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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 /.

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

[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

[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.

frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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?"

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!

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...

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

[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.

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

[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..)

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.

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!

[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]

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.

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:"In a similar vein"?

[NotBornYesterday]

"O-dumb-a"

Oh, the irony.

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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.

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:!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.

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.