Member all my bitching on here about work?

Yeah, well I can actually get in trouble for it.

Check this out.

I’ve been complaining for probably a good year or so now how the director of the department I work in doesn’t have any direction, and the manager above me isnt attuned enough to what goes on in his department. I’ve gone on and on about how me being stuck as a grunt on the phones is a serious misallocation of valuable company resources, and on and on about other details that REALLY drive me up the wall. Unfortunately for me, the people I’m complaining about come to THIS WEBSITE, and reading what I have to say. My complaining is likely the reason that I havent been promoted. Unfortunately, theres no legal recourse I can take for the people above me simply ‘Not liking me’. Odds are good that they’re also going to read *THIS* and somehow find a way to use this against me as well. Recently I was written up for a number of things that were taken grossly out of context, and when I was talking to HR, my manager flat out lied to the HR person present saying that my lead had never given me any positive feedback and gave vague or ill-researched details and examples to support his vague, and antiquated claims.

Read on patrons!
(and apparently watch what you say, cuz it can come bite you in the ass)

FORMER EMPLOYEES LIABLE FOR CYBERSPACE
DEFAMATION
(November 17, 2003)

Summary

In a decision
published today, the California Court of Appeal clarified cyberspace defamation
law, and held that former employees who publish defamatory statements on
internet bulletin boards can be held accountable. 

Details

In this case (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino), two former
employees of Varian Medical Systems posted derogatory messages about Varian and
Varian executives on internet bulletin boards.  The former employees
criticized Varian products, implied that Varian had committed a crime, and
portrayed Varian executives as incompetent, untruthful, mentally ill, and even
willing to provide sexual favors in exchange for promotions.  Varian sued
for defamation.  Although Varian did not specifically prove damages
resulting from the alleged defamation, the jury found in its favor.

The former employees appealed, presenting the following questions to the
appellate court:

• 10.0pt;font-family:Arial’>Can a corporation be defamed?

The former employees
questioned whether the jury properly held that Varian, as a corporation, could
be subject to defamation.  After all, defamation is a false statement that
harms a person’s reputation and a corporation does not have a “purely
personal reputation” as individuals do.  The appellate court held,
however, that a corporation has a “business reputation” and can
therefore recover for defamation.

• 10.0pt;font-family:Arial’>For purposes of defamation law, do statements
  about a public company constitute statements about a “public
  figure” or statements about “matters of public concern”?
  

If a defamatory statement
involves a public figure or an issue of public concern, then a plaintiff must
show that the defendants made the statement with actual malice (i.e.,
knowing full well that the defamatory statement was false or not making
appropriate efforts to determine whether or not it was false).

If a defamatory statement does not involve a public figure or an issue of
public concern, then a plaintiff need only show that the defendants were negligent
in determining whether or not the defamatory statement was false.

Here, the former employees claimed that Varian was a public figure in light of
the fact that it was a publicly traded company.  The appellate court
disagreed, noting that Varian did not advertise or sell to the general public
or have any pervasive involvement in society’s affairs.  Nor had Varian
injected itself into a particular public controversy.  Finally, the court
ruled that a corporation should not lose its protection as private person
simply by doing business with the public. 

The former employees also claimed that their internet postings involved matters
of public concern. Again, the appellate court disagreed.  Although some of
the defamatory statements, such as whether Varian discriminated or harassed
women in the workplace, could be a matter of public concern, the defamatory
speech, considered as a whole, was nothing more than a vicious personal
vendetta.

• 10.0pt;font-family:Arial’>Aren’t statements made on the internet so
  ridiculous that they should not be considered defamation?

Defamation requires a false
statement of fact rather than opinion.  Where
“potentially defamatory statements are published in a public debate, a
heated labor dispute, or in another setting in which the audience may
anticipate efforts by the parties to persuade others to their positions by use
of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole, language which generally might be
considered as statements of fact may well assume the character of statements of
opinion.” 

Here, the former employees argued that they should not be liable because
internet message boards are so filled with “outrageous anonymous
postings” that no reasonable person would consider typical postings to be
true facts. 

The appellate court disagreed for three reasons.  First, it emphasized
that in order for the internet to remain a viable tool for people to evaluate
companies or otherwise meaningfully exchange ideas, it must be subject to
defamation laws.  Second, the mere fact that the audience might not have
believed the former employees’ postings does not change the fact that the
postings hurt Varian’s reputation to some extent.  Finally, defendants’
postings were not “typical anonymous and outrageous postings.” 
Rather, again, they were vicious personal attacks.

• 10.0pt;font-family:Arial’>Are statements made via the internet libel or
  slander?

There are two types of
defamation: (1) slander, which is spoken defamation, including
“communications by radio or any mechanical or other means;” and (2)
libel, which is written defamation.  Because libel has historically
been considered a greater wrong, any damages for statements that are libelous
on their face are presumed and need not proven.  On the other hand,
slander requires proof of damages

The employees argued on appeal that the internet postings were slander rather
than libel because they were produced by “mechanical” means, and
therefore Varian could not prevail because it had not proved damages.

The court held that “mechanical” means applies only to means of
auditory communication (like television and radio) and not to means like the
internet that produce written communications.  Defamatory communications
posted on the internet are therefore properly characterized as libel.

What this means

This case makes it easier for employers to recover against former employees
who make defamatory statements on the internet.  Until now, it was unclear
whether the relative informality of internet communication meant that internet
speech would be held to a different standard.  Now it is clear that
defamation in cyberspace is no different than defamation in any written form -
whether printed in a newspaper, posted on a traditional cork bulletin board or
posted on an electronic bulletin board.  If the written statement is
defamatory without the necessity of explanatory matter, it is considered libel per
se, and no proof of special damages is required.

Of course, choosing to sue one’s employees or former employees still raises a
variety of practical questions:  Can you determine who actually posted the
defamatory statement?  Do you wish to spend resources pursuing a
lawsuit?  Do you want to air your “dirty laundry” in
court?  But for those employers who do wish to pursue these internet
defamers, the road has just become easier.

——–

Weird huh?
I know my scenario is different, but I guess its good to know this shit.