
Defamation lawsuit over “Shitty Media Men” spreadsheet could break new ground - danso
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/google-fight-subpoena-demands-shitty-media-men-spreadsheet-1151932
======
olivermarks
I think the Bill Cosby allegations, accusations and trial are somewhat
relevant to this contextually.

Putting aside (if you can) what Cosby was accused of, the trial by media and
widespread publicity of accuser allegations and claims over a multi year, two
trial period was a disaster for legal credibility IMO.

"“The ability to find evidence that can support a defense 20 years later —
it’s an almost insurmountable task,” said Nina J. Ginsberg, a criminal defense
lawyer in Virginia who has handled a number of sexual assault cases.

“Having these really long statutes of limitations where it makes it virtually
impossible to disprove what the victim is saying is grossly unfair,” she
added. “Just from the defense attorney’s perspective, it’s disabling.”

[http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-gloria-
allred-...](http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-gloria-allred-
famous-cases-20151113-htmlstory.html)

With historical sexual allegations a powerful weapon in politics, business and
for financial gain, the accused are increasingly defenseless and accused is
the new guilty.

I'm not defending 'shitty men' or Bill Cosby here, I'm saying the legal system
is a mess and that careers and credibility are destroyed during the witch hunt
whether found guilty or not.

Whatever happened to 'innocent until proved guilty' and the accused's rights
to privacy?

~~~
harlanji
My life has been destroyed by a baseless corporate accusation of misconduct. I
used the bitch-word toward a woman, and the story morphed into me flying off
into a drunken rage while I was out of the office for a funeral. The story
stuck and I'm now homeless. By the time I went to legal counsel realizing the
extent of the damages, ironically, the statute of limitations of one year had
already closed. And on the street I remain, until I can gain employment and
credibility again. I'd actually welcome an assault case or anything to shed
light onto the situation... because I'm effectively being treated as guilty of
assault.

~~~
komali2
I'm sorry you're homeless, that sucks.

Can you help me better understand what happened here, though? Because it
sounds like you called a coworker a bitch and was fired over it, and now can't
get a recommendation from that job... In which case, can you understand why
people might have a hard time sympathizing with your situation? Seems the
results would be the same whether or not the story morphed.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Agreed. The morphing sounds unfortunate but immaterial here. Calling a
coworker a bitch should absolutely be grounds for dismissal in my opinion.

~~~
Aloha
Why should calling a co-worker a name be grounds for dismissal? grounds for a
warning, or other punishment perhaps, but not ground for immediate dismissal.

~~~
dpwm
It's a name which is associated with a certain level of contempt when applied
by a man to a woman.

It really depends on the jurisdiction's employment rights and very much on the
context as to whether it could be grounds for dismissal, but I can certainly
see situations where you could be summarily dismissed even in a jurisdiction
with relatively strong employment protections, such as the UK.

It's also worth noting that in some cases the employer is placed in a
difficult position where they face a difficult choice: do nothing and they run
the risk of an employee leaving citing constructive dismissal as management
did nothing to handle the bullying; do something and risk retribution from the
alleged. In some jurisdictions, sex discrimination in the workplace can lead
to a substantial claim, so if you use aggressive language towards a female
colleague in a 90% male workplace, HR is going to get twitchy.

Allegations in the form of statements are substantive evidence when it comes
to employment disputes and if gross misconduct is defined by your workplace as
bullying or harassing co-workers, you can expect to be summarily dismissed.

Also, employers can and frequently are wrong in their interpretation of what
they can and cannot lawfully do. Again, this depends on jurisdiction but some
jurisdictions have tribunals where you can take your case without the risk of
costs being awarded against you.

~~~
Udik
> It's a name which is associated with a certain level of contempt when
> applied by a man to a woman.

I am not a native speaker, so I might be wrong on this. But I believed that
"bitch" is the female version of "dick", isn't it? For example in Italian both
are rendered with the same word, only flexed by gender.

~~~
eric_h
In essence those words are used pejoratively in comparable situations.

The word “bitch” however literally means “female dog” and is, in fact, used in
a non-derogatory way in dog breeding circles.

Context is everything, but calling a female coworker a “bitch” is not
acceptable in a professional environment.

~~~
Udik
And what about calling a male colleague a "dick"? And of course I agree that
it's unprofessional and generally not acceptable; however I disagree that it
should be in itself enough to fire somebody. Of course a _repeated_ behaviour
of this kind is not acceptable and can be grounds for dismissal.

------
lykr0n
I'm all for freedom of speech, but I believe it is unbelievable shitty for
someone to publish a list of unsubstantiated allegations anonymously. Legally,
I think Google has every right to stand in the way of this lawsuit, but
morally and ethically I don't believe so. It's just like people posting
pictures on Reddit to start witch-hunts and whatever you call what 4chan does.

If you're going to accuse someone, you harm yourself and case if you do not
stand up. The one exception would be if you go to a newspaper/site, they do
their due diligence, and backup your claims.

~~~
geofft
I think if you are for freedom of speech, this is exactly the sort of speech
to disagree with and yet defend. This was a list of people not to work with,
not a list of people to actively go after and harass. The list was not
maintained by people with government or industry power. A world where you
can't speak to others unless it's either a popular idea or a media
organization will vouch for your speech is one where individuals don't
actually have freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not going to be good for everyone. It will hurt people.
It will cause people to believe things without hearing all sides of the story.
It will allow a lie to travel halfway around the world before the truth puts
it pants on. We want freedom of speech _despite_ all this risk, because we
believe it has a power to improve society in a way that simply cannot be done
by a censor that makes sure that all speech is good for society in its eyes.

~~~
stickfigure
So, you think it should be perfectly legal for me to circulate a rumor that
geofft on hackernews is a pedophile?

I think our (the US) defamation laws are pretty reasonable. It provides a huge
leeway for free speech but draws the line at lies that damage a private party.
If you're going to publish a serious accusation like that, you had better be
able to back it up - and if you can't, you should face legal consequences.

~~~
geofft
I do, actually. You have no evidence, so spread whatever rumors you like. If
you start fabricating evidence then I would like that to be illegal.

I think there's also a distinction here between a good-faith claim with
minimal evidence by the nature of the claim (e.g. "this happened between the
two of us privately") and a bad-faith claim because there's no evidence
because it never happened. I'm not sure how exactly to draw the distinction,
but I do think that we shouldn't treat people who genuinely believe a thing
happened (whether or not it happened) and are unable to provide evidence as
equivalent to people who intentionally made up a claim. I think there are ways
to figure out which case you're in, but if not, the principle of "presumed
innocent until proven guilty" guides us to not punish either.

(To me "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is a check on
government power which would otherwise be unchecked and unappealable, a
statement about due process _of law_. I believe in it in this context; I don't
believe in it as an ideal of a good society and non-government behavior, the
way I believe in freedom of speech as both a legal right and an ideal of a
good society, because I don't think a good society should bring everything
before the courts.)

~~~
stickfigure
I admire your principled stand but I think you'd be singing a different tune
when people start throwing bricks in your window and slashing your tires. Or
worse, depending on where you live:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-18/lynch-
mob...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-18/lynch-mobs-are-
india-s-problem-not-whatsapp-s)

Rumors cause real damage.

------
larkeith
The idea that, because a single user broke confidence and published a private
correspondence, the real identities of each contributor might be exposed is,
quite frankly, horrifying to me. While it might, possibly, be reasonable to
accuse that member _only_ of defamation, the access requested is far too
broad.

If this suit is successful, it will set a chilling precedent: That no
conversation on the Internet may be considered legally private, and that any
negative conversations may run the risk of a lawsuit-enforced doxxing.

~~~
gaius
_the real identities of each contributor might be exposed is, quite frankly,
horrifying to me_

Person A adds your name to a list and you'll never know that that's why Person
B tossed your resume in the trash. That's horrifying. And in the UK at least,
illegal [https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/legal-qa-
blacklisting/](https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/legal-qa-blacklisting/)

~~~
DanBC
The spreadsheet wasn't being used to stop men from getting jobs. It was being
used to warn women that they may need to protect themselves when working with
those men.

Please don't conflate the UK laws about blacklisting - which come from a time
of vigorous anti-union activism in the construction industry that prevented
men from working in any company in their industry for many years (and led to
the creation of UK laws about data protection) - with this small private
spreadsheet.

~~~
gaius
_he spreadsheet wasn 't being used to stop men from getting jobs_

The linked article on Scribd says that that was the purpose of the list.

 _a time of vigorous anti-union activism_

"They're not union members, this is, umm, some other list" won't fly in front
of any judge.

\----

I can't reply because I'm "posting too fast" so here is my reply here:

I'm familiar with the case. And so there is no doubt: those who have actually
committed crimes mentioned on the spreadsheet should be in jail. But anonymous
blacklists are not the way to get justice for anyone, they are too open to
misuse.

~~~
DanBC
UK building firms built extensive blacklists of union activists. These
blacklists were used for years to prevent those activists working in the
construction industry. These blacklists were kept on paper. The first UK data
protection law had to be changed to include paper records so that these anti-
union blacklists would be covered by the law. Even with the change in the law
the black listing probably continued into the 21stC.

This was a long running, extensive, campaign

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/27/on-the-
black...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/27/on-the-blacklist-
building-firms-secret-information-on-workers)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(employment)#UK_Blac...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_\(employment\)#UK_Blacklisting_of_trade_union_members)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consulting_Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consulting_Association)

------
bradleyjg
I don’t see either the first amendment or section 230 argument here. The first
amendment has been held to protect anonymous speech in the sense that the
government can’t ban anonymous speech or require registration in order to
speak. It has not to my knowledge ever held that the ordinary civil law
discovery rules must be modified because people wished to speak anonymously
but did not take sufficient measures to remain anonymous.

Section 230 meanwhile protects electronic publishers from being sued civilly
for the what users of their services write. This is important because under
defamation law one who repeats a libel is equally liable as the original
speaker.

There’s two possibilities that I see: a) most likely the boring traditional
reasons to quash a subpoena (e.g. too burdensome) or b) as a long shot one of
the journalist shield laws.

~~~
dooglius
Both the first amendment and section 230 were mentioned in the article. Also,
Google is not being sued here, merely being given a subpoena, so I don't see
how it applies.

------
cagenut
if you're open mindedly looking for context, thecut managed to get quotes out
of 5 guys on the list: [https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/stephen-elliott-moira-
donegan...](https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/stephen-elliott-moira-donegan-men-
respond.html)

and hmm daily (they're new) has a piece on the sue-er just today:
[https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/14/who-is-stephen-
elliott/](https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/14/who-is-stephen-elliott/)

------
grzm
Actual title: _Google to Fight Subpoena Demands Over "Shitty Media Men"
Spreadsheet_

