6 ms·

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

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.
        dumbfounder 5y ago
        Not according to the lawsuit, she claims she didn’t make some of the comments. If that is true, then it was sloppy.
      - snowwrestler 5y ago
        Sure but it’s not Disqus that is filing the suit. I’d be surprised if she has standing to claim damages based on an agreement she was not a party to.
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        The article explains she is suing for defamation. Google explains defamation has four elements: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact (he says she wrote what she says she didn't) 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person (yes, the doxing) 3) fault amounting to at least negligence (maybe debatable, but he accused her of writing something knowing only that an account registered to her posted it. He never asked her about it and has already admitted fault in accusing her without asking.) 4) damages (yes, her career)
mmcwilliams 5y ago
Is violating a website or platforms' ToS grounds for a third parties to sue you?
- shkkmo 5y ago
  I believe the potential grounds are libel, not any TOS violation.
microtherion 5y ago
"sloppily doxxing" is not the standard for defamation in the US. In many cases, the standard amounts to "actual malice", which means pretty much that she'd have the prove the defendants KNEW she did not write said screed. Have you considered that if the standard for defamation were actually as you hope it is/should be, she'd get about a microsecond to enjoy her victory over Nieman Lab before being crushed by Seth Rich's family over her rumormongering in that case?
- nostromo 5y ago
  That's not the standard, which is why the judge allowed it to move forward. It's literally mentioned in the article. Being sloppy is indeed enough to be sued. If I started telling people "microtherion is a Nazi" - you could sue me without proving I knew you are not a Nazi.
  - microtherion 5y ago
    > the judge allowed it to move forward … on a Motion to Dismiss, which means literally "if we take everything the plaintiff says as the gospel truth, and dismiss anything the defendant says, would the plaintiff have a case?" > It's literally mentioned in the article. The judge allowed some of the numerous claims to proceed to the next trial stage, while dismissing others outright. If you follow the article's link to the ruling, you will find that actual malice is literally the standard applied to many of the counts, which were indeed dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss stage: "mere negligence or deviation from professional standards is insufficient to allege actual malice". Whether that standard applies to the libel charge depends on whether the plaintiff is a public figure, which apparently in that state is never decided in the Motion to Dismiss stage. However, the next step is generally a Motion for Summary Judgment, and odds are good that she will be found a (Limited, at least) public figure, at which point the Libel, Defamation, Emotional Distress, and Tortious Interference counts are history. > you could sue me Anyone could sue anyone for anything. Would I win? I doubt it.

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.
      - dumbfounder 5y ago
        Not according to the lawsuit, she claims she didn’t make some of the comments. If that is true, then it was sloppy.
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      Sure but it’s not Disqus that is filing the suit. I’d be surprised if she has standing to claim damages based on an agreement she was not a party to.
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        The article explains she is suing for defamation. Google explains defamation has four elements: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact (he says she wrote what she says she didn't) 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person (yes, the doxing) 3) fault amounting to at least negligence (maybe debatable, but he accused her of writing something knowing only that an account registered to her posted it. He never asked her about it and has already admitted fault in accusing her without asking.) 4) damages (yes, her career)

mmcwilliams 5y ago

Is violating a website or platforms' ToS grounds for a third parties to sue you?

shkkmo 5y ago
I believe the potential grounds are libel, not any TOS violation.

microtherion 5y ago

"sloppily doxxing" is not the standard for defamation in the US. In many cases, the standard amounts to "actual malice", which means pretty much that she'd have the prove the defendants KNEW she did not write said screed. Have you considered that if the standard for defamation were actually as you hope it is/should be, she'd get about a microsecond to enjoy her victory over Nieman Lab before being crushed by Seth Rich's family over her rumormongering in that case?

nostromo 5y ago
That's not the standard, which is why the judge allowed it to move forward. It's literally mentioned in the article. Being sloppy is indeed enough to be sued. If I started telling people "microtherion is a Nazi" - you could sue me without proving I knew you are not a Nazi.
- microtherion 5y ago
  > the judge allowed it to move forward … on a Motion to Dismiss, which means literally "if we take everything the plaintiff says as the gospel truth, and dismiss anything the defendant says, would the plaintiff have a case?" > It's literally mentioned in the article. The judge allowed some of the numerous claims to proceed to the next trial stage, while dismissing others outright. If you follow the article's link to the ruling, you will find that actual malice is literally the standard applied to many of the counts, which were indeed dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss stage: "mere negligence or deviation from professional standards is insufficient to allege actual malice". Whether that standard applies to the libel charge depends on whether the plaintiff is a public figure, which apparently in that state is never decided in the Motion to Dismiss stage. However, the next step is generally a Motion for Summary Judgment, and odds are good that she will be found a (Limited, at least) public figure, at which point the Libel, Defamation, Emotional Distress, and Tortious Interference counts are history. > you could sue me Anyone could sue anyone for anything. Would I win? I doubt it.