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
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.
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
Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply in civil cases.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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
"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??
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.
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...
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
Oho, what's this?
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.
Emphasis above is mine.
Motion to tag this story with "badsummary," your honor. IANAL but maybe NYCL will stop by this thread for a visit... there are some very, very important lessons here.
First and foremost, this situation arose because no one followed a procedure. Noonan, for whatever reason, did not do his expense reports right. He could be incompetent; he could be a thief; or he simply could have made honest mistakes and/or not realized how seriously those reports were being taken.
Baitler did something he'd never done before: he named someone in a termination notice. That's a /facepalm +2, +5 vs. your liability. Have a written goddamn procedure for anything related to security or liability, have people sign it, and never frickin deviate from it. If you want the right to name someone, make it part of company policy. Having NO policy covering this at all is no defense, either.
In fact, from the badsummary impression of ONOES, U GET SOOD 4 TELIN TRU, what we actually have here is "Employee fired, then singled out in a way no employee ever has been before." Now, I don't see this being a Staples problem - responsibility here seems to rest in the lap of this Baitler person who made the extremely poor decision to do something new in an area of high risk. In PA, this is an at-will state: you still can't fire someone for an illegal reason, but you can fire them for no reason at all. That is what they should have done, if they felt the expense report thing was not resolvable by working with Noonan (either because they were sick of it, or someone had a personal grudge, or because he was actually in fact stealing - all irrelevant).
What Staples can best do here now is define clear from-the-top policy about how terminations are handled. If it were me, i'd have a word or three with Baitler and look to settle with Noonan, but i imagine they'll see if Noonan's claim is allowed to be amended first before approaching him.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
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