In today’s modern workplace-which has expanded from the traditional four corner office to anywhere a Wi-Fi signal can be received; employers must protect their employees from such activities like harassment, even during non working hours and away from the office. Blogging can be more dangerous for employers than e-mail because it has the potential to reach a wide audience, whereas e-mail which must have an intended recipient. E-mail can be considered more personally offensive and intrusive, but a blog can “intensify illegal activity” by being seen by millions worldwide. For these reasons and many more not discussed here, employers must not only look to what’s written on the bathroom wall, but must also seek out what’s posted on other new and potentially dangerous Internet “Walls.”
14 replies (most recent on top)
Oh boy, you know how to look sh-- up on the Internet. Get a life.
J-e-o-p-a-r-d-y! For God's sake, can ya'll learn how to spell? And we're suppose to believe the trash that's repeated on this board?
You sure have a lot of free time on your hands. Wow, get a life.
Yelp Reviewer Gets SLAPPed With 750K Lawsuit And Order To Alter Comments
Posted Dec 7, 2012 by Gregory Ferenstein (@ferenstein)
A woman is facing a $750,000 defamation lawsuit and has been ordered to alter a negative Yelp review of a home contractor after police found that her claims didn’t add up.
Dietz Development is claiming that Jane Perez’s scathing review has cost them new customers and, on Wednesday, a judge ordered a preliminary in--nction for her to edit the post. Yelp and legal critics are worried that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP)-related lawsuits could chill free speech, but business owners say that legal intervention is necessary in an age when online reviews can make or break a company. As the Internet gives the average citizen a greater voice, courts appear to be willing to hold their exercise of free speech to higher standards.
Court wants Comcast to expose commenter sued for defamation
Mariella Moon
06.20.15
Here's a reminder that online anonymity can't always protect you: the Illinois Supreme Court has ordered Comcast to reveal the identity of a subscriber involved in a defamation lawsuit. The case was filed by Bill Hadley who ran for the Stephenson County board a few years ago. In 2011, the Freeport Journal Standard published an article about him, where the defendant (using the moniker "Fuboy") left a couple of comments, including this: "Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed. Check out the view he has of Empire from his front door." Empire an elementary school right across Hadley's residence.
Hadley filed a lawsuit shortly after that, which started a lengthy and complicated legal dance with the newspaper's parent company, Gatehouse Media, and Comcast. He had been in possession of "Fuboy's" IP since 2012, but Comcast required a court order to unveil the commenter's name and address from the start. The defendant maintains that what he said doesn't warrant a defamation suit, since it's "not a crime to have the last name Sandusky," and readers wouldn't associate Hadley's name with something bad without prior knowledge of "extrinsic facts."
Illinois' high court, however, has decided to uphold the lower court's decision, pointing out that:
...at the time Fuboy's comment was posted, "the Sandusky sexual abuse scandal had dominated the national news for weeks..." In short, at the time of Fuboy's comment, numerous men were testifying to the abuse they allegedly suffered at the hands of Sandusky when they were young boys. The general public was mindful of the fact Sandusky was accused of sexually abusing young boys. Stating that Hadley was "a Sandusky" while the scandal dominated the national news, coupled with the reference to Empire Elementary School, conveyed the idea that Hadley was a pedophile or had engaged in sexual acts with children and, thus, had committed criminal conduct
Fuboy and his lawyer have 90 days to escalate the case to the US Supreme Court, before Comcast hands his details to Hadley. The politician, who won the elections by the way, told The Chicago Tribune that finally getting a hold of Fuboy's identity would be a huge victory -- after all, it "practically broke [him] financially." We suggest you read the court documents (PDF) on the case to fully understand how persistent Hadley has been throughout this whole deal.
[Image credit: Shutterstock / Tyler Olson]
Points to Consider...
•No grown-ups left behind, get cyber-wise today... Are you able to withstand the amount of legaltime it will require to unravel a 2 minute post?
•Never underestimate the power of the Internet and your keystrokes
•Teaching digital citizenship is as important as toilet training your child
•Let your keystrokes reflect a legacy of kindness, you won’t regret it
m.huffingtonpost.com/sue-scheff/the-cost-of-internet-defamation_b...
THE BLOG
The Cost of Internet Defamation
Mar 05, 2014 | Updated May 05, 2014
Sue Scheff Author and Parent and Family Internet Expert
In our kids ears and out of their mouths — and now, on to their social networking sites!
That may not be exactly what happened in the case of Patrick Snay, former headmaster of Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami, Florida, but it is eerily similar.
After his contract was not renewed in 2010, he sued the school for age discrimination. In November 2011, the case was settled for $80,000 with a confidentiality agreement. Unfortunately, Snay shared this confidential information with his daughter.
She decided to take the information and share it on her Facebook page, stating, “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.”
Advertisement
AdChoices
Within a short amount of time this post leaked back to Gulliver School officials and a letter went to the Snays’ attorney stating that Snay had broken a confidentiality agreement and that he would not be receiving the $80,000 settlement.
In the same week another news story broke.
A student in New South Wales took to Twitter and Facebook with a grudge against a teacher. His comments on Twitter were considered defamatory and he was ordered to pay $105,000 in damages to the teacher.
With the electronic frontier evolving, online defamation has reared an ugliness that has ruined lives both emotionally and financially. As the above stories indicate, no one is immune to Internet defamation; it can happen at any age for both the defendant and the plaintiff.
I would venture to say that as the Internet expands, so will these types of lawsuits. We have already seen an influx of attorneys that now specialize in Internet law.
We teach our children about digital citizenship, building their online reputation, thinking before they post and, above all, treating everyone with kindness online and offline — but are we educating them about the risks of Internet defamation?
Freedom of speech does not condone defamation. It is that simple, yet it is still difficult since proving defamation can be a long and tedious, not to mention costly, task.
Understanding slander, libel, and defamation can be confusing for the average person, but what is clear is the emotional and sometimes financial harm that it can cause. It is imperative we teach our children about digital citizenship, and that their words can affect the lives of others.
•Every keystroke matters; they are public, permanent and some can be costly.
•Never post when you are angry.
•Never send emails or text messages when you are upset, wait 24 hours.
•Writing a negative review can be acceptable, however it doesn’t have to be mean — choose your words wisely. Constructive criticism can actually help businesses.
•Become a cyber-mentor and always know you are a role model.
As both a victim and survivor of Internet defamation, I know firsthand the silent suffering of the many people out there who have had their names and reputations damaged by the words of others. Sadly, there are many that are not able to retain legal assistance because they are unable to afford it or the online slime against them doesn’t meet the threshold of defamation.
Many people that have read my story of Internet defamation and my landmark case in which I was awarded an $11.3M jury verdict for damages that were done to me online, have told me that it seemed like a surreal nightmare. Many others don’t believe it actually happened — unfortunately I have the court documents and the digital footprints to back it up.
This is why I know exactly what it is like for people of all ages to be victims of cyberbullying, online harassment, cyber-stalking, and Internet trolls.
Trying to avoid digital drama should be a goal for both adults and kids alike. No one wants to open the door to a process server because of their online posts.
k. Internet Defamation Cases
October 05, 2015
Federal District Court Refuses To Dismiss Claims Against Ripoff Reports
Recently, a federal district court in Utah declined to dismiss claims of false advertising, deceptive trade practices, as well as including a claim of defamation against Eccentric Ventures, a company that operates Ripoff reports. Relying on 10th Circuit precedent in the case of FTC v AccuSearch, Inc., 570 F3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2009). The Court denied Ripoff Reports motion to dismiss based upon §233 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
In Vision Security, LLC and Rob Harris v Eccentric Ventures, LLC, the plaintiff had a former employee post false and defamatory content on Ripoff Reports concerning Vision Security and its owner. The former employee acknowledged in an affidavit that the posts were false and defamatory and were intended simply to dissuade people from patronizing Vision Security. The former employee submitted the affidavit with a request to Ripoff Reports that the content be removed. Consistent with its policy, Ripoff Reports declined to remove the post from the employee. Vision Security then requested removal and in return Rip-Off Reports joint its paid corporate advocacy program in an effort to mitigate the damaging content, but again refused to remove the content. The Court noted that Vision Security pled facts that would demonstrate that rip-off reports was motivated by their own commercial interests in declining to remove the defamatory content pursuant to the poster’s own affidavit and request for removal and that Ripoff Report could be found to have had an interest in and encouraged negative content which the 10th Circuit has concluded is sufficient to state a claim under the CDA. The 10h Circuit is alone in construing the CDA so broadly.
Please post one documented instance where someone was successful sued for anonymously posting on a website. Just one.
May be dumb to you. Go ahead and join the club to be sued for slander. I dare you
One of the dumbest posts I have seen on this site.
Blah blah blah blah, what ever.
And this is coming from an Everest employee and website. Who cares? The federal govt is sick of EUO and let us see how far you get when ur resume says Everest, FMU, CCI, Zenith or whatever. Obvious you are still an employee. Buckle up, you could get an occurence for being on your phone.
Anyone is free to post truthful information. Don't try and scare people. Although someone might not like what I post, as long as it's truthful, I'm sleeping well at night.