Be careful what you say on APC
08-20-2009 | 07:20 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: Flight Instructor
How would they prove who actually typed the offensive message. I mean just because it was written under my screenname desnt mean I typed it. Somebody could be using my screenname . Seems to me it would be hard toprove.
08-20-2009 | 08:06 PM
#33
Thread Starter
Working Class Dog
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 0
From: Spares Pusher
Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
An IP Address ties it back to the computer that was used to make the post, presumably. They could always say that it wasn't them, but then they would have produce an alibi, again, presumably.
Also, I just heard that she now has the name of the person who did it but is not naming them, rather, dealing with it out of the public eye. At least that's what was just reported. Whether it remains the case is yet to be seen.
08-21-2009 | 04:47 PM
#35
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,127
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
08-21-2009 | 05:00 PM
#36
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,127
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
But the standard is lower in a civil case...preponderance of evidence.
Basically I'm sure the assumption would be that you maintained control of your account and are responsible for it. You could use that defense successfully I think only if you could show that it would have been hard for you to actually make the post...ie you were working a flight at the time the post was made or the IP address was in outer mongolia. You might also get off the hook if the post was completely out of character based on your posting history.
But it will still cost $20-30K in lawyer fees if it goes to trial...the way the system works, whoever you insulted can punish you by simply insisting on a jury trial ($$$). They don't have to win, just have a case that is barely good enough to not be considered frivolous (otherwise they might have to pay your legal fees).
08-21-2009 | 08:11 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
This is such an obvious and blatant assault on our rights in a supposedly "free" country. It's incredibly dangerous. If it's successful then America can no longer identify itself as a free country. We've been slowly losing our freedoms for the past 30 years or so. Our opinions and thoughts have to conform to whatever the ruling American oligarchy (degenerate, arrogant rich people and scumbag lawyers) dictate to us.
This IS a freedom of speech issue. Even taking the interpretation that freedom of speech only applies to the government restrictions, that means only a private entity can restrict your speech (such as your employer telling you not to say certain things) . Are the courts a private entity? No, they're government! They have no authority to tell people what they can/can't say. Anything less and we will be the Soviet Socialist Republic of America.
The First Amendment is the reason the founding fathers gave us the Second Amendment. Sic semper tyrannis
This IS a freedom of speech issue. Even taking the interpretation that freedom of speech only applies to the government restrictions, that means only a private entity can restrict your speech (such as your employer telling you not to say certain things) . Are the courts a private entity? No, they're government! They have no authority to tell people what they can/can't say. Anything less and we will be the Soviet Socialist Republic of America.
The First Amendment is the reason the founding fathers gave us the Second Amendment. Sic semper tyrannis
08-21-2009 | 08:43 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
You're a Beech 1900 FO, furloughed EMB145 FO.
1900 operators are pretty small, so your CP could pull a few resumes and narrow it down. especially if you mentioned your domicile or other geographic information.
I'm surprised that any CP actually has time to do that kind of crap...I'm pretty sure mine don't.
1900 operators are pretty small, so your CP could pull a few resumes and narrow it down. especially if you mentioned your domicile or other geographic information.
I'm surprised that any CP actually has time to do that kind of crap...I'm pretty sure mine don't.
Yeah, I know it would be somewhat possible to figure out who I am based on that info alone, but I still found it pretty odd that anybody would go to that much trouble. I am not the only furloughed TSA pilot flying a 1900. Funny because during the phone call he more or less asked if I was flying anywhere. I had a feeling he already knew the answer but oh well. Like I said, the phone call was friendly, but the fact that it happened is curious.
08-22-2009 | 07:42 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
From: Captain, CRJ-200, ASA
I'm glad we don't have to worry about things like this at ASA. Despite all the complaints about our managers, they aren't tyrants who want to bust people for things said off campus. How petty and insecure.
08-22-2009 | 07:50 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
From: Captain, CRJ-200, ASA
No. If the slanderer had good reason to make the accusation, he should be able to demonstrate that his info is correct. If you can't reasonably prove it, better not say it (unless you are a gossip mag, in which case you make enough money to keep a bunch of lawyers on retainer).
I suspect that the lawsuit in question will go nowhere. Slander and insults are generally two different things.
You can call someone a jerk, and that's just your opinion, insulting though it may be.
But if you accuse someone of actions or behavior that they did not actually do, that is slander/libel. If they actually DID what you say they did, then it's just gossip.
"Skank" could go either way. The plaintiff may claim that skank = slut and that the defendant needs to prove she actually IS a slut...which he will probably not be able to do. The defendant might claim that "skank" is a general term which means "low class" and is just an opinion thing.
I think there is ambiguity to keep the defendant safe...but he still has legal bills which is probably the point of the whole exercise. Big people (and companies) can suppress perfectly legal commentary from the peanut-gallery merely with the threat of lawsuits and huge legal bills.
I suspect that the lawsuit in question will go nowhere. Slander and insults are generally two different things.
You can call someone a jerk, and that's just your opinion, insulting though it may be.
But if you accuse someone of actions or behavior that they did not actually do, that is slander/libel. If they actually DID what you say they did, then it's just gossip.
"Skank" could go either way. The plaintiff may claim that skank = slut and that the defendant needs to prove she actually IS a slut...which he will probably not be able to do. The defendant might claim that "skank" is a general term which means "low class" and is just an opinion thing.
I think there is ambiguity to keep the defendant safe...but he still has legal bills which is probably the point of the whole exercise. Big people (and companies) can suppress perfectly legal commentary from the peanut-gallery merely with the threat of lawsuits and huge legal bills.
Generally the litmus test in a defamation lawsuit is if the hurtful speech caused monetary harm to the "victim". In other words, did publicly calling her a "skank" hurt her reputation such that she lost career opportunities. This is why it's usually easy to defend defamation lawsuits, because it's extremely hard to prove the comments caused harm in all but the most egregious cases.
Another corporate trick: File a frivolous lawsuit against "John Doe" internet posters...for the sole purpose of obtaining their identities during the discovery process. If it turns out the posters are employees...instant termination. A few of those will tend to stiffle anonymous public dissent from the ranks.
And before someone with a sixth-grade understanding of the constitution starts blathering on about "freedom of speech", please remember that freedom of speech protections apply ONLY to the government...ie the GOVERNMENT (Federal, State, or Local) cannot restrict your right to speak your mind. But this in no way applies to any private parties or corporations, your employer can fire you for bad-mouthing the company, or for saying anything else they don't want to hear. Best to be aware of that if you're going to frolic on the net.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
