Courts Begin To Frown On Online Badmouthing 330
Whistler's Mother writes: "Employers are winning key legal victories against former workers who criticize them online. Rulings in the waning days of 2001 could have a chilling effect on workers' use of cyberspace for years to come, civil libertarians say. The battle over Internet free speech also is heating up as more firms crack down on grousing by laid-off staff. Read the whole story here."
Bummer... (Score:2, Funny)
-72
Re:Bummer... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
The court ruled Hamidi's e-mails basically amounted to trespassing.
"We were very pleased. Our view is that this was the equivalent of spam," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy says.
this is basically an offshoot of the spam laws -- those very same ones which
Re:Yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah! (Score:2, Interesting)
yeah, sending 32k emails (note: to individual people, not a mailbomb type deal) is not the best way to get your point across
but its the principle, not the case
once you allow any type of legislation on the internet, you allow more or less ALL legislation
and furthermore, legislation you like has a great chance of being used against you
sort of related to that tired old ben franklin quote about sacrificing a little liberty to obtain temporary security..
Re:Yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really see why the company shouldn't be able to make the person in question stop, in this particular case. Although there would be ways to block emails technically, the basic question is (like you said) similar to spamming; why should the receivers have to pay for spammers privilege to send them (uncalled for) email? One problem is that whereas talking to someone is usually impossible (or difficult) without receiver's will, sending email/fax/calling is much easier. So, if the company had tried to prevent the person from contacting ex-coworkers in person, the judge would probably have just dismissed the case.
In fact the line between having the right to voice one's concern and trespassing is not all that clear; anti-abortion people have been prevented from picketing (in cases where they were shouting their propaganda in residential neighbourhoods); it was considered harassment more than practicing peacefully their right to free speech. The balance between your right to speak and my right to ignore is a difficult one to maintain.
Re:Yeah! (Score:3)
Offshoot my butt - Hamidi was spamming.
Re:Yeah! (Score:2, Insightful)
And I am really going to -laugh- when this gets modded down by someone who doesn't agree with it and can't see the hypocracy!
Re:The company's actions in question are justified (Score:3, Interesting)
Because sending large quantities of email to current employees isn't quite the same as either of these. It's closer to dumping flyers into their internal mail, throwing flyers at people as the enter, breaking in and putting flyers on people's desks, putting flyers on people's cars, etc.
The point is that whilst you may have the right to free speach everyone else has the right to choose to listen or not (which includes not having to take special action to avoid listening.)
Face it, e-mail is the easier to handle. Delete it
If it's so simple why do so many spammers try to hide their identity?
I can't delete protestors or drunken ranting idiots without getting in major trouble, but there is no way they can force me to read e-mail.
However you can tell protestors and drunken ranting idiots exactly what you think of them...
Slander (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Slander (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Slander (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Slander (Score:2)
Basically, you start out in a purely defensive posture. It's not like the trademark disputes that often go on between corporations, where they both have arguments for why the other guy stole some piece of their intellectual property.
I suppose you could claim the company was harassing you or something... but that's probably going to be a rather weak argument in court.
Re:Slander (Score:2)
Company officials say two former workers acted with malice by putting up about 14,000 postings on 100 message boards. The messages accused managers of being homophobic and of discriminating against pregnant women, officials say.
and
Last month, a California appeals court ruled against a fired Intel employee, Ken Hamidi. He had sent e-mails to as many as 35,000 workers airing grievances; Intel officials say they took legal action only after asking him to stop.
at some point, you gotta stop and think about what's actually happening.
If the US adopted a simple Canadian convention.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Slander (Score:2)
Re:Slander (Score:5, Insightful)
It goes both ways. Employer loyalty to employees is at an all time low right now as well. The fact that major corps like IBM, who aren't doing badly at all (in fact, they are making more money) take advantage of a recession to have layoffs and forced paycuts, simply because their workers can't move on right now CAUSES this sort of feeling.
In my own personal situation, I always show as much loyalty to my employer as I'm shown. I appreciate opportunity, and when in a job and situation I love, I'll take less and put up with more to stay there. But when the employer doesn't reciprocate, ie, dumps on employees at the first sign of trouble, then they have no reasonable expectation of loyalty in return.
"Do un to others" works.
Re:Slander (Score:4, Insightful)
Like them or not, Labor Unions are the only thing that keep employers in check. I've worked both as a Union member, and as a Non-Union member and having been on every side of the fence I can promise you being Union is definately the best position to be in, esspecially if you have a good union with good member participation. That's key, without there is no Union and you can't reap the benefit of organized labor.
In another reply I'm about to post a message that I got from my union today. It's not EXACTLY on topic, but it is somewhat related, and it's definately interesting.
Interesting Letter... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slander (Score:2)
Personally, I fail to see how "complete free-market capitalism" is such a radical idea, though.
I know most political Centrists like to draw lines spaced evenly between them for socialism vs. capitalism, but I'd beg to differ.
I can agree with Communism/Socialism being on the left-hand side of the equation, but the right-hand side would probably be anarchy, not capitalism. (After all, wouldn't you say that a state of anarchy is the ultimate in lack of govt. control of any kind, and every person acting completely on their own to achieve whatever goals he/she wishes?)
In any case, I don't think a perfect blend of socialism and capitalism is going to result in better employee loyalty. Perhaps it does work for neutral countries like Sweden and Finland, but that's primarily because they aren't among the top "global players" in industry. Sure, they have some big-name corporations (AKA. Nokia), but that's more an exception than a rule. While they're struggling for growth of the Lego toy company, other countries are cranking out automobiles and heavy industrial goods. It's sort of an apples vs. oranges debate.
I think you'll always see a drop in employee loyalty when the number of companies to work for increases. Countries with more choices have to work harder to keep loyalty up, or alternately, choose not to worry about it - and go for more of a "revolving door" approach of "use 'em up and spit 'em out when they get unproductive".
Re:Slander (Score:3, Insightful)
your apprasal of the scandinavian countries is laughable... so they aren't cranking out automobiles ?
oh, apart from,
Volvo
Saab
Skoda
of whice the first two are popular imports in the USA.
They also make aircraft, Ships, etc, so don't go around thinking they don't have heavy industries.
their big name corporations aren't the exception at all, more so considering their relative size and such like.
Not only are they rich comfortable safe nations to live in, they don't feel the need to sacrifice everyone one of their personal freedoms to the altar of big business.
the fact is, countries with gigantic heavy industries are usually pretty awful to live in. Who makes most of the worlds cars and technology. it's poorly paid workers in tiger economies and poor regions.
If being a 'global player', means you have to live with reduced freedoms, for the benifit of the nation overall... doesn't that sound a bit like communism ?
unchecked, freemarket Capitalism has a tendency to end up being a collection of communistic organisations (businesses) working in a free market. To the individual eventually the isn't much difference, they are still working for a greater whole for a set reward, expected to put an organisation before themselves. It's not that bad yet in places like the states and the UK,
but check places like the intel Fabs in the tiger economies, and you get an idea of where this sort of blind corporatism leads you.
still, i guess it's sort of cool for those of use who want to live in a neuromancer/snow crash style world
Re:Slander (Score:3, Insightful)
I can agree with Communism/Socialism being on the left-hand side of the equation, but the right-hand side would probably be anarchy, not capitalism. (After all, wouldn't you say that a state of anarchy is the ultimate in lack of govt. control of any kind, and every person acting completely on their own to achieve whatever goals he/she wishes?)
You seem to be describing the difference between fascism (heavy government control) and Anarchy/Libertarianism(no government control). Communism as an ideal is more of an economic strategy than a control thing - don't confuse the idea of trying to allocate based on need with the soviet attempt at communism.
As an aside, I think the main reason Communism doesn't work is that ignores human nature. People want to better themselves and improve their lot. They also tend to operate in the short term; this leads to the conclusion that if working more leads to no more benefit (because your need doesn't change to reflect the increased production), then you probably won't.
Perhaps not? (Score:2)
Actually, I recommend that you not talk too bluntly even then. Remember, you're going to want good references.
In an employer-employee discussion, all the aces are with the employer. With that kind of power imbalence, it may not be wise to do something to offend the (fill in your favorite adjective).
And even before this decision, the cards were stacked in favor of the employer, even after the employment has been terminated.
.
We have a right to talk (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We have a right to talk (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is an alienable right (Score:3, Insightful)
The danger is when employees are forced to sign documents which they otherwise might not, simply because the other three guys who interviewed for the job were willing to sign it. This is increasingly common, the only good solution to this problem is either to prevent employers from discriminating against those who won't sign certain types of NDA (just as they can't discriminate against people on the basis of their sex or race), or to educate people such that nobody will accept signing an over-broad NDA (the former is more realistic).
Article is weak.. (Score:2)
Basically, yes, employers don't durn a blind eye to online badmouthing anymore.
Hello!!! If you make shit up and start making wild accusations at your former employer, especially if you do it in hundreds of forums and via spamming people... of COURSE they are going to do something. It amounts to you launching a negative PR campaign against them.
If you can back up everything you say, you have nothing to worry about.
35,000 emails (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:35,000 emails (Score:2)
Spam isn't illegal
Harrassment is, and it doesn't much matter how you do it.
There's a fine line... (Score:2, Interesting)
I worked for AOL! :-P (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:USENET saved and now this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:USENET saved and now this? (Score:3, Funny)
But then what do they end up with? A group of robot employees who don't think for themselves. This can't be good for any company.
You've never worked in retail, have you?
Re:USENET saved and now this? (Score:2)
IMHO, one of the problems with our society, and with our planet is that people don't use their brains. Imagine how history would have been different if a few people in Germany had questioned their leaders in the 1930s. (To cite the most extreme example)
Good or bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
If people are badmouthing a company and the company decides to take action, then you just have to make sure that you can prove what you're saying...
How is this either
Think, people - it may be the only way to get some of these gripes to be provable.
If, on the other hand, you are genuinely offensively libeling(?) either a company or an individual in the company, don't they have rights to defend themselves?
As always, I think it comes down to how the laws are applied. And that's where I get really scared for my liberties...
Re:Good or bad? (Score:2)
But... it's not libel or slander if it's true!
Re:Good or bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this either
a bad thing
different to the current laws of libel (remember, it's not slander; it's written)
What you just stated is quite different from current laws of libel. Here's a brief summary from some random site called tje Libel Defense Resource Center [ldrc.com] that seems more or less accurate:
The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In general, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent, that he failed to act with due care in the situation.
That's a fairly significant difference-- the plaintiff has to show that the statement is false, and at the very least that you should have known it was false.
The instances in the article are particularly egregious, and involve a lot of spamming and so on. Whether or not that was material to the case, I'm sure it didn't help their standing with the judge or jury.
Re:Good or bad? (Score:2)
How is this either 1) a bad thing
I'll give my answer, but it's from a weird point of view.
As always, I think it comes down to how the laws are applied. And that's where I get really scared for my liberties...
I'm glad you said that; maybe it'll make my weird point of view seem less weird. First of all, I have to say this: in high school history class, when I first heard the example the courts gave of shouting "Fire," in a crowded theater as evidence that you obviously couldn't have no restrictions on speech, I trembled.
Seems to me even many who are practically libertarians still accept this example without question. I just don't like the thought that courts think there are implicit limitations to free speech and that they are the ones to make those limitations explicit.
So, yes, I think it's bad to have to prove your speech true before it can be free. We don't require those Scientology nuts to prove their stuff true.
Re:Good or bad? (Score:2)
Re:Good or bad? (Score:2)
Vicious lies? (Score:3)
Well, what if what someone was writing was in fact true? Why can't they just state up front that they're protecting shareholder value, which everything ultimately comes down to? Whether or not something is true, they don't want to anger/upset/educate the current employees, because they fear the repercussions (especially if what is sent is truthful).
Surprise! Internet is not special (Score:5, Insightful)
It's rather frightening to realize that there are people who only obey the law or social norms because they are too lazy to do otherwise until internet makes it easy.
Re:Surprise! Internet is not special (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually people don't have that kind of time to waste standing on a street corner, but they have some time to make a web page that says that
Now, if somebody is up there saying that their boss was on crack at work, and it wasn't true, that's another story..
Re:Surprise! Internet is not special (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but it WOULD be wrong if you stood out front and said that they were homophobes, or discriminated against women, and it WAS NOT TRUE. Just like it would be illegal for your employer to post on the front of their web site that you were fired for peddling kiddie porn via corporate servers, and were really just laid off because the company was running out of money.
The street works both ways. Neither of theirs are cases in which someone was out there spreading the truth in a journalistic intent, these cases are merely sophomoric harassment, and garner no protection under our laws.
Re:Surprise! Internet is not special (Score:4, Insightful)
It's rather frightening that things protected by the first amendment can be made illegal. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
It's also kind of frightening that leaflets, newspapers, and megaphones today seem to be legally limited only to large corporations, and the medium with the most promise of letting the average citizen compete on an even footing is being unlawfully restrained in this manner.
Re:Surprise! Internet is not special (Score:5, Insightful)
Trouble is, the net isn't exactly like any of those things. It's a little like printing leaflets; it's a little like a conversation in a pub; it's a little like newspapers; it's a little like a coffee morning; it's a little like chatting to the queue at the supermarket; it's a little like carving your name on a tree; and it's a lot like something completely new.
So you can't just apply every existing law you like to it willy-nilly. Some existing laws will still be appropriate; some will best be applicable after modification; and some won't work well at all.
And then there's the problem of jurisdiction. If we here in the UK pass laws governing net use, will you in the USA abide by them? Thought not. But of course we'll need to abide by your laws, won't we...
And it gets more complicated. Who has jurisdiction if a German citizen visits Finland, dials into an Irish ISP, connects to a web site hosted in Mexico and uploads some dodgy stuff that's then downloaded by an American in Paris?...
Lying truths (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting. So these employees are spreading 'vicious lies' that contain actual 'confidential company information'. Perhaps they're spreading 'vicious truths'?
Nick
There isn't an easy answer... (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that I will probably get slammed for this, but I am not sure that the article is really fair about most of the situations it's discussing. The case of the Intel employee emailing his grievances over and over to all the employees at Intel is a fine example. I don't see that what he was doing was any different than any other spammer, nor did some of the people who work there.
It's tough when people take advantage of anonymous posting to state things that they'd never be allowed to in print, since they'd be immediately sued for libel. There is no easy answer, of course, but companies should be able to stop truly libelous statements, and they should also be able to stop idiots like the Intel spammer. At least, they should be able to answer the detractors in the same public forum that the libel was stated.
I'd still rather see them able to just interleave the supposed libel with truth, which seems fair enough, rather than exposing anonymous posters. I truly prefer to protecct anonymity, even when abused, as some folk do, so that those few who truly need it will still find it available.
Re:There isn't an easy answer... (Score:2)
If an employee sent out emails using the corporate email system, then those are company resources. It's no different than me printing out hundreds of flyers protesting something at the workplace on the company's copier, using the company's own paper supplies.
If I did such a thing, I think I'd have good reason to believe the company would take legal action against me. If nothing else, merely for misusing company property.
If this Intel guy only emailed people on their home Internet accounts, it might be a little different story.
Hard cases make bad law. (Score:2)
Unfortunately courts have a tendency to decide in the same way that courts have previously decided. And generalizations from these cases would be vile indeed. We can hope that this won't happen, but recent history does not give cause for us to expect great things. Power is being centralized. It doesn't matter which party is in, they just emphaise things differently. They both act to centralize power and they don't overturn that acts of the prior party which also centralized power.
I'm not always sure that conscious evil is involved. I'm certain of the long term effects.
.
Who's liable for AC? (Score:4, Insightful)
"It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd,
That's a pretty funny quote, considering that the most legally interesting First Amendment cases are ones that involve libel (vicious lies). That aside, you have to wonder who's liable for AC postings once the forum has "forgotten" the poster's identity. Say I run a weblog, and someone posts something deeply libelous to my weblog anonymously, and I don't keep access logs, or delete them within a few weeks. Am I now responsible for the comments because I've forgotten the poster's identity?
If so, then that is going to affect... Slashdot.
If not, then every weblog in the world should stop tracking poster's information to spare themselves the legal hassle.
Another quote that bothered me:
The court ruled Hamidi's e-mails basically amounted to trespassing.
"We were very pleased. Our view is that this was the equivalent of spam,"
Well, which is it? Trespassing is illegal, and spam isn't, except in California, and certainly not in this court. If email is trespassing, how do you ask permission to send email? His email didn't even meet California's standard for spam because he wasn't trying to sell anything, and it wasn't libel because no one, not even Intel, says that we was lying.
If you can trespass with E-mail, we're going to be living in very uncertain times. Or perhaps the lesson is merely: don't mess with corporations, they bend the law to their will.
Re:Who's liable for AC? (Score:2, Funny)
HA so it was you! FOOL!
Re:Who's liable for AC? (Score:2)
Well, which is it? Trespassing is illegal, and spam isn't, except in California
It's both. They were referring to earlier cases where courts found that spam is trespassing. As it turns out, spam is illegal under existing Common Law - it's just a lot harder to exercise that than it is to say "here's the statute that says you owe me $500".
Public vs. private (Score:2)
If the URL is cryptic, then it's private, e.g.: http://www.foo.net/203e29be2c571dabb41f651fdcc103/
But if it's easier to guess? What if Mike describes his experience on angrymike.com? And what if it's veryveryangrymike2002.com? Is it the number of visitors that matters?
Re:Public vs. private (Score:2)
I'd say it's the minute someone else links to it. That's the way the web was intended in the beginning: the collection of all the documents you could get to "from here." Freenet's sort of the same way right now.
The minute something is linked to by someone else, it can be crawled by google, altavista, and so on.
Interestingly, the first amendment doesn't seem to recognize a difference between public and private. :)
What about badmouthing /. (Score:4, Funny)
Not about first amendment? (Score:2)
"It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd, a lawyer for printCafe, ... . "It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."
What part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" don't you understand?
Re:Not about first amendment? (Score:2)
Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with it.
Not too scary so far... (Score:2)
The difference between slander and libel (Score:2, Informative)
1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
v. tr.
To utter a slander about.
v. intr.
To utter or spread slander.
1.
a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
b. The act of presenting such material to the public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
Fearmongering for Fun and Profit (Score:5, Interesting)
All this article means is that people in general are taking the Internet more seriously and those who abuse it for personal gain are more likely to get nailed for it. Sending 35,000 messages of a potentially libellous nature is not the same as putting up a personal opinion on a website. So is making outrageous claims based on hearsay or completely lacking in evidence.
Yes, there is sometimes a fine line between simply venting a personal opinion and libel. I don't see anything in this article that says Free Speech is in danger. Getting your panties in a bunch over this when there are far more real threats out there is folly.
We now return your knees to their previously un-jerked position.
Re:Fearmongering for Fun and Profit (Score:2)
It's USA Today. Their biggest gift to journalism is the colored piechart. It's not surprising that their "articles" offer little more than a chart does; they prefer "trendspotting" to news.
I would especially like to know more about the content of the posted/mailed messages, and their veracity or lack thereof. I'd like to know were the email addresses on Intel's servers, as the article seems to suggest? Were all messages/postings from each poster identical?
The article tries to spot a trend, but the cases it picks are so egregious it's hard to imagine the precedence being applied to less spectacular efforts to criticize a company. Of course, if the piece had answered a few of the above questions, we'd have a much better idea of its applicability to other situations.
Why is this surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
Corps don't like to be badmouthed. It used to be that courts by and large threw out almost ALL slander/libel suits brought by corporations, because libel and slander law by and large apply to PERSONS, not quasi-entities like a corp.
In these days of out of control litigation, those who can afford legal teams (like corps) can pretty much deny civil liberties to anyone who can't (like a laid off worker). This is because today, NO ONE has any rights unless cleared in a court...
Re:Why is this surprising? (Score:5, Interesting)
Two fine fellows posting 14,000 messages on 100 message boards is a wee bit over the top, I think. So is sending emails to over 35,000 people.
I know that it's easy to be modded up if you mention the DMCA and how corporations are buying Usia, and actually I agree and I support Mike's view, but in this case I don't think that the people involved who lost their lawsuits can entirely blame the deeper pockets of the corps they were up against. This article is sketchy at best, and laughably light on details, but the kind of lengths that these individuals went to seem ridiculously extreme.
On the other side of the coin, this quote from one of the lawyers left me very disturbed, wondering whether he was aware that he was effectively contradicting himself and believing smugly that everyone would just swallow his bullshit, or if he actually truly has no understanding of the concepts involved:
- "It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd, a lawyer for printCafe, a provider of software and Internet-based products for the print industry. "It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."
Incidentally, this case is the only one where it seems the corporation really may be out of line--only one "lambastation" is mentioned on a single website, and then there's the curious way that "officials say the postings were defamatory and a misappropriation of confidential company information", while the lawyers are harping on about vicious lies. Which is it to be, printCafe?Whistler's Mother QUOTED the writep... (Score:4, Insightful)
The writeup says,
But you know, Whistler's Mother actually just cut and pasted it from USA Today's page. No thought, no additional quote marks, no attribution to the actual writer, Stephanie Armour, just a quick dump to the submission form to get their name on the Slashdot front page.
And if you think this is off-topic, we're discussing 'online publication integrity', which would include slander, libel, plagiarism and general complaining. If people would respect each others rights, and don't take the lazy or litigious way through life, then we'd actually get somewhere.
Re:Whistler's Mother QUOTED the writep... (Score:2)
While I agree he should have added some sort of indication that what he submitted was a quote, his own comments? Maybe he hadn't settled on a reaction. The authors name? He used three sentences which were only written to pique the readers interest, the same purpose they were used for on the front page. Anti-plagiarism is fine, but I think going so far as requiring the author to be cited on the front page when only a few words of their work was used, and especially when theres a link to the full story, is a little ridiculous.
quick dump to the submission form to get their name on the Slashdot front page
Who are you to judge his motivations? Have you ever tried submitting to Slashdot? The chances your story will get posted are pretty slim, I seriously doubt he could've predicted they'd post this story. I think you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill. (I see a Groucho quote coming)
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Spamming 35k messages at Intel employees is not the same as saying Intel sucks, even if the message is Intel sucks. Posting 14000 messages on a message board is not the same as say walking around with a sign in front of the company.
The size of the response, even if it was technology enabled (ie, bot generated) does cross the line from being a 'Free Speech' to harassment.
If it was five or six messages that got these people in hot water then we have an issue, but let's face it, they were being vendictive online, and it got them in trouble.
Who has the right to sue? (Score:2)
This is an issue for the various boards amd the coworkers(though the latter might be a little iffy since it might involve servers owned by intel). But if the board owners doesn't mind that there is someone posting obnoxious messages on their respective message boards repeatedly then there is no issue. End of story.
Maybe IT is the wrong field after all... (Score:2, Insightful)
One libertarian's view (Score:3, Interesting)
OTOH, if you're fired, and you use the corporate network to send out 3500 e-mails, that IS trespass, no matter how you look at it.
We have to address these issues the same was as if you had posted an article in a newspaper (or a classified ad?).
If its slanderous or libelous, there SHOULD be warranted repercussions against the "poster." But if the poster can back up his information with fact (or if its an opinion, parody, or other 1st Amendment protected speech), I don't see how anyone has a right to prevent it.
I am up in the air about the whole "right to know" who posted an article. It doesn't make sense to me where in the Constitution it gives anyone the right to know who is passing out information... I do believe we are protected to say anything we want to as long as we aren't libelous or slanderous, and even in those situations I think the speaker has been infringed more than anyone else with these excessive 1st Amendment infringing laws.
Remember, the Bill of Rights doesn't give ANYONE a single right -- it prohibits the Government from taking away these rights. It should have been called the Bill of Prohibitions.
after reading the article (gasp!)... (Score:2)
While I do think the cases of people getting in trouble for over-posting crosses the line of first amendment, I feel the case of the former Intel employee was justified because he was harassing Intel directly and stealing the services their email systems provided.
The article also focuses on anonymous posting, which I see as a Good Thing (tm) when used correctly (eg - whistle blowing), but is just as easy a bad thing because it opens the door for things like competitors posing as former employees and post damaging stuff about the competition. For example, while this example problably wont happen -- Ford is about to lay off 20,000 people, GM could pose as former Ford employees and forge some nasty stuff about Ford to gain ground on them.
Taubman Sucks (Score:2)
http://www.Taubman-Sucks.com/ [taubman-sucks.com]
http://www.giffordkrassgrohsprinklesucks.com/ [giffordkra...esucks.com]
He was forced to take down his original site (www.taubmansucks.com) which described in full detail, including court documents, the legal battle ensuing when a big corporation forced him to take down another web site he had produced.
Re:Taubman Sucks (Score:2)
That's probably what initially angered the judge... likely saw this guy as trying to cash in on the domain name "gold rush".
Still, I see no excuse for what happened to him after that.
Indeed... (Score:2, Funny)
OK,
- B
Simple (Score:2)
1. True
2. Not protected by a NDA or the like.
The threat of legal action is the biggest problem (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's where the problem lies. The threat.
Corporations know if they sue you in some district court in California, odds are you aren't going to even be able to show up to represent yourself, much less hire legal counsel to do it for you and fight a protracted battle against highly-paid corprate lawyers.
So, a letter to a website or software project leader can be as effective as a trial, because the assumption is, you are too poor to shell out tens of thousands of dollars in expenses to fight to protect your freedom of speech. Because 99.999% of the time, it is obvious to anyone that the company in question has virtually no basis for their allegiations and the potential lawsuit would be totally frivilous, yet they hold this enormous power over people with few financial resources to fight a court battle that they shouldn't even be dragged into in the first place.
Corporations use this as a weapon against all who oppose them. Piss them off....and a letter from their legal department will follow. It costs them a few dollars to have their guys fill out a form letter and post it and it protects their precious company image from all of those who wish to exercise their rights as human beings to present crticism, satire and counterpoint to the multibillion dollar PR juggernauts these companies run.
It's sick, it's sad, but there is little you can do.
But one thing you can try, is to pick out any errors in their threats. Run it by someone who knows about legal procedure. Do they say you are barred from revealing the contents of the legal threat to anyone else? (to protect their image, no doubt). Well, fuck them. Unless they have a court order, there is no way they can impose such terms on you. Did you sign an agreement with them? No? Then let people know what they are doing. Write a letter to their state bar assoication's ethics department. Do this every single time for any **valid** reason you can scrounge up. Eventually, the complaints might just pile up.
It's our only hope against these tyrants.
Sad, but true.
Free Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, I know the best defense against a libel charge is that what was said is the truth. Lucent Technologies (to pick a name out of the hat) would have trouble making a libel charge stick if I were to mention that they were doing so badly for awhile that upper management wouldn't approve a ~$20 expenditure for some extension cords to relieve the fire hazard of 10 workstations chained into one 3-hole outlet.
Also, there was plenty of sofware burned onto CDs going around the company, apparently without valid licenses (although to be fair, just because the managers didn't show some of the employees valid licenses doesn't mean that none exist).
Anyway, the evidence and probable testimony from former and current employees would be enough to establish truth, and therefore nullify a libel charge. But what's defamation and how is it different?
-Legion
Re:Hey lawyers (Score:2)
According to RandomOnlineLawTextFoundInGoogleSearchResults, defamation of business is merely a specific form of libel or slander.
I found this interesting:
12. Commercial Disparagement: When tortfeasor makes false or misleading statements
about a business's goods, services, or business enterprise. Consists of disparagement of
goods, disparagement of services, disparagement of business.
And this is even more interesting, but somehow seems a like wishful thinking.
13 Defamation by Computer: When personal information about someone that is kept in a
computer database is misused or incorrect and injures the victim's reputation or ability to
obtain credit.
Ah, hell... (Score:2)
IANAL, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...these particular cases don't worry me too much. Consider:
Let's face it, folks: there is no right to anonymity. Check the Constituion if you want. It's not there. Come to think of it, there's no right to privacy either, but that's a different debate. The whole notion of rights is based on assumptions about responsible use of those rights; check Locke et al for that one. The right to free speech does not imply the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater (Oliver Wendell Holmes, I think); similarly, it does not imply the right to commit libel or breach a valid confidentiality clause in an employment contract. Non-competes might be unenforceable, but that's totally irrelevant; the validity of confidentiality as a term of any valid contract has never been seriously challenged in the courts.
Now, should employers be able to punish employees for statements made on their own time, at their own expense (if any), that are neither libelous nor a breach of confidentiality? That's a whole different question. So far the answer is no, and so far the law still recognizes that. Don't count on that lasting very long, but that's the way it is today; none of the case in the article imply otherwise. The only thing that's threatened by such precedence is the non-existent but much-presumed right to be an anonymous asshole, and the quicker people learn that they have no such right the better.
P.S. For those who are using this as an excuse to go on an anti-corporatist rant, consider this: if a company posted 14,000 defamatory messages about an employee, they'd be just as liable. The only reason we don't hear about such cases is that such behavior requires a certain level of obsession, and companies tend toward a shortage rather than an excess of attention paid to employees.
Re:IANAL, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there is, and the Supreme Court has upheld it. Freedom of speech includes the right to not be compelled to speak things one does not want to, such as one's identity. And the Constitution does not grant rights; it enumerates the specific powers of the federal government. The question should not be "does the Constitution grant individuals the right to do X" but "does the Constitution empower the government to regulate X".
Having said that, I agree with you on the particulars of these cases; people who engage in spamming or violate their contractual obligations should be held accountable for their actions.
Re:IANAL, but... (Score:2)
There is not, and they have not. It's very important to distinguish between what is guaranteed by the Constitution itself, what has been upheld by legal word-twisting and precedent in the two centuries since, and what doesn't even meet that standard. The Constitution guarantees neither privacy nor anonymity. Courts have constructed a right of privacy, on pretty dubious Constitutional grounds IMO, but no specific right to anonymity has been generally accepted.
The Fifth Amendment says that people cannot be made to testify against themselves. However, interpreting that as a general right to conceal or destroy information to avoid legal responsibility would be absurd. Many people are in jail, and rightly so, for obstruction of justice because they tried that. Furthermore, the Fifth says nothing about any right of other people to avoid testimony. Your name may be revealed pursuant to a properly authorized search warrant (which is not testimony) or by other people, and the Fifth doesn't have a damn thing to do with it in either case.
Section 8 of the Constitution charges Congress - and, by extension, the government in general - to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States". To do this, they must have the power to enforce the law. Obviously, the government must respect people's rights in the enforcement of laws, but as noted previously no specific right to anonymity has gained acceptance by the courts. The laws against libel and breach of contract have been held to be Constitutional, and these particular cases do not seem to involve any abridgement of individual rights that really do exist. Legally speaking, there's nothing wrong going on in these cases. One could well make a moral or philosophical argument about the outcomes, but arguments based on a combination of "Constitution as Sacred Document" and fabrication of rights never hinted at by the Constitution are non-starters.
Re:IANAL, but... (Score:3, Informative)
There is not, and they have not.
You are wrong.
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
U.S. Supreme Court, McIntyre v. Ohio (1995).
I found this at http://www.gilc.org/speech/anonymous/.
When the going gets tough... (Score:3, Interesting)
The objectionable thing about the article is that it lumps together widespread legitimate grievances--including pregnancy discrimination, which is highly illegal and rampantly practiced -- with the blundering manner in which these fools from Intel handled their comparatively petty grievances (and the high-handed manner in which the company dealt with it--tells you something right there, doesn't it?).
Lame newspaper articles like this misrepresent how widespread serious wrongdoing on the part of employers can be successfully reduced. Yes, keeping notes on what people actually say and do, and when they say and do things, backed up by tape recordings if possible--these are extremely important. IANAL but it is legal in many states to tape someone without their knowledge--you only need the permission of *one* party to the call in certain states.
Why not tape/video managers engaging in illegal discrimination (e.g. recommending hiring and promotion decisions on the basis of a female candidate's marital status or potential for childbearing, telling racist jokes, etc.), put it up on an overseas page anonymously, and publicize its whereabouts anonymously?
Then it's not "badmouthing"--it's just letting the perpetrators of the real injustices speak for themselves.
Oh, by the way, the jurisdiction that applies in taping phone conversations is the state from which the call was made. So if you want to catch them on tape...so make the call from New York, not Maryland, eh? If Susie in marketing calls you crying that she's about to get canned because her boyfriend started beating her, and she broke up with him, but he's the Big-ass VP of somethingorother and now he wants to get rid of her because she's left him, and she's in Maryland and you're in New York? Tell her you'll call her right back, and get your tape recorder ready, because you is about to gather some EVIDENCE. Bob calls you in the NY office from Chicago and wants you to look for a replacement for Charlene "black and pregnant...AGAIN" whom you KNOW hasn't announced any intention to resign (and whom you know definitely can't *afford* to lose her programming job, which she does admirably) tell Bob, "I'll call you right back" and get out your tape recorder, because guess what? You're about to get him to incriminate himself and probably about three or four of his higher-ups.
But AAWWWW stuff like this goes on all the TIME! you say. Yeah. THAT'S THE POINT. It shouldn't.
Obviously, retaliation for objection to an unlawful practice is itself also illegal -- it will not stop them trying, however. If you've ever observed the "we've got deep pockets and you don't" yawning response large companies have to grievants, you'll realize that for every case that even gets mentioned to your union rep, hundreds of cases with merit have been quashed. Make no mistake: even the way these incidents are reported are intended to put a chilling effect on the legitimately aggrieved.
This is what they're *really* scared of: You can get more with a kind word, an incriminating tape recording and a kick-ass lawyer than you can get with just a kind word. Especially if you are able to put up an MP3 of their company's proudest moments up on the web.
So it's not about whether one loose cannon has the right to tell lies on the internet. It's whether the vast majority of the legitimately aggrieved will be empowered against companies which can and do discriminate unlawfully (and rarely even in their own best interests!). Obviously, in the face of this kind of closing ranks among the private sector, the courts, and the fourth estate, anyone attempting to face down a serious injustice needs to work smarter not harder.
Notes on Libel (Score:2, Interesting)
If the plaintiff is a public figure (and it is probably fair to say that a publicly traded corporation is), then that plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, that is, that the defendant was aware at the time of publication that the statement was false.
If the defendant is not a public figure (and some mid-level manager is probably not one), then the plaintiff must only show defamation by the defendant.
Of course, who is a public figure and who is not is a tricky point that is not well defined.
What have we learned here? (Score:3, Funny)
Lesson One: If you say something libelous, you may be liable to receive notice of a libel suit, mm-kay?
"Companies have a free hand to tout their organizations," says defendant Michelangelo Delfino. "A little guy like me comes along and says 'I disagree' or 'the CEO is ignorant,' and I'm squished. It's a free-speech issue."
Lesson Two: Disgruntled former employees seldom have nice things to say about their former employers, mm-kay?
He had sent e-mails to as many as 35,000 workers airing grievances; Intel officials say they took legal action only after asking him to stop.
Lesson Three: If you are doing something so obnoxious as spamming your former employer, stop when they ask you to, mm-kay? This is just like the rule not to pee in the pool, mm-kay, and it has nothing to do with you personally, or your grievance against your employer, mm-kay?
Saying the ruling stifled free speech, some civil libertarians predict the decision will be used by other companies that want to bar former workers from e-mailing staffers.
Lesson Four: Civil libertarians always say that, but that's a good thing, mm-kay, even when they're wrong, mm-kay? Whatever you think of their views, start worrying when you don't hear from them at all anymore on things like this, mm-kay?
"It could prevent organizing between former and current employees," says Ann Beeson, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. "They allow hundreds of non-work-related e-mail to reach employees, but they singled out this one guy."
Lesson Four: If you're a spammer, and you really want to get noticed, include libelous statements about specific individuals or organizations in your spam. Not only will your name get mentioned in the news, but your marketing message might even get shown on TV! MMMMMM-KAY!!
Very Poor Article (IMO) (Score:2, Informative)
1. Varian case: 14,000 messages is huge effort, but if the claims were both pretty hard to call one way or the other... For all we know, the manager accused of be homophobic may have been gay, or something like that. There could be something wrong there, but we weren't given enough info to tell.
2. Intel case: I may be remembering this wrong, but all Intel went after and got was a court order to stop sending e-mail. I don't think it was a lawsuit...
3. printCafe: They haven't won this case, yet. They haven't even gotten the court to tell them who it is, yet. Companies have been trying to do this all along, until they succeed (when they shouldn't), it doesn't contribute to the conclusion.
Bottom line, there is no trend to back up the article's claim, MAYBE one case...
Oh, great. (Score:4, Funny)
US Government Issues Clarification on 1st amendmnt (Score:4, Funny)
Today the US Supreme Court held an unprecedented press conference, clarifying certain important issues in the Constitution.
"After completing several years of scholarly research and deliberation, it turns out we were wrong. The First Amendment is actually all about a FREE PEACH." said head Justice William H. Rehnquist.
"So therefore," continued Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "we will be issuing no further judgements that allow anyone to say what they want." She paused to take a large noisy bite from a delicious peach and let the juice run down her chin. "Mmm, free peach." Justice Clarence Thomas nodded in agreement as he recalled the beautiful peach groves in his home town of Savannah Georgia.
"In fact, anyone who wants to say something, will have to pay us first. The highest bidder will win any case that comes before us." O'Connor added between mouthfuls. "It was quite amusing to think that we actually wasted so much time and split so many hairs on this subject before. Now the free market can work its magic."
The Supreme Court also will soon be issuing notices to all newspapers and web sites, informing them that they are now under control of the government.
Furthermore, all peach growers will be subsidized by the government, so that all citizens may enjoy their right to free peach.
Anyone criticizing these changes will be shot.
Freedom of speech is an alienable right (Score:3, Insightful)
The danger is when employees are forced to sign documents which they otherwise might not, simply because the other three guys who interviewed for the job were willing to sign it. This is increasingly common, the only good solution to this problem is either to prevent employers from discriminating against those who won't sign certain types of NDA (just as they can't discriminate against people on the basis of their sex or race), or to educate people such that nobody will accept signing an over-broad NDA (the former is more realistic).
Re:Freedom of speech is an alienable right (Score:3, Insightful)
Found references to Varian case (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, it looks like this is what you get when you take a group of kids and let them run around in the court system. IMHO, Delfino should have grown up and just walked away - when you get fired from a job, for whatever reason, it's really stupid to sue for your job back. Sue for damages, sure, but for crying out loud don't work for people that you know hate you!
The relevance to the internet is extremely minor. Most of the activity regarding this case occurred on the job, and simply dragged on in various message boards on the internet.
must be false and damaging (Score:3, Informative)
The cases sited here have been false and damaging.
Electronic communication accelerates the making of claims and discovery of prepetrators.
This seems apropos... (Score:3, Insightful)
From "Know Your Rights" by The Clash
Re:B.S. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Read Carfully before you flame (Score:2)
Re:And the problem is?? (Score:2)
I'm trying to avoid making assumptions about the case in light of how little hard info there is in the article, but the volume of the posts has nothing whatsoever to do with it being libel or slander. Which of these would most apply to the Internet, anyway? Email sounds more like slander, message board like libel....