6 ms·

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 thin

by 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

by lykr0n 8y ago

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