5 ms·
They might open themselves up to lawsuits. Even if they will win the lawsuits, that's a money/time sink to deal with.
by pyre 10y ago
They 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.