Glassdoor Ordered To Reveal Identity of Negative Reviewers To New Zealand Toymaker (theguardian.com) 142
A California court has ordered employer-rating site Glassdoor to hand over the identities of users who claimed they had negative experiences working for New Zealand toy giant Zuru. The Guardian reports: In a decision that could prompt unease for online platforms that rely on anonymity to attract candid reviews, Glassdoor was ordered to provide the information so Zuru could undertake defamation proceedings against the reviewers in New Zealand. Glassdoor is an international website where people post anonymous reviews of their current or former employers. Zuru is an international toy manufacturer that was founded in New Zealand and now has a billion-dollar turnover. After an anonymous person or people wrote reviews alleging that Zuru was a "toxic" workplace, the company began pursuing a defamation suit against them -- but first had to find out their identities.
California district court judge Alex Tse wrote in his decision that the reviews refer to Zuru as a "[b]urn out factory" with a "toxic culture," where an "incompetent" management team "consistently talk[s] down" to employees and treats them like "dirt." The judge wrote that the reviews make Zuru "sound like a horrible place to work." Zuru says these and similar statements in the reviews are false and have cost them financially. The company argued that it "has had to expend money, time, and resources in combatting the negative publicity, negative perception, and harm to [Zuru's] reputation that the [r]eviews have caused."
It wants to sue the reviewers for defamation in New Zealand, the country where the company was founded and where the reviewer or reviewers allegedly worked. Tse ruled that New Zealand's defamation laws are the relevant ones in this case, and ordered that Glassdoor hand over identifying information. New Zealand has stricter defamation laws than the US, where there are far greater free speech protections. Tse wrote: "There's good reason to tread lightly in applying US free-speech principles abroad. Our country's commitment to free speech isn't universally shared; and even in other countries that protect free speech, a different balance is often struck between the right to free speech and the right to protect one's reputation. Glassdoor wants to safeguard anonymous speech on its website. Zuru wants to protect its reputation. Both interests can't simultaneously be accommodated." In a statement, Glassdoor said it was "deeply disappointed in the court's decision, which was effectively decided under New Zealand law." They added: "In this and many other cases worldwide, Glassdoor fights vigorously to protect and defend the rights of our users to share their opinions and speak freely and authentically about their workplace experiences."
Glassdoor said it had fought a number of defamation-type cases, and they "prevail in the vast majority of these types of cases. To date, we have succeeded in protecting the anonymity of our users in more than 100 cases filed against our users."
California district court judge Alex Tse wrote in his decision that the reviews refer to Zuru as a "[b]urn out factory" with a "toxic culture," where an "incompetent" management team "consistently talk[s] down" to employees and treats them like "dirt." The judge wrote that the reviews make Zuru "sound like a horrible place to work." Zuru says these and similar statements in the reviews are false and have cost them financially. The company argued that it "has had to expend money, time, and resources in combatting the negative publicity, negative perception, and harm to [Zuru's] reputation that the [r]eviews have caused."
It wants to sue the reviewers for defamation in New Zealand, the country where the company was founded and where the reviewer or reviewers allegedly worked. Tse ruled that New Zealand's defamation laws are the relevant ones in this case, and ordered that Glassdoor hand over identifying information. New Zealand has stricter defamation laws than the US, where there are far greater free speech protections. Tse wrote: "There's good reason to tread lightly in applying US free-speech principles abroad. Our country's commitment to free speech isn't universally shared; and even in other countries that protect free speech, a different balance is often struck between the right to free speech and the right to protect one's reputation. Glassdoor wants to safeguard anonymous speech on its website. Zuru wants to protect its reputation. Both interests can't simultaneously be accommodated." In a statement, Glassdoor said it was "deeply disappointed in the court's decision, which was effectively decided under New Zealand law." They added: "In this and many other cases worldwide, Glassdoor fights vigorously to protect and defend the rights of our users to share their opinions and speak freely and authentically about their workplace experiences."
Glassdoor said it had fought a number of defamation-type cases, and they "prevail in the vast majority of these types of cases. To date, we have succeeded in protecting the anonymity of our users in more than 100 cases filed against our users."
Terrible ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
A US judge should be ruling based on US law in a case brought in the US.
The horror of applying foreign laws in US courts is unspeakable.
For example, can anyone imagine applying Saudi law in a US divorce case? There are so many other examples available.
I hope this horrible ruling is over turned on appeal. The judge is a total idiot and should be removed from the bench.
Re:Terrible ruling (Score:4, Informative)
The judge isn't ruling on anything except discovery. The person whose identity in question is allegedly a Kiwi, and has to follow their laws. It's normal for law enforcement and judicial systems of friendly nations to cooperate. If a judge were to grant such a request against a US citizen who hadn't worked there, that would be horrifying.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
So an Uighur in the United States, in a US court room, in a legal case in the US, should be summarily executed because that's what Chinese law would do to them?
A Saudi woman who was raped in America and sitting in an American court room should be stripped and caned in public because that's what Saudi laws would do to them?
A North Korean refugee in the United States of America should have their entire family tortured to death because that's what Best Korea would do to them?
Re: (Score:3)
No. US law is typically very permissive about discovering the identities of defendants in civil suits. At this point, the US court has only ruled that Glassdoor needs to provide information about the users who posted the allegedly defamatory content -- there's no ruling on the merits, or even jurisdiction over those users.
Re: (Score:1)
So an Uighur in the United States, in a US court room, in a legal case in the US, should be summarily executed because that's what Chinese law would do to them?
A Saudi woman who was raped in America and sitting in an American court room should be stripped and caned in public because that's what Saudi laws would do to them?
A North Korean refugee in the United States of America should have their entire family tortured to death because that's what Best Korea would do to them?
No. US law is typically very permissive about discovering the identities of defendants in civil suits. At this point, the US court has only ruled that Glassdoor needs to provide information about the users who posted the allegedly defamatory content -- there's no ruling on the merits, or even jurisdiction over those users.
An angry incel equating rape, torture and politically motivated executions with discovering the identity of a person who dragged your name through the mud on Glassdoor is a bit extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
you forget the part where "judicial systems of friendly nations cooperate". friendly in this context doesn't mean "us mogul making good business and having fun with saudi prince", it means that some countries consider their law systems compatible enough to cooperate and have, e.g., shared arrest and extradition arrangements.
that said, it's more likely than not that the bad reviews are mostly valid and the place is indeed a toxic shithole with incompetent managers. what a surprise, eh? but even if they aren
Re:Terrible ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
> that said, it's more likely than not that the bad reviews are mostly valid and the place is indeed a toxic shithole with incompetent managers.
That's all hearsay. However, they'll have plenty of opportunity to prove how toxic and incompetent they are once they get that employees name, lol.
Re: Terrible ruling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Terrible ruling (Score:5, Informative)
Go read the kiwi press about this. Stuff.co.nz [stuff.co.nz]. The kiwi law is basically if that opinion is honestly held then Zuru wouldn't have a case.
Zuru is gong through all of this because they believe the reviews are fake or otherwise not posted by people who worked at Zuru
Re: (Score:2)
yes, well, whichever the legal outcome is i don't think it is wise to compromise anonymity just to check fakes. and if it isn't fake? every rating service is prone to fake reviews and needs to deal with them in a way that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the water, and that applies very specially to services where anonymity is an obvious requirement for people to express freely, such as glassdoor. that the judge doesn't see this is just stunning.
the best defense for fakes is actually being legit. if
Re:Terrible ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
In all of these sorts of cases there exists the principle of "dual criminality" (even in civil cases, its just a turn of phrase) - the act being considered in the foreign jurisdiction has to also be actionable as a general principle in the domestic court being asked to make a ruling.
While the US has the 1st amendment, defamation is still actionable as a case, so it passes that test.
Your ridiculous examples do not.
Re: (Score:3)
Last time I checked, you being asked your opinion on a workplace, and you answering it with your opinion was protected speech here in the land of the freedoms.
You'll note, the COMPANY sued in the states, not the NZ courts asking the states for the information:
If this company cares so much about this shit, they can get the NZ courts to rule on this, then ask the international courts for support in discovery. They likely know that they have no standing in NZ courts, so went directly to the U.S. courts so the
Re: (Score:3)
Last time I checked, you being asked your opinion on a workplace, and you answering it with your opinion was protected speech here in the land of the freedoms.
You're missing one part there. For Glassdoor, it's your opinion not on "a" workplace but on "your" workplace. If the reviews are by people who never worked there, as Zuru contends, then those people aren't protected speech even in the USA. Defamation laws do exists [wikipedia.org] in the land of the free, and free speech doesn't protect you if you're knowingly lying in a way that you know will damage the other party.
Re: (Score:3)
So an Uighur in the United States, in a US court room, in a legal case in the US, should be summarily executed because that's what Chinese law would do to them?
A Saudi woman who was raped in America and sitting in an American court room should be stripped and caned in public because that's what Saudi laws would do to them?
A North Korean refugee in the United States of America should have their entire family tortured to death because that's what Best Korea would do to them?
This is not how this works. There are rules when courts need to apply foreign law, and to what extent.
In all of these cases, you are talking about criminal law, and this works quite differently from private law. If you commit a crime elsewhere, then it's the job of that elsewhere to prosecute and punish you. If you're not there, they can only request extradition. And this request would obviously not be granted in these cases.
Re: Terrible ruling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you ask Julian Assange, Meng Wanzhou, El Chapo, Edward Snowden, Kim Dotcom...?
Re:Terrible ruling (Score:5, Informative)
A US judge should be ruling based on US law in a case brought in the US.
The horror of applying foreign laws in US courts is unspeakable.
It's actually pretty common. Including, I would point out, because each state and the federal government are all equally foreign to one another. This is an issue known as conflict of laws, which is sometimes prompted by deliberate agreements as to the choice of law.
For example, if you ever agreed to any sort of lengthy, professionally-drafted legal contract, you are likely to find in it a provision that says that in the event of a breach of contract or other dispute, any lawsuit is to be filed in accordance with a particular jurisdiction's law (a choice of law provision). For example, here is a bit from the first Apple EULA that popped up in a Google search:
i. Except to the extent expressly provided in the following paragraph, this Agreement and the relationship between you and Apple shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflicts of law provisions. You and Apple agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of Santa Clara, California, to resolve any dispute or claim arising from this Agreement.
(If for some reason the Santa Clara County Court refuses venue or jurisdiction, a different court would almost certainly proceed, applying California law.)
For example, can anyone imagine applying Saudi law in a US divorce case?
Yes, if it were pertinent. Including, for example, if two people got married in Saudi Arabia, would the US recognize that a marriage had occurred, which is an important first step in having a divorce suit when they later move to the US. Normally it's no big deal to recognize the validity of a foreign marriage. Saudi permits polygamous marriages though, which the US usually won't recognize, and probably has different procedures for divorce too, so it might become very important to know whether -- entirely under Saudi law -- A was married to B when he married C, or whether A and B had gotten divorced prior to A and C marrying, since the US won't consider a marriage between A and C valid if A was already married to B.
I hope this horrible ruling is over turned on appeal. The judge is a total idiot and should be removed from the bench.
Or, and this is more likely here, the ruling is likely to stand, the judge knows more about this than you do -- and this is basic first-year law student stuff -- and nothing surprising happened at all. Which is not to say that the decision was right, necessarily, just that it's plausible and not a huge news item.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Google is fairly toxic from what I hear.
Re: Terrible ruling (Score:1)
Which is what is so dumb. Defamation is nigh on impossible in New Zealand because if someone can show they consider what they said to be an honestly held opinion, the defamation will be practically instantly thrown out.
All this will achieve is spreading Zuru's reputation even further. The egotistical moron chasing this defamation case must be pretty butt-hurt to do this... And I'd presume against their lawyer's advice.
Re: Terrible ruling (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming for the moment they are honest, it's fair to ask, would a company with integrity and supposed non-toxicity sue Glassdoor to uncover who badmouthed them?
If they really are honest and all, there are a thousand other ways to improve their PR, including taking this supposed slander to bring attention to how good they actually are. The fact that they didn't chose any of those tells me they have things to hide.
Re: (Score:3)
A US judge should be ruling based on US law in a case brought in the US.
This isn't a criminal case. Zuru is suing Glassdoor in California Court because that's where Glassdoor's head office is located. The California court ruling is that since Glassdoor operates in New Zealand it must abide by the laws of New Zealand, and it must turn over the identities of the people involved in accordance with New Zealand law. The California court is not ruling on the merits of the slander case so the free-speech or slande
Re: Terrible ruling (Score:2)
If Glassdoor is operating in New Zealand, then it should get sued there. Glassdoor isnâ(TM)t operating in that country, probably partially due to its lack of free speech.
Just because you can get to my website from North Korea doesnâ(TM)t mean I operate in your country, the judge is very wrong and should apply US law instead of creating out of whole cloth a new law.
The wording of the ruling itself is what you would expect the legal interpretation of an international tribunal, which the US isnâ
Re: Terrible ruling (Score:4, Informative)
MILL VALLEY, Calif. (January 15, 2019) – Glassdoor, one of the world’s largest job and recruiting sites, today announced its entry into Singapore, Hong Kong and New Zealand. Glassdoor aims to give job seekers a competitive search advantage through access to all the latest job listings alongside reviews and insights shared by those who know hiring companies best: their employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A US judge should be ruling based on US law in a case brought in the US.
The horror of applying foreign laws in US courts is unspeakable.
For example, can anyone imagine applying Saudi law in a US divorce case? There are so many other examples available.
I hope this horrible ruling is over turned on appeal. The judge is a total idiot and should be removed from the bench.
Yah, that boot quickly moves to the other foot when US citizens commit crimes abroad. Then, alluvasudden, they scream UNFAIR!! when they claim the right to be tried by US laws in a foreign court for offences committed on foreign soil and are denied. It's absolutely amazing how many US tourists think they'll be tried by American law in foreign courts.
Re: (Score:2)
"Many countries are not exactly centres of justice" - well, depends what you mean by 'many', but most have a civil code and justice system, and follow it pretty well. What might confuse you is that not every country has the same adversarial approach to law and l
Re: (Score:2)
A US judge should be ruling based on US law in a case brought in the US.
The horror of applying foreign laws in US courts is unspeakable.
You're getting it wrong. Not honoring foreign law would be an absolute nightmare.
There are rules when courts need to apply foreign law, and to what extent.
For example, can anyone imagine applying Saudi law in a US divorce case? There are so many other examples available.
Well, what if the couple lived in Saudi Arabia, got divorced there, and later one of the ex-spouses moves to the US. Would you want US courts to say: You're still married because we don't apply Saudi law, and you have not gotten a divorce under US law. Really?
Re: (Score:2)
The horror of applying foreign laws in US courts is unspeakable.
So wait, US companies should be able to operate in other countries without presence , but should not be held responsible for breaking laws in those countries?
For example, can anyone imagine applying Saudi law in a US divorce case?
But this case is not about saudi law in a divorce case, now is it?
The judge is a total idiot and should be removed from the bench.
Personally i think you're the idiot. And a bigot, and a nationalist asshole, and for good measure, a shit-for-brain.
Kudos to glassdoor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Now describe how you differentiate those from some twinkies at Netflix trying to pre-censor content and doing so AC?
Re: (Score:2)
Now describe how you differentiate those from some twinkies at Netflix trying to pre-censor content and doing so AC?
What the hell are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh* It's very simple. Twinkies are a type of snack, Netflix is a streaming service, pre-censor means to censor something before it is censored, and AC means Air Conditioning. If you can't figure out what those words mean when put together in a sentence there's no hope for you!
That's still mostly incoherent rambling. What what way exactly were you #victimised and #persecuted by Netflix's pre-censoring?
Re: (Score:2)
Reviews are just what they are -- must be taken at face value.
Unless they are fake. Going to the kiwi papers Zuru are saying that they believe the reviews are fake and posted by some of their compeditors
Re: (Score:2)
Reviews are just what they are -- must be taken at face value. Companies should work toward engendering goodwill from all persons with which they interact. We consumers of Internet content know that there are occasional sour grapes and take that into account. But one thing that must be protected is this: The well-meaning whistle-blower who is admirably trying to give accurate review.
Nah, It's much easier to attempt to sue your critics into silence and put the fear of a god-like law suit into anyone who would dare to think about saying anything bad about you than to improve customer service or *gasp* make a better product that people like.
This strategy has worked wonders for Elon Musk.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even a toxic-spewing hatemonger, what about someone deliberately trying to discredit a company for the purpose of causing damage to them while helping a different company? This stuff has happened in the past, it's one of those situtations where you do get to win a libel case in the US. It could also be sour grapes from a disgrunted worker fired for cause, and I have seen and worked with people in this category that seem to spend most of their day telling horror stories about the old employer, rather th
Re: Kudos to glassdoor (Score:2)
Library (Score:4, Funny)
Remember when CNN blackmailed someone too? (Score:1)
The hereditary feudal ruling class is offended that the peasants are speaking freely about them on Glassdoor. This is just part of the ongoing war of extermination against the middle class.
Re: Remember when CNN blackmailed someone too? (Score:2)
Seems to Confirm the Reviews (Score:5, Insightful)
Employer bringing an international court case to unmask employees or former employees who disclose that employer has a "toxic culture" where the management team treats employees like "dirt."
Sounds like those employees have nailed it. Toxic employer coming to sweep them into the sewer (if they can).
I hope this blackens Zuru's name everywhere in New Zealand.
Re:Seems to Confirm the Reviews Zuru may regret (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a New Zealander, but what if the former employees could prove they were telling the truth? Wouldn't that mean it wasn't defamation?
Re: (Score:2)
And if any of these people are based in the US, they are protected by any judgements due to the SPEECH ACT [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
NZ defamation laws are much more strict than US laws.
Re: Seems to Confirm the Reviews Zuru may regret (Score:1)
The threshold for defamation isn't even that high in New Zealand. If it's an honestly held opinion then the case is virtually dead in the water. Defamation needs to be essentially proven by the prosecution to be something outlandishly untrue.
In this case I'd bet a shiny wooden nickel that there's truth to it. Especially having worked in the NZ software industry myself.
Re: Seems to Confirm the Reviews Zuru may regret (Score:1)
Sorry, I should add... Something outlandishly true that the defamer has said to purposefully damage the defamee's reputation. The intent needs to be established.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what intent other than damaging the company's reputation could there possibly be?
You can't damage something that doesn't exist, so the company is shitty, there's nothing to be damaged?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
adjective
(of remarks, writing, etc.) damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libelous.
"a defamatory allegation"
You can get sued for slanderous speach - false and malicious.
You can get sued libelous speach - containing or constituting a libel.
What is libel is seems always flexible -
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
The general case is the publisher is under no legal duty to prove or disprove reviews in the United States. Th
Re: (Score:2)
In the US there is actual free speech, you cannot be punished for speaking truth
So you can publish any government secrets, then? Like Manning or Snowden did?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a New Zealander, but what if the former employees could prove they were telling the truth? Wouldn't that mean it wasn't defamation?
Any individual who is not independently wealthy will be bankrupted by a case like this going up against a big company. We will never find out if the employees were telling the truth because they will settle, probably for an undisclosed sum, a public retraction, and a gag order forbidding them from speaking further on the issue.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the article? The company is stating that the reviews were written by it's competitors and not by people who worked there.
makes for interesting case (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, just look at Yelp, the very proof that you can't trust what you read on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But it's likely they're not chasing an ex employee, because if the person was an ex employee then they'd lose the case in NZ (an honestly held belief would be a valid defense). Their allegations are that this spam that showed up was not from anyone who worked at the company but that it was from competitors.
I shouldn't be surprised, but it still does suprise me a bit, about how many slashdotters instantly have reached the verdict of a complex case based upon a headline and hastily scanned summary. They kno
Re: (Score:2)
I shouldn't be surprised, but it still does suprise me a bit, about how many slashdotters instantly have reached the verdict of a complex case based upon a headline and hastily scanned summary.
Considering how many hell holes we have all worked in, I am not surprised at all that many jumped to an immediate conclusion. So you are surprised that people took the path of least resistance? Do you not understand how groups of people operate?
This mechanism is how propaganda defeats informed voting almost every time. It is the sure way to bet.
Foot, meet mouth... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a PR disaster.
Anyone reading this will surely have headed over to glassdoor to have a look - and it's an interesting picture.
You can see some of the "scathing reviews" - they look a little bit fake, but then look at the glowing reviews.
Most look entirely fake, or perhaps worse than that - employees "asked" to post glowing reviews.
There's clearly something "toxic" going on here.
I mean, for starters, the company has a high rating - so why are they going after a few negative reviews?
It just points out how toxic this company likely is.
It also brings into question part of glassdoor's business model - possibly suffering from the same issues that Amazon does when it comes to reviews - that it is vanishingly easy to "game" them - but, we all knew that, right?
Nobody is going to bother to post a review if they have to go through a verification process to prove they worked there. ... and clearly that isn't happening.
All you need to post a review, is an email address that you can use to sign-up with.
It's then down to glassdoor to try and validate reviews
Glassdoor currently haven't suspended reviews for this company, but possibly they will do "behind the scenes" - in that any new reviews submitted will not be published, you'd hope so, because if there's a sudden flurry of bad reviews, it will point out the flaws.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm not sure this was the best move for the company - suing to unmask the identities of people who posted negative reviews, and then suing to charge those people really seems to be more of a Streisand Effect thing.
I'm sure the local New Zealand media is probably going to be reporting on this. I'm not entirely sure telling the entire population that you're a crappy company is something you want broadcasted to your customers as well.
That's what they said to Johnny Depp (Score:2)
That's what they said to Depp, and look what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon could easily fix its reviews by requiring the reviewer to publish a video of their review of the product. Doing so would:
1) Prove the reviewer did indeed purchase the product.
2) They are willing to put themselves and their voice on camera to review the product.
3) Provide evidence of what the reviewer is saying about the product in their text description.
Amazon has support for video reviews. It is fairly rare to run into those though but they tend to hold more weight with me than the 3+ star text
oxymoron (Score:2)
Not anonymous (Score:2)
Users who post on Glassdoor are not anonymous. A business that operates with this model is just a problem waiting to happen, and people who post there are opening themselves to risk of being outed.
Information wants to be free, either by a court decision like this, or by a change of government / legislation, or a security breach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. If you have to login in to a site to post a review, you should assume it's not anonymous.
Paging Mrs. Streisand (Score:2)
Quite frankly, if they just brushed it off, nobody would have even known about it.
Now everyone knows what Zuru did. Even people (like me) who never even heard about them. So the first thing I hear about Zuru is "they sue former employees who dare to say they didn't like working there".
Yeah, that's building a reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite frankly, if they just brushed it off, nobody would have even known about it.
You mean apart from people looking at Zuru reviews on glassdoor as they are deciding if they want to work there or not?
"they sue former employees who dare to say they didn't like working there"
Right now they are saying that these reviews are trying to find out if the reviews really are from people that use to work there. They are going on to say that they believe the reviews are fake and are from competitors.
Assuming they were former employees the court case would go: ....
Judge: Did you work for Zuru?
Former Employee: Yes.
Judge: Do you really think that Zuru are
Former Employee
Re: (Score:2)
They're not suing former employees though. Their allegations are that the posters were not former employees but from competitors. If the names are revealed and it turns out they were honestly held opinions by former or current employees, then Zuru loses it's case. This is not about revenge against past employees, because that doesn't work under New Zealand law.
If they really were a toxic company, they wouldn't be doing this lawsuit. They'd hush it up. After all, you'd only have to get a journalist to fi
Well, that's Orwellian (Score:3)
New Zealand has stricter defamation laws than the US, where there are far greater free speech protections
No, what NZ has are far greater free speech LIMITATIONS .
Snowflakes (Score:2, Insightful)
Opinion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The review in the article is just opinions. How are you defaming anyone by stating an opinion? The review in the article has no specific statements that can be proven true or false. How are they going to go about proving that the statements in the review are defamatory?
NZ law says the review needs to be honestly held. If it WAS posted by a previous employee then the case is dead in the water.
Zuru are claiming it was written by someone who never worked for them. If that was the case then the opinion couldn't be "honestly held" (under NZ law) and so would be defamatory. From what I can see in the kiwi papers Zuru are claiming it is a false review written by competitors to make it harder for Zuru to attract staff.
Re: Opinion (Score:2)
Now that we know who Zuru is ... don't like them. (Score:2)
Never heard of Zuru until this popped up. Knee-jerk reaction: bad, likely toxic company.
Besides the toxic workplace they have no business sense. A shareholder would do well to ask what the heck management is doing spending money to pursue a couple of employees all while drawing negative attention to the company.
Bottom line: the reviews weren't a 'thing' until the company made it one.
Free speech != immunity from prosecution (Score:2)
Free speech doesn't mean being immune from the consequences of your speech.
Fake news (Score:2)
It was not a "California court"; it was a United States District Court. The judge is not a "California district court judge"; he's a magistrate of the United States District court. He used to work for the City of San Francisco. These are the folks who like censorship, so it would not be surprising if he shares those views.
Glassdoor would be idiots if they did not appeal the ruling. In fact because he is only a magistrate, they might be able to get a rehearing before an actual District Court judge, who
Free speach (Score:2)
It seems like most people don't really know what free speech means and think that it is somehow a blanket thing which allows them to say whatever they want without any consequences. It is literally ONLY about GOVERNMENT censorship. Nothing else. There is nothing in the 1st amendment regarding private parties.
why fight this so hard if it's not true? (Score:2)
The fact that this company is pushing it this far, really makes me think more that the their comments may be true.
I don't base my opinion on a company on just 1 or 2 comments, but if everyone is saying this... maybe it's true. If the company goes as far as taking it to a court in a foreign country to remove the comment, and go after the person(s) who posted it. That has to be a bad place to work.. where the leadership has such fragile egos that they need to resort to this.
if the company is a great place to
So the complaints are correct then? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's pretty standard for matters of public health. In the US the most famous case was Typhoid Mary, who was a domestic servant that was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid. She kept getting jobs as a cook or something and killing her employers because she was permanently infectious.
In the end she was forced into quarantine for decades, and died there.
Plagues and such are terrifying, deadly, and difficult to impossible to control otherwise, and it's a long-standing traditional exception to individual free
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's pretty standard for matters of public health. In the US the most famous case was Typhoid Mary, who was a domestic servant that was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid. She kept getting jobs as a cook or something and killing her employers because she was permanently infectious.
In the end she was forced into quarantine for decades, and died there.
Exactly. We should handle these situations like it's still 1915.
Honestly, how does Typhoid Mary keep getting brought out as a legitimate example to modern day issues?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Try [americanmilitarynews.com] again [hnewswire.com].
The above says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
As I said in the direct quote above, NZ/Aus did nothing different to what much of the US did during Covid, with the exception of *having border quarantines*. Comparatively, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, the same ideas were tried in the USA and they were just as evil and wrongheaded here as they were there.
Which was my entire point. Why are you painting NZ/Aus as some kind of freedom-hating backwater, when the same was done where appropriate in the US? If these actions are NZ/Aus hating freedom, then I guess America also hates freedom. Weird.
totally real [washingtonpost.com]
Are you unfamiliar with the Northern Territories? NT is self-governed, and not representative of the Australian Federal government response. It'd be like saying the decisions of the government of Texas or even Puerto Rico represent the US Federal Government. Are all of yo
Re: (Score:3)
The above says otherwise.
The hnewswire linki also tell us that the biblical apocalypse is coming, systematically calls covid vaccins 'kill-shots', talk about satan's soldiers and the coming of the antichrist.
In fact, it is not really a news site. It is a conspiracy site. Their main 'news' page starts with this:
"It is our belief that the Great Tribulation referred to in the New Testament Book of Revelation (chapters 6-11) is unfolding before our eyes. In the near future, we will devote the "Tribulation" tab on our "Trending" menu to
No wonder American tards don't trust news. (Score:2, Informative)
Your "sources" are a right-wing military website and a "conservative values, Biblical truth" blog.
And while the "article" about "death angel rising" by Bible-thumping kooks can be dismissed just like the ramblings of any desert-wandering witch-doctor with a sun-fried brain... more on which, coincidentally, later....
Those stolen valor cowards try to cover their asses (as I piss on their false flags and shit in their mouths) - by weasel-wording ("what appears to be") rumors...
And then they IMMEDIATELY shit on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Random commenter here with no dog in the fight
Australia didn't cover itself with glory in its handling of Djokovic. Granted we're often relying on international sports media to speculate on the workings of government, but it sounded fairly dysfunctional in a bureaucratic / basic competence way.
That gives wings to broader and more nebulous characterizations of the governments as corrupt / lazy / stupid.
Certainly the plans to centralize and censor the Australian internet appeared poorly thought out, and then
Re: (Score:2)
New Zealand seemed to be ready to just shorten their policy to "hold them down and stick them." So much for informed consent in either of those authoritarian loving backwaters.
Soooo, my body, my choice, right?
Re: (Score:2)
How did that children's movie put it? "Ignore the man behind the curtain"?