous - if I shoot everyone who associates with people I don't like, that's hardly freedom of association, now is it?
Civil actions are based on laws, which are passed by congress. "Shall Make No Law" applies to everything that happens in a court room, not just ones where the government is the prosecutor.
Fsck, even I know this shit, and I'm a Canuck.
Ah, so when it becomes a televised news buletin, then freedom of speech no longer applies. Got it.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
you show the nation that this news writer is a liar and a fraud, then he steps down from his job for reasons unrelated to the incident... iirc something similar happened at CBS recently
HA! In a perfect world that'd be enough. Unfortunately, we (humans) tend towards morbosity. So even if said news writer steps down, and the news company publishes a retraction/apology (hopefully, not hidden in the classifieds in microscopic type) you will have been unfairly involved in a scandal and during the time it took to solve it, you were "an alleged something" (a child rapist in this example). And unless something extraordinary happens, there will be people who believe that "where there's smoke, there's fire".
I like free speech as much as the next person. But if you throw a wild accusation *without proof*, then you deserve to be punished.
No sig
This is not accurate. Defamation (libel or slander) in the United States requires not only that the statements be false, but also that you made them with malice.
This kind of stuff is serious. You may not think it is a big deal, but to a multi-million/billion dollar company it is a HUGE deal. You can't just point the fingers and blame the big guys, the little guy also has to take responsibility for reckless acts. Right on for Juniper and hopefully they will be able to slam the people who are saying false things about them.
The "also" statement above seems to imply a long and hallowed tradition of "big guys" (i.e. multi-*illion dollar companies) taking responsibility for reckless acts. Please provide some references for that. You also seem to gloss over the inequities and difficulty in getting fair treatment from the civil court system between an entity with effectively unlimited legal resources and an individual who probably has little if any disposable income to spend on defending himself from a suit. The threat of tort can be used to discourage criticism without regard for the validity of the claim, since most people don't have the resources to defend themselves. Then too, corporations can apparently rely on folks like yourself to assume they are correct. To wit, your whole final statement about the alledged false things said.
As for your ridiculous sign comment....you don't know the law do you? You are allowed, via your constitutional right, and go and protest a company. You are allowed to have a sign accusing them of doing evil and bad things...but the moment you LIE that company can sue you into extinction.
Sued into extinction? At best a company should recover damages and perhaps have a punitive reward. What public interest is served by allowing a company to sue someone into extinction? It's certainly not in my interest.
I, I, I ... It's great that you believe yourself to be so open-minded. What about his sister, girlfriend/wife, employer, friends and family?
Think long and hard - soul search, as it were. Imagine if the caretaker for your children were accused of being a pedophile or child pornographer or any number of other hideous things. Would you leave your children in their care while you waited for proof? What about one of your friends or family members? Your significant other, your child's teacher? Priest?
How do you think those around you would act towards you if you were accused of something like this? I can tell you it's not as easy as it sounds. Two of my friends have been on the receiving end of these accusations and their lives were forever changed. One went to court and was not charged in the end. Truth be told, nobody but him and his two young children know the truth to this day. The other turned out to be a misunderstanding. His daughter told his ex-wife where daddy touched her, it turned out he was towelling her off after her nightly bath. He lost custody for several weeks and almost went to trial over it.
These accusations are VERY serious, life-altering things; I can't stress that enough. Poeple have lost their jobs, marriages, close friendships, become alienated from their families or even lost their lives over them.
If you ever find yourself in such a situation, and I hope it never comes to pass, but consider then how valuable repercussion-free speech is when you've lost everything and are being brutally beaten with no sympathy from anybody you thought loved you.
It's one thing to have the freedom to be able to disagree with your elected officials or to express an opinion or negative experience you've had with a company, product, or service, but it's another entirely to be able to literally say whatever you want without penalty. That's why slander and libel laws exist - to protect people's reputations from being unduly tarnished by anyone with a vendetta.
That being said, this case appears to have some merit. Accusations of bribery, fraud, and miscarriage of justice on a notorious message board could have serious repercussions for the company. It should be noted, too, that freedom of speech, the 1st amendment, the CCRF et al. do not protect against civil litigation due to speech; they merely prevent the government from creating laws that inhibit free speech or using the criminal justice system to penalize speakers.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
More about cyberslapping here.