12 ms·

But her lawsuit is against the Neiman Lab, not her employer, so it wouldn’t have any bearing on what you’re saying? If anything it feels kind of telling that sh

But her lawsuit is against the Neiman Lab, not her employer, so it wouldn’t have any bearing on what you’re saying? If anything it feels kind of telling that she’s suing the organisation that named her instead of the organisation that fired her. IMO at the very least the case is a lot more nuanced than you're making it out to be. For example: the fired professor was propagating conspiracy theories about Seth Rich. From the free speech angle, sure, she's free to say whatever she wants. But if you're a journalism professor and you aren't able to tell when something being propagated in the media is a baseless conspiracy theory, what does that say about your ability at your job? And as a teacher? It is not flat out wrong to fire someone for engaging in actions that cast doubt on their professionalism. At the very least it's open for debate. I think there's an interesting debate to be had over her having done this anonymously: if she separated it from her professional persona is she less culpable in a professional sense? Personally I'd still argue no, but I think this is why she's targeting the Lab and not her employer: it's a lot easier to argue that unmasking her (thus combining her anonymous and professional identities) was wrong than to argue that firing her was wrong. It seems their argument is going to be centered around one particular post expressing an anti-Muslim sentiment. Benton said she wrote it, she said she did not, thus he defamed her. All the posts were made under the same Disqus account so she might have a hill to climb in proving that it wasn't her. I'm very far from a lawyer but this feels like a case designed to set the professor up as a cause célèbre on the right rather than one designed to win.

nostromo 5y ago
She's suing Nieman Lab because she claimed they lied about what she actually said. Yes, I'm sure she would love to sue the university too. However she likely doesn't have a case there. I hope she wins the lawsuit because they sloppily doxxed her and broke the terms of service of Disqus in doing so. > Viola acknowledged writing most of the posts. But she denied being behind the anti-Muslim screed. That was critical to Sorokin’s decision to allow the libel and defamation part of Viola’s suit to proceed. The former professor “has plausibly alleged that Benton may have been negligent in his failure to verify that she was the author,” the judge wrote. He also took note of how Benton managed to discover and reveal her identity. Viola wrote her comments “based on the promise that her user information would be used for ‘moderation purposes only,’ which was violated when Benton posted her information on Twitter,” Sorokin wrote.
- afavour 5y ago
  Yes, but I was responding to this quote by the OP: > I hope her lawsuit is very successful. She was clearly targeted, ostracized, and fired for speaking her mind. Those two statements have no connection to each other, since the lawsuit has nothing to do with her being targeted, ostracized and fired, instead (as you say) it's about her being defamed.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    yeah but the organization she is suing was the cause of revealing her identity, leading to her being targeted, ostracized and fired. actually maybe the targeted is in reference to Nieman. I guess I see not a legal connection, but the kind of connection that people often make in informal speech.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Doxxing isn't illegal.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    … and this is not a criminal case, but a civil one.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      Doxxing is not a civil violation either. There is nothing wrong with doxxing people.
      - nostromo 5y ago
        They violated Disqus's terms of service, which is a civil violation.
        colinmhayes 5y ago
        Sure, you can complain about that. But you said she was sloppily doxxed, which doesn't really seem to be the case. She was properly doxxed.
Justsignedup 5y ago
A. K. A. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
- alabamacadabra 5y ago
  Can you define what free speech would be then? How exactly is that not just an idiotic paradox?
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Exercising free speech can have social consequences. You're free to advocate for the legalization of necrophilia; others are free to criticize you and disagree with you (exercising their own free speech) or shun you (exercising their freedom of association). Legal consequences imply non-free speech; employment consequences are more complicated. edit: Responding to dead response; not gonna vouch for you again with that attitude... Every freedom has consequences. You've got the right to bear arms, but you can shoot yourself in the foot. You've got the freedom to move about the country, but you can miss your sister's wedding if you're in another state. You've got the freedom to vote, but your elected politician won't always vote in the way you'd like. You've got the right to drink and smoke, but you might get cancer or other diseases. You've got the right to piss off your friends by spouting off hot takes, and you might lose those friends if they don't like what you have to say.
    - alabamacadabra 5y ago
      It’s simply not free speech then. Call it something else, you’re using incorrect terms. Edit because it seems the point is getting lost here: Let me rephrase this: freedom of speech seems to be such that one is not able to have legal action taken against them by the government for their speech. I am not debating that whatsoever. Within the context of the United States, “free” rights are used in the same sense of being granted “Liberty”. You are liberated from being unable to criticize the king, as it were. What are you specifically free from? You are free from the punishments that a king can inflict on you for having used your full speech capabilities. Now, here is where I believe we differ: to me, it’s merely an abstraction to have another entity restrict the speech. As in, sure, I’m not using money to purchase items with Bitcoin, I’m just exchanging money for something that can be exchanged for goods. In that same light it seems that you’re arguing “no one is restricting speech they’re just making it not possible for them to say those things and keep living” If that’s what it is, fine… let’s not call it “free speech”. I submit “free opportunities for punishment”.
EricE 5y ago
>"For example: the fired professor was propagating conspiracy theories about Seth Rich." That the COVID virus leaked from a lab was branded as a conspiracy theory - until now all of the sudden it isn't. Censorship is a "cure" far worse than the problems it purports to fix. Even worse is using such flimsy pretexts to FIRE someone. That people are so casual in accepting ruining peoples live's for simply having the wrong GROUPTHINK is utterly mind boggling to myself. Sadly the "smarter" one seems to think they are the more susceptible they seem to be in rationalizing away any concerns that should be firing off in their little heads. Those ignorant of history doomed to repeat it and all that :(

nostromo 5y ago

She's suing Nieman Lab because she claimed they lied about what she actually said. Yes, I'm sure she would love to sue the university too. However she likely doesn't have a case there. I hope she wins the lawsuit because they sloppily doxxed her and broke the terms of service of Disqus in doing so. > Viola acknowledged writing most of the posts. But she denied being behind the anti-Muslim screed. That was critical to Sorokin’s decision to allow the libel and defamation part of Viola’s suit to proceed. The former professor “has plausibly alleged that Benton may have been negligent in his failure to verify that she was the author,” the judge wrote. He also took note of how Benton managed to discover and reveal her identity. Viola wrote her comments “based on the promise that her user information would be used for ‘moderation purposes only,’ which was violated when Benton posted her information on Twitter,” Sorokin wrote.

afavour 5y ago
Yes, but I was responding to this quote by the OP: > I hope her lawsuit is very successful. She was clearly targeted, ostracized, and fired for speaking her mind. Those two statements have no connection to each other, since the lawsuit has nothing to do with her being targeted, ostracized and fired, instead (as you say) it's about her being defamed.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  yeah but the organization she is suing was the cause of revealing her identity, leading to her being targeted, ostracized and fired. actually maybe the targeted is in reference to Nieman. I guess I see not a legal connection, but the kind of connection that people often make in informal speech.
colinmhayes 5y ago
Doxxing isn't illegal.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  … and this is not a criminal case, but a civil one.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Doxxing is not a civil violation either. There is nothing wrong with doxxing people.
    - nostromo 5y ago
      They violated Disqus's terms of service, which is a civil violation.
      - colinmhayes 5y ago
        Sure, you can complain about that. But you said she was sloppily doxxed, which doesn't really seem to be the case. She was properly doxxed.

Justsignedup 5y ago

A. K. A. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

alabamacadabra 5y ago
Can you define what free speech would be then? How exactly is that not just an idiotic paradox?
- klyrs 5y ago
  Exercising free speech can have social consequences. You're free to advocate for the legalization of necrophilia; others are free to criticize you and disagree with you (exercising their own free speech) or shun you (exercising their freedom of association). Legal consequences imply non-free speech; employment consequences are more complicated. edit: Responding to dead response; not gonna vouch for you again with that attitude... Every freedom has consequences. You've got the right to bear arms, but you can shoot yourself in the foot. You've got the freedom to move about the country, but you can miss your sister's wedding if you're in another state. You've got the freedom to vote, but your elected politician won't always vote in the way you'd like. You've got the right to drink and smoke, but you might get cancer or other diseases. You've got the right to piss off your friends by spouting off hot takes, and you might lose those friends if they don't like what you have to say.
  - alabamacadabra 5y ago
    It’s simply not free speech then. Call it something else, you’re using incorrect terms. Edit because it seems the point is getting lost here: Let me rephrase this: freedom of speech seems to be such that one is not able to have legal action taken against them by the government for their speech. I am not debating that whatsoever. Within the context of the United States, “free” rights are used in the same sense of being granted “Liberty”. You are liberated from being unable to criticize the king, as it were. What are you specifically free from? You are free from the punishments that a king can inflict on you for having used your full speech capabilities. Now, here is where I believe we differ: to me, it’s merely an abstraction to have another entity restrict the speech. As in, sure, I’m not using money to purchase items with Bitcoin, I’m just exchanging money for something that can be exchanged for goods. In that same light it seems that you’re arguing “no one is restricting speech they’re just making it not possible for them to say those things and keep living” If that’s what it is, fine… let’s not call it “free speech”. I submit “free opportunities for punishment”.

EricE 5y ago

>"For example: the fired professor was propagating conspiracy theories about Seth Rich." That the COVID virus leaked from a lab was branded as a conspiracy theory - until now all of the sudden it isn't. Censorship is a "cure" far worse than the problems it purports to fix. Even worse is using such flimsy pretexts to FIRE someone. That people are so casual in accepting ruining peoples live's for simply having the wrong GROUPTHINK is utterly mind boggling to myself. Sadly the "smarter" one seems to think they are the more susceptible they seem to be in rationalizing away any concerns that should be firing off in their little heads. Those ignorant of history doomed to repeat it and all that :(