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

[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

[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?

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.

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.

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

[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

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 ;)

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.

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: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.

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!

[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: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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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.