3 ms·

> they should no longer be under contractual obligation to publish it That entirely depends on what the contract says, which is probably why they're adding the

> they should no longer be under contractual obligation to publish it That entirely depends on what the contract says, which is probably why they're adding these clauses to the contracts. The point is that there's no background "moral clause" in contract law. If you sign a contract, and then discover that the other person is a sex offender/nazi/actually Hitler, that doesn't matter. You still need to fulfil your obligations under the contract. And we don't want to change this. Because getting on the wrong end of a Twitter dogpile is astonishingly easy to do. If the stakes were higher, and not only future careers but all existing contracts would be ruined, that would just inspire more dogpile. Then no-one wants to say anything in public, or where a journalist might hear of it, and the mob moves onto ever tinier infringements of ever more arcane moral rules.

lliamander 7y ago
> Because getting on the wrong end of a Twitter dogpile is astonishingly easy to do. If the stakes were higher, and not only future careers but all existing contracts would be ruined, that would just inspire more dogpile. IANAL, but this is a good time to remind people that, in the U.S., but actively trying to sabotage a contract between two parties may be tortious interference[1], and something one can be sued for. If social media platforms made reporting of and discovery for these kinds of behaviors easier, I suspect we would see a drop-off in such dogpiling. [1] https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/tortious-interference.html https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/to...
- pjc50 7y ago
  Are you arguing that pointing out to Hachette that Woody Allen's daughter accuses him of sexual assault should render someone liable? And this is supposed to be the pro free speech position? Nobody on Twitter did anything but speech, did they?
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > Are you arguing that pointing out to Hachette that Woody Allen's daughter accuses him of sexual assault should render someone liable? I'm not talking about that specific case, but about the problem of twitter mobs in general (which is what the parent comment was talking about). It may apply to that case or not, but I'm not rendering judgement on that here. > Nobody on Twitter did anything but speech, did they? Telling the truth is not a tort. Often the behavior of twitter mobs rises above simply "telling the truth" and may involve epithets, slander, etc. which are not protected. EDIT: Also, saying "break your contract or else we will harass you" is probably a tort

lliamander 7y ago

> Because getting on the wrong end of a Twitter dogpile is astonishingly easy to do. If the stakes were higher, and not only future careers but all existing contracts would be ruined, that would just inspire more dogpile. IANAL, but this is a good time to remind people that, in the U.S., but actively trying to sabotage a contract between two parties may be tortious interference[1], and something one can be sued for. If social media platforms made reporting of and discovery for these kinds of behaviors easier, I suspect we would see a drop-off in such dogpiling. [1] https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/tortious-interference.html https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/to...

pjc50 7y ago
Are you arguing that pointing out to Hachette that Woody Allen's daughter accuses him of sexual assault should render someone liable? And this is supposed to be the pro free speech position? Nobody on Twitter did anything but speech, did they?
- lliamander 7y ago
  > Are you arguing that pointing out to Hachette that Woody Allen's daughter accuses him of sexual assault should render someone liable? I'm not talking about that specific case, but about the problem of twitter mobs in general (which is what the parent comment was talking about). It may apply to that case or not, but I'm not rendering judgement on that here. > Nobody on Twitter did anything but speech, did they? Telling the truth is not a tort. Often the behavior of twitter mobs rises above simply "telling the truth" and may involve epithets, slander, etc. which are not protected. EDIT: Also, saying "break your contract or else we will harass you" is probably a tort