4 ms·
Heard that's not necessarily enough, "not specifically naming".
by sundvor 4y ago
Heard that's not necessarily enough, "not specifically naming".
- daenz 4y agoIANAL but would love a lawyer to chime in. My understanding was that you could indeed get in trouble if you don't cast enough ambiguity around the identity of the person/company you are trashing, but casting some ambiguity is better than none.
- Rebelgecko 4y agoI am also not a lawyer, but I've always heard that telling the truth is a bulletproof defense in libel/slander/defamation situations. Some employment contracts have non-disparagement clauses but I think they're fairly rare (kind of a red flag) and at least where I live they can't prevent you from truthful griping about working conditions
- EE84M3i 4y agoAs I understand it, this might be true in America, but in Japan, "it's the truth" isn't a defense against libel.
- aetherson 4y agoIn the United States, truth is an absolute defense against libel. You are correct that it is not in other countries, but this is someone in America (probably an American) talking about an American company.
- daenz 4y agoThat's wild. How does that work out legally? A company can sue an employee for telling a damaging (but uncontested) truth?
- ghaff 4y agoIt works if the law says that reputational damage trumps the fact that the statement causing the damage is true--or can't be proven to be false. Although the UK has made some changes in recent years, it's probably the best example in the West of a country where truth isn't necessarily a defense against a libel suit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law (And somewhat ironically given that US law has its roots in English common law, the US swings heavily on the side of free speech.)