Slashdot Mirror
Libel Suits OK Even If Libel Is Truthful
Defeat Globalism writes to tell us that many journalists, bloggers, and media law specialists are concerned about a new ruling by a US Court of Appeals in Boston. The new ruling is allowing a former Staples employee to sue the company for libel after an email was sent out informing other employees that he had been fired for violations of company procedures regarding expense reimbursements. "Staples has asked the full appeals court to reconsider the ruling, and 51 news organizations have filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying that the decision, if allowed to stand, 'will create a precedent that hinders the media's ability to rely on truthful publication to avoid defamation liability.' But Wendy Sibbison, the Greenfield appellate lawyer for the fired Staples employee, Alan S. Noonan, said the ruling applies only to lawsuits by private figures against private defendants, that is, defendants not involved in the news business, over purely private matters."
Hardly news, since this'll certainly be struck down \ overturned in future rulings. Trying to protect employees can go too far and become ridiculous.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
I don't see how telling people a guy did something wrong when he did could possibly be illegal, but why would they even do that? It's no one else's business. Sure, the word would probably get out anyway, but the company has nothing to gain by disseminating this kind of information.
Whale
My non-legal, everyday-speech understanding of the term 'libel' is that it means 'a lie that harms someone's reputation'. Can someone with more legal sense give a more accurate definition?
Argh. That's exactly what's wrong with the libel law in the United Kingdom. I suspect that it's deliberate by the US power elites: they probably see just how useful the fact truth isn't a defense in a libel case in the UK has been to keeping powerful people powerful.
Wendy Sibbison, the Greenfield appellate lawyer for the fired Staples employee, "There isn't a First Amendment right for a private company to broadcast the news of a private person's firing to its employees."
--
Yes, Wendy, but using that token, there's no first amendment right preventing a private company broadcasting the same news.
Pesky first amendment, being all vague like that...
So, can I sue various politically-driven groups for libel, even if what they say about the group I'm in is true?
of people are not responsible for their actions. Sorry, yeah he might have been embarrassed but still he was wrong. More than likely he told others he was leaving on his own recourse or that some PHB fired him because he was too smart, too good.
What is it with people owning up to what they do? I thought we left behind that in elementary school, that idea that "not me" did it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
It is incorrect to say that truth is an absolute defense to a claim of libel. Apparently, Massachusetts law allows a suit to go ahead based on defamatory statements that are based on "actual malice."
Possibly Massachusetts law is incompatible with the US Constitution in this regard. I am inclined to believe it is. But Staples never brought it up--if they had, the panel would have mentioned it in at least one their opinions, and the court didn't.
In other words, the First Amendment question simply didn't come up. The sole question was what Massachusetts law was, not whether that law was consistent with the Constitution.
So it's only for private-vs-private?
What happens when Staples sues you for reporting them to the Better-Business Bureau? What happens when bad reviews on Amazon become liabel?
Its one thing if we want ot make rules about privacy, allowing a disclosure to be an invasion of said privacy; but this is a Pandora's box that I prey to his noodley goodness gets overturned.
The summary makes it seem like the court just arbitrarily decided that truth didn't count as a defense for libel in this case. But that's not at all what happened; FTFA:
So, this ruling is actually abouta quirk in state law, and only permits the case to move forward because under that law, there are possibly legitimate grounds to sue for libel in this case. The law is a shitty one, and needs fixing - but that's not this court's job.
In all honesty if you are going to write an e-mail announcing someone is fired, you show say so in the most diplomatic approach and say the minimum. For example:
"Joe Blogs is no longer part of CompanyX".
will suffice. Everyone else is free to read between the lines.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
By its very definition, libel is always untruthful.
Semantics aside, here is the actual explanation for the ruling:
Noonan appealed to a three-member panel for the First Circuit, which initially upheld the ruling by Lasker. But last month it reversed itself on the libel claim, saying Noonan could pursue that part of his lawsuit because of a relatively obscure 1902 [Massachusetts] law.
The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.
In ordinary discussions of First Amendment law, "actual malice" refers to the standard established in the landmark 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
In that context, it means a plaintiff who is a public figure can win a libel suit only after proving that a journalist knew a published statement was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.
But in the Massachusetts law cited by the appeals court, "actual malice" means "malevolent intent or ill will," said the panel. Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; Baitler had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him," the court wrote.
So we're talking about:
1) A state law.
2) A ruling that simply allows the guy to sue; it's not a final verdict by any means.
3) A very specific instance, that will eventually be settled in court anyway, as per 2).
So, I don't think this is anything for journalists to get overly anxious over, in truth.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
Yes, you're right. The fact that the economy is in the shitter is clearly the only important thing in the world, and all activity not specifically directed at correcting it should be stopped immediately. We'll begin with shutting the police and fire services, then dismissing all court cases in all courts in the US, and finally we'll halt all work on any construction or repair projects.
While we're at it, we should also do something about all the precious energy and attention we're currently exerting in our continued efforts to clothe and feed ourselves, as well as that silent thief of time, breathing.
Jackass.
...when libel is defined as a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person?
Note: Bold mine...
I didn't RTFA, but this sounds absolutely insane, and it creates a dangerous precedent.
Basically, one could now commit a whole litany of crimes in plain view of the public, and as long as law enforcement doesn't become aware (or care) about these crimes, nobody would report those crimes, assuming that one had the financial means to sue them into submissions.
Also, journalism would cease to be a meaningful profession, as meaningful investigative reporting would be too legally risky for any news organization to allow.
This space left intentionally blank.
But Wendy Sibbison, the Greenfield appellate lawyer for the fired Staples employee, Alan S. Noonan, said the ruling applies only to lawsuits by private figures against private defendants, that is, defendants not involved in the news business, over purely private matters.
Most bloggers would fall under "private persons" and not "news organizations" I'd think. So say something true that puts a person in less than favorable light on your blog, and you get a libel suit? The US just made another step in digging itself siz feet under with lawsuits.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Todd smells!"
"Aww, I already knew that..."
And thus signaled the end of the Flanders family newsletter.
That poor guy. To think that one letter is all that's keeping him from a complete destruction of his reputation.
If you want to steal stuff, you shouldn't be surprised you get caught. Be happy you don't live in my world. You wouldn't go to jail. You'd just have "THIEF" tattooed on your forehead in 3" high letters.
HDGary secures my bank
"but the company has nothing to gain by disseminating this kind of information."
How about dissuading other employees from doing the same things?
Seems like a pretty good reason to me. Are YOU going to do what he just got fired for??
So what's the difference between a private defendant and a public defendant? One is just a person and the other is backed by a company?
Are we creating rules that don't apply to companies?
Almost every day there another story that makes you go "WTF, are these people completely insane!?!?!?!"
Simple common sense seems like such an outmoded concept these days, it's utterly depressing.
It seems that the issue here is not just defamation and truth but also invasion of privacy. Even exposing truthful information can open one to a tort if that information is considered private and there is no reason to communicate it to third parties. In this case the court found it particularly troubling that the company violated its own policy on privacy when sending the email.
The other problem mentioned in the court opinion itself there was also a false light issue -- even if the content of the email was true, strictly speaking, it falsely led readers to believe that Noonan not only was fired but also violated the law.
Ultimately though the court was persuaded that even if the statement was true, it was made with "actual malice." The relevant Mass. law already has an exception built into defamation law that says a true statement can still be libelous if it is made with "actual malice," and they concluded in this case that the statement was made with such intent. The definition of actual malice the court settles on is quite different from the definition generally used in US law -- rather than "reckless disregard for truth," the court concludes that it means something like "ill will." It is this definition of "actual malice" that may undermine traditional interpretations of libel law. The notion that "truth as a defense" is undermined by this case is probably an exaggeration -- that defense is already undermined by the exemption itself as it exists in Massachusetts law.
Does the intent of the defendant matter? In the case of a news organization, the intent is merely to inform the public of the facts. If an ex-employer releases damaging information about an employee with the intent of harming their career, then damages may be appropriate. I don't know as IANAL.
We have a judicial system for the purpose of handing out civil and criminal penalties. I'm guessing here that the courts don't want private parties to engage in a form of vigilantism by going after other's reputations.
Have gnu, will travel.
Wow, this story covers pretty much all the angles that annoy me about bad legal decisions:
I'm a consultant, I claim expenses, I work with sales people who also claim expenses, and I don't see a need to be naive here. If you're sacking someone for what is essentially a free-loading lack of integrity, I don't you should be obliged by law to keep that fact hidden. True, normally it's a more respectful "John is moving on to new challenges" kind of message that goes out, but it shouldn't be illegal to let people know that bad behaviour can be caught and punished. Particularly in job roles that are typically well compensated in the context of any given employer, and where they are effectively entrusted with other people's money.
I'm assuming here that the "sloppy" record keeping means money has been claimed that wasn't supported by an appropriate paper trail. Because who sacks people for claiming less expenses than they were due? That said, it's possible this was a vindictive sacking over a minor infringement made in genuine error. But if that's the case, fight the legal battle on those grounds rather than trying to set a precedent that could have far broader impact. I gotta say my gut feel is that people who distort language so much as to say libel means telling the truth are not to be trusted...
Just because an employer ALLEGES a violation doesnt mean it necessarily happened. in absence of a proper examination of the facts the matter remains an allegation and nothing more.
Remember innocence until proven otherwise?
If the company really had to say a memo it should have read:
"An employee has had to leave the company following an investigation into an alleged incident involving company procedures regarding expense disbursements."
While I am not sure if this should be considered libel, I don't think the defense 'well it was true!' always triumphs as a legal defense. What about rights to privacy? Suppose the email had disclosed that Noonan had left his job because he had been diagnosed with cancer.. while this statement might be true, doesn't he have a right to keep some information about himself private?
Slashdot users seem to argue for privacy most of the time... they get upset with companies that share information, but never say "Well I guess it is ok if company A shares my surfing habits with company B, because after all they are my TRUE surfing habits"
While I know this is not the same issues, they seem somewhat related to me. Although on one part I agree completely... this should not be a libel case; it should be a employee privacy violation case instead.
...this wouldn't be on Slashdot.
I just can't see the malicious intent with this one. Was it stupid? Yes. If Staples had just said "he's been let go", nothing more would've come of it. It's adding the reason he was let go that's causing the problems.
How should Staples have handled it? Send the email saying "he's been let go", and then a couple days later or so send a company wide message sternly reminding people of the importance of correct paperwork and that knowingly sending in false documents can lead to punishment up to and including termination.
...imagine I was fired for sleeping with the directors daughter, who also happened to be the comptroller, and had access to my pay records (which would constitute gross misconduct, perhaps?), that doesn't mean the whole world should know that I porked her. Even the fact I was fired should be available only as a result of a direct enquiry, and I'm not even sure about that. It's not a crime to be fired from a company. In europe, (as far as I am aware) you may only ask a previous employer the following "Would you re-hire Mr. XXX"
As it should be.
Next time you bring up your opponent's questionable past, you could be sued for a form of defamation.
I bit this will happen exactly once, and this obscure law will be rewritten.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
The way Andy Grove would do it would be to dismiss him but give him a glowing review on the condition that he go to work for a competitor (and presumably steal from them instead). How is this guy ever going to get a job at Office Max or Office Depo when Staples claims he's been stealing?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Did you know that the founder of McDonalds had a disorder that made him frequently fry rats instead of chicken? T story.
The key point is that the trial court here has not considered any evidence yet. It made a purely legal ruling under Massachusetts law, and it was wrong because it failed to take into account the actual malice law.
No, the key point is that the legal principle that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel is under attack in Massachusetts.
This principle is one of the bedrocks upon which our freedom of speech is built.
You're right that it's not a bad ruling. It's a terrible ruling.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
RTFA. The court didn't say the plaintiff is right, merely that he could sue. No, this isn't proof that the country is going to hell in a handbasket, only that this jkoker can have his day in court. You can sue anyone for just about anything - that doesn't mean you'll win.
The notion of truth as a defense against libel came up most famously in the case of Zenger, a newspaper publisher sued for libel by the colonial governor of Massachussetts in 1735:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zenger.html
http://www.ryanteaguebeckwith.com/eng214/libel.html
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
We can sue someone for libel whenever they say anything about us now? Has the whole world gone insane? This is crazy.
I think it will stick.
Terms of a person's firing are almost always non-public. A company as large as Staples can't publish to ALL it's employees that they fired Bob over $5.00 misappropriated on an expense report. That's malicious. It's appropriate to say we will (and have) terminated over expense reports being wrong without giving the offenders name.
I can't think of any company I've worked at that's attached names to memos like that. Even companies that actually call the cops on somebody don't typically inform the employees of the person's name, or particular details of the infraction beyond the company "rule book" for just this reason.
Added bold for emphasis. This whole thing seems like it should be a "public disclosure of private facts" suit, not a Libel suit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.
"Unlike libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."
Yes, you're right. The fact that the economy is in the shitter is clearly the only important thing in the world, and all activity not specifically directed at correcting it should be stopped immediately. We'll begin with shutting the police and fire services, then dismissing all court cases in all courts in the US, and finally we'll halt all work on any construction or repair projects.
Well, that's one way to do the spending reductions
I think employees suing their employers is a special case, because the employer has a lot of private info on the employee. So they can take things out of context and ruin somebody's reputation, make it hard for them to get another job, etc.
I'm not sure libel is the best way to handle this problem. But there need to be limits on what employers can say about their employees and former employees because the company is in a position to abuse the private info they have.
Well, I'm glad that I followed my own suggestion, and reread the story of the Zenger case. It was weirder than I remembered, and perhaps more interesting than the current Staples thing, which is still in a bit of a fuzzy state.
It appears that in English law at least through 1735, truth was no defense whatsoever against a libel charge. Yup: completely irrelevant. That's exactly what the judge told the jury in Zenger. Once Zenger admitted to publishing the pamphlets in question, the judge told the jury that they had nothing to decide, and must return a verdict of "guilty."
Alexander Hamilton defended Zenger successfully, essentially by convincing the jury to nullify the law, a power that juries appear to possess through the present day, but which prosecutors and judges often seem to try to obscure.
I hope that someone can post more factual information regarding the history of this trial, and later libel law in the US. In particular:
1. I wonder whether the judge's instruction in the Zenger case constitutes what they call a "directed verdict," in which case the jury apparently defied the direction. Or was it just strong advice? Anyone know exactly how directed verdicts work? Does the jury have an opportunity to ignore the direction?
2. Can anyone clarify the subsequent English and US history of libel law? To what extent, and how, is truth established as a defense? Has the first amendment to the US constitution been deemed relevant?
3. Any further stuff on jury nullification?
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
No, that's just not true, and limiting libel to false statements would be very wrong. The SCOTUS definition of "actual malice" includes a very important case that shows why: "reckless disregard for truth."
It's not enough to make statements that just happen to be true; you must make statements that you are justified in believing. So, for example, suppose you wanted to discredit Joe Blow, so you went around spreading the "lie" that Joe Blow is gay and slept with the mayor's son (who is known to be gay). You had no particular reason to believe either statement at the time. Joe Blow accuses you of libel, defamation or whatever other thing is applicable in this case. It then is discovered that Joe is actually gay, and did sleep with the mayor's son, so your allegations against him were actually true.
You should not be able to win the case. When you accused Joe, you didn't care whether the accusations were true or false. All you cared about was the effect that the accusations would have on Joe and his dealings with others.
Are you adequate?
But then everything on the inter *net* is linked to everything else. Your post is linked to neo-Nazi / white power /regigioius hate sites.
And, oh noes, so is mine.
The law is different in every state, and even often within different counties of the same state. You cannot apply Wikipedia's definitions of crimes and torts to cases that are being disputed under the law of one specific jurisdiction, because there's a very good chance that the definitions and case law is not the same.
Wikipedia's definitions of crimes and torts are a usually a sort of lowest common denominator to help you understand the overall landscape of what general types of acts jurisdictions treat as crimes or torts; so, yes, jurisdictions normally have laws that deal with the public disclosure of private facts. The precise classification is always jurisdiction-specific; some jursidictions might have a separate tort or offense for it, some might treat it as one subcase of other offenses.
Are you adequate?
The article title:
Libel Suits OK Even If Libel Is Truthful
is blatantly silly.
If something is truthful, then it isn't libel! It's only libel if the statements are false!
Let's say I start a rumor by writing about person X looking for the glory hole at the airport and he sues me. Now, if it turns out he really was looking for the glory hole, then it isn't libel! It's the truth!
If person X is a politician or other public figure, not only does he have to prove the statement was false (the burden is on the plaintiff in civil cases), he also has to prove I did it with malicious intent. And if he really was looking for the glory hole, it's still not libel, even if I maliciously spread the truth!
I feel bad for the guy, but I don't agree with the ruling. Either there's something the article doesn't tell us about his case, or it's really bad decision-making and needs to be overturned at a higher level.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
You are making two errors here that I addressed in separate posts:
Are you adequate?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they got this judgment right. Relevant Massachusetts law says libel is untruthful or malicious statements against a person's character. Staples made statements that, while truthful, may well have been malicious due to the scope and context of their presentation.
Now a judge or jury will hear arguments from both sides. Previously, a judge had simply heard Staples say (paraphrasing) "nothing in this widely distributed e-mail that defamed the plaintiff was factually untrue, so these charges must be dismissed." This disregarded the fact that the e-mail describing Noonan's firing for violation of company policies was itself a violation of company policy, that the subtext of the message implied he had willfully violated company policy for his own profit when he maintains the violations were done in a combination of good faith and company-wide SOP that defied the letter of the written and largely un-enforced official policy, and that the context and timing of the firing as well as the inclusion of his name in the e-mail might lead those who read it to believe that Staples felt he had broken the law.
Seems that both parties acted immorally. Noonan simply wants his day in court to prove that Staples also acted illegally. His case DOES deserve to be heard, and Massachusetts probably DOES need to reexamine this law.
I know what you did last summer. Just kidding, I don't work at the NSA.
There is almost no way this can apply to media defendants. Further, the only way it could apply would strip it of almost all of its teeth.
Still, I think those wondering why this didn't fall under a privacy tort are on the mark.
This is the release of private information of a highly embarrassing nature, one of the four classic privacy torts. The question is how does the state in question treat such a privacy tort (each is different).
Another interesting aspect of this case is the law in question, from 1902, is 12 years after the famous Warren and Brandeis "The Right to Privacy" Harvard Law Review article. (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html)
It appears the 1902 law may have been an early attempt to recognize a privacy tort through the tort of libel.
Finally, the torts are not criminal cases. Therefore, the actions of Staples can not be classified as "illegal." Accordingly, questions of intent are not terribly relevant (accept as far as specific tort elements are concerned, and then they are weighed differently than criminal intents).
The press is not private? Unlike some other nations, the US still has freedom of the press, meaning the "news business" is not a government agency and ostensibly operates in the private sector. Some members of the "news business" may be publicly traded corporations, but to treat the industry as a whole as a collective public agency is a twisting of the language. And a slap in the face of the First Amendment.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
* Suddenly a word that had a well known meaning in the real world (i.e. libels are lies) has a different meaning in law.
Tell me about it...
This is a well-trodden path. For another example, consider the decision a few years back in which a Massachusetts court changed the definition of a word that starts with "M" and ends with "arriage."
Reading the article it strikes me as shockingly alarmist. Here are a few reasons why:
The court did not, it appears, rule that libel had occurred, they merely ruled that a libel suit could be filed in the face of a summary dismissal. The plaintiff still has to prove that the claim was made with malevolent intent, and the law seems to imply that he must also prove this malevolent intent led to a claim which is perhaps factually true but clearly misleading. Unless I misunderstand the ruling here, the ruling basically says "under Massachusetts law, you might have a case, and as such you are allowed to plead it before the court" but makes no actual ruling on the validity of his case.
It does sound incredibly odd that this e-mail was sent in the first place. If the plaintiff was seriously believed to have defrauded the company, they should have pressed charges and most other companies would have, and if they don't believe this then they have no reason to break their own procedures by announcing "we think this guy was stealing from us" to all and sundry. Free speech or no, that seems like an extremely unprofessional thing for a VP to do. In my own experience with a large national retailer, something like that would NEVER be announced company wide, and likely wouldn't even be announced regionally or within the district... a rumor might be "leaked", but absolutely not an official statement. If Staples isn't looking at firing this VP as well, I'll be shocked.
If charges were not pressed and nobody was ever convicted of theft, then an accusation like this cannot be stated as fact. This nation operates under a presumption of innocence, and for a company to report a former employee as having committed fraud based solely on their suspicions is clearly contrary to that spirit.
It is already unlawful in many locales for an employer to tell competitors things like that about former employees, and I find it hard to believe that under the circumstances the intent here was to accomplish something other than prevent future employment. Those laws currently stand, so unless they are to be ruled invalid I don't see how this case can be entirely without merit.
The whole thing hinges on an obscure law from 107 years ago. Even if this one guy manages to win this one time, it will be on a narrow technicality and probably not take more than a week or two for the State legislature to strike it from the book.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Ok, Disclaimer - NAL
Lets say employee A works at company B. Company B suspects employee A of fiddling expenses. Company B then does an "investigation" and finds that, in their opinion, employee A probably did fiddle the expenses and finds this grounds for dismissal under the companies policies and procedures. A disciplinary panel is formed of managers of company B who decide to terminate the employee's contract and does so.
Up until now the only people involved are employee A, the manager of employee A, an investigating manager from company B, the HR droid from company B and the disciplinary panel of company B. Its not a court of law and they only need find reasonable suspicion of guilt to can employee A's ass!
But then they send out an e-mail to all employees of company B stating that employee A has been fired for fiddling expenses.
Now company B feels like they are somehow sending a message, that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated and that staff be warned but they have made a mistake. But they are not the police, nor are they lawyers in a court of law. They are a company who conducted an internal investigation that is subject to all sorts of bias and non neutral points of view. Policies and Procedures do not trump the actual law and this employee A, who may be guilty, was not tried and convicted in a court of law, he was tried and convicted in a closed internal company procedure. He doesn't get to put his side to all the colleagues in a nice e-mail or get to defend himself (or herself) publicly and, while nobody argues that the company had sufficient grounds for dismissal, they should have simply fired employee A and let staff know he was no longer at the company, no reason need be given.
Instead, in addition to firing employee A, they chose to accuse him publicly and that gives him grounds to sue as a public accusation needs to meet a burden of proof in a court of law.
If they felt they wanted to make a public statement they should have involved the police who would have investigated and found evidence of fraud. He could then be tried in criminal court or civil court if they wanted to make a civil case of it and if the outcome was in company B's favor THEN they can shout it from the rooftops because it is then a legal fact and not libellous.
But until then, company B should have been smart and opened up a can of STFU and simply fired his/her ass. Instead company B is on the defensive which is not where they should be.
And the papers never say someone is guilty unless it is proven... otherwise the couch accusations as questions like "Employee A, Did he fiddle expenses?" or make references to sources / allegations "It is alleged that Employee A may have been fiddling expenses" or "Sources say A may have defrauded B".
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
is by artful selections of truths.
So, in principle, assembling a statement from true parts doesn't make what is communicated true.
The main problem I see is distinguishing between diabolically clever malice and normal, boneheaded human tunnel vision. If the perp left a paper trail when he constructed the defamation, sure; but the fact that a statement is outrageously wrong doesn't imply intent.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
sounds more like an invasion of privacy tort to me than libel. plaintiffs counsel is (i think) referencing the 'public figure' exception that allows slightly more leeway in what may be said about one who holds oneself out to be a public figure. malice is an added element the plaintiff must show when the plaintiff is a public figure. the media can use this element as a shield from liability.
"i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
Most commonwealth countries, as you point out, do not have the U.S. principle that truth is an absolute defense against libel. The UK has historically gone the farthest in allowing such suits.
The U.S. actually has a stronger principle in the other direction for public figures: a statement is not necessarily libel even if false and harmful, unless the publisher either knew it to be false, or published with "reckless disregard" for its truth.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I can see a useful principle of "employee confidentiality", appropriately delineated. But that seems like a separate issue from libel, and should be covered by a separate statute, with violations being prosecuted as "violation of employee confidentiality", not as "libel".
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"Do you solemnly swear in the case pending before this court to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ... unless you can be sued?"
Before, 1500 Staples employees knew who he was, that he was terminated, and the reason cited by Staples for doing so. Now, millions do. That certainly won't help him find a new position!
There's actually in the common law a separate tort for this kind of action -- false light.
Generally speaking for false light, you have to publicize a statement, with actual malice, that portray the plaintiff in a false or misleading way that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. The tort isn't allowed in all jurisdictions because many state courts feel that it's too close to defamation and do not like how it overcomes the truth as defense limitation, but most states do accept it.
All the 1st Circuit has done here is analyze MA defamation law, which clumsily encodes false light under its umbrella, and apply the law as written. No real cause for alarm here. And we do also have separate torts for fully true depictions of people that publicize private matters in an offensive way, so it's not as big of a deal as everyone thinks. It's a decision that protects privacy, and I support it. Newspapers are getting up in arms irrationally -- we already have plenty of case law shielding them from most false light, defamation, and public disclosure claims.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Wow, this story covers pretty much all the angles that annoy me about bad legal decisions:
* Suddenly a word that had a well known meaning in the real world (i.e. libels are lies) has a different meaning in law.
* The plaintiff is complaining about a situation in which they were the ones doing something fundamentally wrong.
* The truth seems to be less important than the ability to use weasel words and slippery logic.
* It encourages bad behaviour e.g. in this case sales people with expense accounts who feel they don't need to keep records, and should suffer no adverse effects if they get caught.
This is what bothers me about legal reporting and public commentary that results.
* The word "libel" isn't as important as the public knowing that an act is wrong. We already have an existing tort in many jurisdictions that covers this: false light. If you publicize something about someone that may be misleading, and you do it with actual malice towards the person you are publicizing the matter about, it doesn't matter if what you said is true as long as it could mislead people in a highly offensive manner. MA phrased their defamation law strangely to basically open the doors to false light claims under libel. What matters is not what terms you use to call the violation, though, but whether the public knows its fundamentally wrong to haul someone up and shame them in terms that may lead people to think much worse about them than they actually deserve.
* The fact that the plaintiff was doing something wrong doesn't mean that the defendant is completely off the hook for doing something wrong themselves. Staples did not usually mention the names of employees when sending out announcements about firings. His claim that the email was sent out with the intent to humiliate him passes the laugh test for me. (But it's up to a jury to determine whether it was sent with "actual malice" and in a highly offensive manner. I think he's going to lose there.)
* Letting Staples get off sends the message to companies that it's okay to single out workers for public humiliation if you fire them, and that you don't have to avoid painting them in a terrible light if it's not merited.
This plaintiff may not be a great guy, but we don't run a legal system that's based on two wrongs make a right.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
This isn't as simple as libel. Surly libel should be false if it's to be illegal. How can the truth bi libel?? But this case should fall under privacy concerns. As I understand employment law (IANAL), you can't go around telling everybody, especially people with no need to know, why somebody was fired. Future/prospective employers asking for a reference can only be told the person was fired for policy violations and not much more than that- no specifics usually. If I am correct in this, then the email is illegal; if I am wrong, then it's legal.
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
You've got the correct issue but in the 100% wrong direction IMO. The purpose of the law SHOULD be to hold those with more power like corporations and governments to different standards than individuals because corporations and governments can cause MUCH more harm than private individuals. Thus I think the salesperson's layer has it 100% right that individuals ought to be able to challenge power always to hold it accountable without fear of liable lawsuits, but that the powerful like corporations have no right to use their power like a corporate e-mail system to destroy an individual which is shockingly similar to a Soviet show trial only done by the private sector rather than a government.
I realize that is not necessarily how the laws are written now, but the goal ought to be to protect the press and a private individuals right to always challenge concentrated public and private power, while always protecting the individual from the malice of concentrated power. One of the purposes of the bill of rights for example was to protect individuals and minorities from the concentrated power of the government well guess what in the 21st century corporations have as much if not more power than governments and we ought to be protecting individuals from corporations as well. All power to the individual and all accountability to concentrated power.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
"Suddenly a word that had a well known meaning in the real world (i.e. libels are lies) has a different meaning in law."
If they were, we would call them lies. Libels and lies may be close but they are not the same.
"The plaintiff is complaining about a situation in which they were the ones doing something fundamentally wrong."
You mean he was sentenced by a court? Who is deciding that he was doing something fundamentally wrong?
"The truth seems to be less important than the ability to use weasel words and slippery logic."
Come now, you just made that up on the spot didn't you? In the article I did not see any weasel words or slippery logic.
"It encourages bad behavior e.g. in this case sales people with expense accounts who feel they don't need to keep records, and should suffer no adverse effects if they get caught."
You don't need to shame anyone by name to make that clear to your employees. He did suffer adverse effects already without being shamed: he did get fired and I doubt that he will get any recommendations from the company. And the rumor circuit will probably same him anyway to his direct colleagues, the other salesmen.
I think it was a necessary and good legal decision. One that does not bring the US even closer to the middle ages (where the ruling class can do what they want without being responsible for anything).
I would say anyone that believes the first amendment should protect the rights of private entities to tell the truth about other private entities is a bigger believer in the first amendment than you. Maybe you should read the first amendment, Mr. Sibbison.
"The word "libel" isn't as important as the public knowing that an act is wrong."
Don't be ridiculous. This is a libel case, and as the article points out, to change the meaning of the word is to change the meaning of the law. To say the word isn't important is to disregard the main point of the article.
With respect to false light, how is your argument different to my closing paragraph where I point out that the individual may in fact have been wronged, in which case they should argue the case on its merits e.g. as a false light claim? You are also incorrect in your understanding of law - false light is related to privacy tort, not defamation. Further, false light is not supported by all courts. Clearly this issue is not as simple as you think, and certainly deserving of a more nuanced opinion than self-righteous statements about two wrongs not making a right.
"Letting Staples get off sends the message to companies that it's okay to single out workers for public humiliation if you fire them"
Conversely, finding Staples guilty would send the message that no matter what rules a worker breaks in their own self-interest, they would still have a right to privacy. I don't see how either of these simplistic arguments could be expected to hold true in all circumstances.
You never actually say what it is that "bothers" you about my post. Was it the way I pointed out a couple of sides to the issue, even admitted to making assumptions and an element of emotion rather logic, rather than simply stating a simple one-sided black & white opinion ladens with value judgments?
"If they were, we would call them lies. Libels and lies may be close but they are not the same."
This is a court case we're talking about, not playground gossip. Lying isn't illegal, so clearly we would not call them that. Using the American Heritage Dictionary for the definitions, what are the substantial differences between "a false publication" (libel) and "a false statement" (lie)? Because frankly it sounds like you're indulging in weasel words and slippery logic. It only gets worse when you completely lose perspective and argue that only by a court sentence can someone be considered to have done something wrong.
Personally, I like words to have meaning and the courts to apply the law in a predictable fashion. You suggest using the rumor mill as a form of punishment, and disregarding the truth in favor of someone with the chutzpah to use the legal system to get compensation under obscure clauses quite possibly written to limit the freedom of speech. That's the kind of thing that makes me contribute regularly to civil liberties groups.
It's interesting you've got a thing about the "ruling class". As my post made clear, one reason I'm against this ruling is that I don't like highly compensated people trusted with other people's money shying away from taking responsibility for their own actions. You however support the idea of changing the law so that telling the truth about breaking the rules is a bad thing. Maybe the ruling class doesn't really bother you that much.
Possibly Massachusetts law is incompatible with the US Constitution in this regard. I am inclined to believe it is.
What in the world makes you think there is a Constitutional issue here?
The First Amendment only deals with prior restraint, not damages caused by the tort of defamation. It is 100% legal in the US for me to go around defaming people all day long. To legislate away that right would be blatantly unconstitutional.
What the First Amendment does not grant me is the right to inflict damages through speech with impunity. If I were to say, "XLawyer is a shitty lawyer who doesn't know jack shit about the US Constitution," that would be defamatory speech (per se, as I would have impugned your professional fitness), and you would be able to pursue me for the damages you suffered based on my statements.
That's all that is happening here. Staples has every right to publish whatever they want (see US Constitution, Amendment I). They do, however, need to be prepared to make whole the parties that they damage in the process.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock