

DongleGate: A Legal Perspective and some social commentary - gabrielrdz
http://codebetter.com/johnvpetersen/2013/03/22/donglegate-a-legal-perspective-and-some-social-commentary/

======
jerrya
Pretty interesting analysis and ties in well with this other one from quora
(via forbes)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/03/22/was-it-
appropri...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/03/22/was-it-appropriate-
for-adria-richards-to-tweet-a-photo-of-two-men-at-pycon-and-accuse-them-of-
being-sexist/)

I take issue with this:

"One thing we can agree on, there is a massive lack of maturity in this
business."

While true, the more general truth is that humans are human, fallible, full of
mirth and wit and a need to socialize, laughing like chimps (and vice versa).
Primates.

Zero tolerance is for robot species. Allowances must be made for errorful
humans. This is why I dislike the firing of both of the people, though I agree
that Richards' firing is much more justifiable. (The two CEOs had an
opportunity to earn their pay and take a leadership stance that day.)

I do applaud Richards for one small thing in this. She tweeted those pictures
using her name.

There are sites out there like the ihollaback sites that encourage the same
exact behavior that Richards did, but allow their users to do this completely
anonymously, and the people so shown and maligned no recourse.

Because of the cause ihollaback purports to advance, ihollaback drew a lot of
acclaim when it launched, and still does. We should consider that.

------
tptacek
To establish all the elements of a tortious interference case, wouldn't the
fired engineer need to provide evidence that the Tweeter's intention was to
get him fired? Tortious interference requires a deliberate attempt to actually
interfere with a contract you knew existed. Here, it's hard to argue that the
Tweeter even knew the fired engineer was employed; he could just as easily
have been a freelancer. That's before you get to the awfully murky claim that
anything negative you say about somebody on Twitter must be an attempt to get
them fired.

~~~
anigbrowl
If I was bringing such a suit, I'd focus on the content of the blog post where
she mentioned his verbal acknowledgment that the firm was a conference
sponsors, and argued that wearing a shirt with his employer's logo made him a
representative of the firm, the implication being that he was unfit to carry
out his duties as a corporate representative.

I couldn't tell you if there's precedent for that; I haven't looked. If so, it
might just as easily support a counter-suit for IIED or NIED. I hope nobody
files any lawuits; if they do I'm going to take a vacation from HN and stick
my head in a bucket of water until it's over.

~~~
tptacek
Oh, good point about the conference sponsor stuff.

Still: there's a big gulf of persuasive evidence between saying someone is not
acting in the moment as an effective representative for their firm, and in
directly procuring the severance of an employment contract between them and
their employer.

I think this case, or any case in the other direction, is extremely far
fetched.

~~~
anigbrowl
Indeed. Likewise, a counter-suit would be reaching for the outer limits of
what constitutes emotional distress. That's why I'm hoping it won't end up in
court; both sides would have to make stretch arguments, and the underlying
issues would get lost in all the kindergarten Constitution-thumping and
posturing.

When I was a young internet evangelist I used to think that always-on internet
availability would lead to a breakout of civil communication in some sort of
21st century Agora. Unfortunately, I overlooked the fact that people behave
badly in crowds.

------
onemorepassword
Surprising argument from a lawyer: the "right to be offended" is one of the
most pointless, meaningless and hollow arguments there is, legally or
otherwise.

Especially when it's followed by the complete and utter nonsense "others
should respect that".

No, they damn well don't. Everybody has the "right" to think the sky is green
and the grass is purple. That doesn't mean anybody else has to respect that.

Claiming the right to be offended and the obligation to respect that is the
argument of religious and ideological fundamentalists.

------
Erwin
This was a surprisingly interesting read, compared to what else has been
written about the event so far. Someone should turn this into a little
Grisham-style legal drama for the twitter age.

