Libel Suits OK Even If Libel Is Truthful 301
Defeat Globalism writes to tell us that many journalists, bloggers, and media law specialists are concerned about a new ruling by a US Court of Appeals in Boston. The new ruling is allowing a former Staples employee to sue the company for libel after an email was sent out informing other employees that he had been fired for violations of company procedures regarding expense reimbursements. "Staples has asked the full appeals court to reconsider the ruling, and 51 news organizations have filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying that the decision, if allowed to stand, 'will create a precedent that hinders the media's ability to rely on truthful publication to avoid defamation liability.' But Wendy Sibbison, the Greenfield appellate lawyer for the fired Staples employee, Alan S. Noonan, said the ruling applies only to lawsuits by private figures against private defendants, that is, defendants not involved in the news business, over purely private matters."
Meh (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would they do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why would they do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's nobody's business, but the fact is that if it isn't a lie, and the company didn't sign an NDA, then it shouldn't be permissible to claim you were libeled.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly news, since this'll certainly be struck down \ overturned in future rulings.
We can only hope.
united kingdom (Score:1, Insightful)
Argh. That's exactly what's wrong with the libel law in the United Kingdom. I suspect that it's deliberate by the US power elites: they probably see just how useful the fact truth isn't a defense in a libel case in the UK has been to keeping powerful people powerful.
Re:Meh (Score:2, Insightful)
Hardly news, since this'll certainly be struck down \ overturned in future rulings.
Most punditry is wrong, according to at least one scientific paper, most scientific papers are wrong, most current event news items will become irrelevant and or not current within a day. You're saying this isn't news because it will be overruled eventually? That to me doesn't make it not news, that makes it more like the other news stories.
Re:Why would they do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reasoning does go deeper than just "let's gig 'em" but can include the idea that you want your employees to feel safe--"we catch criminals and can now trust those who remain"
I do not know the reasoning behind Staples' decision to broadcast the reason why, but it is more likely the first than the second. I would hope it is both. People are imperfect and we need reminders from time to time to stay on track (hopefully not often at the level of the Staple's employee but sometimes even this is appropriate).
The main reason I approve of Staples' action is with regard to references. If my friend leaves the company telling me he just got sick of the management when in fact he was stealing and then asks me for a reference at Company X where I have a friend, I need to know that he was really fired for theft or I risk losing my friend's good will.
Truthful libel? (Score:5, Insightful)
By its very definition [wikipedia.org], libel is always untruthful.
Semantics aside, here is the actual explanation for the ruling:
Noonan appealed to a three-member panel for the First Circuit, which initially upheld the ruling by Lasker. But last month it reversed itself on the libel claim, saying Noonan could pursue that part of his lawsuit because of a relatively obscure 1902 [Massachusetts] law.
The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.
In ordinary discussions of First Amendment law, "actual malice" refers to the standard established in the landmark 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
In that context, it means a plaintiff who is a public figure can win a libel suit only after proving that a journalist knew a published statement was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.
But in the Massachusetts law cited by the appeals court, "actual malice" means "malevolent intent or ill will," said the panel. Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; Baitler had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him," the court wrote.
So we're talking about:
1) A state law.
2) A ruling that simply allows the guy to sue; it's not a final verdict by any means.
3) A very specific instance, that will eventually be settled in court anyway, as per 2).
So, I don't think this is anything for journalists to get overly anxious over, in truth.
Re:What does the first amendment actually say? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply in civil cases.
Re:Got to Love America (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you're right. The fact that the economy is in the shitter is clearly the only important thing in the world, and all activity not specifically directed at correcting it should be stopped immediately. We'll begin with shutting the police and fire services, then dismissing all court cases in all courts in the US, and finally we'll halt all work on any construction or repair projects.
While we're at it, we should also do something about all the precious energy and attention we're currently exerting in our continued efforts to clothe and feed ourselves, as well as that silent thief of time, breathing.
Jackass.
Bloggers beware (Score:5, Insightful)
But Wendy Sibbison, the Greenfield appellate lawyer for the fired Staples employee, Alan S. Noonan, said the ruling applies only to lawsuits by private figures against private defendants, that is, defendants not involved in the news business, over purely private matters.
Most bloggers would fall under "private persons" and not "news organizations" I'd think. So say something true that puts a person in less than favorable light on your blog, and you get a libel suit? The US just made another step in digging itself siz feet under with lawsuits.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
This is completely, totally, 100% non-news. It's not even a bad ruling. Here is the case timeline in a nutshell:
The key point is that the trial court here has not considered any evidence yet. It made a purely legal ruling under Massachusetts law, and it was wrong because it failed to take into account the actual malice law. The media uproar is just panic, and there is no need and likely no reason for this decision to be overturned.
The second key point is that the employee has not won the case just because of this ruling. He has a long way to go ahead of him.
Re:Why would they do that? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would imagine it would be a deterrent to other employees regarding "violations of company procedures regarding expenses reimbursements". So that might be the reason for disseminating the info.
Oh really (Score:2, Insightful)
"but the company has nothing to gain by disseminating this kind of information."
How about dissuading other employees from doing the same things?
Seems like a pretty good reason to me. Are YOU going to do what he just got fired for??
privacy, false light, actual malice (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that the issue here is not just defamation and truth but also invasion of privacy. Even exposing truthful information can open one to a tort if that information is considered private and there is no reason to communicate it to third parties. In this case the court found it particularly troubling that the company violated its own policy on privacy when sending the email.
The other problem mentioned in the court opinion [uscourts.gov] itself there was also a false light issue -- even if the content of the email was true, strictly speaking, it falsely led readers to believe that Noonan not only was fired but also violated the law.
Ultimately though the court was persuaded that even if the statement was true, it was made with "actual malice." The relevant Mass. law already has an exception built into defamation law that says a true statement can still be libelous if it is made with "actual malice," and they concluded in this case that the statement was made with such intent. The definition of actual malice the court settles on is quite different from the definition generally used in US law -- rather than "reckless disregard for truth," the court concludes that it means something like "ill will." It is this definition of "actual malice" that may undermine traditional interpretations of libel law. The notion that "truth as a defense" is undermined by this case is probably an exaggeration -- that defense is already undermined by the exemption itself as it exists in Massachusetts law.
I hate it when the law changes the meaning of word (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, this story covers pretty much all the angles that annoy me about bad legal decisions:
I'm a consultant, I claim expenses, I work with sales people who also claim expenses, and I don't see a need to be naive here. If you're sacking someone for what is essentially a free-loading lack of integrity, I don't you should be obliged by law to keep that fact hidden. True, normally it's a more respectful "John is moving on to new challenges" kind of message that goes out, but it shouldn't be illegal to let people know that bad behaviour can be caught and punished. Particularly in job roles that are typically well compensated in the context of any given employer, and where they are effectively entrusted with other people's money.
I'm assuming here that the "sloppy" record keeping means money has been claimed that wasn't supported by an appropriate paper trail. Because who sacks people for claiming less expenses than they were due? That said, it's possible this was a vindictive sacking over a minor infringement made in genuine error. But if that's the case, fight the legal battle on those grounds rather than trying to set a precedent that could have far broader impact. I gotta say my gut feel is that people who distort language so much as to say libel means telling the truth are not to be trusted...
Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh] (Score:5, Insightful)
The key point is that the trial court here has not considered any evidence yet. It made a purely legal ruling under Massachusetts law, and it was wrong because it failed to take into account the actual malice law.
No, the key point is that the legal principle that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel is under attack in Massachusetts.
This principle is one of the bedrocks upon which our freedom of speech is built.
You're right that it's not a bad ruling. It's a terrible ruling.
Re:Why would they do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you wronged me (and I have proof, such as a judgement), then it's totally appropriate for me to tell others about this. Call it humiliation if you like, that doesn't make it wrong. You don't get a free pass to a good reputation! Don't want to be known as a thief? Here's a hint: don't steal!
Re:Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh] (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can someone define 'libel'? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oho, what's this?
But in the Massachusetts law cited by the appeals court, "actual malice" means "malevolent intent or ill will," said the panel. Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; Baitler had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him," the court wrote.
Emphasis above is mine.
Motion to tag this story with "badsummary," your honor. IANAL but maybe NYCL will stop by this thread for a visit... there are some very, very important lessons here.
First and foremost, this situation arose because no one followed a procedure. Noonan, for whatever reason, did not do his expense reports right. He could be incompetent; he could be a thief; or he simply could have made honest mistakes and/or not realized how seriously those reports were being taken.
Baitler did something he'd never done before: he named someone in a termination notice. That's a /facepalm +2, +5 vs. your liability. Have a written goddamn procedure for anything related to security or liability, have people sign it, and never frickin deviate from it. If you want the right to name someone, make it part of company policy. Having NO policy covering this at all is no defense, either.
In fact, from the badsummary impression of ONOES, U GET SOOD 4 TELIN TRU, what we actually have here is "Employee fired, then singled out in a way no employee ever has been before." Now, I don't see this being a Staples problem - responsibility here seems to rest in the lap of this Baitler person who made the extremely poor decision to do something new in an area of high risk. In PA, this is an at-will state: you still can't fire someone for an illegal reason, but you can fire them for no reason at all. That is what they should have done, if they felt the expense report thing was not resolvable by working with Noonan (either because they were sick of it, or someone had a personal grudge, or because he was actually in fact stealing - all irrelevant).
What Staples can best do here now is define clear from-the-top policy about how terminations are handled. If it were me, i'd have a word or three with Baitler and look to settle with Noonan, but i imagine they'll see if Noonan's claim is allowed to be amended first before approaching him.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
This is yet another story by our friend "Anti-Globalism" (or "Defeat Globalism" in this case). Note the website the name links to (amerika.org). If you follow it, you'll reach a network of nationalist, anti-foreigner, and eventually racist (neo-Nazi / white power / religious hate), anti-democratic sites. The idea is to start you off with something that will get your nerd-rage going. "How dare those judges redefine libel". Then you'll go to a site that builds on that, but broadens the idea. "It's the Massachusetts liberal activist judges trying to take away our Libertarian freedom". Then it's a few more hops to full on "The Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, white-man hating Liberals are trying to take away our freedoms and give them to urban unwed teenage drug moms on welfare".
You can safely ignore this story.
Re:Why would they do that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh] (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth should not be absolute defense against a charge of libel when confidentiality is at issue.
The problem isn't what they said about him, the problem is that the employee has a right to confidentiality that the company has an obligation to protect and the company violated that confidentiality. A company should not be telling the other staff or other companies anything beyond employment verification. In that case he already divulged that a relationship existed and the company is merely confirming that. The details of the employment relationship are confidential.
Re:Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh] (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, the guy is a thief, he stole from the company. When a guy is a thief, you are allowed to call him a thief. They didn't publish it in the NY Times or anything. If an employee steals from a company, the company should be allowed to say to the other employees that he stole. They (and the other employees) have a vested interest in employees not stealing from them.
shouldn't that be something other than libel? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see a useful principle of "employee confidentiality", appropriately delineated. But that seems like a separate issue from libel, and should be covered by a separate statute, with violations being prosecuted as "violation of employee confidentiality", not as "libel".
Re:Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh] (Score:3, Insightful)
Geoffrey Landis is a liar that often writes and tells stories that never happened. He has lots of works that are nothing but fictional. He even claims to own race horses when he doesn't. [sff.net]
Now it is true that you write Scifi and tell stories that transcends mental acuity right? So did I just tell the truth or did I attempt to maliciously smear your name? You did write that " I do have a horse or two in both of the races" didn't you?
The problem is that the truth is often a rendition of fact or an opinion to be blunt. If I read one of your stories and decided that could never happen, I could say that you were lieing. However, a normal person would see them as one of your works of Science Fiction and you would probably want it viewed that way.
So the question is, does the truth set me free? Do you actually write and tell stories that aren't true, never happened, or possible could never happen? Or was that statement about you being a liar a malicious intent to insult your good name. The truth is, you do write and tell stories that aren't true. And yes, my intent was to show you how the truth shouldn't always be a validation for a defense of libel. The truth is interpreted.
All guesting aside, Geoffrey Landis is a great Scifi writer (I just talked with someone who read one of your works and strongly suggest I should too) and a pretty knowledgeable scientist that has done some great work with the various mars programs at nasa from all that I can tell about him. I only picked on him to show how the truth can be misinterpreted and applied in ways that probably shouldn't automatically vindicate someone of libel. Nothing I said was incorrect except for maybe the liar part where his fiction is presented as that, but someone could miss the presentation and mistake his fiction as one of his scientific endeavors.
If the intent of the statement is malicious, I see no reason not to hold someone liable to it. Often the truth is a matter of opinion. Take the Stapples case for instance, they labeled the guy a thief for not presenting all his receipts. He claims he is a sloppy record keeper and all the reimbursements were justified. Without the receipts, someone took the opinion that he was stealing from the company and the facts back that up. If he finds the receipts, does that make the person's statement any less accurate given the information availible at the time when the truth was he was a bad record keeper and simply didn't provide the proper documentation?
There is no absolutes when dealing with the truth. Especially when the truth is actually a collection of events being interpreted by someone who has to make a decision. This is most evident in car accidents witnessed by people viewing from different angles. There is always something that the other person didn't see or saw differently and it is common to have statements that conflict on who was at fault because of that. It's a flaw in humans that make us colorful because we interpret what we take in and process that information based on our own experiences, training, and whatever else that had made us unique individuals.
Speaking of car accidents, I saw one where someone got T-boned going through an intersection. I was waiting to cross the road when it happened and after giving the statements to the police, an officer came around to see how sure I was that the car had a green light. It appears that the other witnesses claimed the other car had the green light. The traffic light was actually malfunctioning and while we talked about who had the green light, another officer noticed that both light turned green for half a cycle. It appeared that every 5 or 6 cycles, the light would give all directions a green light for around 15-20 seconds. The interesting thing is that we just assumed the other light was red because that's how it works normally. To say someone ran a red light and caused an accident would have ordinarily been a naturally truthful statement until we saw what was going on. This is yet another example of how the truth is often opinions based around facts and not necessarily just fact.
Re:Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh] (Score:3, Insightful)
So this is how I think, without reading any details, this case went down. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that truth is an absolute defense to the libel action, and did not address the constitutional issue at all because it simply did not have to in order to get rid of the case. The appellate court has reversed on the truth-is-an-absolute-defense issue alone.
Probably nobody thought to raise the constitutional issue because nobody remembered this weird 1912 statute until some associate at the law firm was working on the brief at 11 p.m. and stumbled across it. So now, back in the trial court, it's time to raise the constitutional issue.
Truly, the thing that about 93% of Slashdot is missing here is that this is not the whole story on this lawsuit. Reading this story and extrapolating that the entire lawsuit has been finally decided as of right now is roughly equivalent to reading the source code for init(8) and then making assumptions based on that about how the rest of your GNU/Linux system works. Yeah, you'll have a few things right, but not many. There's just more to the story, and virtually all of it hasn't happened yet.
Re:Meh (Score:3, Insightful)
'Second, the guy is a thief, he stole from the company. When a guy is a thief, you are allowed to call him a thief.'
Allegedly. We have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this guy even messed up on the reports they claim let alone fudged them deliberately to steal.
Why do you think he did? Because of the libel slung by the company in this case.
It isn't okay to call this guy a thief until he is convicted for theft in a court of law, especially in the highly pubblic manne that was used here.