3 ms·

This is a very dangerous game to play. I'd bet that there is more to this story than meets the eye, as there almost always is. There's always another side to th

This is a very dangerous game to play. I'd bet that there is more to this story than meets the eye, as there almost always is. There's always another side to the story. And in the case that this does end up as a lawsuit, name-and-shame could open the door to a much bigger case.

pc86 10y ago
Which means it's important for the person doing the naming and shaming to be sure that they're not telling any lies and not breaking any laws. I don't mean to imply that you should start tweeting vitriol as you walk out of the meeting, only that it's important that people be held to account for their actions, particularly when it involves threatening others with lawsuits and trying to extort money. On the flip side, we should view any article talking about "Investor A" v. "Investor B" as at best half the story and view it as suspect when someone doesn't name the firm outright.
logfromblammo 10y ago
In the US, in cases of libel or slander, the truth shall be sufficient defense. In Europe, you may be better off not saying anything defamatory, even if it is true. Either way, it may be best to couch the story in terms of "I recall that X did Y, and at the time, I felt that it was grossly inappropriate," rather than "X did Y, and is a complete jerk."
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > In the US, in cases of libel or slander, the truth shall be sufficient defense. Technically, truth isn't a defense, falsity is an element of the prima facie case for defamation in the US (this may seem pedantic, but its important as regards where the initial burden of proof lies.)
- drivingmenuts 10y ago
  > In Europe, you may be better off not saying anything defamatory, even if it is true. That makes no damn sense. How could the truth be considered defamatory? It's real, it's fact.
  - pc86 10y ago
    It's Europe. From an American mindset, many European laws seem some combination of draconian, incomprehensible, and/or ridiculous. Bring up any discussion surrounding American law and you're sure to see the same sentiment coming the other direction as well. They are two very different legal contexts.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      Consider that people in the territories now controlled by the U.S. and Mexico were willing to murder thousands of Europeans in bloody gun battles, in order to escape their governance. And then, when building their own confederation and federation governments, they debated at length on how to avoid the sort of legal foundations that inevitably lead to laws that are draconian, incomprehensible, and/or ridiculous. Unfortunately, history suggests that such laws arise not because the legal foundations are flawed, but because humans are sometimes authoritarian, illogical, or insane, and the laws are little more than the trails left as such people pass through the circles of power. In my opinion, New World laws are only more sensible than Old World laws (on average) because they have spent less time accumulating cruft. But look at how hard the U.S. federal and state legislators work to catch up!

pc86 10y ago

Which means it's important for the person doing the naming and shaming to be sure that they're not telling any lies and not breaking any laws. I don't mean to imply that you should start tweeting vitriol as you walk out of the meeting, only that it's important that people be held to account for their actions, particularly when it involves threatening others with lawsuits and trying to extort money. On the flip side, we should view any article talking about "Investor A" v. "Investor B" as at best half the story and view it as suspect when someone doesn't name the firm outright.

logfromblammo 10y ago

In the US, in cases of libel or slander, the truth shall be sufficient defense. In Europe, you may be better off not saying anything defamatory, even if it is true. Either way, it may be best to couch the story in terms of "I recall that X did Y, and at the time, I felt that it was grossly inappropriate," rather than "X did Y, and is a complete jerk."

dragonwriter 10y ago
> In the US, in cases of libel or slander, the truth shall be sufficient defense. Technically, truth isn't a defense, falsity is an element of the prima facie case for defamation in the US (this may seem pedantic, but its important as regards where the initial burden of proof lies.)
drivingmenuts 10y ago
> In Europe, you may be better off not saying anything defamatory, even if it is true. That makes no damn sense. How could the truth be considered defamatory? It's real, it's fact.
- pc86 10y ago
  It's Europe. From an American mindset, many European laws seem some combination of draconian, incomprehensible, and/or ridiculous. Bring up any discussion surrounding American law and you're sure to see the same sentiment coming the other direction as well. They are two very different legal contexts.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Consider that people in the territories now controlled by the U.S. and Mexico were willing to murder thousands of Europeans in bloody gun battles, in order to escape their governance. And then, when building their own confederation and federation governments, they debated at length on how to avoid the sort of legal foundations that inevitably lead to laws that are draconian, incomprehensible, and/or ridiculous. Unfortunately, history suggests that such laws arise not because the legal foundations are flawed, but because humans are sometimes authoritarian, illogical, or insane, and the laws are little more than the trails left as such people pass through the circles of power. In my opinion, New World laws are only more sensible than Old World laws (on average) because they have spent less time accumulating cruft. But look at how hard the U.S. federal and state legislators work to catch up!