Real-World Consequences of Social Networking Posts

gbulmash sends in a classic Streisand Effect story of a Chicago landlord suing a tenant over a tweet complaining of mold in her apartment. The landlord claims that the tweet caused $50,000 damage to their reputation. If it didn't, then the fallout from their own ill-advised lawsuit surely will. The woman's Twitter account is now gone (possibly on advice of counsel), but the tweet that started it all lives on. And in a similar vein, reader levicivita notes a firing over a political comment on a Facebook page. "Lee Landor, who had been the deputy press secretary to Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer since May, posted comments on her Facebook page criticizing Mr. Gates [Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr.] and the president, whom she referred to at one point as 'O-dumb-a.' ... The borough president has accepted Ms. Landor's resignation, effective immediately."

Comments

it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

before all these social networking rantings came through to haunt/hurt us in real life....folks dont seem to understand that the internet is a serious place with actions having far reaching effects

Re:it was only a matter of time

[TopShelf]

This reads much like articles we've seen for several years, just with Twitter substituted for email/blog/message board post.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Horizon Realty is a piece of shit company who sues everyone without thinking and has moldy apartments.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the internet is serious bizness.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Col. Panic]

my boss has no idea who Col. Panic is, nor does he know who anonymous coward is, for that matter

Re:it was only a matter of time

[girlintraining]

before all these social networking rantings came through to haunt/hurt us in real life....folks dont seem to understand that the internet is a serious place with actions having far reaching effects

... And that's not okay. We're living in a digital world. We need forums to express ourselves to some people, but not others. If the technology makes this difficult or impractical, then we need to adjust our social expectations to embrace this, not exclude it. This is the only way to move forward in the digital world with any kind of strength. Otherwise, we risk becoming a society of deaf mutes.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah, it used to be that racists like Landor would successfully conceal themselves for years, never coming out of the woodwork. With Twitter and Facebook, these people's true feelings come out and it's a lot easier to out racists. Long live the internet! :)

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Forge]

And now Taco will be sued.

After all everyone knows that he and Cowboy Neal are the only two Anonymous Cowards on SlashDot and this particular post has better spelling than Cowboy Neal's norm.

My advise to Slashdoters in the Chicago region. Start scraping together what cash you can. A lot of the properties managed by this moronic company will be on the market soon. Cheap.

On a side note, We have a residential facility named Horizon in Jamaica.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[yog]

What about letters to the editor? What about traditional magazine articles, newspaper columns, and books? People for centuries have been publishing their opinions and ideas and we have a whole body of laws to deal with the consequences--slander (calumny, in the old days), truth in reporting, copyrights, and so forth. Then, we also have 30 years of usenet and website publishing which preceded the Facebook/Myspace/Twitter model. Society seems to have adapted pretty well to this technology.

There is nothing about social networking to distinguish it from previous publishing modalities except that it is faster and easier to publish something far and wide than it ever was before. It's accelerated information distribution, and that's what society is reacting to.

If a tenant can complain about a landlord in a matter of seconds and have an audience of hundreds of thousands, the landlord will be more upset than if the tenant just mentions it to her friends at the golf course or knitting circle or watering hole. However, nothing particularly revolutionary is happening.

"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization". That sums it up. It's just another lawsuit-happy guy who ought to get his wrist slapped for a frivolous case, unless the defendant rolls over and pays some symbolic fine, which is likely to happen, a la RIAA.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[ThinkWeak]

I can't wait for the first Halo 3 Chat Lawsuit. Microsoft and Bungie may put a disclaimer up about "experiences may change online", but that doesn't necessarily protect the "anonymous" party threatening others from a lawsuit. Does it?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[kent_eh]

Yup.
As far as I know, no one that I have ever met face-to-face is aware of my username at various online forums.

Also, I avoid making posts that would connect my username with my employer, or my family.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Sir_Lewk]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is "O-dumb-a" a racial slur?

A childish insult for sure, but racist?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm breathing a sigh of relief.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Tanktalus]

I might be missing something, too, but I've seen a vocal minority of Obama supporters assuming that if you disagree with Obama, you must be racist against blacks. Some of us prefer disagreeing with Obama for his actual statements, policies, and actions, without regard to race, but some people think that Obama is so infallible that they think the only reason to disagree with him is because he's black. See "Undercover Brother". These people I refer to think this is a documentary, not a parody.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[VJ42]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is "O-dumb-a" a racial slur?

A childish insult for sure, but racist?

It's spelt wrong, he meant O'dumba. It's a making fun of his Irish roots by playing on the Irish == stupid stereotype. /sarcasm

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine the reaction if someone had made one of these, but for Obama. Would it be called racist?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Ogive17]

Don't you know that in our ultra-PC society that if you do not like a minority you must be racist? I'm sure some people will call me racist for my next comment, but oh well.

Barack Obama would not have come close to winning the election if he wasn't half black. In fact I doubt he would have even made a blip on the Democractic radar if he was a white male. I'm a registered 29yo Democrat and the only thing that impresses me about Obama is his ability to read from a script.

His timing was perfect, though. Widespread hatred of Bush and the GOP. Youth that wanted to prove the US was a progressive nation and could elect a minority candidate. On par with that I will admit Obama was able to connect with the younger voters to garner their support. But omfg were the Obamites annoying to talk to. They were everywhere last summer/fall spouting out nonsense which they didn't understand.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[multisync]

folks dont seem to understand that the internet is a serious place with actions having far reaching effects

Yes, just like in the real world, if you criticize someone on the Internet they can slapp you with a lawsuit designed to silence critics, rather than spending their money on useless things like fixing the mould problem in their building.

Fortunately, the Internet is a serious place where actions like this lawsuit can also have far reaching effects.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[paeanblack]

We need forums to express ourselves to some people, but not others.

We have those. Twitter is not an appropriate forum for controlled distribution.

Besides, she's probably fine. The purpose of libel law is not to stop people ranting or spouting off-hand thoughts, but rather to prevent false and malicious statements of fact.

Her statement of "Horizon Realty thinks is okay" will be pretty hard to sell as a statement of fact instead of opinion. She cannot know what Horizon Realty actually "thinks", even taken in the context of internal policies, and this is obvious to a typical reader. Since it is not falsifiable, it cannot be a statement of fact.

Horizon will also have a hard time convincing a court that her primary intent was to damage their reputation. If that were the case, she would like have chosen a forum far less ephemeral than Twitter.

Lastly, if she can provide any support to her notion that Horizon did not act quickly and adroitly to address a possible mold issue, her statement becomes a reasonable and justifiable opinion. That's a pretty strong libel defense.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[db32]

RTFA. "O-dumb-a" is not the racial slur. She goes on racist rants about how blacks deserve to be profiled because our prison population is mostly black. Which aside from being racist is the classical circular logic displayed by people too stupid to think for themselves.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[deathlyslow]

How is this any different than the various and sundry play on words for former President Bush? It's not to my way of thinking. Of course, I didn't vote for him so naturally I'm a white supremacist with homophobic overtones. Cut us some slack.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[R2.0]

"All insults directed at a member of a protected class shall be interpreted as resulting from bias against that protected class"

From the PC Handbook, as referenced in both the Trial Lawyers Business Development Guide and 15 Minutes: How YOU Can Get the Fame You Deserve!

Re:it was only a matter of time

[phorm]

That part wasn't really, but the overall comments include:

"And racial profiling does exist, but for good reason. Take a look at this countryâ(TM)s jails: who makes up the majority of inmates? Exactly."

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Loco3KGT]

I think what y'all are missing is the comment that followed where she said "racial profile does exist and for good reason, just look at the prison population," or something to that effect. Implying racial profiling is ok because blacks are obviously the majority of criminals because they make up the majority of inmates.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot. Nobody RsTFA.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.
Here is a great example courtesy of Janine Garafolo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsmDmxIUqGE

Content I am referring to begins at 0:25, goes to 0:50. But pretty much the whole video is relevant.
Is it not possible to just disagree w/o being a racist?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Gay for Linux]

If she'd said something about Bush no one would have said a word. It's very hypocritical.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[HeronBlademaster]

O'dumba

I will not have you insulting our Irish female twins of Dumbo!

(Ok, that was lame, but so is the original "insult".)

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Q-Hack!]

it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.

Otherwise known as "its' grammar."

Re:it was only a matter of time

[truthsearch]

I'm a registered 29yo Democrat and the only thing that impresses me about Obama is his ability to read from a script.

Then you should have read some of the speeches that he wrote himself. His speech on race, for example, is quite impressive.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

If a tenant can complain about a landlord in a matter of seconds and have an audience of hundreds of thousands, the landlord will be more upset than if the tenant just mentions it to her friends at the golf course or knitting circle or watering hole. However, nothing particularly revolutionary is happening.

On the other hand, the landlord could, you know, obey the applicable laws on housing standards and FIX THE PROBLEM when the tenant first complained about the problem.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't care if he was green. He's a king size jackass that's ruining this country.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[beef curtains]

They were everywhere last summer/fall spouting out nonsense which they didn't understand.

You just described a vast majority of voters all across the political spectrum. I wish every halfwit would shut it with the political commentary now (especially since I seem to have a "Tell Me Your Thoughts About Politics" tattoo on my forehead that's visible to everyone but me).

Re:it was only a matter of time

[danking]

Don't you know that in our ultra-PC society that if you do not like a minority you must be racist?

You are very correct. Not liking a minority for the sake of that person/group being a minority is prejudice. Not liking someone that happens to be part of a minority group is not racist.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[elrous0]

What a funny world we live in where a guy who was raised by his white mother and white grandparents in a tony Hawaiian neighborhood, who is in no way descended from anyone ever enslaved or oppressed, could be considered some oppressed minority in need of special favoritism. This guy probably didn't even meet an actual black person until he went to college, yet now he's being treated as some sort of black messiah.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Abcd1234]

There is nothing about social networking to distinguish it from previous publishing modalities except that it is faster and easier to publish something far and wide than it ever was before.

So, there's no difference, in the same way that the printing press was really just a minor improvement over scribes. Yup, no big deal at all!

Re:it was only a matter of time

[dyingtolive]

I think the change is that there is no longer a barrier to entry. Before, you had the editor picking out which letters actually MADE it into the newspaper. As a result, most of the less eloquent riff-raff could be cut out. That's why you never saw any "ZOMG Obama is teh monkey!!!11!one" in the NYT. There was an implied minimum level of intelligence necessary to have access to Usenet and create your own website previously as well. Sadly, when you have the voice of the lowest common denominator, its always that of the stupidest person in the mob.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty much the point. People have had methods of ranting before, but for some reason with "social networking" they've suddenly lost any self-control and any comprehension that what they say can have consequences. If this is not in some way caused by the new medium, what is the cause?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[ncc74656]

my boss has no idea who Col. Panic is

How about Gen. Protection Fault? Generals tend to be more well-known than colonels.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Danga]

Horizon Realty is a piece of shit company who sues everyone without thinking and has moldy apartments.

I hope Horizon goes out of business. I used to rent an apartment from them and when I moved in I had them clearly state in the lease what utilities I was responsible for (I mainly just wanted to know exactly what util companies I was going to need to contact and setup accounts for but also wanted to have it in writing) they wrote in pen "tenant is only responsible for electricity, cable tv, and water utilities" right on the lease. Well then at move out time I get a bill sent to me from the gas company saying I owe a whole years worth of gas bills, I was like WHAT???

Apparently the water heater was the only gas appliance in the whole apartment and since I did not have access to it and also because I had an electric stove/oven and steam heat I did not have any idea there was a gas appliance at all. Also, the gas bill sent to me was in MY NAME and I NEVER was notified any account was setup in the first place, the only way the gas company could have gotten that information was by contacting Horizon Management (and I am pretty sure setting a utility account up in someones name without them knowing is illegal but I don't know for sure).

Anyway, I contacted the manager and was told since the fine print says tenant is responsible for all individually metered utils that it was my problem, they didnt care they had written clearly I was only responsible for the 3 utils I mentioned above. It was obvious they screwed up and then when they started getting the gas bills instead of notifying me they waited until the end of the year and THEN signed me up for a gas account, this way they wouldn't have to deal with a pissed off/annoyed renter all year long and I am sure they also figured since most students leave town at the end of the year that I wouldn't have time to deal with it. The bill was only about $300 or something but I still was curious what my legal standing was so I called a friend who was a lawyer and after explaining everything he said I would probably win in court if I took it there but that would cost more than just paying the damn gas bill.

I was so pissed that a company would treat customers, especially poor college students, like that, having to pay a $300 bill out of the blue was pretty hard since my campus job only paid $7/hour. They should have just been civil and HONEST with me and after they recieved the first gas bill from the company (yes, they were getting the bills the whole year) they should have notified me that they screwed up and I would have been annoyed but it would not have been a huge deal and then I could have budgeted to pay the bill monthly. Instead I got stuck with a suprise $300 at the end of the year.

So thanks Horizon, I hope your shady business practices and sue first, ask questions later policy results in you going out of business for good. EVERYONE IN THE CHICAGO AREA STAY AWAY FROM HORIZON MANAGEMENT PROPERTIES OR YOU MAY EXPERIENCE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT I DID!

Everything I stated is true, so just try and sue me for libel you bastards.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

If you RTFA (i know, i know) the lady made numerous other racist comments. For example making the claim that black people are in jail because they're black, not because of socio-economic conditions.

Last I heard income is considered the primary correlation with crimes and jailtime. High-income blacks avoid jail at the same rate as high-income whites. Low-income whites go to jail at the same rate as low-income blacks.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[ukyoCE]

Yeah, this. I made the mistake of RingTFA too. Makes it pretty easy to understand why this lady resigned after making those comments in a place where she could be tied back to her (political) career.

The real question here: Is having 1 grand social network to rule them all a Good Thing? Do you really want your mom and your employer able to see everything you say on every forum and to every friend?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Daniel Dvorkin]

So, there's no difference, in the same way that the printing press was really just a minor improvement over scribes. Yup, no big deal at all!

Of course there's a difference; I think most people would agree that being able to publish anything you want on the web, and reach a worldwide audience almost instantaneously, is as large a change as being able to print documents over and over at relatively low cost, instead of having to make copies by hand.

But with respect to this particular issue, the difference isn't -- or shouldn't be -- all that great. I used to write a lot of letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines, and fairly often they got published. In those letters, I was never shy about expressing my opinions in pretty strong words. Anyone who fired or sued me over those letters would have been rightly condemned. We should apply the same standard to online communication as we do to printed and hand-written: there is a very narrow range of writing over which you can go after someone in any substantial way.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[pclminion]

Besides, she's probably fine. The purpose of libel law is not to stop people ranting or spouting off-hand thoughts, but rather to prevent false and malicious statements of fact.

She might be "probably fine" but I can speak with unfortunate experience, having been sued for defamation because of a formal complaint to a licensing board which was filed by my wife against a licensed professional. Yes folks, you are open to legal action by following proper procedures. This wasn't like we took out a full-page ad in the newspaper badmouthing this person, or posted garbage on a web site. This was a formal written complaint which was composed according to stated procedures of the licensing board. (The licensing board, upon hearing of this, basically said "Oh my god, we're sorry. That's tragic. But she's within her rights to do it.")

First of all, we were INCREDIBLY lucky that we had insurance which would cover our attorney's fees. We were served back in January. Since then, there have been multiple depositions my wife has had to attend, and a court date set in August, although our attorney is trying to get that pushed back.

Because this person did not hire an attorney, she herself was the interviewer in my wife's depositions. Basically, my wife was interrogated at length by the person who is suing us.

I cannot begin to describe the pain, stress, sleepless nights. On top of this, our attorney has been silent as to whether or not we have a chance of even winning this. Everybody to whom I have described the circumstances in detail, says that it is the most ridiculous thing they have ever heard. I will not, for obvious reasons, go into the details here. Suffice it to say that our complaint was completely truthful.

So maybe we'll "be fine" but in the meantime I've spent a few weeks in a row vomiting when I get up in the morning, worrying that we're going to lose our house and life savings. This has been the worst year of our lives and we have some pretty bad years to compare it against.

I advise everybody who wants to complain about anything to do one simple thing: shut the fuck up and go on about your business.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yes, just like in the real world, if you criticize someone on the Internet they can slapp you with a lawsuit designed to silence critics

You do realize, don't you, that "SLAPP" is a derogatory slang term? No one describes a suit they're filing as a SLAPP, nor does any law (AFAIK) outline the grounds and procedures for filing such a suit. Note that I'm not saying it's not a useful description of some types of lawsuits, but labeling any libel/slander/restraint-of-trade suit as such dilutes the term to the point of meaninglessness.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Abcd1234]

But with respect to this particular issue, the difference isn't -- or shouldn't be -- all that great.

Except, of course, that it is. And why? Specifically because it's easier. Most people I know have never once in their lives written a letter to the editor. Why? Because it's a pain in the ass and not worth the trouble. Not only do you actually have to break out a pen and paper (or god forbid a computer) and write the damn thing out, you actually have to get an envelope and a stamp and send it. People who would go through that trouble a) actively make a choice to have their opinions heard, and b) understand that, in having such a letter published, they are, in effect, becoming amateur journalists.

We should apply the same standard to online communication as we do to printed and hand-written

But that's the whole point. People don't. At least, the people doing the writing don't. And the reason is simple: the web has made it possible for a stupid, off-the-cuff comment to be published online in mere seconds, available for the whole world to see. The difference in ease isn't just substantial. It's revolutionary. And it opens the door for people to embarrass themselves publicly in ways they never would have in the past, as the low barrier of entry means people a) don't think before they publish, and b) don't think of hitting "Submit" as an act of publication in the first place.

So, does the difference in medium change the legality of the situation? No, of course not. Publication is publication. But it substantially changes the sociological and psychological factors which feed into the decision to publish or not publish something.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[jafiwam]

Let me guess, a realtor?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I agree that people respond differently to online writing than they do to what appears in print, and I even agree with you about the reasons why. My problem is with the response to this phenomenon. When someone gets sued or fired for an offhand remark, in any medium, our response ought to be, "That's not right!" rather than, "Deal with it, that's the way it is."

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

My first interpretation of "O-dumb-a" was actually "Old dumb ass". Did I miss the updated acronym distribution?

Even if meant as a play on Obama, there were plenty of play on Bush, Cheney, Clinton, etc.... Nothing unique to Obama's name.

Mij

Re:it was only a matter of time

[davester666]

But it all has mold, and probably structural defects. They also probably aren't earthquake safe or up to building code.

In fact, if the owners don't keep bribing the building inspectors, the buildings would've been condemned ages ago.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[redKrane]

You don't have to be raised in a ghetto to be affected by the oppression that all minorities feel. There's plenty of well educated minorities who grew up middle class who deal with bigotry and oppression every day. Just because Obama does not fit *your* stereotypical ideal of an oppressed black man does not mean he abandons the right to speak out as a person who is affected adversely as a minority. Secondly, I do not agree with all that Obama does, but I do generally support Democratic candidates. Why is that my intellectual and emotional support for the 1st black president has to be pigeonholed as some type of religious messiah seeking? Is my general support of Obama as a leading American figure different than the views held by many conservatives of Ronald Reagan? Liberals may disagree with the love conservatives have for Reagan, but we do not simply dismiss it as the seeking and following of a messiah. And on top of all that, liberals are the intellectuals, conservatives the emotionals. So who the hell are you to scream messiah?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Forge]

At least their Jamaican operation has sturdy walls and a very strong security system.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Abcd1234]

When someone gets sued or fired for an offhand remark, in any medium, our response ought to be, "That's not right!" rather than, "Deal with it, that's the way it is."

Interesting. And I would claim the precise opposite: that it's unreasonable for a person to feel they can publish a letter in a newspaper with absolute impunity, let alone a comment on a website. Remember, the first amendment outlines limitations on the government, not private employers or individuals.

Now, that's not to say that I believe the employer has a right to terminate the employee based solely upon comments posted outside the workplace. At best, that's an awfully fuzzy situation that probably depends on the nature of the job and the nature of the material that was published. But it's certainly not a black-and-white situation, and I believe that's true irrespective of the medium. The advent of the Internet just means a lot more people will find themselves grappling with this very issue.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[EvilBudMan]

Slander is very hard to prove. Liable, we'll you have the evidence of what she said on the net. Now the next question IS "did she have mold"? I think that would be easy to prove one way or another, but all that being said that company is going to loose even if they win the case. They will look like bullies and no one will use their services again if that's what they do to complainers. It seems like a dumb move without more details.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting too that while he is certainly not descended from American slaves, he could possibly be descended from American slave owners.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[BlueZombie]

Agreed. Expressing your opinion by referring to a seated elected official as being "dumb" is in no way a racial slur. In fact, I believe it is covered under #1 on that bill of rights thingy. But then more and more of our "free speech" is being trimmed away as being racist or obscene or (heaven help us) "offensive" merely because someone else doesn't like hearing it. I missed the part of the Consitution banning or even limiting "offensive" speech. Where was that exactly?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those native Hawaiians and Japanese descendants can be real assholes, sometimes.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[dasunt]

There's plenty of well educated minorities who grew up middle class who deal with bigotry and oppression every day.

Why do you need to be a minority to have an experience with race-based bigotry?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[AP31R0N]

i figure Obama isn't black, as black suggests being a descendant of slaves. He's a child of an immigrant who arrived way after slavery ended. He's closer to something like a dual citizen African-American. As you point out, he was raised in an affluent mostly white community. i'm as white a sour cream, but his upbringing was way more "privileged" than mine. Obama is culturally white, afaict. Hand a white baby to a poor black woman in the ghetto and that child will have a rough time of it, despite their color. Race is less of an issue in one's outcome in life than class. Being born into a poor family of any race is a bigger hindrance than being born brown. Accepting victim status is even worse. Once you start thinking of yourself as a victim, you surrender control/responsibility/power to those who hurt you. It's much harder to overcome a problem while you think it's someone else's fault or responsibility to fix. Granted, there are some fuckers out there who will ruin you for any number of reasons. But until you chose to be a survivor, rather than a victim, you're helpless.

i think it's wrong to treat minorities as children who simultaneously expect protection from their supposed oppressors AND to demand equality. Children get away with it because we don't expect them to live up to adult responsibilities. We give them protection and assistance, but we don't give them equal status to adults. If you're treated like a child after childhood, you'll be a child forever.

It would be far better to work against the root causes of poverty. If we could fix those problems (interest, inflation, fractional reserve ratios of 12 to 1 etc), we could get rid or seriously reduce "entitlement" programs, which would give racist whites less to bitch about. i'm frustrated to no end that so many conservatives bitch about entitlement programs for brown/poor people, while ignoring the programs that benefit the rich. The latter are vastly more costly. For what it cost to bail AIG we could have educated a generation. Meanwhile the root causes remain and we'll have to do this all over again. /voted for Obama //there i go, bringing class into it again /way off topic

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

What a funny world we live in where a sheltered, privileged member of the majority thinks they are fit to judge who is a suitable role model for oppressed minorities.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[iYk6]

racial profile does exist and for good reason, just look at the prison population

Perfect example of classic irony. It looks like this person is saying, "black people have a higher tendency to commit crimes", but what she probably means is, "racial profiling leads to more black people in prison, which is where they belong."

Re:it was only a matter of time

[dcollins]

FTA (NY Times) there's also this: "In response to one Facebook user who voiced disagreement, Ms. Landor referred to Professor Gates using a vulgarity and added, 'And racial profiling does exist, but for good reason. Take a look at this country's jails: who makes up the majority of inmates? Exactly.'"

Methinks there's a lot of protesting-too-much these days.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Omestes]

The racism thing is an old trope for quelling dissenting views. People pull the same thing when Israel is questioned (not its right to exist even, just some of its policies), or when you question gay marriage, or any other issue where a minority is supremely interested. Look at people against illegal immigration, how often are they also called racist, even if their rational has nothing to do with race whatsoever. it isn't just false allegations of racism either, look how often the term "socialist" has been bandied about inappropriately lately for no other reason but as a form of incognito ad hominem. People always do that.

You also have the equally moronic reverse of this, as evident by group names such as "pro-choice" or "pro-life", meaning people in the opposite camp are "anti-choice" or "anti-life", which is pretty much ad hominem by negation.

In short, this is nothing new.

I got yelled at for not voting for Clinton in the primary, apparently my vote was "misogamist", though I suppose all the Clinton people were ignoring the fact that their own rational made them "anti-hispanic", and by not voting for Richardson, even if they voted for Obama.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

I could give a shit if he was purple with green polka dots. We have a constitutional scholar for a president instead of a cokehead. That doesn't make you happy?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Capt_Morgan]

You should have called the police... What they did does not sound like a civil matter.. it sounds like fraud.... I dont see how that isn't identity theft And dont forget you can go to small claims court

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Tubal-Cain]

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/bookdisplay.jpg

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Phroggy]

Then, we also have 30 years of usenet and website publishing which preceded the Facebook/Myspace/Twitter model.

Only academics and nerds posted to newsgroups and made personal home pages. Publishing your own opinions on the Internet wasn't done by the general public before blogging and social networking sites came along. My grandmother is learning to use Facebook. I'm sure she's never even heard of Usenet, and has likely never posted to a mailing list.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[ssintercept]

as quoted in the the Sun-Times article Jeffrey Michael, one of the owners of Horizon, as saying, "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization."

Re:it was only a matter of time

[shentino]

Except that a "friend" of mine emailed all of his contacts about my association with questionable content on another website, which would have remained anonymous had I not been outed.

Which just goes to show you that RL assholes can ruin in one minute a lifetime of prudent anonymity on the internet.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[DragonWriter]

If a tenant can complain about a landlord in a matter of seconds and have an audience of hundreds of thousands, the landlord will be more upset than if the tenant just mentions it to her friends at the golf course or knitting circle or watering hole.

Plus, the landlord will be more likely to be able to prove that the tenant did it, in a court of law. Because of the ease and immediacy, people often treat IM's and other "informal" online communications as if they were in-person speech, but they tend to leave a durable record which can be produced in court, like writing, but often much more easily discovered by someone other than the intended recipient who might want to take action based on them than hardcopy would be.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[multisync]

You do realize, don't you, that Horizon (the company that owned the building with the alleged mould problem) never asked Amanda Bonnen to remove the post (or about her mould problem, for that matter), that she had roughly 20 followers (meaning they believe 20 people reading that comment resulted in $50,000 in damages to their reputation) and that Jeffrey Michael, whose family has run Horizon for more than 25 years, stated "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization"?

Perhaps complaining in a public forum is a lousy way of notifying your landlord about a mould problem; then again, none of the articles I could find made it clear whether or not she had tried to bring it to their attention via other means. The comment "Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay" would suggest she did bring it to her attention and was frustrated with their response. Regardless, Horizon's response to the remark should have been to

1. contact Ms. Bonnen to ask her about the mould in her apartment
2. have someone investigate and rectify said mould problem
3. ask her (politely) to remove the comment, or revise it to reflect the fact that they were making an effort to rectify the problem
4. sue her for for defamation if they felt the mould problem didn't exist or that she was unfairly characterizing Horizon as not caring about the problem if it did exist

Instead, they just jumped right to four, as they're a "sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization."

So tell me, what type of lawsuit would you say fits the SLAPP description, if not this one?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Danga]

I wish I could go back after them now, you are right, what they did was fraud. I had just graduated university however and was leaving town so being I had no money to pay a lawyer anyway I decided to just pay the gas bill to avoid having my credit score get killed and to just put it all behind me. This was over 5 years ago so I did not really even know much about identity theft, but it sure was that regarding signing me up for a gas account without my knowledge or consent. Thinking back I really wish I would have checked to see if the university had any programs setup to help students who have problems with landlords, I have heard about that being available at some schools. I only had enough money to get home and start looking for a job though so I ended up getting the shaft big time.

Gotta love companies like Horizon Management that prey on those with less financial and legal weight as them. Their deceitfulness ended up costing me over 1/4 of my months pay that month, all because they didn't even have a clue what utilities were actually at a property they were renting out. I paid my rent on time all nine months that school year, you would think they would have paid the bill themselves since it was their screwup or at least split the bill with me or something but nope all they care about is making their money, screw the customers.

Grumble Grumble...

Re:it was only a matter of time

[DragonWriter]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is "O-dumb-a" a racial slur?

No one said that "O-dumb-a" was a "racial slur", or even that the press secretary had used a "racial slur".

GP did say that the Ms. Landor was a racist, but that doesn't mean she used a racial slur. One might, for instance, be led toward the conclusion that someone is a racist when they advance the argument that racial profiling by law enforcement is justified because minorities are disproportionately likely to be arrested, as Landor argued in one of the posts that led to her being fired, as was described in TFA (though its not noted in TFS.)

Racial slurs aren't the only manifestation of racism.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[commodore64_love]

It's not too late. You paid the bill which demonstrates "good faith". The next step is to sue the company in court for breach-of-contract, for reimbursement of funds, and also court-related costs.

Of course if I had been in that situation I would have just not paid. "What bill?" would be my response and faxed a copy of the contract to the gas company, showing that the expense is the *landlord's* responsibility, not mine. Then throw the bill in the trash since I'm moving out-of-state which essentially makes me untouchable. I'm sure it would eventually land on my credit report as being unpaid, but since my score is already over 1000 the impact would be virtually nil. I don't pay bills that are not my responsibility. Ever. Fuck the corporations into the ground!

Most landlords would probably just let it go.

But if he drug me into court I could end the case very quickly-and-easily by showing my copy of the contract. "See your honor? It says 'tenant is only responsible for electricity, cable tv, and water utilities'. It says nothing about a natural gas. I don't even think my apartment has natural gas, so I don't know why I'm being charged?" (shrug). If I have a good judge like Judge Judy, the landlord will be told that he screwed-up, that he should be more careful when he develops contracts, and that the tenant is not liable for payment.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Fnkmaster]

Part of the reason Obama seemed so fantastic is how crappy the guy who immediately proceeded him was.

The real problem is that none of these people seem to care that we've utterly destroyed our manufacturing base in this country and our shitty health care system, more than any discrepancy in wages, has made it entirely impossible to make goods in this country.

Nobody cares anymore because the manufacturers who are left don't have enough money to pay for lobbyists. It's sad. We're going to thrash our dominant position in the world economy over the next 20 years. Unless our currency utterly tanks first and brings things roughly back to parity.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[commodore64_love]

That's nice, but it doesn't take-away my right of free speech. When dealing with corporations sometimes the only power a consumer can exercise is in the court of public opinion. i.e. Tell everyone how lousy the corporation is. (I recommend consumeraffairs.com as a good starting point.)

A lady in my local area did that when she bought a big-screen TV from circuit city, and the glass was smashed when she opened it. The CC liquidator claimed "sold as is" and no returns, so she called the local television station and told her story which was then broadcast across a 100-mile-wide circle. After getting lots of hatemail, the CC liquidator felt obliged to refund the money in order to avoid the negative publicity. That's the power of free speech.

Of course even if the liquidator had been a dick and still refused refund, the customer had another recourse. State law requires the seller to reveal all flaws with an item, even for "as is" sales. Since Circuit City failed to reveal the TV had a broken screen, they had committed fraud, and would have faced severe fines.

A lot of "as is" Ebay sellers, once they ran into me, learned this lesson fast.
If you advertise new, I expect new, not a scratched-up DVD.
I *will* get my money back.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the the king size jackass that ruined it for the previous 8 years.

Your post, and mine are devoid of useful content. Let's both agree to stop wasting disk space and bandwidth.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[LrdDimwit]

Anytime you post anything using your real identity (or merely reasonably well connected to it) you should always keep in mind this very simple question: "Could I get in serious trouble if this were published in a newspaper under my real name?"

If the answer is "yes" or even "maybe", then don't do it.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[DragonWriter]

I might be missing something, too, but I've seen a vocal minority of Obama supporters assuming that if you disagree with Obama, you must be racist against blacks.

You seem to be missing the part where she claims that racial profiling by law enforcement is justified by the disproportionate number of minorities who are, in fact, arrested and thrown in jail, and that the poster who characterized her as racist didn't point to the "O-dumb-a" comment at all, much less refer to that comment as a "racial slur". There is little basis for concluding that the statement about racism had anything to do with anything said about Obama (except, perhaps, the unwarranted assumption that no one on Slashdot reads anything but the summary.)

So, before characterizing this as "Obama supporters" making unjustified kneejerk reactions based on misattributing the basis of criticism, maybe you should consider who else might be making that mistake.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[kaatochacha]

I'm a big fan of "do unto others', which is essentially causing a business an equivalent amount of damage for my time. Say, for example, an electronics store overcharges me ten bucks and refuses to deal with me. I consider it my obligation to waste approximately ten dollars worth of the store's time. This may include putting stuff in the wrong place so that someone has to sort it, annoyingly questioning the workers, or simply buying and returning things for no real reason. It has the added bonus of being fun.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Pig Hogger]

I might be missing something, too, but I've seen a vocal minority of Obama supporters assuming that if you disagree with Obama, you must be racist against blacks.

There's nothing new nor extraordinary here. For example, if you disagree with jews, you are automatically an antisemite.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Pvt. Public and Gen. Specific?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[chrb]

What a funny world we live in where a gay guy raised by straight parents and with straight grandparents and who is not descended from anyone ever enslaved or oppressed, could be considered some oppressed minority. Or... maybe it is possible for an individual to have their own experiences distinct from those of their immediate ancestors, and thus experience oppression even though their parents didn't?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[chrb]

i figure Obama isn't black, as black suggests being a descendant of slaves.

It does? When did this global enslavement of black people occur?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[c6gunner]

It may be circular logic in some circumstances, but it's equally stupid to assume that racial profiling isn't justified, or that the profiling is the cause of the imbalance. After all, the majority of the prison population is male - are you going to try and argue that the only reason for this is that the police are biased against men?

Whether or not you like to admit it, it's a fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. We can debate the cause and the best way to deal with it until we're blue in the face, but that won't change anything. And no, stating this one particular fact does not make me racist, any more than stating that the majority of the prison population is male would make me sexist.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Larryish]

Obama is not black.

Obama is mulatto.

Yet instead of using his mixed ethnicity as a catalyst for unity, it is most commonly used as a catalyst for division.

People have it ass backwards.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though I agree with you, something in me dies a little knowing that we can't just spout off without repercussions. That's what you are arguing for, is to stfu when it might upset people.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[countertrolling]

Speech is not action.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

...liberals are the intellectuals, conservatives the emotionals...

??? Oh please! Pull the other one. While you're at it read some of the journals here. And take a gander at democraticunderground.com Few people know how to make real intellectuals look like a bunch of goofs better than a damn liberal.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[runningduck]

There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and contriving insulting names. Contrived insults do not come from a place of disagreement, but from deep seated loathing. While "O-dumb-a" might be viewed as a "safe" insult by some, it is only a step away from a long used racial slur--which is the insult's likely origin.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[mh1997]

my boss has no idea who Col. Panic is, nor does he know who anonymous coward is, for that matter

If you are Mike Beard, 30 yr. old from Canada, then I'd change your myspace page. If not, it sucks to be Mike Beard because he has the same userid on myspace that you have on /.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

I once lived in an apartment complex that was sold to new management, and shortly after, one of the laundry rooms' dryers stopped working. After my complaints to management went nowhere, I did my own sleuthing and found:

- The gas meter to said laundry room was shut off and had a City seal on it.

- I called the City utility company, which said it had been shut off for nonpayment.

I took this information to the landlord, and the dryers were working soon after. It's apparently common for landlords to buy apartments, yet have no clue as to the infrastructure in their own buildings.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your actions push more than $300 of support costs onto the rest of us? Just asking. Zero Sum.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[MaskedSlacker]

My Kingdom for a mod point...

Re:it was only a matter of time

[MaskedSlacker]

Actually the tribe his father is from in Kenya IS oppressed by the majority tribe. One of the tribal leaders quipped about two years ago that America would have a Luo president before Kenya did. He was right.

Not that this changes your point at all...

Re:it was only a matter of time

[mi]

Yeah, it used to be that racists like Landor would successfully conceal themselves for years, never coming out of the woodwork. With Twitter and Facebook, these people's true feelings come out and it's a lot easier to out racists. Long live the internet! :)

Remember, when Whoopi Goldberg lost her contract with some advertisers (private companies, mind you, not governmental organizations) over really crude remarks involving word-play on the previous President's last name and Whoopi's genitals, the Slashdot was all outraged. Was she a — a black woman dissing a White President — racist, in your opinion?

No? Why, then, is the white woman, who vented her opinion in private blog (rather than, as Goldberg did, while doing her job as an entertainer) dissing a Black President?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Blacks don't make up the majority of inmates, whites do. Blacks have a larger percent of their US population incarcerated, but whites still outnumber them in public and prison.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[DrVomact]

Judging by the fact that this comment has been modded up, I suspect the readers of /. must be more conservative than most. I have never even looked at Facebook or Myspace, and I'm not sure exactly what Twitter is, but the current crop of people under 40 seem to think that having an "online presence" is not only good, but downright required. I recently talked to a friend who is manager of a game software company, and he said he wouldn't even consider hiring anyone who doesn't have a Facebook page. "What's he got to hide?" was his comment about whether he would consider a hypothetical candidate who doesn't have an online presence. Other comments on this subject on /. have said pretty much the same thing.

There's much talk about privacy, but the collective actions of the people in our society says quite clearly that there is no real desire for privacy, and that this commodity is not appreciated. It's only occasionally when someone realizes that what he has written or imaged and posted on a web site was badly received by someone with the ability to hurt him that you hear someone regret flaunting his every trivial action and opinion in a way that is both public and enduring. By then it's too late, of course.

I often think of how badly the science fiction writer Vernor Vinge got it wrong in his novelette True Names . Vinge pictured a society of elite computer network users who considered one rule to be paramount: never, never give anyone your true name. Never let them find you; your cyber-persona is a mask that must not be penetrated, or you will suffer the consequences. Of course, the computer-users of today—the epigonoi of the Eternal September—are far from the elite who populated the USENET of old...they are the dumb masses. And they give everyone their true names. How sad.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[db32]

How many men do you know have cried there way out of a ticket? How many women do you know who have done the same? How many male cops have been busted trading sex acts for "warnings"? How many female cops? You can take that further and start looking at cases that actually made it to court. If that whole Caylee thing had been about a male doing that to the little girl this whole thing would have been done and over long ago with barely a hint of media coverage. Really, in pretty much every aspect of our culture gender biases play a huge role.

Saying that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime may not be overtly racist, but it is still racist. How about this...let us examine crime rates by economic station rather than skin color. I am sure you will find that it is actually the lowest economic classes that are involved in the most crime. So what you are saying is that it is justified to profile based on race because race tends to indicate economic status. Which is largely tied to racism in the first place. Deliberately skipping the economic portion to talk about it in terms of skin color is racism. Poverty is the biggest indicator of crime, not skin color. The skin colors that show up in the bottom of our economic ladder are a separate issue.

I could also point out that we have the highest ratio of people in/out of prison of any civilized nation. So now stack that with most people in prison are minorities and you get a pretty different picture as well.

Most people aren't even aware of these types of judgments being made. There have been piles and piles of studies that given the same facts minorities are more likely to be convicted. Similar studies have shown that with the same facts that minorities are less likely to be recommended for expensive life saving care by a doctor. These are just the cultural undertones that affect our various decisions and most people aren't even aware they are making them. The woman in the article clearly was aware and proud.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[DNS-and-BIND]

OK, sorry I didn't know that was racist. Can you suggest some insults for Obama that are not racist? Saying "these do not exist" will be considered racist bullshit.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, 'cause the Internet is serious business.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

What the he** are you talking about??? No one has said he deserves special favortism. I don't think you are racist, I just think you are retarded. Get help for yoursef soon.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Eli Gottlieb]

People pull the same thing when Israel is questioned (not its right to exist even, just some of its policies)

No we don't. I've heard that charge made a thousand times and never once has it been true.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Trahloc]

Better to counter sue for harassment and emotional distress than 'shut the fuck up and go about your business'. That being said we don't know what happened in your particular case. There are lots of crappy things that are perfectly legal that fall under "Caveat emptor". In either case filing a complaint that gets thrown out and then sued by the person plus being grilled by them... it seems your lawyer isn't doing the job you pay them for. I say sling mud back, your already worrying about losing your house so you don't have much else to potentially lose.

But it sounds like your a fairly nice person who isn't using the court system as a weapon, unlike your opponent. I've had family who got sued and settled even though they were in the right because it was just cheaper in the long run, so if slinging mud isn't an option then find what this person wants and give it to them ... fighting back is grand n all but if you aren't willing to use the weapons society gives you (court systems, private detectives, criminal background checks, etc) then your best to just pay them to leave you alone. Just make sure you use a mediator to settle it (they're provided for free by the courts, at least around here in California they are) so that you have the courts backing that everything regarding this is settled and include any and all actions/sayings/anything done before the date of the settlement. Don't just shake on it.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Lunzo]

Why is parent currently modded funny? Obama is half black and half white. If anything its more impressive that he's president considering the mixed races would have meant that both blacks and whites would have persecuted him back in the day.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Lunzo]

You don't personally play the race card, and that's to be commended. However there are many that would play the race card - for example look at the Israeli government's response to recent international condemnation of them creating new settlements in the west bank.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Omestes]

To resort to the anecdotal, I've been called an "antisemite" for stating that Israel might be acting a bit heavy handed before, and once for even stating support for the two state solution. People do confuse questioning Israel with hating Jewish people (or culture). Hell, even if someone is rabidly against Israel as a country, doesn't make someone an antisemite or Nazi.

You might not resort to this, but there are tons of people less mature than you out there. Generally this "racism" ad hominem is the last resort of people with weak rational and deeply entrenched beliefs. I'm glad your not one of them, but you have to admit its out there.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Dan541]

"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization". That sums it up. It's just another lawsuit-happy guy who ought to get his wrists slashed for a frivolous case, unless the defendant rolls over and pays some symbolic fine, which is likely to happen, a la RIAA.

There fixed that for you.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Dan541]

So, there's no difference, in the same way that the printing press was really just a minor improvement over scribes. Yup, no big deal at all!

The printing press allowed for mass distribution where scribes didn't. However both Usenet and social network allow mass distribution. It's like the difference between a newspaper (Usenet) and a magazine (Facebook/Myspace).

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Dan541]

I would like to see someone threaten gamers in-game with lawsuits.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Dan541]

I might be missing something, too, but I've seen a vocal minority of Obama supporters assuming that if you disagree with Obama, you must be racist against blacks. Some of us prefer disagreeing with Obama for his actual statements, policies, and actions, without regard to race, but some people think that Obama is so infallible that they think the only reason to disagree with him is because he's black.

Those people are just being childish. It's like when your a kid and you insult each other when there's a difference of opinion.

I once praised Hitler for his genius and some people, who apparently never grew out of their childhood quickly accused me of supporting the holocaust. The failure to understand is mostly at their own loss. Nothing discredits you faster than when you accuse someone by failure of your own understanding.

Here in Australia a Christian lobby group accused Free-Speech supporters of advocating pedophilia, this action only served to damage their own reputation and provide further ammunition to the Free-Speech supporters and Atheist groups.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[jonadab]

He's the first black President of the US. Anything you say against his person (as opposed to against specific policies you disagree with) is likely to be taken as racist by certain categories of people (most of whom are white, but that's beside the point).

Besides, he's not dumb. He's dishonest, liberal, and arrogant. That's different.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[MojoRilla]

Why do you need to be a minority to have an experience with race-based bigotry?

In the case of institutional racism, you have to be non-white to experience it in the US. Racism is a charged word, but probably most people are just xenophobic. Xenophobia cuts all ways.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like time for RL payback

Re:it was only a matter of time

[elrous0]

I can assure you that my upbringing was WAY less "sheltered and privileged" than Obama's.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[elrous0]

Does making your point require you to use offensive terms like "retarded," or do you think it's acceptable to show your bigotry against the disabled?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Mr. Freeman]

Why did the gas company not shut off the gas after not receiving payment for service for OVER A YEAR???

Seems like regardless of whose name was on the actual bill, they would have cut off the service after no one sent any money after a few months.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Does your very existence push any net costs onto the rest of us? If so, why do you exist? Just asking.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why we ought to have a small claims court legal fund / advocacy group for tenants vs. landlords and management companies that is at least initially funded by the government. You can file a claim for free, have a paralegal process it and go through the motions, submit all of your evidence in writing or in person (your choice), and basically have a court advocate handle the rest for you.

If you win the case, the landlord has to donate an additional 10% of the claim amount to the legal fund. If you lose, you have to reimburse the fund for, say, 75% of the cost incurred (with maybe having to pay 150% if your case is deemed "frivolous.")

Justice at the $300 level should be cheaper than $300 to achieve.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[skarphace]

You should have called the police... What they did does not sound like a civil matter.. it sounds like fraud.... I dont see how that isn't identity theft

This is not I.D. theft. The owner of the property has to transfer the account to you. They have a legal agreement with you and they probably send that to the utility company also. This has happened to me for some utilities like gas and water. Though, laws of this sort are probably different depending on where you are, so YMMV.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is "O-dumb-a" a racial slur?

A childish insult for sure, but racist?

Obama is partly black, therefore, anything said against Him is racist. Q.E.D.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[c6gunner]

How many men do you know have cried there way out of a ticket? ... How many male cops have been busted trading sex acts for "warnings"?

What does that have to do with incarceration rates?

Really, in pretty much every aspect of our culture gender biases play a huge role.

Granted, but it's nowhere near enough to account for the difference in incarceration rates.

Saying that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime may not be overtly racist, but it is still racist.

Really. So saying that blacks are better sprinters is also racist? Saying that Asians do better in schools is also racist?

Facts aren't discriminatory - they're just facts. Interpretation and actions taken based on those facts can be racist, but the data itself can not. If your ideological indoctrination doesn't even allow you to acknowledge the facts without a knee-jerk guilt reaction, how can you ever hope to study the actual cause(s)?

Poverty is the biggest indicator of crime, not skin color.

So you want them to profile poor people, not black people. I'm not sure that you're helping things here ...

Besides, your comment clearly indicates that you are classist. You may not be overtly classist, but you're still classist.

I could also point out that we have the highest ratio of people in/out of prison of any civilized nation. So now stack that with most people in prison are minorities and you get a pretty different picture as well.

How so?

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

With a username like Colon Panic, I would hope that he didn't.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't mean to get on your case... but i thought it was relatively standard that the tenant pays the gas bill, especially somewhere where there's winter.

Re:it was only a matter of time

[Danga]

It is standard to pay the gas bill when you KNOW there is gas hooked up. In my case I asked the property manager to list all utilities I was responsible for on the lease and they did not list gas. Since I did not have access to the water heater and my stove/oven was electric and the heat was powered by steam I had no hints gas was hooked up.

Horizon Management was getting gas bills all year though and since they messed up and did not want a mad tenant to deal with all year they decided to not do anything until the last month I was in town in which case they signed me up for a gas account without my knowledge. I have no clue why the gas company never shut my gas off for non-payment but it may have been because the building was extremely old. I would have not been as mad if Horizon Management would have just told me the minute they realized they screwed up, or AT LEAST called me when they signed me up for the gas account. Instead I received a $300 gas bill in the mail which I had no budget for since I worked a $7/hr campus job to finish off my college career.

All I ask for is for businesses I deal with to be civil and make mistakes right. This company did neither and instead acted shadily, I guess taking advantage of young adults who have no money and are trying to better their lives by getting an education is an OK policy with Horizon Management, fits in with their "sue first, ask questions later" attitude.

This is stupid

[EagleEye101]

I dont blame the lady for complaining. Mold is dangerous stuff and a lot of landlords dont care. My sister bought a house with undisclosed mold (illegal here in maryland) and it looks like the realitor is going to get away with it because shes a teacher who just invested her money into a house so she can not afford legal fees.These are sketchy people and deserve to be put in a bad light.

Re:This is stupid

[InsaneMosquito]

Sadly, this isn't illegal in Illinois. We got lucky and our home inspector caught it before we got to far in the process. Moral of the story - get a home inspector that comes highly recommended and is very thorough.

Re:This is stupid

[sumdumass]

IF the mold wasn't known, I doubt anyone state could enforce penalties.

Generally, when you buy a house, you request a full and complete disclosure from the seller. This is where you list everything you know that could be considered wrong and effect any aspect of the sale. If you can prove they knew about it and failed to disclose it, then you can pretty much recoup damages because of their failure to disclose. However, some people don't know there is mold and therefore can't be held to it. This is where a competent inspector is a good idea.

And when checking out your inspector, find out what kind of insurance and so on they have. Often if the inspector misses something, they can be made to pay (their insurance) for their lack of thoroughness. This isn't screwing the inspector or being lawsuit happy as it may sound either. You paid them to disclose anything and everything about the house and used their professional findings as a basis for your decision for a major purchase.

Re:This is stupid

[Z00L00K]

And make sure that the contract contains clauses about hidden faults that can't be easily detected.

Maybe it's also time to strengthen the freedom of speech a bit. It must be possible to vent your opinions of things without risk being harassed by neither government nor companies.

As long as it isn't false accusations it should never have to go to court.

Re:This is stupid

[Radtastic]

Here's the rub: The problem is, EVERY house has some amount of mold, and every person has different tolerances to it (as well as other allergens.) At what point is the combination of mold amount + tenant sensitivity become landlord liability?

Sure, 1 inch think black-mold on every wall is a pretty clear issue. But what about some mildew in the bathroom because the tenant never cleans it?

I'm not siding with the landlord here, just noting that mold issues are wide ranging.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, this isn't illegal in Illinois.

Well in the GP's post, the fact that it was illegal didn't make a difference, so why the "sadly"?

Moral of the story - get a home inspector that comes highly recommended and is very thorough.

Yes, this is common sense, as above, the fact that there is a law against it didn't make a difference. In fact it made it worse because there was an expectation that the landlord was following the law, so less expectation that the potential tenant should get the house inspected.

Screw your laws and your threats of force.

Re:This is stupid

[ivan256]

Mold disclosure laws may actually make the problem worse. There's even more incentive to cover-up a mold problem, since the occurrence of mold once will end up on-file and hurts the value of the home forever. So a homeowner is more likely to do a crappy cover-up job and sell the house than get the issue properly taken care of.

Not only that, but such laws generally cover all kinds of mold, and most mold is essentially harmless to the majority of people.

Re:This is stupid

[bconway]

Scare tactic. We've been living in close proximity with mold for hundreds of years on this planet. It wasn't a problem until people realized they could make money on it. Yes, even black mold.

frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

First post. posting AC to prevent Real-World Consequences.

Re:frist psot

[Dan541]

You fail.

If you weren't AC I would sue you for wasting my valuable seconds.

Free speech

[DaveV1.0]

We have it, but there are consequences for it. Sadly, the consequences seem to be getting out of hand.

Re:Free speech

[mcgrew]

Too bad there are no consequences for posting a story like this and linking to an opinion piece on some site nobody's ever heard of, when you could as easily link a real newspaper in the city it happened in, like the Chicago Tribune. Landlord sues Uptown tenant for Twitter post.

BAD submission. Bad bad bad. No cookie for you!

Re:Free speech

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I share your concern about the rise in consequences for speech(in particular, given the ease with which technology lets us retain information indefinitely. Having an excellent record of exactly what you said 10 or 15 years ago hanging over you is a pretty unnerving prospect, particularly given the period of youthful stupidity that people commonly go through.)

That said, I have a very hard time sympathising with a Press Secretary who gets fired for mouthing off on controversial issues. The whole point of the "press secretary" job is managing media relations and generally smoothing PR feathers for whoever hired you. Having highly visible and controversial opinions, particularly if they oppose that of the person you are doing media relations for, seems an obvious contradiction. I'd be much more concerned if somebody with a more or less apolitical job were being axed for political reasons.

Re:Free speech

[Diss Champ]

Interestingly, attempting to load that link crashes my version of firefox - whether due to bad site design or a nasty advertisment, I don't know. But I can see why the submitter would have avoided that link if they had a similar problem with the site.

Re:Free speech

[Jaysyn]

No issues here (FF 3.51, Win32)

Re:Free speech

[fyoder]

From the article you linked to:

Bonnen's Twitter page has been shuttered, though a cached version of the page shows the last tweet was logged at 10:11 a.m. July 22, a day before the lawsuit was filed. The page indicates Bonnen had 17 followers.

17 followers would have heard about this, but thanks to their action I wonder what the multiple is. A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? There ought to be an award for that kind of monumental stupidity.

Re:Free speech

[Krneki]

Maybe, but she still has the right to have a private life. And voice her opinion in her spare time.

This is something we cannot tolerate or let them take away from us.

Re:Free speech

[nbauman]

That said, I have a very hard time sympathising with a Press Secretary who gets fired for mouthing off on controversial issues. The whole point of the "press secretary" job is managing media relations and generally smoothing PR feathers for whoever hired you. Having highly visible and controversial opinions, particularly if they oppose that of the person you are doing media relations for, seems an obvious contradiction.

Here's one press secretary I can sympathize with http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0727-05.htm

It's a good way to quit your job when you're finally fed up.

Re:Free speech

[jmitchel!jmitchel.co]

Actually - the Sun-Times article has a quote that I'd say is way more damaging than the accusation: Tweet about apartment mold draws lawsuit:
He said that while she moved out recently, the company never had a conversation about the post and never asked her to take it down.
"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization," [italics mine] he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.

Re:Free speech

[mcgrew]

*sigh* I miss the old internet, where the only ads were banner ads and even they were few and far between. Seems newspapers are the worst at breaking perfectly good browsers, do they pay their web designers minimum wage or something? Anyway, it's a short article. This is probably infringing copyright, but if so they asked for it:

A landlord has replied to a former resident's complaint on Twitter about mold with a salvo of its own: a libel lawsuit.

"Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay," wrote Amanda Bonnen in her Twitter feed May 12 at 9:08 a.m., apparently to a friend coming to town for a visit.

Horizon Group Management, which leased Bonnen's Uptown apartment, wasn't pleased.

Last week the company filed suit against Bonnen in Cook County Circuit Court, claiming Bonnen "maliciously and wrongfully published the false and defamatory Tweet."

"The statements in the Tweet concerning Plaintiff were and are wholly false. By reason of the publication of them, Plaintiff has been greatly injured in its reputation as a landlord in Chicago," the suit reads.

The suit does not detail any actual damages, such as lost revenue. Horizon asks for at least $50,000, the threshold for the case to be heard in the court's law division.

Efforts to reach Bonnen and the friend she was tweeting were unsuccessful. Horizon's lawyer Bret Rappaport referred calls to the company, which in turn declined to comment.

Bonnen's Twitter page has been shuttered, though a cached version of the page shows the last tweet was logged at 10:11 a.m. July 22, a day before the lawsuit was filed. The page indicates Bonnen had 17 followers.

The suit isn't the first of its kind. In March a Texas-based fashion designer sued Courtney Love, the wife of the late Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, claiming Love defamed her on Twitter.

The suit alleged Love called Dawn Simorangkir a "nasty lying hosebag thief" and accused her of being a drug addict and a prostitute, the Associated Press reported at the time.

-- Andrew L. Wang and Ben Meyerson

Re:Free speech

[Radtastic]

FTA: The lady tweeted "Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay." In this case, she (likely) misrepresented her landlord's response.

Had she said "I'm angry as hell because my landlord won't respond to my mold complaints!", THAT's free speech.

Posters below have expounded on the definition of libel, slander, intent, etc, so I won't take credit for reposting here.

Re:Free speech

[mcgrew]

The Streisand Award?

Re:Free speech

[gzearfoss]

"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization," he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.[italics mine]

Everyone has bad clients; that's part of doing business, and everything seen online should be taken with a grain of salt. Finding a bad comment or two about a company online is expected, and doesn't really impact their reputation.
However, suing your customers to silence them really shoots a whole in trying to 'preserve a good reputation'. PR: They're doing it wrong.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for submitting this article to the forums. I can't stand it when a /. article points to a website that requires I have an account before I can read posts already created/posted. Again, thanks.

Re:Free speech

[snaffu2]

For me, the issue is whether or not she was posting at work or at home. If it's on company time, then there's a problem. But what she does in her own time on her own computer is really none of my business. As long as she's not saying or posting that stuff at work, I, as a boss, don't really care - if she's getting her job done. I know plenty of people that don't like their job or even agree with their job content, but do it anyway simply because it pays the bills. Having a political opinion is not a fire-able offense (unless you're flagrant and in people's faces about it), IMO, but due to the nature of her job, I can see why there's an issue.

My only suggestion to this person would be to make your Facebook account private so only your friends or family can see your profile and posts.

Re:Free speech

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The trouble, in this specific case, is that "having a (particular) political opinion, in public" is pretty much what her job is. Having the wrong one is, essentially, failing to get the job done.

I completely agree that one's political position should not be a job issue, barring situations where you waste on-the-clock time on it; but in the particular case of explicitly political jobs, I don't really see how your job and your (public) political position can be separated.

Re:Free speech

[ukyoCE]

Private Life != Public Internet Forum

If she was posting under a pseudonym, you might have a point. This is hardly the first time employers have made decisions about employees' ability to do their job based on public information.

Re:Free speech

[snaffu2]

I agree that there's precedent and the boss has every right to do what he did. I just personally wouldn't have done it off the bat. I would have called him/her in and spoken to them about it. If there was a real conflict of interest, then I probably would have let them go too.

I do find it rather disturbing, though, that my boss or especially a company or persons hired to do it, are checking out my facebook, myspace, and twitter posts. Don't they have anything better to do or spend $$$ on? (c:

Re:Free speech

[EvilBudMan]

--"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization," [italics mine] he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.--

Stupid, very stupid, nobody will ever want to rent off of them again. Even though the mold problem might be real or it might not and not all house mold is dangerous. The inner stuff is usually metal studs in an apartment complex and I know that can't mold much. If she didn't complain directly to the company first, maybe just maybe I could understand, but making something virtually unknown, out there to world is going to get them very bad PR no matter what.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

More Information than given in this thread: From your link:

"Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay."

Sounds like libel to me...

Jeffrey Michael, whose family has run Horizon for more than 25 years, said: "The statements are obviously false, and it's our intention to prove that."

Is what immediately preceeded the sue first statement. In addition, who says the mold problem was not of her own making? I too can get a moldy apartment, just flood with water and let stand for a while.

Re:Free speech

[jmitchel!jmitchel.co]

I appreciate your input, be you j.random braininajar or Horizon Realty. I have no opinion about the dispute in question. I do have some concerns about any vendor that asserts a "sue first, ask questions later" philosophy.

Re:Free speech

[DragonWriter]

Maybe, but she still has the right to have a private life. And voice her opinion in her spare time.

Certainly, she has that right. And the politician she works for has a right to express his opinions of her actions by not continuing to employ her as a public representative.

A politician's press secretary isn't a civil servant, they are a political staffer. Anyone in such a position faces firing for actions -- including expressing opinions -- in any forum, in any communications medium, at any time, that are contrary to the preferences or political interests of the politician for whom they work.

This is not new with the advent of online communication.

This is something we cannot tolerate or let them take away from us.

Who is "them"? Who is "us"? What is "this"?

Re:Free speech

[DragonWriter]

However, suing your customers to silence them really shoots a whole in trying to 'preserve a good reputation'. PR: They're doing it wrong.

Per the Sun-Times article paints Horizon as a property management company; its customers would, then, be the owners of property that it manages, not the tenants. The reputation it wants to maintain is, of course, the reputation of providing management services at low costs for property owners without unexpected costs to the landlords; making tenants afraid to complain by suing at the drop of a hat probably reinforces, rather than harming, that image.

Re:Free speech

[LrdDimwit]

She was a press secretary. Either she didn't know she was on the record (in which case she's incompetent) or she did, and made the statements anyway (which also means she's incompetent). One way or the other, she's not qualified to do the job she was being paid to do.

Landlord is a moron

[Sycraft-fu]

Only possible legit suit you could have is one for libel. Ok well libel requires three things:

1) That the respondent made a false statement. Truth is the ultimate defense against libel. If there was, in fact, mold in the apartment then the landlord is done right here. Doesn't matter how damaging the statement was, if it is true there is fuck all you can do.

2) That the respondent knew the statement was false. If you make a false statement, but can show you believed it to be true, that can get you off the hook for libel.

3) That the statement was made with the intent of causing harm. If you make a false statement as a joke, that's not libel, you have to intend to cause harm.

That's what it requires, has to be something false, you had to know it was false, and you had to say it anyway hoping to harm your target. If it was true, well tough shit.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Only possible legit suit you could have is one for libel.

Did you RTFA? The landlord *is* suing for libel; it says so right in there.

Of course you're correct about truth being an absolute defense against libel in the USA, but why does everyone assume that the claim is actually true? It might be, it might not - we don't know.

It seems a bit stupid on the part of the landlord to sue over a post that apparently got read by about 20 people at most, but on the other hand, if it really IS untrue, I can also see why they wouldn't want for it to stay online where it just might get picked up by Google and returned when someone searches for e.g. the company's name.

Let's not jump to any conclusions until we actually know the facts - not *all* libel suits are unjustified.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[b4upoo]

Usually truth is a potent defense but I wouldn't count on it in this case. Telling a story far and wide, knowing that it would do harm, without some cause to spread the story may be seen as a deliberately savage attack. If the person had warned someone who was about to rent the unit then it is another issue. Keep in mind that there is a difference in remarking that you have mold in your apartment and saying that all the apartments have mold. That may be an untrue statement. Lack of being specific in her report may well amount to a lie.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

so complaining about political parties at a rally should be illegal by your logic.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[mcgrew]

The landlord is a company, not a person: Horizon Realty. And according to the Chicago Tribune, they're suing for just that: Libel.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[sugarmotor]

I think you got it upside-down and inside-out.

The twitter entry actually talks about mold in the apartment only indirectly. However it talks directly about the Horizon organization, at least according to http://mashable.com/2009/07/28/woman-sued-tweet/

"Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? [h] realty thinks itâ(TM)s okay."

So that would be difficult to prove to be true, or not?

Stephan

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Ironica]

Only possible legit suit you could have is one for libel. Ok well libel requires three things:

1) That the respondent made a false statement. Truth is the ultimate defense against libel. If there was, in fact, mold in the apartment then the landlord is done right here.

No, not really... because the post claimed that Horizon Realty thinks it's ok [to sleep in a moldy apartment]. So, if there was a complaint about mold (the mold doesn't even have to be there, because her post didn't claim there was any), and Horizon Realty was dismissive of the complaint because they felt there was no harm to mold, then she's got the truth defense.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[NotBornYesterday]

True claim or not, the landlord may figure that using lawyers to intimidate their tenant into silence might be worth a try. What good is the truth if you cannot afford a lawyer of your own to defend yourself against liars?

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Aqualung812]

Since the actual post was:

"Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay"

I think it is pretty easy to pass those 3 tests you list. Her claim is that Horizon thinks it is okay to sleep in a moldy apartment. Now, her apartment may have mold, but just because Horizon doesn't believe her doesn't mean they think it is okay to sleep in a moldy apartment.
She is claiming to know something she can't know (a lie), and the only reason to say such a thing is to cause harm.
Note, I really don't care what she tweets about and I'm not trying to take sides, but I can see a lawyer getting her for this.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[ethicalBob]

Yes, but in this wonderfully litigious country of ours, you can pretty much sue anyone for anything; and if you have the money to hurt them through attrition, really make whoever you are suing really feel the hurt before your case ever makes it to the stage where it gets thrown out of court.

Why someone would want to do this, I have no idea... But it certainly happens.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Jared555]

So he sues and it gets picked up multiple large Internet sites. That one backfired just a little bit.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Jaysyn]

Sounds like sarcasm to me. I think she'll be just fine. The realty company on the other hand is probably in for a world of shit.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Rob the Bold]

True claim or not, the landlord may figure that using lawyers to intimidate their tenant into silence might be worth a try. What good is the truth if you cannot afford a lawyer of your own to defend yourself against liars?

Something tells me the landlord figured wrong here.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Jaysyn]

This sounds like a job for the EFF or ACLU.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[ArsonSmith]

There was mention of Mold in her twat and that sleeping around is how she got it. Not sure how this has anything to do with Horizon though?

What is the past tense of a tweet anyway?

Re:Landlord is a moron

[sumdumass]

Not really, the lawsuit could be attempting to use the exposure to prove damages. It would work something like only 20 people seeing it verses 20 million people. SO the exposure could actually be making it worse for the tenant not the landlord.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[plague3106]

Of course you're correct about truth being an absolute defense against libel in the USA, but why does everyone assume that the claim is actually true? It might be, it might not - we don't know.

I would tend to think its true; it'd be an odd thing to tweet if it wasn't, especially as a joke.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[plague3106]

Telling a story far and wide, knowing that it would do harm, without some cause to spread the story may be seen as a deliberately savage attack.

So you're saying that one can't tell honest stories about their of lives, just because it would damage the reputation of another? I don't think that matters.. if its true its true, and perhaps the one being "damanged" should have not gotten the bad rep to begin with.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Beardo the Bearded]

The statement must also be believable.

"Sycraft-fu had to eat cat food after he lost his job" is believable and could thus be libellous.

"Sycraft-fu eats cats and wears the fur as a decorative suit" is not believable, and can not be considered libel.

This is just a SLAPP*. Since it's in the US, the twittering tenant will be out a few grand defending a frivolous lawsuit. If she sues after the victory, she'll be out even MORE going after her legal costs.

*If I'm misuing the term, sorry. It's not something we have up here. So sue me.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[sumdumass]

Not really, if someone is sued on shaky grounds, it is often dismissed before it even goes to trial. Also there is a slap law that states it's illegal to retaliate in the specific way you mentioned. In almost every area, if you can't afford a lawyer, you can find a legal aid who will either pay for the service or in most cases, almost every firm have pro bono charities that allow for the defense of people who can't afford their own.

What you see is a lot of past cases that brought about laws like the anti-slap laws. It shouldn't be a problem like you described today except in a few screwed up states like california.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[theJML]

Unless she brought it up with them and they said "it's no big deal" or "get over it" or even "We'll fix it next time we get out there" (meaning they're not in a hurry to fix it) in which case, it seems to me that they DO seem to think it's ok to sleep in a moldy apartment. In which case, it's not a lie and her reasoning for saying it, other than simply venting, may be to dig up public outcry over her situation to help her side.

I don't really see how this statement is libel, nor even suit worthy. I mean, sure it's not exactly positive against the company, but the company could just say something like "we don't yet have evidence of mold in your apartment, but will do everything in our power to check for and eradicate any found asap" A well written response (one better than mine) could really turn this into a positive for the company showing that they're going the extra mile for their customers. But instead they sue. I mean, if you go off of this as a libel suit, there are literally thousands that could be fired against anyone who said "Cons" on Newegg reviews not because the product sucked, but because they were personally unable to get it to work or because it was busted in shipping causing it not to perform as the manufacturer intended. Accidents happen, and many times have I noticed that "The Company" does not respond with the correct urgency for certain problems, either because they don't care, or, and more often, because the end user (in this case the tweeter) hasn't quite portrayed the situation quite as dire as it is.

IMHO, Any company that jumps from a tweet straight to a libel suit really seems like they're begging for bad publicity.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization." That's my definition of an asshat. And yes, that's an opinion asshats.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Ann Coulter]

If the courts do rule in favor of the defendant, then they should also rule that the statement in question is true. In this case, the courts should rule that the plaintiff does think that sleeping in moldy apartments is okay.
There should be consequences for plaintiffs who lose libel cases.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you RTFA? The statement is NOT that there is mold, but rather that the landlord doesn't care about the mold. That's a lot harder to prove that it is true.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[corbettw]

And that's why we have barratry* laws, so that people can't use the courts to bludgeon others. Hopefully this woman can turn about and counter-sue her former landlord for all the pain and aggravation they're causing, especially since their own spokesman said "We're a sue first and ask questions later kind of organization." I'm sure a judge will love hearing that they'd rather waste the court's time on minutia instead of picking up the phone and talking about things rationally.

*Interestingly, Firefox's spell check thought I meant "barracuda". Guess Firefox doesn't like lawyers, either.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid you're not quite right. Libel is written defamation (as distinguished from slander). Depending on your jurisdiction, the essential elements of defamation are:

(1) A defamatory statement specifically identifying the plaintiff that is
(2) published (i.e., communicated) to a third-party.

Because this is libel, not slander, damages will be presumed, but plaintiff can also prove and recover special damages (i.e., specific economic harm).

> 1) That the respondent made a false statement. Truth is the ultimate defense against libel. If there was, in
> fact, mold in the apartment then the landlord is done right here. Doesn't matter how damaging the statement
> was, if it is true there is fuck all you can do.

More or less true, except that it's not the "ultimate" defense, simply one of the affirmative defenses.

> 2) That the respondent knew the statement was false. If you make a false statement, but can show you
> believed it to be true, that can get you off the hook for libel.

Not quite. This is a requirement in cases involving public matters. I doubt that having mold in your apartment qualifies as a public matter. In a private matter, generally (again, depending on your jurisdiction), knowledge of falsity is not required.

> 3) That the statement was made with the intent of causing harm. If you make a false statement as a joke,
> that's not libel, you have to intend to cause harm.

Intent is not an essential element of defamation. A statement made negligently is sufficient. Also, "actual malice" is not required.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[SpaceCadets]

Past tense of tweet == Twat?

Re:Landlord is a moron

[AK Marc]

She is claiming to know something she can't know (a lie),

Then it isn't actionable. If I claim you are an alien from Mars, you can't win. I'm claiming something that's obviously false, so it's unbelievable. If she's claiming something you think is obviously a lie and needs no other tests to determine its falsehood, then she can't lose. If every reasonable person hearing it believes it to be a lie, then it isn't causing harm.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[russotto]

She is claiming to know something she can't know (a lie), and the only reason to say such a thing is to cause harm.

It's not a lie, it's an inference. Likely a sardonic one, but not necessarily a lie.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[lena_10326]

She'll do just fine--until the huge bill arrives sent from her lawyer. The lawsuit is for revenge, not compensation.. imo.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[petermgreen]

"Sycraft-fu eats cats and wears the fur as a decorative suit" is not believable
I dunno, people eat and wear all sorts of whaky stuff.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Jared555]

And then if he looses millions of people know not only that there was (maybe) mold in the apartment, but also that if you rent with this guy and complain about it publicly you might get sued.

Re:Landlord is a moron

[Cro Magnon]

Even if he wins, many people will now associate Horizon with mold & lawsuits. Great job!

Re:Landlord is a moron

[sumdumass]

They will just change their name is it gets too bad. Maybe hire some mid level managers and advertise "now under new management".

There are tons of ways to get away from a bad image. The biggest hurdle might be the housing authority in the area. Some areas need to have the property inspected before it can be listed as a rental and the authority serves as a complaint compartment to investigate slums and stuff when the land lord refuses to fix problems. A lot of times this is associated with some program that allows government rent assistance or similar but isn't completely limited to them. For instance, in my area, if there is a problem that makes the house unlivable, the local housing authority can act as a middleman and hold the rent payments (you make the payment to them when this happens instead of the landlord) until repairs are made and it's illegal to evict you when this happens. Anyways, they could refuse to validate the properties in his or the company's name. But then again, a name change or a restructure could get around that.

first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

So here's what I don't get (and maybe a lawyer or wannabe-lawyer can explain it to me). We have the first amendment which protects us from government interference in speech. If I criticize a government official or policy the government is not allowed to retaliate in any way. Yet for some reason.... the private sector can? We've seen this before (Scientology, Streisand, etc.), and it never fails to boggle my mind that what the constitution protects from government interference, it doesn't protect from private sector lawyers.

Re:first amendment

[CannonballHead]

Why shouldn't it? I don't feel that I should be allowed to let you say whatever you want about me... let's say I run a small business that is completely built on trust and honesty. Why should you be allowed to publish slander and libel all you want, under the guise of the first amendment? It hurts my reputation, it hurts my ability to do business, etc. In fact, if you were to NOT allow me to sue you for libel/slander, all you'd be doing is protecting the ability of the rich (read: ability to publish widely due to wealth) to completely put me out of business with utter lies and nonsense. I think I should be allowed to protect myself.

Re:first amendment

[ground.zero.612]

So here's what I don't get (and maybe a lawyer or wannabe-lawyer can explain it to me). We have the first amendment which protects us from government interference in speech. If I criticize a government official or policy the government is not allowed to retaliate in any way. Yet for some reason.... the private sector can? We've seen this before (Scientology, Streisand, etc.), and it never fails to boggle my mind that what the constitution protects from government interference, it doesn't protect from private sector lawyers.

In Soviet America criminal court acquit you and civil court convict you!

Re:first amendment

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

, and it never fails to boggle my mind that what the constitution protects from government interference, it doesn't protect from private sector lawyers.

Because the first amendment is there to protect us from the government, not from each other. Go figure.

Re:first amendment

[zehaeva]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's the 1st Amendment, the actual text of it. It says nothing about the private sector. The Constitution protects us from the government. It is what outlines government and sets up the framework for the government, not the private sector.

Re:first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you cannot be jailed for libel. Libel is kinda like how you can trip and sue whoever owned whatever you tripped on, you're being sued for damages. It can sure ruin your life, but libel charges can't actually shut you up, after you owe more money than you can afford, you can keep yelling out and all they can do is sue you for more and more money that you don't have. If you have a message about how you're being opressed, libel charges would only help your cause and preventing opression is one of the main reasons there is a first amendment. Libel charges also help against witch hunts (aka: OMG the AC above me abducts children under 10 to make child porn with them!)

Re:first amendment

[MozeeToby]

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. If you start talking about guaranteed rights, inevitably there will be times when one person's rights are in conflict with another's. In this case, it is your right to free speech verses another person's (or entity's) right to protect their way of life.

Our law system has decided that if you are telling the truth, you can say whatever you want and they can't do anything about it. In fact, if you even think you are telling the truth when you say it, they can't do anything about it. But, if you're spreading lies and misinformation for the sole purpose of hurting someone else's business or reputation, their right to a fair reputation is stronger than your right to attack them. Imagine if it wasn't; you'd have ads for Colgate that say "Crest causes cancer" and ads for Crest that say "Colgate is made from the bones of unborn babies" and there would be nothing either side could do about it.

Re:first amendment

[Ironica]

So here's what I don't get (and maybe a lawyer or wannabe-lawyer can explain it to me). We have the first amendment which protects us from government interference in speech. If I criticize a government official or policy the government is not allowed to retaliate in any way. Yet for some reason.... the private sector can? We've seen this before (Scientology, Streisand, etc.), and it never fails to boggle my mind that what the constitution protects from government interference, it doesn't protect from private sector lawyers.

There are certain limitations on free speech. When I last studied the constitution (in 12th grade Government, which was [mumble mumble] years ago), there were seven categories of exceptions. Libel is one, slander another; there's also the Rosenberg exception (which limits the ability to promote illegal activity), the fire-in-a-crowded-theater exception, "fighting words" which was of more use when everyone had a sidearm on them, incitement to riot, fraud... and maybe that's all of them. Or maybe some of those are the same thing.

And most of these are criminal, not civil, matters, so the government absolutely can step in.

Private entities can restrict speech as much as they want on their private property, though. If Twitter didn't want anyone talking smack about Horizon Realty on their network, they could delete the posts, warn or ban the user, whatever they wanted to as long as it was in their T&Cs that they could. In fact, Horizon Realty would have been MUCH better off just sending a C&D to Twitter, rather than filing suit.

Re:first amendment

[Logic and Reason]

Why should you be allowed to publish slander and libel all you want, under the guise of the first amendment? It hurts my reputation, it hurts my ability to do business, etc.

Yes, and...? Harm alone is not sufficient reason to make something illegal.

Besides, one could argue that the extent to which libel and slander would become problems in the absence of such laws is more or less the extent to which people would be forced to wise up and not believe every unsubstantiated rumor they hear about a person or company.

I think I should be allowed to protect myself.

And you can certainly do so without using government force to shut people up.

Re:first amendment

[sumdumass]

Your freedoms don't give you the ability to impose on my freedoms.

As for the constitution, it is a document that gives the federal government powers and prohibits certain actions it can take. It is not and never was a document governing the people. The first amendment only applies to the governments and that was in doubt until the 14th amendment was ratified.

So you are right that you have free speech, but when that speech harms someone else, they have a right to recourse. The only thing stopping recourse is when the government is behind it. I think the confusions become hard to differentiate when you end up with natural rights and legally protected rights. Free speech is both but not in an all encompassing way.

Re:first amendment

[Maniac-X]

Well, the thing is, it DOES protect you from that. What it does NOT protect, however, is "hate speech" (which would fall under libel). It applies to everyone, not just to the government. Criticisms are very different from insults.

Re:first amendment

[westlake]

So here's what I don't get (and maybe a lawyer or wannabe-lawyer can explain it to me). We have the first amendment which protects us from government interference in speech. If I criticize a government official or policy the government is not allowed to retaliate in any way. Yet for some reason.... the private sector can?

Traditionally, the sovereign cannot be sued. He is the law or he is above the law. He can do anything, say anything, and you have no recourse.

Re:first amendment

[MightyYar]

Yet for some reason.... the private sector can?

One of the chief functions of government is to provide us with a civil system to resolve disputes. You have to provide a party who feels wronged with some non-violent means to address the perceived wrong, lest they take matters into their own hands.

Re:first amendment

[noidentity]

Why shouldn't it? I don't feel that I should be allowed to let you say whatever you want about me... let's say I run a small business that is completely built on trust and honesty. Why should you be allowed to publish slander and libel all you want, under the guise of the first amendment? It hurts my reputation, it hurts my ability to do business, etc.

Because you don't own your reputation; it is merely what other people think of you. There are many things which affect what others think of you, and you don't have a right to stop others from doing all those things merely because it's in your interest. Ironically, libel laws make things people say more potentially damaging to your reputation, not less, as they cause others to give things said more weight than if there were no laws. Ultimately, your liberty isn't threatened by things others say, therefore there should be no laws "protecting" you from things people say (beyond threats of use of force against you).

Re:first amendment

[W. Justice Black]

IANAL (yada, yada), but...

In general, you can't be prevented from saying almost anything. You can, however, suffer consequences from what you do say.

That's the big difference.

Re:first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

, and it never fails to boggle my mind that what the constitution protects from government interference, it doesn't protect from private sector lawyers.

Because the first amendment is there to protect us from the government, not from each other. Go figure.

that's what the second and fourth amendments are for.

Re:first amendment

[CannonballHead]

Harm isn't enough to make it illegal? That's weird... why should beating someone up with a baseball bat be illegal then? It's just physical harm?

And you can certainly do so without using government force to shut people up.

How? Buying protection? Hiring someone to bully them with aforementioned bat? We're trying to avoid such tactics by using lawsuits, I think. :)

I am fairly certain, in addition, that by suing, I'm not actually having the government shut them up. I'm accusing someone of libel/slander. But if you don't have a problem with libel/slander and people/corps shouldn't get in trouble for such things, I guess Microsoft can say whatever they like about GPL, Linux, Firefox, and IE and you don't care? Or should they get in trouble for stating "facts" that are untrue, whether about their products or someone else's products?

I know, it's bad to bring MS into this discussion... but it seems we tend to not be fair to people or corporations that we dislike. Unless, of course, we want to have different laws for what corps can say and what people can say... which is ok, but then we need to start figuring out what happens when Steve Ballmer uses his fortune gained from MS to personally (not corporately) attack Linux. Nobody would like that, even though it's not a corporation... "but it is, that's where he got the money" - that doesn't mean every Starbucks worker represents Starbucks when he spends money that Starbucks paid him... etc.

Re:first amendment

[Hatta]

The problem is, sometimes other citizens hold as much or more power over us than the government. Employers and landlords are chief among them.

Re:first amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the second amendment is for.

Re:first amendment

[ImNotAtWork]

I hate to say it but the meme that one's right to swing at someone even if you stop before hitting there nose or any other part of their body is patently false.
1. It's called assault if you swing and stop.
2. If you successfully hit someone it's assault and battery.
3. If you swing with intent to hit and miss that is assault and unsuccessful battery.
Basically it comes down to if you have the intent of scaring me into thinking you will hit me i.e. swinging at an extremely slow speed won't scare but if you do it fast enough to make me flinch or cower it's another issue

Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intentâ"if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victimâ"or general intentâ"if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.

citation: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault

Re:first amendment

[Pandare]

Well, in the case of American public officials, after the NYT v. Sullivan decision actual malice must first be shown. This is to say that the author intended to damage the target as opposed to merely voicing a strong negative opinion. In the case of private individuals, it is a statutory matter. The legal level of determining fault in the case of a private figure is somewhere between the aforementioned actual malice and above strict liability as decided under Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts . Your Scientology and Streisand examples would fall under this sort of precedent and only really succeed because they can buy the better lawyers (and laws, for that matter).

As mentioned by other comments, the intent of the First Amendment is to limit governmental powers. Here, the authors of the Constitution were dealing with an oppressive govt. (not like UK libel laws are any better now) and sought to limit the amount of govt. control on criticism.

In short, since there is a legitimate interest in criticism of public officials that does not apply to criticism of individuals, there are different standards of protection from criticism.

Re:first amendment

[T Murphy]

I don't think McCarthy's victims would agree with you.

Re:first amendment

[lennier]

"I don't think McCarthy's victims would agree with you."

Why not?

It's not just that McCarthy made accusations which caused any problems. It that those accusations were seen as plausible and were believed by society at large and those in power.

*Why* was this the case in the 1950s, and why was it okay for substantiation and due process not to be sought by Congress, is the question you should be asking. It wasn't just a case of one guy saying some stuff and magically everyone just believing him. There were deep, wide social undercurrents arising out of the Cold War and WW2 and the revelations of Stalin's genocidal omelette-making in the 1930s that hadn't been fully acknowledged by the Left intelligensia at the time, admittedly because they were busy fighting Hitler but.... prop up one dictator to fight another and pretend Dictator #1 who kills more people is all sunshine and roses, you will get blowback, and it came in the 50s. McCarthy was just one lightning rod among many.

Start giving people the right to locking up other people who say things they don't like... and that seems like a quicker route to a dystopia than to have people be allowed to say anything they want.

Re:first amendment

[Capt_Morgan]

Can you read? It says "abridging the freedom of speech".... Forceably taking your property due to speech is obviously "abridging the freedom of speech"

Re:first amendment

[sjames]

It could be argued that being sued by an entity with far greater resources has become in and of itself punitive these days, and because the courts (part of the government) are the reason you can't just laugh it off, then lending the power of legal compulsion to the plaintiff so he can shut you up is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Meanwhile, if the defendant can scrape enough together to prevail in court, I sincerely hope the plaintiff gets "tweeted to death" in the aftermath.

Re:first amendment

[Dragonslicer]

Here's another dictionary link you might want to check out

Re:first amendment

[noidentity]

Besides, communism is in these days; just ask the current administration re: bailouts, Government Motors Corporation, and the upcoming massive state-run medical care...

Re:first amendment

[zehaeva]

err? Let me make it simpler for you

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...

NOTHING that is in TFS or TFA mentions that Congress suddenly made a law forcibly taking anything away from anyone due to what anyone said.

All that is mentioned in TFS is a woman being sued for libel by her landlord and an employee who said something that looked badly upon her employer in a public space and was terminated due to said comment

No Laws here taking anything away from anyone just because someone said something they wanted to

Before anyone gets all up in arms about their protected speech getting trampled on why not honestly read and understand what TFC (The Fscking Constitution) says and means?

Seriously, I bet that you think that Carrie Prejean was denied her right to speech when her employer was all up in arms about her views on "opposite" marriage.

The Constitution DOES NOT PROTECT YOU FROM ANY PRIVATE CITIZEN.

The Constitution PROTECTS YOU FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Re:first amendment

[T Murphy]

McCarthy knowingly ruined people's lives for political gain- I should hope we can maintain laws on the books that can be used to stop something like that from happening again. I don't see how you can write laws about what mindset the general public is allowed to have. Knowingly spreading false information with the intent to harm has absolutely no positive outcome for society, other than the lesson to try to prevent it from recurring. Holocaust deniers can defend themselves as believing they are telling the truth, and anyone prodding a powerful person should at least have that much defense. If someone saying something a powerful person doesn't like gets wrongly persecuted, then our system has failed them.

Abolish libel laws and powerful people can say whatever they want about someone without repercussion. That sounds worse to me than the current system where they can fight legitimate criticism only if the justice system fails us. If someone can twist the justice system to their will I don't expect the general public to be any better. I get it that libel laws don't fit with the ideal of free speech, but to me they are a realistic necessity.

Re:first amendment

[mgblst]

You do have a right to do that, that is protected, just depending on how you do it.

It is my opinion that CannonballHead actually has a very tiny penis, and smells of elderberries.

Re:first amendment

[Kjella]

Ironically, libel laws make things people say more potentially damaging to your reputation, not less, as they cause others to give things said more weight than if there were no laws. Ultimately, your liberty isn't threatened by things others say, therefore there should be no laws "protecting" you from things people say (beyond threats of use of force against you).

Please state your name and address, I'd like to go around your neighborhood and drop a note in everyone's mailbox saying you are a child molester. Since the chances of catching me is slim to none, it shouldn't matter in this case if libel law exists or not. Honestly, "Where there's smoke there's fire" is human nature and you'll get no fair trial. False and malicious accusations won't go away just because you say it's not true. Hell, they'll probably not go away even if you win at trial but then at least you'll have some form of redress for your grievances. Oh you'll still have liberty as in not in jail, but if you get the evil eye from everyone, people watch their kids around you and the kids been forbidden from talking to you or being around you, I think you'll find your freedom more than a little violated.

Re:first amendment

[DCEdwards1966]

3. If you swing with intent to hit and miss that is assault and unsuccessful battery.

AKA a strike with an unsuccessful bat.

Re:first amendment

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I agree - it's not perfect, and it's far to open to abuse. But to say that it should be covered by the 1st amendment goes well beyond any interpretation of what the 1st amendment is there for. This isn't to say that other means shouldn't be developed to address that kind of inequity -- just that the 1st ain't it

eanwhile, if the defendant can scrape enough together to prevail in court, I sincerely hope the plaintiff gets "tweeted to death" in the aftermath.

seconded

Re:first amendment

[sjames]

I'll agree that that argument was probably not what the founding fathers had in mind with the 1st amendment. Just a bit of thinking out loud.

Of course, I also don't imagine that the founding fathers' idea of due process included going bankrupt even if you win or losing by default if you're broke.

Welcome to the 21st Century

[Hmmm2000]

Any time you post something to any social networking site, you should imagine yourself on a podium in giving a presentation in front of millions of people. If you would be embarrassed to say it on stage, don't post it, because they are effectively the same thing now.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century

[oldspewey]

This may be true in the abstract sense of a "global audience", but really for the vast, vast majority of posts it would be more correct to imagine yourself standing at a podium in a gigantic stadium ... which has 14 people in it, and the microphone is making that feedback noise while you tap it and say "is this thing on?"

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is true, you have left out that a recording of what you said is then mailed to everyone's mailbox in the world. Almost everyone will just throw it away as junk mail. But there's always going to be the chance that someone you don't want to see it is going to actually open it up and take a look.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century

[DerekLyons]

I don't think many people today are capable of feeling shame or embarrassment.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century

[I'm not really here]

No, it's more like a copy of what you said is available to anyone on request. Most people won't request it because they don't even know it's there, but it is there available to view/hear at any moment by anyone who cares.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century

[sjames]

Actually more like at a podium in front of millions of people each behind their own podium. They're all presenting at once.

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would be embarrassed to say it on stage, don't post it, because they are effectively the same thing now.

Why it's not like anyone knows who I am!

Re:Welcome to the 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD DOWN. what are all you faggots going on about? did you even read the fucking **summary** before trotting off you ready-made rants about the dangers of social-networking sites? which luddites gave you a +5, Insightful? The person in questions indirectly complained about mold in her apartment. absolutely nothing embarrassing about that. its precisely the sort of thing i, and pretty much everyone else under 25 in Western economies, say every day to my friends and family over the phone or via email or via facebook. If that has legal consequences then the problem IS THE OUTDATED LAW, and NOT MY ACTIONS. You people are out of date.

Slow news day, eh?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

(person) complains about (whatever) on (new media), gets sued by (vendor)

I, for one, look forward to the first formulaic article about telepathy...

Re:Slow news day, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally take issue with the firing of the public employee due to her Facebook posts. She voiced her personal opinions, unrelated to her job, and not in an official capacity. IANAL but as a simple citizen who believes in America and in free speech, I think she should sue the city. I am not going to even bring up the issue of whether she would have been fired if she had been on the political correct pro-administration side. The rise of the thought police (witnes what happened to that CA model that dared to speak her mind about gay marriage) is a scary prospect - irrespective of your ideology.

General dumbassery strikes again!

[burtosis]

Right up there with:

Why not post those pictures - afterall she's probably 18.

Or the top 10 reasons my boss is an asshole.

Hello people - it's called social networking for a reason.

Re:General dumbassery strikes again!

[Ironica]

Um. I hardly think venting about a landlord is in the same class as posting pics of someone without their permission (and if someone's under 18, they can't legally consent to it) or insulting your boss. Then again, it sounds like you didn't RTFA at all.

Re:General dumbassery strikes again!

[burtosis]

Hello - this is slashdot

Nobody RTFA. Obviously you must be new here.

Re:General dumbassery strikes again!

[Ironica]

Hello - this is slashdot

Nobody RTFA.
Obviously you must be new here.

Obviously I must be. There's just a digit missing from my UID. ;-)

If nobody RTFA, then I must be nobody. Good news: I'm perfect!

Re:General dumbassery strikes again!

[burtosis]

Lol.

Just because you have a low uid dosen't mean that you actually read/post to slashdot and obviously i'm to lazy to check your profile!

Anyhows I was commenting more on the second part of the article. A press secretary should have known better.

Streisand Effect

[Drakkenmensch]

If he hadn't sued her and let the story die of its own, how many people would have heard about that mold? 10? 5? So little that a clumsy shop teacher still would have enough fingers left to count them all? Instead, the whole of slashdot knows about it now!

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, don't plan to rent from them. Merely because Horizon has proven itself incapable of rational behavior and thought. If they can't handle a tweet, how are they supposed to make decent landlords?
 
...the above is an opinion, not libel, you insensitive clods known as 'Horizon Realty'.

Re:Streisand Effect

[TorKlingberg]

What is the actual likelihood of the Streisand Effect happening though? How many cases of censorship are successful and never heard of?

Re:Streisand Effect

[Drakkenmensch]

While actual numbers are hard to come by and the percentage likely to favor success from censorship, there's no denying that this specific case proves that sometimes it's better to just shut the hell up and let the story die on its own.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Cro Magnon]

More than that. I heard about it on the radio on the way to work.

Free speech can have consequences

[Apple Acolyte]

Even the seemingly frivolous Twitter environment can have real world consequences, but is that really shocking news to anyone?

A more interesting situation would be one in which an aggrieved party sues over comments made online by someone masquerading as someone else.

Re:Free speech can have consequences

[ground.zero.612]

I bet it's more shocking to find out that "fighting words" aren't protected speech.

Queue the insulted nerd litigation parade in 3..2..

I got fired for a tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Programmer and account manager for a small consultancy firm.

Went on to twitter and said that I got a user-error and for the program I was administering to unfuck itself.

Apparently the parent company didnt have a twitter presence but was having people search / spy. It got back to my company and viola - collecting unemployment.

Since then I have locked down my online profile to a MUCH greater degree - and as such im posting this anon ;)

Re:I got fired for a tweet

[PRMan]

Sounds like a good way to get rid of co-workers you don't like anonymously...

What's to stop somebody making a Twitter account in someone else's name and then Tweeting about their struggles at work and criticizing their boss and calling him an idiot?

Boom! Person you hate just got fired...

Re:I got fired for a tweet

[jbeale53]

You're lucky you're getting the unemployment. You are wise to now post anonymously.

Re:I got fired for a tweet

[Krneki]

Don't give them ideas! :)

Re:I got fired for a tweet

[ukemigrant]

Did they give you a musical instrument as a leaving present or something :)? Where does the viola come into the story again? Sorry couldn't resist...

Re:I got fired for a tweet

[Anonymous Coward]

That wouldn't work at all because the person would be able to state that it wasn't their account anyway.

Re:I got fired for a tweet

[Dan541]

Why would you go quiet after getting fired?

I would publish EVERYTHING I possibly could.

Fail

[thisnamestoolong]

I would love to see this blow up in the landlord's face -- in the process of investigating the libel claim they will certainly need to check the apartment for mold. If it can be shown that there is mold in the apartment and the landlord was notified and did nothing, I am thinking that he could be in some trouble, but IANAL. That would be, for my money, the best way that this could possibly turn out.

Unbelievable

[Svenne]

When will people learn that putting something on the web is not the same as writing it down in your own personal diary?

Really, it's not that hard.

Re:Unbelievable

[sexybomber]

Mod that shit up! I agree 100%. A blog (or Facebook, or Twitter, or whatever new-fangled social network is the flavor of the week) is for general ranting / jokes / reviews / etc. Nothing should get posted there that you're not willing to answer for.

My secret plans for world domination, on the other hand, reside safely in a marble composition book.

Re:Unbelievable

[RightSaidFred99]

Meh.. Just post anonymously, using Tor.

Re:Unbelievable

[Ironica]

When will companies learn that if they mistreat their customers, someone else *may* find out about it?

Really, it's not that hard.

So?

[CannonballHead]

I see no issue with this at all... in neither case.

1. The tweet is a publically "published" media outlet, so to speak. It should be treated as such. Just because you didn't print it in a newspaper doesn't mean you are immune from libel charges. IS it libel? That is what the lawsuit is for and the courts should decide. IMO, it's not libel, but I don't know if her apartment was actually moldy or not.

2. The political FB post should be valid grounds for firing, too. If I gave out company "secrets" or confidential material on FB, I'd get fired. Duh. If I am working in a political office and make a political comment in a public media outlet, I should be held accountable for what I said. If that means my boss wants me to resign because of the comment, then I don't see how FB is the culprit. If anything, it's the comment that should be argued about, not the particular outlet chosen (public bulletin board, flyer at library, Facebook post, tweet, etc). Facebook and Twitter are not private and secure messaging systems.

Re:So?

[Experiment 626]

The political FB post should be valid grounds for firing, too. If I gave out company "secrets" or confidential material on FB, I'd get fired. Duh.

I'm not sure how big of a secret Obama being "dumb" is. Some of us had that figured out for a while now.

Re:So?

[CannonballHead]

Point was not that it necessarily had anything to do with Obama. Point was that when hired by certain entities (individuals or companies), there are almost always things you simply are not allowed to speak of publically. When you're a PR person for a political figure, you should probably avoid making public political statements if you want to keep your job. Facebook (and, for that matter, Twitter, blogs, etc) are basically public.

Re:So?

[BasilBrush]

I'm not sure how big of a secret Obama being "dumb" is. Some of us had that figured out for a while now.

Hard to imagine just how someone who supported Bush has the gall to call anyone dumb.

Re:So?

[Toonol]

You know, I think the first seven months of the Obama administration has already been more harmful for the country than the last eight years of Bush's... but I would never characterize Obama as 'dumb'. Wrong? Sure. In a very intelligent way, though.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking more dumb as when he speaks without the assistance of The Teleprompter. He is elloquent while reciting a nicely prepared speach. But give him an off-topic question (like the Gates deal), and there are tons of "Uh," "Um," and repeating phrases in his manner of speaking. Either he is over-thinking the situation (trying to please everybody everywhere) or he does not know what he really belives (Clinton-era poll first, take a stance how that turns out).

Re:So?

[Maniac-X]

I'm not sure how big of a secret Obama being "dumb" is. Some of us had that figured out for a while now.

Hard to imagine just how someone who supported Bush has the gall to call anyone dumb.

It's because they're too dumb to realize how dumb they are.

Re:So?

[MightyYar]

Way to miss the point, Champ.

Re:So?

[BLSully]

I'm not sure how big of a secret Obama being "dumb" is. Some of us had that figured out for a while now.

Hard to imagine just how someone who supported Bush has the gall to call anyone dumb.

Some of us who think Obama is a dumb-shit who shouldn't be president didn't like Bush any better.

Re:So?

[CannonballHead]

I know this is offtopic, but I find it rather comical (in an annoying sort of way) that insulting Bush gets you an Insightful mod, while insulting Obama gets a Flamebait mod. Heh. :)

Re:So?

[Nef]

Who says parent supported Bush? It's possible he/she's not a sheep for either of the big 2 you know?

Re:So?

[jafiwam]

[Citation Needed]

Every pile of shit republican is saying this very old talking point, and none of them can back it up with facts, and certainly not facts that were something the current president did without a lot of help from congress (and the R side of it no less).

It's just like the "he has to use a teleprompter thing" (see idiot AW who also responded with his "me too AOL LOL" comment) where thousands of photos of other presidents and other types of leaders are available on the internet, somehow, now, that the president is black the fact that he reads off one is some sort of valid criticism. Maybe his ability to do extemporaneous speech isn't that great (Bush was? Gimmie a fucking break) but when limbaugh or whatever other tard said it on the radio, the talking point lost that part and "hurrr teleprompter" was all that got repeated.

So.. In short, get some citations and start posting them or eat a bowl of dicks, really, if you want to go through life less useful than a bag of mashed assholes that's your choice, but if you want to have any credibility in rational discourse you had better stop thinking the talking point de jour is enough.

Re:So?

[4D6963]

I think the first seven months of the Obama administration has already been more harmful for the country than the last eight years of Bush's.

lol, I love when people repeat a talking point right after they say "I think". Sheeple ;-)

Re:So?

[BasilBrush]

I said it. It's a fact.

Re:So?

[Toonol]

Whose talking point am I regurgitating? I came to the conclusion on my own. I realize that by labeling it a 'talking point' you hope to make it seem worth disregarding without any consideration as to the opinion's actual merit... but only an unintelligent person that goes along with group-think would fall for that tactic. (Is the term for that 'sheeple'? I think it may be.)

Re:So?

[Toonol]

Ironically, there were two (very irate) responders to my post, and both claimed I was repeating Republican 'talking points'. It's odd that both made the identical accusation; it almost seems like accusing detractors of repeating talking points is a... talking point.

Anyway: Cost of Iraq War: 700 billion. Other consequences: Some negative (cost in soldier's lives), some positive (democratic Iraq).

Cost of various stimulus packages: ~3 trillion. Other consequences: Any improvement to the economy is dubious, significant future debt accumulated. Add to that the idea of socialized medicine (if that isn't blocked), and we will be struggling with the consequences of this administration for many decades.

Congress is more to blame than Obama, however, in my opinion. Obama being in office merely removed the check on the legislative branch.

By the way, commenting on the president's race (when nobody else had) is pretty unseemly, and makes you seem like a bigot.

Re:So?

[sjames]

1. The tweet is a publically "published" media outlet, so to speak. It should be treated as such. Just because you didn't print it in a newspaper doesn't mean you are immune from libel charges. IS it libel? That is what the lawsuit is for and the courts should decide. IMO, it's not libel, but I don't know if her apartment was actually moldy or not.

In comparison to publishing in a newspaper, a single tweet is a mere scrawl on a napkin. I doubt they're given all that much weight by readers unless they know the person who wrote it. Surely the courts shouldn't place much weight on a tweet either.

Re:So?

[4D6963]

Right, well just turn on Fox News, you might be amused by the coincidences with what you thought up all on your own.

Re:So?

[abbyful]

Or perhaps many people are drawing the same conclusion.

Obama is a socialist at best, perhaps even a communist.

Have you looked at the people Obama has surrounded himself with and hand-picked to be in positions? His "Green Czar" is a self-admitted communist. His "Science Czar" wants to put birth control in the water and force women to have abortions. His "Regulatory Czar" is an animal rights nut-job. The list goes on!

Re:So?

[Falconhell]

As a non Us citizen, I can tell you that Mr Obama
has improved the US reputation overseas greatly.

Having a dumb half wit like Bush made you all look like idiotic violent rednecks.

If you view being respected internationally as valuable, Mr Obama has done a great job.

By the way how many wars has Obama started, causing the deaths of thousands of soldiers since he took office? You define harm very strangely sir.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is a socialist, the problem is that no one in America seems to know what socialism means. Basically it's an umbrella term that covers anything from pure Marxism to certain kinds of European centre-right parties that involve mildly regulated capitalism. Without a context this is not a term that means much, especially not when labelling an American politician that, since there's no real socialist movement in the USA to provide the necessary context and background to identify which kind of socialism we're talking about.

What if there's a communist in a government? What's so horrible about communist politicians? Let me guess, old Cold War reflex?

By the way that's funny you should insist on using the term czar given how czars and socialism/communism/Bolshevism reacted when mixed.

Two incidents, two responses

[girlintraining]

...a Chicago landlord suing a tenant over a tweet complaining of mold in her apartment.

Was there mold? Because if there was, it's perfectly legal and the landlord can shove those papers right where the sun don't shine, and she might be able to file a countersuit and win.

The aide, Lee Landor, who had been the deputy press secretary to the Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer, since May, posted comments on her Facebook page criticizing Mr. Gates and the president, whom she referred to at one point as "O-dumb-a."

If these comments were made public for anyone to view, then they might have something -- a press secretary should know better. If this was something posted privately to her friends and word leaked out, then I would say she excercised poor judgment -- but her employer did worse by firing her over it instead of a reprimand. People make mistakes -- Good managers understand that and work to correct the behavior. Bad managers paper over their own asses, and wind up costing their company/organization both human resources and morale. Legally, however, in the United States most states are "at will" employment, which basically means you have no rights whatsoever -- you can be fired for almost any reason, or none at all, without any recourse. This is one of the problems (some would say benefits) of living in the only first world country that lacks a strong labour party.

On a different note -- it's amazing how petty most people are. For example, I think you are a pompous bastard child of a whore. Curiously, I have no idea who you (the reader) are, but nevertheless, someone, somewhere, will be offended. Apparently, when people go online, they forget the social etiquette lessons they learned in grade school -- namely to ignore bullies, loud-mouths, and to have a thick skin, because there are not enough bullets in the world to kill every assh0le you're going to meet.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[Anonymous Coward]

When my old slumlord landlord in NYC, name of Mark Scharfman wanted us out so he could raise the rent $2000
he had us in court for every little thing. Oh, and if you are in new york city don't rent from Mark Scharfman or
Beach Lane Management. They will lie to you, rip you off, and are other wise shifty individuals.

Posting ANON !!!!!!

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[evanbd]

Legally, however, in the United States most states are "at will" employment, which basically means you have no rights whatsoever -- you can be fired for almost any reason, or none at all, without any recourse.

Not so. At will employment means you can be fired (or quit) without notice. It also means you can be fired without a reason. It most emphatically does not mean you can be fired for any reason, though -- for example, you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[starX]

I'm totally with you on this labor party thing, but the flip side of "right to work" is that just about every non-compete form I've had shoved under my nose is basically unenforceable. And, in all fairness, if the larger unions hadn't become as corrupt as the corporate machines they were supposed to be protecting their workers from in the mid 20th century, Right to Work legislation wouldn't have got very far. Here in America, we've always seemed to brand anything that sounded a little bit like socialism as the end of free society. Maybe it's just because Americans are dumber than the average citizen? I don't know. We, as a society, have always been more interested in listening to talking points than reading/thinking for ourselves. If we weren't, we probably wouldn't be a country.

But yeah, you're totally right about the mold. The first thing she should do (now) is start documenting, get an inspector in there, pictures, air samples, etc.

This other person really ought to follow my personal policy of not friending the people I work with on facebook. And I know what you're going to say: some employers require it. I wouldn't even think twice about working for one of those.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[NotBornYesterday]

"I think you are a pompous bastard child of a whore. "

Hey now, that's MR. pompous bastard child of a whore to you, if you please.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[girlintraining]

My post said "almost" any reason. You can't be fired for a 'protected' reason like race, sex, religion, etc. You can be fired for having blonde hair, however, or being unattractive. And most employers in "at will" states get around the protection by simply not specifying the reason.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are a pompous bastard child of a whore.

WHAT!?!?! How could you think that of me, of my mother!?!

I mean seriously, you hardly know me. All you know of me is that I read your little post and that I am sarcastic, and you didn't even know the second one before I made this post.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[Anonymous Coward]

The grandparent is talking about at-will employment. That is a completely different beast than right-to-work.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you simply say "Your services are no longer required, and we are terminating your employment. We don't have to give you a reason." I saw this used numerous times to get rid of people who just happened to piss someone off.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[smellsofbikes]

>you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state

While true, that's also irrelevant, because:

>It also means you can be fired without a reason.

So if they decide to fire you because of race, sex, etc., they merely fire you without a reason. You may have been fired because you're black, female, whatever, but as long as they're smart enough to not say so, they can indeed fire you because of your race or sex.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[tsstahl]

Elitist prig. Too good fer yer upbringin, are ya? I knowed the workhouse was too good for ya.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[evanbd]

you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state

While true, that's also irrelevant, because:

It also means you can be fired without a reason.

So if they decide to fire you because of race, sex, etc., they merely fire you without a reason. You may have been fired because you're black, female, whatever, but as long as they're smart enough to not say so, they can indeed fire you because of your race or sex.

However, if you can convince a court that the reason they fired you was a prohibited reason, it doesn't matter whether they specified a reason or not. For this reason, many employers like to document explicit valid reasons before firing someone, in preference to firing them for no documented reason.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[Anonymous Coward]

... because there are not enough bullets in the world to kill every assh0le you're going to meet.

citation needed

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[CannonballHead]

Out of curiosity, how do non-profits fit into that? e.g., if a church hires a dude and the dude later "recants" so to speak, can the church "fire" him on religious grounds?

(genuinely asking as I'm ignorant..)

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[CodeBuster]

for example, you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state.

technically that is true (it is also illegal to NOT hire a job applicant for the same reasons). However, in practice you will simply be fired or never get the job in the first place and you will never be told the real reason for the decision. In fact, the whole thing has become so toxic and litigious that most employers will do nothing more than confirm dates of employment; so in practice it can be very difficult to prove that you were fired or not hired for an illegal reason, particularly on an individual basis.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know the full story, but here are some thoughts...

1. What does he leasing agreement state?
2. Did she make a reasonable effort to let the landlord know about the mold issue? Like a written maintenance request.
3. That last sentence of what I think was her tweet, is what bothers me. How does she know what they think?

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[Phroggy]

you can't fire someone because of race, sex, etc. even in an at-will state

While true, that's also irrelevant, because:

It also means you can be fired without a reason.

So if they decide to fire you because of race, sex, etc., they merely fire you without a reason. You may have been fired because you're black, female, whatever, but as long as they're smart enough to not say so, they can indeed fire you because of your race or sex.

However, if you can convince a court that the reason they fired you was a prohibited reason, it doesn't matter whether they specified a reason or not. For this reason, many employers like to document explicit valid reasons before firing someone, in preference to firing them for no documented reason.

Furthermore, if you happen to be black/female/whatever, and you suck at your job, they can neither fire you for sucking at your job nor fire you for no reason, because there's a chance you could later convince a court that the real reason was your race/sex/etc.

Sounds like a good incentive to avoid hiring minorities in the first place! Too risky.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[Dhalka226]

but her employer did worse by firing her over it instead of a reprimand. People make mistakes -- Good managers understand that and work to correct the behavior. Bad managers paper over their own asses, and wind up costing their company/organization both human resources and morale

Let me start out by saying that I agree with the sentiment of what the press secretary posted. I think the entire situation is ludicrous, but primarily I think the fact that the President of the United States felt the need to stick his nose into what should be a local law enforcement issue at best pretty much takes the cake. That his non-apology, quivering-mass-of-indecision "apology" not only made everything worse, but made him look like an idiot.

I do agree with your sentiment as well, generally speaking. But not in this case. This is politics, where appearance is every bit as important as reality. These comments will hurt the borough president; it will affect his ability to do his job well. It will affect his relationships with people he needs. To have her simply resign (and it may well have been her idea; as a press secretary it certainly should have been) and get it behind him is the best thing for him and for his constituents.

Clearly, the action cost him whatever talent it can be said that this press secretary had. I highly doubt it will have any effect on morale though; more likely, everybody who continues to work for him is talking about how staggeringly stupid it was for these comments to be uttered. The world of politics and the real world don't always intersect where you would expect them to. These people more than any other know the damage those kind of comments could do; that they should never have been said, in public or semi-private. I suspect they all understand that with the way things unfolded, this was the only course of action. Heck, look at the trouble some Republicans got into for insulting Obama (Obama the Magic Negro and others)--and that's the OPPOSITION. The ones who are supposed to hate him and everything he stands for. Coming from a New York borough president who is undoubtedly a democrat... the outcome was predetermined.

Apparently, when people go online, they forget the social etiquette lessons they learned in grade school -- namely to ignore bullies, loud-mouths, and to have a thick skin, because there are not enough bullets in the world to kill every assh0le you're going to meet.

All fine advice, though I would suggest that "social etiquette lessons" would include not saying those sorts of things in the first place more than ignoring people who do.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[Anonymous Coward]

There were nearly enough ( 19,000 * 250,000 = 4.75 billion, more than half the world's population, but we used them up in Iraq.

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[mi]

And, in all fairness, if the larger unions hadn't become as corrupt as the corporate machines they were supposed to be protecting their workers from in the mid 20th century, Right to Work legislation wouldn't have got very far.

All unions seek to become and larger unions achieve the goal of becoming a monopolistic source of their members' services. This is precisely, what the anti-trust laws were created for, and they do ought to apply to unions. They don't even hide their aims of keeping the services' prices steady and rising and eliminating competition...

That is what's wrong with them and why the American opinion is slowly turning against them...

Maybe it's just because Americans are dumber than the average citizen?

Average citizen of what?

Re:Two incidents, two responses

[mi]

wanted us out so he could raise the rent $2000

In other words, you were occupying a rent-controlled apartment relying on a confiscatory law, that — introduced as a temporary measure during WW2 — still forces NYC landlords to charge some tenants ridiculously low rents. Sorry. No sympathy...

They will lie to you, rip you off, and are other wise shifty individuals.

I wonder, how people/companies with such habits stay in business... Maybe, it is the breakdown of the free market in real estate, that government meddling inevitably brings with it? Rent control and "rent-stabilization" are sure to do that — with the government dictating their prices, honest businessmen either leave town, or become dishonest...

Re:Mod me down you faggot liberals!!

[InsertWittyNameHere]

Proving the point that only anonymous cowards are safe on the internet.

Impersonators?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.. Lee Landor's story brings us to the question if some Chinese bloggers/hackers could impersonate a random American politician and effectively retire him by posting something which makes the waves on the tubes. That would definitely be cool.

No different than real-life actions...

[TWX]

...other than that these are better documented. Take your clothes off for pictures on your web page, don't be surprised if that is weighed in a hiring process (might work your advantage :) Make strong, rude political statements, don't be surprised if a political organization that tries to be civil doesn't wish to have you representing them. Criticize your boss, especially if you are rude, unduly harsh, or anything other than factual, and you betchya they could terminate you for it, even in large organizations with separate HR departments. Demonstrate other behaviors that show that you're unsuited to something and they might just deny you that.

On the mold issue, I haven't seen enough to make a call. If there really is mold then I wouldn't find her in the wrong in the slightest, because Truth *should* win out even if it's not a happy truth. If there isn't a mold problem then I could see how there could be issues.

Consider what you've typed before submitting. It could come back to bite you if you're not careful.

Re:No different than real-life actions...

[MaerD]

...other than that these are better documented. Take your clothes off for pictures on your web page, don't be surprised if that is weighed in a hiring process (might work your advantage :)

... I think you forgot where you were posting this. Unless the hiring manager is looking to keep blackmail material on you, I doubt it's going to work to an advantage for most of the people posting on slashdot.

Re:No different than real-life actions...

[Skapare]

How will anyone figure out if there really was mold or not? I'm sure the evidence has all been cleaned up by now.

Re:No different than real-life actions...

[Anonymous Coward]

(Should an emote count as a closing bracket? :)

Re:No different than real-life actions...

[TWX]

It's only been used that way for at least 20 years, probably more than that...

"In a similar vein"?

[wytcld]

Really.

On the one hand: Getting fired, when your job is in politics and people can identify you with your boss, for publicly saying something stupidly insulting ("O-dumb-a") about a major political figure (never mind which media) which people can trace back to your and your boss.

On the other hand: Making a likely factually-accurate statement in public about mold in your rental unit, and getting sued by the landlord.

If you're hired to work in politics, you know damn well you have to remain true to the politics you're working for even in your own time. You're getting paid for that, and you know it.

But the landlord's not paying the tenant! The tenant is paying the landlord, and it's part of the landlord's job to fix mold problems. So in both cases you have someone not doing their job. In the second case though, the person not doing the job is trying to legally punish the person paying him for bringing up the nonperformance in public.

What's similar here?

Re:"In a similar vein"?

[NotBornYesterday]

"O-dumb-a"

Oh, the irony.

Re:"In a similar vein"?

[gujo-odori]

Not just in politics, either. While I like my company's products pretty well (especially those I work on ), even if I didn't like them, it would behoove me to keep my mouth shut about that in public if I wanted to keep my job. Or, for that matter, if I were to set up a Facebook page trashing our compeitors' products and using insulting language, I suppose that would put my employment at risk as well. We compete hard, as do other vendors in this space, but we don't go around publicly insulting each other. My observation of our marketing materials is that generally, they talk about what our strengths are, and don't even mention competitors.

I think that even the most vociferous political opponents of Obama would strongly reign in (or just fire) any staffer who wrote about Obama in that way. I don't care for Obama's policies either and if he turns out to be a one-term-and-out president, I won't be disappointed. However, making fun of his name or raising bogus attacks on his citizenship are not good ways to go about opposition. There is a certain amount of respect for the Office that is required no matter what you think of the person holding it. I don't want to attack the man. I'm sure President Obama is very personable and likable, and even his opponents admit he's an intelligent very well-spoken individual, and he seems to have higher ethical standards than Bill Clinton (or if he doesn't, he's at least far more skilled at concealing it).

Re:"In a similar vein"?

[cdrguru]

The tenant is paying the landlord, and it's part of the landlord's job to fix mold problems.

You might not have lived in a city apartment. What you encounter are people that let trash build up, stacked in the corner of the kitchen until the neighbors complain about the smell. Sure, the lease has a paragraph in it that says you aren't supposed to do that and can be fined by the building management for not disposing of garbage properly.

So there are endless problems with roaches, mice, and mold. And nothing the building management can do about it because without conducting an inspection and cleaning of every apartment every week there is no way to manage it.

Sure you can try to keep up with it. But when the tenant will absolutely not cooperate there is little that can be done about it.

So while there might be mold, exactly who's fault it might be is far from clear. Cleaning apartments is not the job of the management company, and it says so in most leases.

Re:"In a similar vein"?

[Phroggy]

I'm sure President Obama is very personable and likable,

I've heard this said about Bush as well, pretty consistently.

and even his opponents admit he's an intelligent very well-spoken individual,

But never this part. (OK, I've heard a couple people defend Bush's intelligence, but never his communication skills).

It's not Obama's ideas that I have a problem with, it's the way he goes about them. Universal healthcare is great, but giving Congress free reign to figure out the details is a recipe for disaster! Obama says it will save us money while his opponents say it will cost billions; I'm sure the idea Obama has in mind would save money but somehow Congress will find a way to add extra costs and eliminate the efficiency gains. And somehow we'll reelect them anyway.

We need a strong executive right now, not just intelligence and integrity. I believe Obama has the latter two, but he is not showing strength of leadership.

We see this in software too. Linus is a nice guy but won't put up with anybody's crap, so the Linux kernel is successful. Theo is an asshole and definitely won't put up with anybody's crap, so OpenBSD is reliable. Patrick pretty much puts Slackware together all by himself, and many of us still swear by it. Shuttleworth insists on a predictable release schedule and end-user usability, so Ubuntu is wildly popular. Steve Jobs throws things at people when they show him things that don't look perfect, so millions of people are happy to pay extra money for Apple's products.

Re:"In a similar vein"?

[gujo-odori]

I just got mod points, I wish I could use one to mod you up. Oh, well.

Interesting take on displaying leadership, and a point I hadn't considered. Obama might well be better off telling Congress, "This is what I want, and this is how I want it done." Although I'm pretty far from sure that universal healthcare insurance is great; I lived for 8 years in a country that has it, and while everyone has coverage, the quality of that coverage is much, much lower than what I have now in the US, and the co-pays were higher. I once spent some time in a hospital there, and I had to share a room with 5 other people b/c a 6-person room is what the national system will pay for. You can get a private or semi-private room if you have the cash. I'm sure that sharing a room with 5 other people, all of whom were sicker than me, lengthened my own recovery time.

And then there's the quality of the gear: if I needed to move around, I had to *carry* my IV tree to the bathroom (20 meters away, those 6-person rooms don't have bathrooms) to use the toilet, and I had to sign up for a time to use the communal shower (and carry my IV tree there, too).

And for all that, the system is insolvent, or nearly so. And it's not cheap, either. Expensive, insolvent, less-than-great care. And that system is one of the success stories in national healthcare. I'm not talking about Canada or the UK, here, I'm talking about a system that's much, much better.

It may be impossible to implement a national health insurance scheme that provides good care to everyone, is affordable, and solvent. If not, it's going to be very hard. Many readers of /. will be familiar with this problem in the form of "Good, fast, cheap. Pick two."

If it's not impossible, it's very, very difficult, and I have no faith at all in Congress' ability to successfully implement such a system. I have little faith in President Obama's ability to do it, either, but at least if he designed a system and told Congress "This is what I want. Get it done" and they did it like he said, it might have a better chance of working than what Congress will spew forth on its own.

Nice examples from the software world, too.

Fools!

[Loki_1929]

Why on God's green Earth would you post anything of any substance to any online account that can be traced back to real you without massive court involvement? These social networking sites are prime candidates for one-stop shopping sprees of information about individuals. We've got people posting everything from offensive tirades to nude pictures of themselves where anyone with a search engine and a free, anonymous account can find them.

Do people seriously think that they exist in a bubble so long as they have a keyboard in front of them? Or are their brains trapped in a bubble of ignorance and short-sightedness?

Separate YOU from online YOU, and if possible, separate online YOU into several different online YOUs such that an individual profile can't be established via common username, cross-linkage, etc. For Christ sakes, people, it's 2009. It's long, long past the point where anyone should be doing stuff this stupid. Every spot where a user can post something on the internet is an enormous billboard so high and large that everyone on Earth can see it for the rest of time. Learn to treat it as such.

Re:Fools!

[neo-mkrey]

I wish I had mod points today to mod you way up.

Re:Fools!

[Garbad Ropedink]

Wish somebody had told me that when I was signing up for Slashdot. Had I known I wouldn't have used my real name as my username.

Re:Fools!

[Anonymous Coward]

However that billboard is occluded by many billions of additional billboards, many of which are much larger. I think it would be a safer analogy to say posting on the internet is like a single journal entry in a multi-billion volume set of journals.

Re:Fools!

[Anonymous Coward]

It didn't take me long to find your real name. You play Eve Online and is opposed to food stamps for the poor.

Re:Fools!

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Or do what I do: post under your real name (and my name is rare enough that it's pretty easy for anyone who wants to find out about me to do so) and take the risk.

It's a real risk, I acknowledge that. It shouldn't be, any more than writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper back in the days when that was the main way for people to get their political opinions out to the world, but I know it is. But there are benefits as well. For one thing, there are probably just as many people who share my opinions as disagree with them. People who would, say, deny me a job because I expressed a political opinion are probably people who are looking for an excuse to fire me anyway (or wouldn't hire me in the first place.) And maybe most importantly, I can take a certain amount of pride in knowing that I'm attaching my name to my words. If an opinion is important enough for me to express in a public forum, then it's important enough for me to say "I say this."

All that being said, of course we need an option for anonymity, to protect whistleblowers and the like. But the assumption that posting under a screen name is always the best way to go strikes me as kind of distasteful.

Re:Fools!

[4D6963]

It didn't take me long to find your real name either, Ms. An Anonymous Coward. You seem to suffer from multiple personalities from what I can see, and they all have various blogs and websites. You should get that checked out.

Re:Fools!

[lennier]

Why are the poor mailing food, anyway?

Re:Fools!

[Jason Levine]

Years ago, when I signed up for my Slashdot account (and others), I disagreed with that stance. I was very open in who I was, where I lived, etc. Over time, though, I got married and had kids. (Yes, a Slashdotter with a wife & kids - we do exist!) A few years back, my wife started blogging but kept her identity secret. She didn't use our real names, didn't name where we lived, etc. Then I decided to blog and open a Twitter account. I thought it over and decided that I preferred a degree of anonymity that using my real name wouldn't allow. So I adopted a pseudonym as well. I have no illusions that my identity is 100% secret, but it is secret enough for me. The casual observer wouldn't be able to link my real name identity to my pseudonym one. It would take a determined individual - almost stalker-level determined - to do that.

I still have those "legacy" accounts on Slashdot, BroadbandReports, etc where I have been posting for years. I wouldn't want to simply junk those accounts, start up new ones using my pseudonym, and try to pretend I was a new person. I also couldn't jump to using the pseudonym name and say "Hey everyone, I used to post as 'Jason Levine', but now I'm Pseudonym." That would defeat the whole purpose of the pseudonym. So I still use my real name moniker on the sites that I had signed up for years back, but every new site I post to, I use my pseudonym.

Re:Fools!

[Cro Magnon]

I do have a Facebook under my real name, but it's rather boring. I post the good stuff under other identities. Actually, even under "anonymous" handles, I'm careful what I post. It might be possible, though not easy, to find a link between Cro Magnon and $MyRealName, and I keep that in mind when I'm tempted to mention where I hid the bodies of the last people who pissed me off. Oops, did I say that out loud?

Re:Fools!

[Loki_1929]

The first item is direct from Slashdot postings. The other isn't actually my opinion and is likely the result of a bad Google summary. In other words, you simply did a Google search on my Slashdot username and came up with a couple tidbits of info based on the results.

If you actually have my name, feel free to post my initials and kudos to you. I have roughly 8 different pseudonyms used across various parts of the internet. I don't believe any one of them is directly connected with my real name or has my picture associated with them in any way.

Stupidity?

[jmerlin]

Is it just me... or is the landlord making things much worse here. From 20 twitterers who may have ever viewed the tweet.. to making headlines on slashdot.. if 20 twitterers cost him $50,000 in reputation damages, what kind of damages does filing a lawsuit and stupidly getting your story on slashdot cause? Will he be suing slashdot next?

Usually It's White People Who 'Reveal' Themselves

[tealover]

Anyone else notice this ? It seems that many white people use social networking sites as a way to vent and express their true feelings, as in the case of Lee Landor, a seemingly well-adjusted young, white, liberal female. But, she did go to SUNY at New Paltz, so we all understand she's no rocket scientist.

!thoughtcrime

[CannonballHead]

How is this "thought crime?" "Thought" implies "non published thought." If I WRITE DOWN my thoughts and someone sues me for libel, that isn't thought crime. Both of these people were perfectly free to think their opinions all they wanted. They got in trouble when they wrote them down for a significant amount of other people to see.

That's how it usually goes. The landowner isn't suing because the person thought something was moldy. Her thinking it was moldy didn't lose him, in his view, $50k. Her telling other people is what he was concerned about. If it's true, then I don't see a problem with her telling other people. If it isn't... well, that's why he's suing...

Re:!thoughtcrime

[Chris Burke]

How is this "thought crime?" "Thought" implies "non published thought." If I WRITE DOWN my thoughts and someone sues me for libel, that isn't thought crime.

No, "thought" implies "something you think", that's it. It does not imply that you have never expressed this thought in any fixed format.

The term "thoughtcrime" comes from 1984, where the Thought Police did *not* have mind-reading powers (this was of course considered their holy grail). "Thoughtcrime" was the crime of having unacceptable thoughts/beliefs, but that crime was discovered via things you said or wrote or did. Yet even though they only knew you had the thought because you expressed it out loud, you were still punished for the thought itself.

That's what "thoughtcrime" means. Being punished for your thoughts. How others become aware of those thoughts is largely immaterial. In a world where we cannot read thoughts, your version where thoughtcrime can only exist if the thought remains unexpressed means that thoughtcrime could not exist at all.

Both of these people were perfectly free to think their opinions all they wanted. They got in trouble when they wrote them down for a significant amount of other people to see.

Well that's certainly true in the case of the lady with the moldy apartment. It has nothing to do with thoughtcrime because it's libel, which is explicitly about publishing malicious statements not thinking them.

The other case it isn't so clear. Certainly she was fired because she published something that was politically embarrassing to her boss. What isn't clear is how her boss would have reacted if she had expressed her opinion privately to him that she thought the President is "O-dumb-a". It's possible he would have found that unacceptable and dismissed her. So the question is, was she fired for publishing her opinion, or was she fired for her opinion, which her employer discovered thanks to her publishing it? The latter could conceivably be called "thoughtcrime".

Excepting that it wasn't a crime, of course... The term "Thoughtcrime" wasn't coined to describe just any consequence of holding an opinion. Having people think you're an idiot because of what you think isn't making you a "thoughtcriminal", it's called people forming their own opinions of you. If that person is your boss, and especially if your job is a political appointment, you better expect their to be consequences for them thinking you're an idiot. So I definitely agree with you that ultimately neither of things warrant the "thoughtcrime" tag.

Quantum mold

[Anonymous Coward]

A) Tenant observes apartment and sees mold.

B) Landlord observes apartment and sees no mold.

Only one solution, mold has two quantum states. If jurors are taken to the apartment to view said mold then roughly half will observe the mold leading to a hung jury and no award.

OT: good example

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Mod that shit up! I agree 100%.

That right there is a lot of what's wrong with the mod system...

Re:OT: good example

[Slightly Askew]

No doubt. Someone mod this up.

Re:OT: good example

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down, off topic!

heh

Is that better?

Re:OT: good example

[sexybomber]

Mod that shit up! I agree 100%.

That right there is a lot of what's wrong with the mod system...

That right there is also what happens when I post while listening to Busta Rhymes.

Re:OT: good example

[JStegmaier]

Watch out! That sounds like slander against Slashdot!

Re:OT: good example

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod that shit up! I agree 100%.

More importantly

[rudy_wayne]

... is the following:

"deputy press secretary to Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer".

WTF? deputy press secretary? The Borough President has a press secretary AND a deputy press secretary???

Re:More importantly

[DragonWriter]

WTF? deputy press secretary? The Borough President has a press secretary AND a deputy press secretary???

The Borough of Manhattan has a population greater than that of many notable cities (about twice that of the City and County of San Francisco, for instance.) Why is it surprising that the senior elected official for a polity of such that size, whose primary role is one of public advocacy (as most hard policy power has been removed from the office), has a press secretary and a deputy press secretary?

Landlording

[Okian Warrior]

As an ex-landlord, I view the situation with a measure of caution.

In my experience as a landlord, most problems occur as a direct result of actions taken by the tenants. In this case, spilling water and not immediately cleaning it up will cause mold. This happens because the tenants don't "own" the property they are living in. Cleaning up requires effort, and there's no incentive on the part of the tenants to do this.

To be fair, it may have been caused by the previous tenants, and so it's not the current tenants' fault. Also, many tenants are unaware of the problems which are caused by, for example, not cleaning up the water left over from snowy boots in the entranceway.

Mold is (apparently) completely blown out of proportion by companies that want to be paid to remove it. Yes, toxic mold does occasionally happen and it should be dealt with... but it's extremely rare. Not at all the level of fear an panic that we currently see. The vast majority of mold cases are not worth the effort.

Re:Landlording

[qdaku]

as a renter, I view this situation with a measure of caution.

I suspect my unit suffers from leaky-condo-syndrome, with likely a good chunk of the rest of the building. The windows let in quite a lot of water during winter storms here (west coast, so mostly rain). This pools on the windowsill and causes all sorts of water damage plus lets nasty things grow. It's extremely hard to keep on top of (aka: I don't have time to sit there and mop every crevice of every window every time it rains, which is often daily during the wintertime). I also travel for work and am away for weeks at a time. Funny how it never seems to happen when, you know, it's not raining outside.

The landlords solution? Blame me for not using the shower fan while I shower. Seriously. This isn't a cheap place either --it's a $1600/mo apartment. Meanwhile, I have a rather long email trail as well as photographs of it (often) in case he tries to stiff me for damages later (which he probably will).

Can't wait until my lease is up so I can get the hell out of there.

Re:Landlording

[plague3106]

In my experience as a landlord, most problems occur as a direct result of actions taken by the tenants. In this case, spilling water and not immediately cleaning it up will cause mold. This happens because the tenants don't "own" the property they are living in. Cleaning up requires effort, and there's no incentive on the part of the tenants to do this.

Doesn't matter; its still your responsiblity to remove the mold, remove the fire hazard, etc. If you want to sue the tenent because they were careless, that's one thing.. but its your responsiblity as landlord to maintain the building. I suspect you also have a lease saying the tennent CANNOT make any major changes to the building.. perhaps even forbidding painting the walls a different color (every lease I've signed has).

Mold is (apparently) completely blown out of proportion by companies that want to be paid to remove it. Yes, toxic mold does occasionally happen and it should be dealt with... but it's extremely rare.

Mold can be much more serious than you seem to think. No one is saying mold is now everywhere, but if it does appear it needs to be removed ASAP, because it very likely can be a health problem... and those problems may not show up for your tennant for YEARS. http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/oii/mold/healtheffects.html

Re:Landlording

[Kiralan]

I hope, for Horizon's sake, that there is NO sign of mold in that apartment, nor any sign of them having removed same. I suspect a competent attorney would demand a property inspection, especially of that apartment, for signs of mold. After all, it's hard to prove libel if the 'libelous' claim is based on fact. Between the Streisand Effect and the bad PR they have generated for themselves, their best move would be to settle with her, pay her for damages and distress, and wait for it to drop off of the Google and other radars.

Re:Landlording

[powerlord]

As a former tenant, it depends.

The place I was living had water damage on average every year.

Once the landlord claimed it was because of the woman three floors up.
Once the plumber snaked a few pipes (and punched holes in them).
Then a few times the pipes (which were almost 40-50yrs old), just developed leaks.

I never thought to look for mold, but I didn't have asthma before I moved in, or since I've moved out (and from comparing notes with other former and current tenants I've heard similar stories).

Re:Landlording

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, it's hard to prove libel if the 'libelous' claim is based on fact.

The libel was not in regards to mold being in the apartment. The statement she made was:

"Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay."

She has to prove that Horizon really does think it's ok. Simply having the mold is not the issue- she is claiming that they advocate sleeping in a moldy apartment. Totally different story. As both a renter and tenant at times, I can say the following: - Some renters are responsible for the majority of the issues, in ALL the units they rent. - Some landlords are responsible for the majority of the issues, in ALL the units the rent out. Or in other words, some people are lazy, greedy assholes. It's easy to say "well the landlord was at fault" when for all we know this lady let the bathtub run over for a week. It is true that many renters care little or nothing about the unit- after all, they are paying a lot of money and it isn't theirs, they can leave the problems behind. But by the same token, many landlords are reluctant to do necessary maintenance or repairs, not only does it cut into their profits but in many cases will simply need to be done again after the next people move out. As for who is responsible to clean up mold, that's a sticky issue. If it was not there when the tenant moved in, then it's probably going to be the tenant who has to foot the bill, unless they can prove it was due to negligence in repairing or maintaining the structure. Especially if it looks to be damage from spillage, leaky sinks, etc., and particularly if the tenant failed to report the issue until AFTER the mold formed. Some states might have laws that require the landlord to fix the mold problem (mine does) but that doesn't clear the tenant of all responsibility in the matter.

Re:Landlording

[sjames]

What you say is true enough, but the whole suing for $50,000 over an offhand comment that very few people likely read and even less likely took seriously is way over the top. Over the top enough that you have to wonder what they know that makes them so very touchy.

If the mold was self-inflicted, the management company still must respond in a timely manner. They may bill or sue the tenant for the costs to remedy the problem, but they still have to respond somehow.

Yet another possible case in an apartment is that a neighbor caused the mold. Perhaps the tub overflowed upstairs. Enough to provide a good environment for mold but not enough to have plaster falling and such.

Re:Landlording

[sjames]

Even in the short space of a tweet, it's clear she was being sarcastic about the plaintiff's beliefs. Translated, her message reads my apartment has mold and the landlord hasn't fixed it.

It doesn't even have to actually be mold! Just some reason why she would believe it was mold.

Re:Landlording

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to live in a studio apartment that was built in 1967. The management seemed to do a damn good job for an old building, and seemed to be cleaning up a previous manager's negligence.

The building had central cold and hot water. Before I signed the lease, the landlord said that there was a scheduled time each week to fix minor water leaks [Wednesday at 1000], during which time the water MIGHT be shut off for UP TO an hour, IF there were any reported minor leaks for the week.

At least they were forthcoming about it. And actually fixing leaks. I guess that's what happens when the landlord's the one paying the utility bills.

Re:Landlording

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a damp climate, and would suggest that you consider getting a dehumidifier unit. They will suck lost of moisture out of the air, helping to keep things like mould under control, and they are portable so you can take it with you to the next place.

Re:Landlording

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It just means the cost of fixing it was worth it (versus neglect), or the landlord actually cares (I know a few that do), or they wanted the building in good condition before going Condo (wether that actually happens or not is a different story).

The reverse story I had where there were leaks all the time, and lots of people with breathing problems in the building involved a building build in the 1960's, that they were paying the water bill for, that they had been running for at least 20=30 years.

They certainly kept leaks fixed as fast as they could, but what they really needed to do is rip open the walls and replace the pipe-stack, which is a pain and a half in general, but even more a pain when you've been using low-bid Contractors for 20 years who build everything into/onto the walls so replacing the stack means gutting the bathroom/kitchen to do it.

Everyone needs an area to vent

[Orion Blastar]

and in the USA it is usually a custom to vent our feelings so that we don't hold them in and get sick.

Most of the time it is over little things, and people usually vent to their friends who take the time to listen to them.

What we have now is venting via the Internet. My advice to people who want to do that is to use a handle or nickname that cannot be traced back to them, and they post anonymously. Because now it seems as if venting using your real name can lead to libel and other charges. Yeah some web sites require a real name, I usually use Orion Blastar because it is my nickname or pen name.

Just that now there is no such thing as privacy anymore.

I've posted things I felt bad about later myself, since I have a mental illness it is easy to get caught up on venting due to my negative thoughts created by the mental illness. I am trying to learn how to control it so that I don't get into trouble or offend anyone. I usually use humor and joke around, but not everyone gets my jokes and start to take me seriously. Woe be to those who take Orion Blastar seriously because I claim to be a space pirate ninja from 4096 AD. I make posts and stuff in character, and pirate ninjas are not always known to be nice. But I am trying to tone down my character so he isn't as offensive as he used to be. This is more role playing than anything, but sometimes my character makes posts that get modded up on Slashdot.

Points

[dcollins]

Coouple interesting things: (1) It's not an individual landlord doing this, it's a large real estate company. Hey, companies do stupid things. (2) Read the following proud quote and hope the die by their own sword:

"How much damage can a Tweet do? According to property management company Horizon Realty, $50,000 worth... Horizon's Jeffrey Michael is quoted in the Sun-Times as saying 'The statements are obviously false, and it's our intention to prove that', adding that Horizon has a good reputation to protect. Bonnen wasn't contacted before the suit was filed or asked to remove the Tweet, he said: 'We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization'."

http://mashable.com/2009/07/28/woman-sued-tweet/

How long ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Before non-disclosure agreements become a standard part of leases?

Re:Usually It's White People Who 'Reveal' Themselv

[Attila Dimedici]

There are several possible explanations for this. First, what are the proportions of various ethnic groups on social networking sites? If minority groups are underrepresented on social networking sites than it is quite likely that the reason is that not enough of them are there for enough of them to make really stupid comments to attract attention.
Second, often times when a minority makes a similar statement it is not considered inflammatory.

You You First Amendment Quoter

[kenp2002]

"Freedom of Speech does not imply Freedom from Consequence"

You are free to do damn near anything. We do not have pre-crime cops yet... yet...

But a private citizen also has the freedom to litigate, challenge, and defend their name, integrity, and honor.

The Constitution places limits on government, not it's citizens. Christian publishers are well and clear to refuse to publish anti-christian works. That is censorship, but the private world is free to do so. Any parent who has uttered to a 10 year old "you are too young to watch that" has engaged in censorship.

Right or wrong, the ability to challenge peoples statements is a fundamental freedom just as well as the accusation they challenge.

The problem is the inequality in civil court of haves vs have-nots. Justice is blind because she can weigh gold easy enough.

The solution is to start scoring lawyers to ensure they are doing due dilligence in ensuring a case is valid before taking it and reprimanding them when they abuse the courts. If there is in fact mold in the apartment the lawyer should simply say, "you have no case. Clean the mold..."

The problem is there is always some lawyer with no principle that will take the case and use the courts as an extortion tool. Hell the MAFIAA is built on legal shakedowns....

Re:You You First Amendment Quoter

[cdrguru]

What you are proposing is to eliminate the adversary legal system. You want the lawyers to judge cases. That isn't how it works, isn't how it is supposed to work and not a very good idea.

For example, even if there is mold in the apartment it is the defense lawyer's job to at least mitigate the situation. Perhaps the mold is there because the tenent encouraged its growth through lack of cleaning. Whatever - the point is you are suggesting rather than litigate and go through a legal process that the lawyer should just decide the matter.

Similerly, what is happening today through the Streisand effect is virtually eliminating legal recourse in some cases. The publicity from ill-informed people spouting off about something they know little about can do 10 times the damage that was originally inflicted. And yes, people read uninformed opinions on the Internet all the time.

Someone posts a review of a restaurant claiming they catch and serve alley cat meat and what exactly is the restaurant supposed to do? Sue the poster? Likely as not, the result is the next day the claim about serving cat meat is repeated in every local newspaper and TV news show because it is sensational. Today, the best option is probably to just close the restaurant and open in a different location under a different name.

Re:You You First Amendment Quoter

[kenp2002]

Lawyers have a resposibility to ensure the legitimacy of a case prior to taking it. Period. They risk disbarment as well as court penalties. They are required to do that already, the schools mearly do not stress it anymore.

The police have always had discretion on arrest.
The district attourney has always had discretion to prosecute.
The judge has always had the discretion to toss out the case.

There has always been, and always be checks along the way in criminal as well as civil cases.

The schools are not stressing that enough anymore.

Everyone along the path judges the merit of a case, the lawyers are ignoring their requirement in the name of money.

Duh, she was a PRESS SECRETARY

[spun]

I personally take issue with the firing of the public employee due to her Facebook posts. She voiced her personal opinions, unrelated to her job, and not in an official capacity. IANAL but as a simple citizen who believes in America and in free speech, I think she should sue the city. I am not going to even bring up the issue of whether she would have been fired if she had been on the political correct pro-administration side. The rise of the thought police (witnes what happened to that CA model that dared to speak her mind about gay marriage) is a scary prospect - irrespective of your ideology.

Unrelated to her job? Bullshit, she was a press secretary. Their job is to engage in public relations for their boss. Publishing an opinion counter to your boss's position is simply not allowed under any circumstances. Imagine if Tony Snow had posted on his Facebook page that he thought John McCain was a loon, how long do you think he would have lasted? Boo hoo for this stupid woman. By her actions she showed her boss that she can not be trusted. How is he to know that she will not let her personal opinions slip into his official press releases? Anyone doing what she did would be fired, on any side of the political spectrum. Hell, if she'd said the same thing about some Republican, she would have been fired. You don't get to have personal opinions about politics when you are a press secretary, if you don't like that, get a different job. Spouting out grade school level insults simply proves that she does not have what it takes to be a press secretary.

Guess what? Words have consequences. That CA model was an idiot, she deserved what she got. If you spout out idiotic rants in public, people may not want to do business with you, go figure. Selfish assholes like you think free speech means you get to say whatever you want, and nobody is allowed to take offense. That's not how things work in the real world, champ. If you talk like an asshole, people will assume you are an asshole, and most people don't want to have much to do with assholes.

Re:Duh, she was a PRESS SECRETARY

[snaffu2]

The Carrier Prejean issue (the "CA model") is a complete strawman with regards to this discussion. For one, she was asked by a judge what her opinion was and so she gave it. The judge was a known activist. She was asked and so she answered. Then she got reamed by the press for it. So naturally she defended it. The equivalent example would be if the press secretary, having posted or said nothing about it, was asked by her boss what she truly thought of his politics. She answers that she disagrees with it and is then fired.

Your conversational tone says a lot about you. Cussing just to cuss is often the weak attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly.

Re:Duh, she was a PRESS SECRETARY

[spun]

Oh please, grow up and get down off of your princess chair. This is the Internet, you will find 'cussing' here. Get used to it.

Carroline Prejean was an idiot (yes, she was a model and a beauty queen, so that almost goes without saying.) In our modern, enlightened age it is no more acceptable to be prejudiced against gays than it is to be prejudiced against people of color. If you say you hate black people, or think gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else, most decent human beings will simply not respect you or your 'opinion.' Again, get used to it. You have a right to free speech. That right comes with responsibilities. If you act or speak like an asshole, expect consequences.

In this case, the consequences were nothing more than people saying what a douchenozzle Prejean is. She was stripped of her crown for completely different reasons, not for her anti-gay comment. Depending on who you listen to, she was stripped of her crown for either a.) posing nude, or b.) refusing to pose nude. I was only bringing up Prejean in response to the previous poster, who seemed to think free speech means the right to yell without being yelled back at.

Any press secretary that has ever openly disagreed with their boss's politics has been fired, so what is your point exactly? I can't even tell where you stand on the issue. In fact, the only tangible thing I got from your post is that you are a precious little princess who's delicate ears can't stand the sound of (GASP!) cussing. Well, fuck you and the whore you rode in on.

Re:Duh, she was a PRESS SECRETARY

[Chris Burke]

For one, she was asked by a judge what her opinion was and so she gave it. The judge was a known activist. She was asked and so she answered. Then she got reamed by the press for it. So naturally she defended it.

And... you think this somehow frees her from the natural consequences of making her opinions known? Like, we're not allowed to think she's a stupid homophobic prat, because her opinion was stated before a judge? I didn't know that's how it works.

The equivalent example would be if the press secretary, having posted or said nothing about it, was asked by her boss what she truly thought of his politics. She answers that she disagrees with it and is then fired.

And the problem with that would be? We're not talking about the justice department. Press Secretary is an explicitly political appointment.

Your conversational tone says a lot about you. Cussing just to cuss is often the weak attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly.

I'll take swearing over the passive-aggressive douchbaggery inherent in that cliche any day.

Re:Duh, she was a PRESS SECRETARY

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if Tony Snow had posted on his Facebook page that he thought John McCain was a loon, how long do you think he would have lasted?

About as long as Christopher Buckley.

Re:Duh, she was a PRESS SECRETARY

[Anonymous Coward]

Spun, your teenager-esque language aside, the issue at hand is whether the person's comments were private or public in nature. Did she get punished for, as you mention, taking a public stance that may project upon her manager and institution, or did she get punished for promoting an unpopular point, particularly in the liberal 'progressive' circles of Manhattan (hence the term 'thoughtcrime'). What if Tony Snow were to get fired for telling his family in private he thinks Obama is a dangerous proto-communist? I don't use Facebook so I am not sure what the nature of her comments were, i.e. how public they were.
 
  As for your vitriolic response to a citizen's unabashed, honest, direct response to a tendentious question - an answer that BTW represents the official stance of the majority of citizens of the state of California that is entirely your problem. It is rather typical of people of your type to nominally promote tolerance, but then attempt to crush, humiliate and subdue all people with disenting opinions. Witness also for example the current debate on global warming, that has spawned a new form or pseudo-religious inquisition from the same people that complained (rightly) that EPA reports are censored and politically motivated - only to now do the exact same thing in reverse.

Re:Duh, she was a PRESS SECRETARY

[snaffu2]

LOL. You're a complete moron through and through. Blathering about things that you want other people to think you're intelligent about simply because you yell the loudest...

Re:Duh, she was a PRESS SECRETARY

[snaffu2]

And... you think this somehow frees her from the natural consequences of making her opinions known? Like, we're not allowed to think she's a stupid homophobic prat, because her opinion was stated before a judge? I didn't know that's how it works.

I think she shouldn't be docked for being honest about it. If she had said she didn't mind and she was homosexual herself, what would have been the consequences? Absolutely nothing, for sure. But this day-in-age, if you think one way you're lauded by people and the media. If you think another way, you're a backwards hillbilly from the Ozarks.

And the problem with that would be? We're not talking about the justice department. Press Secretary is an explicitly political appointment.

There is nothing wrong with that. Read some of my other comments in related threads. I don't disagree with the fact that she was fired. I was saying that the previous example was ill-conceived and misrepresented the situation (it was a strawman argument).

Really, this thread has nothing to do with the original article's topic, which is what I was trying to point out in my original post.

Re:Usually It's White People Who 'Reveal' Themselv

[Anonymous Coward]

That's cause minorities are usually shooting one another or committing crimes. White people just don't have that sort of reciprocating ethnic anger.

Similar Story with Philadelphia Eagles

[RawJoe]

An Eagles stadium operator was angry the team didn't re-sign Brian Dawkins, let it be know on Facebook, and was subsequently fired.

Re:Mod me down you faggot liberals!!

[Krneki]

Proving the point that only anonymous cowards are safe on the internet.

Wrong. You are safe only if you use a secure proxy.

What the geek believes to be true often ain't

[westlake]

2) That the respondent knew the statement was false. If you make a false statement, but can show you believed it to be true, that can get you off the hook for libel.

It only goes to the question of malice.

Your belief must be "reasonable." Which more or less boils down to the consensus opinion of the jury.

3) That the statement was made with the intent of causing harm. If you make a false statement as a joke, that's not libel, you have to intend to cause harm.

The law of torts isn't about what you intended to do. It's about accepting responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

You only have to prove "actual malice" if the plaintiff is a public figure -
and the courts seem increasingly willing to cast anyone in that role who is not directly participating in an open - heated - political debate.

If there was, in fact, mold in the apartment then the landlord is done right here.

Not if the mold was the product of her own poor housekeeping.

Not if she failed to notify your landlord of the problem. Not if she failed to give him time enough to solve the problem.

Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not surprised at all. I actually moved to Chicago about a year ago and my first apartment was with Horizon Realty. They have some nice apartments but their customer service is horrible. I had three distinct problems with them that made me not renew the lease with them.

1. When I first moved in I hadn't gotten a parking spot figuring I'd brave parking on the streets (I originally lived in Michigan so I had no idea how bad it'd be). Eventually I called them up asking for one. "We don't have any spots open but we'll put you on a waiting list. No one else is on it so you'll get the next one!" I figure cool I can wait. A month passes and I call up about it. I get the exact same response. Funny how no one is on a waiting list when they told me they'd put me on it last month. I eventually got a hold of a manger after hearing it a third time and magically there was a spot open two days later.

2. I had little to no heat during the winter. I called frequently and everytime they claimed to "fix it" to which I'd have heat for two days and I'd begin to freeze again. Eventually they just gave me some space heaters and claimed "they'd continue to look into it." I went the entire winter with those space heaters and when I asked what happened they made some excuse of the main problem being the back service entrance my apartment was over wasn't well insulated or some nonsense like that.

3. On a Friday night around 2am my cieling began to leak. I was thankfully up (I was being a night owl and, well, I was freezing since it was winter, see above) and called emergency service repair to come out. It took them 2 hours to show up and fix the issue. The repairman was at least really nice. I felt bad that he had to come out that late at night to fix it but I certainly couldn't leave that issue alone. Thankfully none of my stuff got drenched. I was just pissed off that the event even happened.

So, all in all, Horizon Realty is a shit apartment manager. Whatever bad rep they got from the tweet will only be multiplied by their shitty idea of sueing one of their tenants. I hope they get shat on big time. Don't go with them if you move to Chicago. I learned my lesson the hard way and it seems this lady is learning even harder. I hope she gets out of this okay.

The right word

[westlake]

Sigh. For "prove" substitute "demonstrate," for "willing," "unwilling."

Horizon are asses

[Wireless Joe]

A choice quote from http://mashable.com/2009/07/28/woman-sued-tweet/: "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization." Horizon can subpoena Slashdot for my user information and sue me for calling them asses, because I think they're asses. Horse's asses, to be precise.

How does it feel

[Anonymous Coward]

How does it feel to worship a man and not really consider if his policies make sense?

Does the sky look to be a different color? Or do you feel all warm and gushy inside when he speaks?

Please share so that we can all understand.

Re:How does it feel

[Anonymous Coward]

How does it feel to worship a man and not really consider if his policies make sense?

Awesome. Like being hugged by a panda bear made of puppy dogs and rainbows. So pretty much the way GOP supporters felt from 2002ish until 2008, only with Camry Hybrids instead of Ford F150s.

Does the sky look to be a different color? Or do you feel all warm and gushy inside when he speaks?

Yes on both counts. The sky has been pretty gray & overcast lately (must be this damn global warming). Also, whenever he opens his mouth, I find I have to go change my shorts. Does that count as "all warm and gushy"?

Please share so that we can all understand.

Hopefully I have done so to your satisfaction.

Please, it is not O-dumb-a

[Shivetya]

it is "uh-bama" because if you ever had the pleasure of seeing him off the teleprompter he makes Bush look good.

Dear morons....

[Twyst3d]

Consequences will find you. Perhaps you need to stop being such a tool and think ahead. I never put my real birthday or even my real last name into facebook. I know computers have taught a lot of you to ignore the fine print. But really - if there is fine print its best to know what you are getting into. Think of it as an opportunity to learn about law.

Re:Dear morons....

[4D6963]

Thanks for the precious advice Jeremy G. from Alabama! :D

Freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Say anything you want, just don't disagree with us. Hey, sounds a lot like slashdot.

The founders didn't count on multi-national corps.

[maillemaker]

You can bet that if the founders had known that multi-national corporations would reign supreme in power the first amendment would have provided protection against them, too, instead of just protection from the government.

Yes, but this was an internet forum

[phorm]

The point is though, that the internet is inherently public. You post something online to a public area such as a forum, discussion, board, etc, and it becomes part of your PUBLIC life and opinion.

If you've got issues with X and perhaps send an email to a close friend about it, that's fairly private in many situations, but posting on a public board isn't much different from nailing a paper with your opinion on a few local telephone poles.

Re:Yes, but this was an internet forum

[Krneki]

It's still a public opinion done in your spare time.

The work can fuc* of*, they don't own you.

Re:Yes, but this was an internet forum

[phorm]

they don't own you

No, they don't. They can't physically prevent you from saying what you want in public.

On the other hand, they don't owe you either. If your public actions are damaging to their reputation (and in this case, those actions were contrary to the position), then they don't owe you a job nor a paycheque (other than your final pay).

I wouldn't expect my employer to fire me if we have a difference of opinion. I might expect to be canned if my difference of opinion was being represented publicly and costing them business/reputation/money/etc

Re:Yes, but this was an internet forum

[Krneki]

Maybe in US, in EU if they want to fire you they need to prove you are damaging them during your working hours.

Re:Yes, but this was an internet forum

[Chris Burke]

Maybe in US, in EU if they want to fire you they need to prove you are damaging them during your working hours.

What, you can't even fire a political appointee, one whose express purpose is to handle the public image of the politician they are working for, for expressing opinions publicly that are contrary to that politician's but would naturally be associated with them, because whether you are "on the clock" or not, you are their press secretary and your words are your bosses'?

The people reading the statement don't necessarily know or care that you're not making an official statement -- your words are still associated with the person you work for. It doesn't matter if you're on the clock or not, carelessly uttered words could do untold damage to the politician you represent. Any Press Secretary who doesn't understand this is unfit for their job.

For just about any other position on earth, I'd find firing someone for their political views to be heinous. But for a jobs which is all about political opinions and specifically supporting the political opinions of your boss in public, I'd say it's a perfect reason to fire someone.

Re:Yes, but this was an internet forum

[Krneki]

I agree with you, there are some jobs who can't afford to have a private life.

And don't get me wrong if someone is saying something stupid, he should be sued.

Re:Yes, but this was an internet forum

[LrdDimwit]

If someone has consistently demonstrated they're an idiot when they're not working for you, should you really expect different between the hours of 9 and 5?

Re:Yes, but this was an internet forum

[Dan541]

There is a big difference between going to the press to complain about your company and posting the complaint/opinion on twitter or a forum.

Discussing something online outside of work hours is no different than talking out in the street, people can still hear you as they pass by but you haven't asked someone to "Spread the word" as you would have done if you contacted a media outlet.

+1 Informative

[mccrew]

Wish I had mod points for you today.

Talk about your catch 22

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why correlation doesn't imply causality.

It never struck them that the reason there are so many black inmates is BECAUSE they are racially profiled?

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Tanktalus]

I think the reason is far less nefarious: the reason there are so many black inmates is because a) "disadvantaged" (aka poor) people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, b) violent crime is less often thought through and thus are caught more often than "white-collar" or "rich" crime, plus get harsher sentences, c) blacks are disproportionately poor (at least in the US).

If there were a simple way to look at someone and know that they are rich or poor, that'd provide much more reliable profiling. Instead, what we're stuck with is an indicator (race) of an indicator (wealth) of an indicator (likelihood to commit crime). It does mean that those who use the profiles can find their perp more often than those who do not, but it also feeds on itself.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Sj0]

That's a simplistic and childish view.

Hundreds of years ago, black slaves were released due to the civil war. They had nothing, or nearly nothing, and still suffered not just from personal racism, but institutional racism -- laws that said coloured people were less human than whites, job interviews that started with "But you won't get the job, nigger", banks that wouldn't loan to blacks. For a century or more they had to deal with that, while trying to pull themselves out of the depths of poverty they'd been dropped into.

Today, unsurprisingly, many black people are still in poverty, trapped in cities with no obvious means of escape. The centuries of subjugation, segregation, and racism have left their mark, leaving them just as racist as the people who subjugate them, blinding them to many opportunities the modern world affords them.

Trapped in poverty, blinded by racism as to their true options, many take up the only career path apparently open to them: Crime. Hence more criminals, hence more prison population.

The problem with racial profiling isn't when the people are actually criminals, it's when they're not. It's unjust for innocent people to be subjected to extra scrutiny just because people like them are acting badly.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Dragonslicer]

Hundreds of years ago, black slaves were released due to the civil war.

Which country's civil war was that? The first example of a civil war where slavery was a major issue that comes to my mind is the one in the United States, but that was only 150 years ago.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Sj0]

Thanks for ruining a perfectly good post with nitpicking over dates.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[JackCroww]

Typical liberal response: Don't bother me with facts; can't you see I'm passionate about this topic?

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Bl4ckJ3sus]

"The problem with racial profiling isn't when the people are actually criminals, it's when they're not. It's unjust for innocent people to be subjected to extra scrutiny just because people like them are acting badly."

QFT.

This is one of the most simple, yet profound explanations of why profiling is a bad thing.

Now, if we can get the rest of our people to start acting right, maybe this profiling stuff will end....

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[hairyfeet]

Dude, if cops didn't have race as a reason to fuck with you they'll just find another excuse. Sadly I've found that for every one good cop depending on the city you have 5-7 "bullies with badges". In fact two out of the three bullies at my HS ended up cops.

I'm just waiting for the recruiters on career day to go "and for all those of you who enjoy stuffing your fellow students in lockers and beating on them for their lunch money. looks/ sexual orientation: Have you ever considered a career in law enforcement?"

Considering how bad the pay is and how much crap they will let a cop get away with before actually firing their ass we probably shouldn't be surprised. Believe you me, you get a cop that is an asshole? he will find a reason. That is why they have laws like "disorderly conduct" which can be anything the cops want it to be. While I would love to see things change, as someone who has been slammed against a squad car for being a long hair riding with black guys which apparently is "suspicious behavior" I wouldn't hold my breath. They are advertising like crazy here trying to get folks to become cops and nobody wants the job, even in this economy, and the older ones I've talked to (which were good cops) have taken early retirement because they don't like the way the force is getting filled with bullies with badges. According to the last one i talked to it seemed like the only ones taking that job were in it to "stir up shit" in his words.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Anonymous Coward]

The alturnative is that they would still be in Africa... starving and dieing from AIDS. Hmmm... they are such victims because their ancestors got them to America. Go figure.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Sj0]

Seriously? You're going to use the L word?

'Cause I'm a small government low spending balanced budget fiscal conservative, you bloody moron.

But you know what? Keep on making that tent smaller, you ignoramus -- I'm sure Obama would love 8 years in office, and I bet Biden would get a kick out of being president too.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[jonadab]

There are additional contributing factors as well.

For example, the black population in the US is concentrated in urban areas, especially poor blue-collar urban areas ("the hood"). There are complicated reasons for this, having to do with the socioeconomic history of the country. (Oversimplified version: after reconstruction, white folks owned all the farms, and black folks had to go find work in the factories.) These same poor blue-collar urban areas also have more than their fair share of crime, especially violent crime and drug-related crime. Lots of black people live there, so it's not surprising that many of them get caught up in it.

Not that this excuses them. Just because your environment is rough does *not* mean it's okay for you to go on a shooting spree. There are plenty of people (black, white, and Asian) from the urban areas who *don't* turn to violent crime, thereby proving that a bad environment does not make bad behavior inevitable or absolve individual responsibility.

Nonetheless, the statistics come out the way they do for a collection of reasons, and racial profiling is not the only contributor to the skew.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[jonadab]

> trapped in cities with no obvious means of escape

If that's true, it's a weird psychological or sociological phenomenon.

Nothing *actually* traps anyone in the city, and the means of escape is so obvious it scarcely needs to be named: move. It's not tough. People do it all the time. Of course, more people move *to* the city than move *from* the city, but that's a choice they make. If you don't want to live in a big city, all you have to do is move to a small town.

I understand the socioeconomic and historical reasons why the majority of the black population lives in urban areas. But individuals are absolutely free to choose to relocate, any time they want.

> It's unjust for innocent people to be subjected to extra
> scrutiny just because people like them are acting badly.

s/people like them/people who superficially look like them at a glance/;

Also, I'm not entirely convinced there's any such thing as innocent people.

But I agree with your point. People should be categorized based on their actual behavior, not superficial characteristics like skin color.

And if people (black, or otherwise) living in crime-ridden urban areas are concerned about the impact it may have on their kids, they should move out of those areas, even if it means taking a lower-paying job in a small town. Poverty is not nearly as harmful to a child as being around crime all the time, and in any event even the poorest people in North America can afford three meals a day, indoor plumbing, and shoes. Forget about the Joneses and do the right thing for your family.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[mi]

It never struck them that the reason there are so many black inmates is BECAUSE they are racially profiled?

Well, here are the recent stats:

At midyear 2008, there were 4,777 black male inmates per 100,000 black males held in state and federal prisons and local jails, compared to 1,760 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 727 white male inmates per 100,000 white males.

If, as you suggest, the Whites are lagging merely because they are less often stopped, there ought to be about 6.5 times more whites in prison, than there are now. There are over 200 million Whites in the US, so, that "6.5 times more" would translate into 8.1 million new prisoners. Do you honestly believe, there are so many more criminals in the US — all of them White?

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Sj0]

I sort of covered this. The problem is that racism works both ways, and getting a job and leaving the ghetto has a stigma of doing something "white", just as hip-hop, baggy pants and strangly tilted baseball caps have the stigma of doing something "black".

People are only as free as their perception allows them to be.

It's not a phenomenon limited to America. There are disenfranchised minorities around the world who have the same problem, where they've been wronged historically and now they can't see past their own hatred to see their options for getting out of their situation.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Anonymous Coward]

lol... it's nice to get some foreigners in here talking about "coloured" people. have you even lived in the US?

here's my perspective, as a citizen. the big-city schools might have bad reputations, but if a kid actually *wants* to do well, they can. the problem is that young african americans are criticized by their peers as "acting white" if they try hard in anything except sports. in the meantime, we've set up "affirmative action" programs (which I don't completely condemn) which, I believe, give kids the idea that they can slack off and still be successful.

at some point, whatever problems there might be in the african american community must be recognized as being their own fault. they can't blame the rest of us forever. this is why i like obama, who's showing young african americans that they *can* go far, but only IF THEY WORK HARD!!!

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[xouumalperxe]

I don't think that's what the GP meant. More like "if people make assumptions based on your ethnicity, and that screws you over, you're likelier to end up with a chip on your shoulder, and feeling that society owes you more than what you're being given (which is quite right -- you should be given a chance based on who you are, not on who you're stereotyped as). Once you find yourself in those circumstances, criminality is a short hop away.

Of course this doesn't make it okay that those black inmates are criminals. But the profiling itself would only be fundamentally true if white people, under the exact same circumstances, were found to commit fewer crimes.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Sj0]

"The centuries of subjugation, segregation, and racism have left their mark, leaving them just as racist as the people who subjugate them, blinding them to many opportunities the modern world affords them."

Shame you didn't try harder in school. Maybe you would have learned to read.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, I didn't read your post carefully enough.

But you weren't helping. The civil war began 148 years ago, not "hundreds", I object to the present tense in "who subjugate them", I think "racist" is far too demeaning of a word to apply to the African American community, and finally, my post was to point out that I think their "escape route" *is* obvious.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Sj0]

Want to hear something neat?

Even though I said I was talking about the African American situation in the ghettos, I was actually talking about the situation of First Nation Canadians in the northern reserves too. The culture is virtually identical in terms of the emotional truths.

The problems in the ghetto aren't new, and they aren't unique. The same train of thought isn't part of black culture or native culture, but a fundamental reaction of human nature. In both cases, their racist views and the racist views within their cliques force them to ignore the reality that they can get an education, a career, and a life.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand the situation, your first post works better for Natives, a community in which the anger+bitterness is *much* stronger. I feel more sympathy for them because it's far from obvious how they can "modernize" their culture while preserving their identity.

But let me share with you a revelation I had recently after I visited a Navajo reservation in Arizona. Browsing their gift shop, I was surprised to discover how many books they'd published on the "Windtalkers" (Navajo volunteers during WW2). Why? I find it hard to believe that any culture can accept perpetual reparations and not eventually feel shame. I believe that deep down they want respect that's based on relevance, not patronization, and their windtalkers were a shining moment. But now what?

As an aside, I don't feel too bad for them... Driving around Mexico last year (for my first time) I observed that Native Mexicans appear to be treated very poorly.

Part of the reason for worrying about these things, as I see it, we can't compete in manufacturing with China+India+et.al. Therefore, in order for the US+Canada+et.al. economies to survive we must long term transfer into an information based economy, which requires more and more education... so how to we advance without leaving these minority groups even further behind?

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Sj0]

Has any country managed to deal with situations of this sort? If so, we might learn from their situation.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[Anonymous Coward]

yes. in ancient times, babylonians would shuffle conquered people around their empire (i'm thinking about Biblical history). or use extreme brutality to intimidate them (e.g. the romans used crucifixions). or use mustard gas (e.g. saddam hussein). genocide (rwanda). demographic manipulation (xinjiang). expulsion (edi amin vs. asians). "reverse" racism (mugabe). it seems that almost every country has a history of repressing their minorities, and I can think of lots of other examples (sami in scandinavia, ainu in japan, native taiwanese, aborigines in AU, maori in NZ, lots of minorities in china, lots of native tribes in SE Asia, hazara in afghanistan, jews, not to mention the native inhabitants across the "new" world).

oh wait... you meant positive examples...

i thought i'd heard that the maori's were doing well in NZ, but i could be wrong. look at the amish: they appear to be content while paving their own path, so I have a lot of respect for that.

historically, the strategy was to violently exterminate minority cultures.
but i think we're treading new ground nowadays.

Re:Talk about your catch 22

[mi]

More like "if people make assumptions based on your ethnicity, and that screws you over, you're likelier to end up with a chip on your shoulder, and feeling that society owes you more than what you're being given (which is quite right -- you should be given a chance based on who you are, not on who you're stereotyped as). Once you find yourself in those circumstances, criminality is a short hop away.

No, it is not. For one example, Blacks frequently target Asians and Latino with abuse — I've witnessed it myself on a number of occasions in NYC subway. But there are far fewer Asians (and even Latinos) in prisons.

Also, Jews were routinely targeted for discrimination in the "Old Europe", Soviet Union, and even in the US (Ivy League colleges were biased against them, for example, up until 30ies, or so). But there was no higher rate of crime among Jews in any of the locales.

So, no, whatever it is, that's causing a crime-inducing "chip on the shoulder", discrimination ain't it. Or, at least, it is not an excuse.

Congratulations, you've just validated the lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize that, based on nothing more than a tweet, you've just assumed both that (1) there was a mold problem, and (2) its existence was the management company's fault?

This is the whole reason they're suing!

3 words

[Nef]

Free. Speech. Zone.

Regardless of the truth of the matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion Horizon Realty needs to lose, and lose bad. From TFA, âoeWeâ(TM)re a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organizationâ. Posting anonymously so they don't sue me, or my employer. *snicker*

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is ODUMBA wrong? People threw shoes at Bush...those are just words...big effin deal....what a bunch of suppressive aholes!

There's Something To Be Said For Pseudonyms

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned this in 1995.

There are a few drunken-rambling-type posts I made to a some mailing lists back then that still haunt me to this day (although, the archives are actually becoming much more rare, thank God for irrelevance.)

It is the reason I tend to stay away from social networks. I don't have a facebook account, never have and probably never will, and I only ever made a myspace account so I could at some of the inappropriate pictures posted by slightly-too-young-and-not-slightly-stupid girls over the years. I hate the thought of personal information about myself being out there for the world to see. It can at the least be embarrassing, and at the worst turn into a nightmare when a smart identify thief comes along.

A little common sense (and understanding of why basic personal privacy matters) goes a long way.

Re:Usually It's White People Who 'Reveal' Themselv

[Anonymous Coward]

Look dude, I know you are trying to be funny making a joke (as Anonymous Cowards do).

But, really, it's not appropriate to make those sort of claims since everybody knows the minorities simply can't read.

Re:Mod me down you faggot liberals!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you're confused with Muslim men.

Mold

[Wisconsingod]

I see mold in my home every day....I don't see what the big deal is


Note to self ... one of these day's I should do those dishes in the sink.

Re:I advise everybody who wants to complain...

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

"I advise everybody who wants to complain about anything to do one simple thing: shut the fuck up and go on about your business."

Yeah, I mean who needs rights right? You are preventing this jerk from doing whatever they did to you, to others out there. It's important for you to do this. It's a moral imperitive. It's a rough fight, but if you are truly in the right, you shall prevail in the end.

You are doing a huge service by not settling. Lawyers talk big, but will settle for next to nothing. They are probably being advised by a dumbass lawyer friend. Post a blog about it, put the link in your sig. Make everyone aware of what's going on without disclosing things that would legally jepordise you. Contact the paper, contact the local news station. Here in Seattle we have "Jessie Jones." Have your partner see a counselor. A good paid one. Use this counseling as a basis for the torment they are doing to you.

If you did everything correctly, and had a legitimate complaint, you can not only publicly humiliate this person who is tormenting you, but gain a sizeable award for filing a frivolous lawsuit that caused you torment, and have their license revoked. Also the case becomes public record, and your free to post whatever details you want. Make sure they know this. Make sure that they know that you will now do everything in your power to make it public, including a lettor to the editor of your local paper whether you win or lose. What was a minor complaint will grow to epic proportions.

By the way, my friends little sister was sued by a famous hypnotist for harrasment because he didn't like a post or email or something. The judge dismissed with prejudice. Be careful, but go for their throat.

Also, in an auto liability case (I had a 2 week lapse of insurance going through my divorce, and got in an accident), They trumped up the value of a 10yo clunker w/ crap paint, and oxidation to 8.8k (it booked for less than 1/2 that). They settled for less than book w/ the guy calling me frantically the night before trial (5 minutes till 5)

  My wife is a paralegal, and my friend is a doctor, which makes me just a plain old bit monkey though, so please consult a lawyer. They all give free 30 min. consults. If you can't afford to hire one, take the info from one, and move that to the next consult time. That saved me a ton of $ when I was a teenager and had to fight for the value of my car when an old guy hit me.

I'd like to tell you the long tale of why I'm a

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Just kidding. I don't even know what political party I truly align w/. I'm either the most conservative D or the most liberal R, or some unknown yet to be defined party... of 1.

Can't you read?

[loshwomp]

Why do you need to be a minority to have an experience with race-based bigotry?

Why are you asking the GP to defend a position he didn't put forth?

Re:Can't you read?

[dasunt]

Why are you asking the GP to defend a position he didn't put forth?

The wording struck me as odd...

Re:Congratulations, you've just validated the laws

[Tubal-Cain]

And (3) She told the management company or the management company knew about it in some way.

Someone doesn't know when to shut up

[Skapare]

From the Sun-Times article:

Jeffrey Michael, whose family has run Horizon for more than 25 years, said: "The statements are obviously false, and it's our intention to prove that."

He said that while she moved out recently, the company never had a conversation about the post and never asked her to take it down.

"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization," he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.

Truth and Libel

[DragonWriter]

After all, it's hard to prove libel if the 'libelous' claim is based on fact.

Since truth is an absolute bar to claims of libel or slander in the US, this is something of an understatement.

At least they didn't evict her and call her racist

[Anonymous Coward]

Rudolph E. Vasquez apparently got complaints from the downstairs neighbors that we were asking them not to ring our doorbell. So he whipped up an eviction notice which included a highly distorted note of our dissatisfaction with the state of repair of the building, and many incidences of "disturbance", for which mailing legal discovery papers for clarification was ignored. He made phone calls where he yelled at my mother, and eventually forced us to change our phone number (she attempted to get a restraining order, but was confounded by court staff yelling at me (her son) for attempting to refute the claim that we couldn't recognize him, and he went on to say that because he goes golfing with rich and nameful people that we wern't credible), told a large number of people that we were racist, apparently called my mother delusional, and eventually went as far as telling Section 8 housing to hold payment so he could file another eviction paper for nonpayment (where we clearly paid our part, and Section 8 refused to release their part to him until he countermanded his request), news of our "nonpayment" reached in home care services who then made efforts to deny us help on that basis. He succeeded in terrorizing my mother into a settlement where he gets us out of our home where we peacefully lived for over a decade, after many hours of negotiation and a bit past the time the court was closing he tried to reduce the settlement amount on the hand written contract, after we had signed, after we didn't accept that he exposed his bluff and signed. *THEN* after we moved we found his check was cancelled, this of course after he told many people that he would pay for our moving expenses, which the check would have helped with. Now I'm too far away to initiate court action to enforce the settlement over what is apparently too small an amount to allow for representation to handle. Him being a lawyer, I assumed he was held to a slightly higher standard than this...

True story. Lots more to tell. I dunno what to do with the movie rights though.

Horizon Realty molests animals

[Anonymous Coward]

Horizon Realty rapes goats and murders kittens.

Re:Horizon Realty molests animals

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous Coward did some research and regrets the above post. According to http://mashable.com/2009/07/28/horizon-realty/ the tweeter was the first to sue and was being a bitch about it to the company; the lawsuit is a response. So it's really the woman who rapes goats and murders kittens. We now return you to your regularly scheduled AC programming.

Barratry

[Pig Hogger]

”We’re a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization”.

This is great. That quote alone is grounds for lawsuit dismissal, for barratry.

Free speech vs. libel

[mi]

That's nice, but it doesn't take-away my right of free speech.

Free Speech does not allow libel (nor lying in advertising, nor promoting health benefits of your product, nor a bunch of other things). When someone feels, you've libeled them, they can sue you and you have to defend yourself... It sucks, but there is no other way, really.

The only obvious improvement is to change our legal system to ensure, that the loser in a lawsuit automatically pays the winner's costs.

Re:Free speech vs. libel

[commodore64_love]

It isn't libel if this individual has actual mold growing in her apartment.

Also in court cases it's not enough to just say "he libeled me and damaged my rep". The suer has to demonstrate actaul damages. This is why Ebay sellers who sue ebay buyers often get their cases thrown-out or with no judgement, because the seller cannot demonstrate that a negative feedback left on his profile caused financial loss. I suspect if this landlord case goes to court, the landlord will also be unable to prove any loss occured due to this renter's tweet.

Re:Free speech vs. libel

[Mr. Freeman]

That's a horrible solution. Big companies can afford to risk loosing a small amount more for legal fees. A private citizen can't afford to risk loosing $2000 in legal fees over a court case involving $300 of damages if they bring a lawsuit against a company and then get slammed by some lawyer.

This would do nothing but prevent people from suing companies, not the other way around.

Re:Free speech vs. libel

[phlinn]

Frankly, I prefer "Losing Lawyer pays".

Re:Free speech vs. libel

[mi]

Big companies can afford to risk loosing a small amount more for legal fees.

Whether or not the above is true, the "big companies'" costs would rise with my solution. Even if they can still afford them, they'll be bringing fewer such lawsuits. In fact, the companies' costs would more than double (if they keep losing), because they buy their lawyers in bulk (many employ lawyers on staff), whereas their opponents will cost them "retail".

The "poor", on the other hand, are already disadvantaged, supposedly, by being unable to afford a lawyer. My way, at least, they will be able to recoup those costs automatically, should they prevail — and some lawyers will, likely, be willing to work on contingency.

As things currently stand, you, pretty much, need to double your efforts, if, in addition to winning the original case, you wish to be compensated for your legal fees.

Lastly, unless you are a class warrior, you ought to drop the rhetoric, that revolves around inherently unequal sides in the courtroom.

Re:At least they didn't evict her and call her rac

[Anonymous Coward]

I once lived in a 3-unit apartment building with 3 doorbell buttons numbered '1', '2', and '3' lined up at the locked front and back perimeter doors. No intercom; just doorbells.

Our neighbor's drunk friends would show up at 0400 and start ringing all the doorbells, including ours. Our 1800 sf apartment had chime units in the kitchen, hallway, and master bedroom.

Oddly enough, for the remainder of the time we lived in that apartment, our doorbell chime units didn't work. They started working again when we moved out. Odd, huh? ;-)

Another apartment building I lived in consisted of two 36-unit buildings in an L-shaped lot, touching two streets. The two buildings had addresses on different streets, and mine was the building's "storefront"/leasing office address. I rejected countless food deliveries ordered by the person in my number-sake apartment in the other building; the tenant placing the orders was obviously just saying "XYZ Apartments, #9".

Agreed, 110%... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally absolutely agree. Especially THIS part:

"And maybe most importantly, I can take a certain amount of pride in knowing that I'm attaching my name to my words. If an opinion is important enough for me to express in a public forum, then it's important enough for me to say "I say this."" - by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) *on Tuesday July 28, @04:25PM (#28858325) Homepage

(That's the SAME REASON John Hancock signed his name SO PROMINENTLY on the Declaration of Independence - he wasn't afraid of speaking his mind, NOBODY should be... that's the problem with the world, today, & all of this "politically correct" outright bullshit... they're taking away your rights people, especially the 1st & 2nd amendments, especially lately, or attempting to... don't let that happen!)

And, again - I agree, 110%, that IF you're going to state something? Say it, & be PROUD of it, but don't do it w/out thinking it completely out first.

APK

P.S.=>

"All that being said, of course we need an option for anonymity, to protect whistleblowers and the like. But the assumption that posting under a screen name is always the best way to go strikes me as kind of distasteful" - by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) *on Tuesday July 28, @04:25PM (#28858325) Homepage

Screw the "whistleblowers" (tattletales, narcs, etc. whatever you may call them), because rats like that always "get theirs" in the end, everytime (live by that sword, you'll DIE by it too), but if you "hide" under 'absolutely anonymous' all the time, especially online? You'll also never be ANYMORE than that as well - a nobody, a non-entity... think about THAT one! apk

Re:At least they didn't evict her and call her rac

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we ended up disabling the bell for most of the time, except when mail was expected, or guests, etc, it was a PITA. Sad thing is a good chunk of it might have been their gate slamming antics shorting our bell (I have some vaguely spectacular pictures of the electronic latch in wretched condition, I suspect that the neighbors thought loosening the screws to keep the gate from closing was a good idea, as tightening them rarely lasted long).

An eviction threat about 6 years earlier got us to knock over rent control once (apparently eviction based on (paraphrasing)"they're good tenants, but I want more money" flies in San Francisco), and the landlord seemed to think this was a great opportunity to push us out since repairs cost money, and Section 8 covered less than he was already charging us (we ate the difference on a fixed income, thanks Dubya!).

Real life.

[Dan541]

The internet is real life!

Who started this "Real life" bullshit?

It's as retarded as saying "Crashing your car may effect you in Real-Life"
How about "Spending all your money on eBay will affect your finances in Real-Life"

Caution to the users of social networks

[Anonymous Coward]

We recently fired an intern for damaging comments he made on his Facebook account. As an SME in a sector where a lot of our business depends on word of mouth from our clients, we can't afford that someone on the inside makes such opinions public.

So he kinda blew his last school year by posting that. He was fired after working here about a month and couldn't get another internship before graduation. Had to do it a few months later, which means he'll get his diploma a year later since you cannot graduate without completing a 5 month internship first.

Little careless comments can have big consequences...

similar vein?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say again, how is complaining about mold in your apartment comparable to a racist remark? Oh right, it's "your rights online". I don't see what would be different if they had just been overheard saying what they tweeted/commented.

talk to an african sometime

[ProfBooty]

Try talking with first generation Africans in the US sometime. They have a very different perspective than americans of african descent.

I can't help but notice your lack of argument

[spun]

Really, I'm terribly hurt. You sure won that one! Your cogent reasoning, copious examples, and impeccable logic shine through.

Homophobic religious zealots can all go roast in their make believe hells. You don't have an argument, you can't refute me, so you resort to ad hominems. I, on the other hand, HAVE an argument and merely throw in the ad hominems because you are such a douchenozzle.

YAY! I've defeated the evil snaffu in logical combat AND THE CROWD GOES WILD awarding me a +5 for my brilliant repartee, while the challenger slinks off to sulk. Buh bye, smell you later, and all that.

Re:I can't help but notice your lack of argument

[snaffu2]

I'm just confident in my reasoning, ideology, and philosophy. (c: I don't have anything to prove.
Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. You should consider counseling.

Re:I can't help but notice your lack of argument

[spun]

Riiiight. Nothing to prove, you keep telling yourself that, champ. Nothing you CAN prove, I'll buy that, but you have not even attempted to show your reasoning, or explained your philosophy, so your passive aggressive whining just falls flat.