Slashdot Mirror
Juniper Sues Message Board Posters
Anonymous Coward writes "Juniper is suing up to 10 message board posters on Light Reading's telecom news Web site." From the article: "Only two anonymous message board users are identified in the complaint. One goes by the name "infranet_rulz" and the other by "exJuniper981." Juniper admits in the complaint that it doesn't yet know the names of any of the folks it's suing, but it will update its complaint with the courts as it gets details." LightReading has also provided a link to the court papers.
From TFA:
These persons, referred to as "Does 1-10" in the court complaint (as in "John Doe," or anonymous), are being accused by Juniper of posting harmful statements about the company and its executives on Light Reading's message boards
Just so you don't think that they're being sued for, oh, installing mod-chips in their routers or something. Basically they seem to be accused of providing inaccurate information in an attempt to influence the price of the stock (directly or indirectly).
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
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.
Global warming is a cube.
crap i think i logged in by mistake...
Hey, excellent article summary! I'm glad you included the aliases of two of the people named in the suit. You know what might also be pertinent? WHY THEY ARE BEING SUED.
don't anonymous comments are supposed NOT to have any validity? I mean, we have Anonymous Coward, and anything said by an AC is generally classified as "troll" or "flamebait". Why bother to sue them?
I mean, for crying out loud, it's like if you go to a bar and say something bad about a company, and it turns out the CIA has the bar all wired and the police is out to get you because something you said while you were drunk. That's what anonimity is about.
If anonimity is broken, then what use is posting as AC?
Certainly these data retention laws defy free speech in the net.
For those of you who don't want to chase the link - here's what some of the comments are that have Juniper's undies in a twist -
The company's complaint cites an April 20 message that stated, "the man at the helm seems to be paying (off) attorneys all over the bay area to cover up the scandal which resulted in the terminations of many at the top including the VP of HR. 1) Board of director 2) CFO 3) GM 4) VP of engineering 5) VP of HR and more."
Another message cited in the complaint came a day later. According to the complaint, it said the "top management" at Juniper bribes attorneys, and that "the man at the top should join his buddy Bernie [Ebers (sic)]... "
Another message singled out in the complaint says: "This is a very unethical company."
Of course, Juniper critics can be found at other Internet message boards that aren't, as yet, mentioned in Juniper's complaint. "Arrogance coupled with timidity is a deadly combination in business. So, in short JNPR's problem is Kriens," said one Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO - message board) message board post taking aim at Juniper's CEO Scott Kriens.
Frankly, I don't see where any of these are prosecutable. One is allowed to comment on what one sees in the world, IMHO. Surely if you've had to flush your top managment and start over, there is likely some thing to some of these posts. I personally find it interesting that Juniper has chosen to lend credence to these statements by suing. Since they're suing, my assumption is that it's all true. Ooops, better not say that or Juniper will include me too!
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
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.
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
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Why does everyone always misapply the first amendment?
/., he could do that without violating your right to free speech. This isn't a government controlled forum, it is private, therefor the government has no say as to the content and cannot censor it. The owners of this forum have every right to censor any content they choose as they are not government entities. The government, however, has no right to censor the content on this forum as specified in the first amendment.
Wake up folks! The first amendment protects free speech where it involves government control. That is to say, the government cannot restrict your speech in a forum owned by you or anyone else, or in a public forum (that is, a forum created for public discourse.) The first amendment doesn't apply in message boards (which are privately owned.)
The First Amendment doesn't provide access to private media outlets you don't own. If CmdrTaco wanted to censor every post on
Free speech is great, if you understand it. Otherwise, you're just making a lot of noise and somebody is going to shut you up (as is their right in a privately owned forum.)
I don't understand what everyone is getting their panties in a bunch for. It's a well known fact that in our litigious society you can sue anyone - for anything - at any time - for any reason - while wearing any outfit - while speaking any language.
Juniper is suing two people that it cannot identify. They're not required to prove that the statements made by these message board posters are incorrect, they're just pissed that it was said at all. You could publicly call me a 'sociopathic elitist asshole' and while I wouldn't argue with the validity of the statement, I can certainly sue you for saying it.
You want to get in a huff about something? Do some research on the 16th amendment and discover that it was never ratified.
"Lame" - Galaxar
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.
You are sort of correct. While you are given WAY more leeway when dealing with political speeches (this is done so we can debate politics without fear of persecution) you cannot make bold statements like "Clinton killed a man in Arkansas" without evidence. If you do, you can get sued and lose - big time. Now if you said "Clinton didn't vote for this bill which gave soldiers state of the art bullet proof vests, because he hates soldiers" then you would probably be OK. This is assuming Clinton voted down the bill (obviously) - otherwise you would sound like a complete raving moron when Billy C went on stage and says "Uhm, let the record reflect that I voted for the bill and I did not have sexual relations with that woman" :D
Or a better example "Clinton is responsible for the death of 15 people while he was governer"...and yea, Clinton was responsible for the overall police force of arkansas as governer and someone could stretch the truth a bit and say it was his fault police officers killed criminals.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
--Message deleted by CmdrTaco--
you show the nation that this news writer is a liar and a fraud, then he steps down from his job for reasons unrelated to the incident... iirc something similar happened at CBS recently
HA! In a perfect world that'd be enough. Unfortunately, we (humans) tend towards morbosity. So even if said news writer steps down, and the news company publishes a retraction/apology (hopefully, not hidden in the classifieds in microscopic type) you will have been unfairly involved in a scandal and during the time it took to solve it, you were "an alleged something" (a child rapist in this example). And unless something extraordinary happens, there will be people who believe that "where there's smoke, there's fire".
I like free speech as much as the next person. But if you throw a wild accusation *without proof*, then you deserve to be punished.
No sig
I, I, I ... It's great that you believe yourself to be so open-minded. What about his sister, girlfriend/wife, employer, friends and family?
Think long and hard - soul search, as it were. Imagine if the caretaker for your children were accused of being a pedophile or child pornographer or any number of other hideous things. Would you leave your children in their care while you waited for proof? What about one of your friends or family members? Your significant other, your child's teacher? Priest?
How do you think those around you would act towards you if you were accused of something like this? I can tell you it's not as easy as it sounds. Two of my friends have been on the receiving end of these accusations and their lives were forever changed. One went to court and was not charged in the end. Truth be told, nobody but him and his two young children know the truth to this day. The other turned out to be a misunderstanding. His daughter told his ex-wife where daddy touched her, it turned out he was towelling her off after her nightly bath. He lost custody for several weeks and almost went to trial over it.
These accusations are VERY serious, life-altering things; I can't stress that enough. Poeple have lost their jobs, marriages, close friendships, become alienated from their families or even lost their lives over them.
If you ever find yourself in such a situation, and I hope it never comes to pass, but consider then how valuable repercussion-free speech is when you've lost everything and are being brutally beaten with no sympathy from anybody you thought loved you.
It's one thing to have the freedom to be able to disagree with your elected officials or to express an opinion or negative experience you've had with a company, product, or service, but it's another entirely to be able to literally say whatever you want without penalty. That's why slander and libel laws exist - to protect people's reputations from being unduly tarnished by anyone with a vendetta.
That being said, this case appears to have some merit. Accusations of bribery, fraud, and miscarriage of justice on a notorious message board could have serious repercussions for the company. It should be noted, too, that freedom of speech, the 1st amendment, the CCRF et al. do not protect against civil litigation due to speech; they merely prevent the government from creating laws that inhibit free speech or using the criminal justice system to penalize speakers.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.