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.

Comments

Hmmm?

[Ginza]

So let me get this right. If I go to a forum, where my participation is solicited (as evidenced by the fact that I am asked to sign up, as well as the ad revenue the sight receives), and post an opinion, I get sued. Wow. So I guess we are only allowed to say nice things about companies, otherwise they use their corporate lawyers to attack us. The funny thing is that if I stood outside the company grounds with a picket sign saying "Juniper Kills Children" then nothing could be done about it, as it's my legal and constitutional (but who cares about the constitution nowadays, huh Mr. Bush?) right. But if Internet Users post an opinion on a forum it is grounds for a lawsuit. Sorry that your stock is crashing because your public have so little faith in you that they listen to every single person who posts anything slightly negative on your forum. Maybe that's your problem.

Re:Hmmm?

[MikeWasHere05]

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.

Re:Hmmm?

[gid13]

Yeah. When I was little I thought freedom of speech actually existed and was something we North Americans could be proud of. As I grow older I find that, although we may have it better than some places, our freedom of speech is constantly trumped by libel laws, patent/copyright/trademark/trade secret laws, decency laws, hate speech laws, and that's just off the top of my head. And it seems to me that free speech should supercede all of those, especially if we're going to tell ourselves and others how great free speech is.

Re:Hmmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

so you should be able to say whatever you want about an individual.

okay "i have evidence that gid13 rapes children"

still okay with that?

decency and hate speech laws? where exactly do you live, never heard of them before.

Re:Hmmm?

[lgw]

Any imagined affront is "grounds for a lawsuit". Anyone can be sued by any company (or anyone else for that matter) for any reason. Civil law is like that. The suit will still go to a jury, and it will be up to your peers whether damages are awarded. I could sue you because I didn't like your /. post, but it's not likely the suit would go very far, nor is it likely this suit will go very far unless actual libel was involved.

However, people do go overboard on message boards and post actual libel all the time. There's nothing magical about the internet that protects you from a libel suit. You've never had the right to write harmful untruths without fear of lawsuit just because it's the internet, after all.

Re:Hmmm?

[damsa]

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.

Re:Hmmm?

[ichigo 2.0]

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.

Re:Hmmm?

[zxnos]

you have a constitutional right for free speech when it comes to critizing the government. the constitution makes no mention of companies...

Re:Hmmm?

[susano_otter]

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.

Re:Hmmm?

[MoneyT]

And what happens when he publishes that as a writer for CNN? You can still dismiss him as a liar and a troll, but somehow I doubt you would.

Re:Hmmm?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Hmmm?

[Lehk228]

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

Re:Hmmm?

[jedidiah]

Actually, the constitution makes ZERO distinction between political and non-political speech or who is being criticized.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

This gives you a nice little common law exploit. However, the intent is clear.

Re:Hmmm?

[jedidiah]

Actually, under a strict legal interpretation the only thing you could be persecuted for under a "yelling fire" situation is a series of civil lawsuits. Making laws that abridge freedom of speech are actually supposed to be off limits.

          Tolerance of ogres is the price you pay for living in a society that can allow for genuine intellectual freedom.

Re:Hmmm?

[AviLazar]

So let me get this right. If I go to a forum, where my participation is solicited (as evidenced by the fact that I am asked to sign up, as well as the ad revenue the sight receives), and post an opinion, I get sued. Wow. So I guess we are only allowed to say nice things about companies, otherwise they use their corporate lawyers to attack us. The funny thing is that if I stood outside the company grounds with a picket sign saying "Juniper Kills Children" then nothing could be done about it, as it's my legal and constitutional (but who cares about the constitution nowadays, huh Mr. Bush?) right. But if Internet Users post an opinion on a forum it is grounds for a lawsuit. Sorry that your stock is crashing because your public have so little faith in you that they listen to every single person who posts anything slightly negative on your forum. Maybe that's your problem.

No dude you are wrong on so many different levels. First off, your participation was of your own acord. The whole having to sign up and the board gets ad revenue stuff you spewed is pure crap. Second, in this country (and others) a person is responsible for their own actions, including their words. So if you want to go on a forum and blast someone you better be able to back up your facts - otherwise you can get sued.

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.

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.

If you want a perfect example, take the organization, truth.com, that blasts the cigarette companies. They have huge tv commercials, protests, rallys, etc and you know what they can do it because they are telling facts which they have proof for.

Someone mod the above guy -1 twit

Re:Hmmm?

[Kris_B_04]

Opinions are protected, especially when it comes to "public figures", but this seems to depend on certain Jurisdictions... most do recognize Opinions as a defense in a libel suit.

Re:Hmmm?

[Coniptor]

When the world is perfect and the government(s) cater/'s ONLY to it's citizens and NEVER to corporations creating a state for no NEED to criticize any of them. Then and only then can they expect to go free of criticism. Until that time Curse and GOD DAMN all companies, governments, entities of any kind that go after people speaking their mind, giving their opinion, or making their own judgement calls "aloud" to others of like mind in any tangible/intangible discussion forum.

Re:Hmmm?

[AviLazar]

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.

Re:Hmmm?

[Richard_at_work]

They have freedom of speech, what they dont have is freedom from consequence. Learn responsability, its a great thing.

Re:Hmmm?

[damsa]

My point is that public figures like politicians have less rights in libel law, and you have to show actual malice in order to get damages for libel. In regarding Clinton, there are bunch of conspiracy web sites saying that Clinton was head of an organized murder and racketeering while in Arkansas.

Re:Hmmm?

[geniusj]

This is true. If the FCC knows that NBC is about to air hardcore porn at 5pm on a friday, they can't do anything about it. A fine can only be issued after a complaint is filed and the content aired. This is one example..

Re:Hmmm?

[Bob9113]

in this country it is perfectly legal to say Jews are evil

While that may be true, according to the complaint Juniper thinks it is not legal to say, "Juniper is unethical." If that is the case it would not surprise me, since our government and legal system are more about protecting the interests of corporations than those of individuals.

Re:Hmmm?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Actually, under a strict legal interpretation the only thing you could be persecuted for under a "yelling fire" situation is a series of civil lawsuits. Making laws that abridge freedom of speech are actually supposed to be off limits.

Perhaps according to the constitution as you interpret it, but to my knowledge it has never been interpreted that way by the courts, even in the earliest years of the republic.

Re:Hmmm?

[Shihar]

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.

You are flat out wrong. You can say anything you want to without fear of a lawsuit. Clinton WAS accused of rape. A Kennedy was accused of murder. Exc. This happens all the time. Use libel laws are easily some of the weakest in the world. To win in the US you need to not only prove that the statement is not true, but also show that the other person did it to be malicious, and that it caused you harm. So, if you want to sue a guy for saying you murdered another man, you would not only need to prove that you didn't murder him, but also prove that your accuser knew that you didn't murder him, and that he did it for some malicious intent. How do you prove those things? You don't.

It is damn close to impossible to sue someone for libel in the US to win. The burden of proof is completely on the person is filing the lawsuit AND it has to be done out of malicious intent. Proving one of those things is very hard. Proving both of them is close to impossible.

Libel laws in the US keep Coke from taking out an add against Pepsi declaring that Pepsi puts rat poison in their drinks and nothing else.

Re:Hmmm?

[Ryan Amos]

Our "right to free speech" really only means "free to speak about the government without fear of reprisal."

The point being you are still liable for what you say in public; you can't shirk responsibility for what comes out of your mouth by hiding behind free speech. In most cases an apology is enough, but some companies get a little touchy, especially when they have something to hide...

Re:Hmmm?

[dotgain]

Can you seriously not tell the difference between an anonymous posting on a website, and a televised news bulletin?

Re:Hmmm?

[TheSixth1]

I agree that some people go overboard with "free speech rights" as an excuse to say anything and claim it's protected expression. People forget a basic tenet of constitutional rights -- their rights end where another's rights begin.

I am not claiming that the lawsuit has legal foundation, basis in truth, or anything of the sort (IANAL). I would claim, however, that many online posters tend to forget that the web is not a faceless, nameless, blameless wonderland where you can say anything, do anything, hack anything, or spread anything without there being real-world consequences.

Don't forget, "free speech" isn't a specific tangible thing that can be regulated, counted, given out, or taken away, rather it's a set of rules that we as Americans define through matters of law, social convention, and combinations of both. Free speech has evolved as our culture had evolved (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse). What we consider protected speech now may become reprehensible in the future (ask someone who grew up at the turn of the century about racial phrases acceptable then that are repugnant now).

In the context of this post, I think this lawsuit represents a growing notice that the internet isn't the wild west of expression many felt it to be, that before you post you should pause and consider...

Just my US$0.02 ($0.02341 Canadian, 2.3342 Yen)

Re:Hmmm?

[damsa]

Malicious intent is only for public figures. For normal people, the standard is lower.

Re:Hmmm?

[Pxtl]

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.

Re:Hmmm?

[MoneyT]

Ah, so when it becomes a televised news buletin, then freedom of speech no longer applies. Got it.

Re:Hmmm?

[Anopheles]

Personally, I feel that "Freedom of speech" goes along with the right to assemble. I can't be arrested for saying that a political leader is wrong, or to give a speech that goes against one of his agendas, and saying this stuff in public.

In your crowded theater, that would be acceptable if the person yelling "fire" is on the stage reciting his lines.

However, free speech is not raised when the intent is to cause panic and chaos, commit a crime, and/or bodily harm. Going into a bank and saying "I have a gun, give me all your money" is not free speech, regardless of how true your statements are. However, I can type it here, because I am not in a bank. Like EVERYTHING, it is all based on context and intent, which is always going to be very subjective. But that's the best justice we can hope for at the moment.

Re:Hmmm?

[ichigo 2.0]

And what happens when he publishes that as a writer for CNN? You can still dismiss him as a liar and a troll, but somehow I doubt you would.

If he had no evidence, I would. If he had evidence, then I would believe him. As a writer working for CNN I'd be more inclined to believe him, but without evidence he'd still just be a liar. I see your point though, most people sadly believe everything they see or read on the news, without ever bothering to check up on the facts. But anyone who takes anything from a unsubstantiated source as fact should stick to fiction.

Re:Hmmm?

[secolactico]

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.

Re:Hmmm?

[gid13]

I'm not "okay with it", in that I think you're an ignorant dick, but I'm not about to say the government should be involved.

Re:Hmmm?

[gid13]

I think that harm happens when people do something to you, not when they say something about you. Sure you might be in a better financial position if someone didn't talk about your trade secrets, or feel less offended if someone who hates you because of your race uses a generic term rather than a slur, but I think the law should be reserved for more tangible things.

Re:Hmmm?

[Ohreally_factor]

Thank you for pointing this out.

This is a good place to point out that Freedom of Speech is an unalienable human right that is ensconced into law and embodied in the First Amendment. The Constitution does not give us this right. Rather it protects this right. Legislative law and precedent that follow set practical legal limits without (in theory) abridging this freedom.

Libel and slander laws are an example of practical limitations.

Inciting a riot is another.

Threats of violence is another.

Re:Hmmm?

[klaun]

Second, in this country (and others) a person is responsible for their own actions, including their words. So if you want to go on a forum and blast someone you better be able to back up your facts - otherwise you can get sued.

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.

Re:Hmmm?

[susano_otter]

I think that speech is a powerful and important tool that can have very real, very tangible effects. Otherwise, why would we be so eager to preserve its freedom, and others so eager to restrict it?

And ultimately, things of power require some amount of regulation. Speech doesn't usually come in for very much regulation at all, unlike some other things of (more tangible) power. But where it has the capacity to bring tangible, quantifiable harm to people, it is regulated.

So much for libel, as far as I'm concerned. Hate speech? Not so much...

Re:Hmmm?

[apflwr]

Libel and slander aren't criminal matters. "Libel laws" are precedents set by civil trials. You don't go to jail for libel, but the offended party can (and often do) sue for damages. The bulk of past judgements have shown that public figures have less grounds for a case than the average citizen... This is strangely not the case for corporations.

Politicians don't usually pursue their enemies for libel because it's not in their best interest to do so. It's better for a politician to be aloof and ignore outlandish charges... Hoping to make the accuser look like a crackpot. A libel suit, however, will keep the accusations in the media, as well as potentially backfire and make the accused look petty, vindictive-- or that they have something to hide. And there's always a good chance the accused politician could lose the case, which would be defacto guilt and probably devastating to their reputation.

Re:Hmmm?

[gid13]

I agree that speech can have powerful effects, but I wouldn't classify the speech as the part that does harm. For example:

Libel: It is the actions resulting from the trust of the listeners that damages the person spoken against. Sometimes rightly so, other times not, but I feel the government/courts should not get involved in legislating truth.

Revealing Trade Secrets: I do not believe that ideas should be ownable, so I do not feel that the "theft" of them is doing harm so much as restoring the proper balance.

Hate speech: The emotional damage is done by the emotional view of the hater. Whether a racist says "Good evening, my African American friend" or "I demand the death of all coloreds", the sentiment will still come through. Regulating the language isn't going to help. If someone actually kills a black person after hearing the speech, it is the listener's lack of education and ethics that needs to be addressed. The speaker's message will get through even if you force them not to explicitly say it.

Re:Hmmm?

[susano_otter]

Libel is a kind of fraud: exploiting trust to mislead people to their detriment or to the detriment of a third party.

Are you saying you'd deregulate all forms of lying for profit?

Re:Hmmm?

[Buran]

What it says is that the government cannot pass a law abridging the right of free speech. It doesn't block lawsuits, but there's no law that says the government can stop you from making your posting.

Fortunately, if the lawsuit is stupid, it will either get thrown out or the plaintiff will lose.

Re:Hmmm?

[Curt]

>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.

Re:Hmmm?

[gid13]

Yeah. Well, either that or I'd stop going around saying we have free speech.

About the first part: "exploiting trust to mislead people to their detriment or to the detriment of a third party" makes me think of a girl that cheated on me. That was harmful to me, and much more so than anything anyone could say about me. Should the law get involved? Should we just make lying a crime across the board because it hurts people?

Re:Hmmm?

[mydn]

I agree that rifles can have powerful effects, but I wouldn't classify the rifle as the part that does harm. For example:

Shooting a random person: It is the damage resulting from the impact of the bullet that injures a person who is shot.

Shooting a rapist: I do not believe that rapists should be allowed to live, so I do not feel that shooting them is doing harm so much as restoring the proper balance.

Shooting a racist: The emotional damage is done by the emotional view of the hater. Shooting them should be encouraged and rewarded.

Re:Hmmm?

[Dieppe]

So what you are saying is that the key is to use "I statements"???

I feel... vindicated...

Re:Hmmm?

[Nykon]

Well with out some guidelines people are too likely to abuse free speech. Though the extremeist will say there is no such thing as too far for free speech. Your freedoms are only guarenteed until they interfere with the freedoms of others. Once there is overlap some middle ground has to be layed down unless that person feels their freedoms are any more important then others?

Re:Hmmm?

[susano_otter]

Heh. I made up that definition of fraud on the spur of the moment. As you've just ably demonstrated, it's not really a workable definition.

Now that you've got me thinking about it, I'd say that legal fraud has a lot to do with legal theft. Thus, libel, because it leads to material loss, tends to be less legal than adultery.

Plus, a lot of what makes a community function is an ability to recognize that there are sizeable grey areas, and that most questions of law and custom end up getting decided on a case-by-case basis, through debate on where exactly to draw the line in each case, rather than by applying a single cookie-cutter approach to all cases.

So I'm comfortable saying that my speech is free, even though there are some things I'm not free to say, in the same way that I'm comfortable saying I have freedom of movement even though there's some places I cannot go, and that I have freedom of action even though there's some things I cannot do.

Because, by and large, I am more free--better informed, wealthier, healthier, less restricted by government--than most people alive today, and much more free than most people who have ever lived prior to today.

Another reason why I'm comfortable saying that my speech is free is not because I believe it's absolutely free in the sense of Totally Free Speech, but because it is relatively quite free indeed. I'm hard-pressed to think of a political or social regime, in effect in the world today, that grants its citizens more freedom of speech than mine does. I suspect that those few that do have other glaring flaws that make them totally undesireable overall.

But I could be wrong about that. Do you have in mind any social or political systems that offer more freedom of speech, and are generally robust in other crucial areas, such that you would be proud to be a citizen under that regime instead of this one?

Re:Hmmm?

[Shihar]

That is true that the malicious intent part does not apply to private persons, but Juniper without a doubt is considered a public figure. Juniper can't take out a full page ad in the New York Times declaring a person who said something negative about them a pedifile because that person is not a public figure. On the other hand you personally could take a full page ad in the New York Times (or your message board) declaring Juniper the scum of the earth.

Honestly, when it comes to libel and slander laws, American laws are dead on. We have a lot of shitty laws that other enlightened nations don't have (marijuana prohibition, a hypocritical drinking age, excessive corporate welfare, exc.) , but when it comes to libel and slander, it doesn't get much better then what the US has. You are protected from baseless slander from large and powerful entities, but private individuals are free to say just about anything.

Re:Hmmm?

[Blkdeath]

If he had no evidence, I would. If he had evidence, then I would believe him. As a writer working for CNN I'd be more inclined to believe him, but without evidence he'd still just be a liar.

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.

Re:Hmmm?

[rtb61]

No gid13 and his lawyers have a party, celebrating gid13's early retirement, thanks to a legal windfall.

Re:Hmmm?

[rtb61]

That is the most interesting part of the suit. When you stop to think about, ethics is a philosophical term, an interpretation of moral standards, you can make that claim about anybody because it is subject to your own personal interpretation of what is and is not ethical.

I might be wrong but this might be more of a fishing expedition to hunt down marketing trolls from opposition companies.

Re:Hmmm?

[gid13]

It's interesting what you say about material loss. You are probably right that that's the reason, although I still think people need to stop believing everything they hear...

I suppose it is legitimate for you to refer to it as free speech, but i think it is equally legitimate for me to use a stricter definition.

And I can't think of any EXISTING places that offer more freedom of speech (I have heard vague hints that Scandinavia may be good for that, haven't looked into it though). However, I think simply removing the barriers to freedom of speech would improve things.

Re:Hmmm?

[laughingcoyote]

If he presents this as an ARTICLE on CNN, which are generally presented as fact, you're rich.

If he, on the other hand, presents it as a clearly-marked EDITORIAL on CNN, statement of opinion, then that's correct, not a damn thing anyone can do. Now, of course, CNN would lose a massive amount of credibility-so they won't do it, so not a concern.

Re:Hmmm?

[gid13]

Sigh. The material loss from speaking libel is due to people trusting the speaker. Although trusting a gunner COULD cause problems, it's hardly a common issue. Furthermore, it is not the people trusting the libelous speaker that are hurt, it's a third party. As for the other two, I more or less agree.

Re:Hmmm?

[Kierthos]

Wow... that's got to be the most moronic thing I've ever seen moderated as insightful.

1) Freedom of speech only applies to the government restricting my speech. If I am engaged in a conversation with a person or persons who are not employed by the government and they tell me to shut up, it's not an abridgement of my freedom of speech. Even regardless of that, freedom of speech is not, and has never been absolute. You cannot spuriously yell "Fire!" in a crowded business and expect to avoid any legal problems later on by claiming your rights to free speech.

2) When it becomes a televised news broadcast, standards of journalistic integrity apply. (Unless we're talking about FOX news or The Daily Show.) Further, the legal departments of news agencies tend to be rather upset when the talking heads deliberately provoke lawsuits.

3) In any case, there must be a balance between the freedom of speech and the responsibility to use that freedom wisely.

Kierthos

Re:Hmmm?

[MoneyT]

Actualy, it wasn't moronic, you just missed the point. Re-read the whole thread.

Re:Hmmm?

[JourneyExpertApe]

IANAL, but as I understand it, you are given more leeway when your speach involves a public figure. If you print something untrue and defamatory about John Doe, he can sue you. But if you publish something untrue about a politician (or any public figure), he has to prove malicious intent. There was a libel case sometime in the past couple of years where it had to be decided if a company executive was a public figure or not. It was decided that he was not, so he could sue the publication.

Re:Hmmm?

[ClamIAm]

the little guy also has to take responsibility for reckless acts.

But the only ones with the cash to "take responsibility" (read: pay court & lawyer fees) are the people with money. Take my state (Minnesota) budget. Our governor thought it would be a great budget fix to increase court fees. Sounds great, right? Joe Average doesn't go to court that often. But the people getting squeezed here are those who have been denied justice but are unable to pursue their case because of prohibitive fees.

Re:Hmmm?

[IOOOOOI]

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.

Couldn't agree more. I'd go as far as to say that wild assertions should be punishable too, eh? "9 out of 10 doctors recommend..."

Is it just me, or does it seem that bullshit is more acceptable at one end of the scale?

Re:Hmmm?

[Ciaran_H]

1) The statement made was false.
2) The statement made was fact, not opinion.

Don't these two things contradict each other? Did yoiu mean "The statement made was presented as fact, not opinion"?

Re:Hmmm?

[Phroggy]

If you had something like "I think Juniper Kills Children" then you would be OK, because you are presenting it as an opinion.

"Juniper kills children" can't be an opinion, because it can be objectively proven to be true or false; prepending "I think" doesn't make it an opinion.

"Juniper is bad for children" is an opinion, since "good" and "bad" aren't absolutes. I think cereal commercials on TV are bad for children, but that's just my opinion and the majority of society appears to disagree with me.

Re:Hmmm?

[AviLazar]

There is a difference between being accused of a crime and someone printing that a crime was comitted.

Re:Hmmm?

[MoneyT]

Which is all well and good until you get accused of being a rapist.

Re:Hmmm?

[susano_otter]

I think simply removing the barriers to freedom of speech would improve things.

Fair enough. I guess the heart of our disagreement is that I think that removing barriers to free action (of any kind) improves things up to a point, and that beyond that point it actually becomes counter-productive.

I've also heard rumors that the Scandinavian countries (Sweden, at least) have much stricter hate speech laws than the U.S. does.

Re:Hmmm?

[quanticle]

A fact is any statement that is falsifiable. For example, "The sky is green." is a falsifiable statement, and is therefore a fact, despite the fact that it is not true.

An opinion is any statement of personal belief. For example, "Coffee is bad." Because the criteria for good and bad can vary from person to person, the above statement is not falsifiable, and is an opinion.

Re:Hmmm?

[jasen666]

Juniper does kill children. Their CEO's are all gay and have AIDS. They cheat on their taxes, and support terrorists.

Sue me, Juniper.

Lawsuit Topic

[rjstanford]

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).

Re:Lawsuit Topic

[Enigma_Man]

Is there a difference in legality from changing the price of a stock directly or indirectly? What about the validity of the comments made about said company? Could you say that a company sucked if they indeed did, even if you stood to profit from that? I'm unfamiliar with how it all works.

-Jesse

Re:Lawsuit Topic

[jd]

IANALSTOAOEKOTS (I Am Not A Lawyer, Stock Trader Or Anyone Else Knowledgable On The Subject), but I would assume it depends. I would assume a comment by a typical Joe Average would fall into the slander vs. first amendment category, even if they planned to buy ten stocks after the price dropped by a tenth of a cent. On the other hand, if this were done for the express purpose and expectation of making Juniper vulnerable to a hostile takeover, then I imagine the courts would treat it very differently. The "worst case" would be if it were shown that a rival network equiptment manufacturer had paid these people to make the statements.

I also believe that the first amendment is treated differently between "commercial" and "individual" speech, with individuals getting a LOT more protection. Well, in theory, at least. I imagine that if the intent was to profit, then the speech could be regarded as commercial and treated under the commercial interpretation.

Also, trading laws are convoluted to say the least. Insiders can't make trades based on information that isn't public, for example. Since these are supposed to be people who are former Juniper folks, there may be additional rules on what they can and cannot say which would not apply to others.

Re:Lawsuit Topic

[dnoyeb]

I think you can unless you learned that it sucked from inside information. If you learned about the suckage because you are privy to inside information then no.

Re:Lawsuit Topic

[rjstanford]

Saying, "This company sucks," is generally protected speech. Its an opinion, and you can voice it as you wish. Saying, "This company can't ever meet its 4th quarter numbers because its project managers are incompetent," on the other hand, might be libelous if it wasn't true, because it deals (albeit obliquely) with falsifiable facts. If the company can show that its project managers are indeed competent, you could be sued. Although, if its PMs really are idiots, you're probably safe. I believe the burden of proof is on the company in that case but, as the old saying goes, IANAL.

What's the point?

[giorgiofr]

These guys are free to sue anybody they want. The posters might need to defend themselves or not. I still don't see how this post is INTERESTING, though.
We are the first ones to complain that "doing something very normal with a computer suddenly makes it something new and innovating" when it comes to patents; yet we're reporting on a libel case because the sentences that are being discussed were posted on a website instead of anywhere else.
The of course one might wonder if this is not a ploy to drive visitors to a website, seeing as the original poster is the owner of the forum where the sentences were posted.
The only interesting point that can be made is: is there still a meaning to a *libel* offense? Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free? Bear in mind, this would apply to anyone and everybody - and that includes you and your company when your ex-girlfriend decides you're a prick and takes her revenge on you. Of course it also includes that company that keeps ripping off his customers shipping defective hard drives and whatnot. Any thoughts?*

* The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.

Re:What's the point?

[Red Flayer]

"Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free?"...
* The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.

I think your request won't be honored (this is slashdot, after all), but even less so since objectiveness is lacking in your post as well...

Not to troll, but asking for the loonies to stay away is like putting out a huge non-zapping bugzapper for them.

Re:What's the point?

[giorgiofr]

Meh. Point taken about the bugzapper, but really I think my post was quite objective. I didn't even say whether I support or not the idea I put forward.

Re:What's the point?

[Red Flayer]

You asked a leading question, is all -- seems like you were only asking for one kind of answer re: free speech and libel.

Re:What's the point?

[Sylver Dragon]

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".

What sucks is...

[Afecks]

...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.

Re:What sucks is...

[damsa]

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.

Re:What sucks is...

[TubeSteak]

Dont'r forget, the Defense also gets to do discovery

That means they can ask for all kinds of fun documents from Juniper to support their defense.

Re:What sucks is...

[NewWorldDan]

Nah, Juniper still has to prove actual damages and convince a jury that anyone actually took those idiotic posts seriously. Sadly, I never get called for jury duty.

Re:What sucks is...

[damsa]

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.

Re:What sucks is...

[rossz]

Wrong, Juniper has to prove the statements are false. The burdern of proof is on them, not on the people they are suing.

Also, the truth is an absolute defense. Thus, I could call your mother a filthy whore if she doesn't bath and has sex with everyone (not that I'm suggesting that's the case).

Re:What sucks is...

[Lehk228]

actually you could call anyone's mother a filthy whore without fear, 'filthy whore' is a profane statement and would not be considered a statement of fact. if you said she was a prostitute without good hygeine you would be in trouble... unless, of course, it was true.

Re:What sucks is...

[FerretFrottage]

And if you are able to get yourself out of an "old-fashion" phone both, you probably never will get selected.

I've been called three times and all three times dismissed. Observed (but not scientifically measured) features/traits of those almost immediately dismissed:

College grad and/or post grad.
Self employeed business owners (i.e. people that have their own company and are their only employee).
Already served on jury within some previous timeframe.
Name doesn't match the name on the summons card (you'd be surprised).

In the one time I did make into the 2nd round so to speak, you really got a taste for what the lawyers and judge are looking for:
People that will follow directions for the most part with no questions asked (usually the judge wants something like this)
People who are easily manipulated or impressionable

Again, these latter impressions are not based on the jury pool I saw selected, but based on the questions the judge and lawyers presented to them.

As for not serving when called---

Since I am a small business owner and didn't want to serve for financial reasons (how can I be fair when it's costing me money and I'm the sole provider for my family--I'd want the fastest resolution), if you are not dismissed for that reason alone you just need to be ready to ask about "jury nullification" or tell the judge you are unable to fully follow his/directions on the law (tell the judge you learned in a civics class that you must not only judge the subject, but the law that is being applied as well)---that should get you dismissed fairly quickly based on what 2 other summoned jurors told me.

Re:What sucks is...

[fjf33]

Just send the poor sap, 5 tons of printed documentation with what he's looking buried in there. He probably cannot pay for a good layer anyway.

Re:What sucks is...

[psykocrime]

if you are not dismissed for that reason alone you just need to be ready to ask about "jury nullification" or tell the judge you are unable to fully follow his/directions on the law (tell the judge you learned in a civics class that you must not only judge the subject, but the law that is being applied as well)---that should get you dismissed fairly quickly based on what 2 other summoned jurors told me.

Just tell them that you're a "card carrying member" of the Fully Informed Jury Association, that should get your dismissed pretty quick.

Re:What sucks is...

[pete6677]

Jury selection is a lot of group think (even more than Slashdot :) Most people don't speak up when asked if there is a reason why they could possibly not be fair. Those who do offer anything to say are generally dismissed. Judges don't want a reluctant juror, since it increases the possibility of a mistrial.

Juniper is evil

[c0d3r]

Juniper is evil.. I wrote code for their legal team.. they will work you to the ground...

Re:Juniper is evil

[grumpyman]

Just wondering.... are they going to sue the people who 'mod' them up? And maybe free pizza for those who 'mod' them down?

Re:Juniper is evil

[c0d3r]

They didn't even want me to take a day off when I was really sick...for a stupid artificial deadline..

Re:Juniper is evil

[OK PC]

I hear they also invented DRM and are holding back Duke Nukem Forever. Do I get sued now?

Net - wide open frontier for lawyers

[UR30]

This finally proves that opinions on the net have an effect. But be prepared to prove your point in court. Net - it works for lawyers!

Juniper IS VERY uneithical

[realcoolguy425]

This post has been brought to you by 33 different proxy connections, and of course I'm sending this thru someone else's open wifi, while using someone else's computer, while wearing a tinfoil hat. YEP I'm Safe.

crap i think i logged in by mistake...

Re:Juniper IS VERY uneithical

[c0d3r]

You should checkout Juniper IDPs (intrusion detection and prevention)... I swear one of these bastards rootkited my linux laptop...

what a lousy writeup

[Anonymous Coward]

hey slashdot editors, stop letting through crap that don't even explain what the fuck something is about. why are they being sued?

Bees are on the what, now?

[Phanatic1a]

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.

Great Summary

[mattwarden]

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.

Re:Great Summary

[L7_]

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.

Re:Great Summary

[RPI Geek]

I agree. While it's not hard to RTFA, it certainly makes the summaries much more readable.

At the risk of being told to turn in my geek license, I'll also add that it would have been nice to add a 3-word description of what the fsck Juniper is; or maybe even put a hyperlink to their website. Do they do security? Hardware? Data mining? Human trafficking? What?

But...

[Spy der Mann]

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.

Re:But...

[Hoi Polloi]

Wait, are you saying that not everything I read on the internet is true?

Re:But...

[Spy der Mann]

Wait, are you saying that not everything I read on the internet is true?

Yes, that's what I said.

But I lied :P

Re:But...

[Castar]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, as I've been checking out Freenet. Theoretically it would be a great place for people to step forward with information about government conspiracies and so forth, but the problem is that since they're anonymous, they have no credentials. They could be senior government officials letting the truth out, or they could just be internet whackjobs.

On the other hand, if you go to a reporter Deep Throat-style, you have to worry about the reporter being arrested and revealing you as the source.

So basically, in order to successfully reveal information, you have to reveal somehow that you're in a position to know that information... very hard to do anonymously.

Can anyone think of a secure way to enable whistleblowing without retaliation?

Re:But...

[Paul Slocum]

So basically, in order to successfully reveal information, you have to reveal somehow that you're in a position to know that information...

That doesn't always mean you have to give away your identity. If you anonymously tell a reporter that there's a dead body under some rock, then if there's a dead body there, you've certainly earned some cred. You gotta lead whoever you're telling to the evidence so they can prove it themselves. Not possible in all situations tho.

Re:But...

[StikyPad]

Well, avoiding reprisal without remaining anonymous may be impossible, but most companies wouldn't risk the lawsuit.

More importantly, if a whistleblower has something to report, then he (hopefully) has evidence, or can point the reader in the direction of where to find such evidence. For example, if you have pictures of Big Chem. Co. trucks dumping toxic waste, or can say "At 4pm every Friday, you'll find trucks dumping toxic waste in the public park," then it doesn't matter whether or not you have credentials. Without some sort of evidence, it's almost pointless to attempt to expose wrongdoing in the first place.

Double-edged sword

[Locke2005]

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?

Re:Double-edged sword

[MoneyT]

Libel laws do apply to individuals as well, but in all libel cases, you have to prove damage. Me saying "Locke2005 supports child labor" on slashdot more likely than not causes no damage, therefore you have a tough time making a case out of it.

Re:Double-edged sword

[edbosanquet]

Libel laws might not be used however the SEC will have something to say about it if you do it too effectivly. Think a typicaly stock market pump and dump scheme. Juniper is too big of a company to pratically be victom of a pump and dump.

Bottom line you can get in trouble for it.

Re:Double-edged sword

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

In the OP's scenario, someone shorting Juniper stock could prove damages.

Re:Double-edged sword

[Bad D.N.A.]

Exactly.

How many "micro$oft sucks" or "SCO is evil" or "Google is awesome" posts do we see all of the time? If this thing goes through there probably isn't one /.er who is safe.

Re:Double-edged sword

[softspokenrevolution]

Because corporations are treated like people.

Legally, corporations are accorded some corporate personhood, i.e. Constitutional rights similar to those held by persons. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this question in the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations#United_S tates

Depends on if it's true or not

[queenb**ch]

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

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[MoneyT]

The problem is, these aren't being passed off as opinion. You can have your opinion but this:

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.

Comes off as fact not opinion. If you are going to level bribery and corruption charges at a business you better be sure you're telling the truth. A libel suit is easy to defend if you're telling the truth. Otherwise, it's perfectly reasonable for the company to sue you. To flip it arround is CNN allowed to run stories that "Queen B molests children" just because you've annoyed someone at CNN?

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[damsa]

Libe is a civil offense in the USA, and burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Since it's a civil case, there aren't prosecutors involved. Actual malice and some affirmative defenses have the clear and convincing standard in certain jurisdictions.

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[rhizome]

Ooops, better not say that or Juniper will include me too!

Ah, well as long as you only talk ill of middle management and other lowly types you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[stanmann]

If those people were fired, and it was scandalous, and wasn't public knowledge,

would a reasonable person suspect something underhanded was being done to keep it out of the public eye.

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[slashdotnickname]

Free speech my ass.

If you knowingly make bogus claims designed to hurt someone else, then you should face the consequences. It's no different from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, phoning in a bomb threat, or falsey accusing someone of being a witch (which is silly today but would of gotten you killed centuries ago).

Free speech does not mean you're free to be an idiot if it hurts others.

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[MoneyT]

Suspicion is not fact. There is a very big distinction legally between "I think that X" or "I believe X" and "X" or "it appears that X"

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

the man at the helm seems to be paying (off) attorneys...

Seems to be. That describes a perception, which is opinion. In my opinion

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[Coniptor]

Their suit(s) is/are without merit.
They are without merit.
I know nothing of them beyond what I've read so far in the summary and it's enough for me to conclude they are asses that have no respect for our Freedom of Speech!
Include me as well being another poster? Let them it will add weight to what I'm typing below.
Curse and GOD DAMN Juniper, it's CEO and all remaining top management and anyone who has any ties to them. Curse and GOD DAMN ALL companies like them.
May they loose everything they have and be stricken with a nasty incurable wasteing disease.

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[lucky130]

I personally find it interesting that Juniper has chosen to lend credence to these statements by suing.

Technically, I think they're trying to show that the statments are false. Were they true, there would be no grounds for a libel suit.

I'm not too familiar with how these things work, but in order for this Juniper to win the suit, wouldn't they need to prove that the statements are false and that they had a detrimental effect on the company?

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[MoneyT]

"Seems to be" is a stronger statement than "it is my opinion that". "Seems to be" would indicate that there is evidence which leads to this conclusion and that it's strong evidence.

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[aaronl]

According to Mirriam-Webster:
    Main Entry: seem
    1 : to appear to the observation or understanding
    2 : to give the impression of being

So, if something "seems to be" something to me, that would mean that according to what I see/know, it would appear to be that way, or at least gives implication of being so. It *is* stronger than opinion, but can still be based on opinion formed from observation.

For example, I could say that "The sky seems to be dyed blue.", and would not be making an untrue statement. The observation could lead as such:
    Air is clear and water is clear.
    If I dye water, it changes color.
    If I dye air, it should change color.
    Since air is clear, and the sky is air, it would seem to be dyed.

It's a conclusion based upon observation, that is not presented as fact. I choose this example because you can reason it out sensibly, but we all know that it is wrong. In the case of the statement about Juniper, someone was simply saying that from the available information, it was reasonable to think that there was some form of foul play, and that they believed this was the case.

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[aaronl]

You're right.

However, if you believe there is a fire in said crowded theater, then you have not acted with malicious intent. Likewise, if the information is true, and there is a fire, it doesn't matter if you were trying to spread panic purposefully.

If the people making those claims about Juniper believe they have creedence, they can even say them to be malicious, because they believe the claims to be true. It would not be considered libel in that case.

As many other people have posted, it is very difficult to prove libel, because the intent of the statement, as well as the validity, come into question. Juniper will have to show that the statements are false, that the posers knew they were false, and that the were posted for the purpose of being malicious toward Juniper.

I also think it's important to note that you still are free to *say* the untrue statement, knowing it is untrue, and to be malicious. Of course, you will have to deal with the legality of what happens as a result of that statement.

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[queenb**ch]

My assumption is that a few hundred posts on some message boards, if left alone will burn themselves out UNLESS there is some basis in fact to the posts.

Surely all of us have been on USENET, etc. long enough to know how flame wars work. When there is no real basis, they eventally run out of fuel and self-extinguish.

I would lend credence to these statements based on the fact the Juniper has chosen to sue. It's called deductive reasoning and it goes like this:

1) Juniper has chosen to sue some users on a message board.
2) It's not a particulary popular message board, as such things go
3) #2 makes me wonder why you're picking on 11 users on a fairly minor message board
4) Since the comments were not particulary inflammatory (I think I've said worse stuff to my Mom), that makes me thing that their must indeed be some basis in fact which Juniper wishes to surpress.

JUNIPER - UR PWNED! Your lawsuit has attracted attention to the very thing you are trying to sweep under the carpet. I think it's probably time for ANOTHER change of top management at Juniper.

2 more cents,

Queen B

Re:Depends on if it's true or not

[gorash]

It is actually abductive reasoning which is the process of reasoning to the most fitting hypothesis. Deductive reasoning holds to a higher standard of correctness and requires that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In other words deductive conclusions must be logically certain, in a deductive conclusion it would be logically impossible for the conclusion to be wrong if the premises are right.

Re:I can hear the bell tolling...

[HardCase]

I, for one, welcome our new overlord of hyperbole. Or is it hypebolic overlord?

Uh oh

[GmAz]

Hope microsoft doens't read slashdot, they might try to sue each of us individually.

Re:Uh oh

[Kris_B_04]

Only if Microsoft could prove that anything written on SlashDot has specifically harmed their reputation in any way... (they've harmed their own reputation? We just reiterate the facts and complain a lot)
Also, if you say you were just "stating your opinion", that can be a defense.
Plus, I would guess Microsoft is a "public figure" organization, so they would have to prove actual malice. (Which in some cases wouldn't be that hard..)

Either way, it isn't easy to win Libel Suits.

Just the beginning.

[Anonymous Coward]

Today it's juniper..

Tommorow it's balsam fur. :(

Maybe the lawyers at SCO got jobs at Juniper?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this yet another round of using the court system as the corporate playpen? I think so.

The M$ twist

[CDOS_CDOS run]

Think of the money M$ could make on /. alone given this precedent!!!

Re:The M$ twist

[Sangbin]

Seriously.
Imagine Baller sueing everyone who said anything about a chair.
Did I say chair? I didn't say chair. No sir, not me.

Another crummy lawsuit ...

[the real darkskye]

comming out of Santa Clara, when will the madness end?

Digital Rights Globally

[TheUncleD]

Online digital rights have always been difficult to inforce. Recently berekely university had a conference on the topic www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/drm/resources .html to try and help people better understand the stiuation. France is exploring existing technologies on how to ensure digital rights French digital rights verbatum - Hopefully it will help those needing digital rights, but also, what about the little guy who is getting accused of digital rights violations and is doing no such thing except a similar idea.

Lastly, epic provides some great resources on the topic of what peoples privacy rights are: www.epic.org/privacy/drm/default.html

Wait, what?

[susano_otter]

RIP freedom of speech (9/17/1787 - 9/11/2001). You will be sadly missed.

What on earth does this libel case have to do with 9/11?

Also, why pick that date?

Libel has been illegal for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, and lawsuits alleging libel have been brought many times before 2001.

Not to mention the fact that the TV networks have been self-censored and government-censored for decades (when was the last time a TV network showed full-frontal nudity during prime time; and when was the last time they could do so without being severely punished by the government?), and that private entities have always had the right to restrict speech in their venues. Even by your own bizarre Space Logic, "free speech" died some time long before the turn of the milennium

Does any part of your world view make sense or track with reality?

Re:Wait, what?

[Lehk228]

plznofeedingtrollskthxbye

Re:Wait, what?

[susano_otter]

Haw!

I can already tell which one of us is having more fun with Slashdot today, and which of us is a sad, mopy person.

Chump.

Defamation and libel

[Bogtha]

Apparently what they are being sued for isn't important enough to mention in the headline or summary!

They are being sued for defamation and libel. Apparently the message board posters have been claiming that Juniper have been bribing lawyers and spying on employees.

The difference between slander and libel is that one is published and the other is conversation, is it not? So which does a message board count as - a publication or a conversation?

Re:Defamation and libel

[Kris_B_04]

Actually they are defined as spoken(slander) or written (libel). That would make message boards and emails both written, therefore it would be libel.

Re:Defamation and libel

[Cheeze]

No one "writes" e-mails, silly. They type them. :P

Re:Defamation and libel

[Kris_B_04]

LOL
Thanks for that clarification! :)

Re:Defamation and libel

[Jerry Rivers]

And Juniper may in fact have a libel case. I'm not completely sure about the laws in the States as they relate to message boards, but generally I think there may be a reverse onus in libel cases. In other words, the onus in a libel suite is on the defendant to prove that their written statements are in fact true.

The fact that Juniper is a public company my very well complicate this case to the point of dismissal though. What is said about a public company might fall within the realm of fair comment, even if it isn't true because the defendant may be able to claim that it was satire.

Remember Jerry Falwell vs. Larry Flynt? Flynt eventually won because nobody could possibly take his comments about Falwell's relationship with his mother seriously. The same may apply here. Would anybody reading those message board comments seriously consider them to be true?

Juniper is poisonous

[temojen]

Use it only for ornamental or medicinal purposes.

Or were we talking about some other Juniper? Some indication of what this company does? anyone?

Re:Juniper is poisonous

[c0d3r]

They are second to Cisco in the network hardware/software business...They used to make the fastest core internet router..

Re:I can hear the bell tolling...

[ScentCone]

RIP freedom of speech (9/17/1787 - 9/11/2001). You will be sadly missed

There have been successful and unsuccessful libel suits between parties before, during, and after 1787. You're still free to speak, but as always you are also subject to libel laws. Just like someone else is subject to them if they libel you, and you pursue it. Can you think of no circumstance, personally or professionally, when a completely false something that someone publishes about you would be worth stopping? Your ability to speak, and your right not to be libeled are each important.

Where's my pizza?

[Demon-Xanth]

Alright, I just modded it down. Where's my pizza? ...oh wait, posting here just removed the moderation didn't it?

Quick, someone tell me how to not get sued

[realcoolguy425]

HAHA you guys are funny modding me +5... now everyone is going to read that post :(

so someone needs to tell me how to stay out of court... So far i've only come up with one idea...

sudo apt-get install sun-j2re1.5 :( I hate when i have stuff sitting ready to paste that i don't want to... anyway I can only hope that sudo apt-get install sun-j2re1.5 will save me a legal case.... ok it won't

So Anyway... my real idea is...

Nick for Sale

I'll offer it for free and pay $5 to the winner who must claim they have owned my nickname since yesterday....

if anyone has any brighter ideas I'm open to them.

Easy.

[C10H14N2]

Limit libel to natural persons.

Negative Messge Board Posts = Libel?

[plaid_piper]

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.

Re:Negative Messge Board Posts = Libel?

[dtpike]

Remembering back to law classes I took, it depends on whether the statement was made as a statement of fact, or an opinion. If I say "My dog ate my cat", that's a statement of fact, but if I said "I think my dog ate my cat" then that's an opinion. It all comes down to how you say it, and whether someone can prove that you said it. Libel is easier to prove because the evidence of it can be produced in court more easily. I think Juniper is also going to have to show that they were somehow harmed by the statements.

Re:Negative Messge Board Posts = Libel?

[plaid_piper]

Exactly. It's an opinion. That's the beauty of editorial protocol.

Of course, we're both assuming that the poster(s) knew enough not to use a statement format on a public message board that could possibly be monitored.

Not a slim chance in hell

[Shihar]

The only interesting point that can be made is: is there still a meaning to a *libel* offense? Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free?

If this is happening the US, Juniper will lose. Period. End of story. US libel laws are easily one of the weakest you can find in the developed world. In order to get to win a libel case, not only do you have to prove what they said was completely untrue, but you also have to prove that they knew it wasn't true and that they did for malicious intent. In other words, the burden of proof is very much on the guy trying to do the suing. It is extraordinarily rare for libel cases to be won in the US.

Now, if this is happening in say Britain, Canada, or one of the many other countries with strong libel laws, there might be something to this. That said, I think this is happening in the US. I doubt they even get past the first round of court proceedings to find the names of the suspects.

The US has a lot of fucked up policies and laws. The US stance on libel isn't one of them. Unless the posters are shown to be rivals from another corporation posting intentionally incorrect statements, Juniper doesn't stand a chance in hell.

good article

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Hmmm? RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION

[Crudely_Indecent]

Why does everyone always misapply 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 /., 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.

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.

Are Investors That Capricious?

[Guuge]

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.

Re:Are Investors That Capricious?

[NMerriam]

What's particularly galling is that their statement turns the fundamental purpose of free speech on its head -- they're annoyed by the fact that mere PEOPLE might have the ability to be heard at the same scale as their illustrious multi-million dollar marketing department.

Re:I can hear the bell tolling...

[Shihar]

You are a moron for two reasons.

First, libel in the US is damn close to impossible to win. If you had done even the most basic research, you would realize that these guys are going to lose horribly in their attempt to sue. In the US, not only do you need to PROVE that what someone is saying is untrue, you also need to prove that they said it knowning that it wasn't true, AND that they did it to cause you harm. How do you prove those things? You basically can't. Libel cases almost always get thrown out.

Two, anyone can sue anyone. The only thing that matters is the outcome. I could sue you for being a troll right now if I wanted to. The beauty of the justice system is that while you can make any claim of wrong doing you want, if your claim is totally baseless, it promtply gets thrown out at the first hearing. Who gives a shit if someone filed some court papers? This will be the "end of freedom of speech" as soon as... you know... someone actually wins one of these cases.

Sueing peoples beliefs?

[xtieburn]

The article didnt give too much information, and I dont know if there was a lot more in there that could lead to a valid legal case.

However, the sueing for the statement singled out 'This is a very unethical company' is absolutely absurd. The whole field of ethics is entirely subjective. You can argue that helping people is unethical because when they get back on there feet it will make them reliant, or ethical because once you get them back on there feet they will be all the stronger. Morals and ethics are philosophy not science.

I.e. by its very definition its an opinion not a statement of fact. Last I checked you cant sue someone for having a belief.

Juniper sues Anonymous Coward

[jmenon]

Today, Juniper Networks has sued a particularly prolific anonymous poster on the well-known news site Slashdot.

In the suit filing documents, Juniper names "Anonymous Coward" as the defendent. 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.

Eep! grammar correction

[Spy der Mann]

don't anonymous comments are supposed NOT to have any validity?

Man, my grammar check must have failed. I meant to say:

Aren't anonymous comments supposed NOT to have any validity?

Lapsus keyboardus, guys. Sorry.

Re:Eep! grammar correction

[Brandybuck]

Aren't anonymous comments supposed NOT to have any validity?

What makes anonymous comments any less relevent than anonymous sources, the latter having actually toppled a presidency once upon a time.

Re:Eep! grammar correction

[PetiePooo]

What makes anonymous comments any less relevent than anonymous sources, the latter having actually toppled a presidency once upon a time.

I would say the most significant difference is the accomplished newspaper reporter that says, "A top-ranking governmental figure said, ..."

In the days before King Bush, a journalist was protected from having to reveal their sources. They could vouch for their authenticity without compromising their anonymity. So, instead of having some anonymously sourced comment from who-knows-what crackpot, you had some sort of chain of trust, as short as it was. If you trusted the reporting journalist's credability, you could believe the anonymous source.

Kayne West

[Ced_Ex]

"George Bush hates black people." - Kayne West

What about what Kayne West said? He wasn't sued for what he said. He didn't have to say "I believe George Bush hates black people."

Re:Kayne West

[Ced_Ex]

"George Bush doesn't care about black people." - Kayne West

My mistake.

Re:Kayne West

[FlopEJoe]

It was actually: George Bush doesn't care about black people!

Re:Kayne West

[Lord Kano]

Kanye is black.

If he had been sued he'd cry "George Bush is suing me because I'm black!"

LK

Re:Kayne West

[Ced_Ex]

"George Bush doesn't care about black people." - Kayne West

How about "Kanye" now, and not "Kayne"

Have some mercy people!

ok ok...

"George Bush doesn't care about black people." - Kanye West

Re:Kayne West

[American AC in Paris]

"George Bush hates black people." - Kayne West

What about what Kayne West said? He wasn't sued for what he said.

First off, you got the quote wrong. Kanye West said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." There's a world of difference between "hates" and "doesn't care about". For example, I don't care about the game of cricket--I don't know the rules, I can't name teams, and I have no real desire to ever play the game. I certainly do not hate cricket, though; it simply isn't a part of my life. I don't care about it.

While I sincerely doubt that Mr. Bush is racist or actively seeks to harm black Americans, he is an insular individual, he was almost frighteningly disconnected from the realities of Hurricane Katrina when West said what he did, and "black America" is frankly not high on his list of backs to scratch. He cares about black people in that as President, he cares about all Americans. He doesn't care about black people in the sense that the needs and troubles of black America are frankly not at the top of his agenda. He cares a fair bit more about terrorism, war and cutting taxes than he cares about poverty, gang violence and urban renewal.

Regardless of whether or not Mr. Bush cares about black people, there's absolutely no way he would benefit by suing Mr. West for libel. Setting aside the fact that he's a public official (which makes winning a libel case very, very difficult for him,) suing Kanye West would end any real hope of the GOP successfully courting the black vote in the near to middle-term future. The entire thing would be painted as a pointless and spiteful retaliation on the President's part, and would further cement the "George Bush doesn't care about black people" in the minds of the public.

Re:Hmmm? RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION

[Anonymous Coward]

--Message deleted by CmdrTaco--

Smoking out the enemy

[Dark Coder]

A typical General Sun-Tzu tactic.

Identify your enemy by any means necessary.

It'll cost Juniper a chink in their armor, but then they will be better equip and be on better grounds to deal with these 'maurading' posters.

I just hope it doesn't entail financial ruins to the posters once this occurs (or worst, a bat-carrying thug).

Libel

[Castar]

I heard that Juniper's CEO was involved in the Kennedy assassination...

Re:Libel

[ZachPruckowski]

was involved in the Kennedy assassination

Is this going to be a new Slashdot meme? I mean, I don't want to see it become like "In Russia, " or "I, for one, welcome our new ____ overlords". Then again, it'd have to go on Wikipedia if it did become like that, and imagine the "No Self Reference" Arguments when they mention the origin of it.

Clean suit?

[Todd Knarr]

I'm not sure Juniper will win, but this looks like a clean suit.

1. Juniper's suing the actual posters, anonymous though they might be at the moment, not the message board they posted on. Juniper might have to subpoena the message board to get identities, but they're targeting the correct targets.
2. Juniper's identifying specific posts and statements that they claim constitute libel. This isn't some amorphous "they said bad things about us" allegation, it gives the posters clear notice exactly what they're being sued about so they can defend against it.
3. On the surface the posts in question are arguably libel. This isn't a case of someone being sued for a factual account of their own experiences or for just saying "Juniper's products suck!".

It remains to be seen whether Juniper can make this all stick in court once defendants get a chance at discovery, and Juniper might get burned badly even if they win if in the process defendants turn up evidence supporting the posts.

Re:Hmmm? RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION

[gid13]

"Free speech is great, if you understand it."
Free speech is easy to understand, and it's easy to see that we don't completely have it. I am not saying that the 1st amendment applies here, I am saying that the 1st amendment does not provide completely free speech, and that it should. In other words, I am not misapplying the 1st; I am not applying it at all, and you are setting up a straw man.

don't just speculate on the law

[belmolis]

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.

Local

[lunenburg]

Heh - those guys have an office downstairs in the building I work in. Guess I better not talk too loudly when I'm walking past....

wait, this sounds familiar...

[neuralnoise]

Rather than sue the posters, wouldn't it be better to travel cross country to Hollywood to stop them from making the movie? Along the way they could steal a monkey and all sorts of hilarity might ensue!

Cisco

[jbolden]

It seems to me this is a great opportunity for CISCO. They can via. discovery get all the documents about these firings made public and force these people to testify under oath. There is almost no way that this isn't going to be embarrasing to Juniper. Having a public fight about why Juniper let of of: A VP of HR, Board of director, CFO, GM, VP of engineering, VP of HR... How could that not be worth a few hundred K to defend these people in court?

Anonymous Cowards REJOICE!

[digitaldc]

For the cyberworld is going to soon be taken over by Anonymous Cowards.

Juniper has the poison and the remedy...

[HellYeahAutomaton]

1. Round up bored pre-Christmas slump lawyers.

2. Devise plan to terminate undesirable employees and make them disgruntled.

3. Wait for someone aggravated enough to vent on public forum.

4. Put the buzz in the ear of News Editor of
Light Reading to publish yellow article and hope the buzz generates interest in ailing stock.

5. Profit!?

Re:I can hear the bell tolling...

[Roblimo]

It's hyperbolic overload.

Brilliant Loophole Mr Random Output

[realcoolguy425]

My poor typing skills have saved me hundreds of thousands of dollars I don't have. Your sir are brilliant.

Re:Hmmm? RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION

[blueskies]

You want to get in a huff about something? Do some research on the 16th amendment and discover that it was never ratified.

Actually do some research and see that this argument has lost a serious number of court cases.

I don't have time to read through the actual source but here are some links:
link1
link2

20 posters and still counting...

[marcosdumay]

I've already read more than 20 posters (treshold 3) and nobody seems to get what is wrong here: This company is suing people that it doesn't even know the names.

This is not about libel, it is about due process! Juniper is suing two people that are anonymised by the internet. And, as anonymous, they have no chance of defending themsemves. They wheren't even informed of the process!

My take here is that they should discover who are those guys first, then sue. It is a shame for the court they are going into to even accept such case!

Re:20 posters and still counting...

[InsideTheAsylum]

Uh... I ANAL, but I'm pretty sure that you HAVE to file a suit with the court so that they can issue the ISP of those people a subpeona to get their real names. I didn't RTFA, but most likely a nosy journalist was reading whatever suits were filed that day (I'm pretty sure that this is all public disclosed?) and just found this interesting and made it into a story.

Re:20 posters and still counting...

[shark72]

Right, they're John Doe suits. That's how it works, at least here in the US. You file a John Doe to get the ball rolling to identify the Does, then you serve them once you get their identities. Quite common in online libel cases, and also a common tactic used by the RIAA.

This is all due process. For those who think it's wrong, keep in mind that we're all entitled to follow this process. There might be a day when you're in charge of a company and you think that somebody's slandering you by deliberately posting false information. It might be hurting your stock price and your ability to feed your family. If your lawyer told you "all we have is a screen name, so we can't sue them" you'd fire his ass toot suite and get a better lawyer.

Re:20 posters and still counting...

[Prophet of Nixon]

Something tells me that if you're worried about your company's stock price, you aren't going to be having any trouble feeding your family any time soon.

And there are more responsible ways to dispose of lawyers than firing them. I swear those things need to come with an MSDS or something.

Re:20 posters and still counting...

[mabu]

Haven't you figured it out?

They're suing because that's the only way they can legally find out the identity of the posters. It's not about whether or not they have a case. It's about:
    a) Finding out who these people are for obvious reasons
    b) Setting a precedent that if you talk shit about the company, your anonyminity may not be guaranteed

libel vs. free speech

[buhatkj]

The statements they quote in the article seem to be very specific allegations of unethical activities at juniper. If they are sueing to try and prove that these statements are false, then they may have a case. all the same, it's a message board, people choose to read it - it's not like a tv ad or something people will just come across. I'm not sure they will have much of a case unless they can prove that this negative commentary is motivated by a competitor or some other corporate interest. If it's just ex employees or unsatisfied customers bitching in a forum, IMHOP they have a right to do that, but since IANAL, maybe i'm wrong.
for the sake of me and everyone else's free speech, I hope not.

Time for Tort Reform Yet?

[tulak_horde]

Or we are still okay with people/corporations squandering our tax dollars on frivolous lawsuits.

Re:For sure!

[Brandybuck]

Does that chip on your shoulder interfer with your peripheral vision? I'm just asking, because people harshly criticize the US government everyday and get away with it. Don't let your fantasies interfer with your reality.

Re:Hmmm? RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION

[leabre]

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

Libel

[ls -la]

I am just as supportive of free speech as any of you, perhaps even more. But this isn't about free speech, it's about libel (Libel - n. 1.(a)A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.). Sure, the Constitution might technically allow the publication of libel (debatable), but it definitely allows suing for libel. In the end, if the posters can show that what they posted was true, they will (should) not have to pay a cent. But, if they lied about what Juniper did, knowing that it would likely damage their reputation, they will (and should) be punished for it.

Let's review

[gelfling]

At Paramount pictures - it was openly acknoweldged that you could trade sex and drugs for jobs. Good Jobs.

At Merrill Lynch the one of the director of applications development was married to the president of the consulting company hired to do the development.

At GHI people literally did sleep their way to the top. Plus the data center chief ran off with millions of dollars. To a foreign country.

Re:Hmmm? RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION

[freidog]

Cmndr Taco can censor any comment, or ban you for any comment he so chooses.
However, he can not sue you for comments made on slashdot (unless the violate excpetions to free speech like lible or defamation).
Civil court is court non the less and it, along with the laws that govern it are bound by the constitution, including freedom of speech.

If Juniper had simply gone to the message board operators and asked them to deal with these posts, the posters would not have had any recourse but to accept the descision handed down by the board operators.

Juniper opted to make this a legal issue, and as such laws governing what is and is not protected speech apply. This is an issue of free speech, but only becuase of how Juniper choose to address it. There were avenues Juniper could have taken where free speech would not have been a deffense; but they didn't proceed that way so free speech is a defense here.

Free Speech in Europe

[ScottCooperDotNet]

It worries me that Europe has laws against going against the official story of the Holocaust. Censorship is a slippery slope.

The truth does not need laws to protect it.

Re:For sure!

[ibbey]

Sure people criticize the government, as the constitution allows. But that doesn't stop the right wing from yelling "Treason!" anytime they are criticized. Hell, just this week Bush described the person who leaked what could turn out to be the single most important news story since Watergate as "shameful". Personally, I find the presidents absolute contempt for the most fundamental laws of our land far, far more shameful.

cyber-slapp

[rlds]

Juniper is really going after the real identity of the posters, suspecting a disgruntled former official of the company. If that's the case, then that former official might be subject to further legal troubles. Otherwise Juniper should have ignored these posts. Why? Where there's smoke there's a fire, and probably Juniper execs got too thin skinned fearing their own asses are on the line.

More about cyberslapping here.

Freedom of speach vs harrasment

[fredfl]

I see lots of comments about freedom of speech. Well here is the scoop on that. You can indeed air your opinions on a chat board about a stock, but when you post 80 times an hour for 16 hours a day every day, thats not freedom of speech. Its the same as shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater. Sure you have the freedom to do so, but there are limitations.

Re:For sure!

[Shihar]

The left calls the right fascist, the right calls the left traitors communist, and no one goes to jail for it. Welcome to freedom of speech buddy. It isn't freedom from being called names. The right can say whatever the damn well please and the left can response however they want. Then Pat Roberts and Sam Webb can throw into the mix their insane rantings. Isn't the first amendment great?

Anti-SLAPP

[lothar97]

A little correction regarding "cyber-slapp." It's actually called anti-SLAPP, and is a fun little California law. How do I know about this? IAAL, and am defending a client who runs a website where "libel" was posted. We countered with an anti-SLAPP motion, to be heard in a few weeks.

SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Basically it is a motion that the defense can bring regarding a lawsuit that is intended to quiet legitimate free speech. All the defendant has to do is show (1) that the speech underlying the suit was protected, and then (2) the plaintiff has to show they'll win. Usually the defendant also shows (2) how the plaintiff will not win.

The intent of the anti-SLAPP law was to deter lawsuits such as the Juniper suit, and allow defendants a quick option to end the case early in the proceeding. It basically leads to a dismissal of the case against the defendant. The other neat aspect is that if a defendant wins an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff must pay attorneys' fees. Most attorneys' fee awards are permissive, with an anti-SLAPP motion, it's a mandatory award.

Re:Hmmm? RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION

[Crudely_Indecent]

I am not setting up a straw man. I was simply pointing out that crying 'free speech' isn't appropriate in this case. This isn't an issue of free speech, it's an issue of our litigious societies acceptance of frivalous lawsuits. Personally, I think this is frivalous. If I were the judge, I'd tell Juniper to grow a pair and stop being so sensitive when somebody calls them a name. Then I'd fine Juniper for wasting my time and the message board for encouraging these types of posts without proof.

I like the way my brother handles 'tattling' with his kids. If one tattles, they both get punished. This works in two ways. They begin to police each other and work out their differences amongst themselves without involving the authorities, and it helps them understand that when they expect an authority figure to deal with their problems, they must accept whatever that authority decides to do...for better or worse.

Basically, I'd tell them "Tis the season to SHUT THE FUCK UP"