10 ms·

Defamation lawsuit over “Shitty Media Men” spreadsheet could break new ground

73 points by danso 8y ago

lykr0n 8y ago
I'm all for freedom of speech, but I believe it is unbelievable shitty for someone to publish a list of unsubstantiated allegations anonymously. Legally, I think Google has every right to stand in the way of this lawsuit, but morally and ethically I don't believe so. It's just like people posting pictures on Reddit to start witch-hunts and whatever you call what 4chan does. If you're going to accuse someone, you harm yourself and case if you do not stand up. The one exception would be if you go to a newspaper/site, they do their due diligence, and backup your claims.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- larkeith 8y ago
  > this list was privately circulated One user published a private correspondence. Sure, that was shitty on that person's end, but nothing done by the other contributors is wrong, unless you consider talking to a colleague about your (alleged) experiences a public accusation.
  - CodeWriter23 8y ago
    Our legal system utilizes “Terms of Art” to eliminate ambiguity in speech. For example, you seem to imply if a conversation is “invite only”, it was not “published”. A quick look at a Term of Art dictionary indicates that in a defamation case, disclosure to a single party may constitute publication. So the scope of the defamation cause of action is not necessarily limited to a single participant. Anyone who put forth false information may also be liable. It’s like the article says, one of the questions is, what defines publication. https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/publish.html https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/publish.html
    - larkeith 8y ago
      I did not know this. I guess this is much more relevant in the era of the internet, where conversations are both permanent and third-party hosted - previously, any similar discussion would take place either in person (and be infeasible to publish, given it would be only an account of a talk) or via mail, which, while I suppose would have the same risks, I imagine would still be difficult to sue for - before the advent of copying machines any letters would be a handmade copy of the original, very disposable, document.
      - CodeWriter23 8y ago
        "NOTE: For purposes of defamation, a defamatory communication made to only one third party may be considered published." That doesn't really get into what kind of medium is used or if any buttons that say "Publish" were pushed in the process.
    - Retric 8y ago
      may is a very critical caveat to that definition.
      - CodeWriter23 8y ago
        Right. And that’s going to turn based on how published cases (aka citeable) on publication and defamation have been decided and are argued by the attorneys. It probably all hinges on the potential damage to the plaintiff, and how the subpoena would help the plaintiff pursue their case. If there’s an audit trail that can pin down who typed which line in the spreadsheet, the subpoena would likely be limited to the persons saying things that allegedly defame the plaintiff. But if not, I can see the argument that everyone who participated needs to be deposed to discover who made the statements about the plaintiff. There is some nuance to how the doc was shared (link vs. invitation vs. login required). It’s likely the discovery will be filed under seal to protect those disclosing truthful statements. It may also turn out a special master is appointed to decide who gets to see what portions of the discovery. Or the subpoena could be quashed.
- geofft 8y ago
  I think if you are for freedom of speech, this is exactly the sort of speech to disagree with and yet defend. This was a list of people not to work with, not a list of people to actively go after and harass. The list was not maintained by people with government or industry power. A world where you can't speak to others unless it's either a popular idea or a media organization will vouch for your speech is one where individuals don't actually have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not going to be good for everyone. It will hurt people. It will cause people to believe things without hearing all sides of the story. It will allow a lie to travel halfway around the world before the truth puts it pants on. We want freedom of speech despite all this risk, because we believe it has a power to improve society in a way that simply cannot be done by a censor that makes sure that all speech is good for society in its eyes.
  - lykr0n 8y ago
    Freedom of Speech is a great idea, but we constantly draw lines around the idea. I strongly believe you should be able to say something I don't like, you should be able to be critical of the powers that be, but I think in the next few years we're going to see a strong discussion in the US of outlawing willful dissemination of false information. With the advance of tools like Deep Fakes, outrage culture, and the general uptick of "Fake News" we're going to run into this issue. Stuff like this is a precursor I think. As much as I believe that people should be able to speak their mind, I don't believe people should have legal protection of spreading false information. As we become more interconnected, the risks become too great. I'll defend freedom of speech as much as I can, but I'm not going to defend the ability for someone to lie or make false claims they know are false. I think you'd change your tune if I took your public information and added it to this list. Maybe you wouln't notice, but I would be mad as hell if this happened to me. Based on what I found of you, I could write up a Medium with information I got from your website and a bit of research on MIT's website saying that nobody should work with you for X or Y because of what you did in College. I'm not calling for anybody to harass you, but it would be a stain on your reputation. In this case, I believe you should be able to sue me or Medium in order to find out who is making these claims against you.
    - 8y ago
olivermarks 8y ago
I think the Bill Cosby allegations, accusations and trial are somewhat relevant to this contextually. Putting aside (if you can) what Cosby was accused of, the trial by media and widespread publicity of accuser allegations and claims over a multi year, two trial period was a disaster for legal credibility IMO. "“The ability to find evidence that can support a defense 20 years later — it’s an almost insurmountable task,” said Nina J. Ginsberg, a criminal defense lawyer in Virginia who has handled a number of sexual assault cases. “Having these really long statutes of limitations where it makes it virtually impossible to disprove what the victim is saying is grossly unfair,” she added. “Just from the defense attorney’s perspective, it’s disabling.” http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-gloria-allred-famous-cases-20151113-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-gloria-allred-... With historical sexual allegations a powerful weapon in politics, business and for financial gain, the accused are increasingly defenseless and accused is the new guilty. I'm not defending 'shitty men' or Bill Cosby here, I'm saying the legal system is a mess and that careers and credibility are destroyed during the witch hunt whether found guilty or not. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proved guilty' and the accused's rights to privacy?
- harlanji 8y ago
  My life has been destroyed by a baseless corporate accusation of misconduct. I used the bitch-word toward a woman, and the story morphed into me flying off into a drunken rage while I was out of the office for a funeral. The story stuck and I'm now homeless. By the time I went to legal counsel realizing the extent of the damages, ironically, the statute of limitations of one year had already closed. And on the street I remain, until I can gain employment and credibility again. I'd actually welcome an assault case or anything to shed light onto the situation... because I'm effectively being treated as guilty of assault.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I'm sorry you're homeless, that sucks. Can you help me better understand what happened here, though? Because it sounds like you called a coworker a bitch and was fired over it, and now can't get a recommendation from that job... In which case, can you understand why people might have a hard time sympathizing with your situation? Seems the results would be the same whether or not the story morphed.
larkeith 8y ago
The idea that, because a single user broke confidence and published a private correspondence, the real identities of each contributor might be exposed is, quite frankly, horrifying to me. While it might, possibly, be reasonable to accuse that member only of defamation, the access requested is far too broad. If this suit is successful, it will set a chilling precedent: That no conversation on the Internet may be considered legally private, and that any negative conversations may run the risk of a lawsuit-enforced doxxing.
- komali2 8y ago
  This is the primary reason I oppose government agents having routine access to citizen phones. People that send me documents and pictures presumably sent them in confidence.
- mpweiher 8y ago
  Huh? There is a simple solution: don't widely distribute content that's actionable. And yes, there is no privacy for criminal acts ("we just shared this child porn privately, it's none of your business" doesn't really fly...)
  - larkeith 8y ago
    > don't widely distribute content that's actionable This is a strange argument to apply to the first few users, sharing a document with one or two friends. I should have been more clear: Legally private as opposed to publicly published, not as in private from the law.
    - sverige 8y ago
      Well, it was put up on a server accessible to lots of people. How is that legally private?
      - larkeith 8y ago
        ...which is why it seems reasonable to sue the user who circulated the list publicly. However, there should be no difference between an actual document, published to a public forum, and an entirely fictitious one published to the same - all authors excepting the one who published it should be irrelevant.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Rainymood 8y ago
Remember that time when Reddit caught the Bonston bomber? Oh wait, yeah neither do I.
bradleyjg 8y ago
I don’t see either the first amendment or section 230 argument here. The first amendment has been held to protect anonymous speech in the sense that the government can’t ban anonymous speech or require registration in order to speak. It has not to my knowledge ever held that the ordinary civil law discovery rules must be modified because people wished to speak anonymously but did not take sufficient measures to remain anonymous. Section 230 meanwhile protects electronic publishers from being sued civilly for the what users of their services write. This is important because under defamation law one who repeats a libel is equally liable as the original speaker. There’s two possibilities that I see: a) most likely the boring traditional reasons to quash a subpoena (e.g. too burdensome) or b) as a long shot one of the journalist shield laws.
- dooglius 8y ago
  Both the first amendment and section 230 were mentioned in the article. Also, Google is not being sued here, merely being given a subpoena, so I don't see how it applies.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
grzm 8y ago
Actual title: Google to Fight Subpoena Demands Over "Shitty Media Men" Spreadsheet
cagenut 8y ago
if you're open mindedly looking for context, thecut managed to get quotes out of 5 guys on the list: https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/stephen-elliott-moira-donegan-men-respond.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/stephen-elliott-moira-donegan... and hmm daily (they're new) has a piece on the sue-er just today: https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/14/who-is-stephen-elliott/ https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/14/who-is-stephen-elliott/

73 points by danso 8y ago

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I believe it is unbelievable shitty for someone to publish a list of unsubstantiated allegations anonymously. Legally, I think Google has every right to stand in the way of this lawsuit, but morally and ethically I don't believe so. It's just like people posting pictures on Reddit to start witch-hunts and whatever you call what 4chan does. If you're going to accuse someone, you harm yourself and case if you do not stand up. The one exception would be if you go to a newspaper/site, they do their due diligence, and backup your claims.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
larkeith 8y ago
> this list was privately circulated One user published a private correspondence. Sure, that was shitty on that person's end, but nothing done by the other contributors is wrong, unless you consider talking to a colleague about your (alleged) experiences a public accusation.
- CodeWriter23 8y ago
  Our legal system utilizes “Terms of Art” to eliminate ambiguity in speech. For example, you seem to imply if a conversation is “invite only”, it was not “published”. A quick look at a Term of Art dictionary indicates that in a defamation case, disclosure to a single party may constitute publication. So the scope of the defamation cause of action is not necessarily limited to a single participant. Anyone who put forth false information may also be liable. It’s like the article says, one of the questions is, what defines publication. https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/publish.html https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/publish.html
  - larkeith 8y ago
    I did not know this. I guess this is much more relevant in the era of the internet, where conversations are both permanent and third-party hosted - previously, any similar discussion would take place either in person (and be infeasible to publish, given it would be only an account of a talk) or via mail, which, while I suppose would have the same risks, I imagine would still be difficult to sue for - before the advent of copying machines any letters would be a handmade copy of the original, very disposable, document.
    - CodeWriter23 8y ago
      "NOTE: For purposes of defamation, a defamatory communication made to only one third party may be considered published." That doesn't really get into what kind of medium is used or if any buttons that say "Publish" were pushed in the process.
  - Retric 8y ago
    may is a very critical caveat to that definition.
    - CodeWriter23 8y ago
      Right. And that’s going to turn based on how published cases (aka citeable) on publication and defamation have been decided and are argued by the attorneys. It probably all hinges on the potential damage to the plaintiff, and how the subpoena would help the plaintiff pursue their case. If there’s an audit trail that can pin down who typed which line in the spreadsheet, the subpoena would likely be limited to the persons saying things that allegedly defame the plaintiff. But if not, I can see the argument that everyone who participated needs to be deposed to discover who made the statements about the plaintiff. There is some nuance to how the doc was shared (link vs. invitation vs. login required). It’s likely the discovery will be filed under seal to protect those disclosing truthful statements. It may also turn out a special master is appointed to decide who gets to see what portions of the discovery. Or the subpoena could be quashed.
geofft 8y ago
I think if you are for freedom of speech, this is exactly the sort of speech to disagree with and yet defend. This was a list of people not to work with, not a list of people to actively go after and harass. The list was not maintained by people with government or industry power. A world where you can't speak to others unless it's either a popular idea or a media organization will vouch for your speech is one where individuals don't actually have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not going to be good for everyone. It will hurt people. It will cause people to believe things without hearing all sides of the story. It will allow a lie to travel halfway around the world before the truth puts it pants on. We want freedom of speech despite all this risk, because we believe it has a power to improve society in a way that simply cannot be done by a censor that makes sure that all speech is good for society in its eyes.
- lykr0n 8y ago
  Freedom of Speech is a great idea, but we constantly draw lines around the idea. I strongly believe you should be able to say something I don't like, you should be able to be critical of the powers that be, but I think in the next few years we're going to see a strong discussion in the US of outlawing willful dissemination of false information. With the advance of tools like Deep Fakes, outrage culture, and the general uptick of "Fake News" we're going to run into this issue. Stuff like this is a precursor I think. As much as I believe that people should be able to speak their mind, I don't believe people should have legal protection of spreading false information. As we become more interconnected, the risks become too great. I'll defend freedom of speech as much as I can, but I'm not going to defend the ability for someone to lie or make false claims they know are false. I think you'd change your tune if I took your public information and added it to this list. Maybe you wouln't notice, but I would be mad as hell if this happened to me. Based on what I found of you, I could write up a Medium with information I got from your website and a bit of research on MIT's website saying that nobody should work with you for X or Y because of what you did in College. I'm not calling for anybody to harass you, but it would be a stain on your reputation. In this case, I believe you should be able to sue me or Medium in order to find out who is making these claims against you.
  - 8y ago

olivermarks 8y ago

I think the Bill Cosby allegations, accusations and trial are somewhat relevant to this contextually. Putting aside (if you can) what Cosby was accused of, the trial by media and widespread publicity of accuser allegations and claims over a multi year, two trial period was a disaster for legal credibility IMO. "“The ability to find evidence that can support a defense 20 years later — it’s an almost insurmountable task,” said Nina J. Ginsberg, a criminal defense lawyer in Virginia who has handled a number of sexual assault cases. “Having these really long statutes of limitations where it makes it virtually impossible to disprove what the victim is saying is grossly unfair,” she added. “Just from the defense attorney’s perspective, it’s disabling.” http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-gloria-allred-famous-cases-20151113-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-gloria-allred-... With historical sexual allegations a powerful weapon in politics, business and for financial gain, the accused are increasingly defenseless and accused is the new guilty. I'm not defending 'shitty men' or Bill Cosby here, I'm saying the legal system is a mess and that careers and credibility are destroyed during the witch hunt whether found guilty or not. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proved guilty' and the accused's rights to privacy?

harlanji 8y ago
My life has been destroyed by a baseless corporate accusation of misconduct. I used the bitch-word toward a woman, and the story morphed into me flying off into a drunken rage while I was out of the office for a funeral. The story stuck and I'm now homeless. By the time I went to legal counsel realizing the extent of the damages, ironically, the statute of limitations of one year had already closed. And on the street I remain, until I can gain employment and credibility again. I'd actually welcome an assault case or anything to shed light onto the situation... because I'm effectively being treated as guilty of assault.
- komali2 8y ago
  I'm sorry you're homeless, that sucks. Can you help me better understand what happened here, though? Because it sounds like you called a coworker a bitch and was fired over it, and now can't get a recommendation from that job... In which case, can you understand why people might have a hard time sympathizing with your situation? Seems the results would be the same whether or not the story morphed.

larkeith 8y ago

The idea that, because a single user broke confidence and published a private correspondence, the real identities of each contributor might be exposed is, quite frankly, horrifying to me. While it might, possibly, be reasonable to accuse that member only of defamation, the access requested is far too broad. If this suit is successful, it will set a chilling precedent: That no conversation on the Internet may be considered legally private, and that any negative conversations may run the risk of a lawsuit-enforced doxxing.

komali2 8y ago
This is the primary reason I oppose government agents having routine access to citizen phones. People that send me documents and pictures presumably sent them in confidence.
mpweiher 8y ago
Huh? There is a simple solution: don't widely distribute content that's actionable. And yes, there is no privacy for criminal acts ("we just shared this child porn privately, it's none of your business" doesn't really fly...)
- larkeith 8y ago
  > don't widely distribute content that's actionable This is a strange argument to apply to the first few users, sharing a document with one or two friends. I should have been more clear: Legally private as opposed to publicly published, not as in private from the law.
  - sverige 8y ago
    Well, it was put up on a server accessible to lots of people. How is that legally private?
    - larkeith 8y ago
      ...which is why it seems reasonable to sue the user who circulated the list publicly. However, there should be no difference between an actual document, published to a public forum, and an entirely fictitious one published to the same - all authors excepting the one who published it should be irrelevant.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Rainymood 8y ago

Remember that time when Reddit caught the Bonston bomber? Oh wait, yeah neither do I.

bradleyjg 8y ago

I don’t see either the first amendment or section 230 argument here. The first amendment has been held to protect anonymous speech in the sense that the government can’t ban anonymous speech or require registration in order to speak. It has not to my knowledge ever held that the ordinary civil law discovery rules must be modified because people wished to speak anonymously but did not take sufficient measures to remain anonymous. Section 230 meanwhile protects electronic publishers from being sued civilly for the what users of their services write. This is important because under defamation law one who repeats a libel is equally liable as the original speaker. There’s two possibilities that I see: a) most likely the boring traditional reasons to quash a subpoena (e.g. too burdensome) or b) as a long shot one of the journalist shield laws.

dooglius 8y ago
Both the first amendment and section 230 were mentioned in the article. Also, Google is not being sued here, merely being given a subpoena, so I don't see how it applies.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

grzm 8y ago

Actual title: Google to Fight Subpoena Demands Over "Shitty Media Men" Spreadsheet

cagenut 8y ago

if you're open mindedly looking for context, thecut managed to get quotes out of 5 guys on the list: https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/stephen-elliott-moira-donegan-men-respond.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/stephen-elliott-moira-donegan... and hmm daily (they're new) has a piece on the sue-er just today: https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/14/who-is-stephen-elliott/ https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/14/who-is-stephen-elliott/