4 ms·

It doesn't matter whose business it is, the BBC still can't use communication between you and the BBC to interfere in a relationship you have with your employer

by nsnick 9y ago

It doesn't matter whose business it is, the BBC still can't use communication between you and the BBC to interfere in a relationship you have with your employer that is illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

wcummings 9y ago
It's not really between you and the BBC, it's not private correspondence, it's a public post.
- npiazza83 9y ago
  Its A) codified into a business contract, not the actions of a private individual B) the use of private metadata and C) the stipulation that BBC is the enforcement mechanism that is problematic here. Otherwise the BBC would quickly find that when they are late paying the contractors who work on their website their credit cards mysteriously get charged for the services rendered.
Veen 9y ago
An analogy I have in mind might help. Say I write book arguing that a marginalized group are in fact responsible for all the evils in society. A publisher chooses to publish that book. Someone decides to send my boss a copy of the book and I get fired. Do I have cause to sue the sender for tortious interference? I don't know what the status of private communications with the BBC would be in this regard, but if you're using their platform to publish, then I think that my argument holds.
- AcerbicZero 9y ago
  IANAL, but as I understand it, in that situation you would not have grounds to sue the sender. However, if the publisher you sent the book to publishs it, then goes to your boss with the intent of getting you in trouble and/or fired, you might have something to sue over.
- npiazza83 9y ago
  The court treats the actions of individuals on a case by case basis. Your analogy breaks down when codified into a business contract. By stipulating a course of action that may cause real financial harm. Even if they were to stipulate fines or other remedies in response to perceived financial harm on their part the enforcement of such penalties is not their responsibility. They have taken enforcement powers away from the government. Think of it like this: If I'm a web developer and I haven't received payment for my services I can withhold those services or even retain control of the product I am providing or use the courts to enforce the contract, but if I used the client's credit card info to enforce fines and pay myself I have broken the law regardless of whether I put it in the contract.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
oliwarner 9y ago
This does depend on the scenario. If the abuse it's coming from a corporate network, from an employee, the employer is getting contacted. They are legally responsible for both. If it's somebody posting from home in their own time, dobbing them in seems a bit weird. How do they know who I work for?

by nsnick 9y ago

wcummings 9y ago

It's not really between you and the BBC, it's not private correspondence, it's a public post.

npiazza83 9y ago
Its A) codified into a business contract, not the actions of a private individual B) the use of private metadata and C) the stipulation that BBC is the enforcement mechanism that is problematic here. Otherwise the BBC would quickly find that when they are late paying the contractors who work on their website their credit cards mysteriously get charged for the services rendered.

Veen 9y ago

An analogy I have in mind might help. Say I write book arguing that a marginalized group are in fact responsible for all the evils in society. A publisher chooses to publish that book. Someone decides to send my boss a copy of the book and I get fired. Do I have cause to sue the sender for tortious interference? I don't know what the status of private communications with the BBC would be in this regard, but if you're using their platform to publish, then I think that my argument holds.

AcerbicZero 9y ago
IANAL, but as I understand it, in that situation you would not have grounds to sue the sender. However, if the publisher you sent the book to publishs it, then goes to your boss with the intent of getting you in trouble and/or fired, you might have something to sue over.
npiazza83 9y ago
The court treats the actions of individuals on a case by case basis. Your analogy breaks down when codified into a business contract. By stipulating a course of action that may cause real financial harm. Even if they were to stipulate fines or other remedies in response to perceived financial harm on their part the enforcement of such penalties is not their responsibility. They have taken enforcement powers away from the government. Think of it like this: If I'm a web developer and I haven't received payment for my services I can withhold those services or even retain control of the product I am providing or use the courts to enforce the contract, but if I used the client's credit card info to enforce fines and pay myself I have broken the law regardless of whether I put it in the contract.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

oliwarner 9y ago

This does depend on the scenario. If the abuse it's coming from a corporate network, from an employee, the employer is getting contacted. They are legally responsible for both. If it's somebody posting from home in their own time, dobbing them in seems a bit weird. How do they know who I work for?