3 ms·
> The names have been changed to protect the innocent and guilty. Assuming the writer is as scrupulously honest as they seem to be, how legally exposed would t
by foxylad 10y ago
> The names have been changed to protect the innocent and guilty.
Assuming the writer is as scrupulously honest as they seem to be, how legally exposed would they be in actually naming names? And assuming they are exposed, are astute commenters who use clues from the article to reveal the company also liable?
It seems to me that it would be a HUGE public good to name the names. Employees and investors absolutely need the right to know about the people doing this; being able to safely expose them would go a long way to stopping such scum.
- pyre 10y agoThey might open themselves up to lawsuits. Even if they will win the lawsuits, that's a money/time sink to deal with.
- readitmeow 10y agoIs it still libel or defamation if it's all true?
- ceejayoz 10y agoNo, but that's not the point. Not everyone has $50k and the time to fight a libel/defamation suit.
- readitmeow 10y agoTrue, but the alternative is letting people like this get away just because they have power and/or money. Tough situation to be in.
- k-mcgrady 10y agoNot really. She left enough clues that people on HN could figure it all out pretty quickly. Seems like a good middle ground to exposing them but protecting yourself.
- dalke 10y agoCalifornia has a broad anti-SLAPP law that would keep this from costing $50K. She would likely win attorney fees as well. IANAL.
- overcast 10y agoThat acronym should really not exist.
- hamish-donovon 10y agoWhat's wrong with SLAPP?
- dalke 10y agoI assumed it was a problem with IANAL.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Is it still libel or defamation if it's all true? No, but that's part of what would be at issue in a lawsuit.
- jtfairbank 10y agoInstead of getting into specifics, would simply listing them as "someone I would never work with again" suffice? If enough people do this then the specifics don't really matter... the warning sign is clear. This seems to avoid the defamation issue because it is a personal statement (about yourself / your thoughts) instead of a statement about them. They could still sue you for defamation, but hopefully you could get it thrown out early at a low cost?
- pyre 10y agoI'm not a lawyer, but I would assume that even that could be grounds for someone to file a lawsuit. I would like to believe that a judge wouldn't let that get very far, but if the person tried to claim material losses due to (e.g.) not being able to find work "due to your comments" then you might have to sit out a trial or settle.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Assuming the writer is as scrupulously honest as they seem to be, how legally exposed would they be in actually naming names? Anyone involved who wanted to claim that the negative portrayals (of which there are plenty) were false and caused economic harm -- both individuals and the company as a company -- could file libel claims for the damages caused. Even if no liability was actually found in the end, the cost of fighting the lawsuits could be significant. > And assuming they are exposed, are astute commenters who use clues from the article to reveal the company also liable? Its harder to see liability there, though its not impossible that someone could try to make a case.
- rhizome 10y agoThey would have to specify which statements are libelous.