Slashdot Log In
Juniper Sues Message Board Posters
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Dec 21, 2005 04:34 PM
from the best-way-to-correct-public-opinion dept.
from the best-way-to-correct-public-opinion dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "Juniper is suing up to 10 message board posters on Light Reading's telecom news Web site." From the article: "Only two anonymous message board users are identified in the complaint. One goes by the name "infranet_rulz" and the other by "exJuniper981." Juniper admits in the complaint that it doesn't yet know the names of any of the folks it's suing, but it will update its complaint with the courts as it gets details." LightReading has also provided a link to the court papers.
Related Stories
[+]
Slashback: Real-ID, PriceRitePhoto, RIM 75 comments
Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including a possible iBill framejob, the first steps towards defying the Real ID act, Peter Quinn continues his support for Open Source, Judge flunks lawsuit against spammers, WinXP on a Mac, round 2, Juniper drops message board suit, Vint Cerf answers questions on TLDs, PriceRitePhoto gets relisted, and RIM goes on the offensive for patent reform -- Read on for details.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Lawsuit Topic (Score:5, Informative)
These persons, referred to as "Does 1-10" in the court complaint (as in "John Doe," or anonymous), are being accused by Juniper of posting harmful statements about the company and its executives on Light Reading's message boards
Just so you don't think that they're being sued for, oh, installing mod-chips in their routers or something. Basically they seem to be accused of providing inaccurate information in an attempt to influence the price of the stock (directly or indirectly).
Re:Lawsuit Topic (Score:2)
-Jesse
What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
We are the first ones to complain that "doing something very normal with a computer suddenly makes it something new and innovating" when it comes to patents; yet we're reporting on a libel case because the sentences that are being discussed were posted on a website instead of anywhere else.
The of course one might wonder if this is not a ploy to drive visitors to a website, seeing as the original poster is the owner of the forum where the sentences were posted.
The only interesting point that can be made is: is there still a meaning to a *libel* offense? Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free? Bear in mind, this would apply to anyone and everybody - and that includes you and your company when your ex-girlfriend decides you're a prick and takes her revenge on you. Of course it also includes that company that keeps ripping off his customers shipping defective hard drives and whatnot. Any thoughts?*
* The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
* The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.
I think your request won't be honored (this is slashdot, after all), but even less so since objectiveness is lacking in your post as well...
Not to troll, but asking for the loonies to stay away is like putting out a huge non-zapping bugzapper for them.
Not a slim chance in hell (Score:3, Interesting)
If this is happening the US, Juniper will lose. Period. End of story. US libel laws are easily one of the weakest you can find in the developed world. In order to get to win a libel case, not only do you have to prove what they said was completely untrue, but you also have to prove that they knew it wasn't true and that they did for malicious int
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
What sucks is... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What sucks is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What sucks is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Juniper is evil (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Juniper is evil (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Juniper IS VERY uneithical (Score:5, Funny)
crap i think i logged in by mistake...
Bees are on the what, now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, I'll get right on caring about that.
Great Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Great Summary (Score:3, Interesting)
At the risk of being told to turn in my geek license, I'll also add that it would have been nice to add a 3-word description of what the fsck Juniper is; or maybe even put a hyperlink to their website. Do they do security? Hardware? Data mining? Human trafficking? What?
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, for crying out loud, it's like if you go to a bar and say something bad about a company, and it turns out the CIA has the bar all wired and the police is out to get you because something you said while you were drunk. That's what anonimity is about.
If anonimity is broken, then what use is posting as AC?
Certainly these data retention laws defy free speech in the net.
Re:But... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, if you go to a reporter Deep Throat-style, you have to worry about the reporter being arrested and reve
Double-edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Double-edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on if it's true or not (Score:5, Informative)
The company's complaint cites an April 20 message that stated, "the man at the helm seems to be paying (off) attorneys all over the bay area to cover up the scandal which resulted in the terminations of many at the top including the VP of HR. 1) Board of director 2) CFO 3) GM 4) VP of engineering 5) VP of HR and more."
Another message cited in the complaint came a day later. According to the complaint, it said the "top management" at Juniper bribes attorneys, and that "the man at the top should join his buddy Bernie [Ebers (sic)]... "
Another message singled out in the complaint says: "This is a very unethical company."
Of course, Juniper critics can be found at other Internet message boards that aren't, as yet, mentioned in Juniper's complaint. "Arrogance coupled with timidity is a deadly combination in business. So, in short JNPR's problem is Kriens," said one Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO - message board) message board post taking aim at Juniper's CEO Scott Kriens.
Frankly, I don't see where any of these are prosecutable. One is allowed to comment on what one sees in the world, IMHO. Surely if you've had to flush your top managment and start over, there is likely some thing to some of these posts. I personally find it interesting that Juniper has chosen to lend credence to these statements by suing. Since they're suing, my assumption is that it's all true. Ooops, better not say that or Juniper will include me too!
2 cents,
Queen B
Re:Depends on if it's true or not (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to be. That describes a perception, which is opinion. In my opinion
Uh oh (Score:3, Funny)
The M$ twist (Score:3, Insightful)
Another crummy lawsuit ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Defamation and libel (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently what they are being sued for isn't important enough to mention in the headline or summary!
They are being sued for defamation and libel. Apparently the message board posters have been claiming that Juniper have been bribing lawyers and spying on employees.
The difference between slander and libel is that one is published and the other is conversation, is it not? So which does a message board count as - a publication or a conversation?
Are Investors That Capricious? (Score:5, Insightful)
When your investors place more trust in "infranet_rulz" than in you then you've got much bigger problems than some punk bad-mouthing you on the internet.
don't just speculate on the law (Score:4, Informative)
This has to be one of the least informed Slashdot discussions I've ever seen. With a very few exceptions, people who obviously know nothing about the law are spouting off about what they think it is or would like it to be. Here are a few facts about US libel law.
First, only statements of FACT are actionable. You can publish all the negative opinions you like and you're okay.
Second, truth is an absolute defense to libel. This is not true in every country, but it is true in the United States.
Third, there is a difference between public figures and everybody else. In order to win, a public figure must show that the libel was not only false but malicious, that is, that the libeler knew or ought to have known that the statement was false and nonetheless made it for the purpose of damaging the reputation of the person libelled. The idea is that the freedom of public discourse requires that people be able to make reckless statements about matters of public interest without fear of being sued. On the other hand, if the person libelled is not a public figure, he or she can win without proving malice.
Fourth, the false factual statement must be one that would cause the average person to feel injured. Thus, for example, if you mistakenly publish that John Smith drank tea, not knowing that he is a Mormon and that for him this is an accusation that he has violated the rules of his religion, you're probably off the hook.
Fifth, certain types of statements are considered to be intrinsically defamatory. These include allegations of criminal conduct and, interestingly, the allegation that a woman is unchaste.
Sixth, contrary to one poster's assertion, hedging a statement by saying "I think that X" or even "It is reported that X", does not necessarily get you off the hook. From a purely linguistic point you would think that it would, since you are not asserting the truth of the allegation, but libel law doesn't work that way.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I have studied the law of defamation to some extent. A wee bit of googling would turn up the same information.
Re:Hmmm? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hmmm? (Score:5, Informative)
Or a better example "Clinton is responsible for the death of 15 people while he was governer"...and yea, Clinton was responsible for the overall police force of arkansas as governer and someone could stretch the truth a bit and say it was his fault police officers killed criminals.
Parent
Re:Hmmm? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmmm? (Score:3, Interesting)
While that may be true, according to the complaint Juniper thinks it is not legal to say, "Juniper is unethical." If that is the case it would not surprise me, since our government and legal system are more about protecting the interests of corporations than those of individuals.
Re:Hmmm? (Score:4, Insightful)
As the saying goes "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
Likewise, your freedom to say what you like ends where your lies harm me and mine.
I'm not so much proud of "free speech" per se; it's an inalienable right, after all, not something I can take credit for. Rather, I'm proud of being involved in a political system that seeks to strike a reasonable balance between individual freedom and individual freedom to harm each other.
But tell us, what political system active in the world today allows for greater freedom of speech and expression, and also performs as well or better, in general, than the American one, in your opinion?
Maybe we could learn from it.
Or move there.
Parent
Re:Hmmm? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that you've got me thinking about it, I'd say that legal fraud has a lot to do with legal theft. Thus, libel, because it leads to material loss, tends to be less legal than adultery.
Plus, a lot of what makes a community function is an ability to recognize that there are sizeable grey areas, and that most questions of law and custom end up getting decided on a case
Re:Hmmm? RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION (Score:5, Informative)
Wake up folks! The first amendment protects free speech where it involves government control. That is to say, the government cannot restrict your speech in a forum owned by you or anyone else, or in a public forum (that is, a forum created for public discourse.) The first amendment doesn't apply in message boards (which are privately owned.)
The First Amendment doesn't provide access to private media outlets you don't own. If CmdrTaco wanted to censor every post on
Free speech is great, if you understand it. Otherwise, you're just making a lot of noise and somebody is going to shut you up (as is their right in a privately owned forum.)
I don't understand what everyone is getting their panties in a bunch for. It's a well known fact that in our litigious society you can sue anyone - for anything - at any time - for any reason - while wearing any outfit - while speaking any language.
Juniper is suing two people that it cannot identify. They're not required to prove that the statements made by these message board posters are incorrect, they're just pissed that it was said at all. You could publicly call me a 'sociopathic elitist asshole' and while I wouldn't argue with the validity of the statement, I can certainly sue you for saying it.
You want to get in a huff about something? Do some research on the 16th amendment and discover that it was never ratified.
Parent
Re:Hmmm? RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hmmm? RE-READ THE CONSTITUTION (Score:3, Informative)
Click on the "history" link and you'll get a different story than the amendment never being ratified.
Thanks,
Leabre
Re:Hmmm? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
HA! In a perfect world that'd be enough. Unfortunately, we (humans) tend towards morbosity. So even if said news writer steps down, and the news company publishes a retraction/apology (hopefully, not hidden in the classifieds in microscopic type) you will have been unfairly involved in a scandal and during the time it took to solve it, you were "an alleged something" (a child rapist in this example). And unless something extraordinary happens, there will be people who believe that "where there's smoke, there's fire".
I like free speech as much as the next person. But if you throw a wild accusation *without proof*, then you deserve to be punished.
Parent
Re:Hmmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
I, I, I ... It's great that you believe yourself to be so open-minded. What about his sister, girlfriend/wife, employer, friends and family?
Think long and hard - soul search, as it were. Imagine if the caretaker for your children were accused of being a pedophile or child pornographer or any number of other hideous things. Would you leave your children in their care while you waited for proof? What about one of your friends or family members? Your significant other, your child's teacher? Priest?
How do you think those around you would act towards you if you were accused of something like this? I can tell you it's not as easy as it sounds. Two of my friends have been on the receiving end of these accusations and their lives were forever changed. One went to court and was not charged in the end. Truth be told, nobody but him and his two young children know the truth to this day. The other turned out to be a misunderstanding. His daughter told his ex-wife where daddy touched her, it turned out he was towelling her off after her nightly bath. He lost custody for several weeks and almost went to trial over it.
These accusations are VERY serious, life-altering things; I can't stress that enough. Poeple have lost their jobs, marriages, close friendships, become alienated from their families or even lost their lives over them.
If you ever find yourself in such a situation, and I hope it never comes to pass, but consider then how valuable repercussion-free speech is when you've lost everything and are being brutally beaten with no sympathy from anybody you thought loved you.
It's one thing to have the freedom to be able to disagree with your elected officials or to express an opinion or negative experience you've had with a company, product, or service, but it's another entirely to be able to literally say whatever you want without penalty. That's why slander and libel laws exist - to protect people's reputations from being unduly tarnished by anyone with a vendetta.
That being said, this case appears to have some merit. Accusations of bribery, fraud, and miscarriage of justice on a notorious message board could have serious repercussions for the company. It should be noted, too, that freedom of speech, the 1st amendment, the CCRF et al. do not protect against civil litigation due to speech; they merely prevent the government from creating laws that inhibit free speech or using the criminal justice system to penalize speakers.
Parent
Re:Hmmm? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're mistaking freedom of speech for freedom of responsibility for speech. If someone yells "Fire" in a crowded theater and then is arrested for reckless endangerment is that a violation of their freedom of speech? If a doctor tells a patient that certain pills will help their heart condition, when they are truly a deadly neurotoxin, should the doctor be arrested for what he said? After all, he did not force anyone to take any poison pills.
Freedom of speech has always been limited, but the courts have a
Re:Hmmm? (Score:3, Interesting)
Tolerance of ogres is the price you pay for living in a society that can allow for genuine intellectual freedom.
Re:Hmmm? (Score:5, Interesting)
No dude you are wrong on so many different levels. First off, your participation was of your own acord. The whole having to sign up and the board gets ad revenue stuff you spewed is pure crap. Second, in this country (and others) a person is responsible for their own actions, including their words. So if you want to go on a forum and blast someone you better be able to back up your facts - otherwise you can get sued.
This kind of stuff is serious. You may not think it is a big deal, but to a multi-million/billion dollar company it is a HUGE deal. You can't just point the fingers and blame the big guys, the little guy also has to take responsibility for reckless acts. Right on for Juniper and hopefully they will be able to slam the people who are saying false things about them.
As for your ridiculous sign comment....you don't know the law do you? You are allowed, via your constitutional right, and go and protest a company. You are allowed to have a sign accusing them of doing evil and bad things...but the moment you LIE that company can sue you into extinction.
If you want a perfect example, take the organization, truth.com, that blasts the cigarette companies. They have huge tv commercials, protests, rallys, etc and you know what they can do it because they are telling facts which they have proof for.
Someone mod the above guy -1 twit
Parent
Re:Hmmm? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not accurate. Defamation (libel or slander) in the United States requires not only that the statements be false, but also that you made them with malice.
This kind of stuff is serious. You may not think it is a big deal, but to a multi-million/billion dollar company it is
Re:Hmmm? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, it is disputable whether "freedom of speech" applies to libel/slander. However, to say that the constitution doesn't protect you from the consequences of your actions is preposterous - if I shoot everyone who associates with people I don't like, that's hardly freedom of a
Wait, what? (Score:3, Interesting)
What on earth does this libel case have to do with 9/11?
Also, why pick that date?
Libel has been illegal for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, and lawsuits alleging libel have been brought many times before 2001.
Not to mention the fact that the TV networks have been self-censored and government-censored for decades (when was the last time a TV network showed full-frontal nudity during prime time; and when was the last time t