When Sued Don't Tweet(jacquesmattheij.com)
jacquesmattheij.com
When Sued Don't Tweet
http://jacquesmattheij.com/when-sued-dont-tweet
19 comments
Wouldn't most attorneys advise their client to keep quiet and not post on Twitter and talk to the media about the case?
It's not always that simple. There is never anything wrong with talking about a case in principle. As an attorney myself I am often asked to look over this sort of article, press release or other notification. I encourage my clients to be open if they have nothing to hide.
However even posting honest, accurate articles online can come back to haunt you. Unless written very precisely, words can be interpreted by different people differently and often in a way that wasn't intended by the author.
This process doesn't have to be a cynical twisting of words - naturally, a reader's interpretation will be informed by their pre-existing point of view. When that view is one of a litigant, it can open up new issues in a case and lead to new ways to analyse evidence.
If you are posting about a case, make sure you're doing it calmly and definitely get it edited by your lawyer!
[edited for accuracy, typos]
However even posting honest, accurate articles online can come back to haunt you. Unless written very precisely, words can be interpreted by different people differently and often in a way that wasn't intended by the author.
This process doesn't have to be a cynical twisting of words - naturally, a reader's interpretation will be informed by their pre-existing point of view. When that view is one of a litigant, it can open up new issues in a case and lead to new ways to analyse evidence.
If you are posting about a case, make sure you're doing it calmly and definitely get it edited by your lawyer!
[edited for accuracy, typos]
There is a skill to writing a press release. Think of how often people take things out of context during an argument on the internet. Now imagine they have a financial motivation to do so.
The basic advice of "Don't just do something; stand there!" is sound, but I'm curious if you (or other people) have practical suggestions on how to do that. In practice, it can be quite difficult to do nothing when it feels like that action is desperately necessary.
When sued the appropriate action is to immediately higher a qualified lawyer with expertise in the specific area. Then follow his advice. Until you do that... do not do ANYTHING.
Sure. That's explaining what to do, which was already established. I asked about how to do that. "Do not do ANYTHING" is easy advice to give, but very hard to implement.
You probably meant 'hire', not 'higher'
In this age of technology that tries to predict and guess our intentions based on patterns and hand wavy algorithms, it's also safe to assume that autocorrect just outright got it wrong when it corrected an entire phrase. Much as grammatical faux pas irritate my mild obsessiveness, I've learned to just let them slide. Personally, I try not to let such edits slip past me, but they often do. It's usually IM and the person on the other end gets a good laugh, but the intent is typically evident.
I'm curious to know if, were the tweets to be used, they would also have to prove it was he that made them. Sure, they're from his account, but would that hold up in court? See: the many celebrities who have people tweet on their behalf with their (the celebrities') account.
Ianal, but in a deposition he would be asked whether they were his tweets or not.
If he denied they were, he would be asked further questions and possibly caught in a lie. Such as "is this the only time that your account has been used by someone other than yourself?" or "So you are saying that this is the only tweet that you didn't make but the others before and after you did". And so on. My guess is that he would be advised to tell the truth to prevent getting further trapped as far as his credibility. There may also be other people that he discussed the tweets with that could be brought into the picture as well under oath in court I'm guessing. Bottom line: Denial is easier said than done.
If he denied they were, he would be asked further questions and possibly caught in a lie. Such as "is this the only time that your account has been used by someone other than yourself?" or "So you are saying that this is the only tweet that you didn't make but the others before and after you did". And so on. My guess is that he would be advised to tell the truth to prevent getting further trapped as far as his credibility. There may also be other people that he discussed the tweets with that could be brought into the picture as well under oath in court I'm guessing. Bottom line: Denial is easier said than done.
To add on, some attorneys spend their whole lives tearing apart people who lie. Unless you are professional psychopath, you are completely outclassed here.
Agree. Would also add that if you lie infrequently you are probably not prepared to know all the potential pitfalls of lying and how the other person can tear you a new one if you want to call it that.
Additionally I've noticed a loose correlation between people who lie and who their parents are or how they were raised. Nothing scientific of course, but people whose parents don't hold their feet to the flame are generally more likely to think that they can get away with something because "the other guy is stupid". People whose parents are either very intelligent or hold them on everything they say are generally more practiced at thinking of the various possibilities that can come about to refute something they would say.
Additionally I've noticed a loose correlation between people who lie and who their parents are or how they were raised. Nothing scientific of course, but people whose parents don't hold their feet to the flame are generally more likely to think that they can get away with something because "the other guy is stupid". People whose parents are either very intelligent or hold them on everything they say are generally more practiced at thinking of the various possibilities that can come about to refute something they would say.
Couldn't the same be said about e-mail? Which does hold up in court.
The same question can be asked, yes.
A possible exception: When you have no means to afford a lawyer and the case is obviously frivolous.
Whilst I would nearly always go for shutting up, we've probably all witnessed the David being sued by a Goliath and their only viable action is to make it know and get support.
That isn't what's happening here though... but no rule is black and white.
Whilst I would nearly always go for shutting up, we've probably all witnessed the David being sued by a Goliath and their only viable action is to make it know and get support.
That isn't what's happening here though... but no rule is black and white.
Also: if you're a game developer, and Zenimax offers you a job, and you know this is how they treat people people who've moved on, you might consider taking a different role.
Yes when you have nothing to lose you can afford to not worry about the legal niceties.
What to do when people make you angry online:
1. GET OFF SOCIAL MEDIA. Everything you say and do will make you a target. The only things you can say that might help you would be contrition, so if you're not willing to do that, get the hell off social media. This is also good because it removes you from having to read things about yourself that people are saying. People's talk will not harm you; your reaction to people's talk will harm you.
2. GET AN OFFLINE JOURNAL. If you have strong feelings, write them out. Write until you can't feel anymore. But don't put it online; keep it offline. The purpose is to have an exercise that gets your thoughts out, and to be able to read through your thoughts and clarify them later. Write letters to the people you're angry with, then review them and edit them many times, and never send them.
3. TALK TO FRIENDS. It's incredibly easy to let internalizing your feelings change how you think, change your memories, and turn you into a shell of your former self. You can even develop anxiety disorders or PTSD if this gets out of hand. Talk to people who understand and love you and let them keep you in check. You need positive outside influences to keep yourself sane. Talk to a good psychiatrist if you can.
4. KEEP THE BIG PICTURE IN MIND. It's easy to confuse yourself and wrestle over details. Start by considering the intent of your actions, and work from there to understand the whole chain of events, impartial and without emotion. It takes a while to get there. Be totally honest with yourself, but don't convince yourself of things that you didn't do.
1. GET OFF SOCIAL MEDIA. Everything you say and do will make you a target. The only things you can say that might help you would be contrition, so if you're not willing to do that, get the hell off social media. This is also good because it removes you from having to read things about yourself that people are saying. People's talk will not harm you; your reaction to people's talk will harm you.
2. GET AN OFFLINE JOURNAL. If you have strong feelings, write them out. Write until you can't feel anymore. But don't put it online; keep it offline. The purpose is to have an exercise that gets your thoughts out, and to be able to read through your thoughts and clarify them later. Write letters to the people you're angry with, then review them and edit them many times, and never send them.
3. TALK TO FRIENDS. It's incredibly easy to let internalizing your feelings change how you think, change your memories, and turn you into a shell of your former self. You can even develop anxiety disorders or PTSD if this gets out of hand. Talk to people who understand and love you and let them keep you in check. You need positive outside influences to keep yourself sane. Talk to a good psychiatrist if you can.
4. KEEP THE BIG PICTURE IN MIND. It's easy to confuse yourself and wrestle over details. Start by considering the intent of your actions, and work from there to understand the whole chain of events, impartial and without emotion. It takes a while to get there. Be totally honest with yourself, but don't convince yourself of things that you didn't do.
> 1. GET OFF SOCIAL MEDIA. Everything you say and do will make you a target. The only things you can say that might help you would be contrition
IANAL, but this seems like bad advice. If there's litigation involved, any sort of apology could be taken as an admission of guilt.
IANAL, but this seems like bad advice. If there's litigation involved, any sort of apology could be taken as an admission of guilt.
Yes, yes, yes. Excellent advice.
The only thing I'd add is that it can be worth being visible about this. If you can make a polite and neutral statement before disappearing, that can help. E.g., "I wasn't expecting such a strong reaction; I obviously need to take some time to think this over and talk with friends before saying more in public."
The only thing I'd add is that it can be worth being visible about this. If you can make a polite and neutral statement before disappearing, that can help. E.g., "I wasn't expecting such a strong reaction; I obviously need to take some time to think this over and talk with friends before saying more in public."
One thing I've often wondered: how does one even find the best lawyer, with the most appropriate experience etc.?
It seems you'd almost need another lawyer, who knows the best people in each specialty, to advise you.
It seems you'd almost need another lawyer, who knows the best people in each specialty, to advise you.
There always remains the possibility that you may not be able to find a suitable one at all: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...
This recent high-profile case has been thrown out because nobody that legal aid is willing to pay (for the defendants) for is capable of handling it. Even the first step, "read 10,000 pages of documents", is not affordable since the legal aid cuts.
That document describes the desperate search for someone suitable and willing ("silk" == barrister or QC, required at this level of court)
This recent high-profile case has been thrown out because nobody that legal aid is willing to pay (for the defendants) for is capable of handling it. Even the first step, "read 10,000 pages of documents", is not affordable since the legal aid cuts.
That document describes the desperate search for someone suitable and willing ("silk" == barrister or QC, required at this level of court)
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... is an interesting case indeed. It's like a DoS on justice, make sure that your case requires the reading of a large document and you can get off because the lawyers, silks, etc., will refuse the work.
This is a flaw in the legal system. I'd be surprised that the monarch doesn't have power to order someone, a QC say, to take the trial on.
Also, aside, "bro bono" (para 19), first time I seen that one - taking on a job for free under obligation to family/friends.
--
Edit: typo at para.85 adds more weight to my previous thoughts on needing more contextual spell checking. "scare resources" is almost always going to be a typo.
This is a flaw in the legal system. I'd be surprised that the monarch doesn't have power to order someone, a QC say, to take the trial on.
Also, aside, "bro bono" (para 19), first time I seen that one - taking on a job for free under obligation to family/friends.
--
Edit: typo at para.85 adds more weight to my previous thoughts on needing more contextual spell checking. "scare resources" is almost always going to be a typo.
Monarch does not have those powers; in any case this is effectively a pay dispute.
The complexity issue is important and needs addressing properly. Jury trials for fraud have already been abandoned for this reason. However, I've no idea how you'd reform it; you need to have people who (a) know the law and (b) have read all the relevant documents, which is always going to take time and therefore cost money.
The complexity issue is important and needs addressing properly. Jury trials for fraud have already been abandoned for this reason. However, I've no idea how you'd reform it; you need to have people who (a) know the law and (b) have read all the relevant documents, which is always going to take time and therefore cost money.
I've found Avvo.com helpful as a starting point. It's like linkedin for lawyers with ratings reviews etc...
You have a couple options, as I see it (there could be more):
Find someone who's had to deal with something similar to find out who they used and their experience.
Contact a state or local bar association. In Wisconsin our state bar has a lawyer referral program. They're not necessarily the best in their field, but they're a good start, and a limited consult might be free or of little cost.
Find someone who's had to deal with something similar to find out who they used and their experience.
Contact a state or local bar association. In Wisconsin our state bar has a lawyer referral program. They're not necessarily the best in their field, but they're a good start, and a limited consult might be free or of little cost.
Thanks. I just checked the website of my local bar association, and they have a search form with about a dozen specialities. That doesn't narrow it down a lot, but it's a start.
They might have a number to call.
Our online form had basic functionality like that, but calling let you talk to a staff member who could help you clarify what you might actually need.
(I worked as a web developer for a number if years there, and the form didn't get updated much while I was there.)
Our online form had basic functionality like that, but calling let you talk to a staff member who could help you clarify what you might actually need.
(I worked as a web developer for a number if years there, and the form didn't get updated much while I was there.)
Contact friends and ask them for attorneys they've worked with and liked. Then ask those attorneys for a referral to one who specializes in your case.
See also: http://www.popehat.com/2011/05/27/how-to-cold-call-a-lawyer-...
See also: http://www.popehat.com/2011/05/27/how-to-cold-call-a-lawyer-...
I would encourage everybody to have a lawyer. I've used the same guy for circa 15 years.
We talk maybe once a year, as I rarely need legal advice, but it's enough to keep the relationship alive. If I ever needed a legal specialist, I'd instantly go to him for a referral. And I'd use him to double-check any advice from the specialist.
The first time, it seems a little weird paying somebody $200-500 to, say, look over an employment contract. I was used to half-assing that myself, which cost nothing. But now I look at it as two kinds of insurance. First, you're drastically lowering the risk that there's something in the documents you missed. Second, if something bad does go down, your lawyer's now involved; it's not a new matter, it's something they blessed. And as a practical matter, negotiating contract points is much easier when you can, "My laywer says X" instead of, "I'm no expert, but I think X".
We talk maybe once a year, as I rarely need legal advice, but it's enough to keep the relationship alive. If I ever needed a legal specialist, I'd instantly go to him for a referral. And I'd use him to double-check any advice from the specialist.
The first time, it seems a little weird paying somebody $200-500 to, say, look over an employment contract. I was used to half-assing that myself, which cost nothing. But now I look at it as two kinds of insurance. First, you're drastically lowering the risk that there's something in the documents you missed. Second, if something bad does go down, your lawyer's now involved; it's not a new matter, it's something they blessed. And as a practical matter, negotiating contract points is much easier when you can, "My laywer says X" instead of, "I'm no expert, but I think X".
An interesting counterpoint to this is Julie Ann Horvath, who leveraged Twitter to expose a toxic culture at Github (1) and eventually forced the CEO and his wife to leave the company (2), and has kept Github and certain employees on the defensive (3).
She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on Twitter, but I can't help but think that nothing would have changed had she kept silent or quietly hired an employment lawyer after being forced out.
1. http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/19/5526574/github-sexism-scan...
2. http://recode.net/2014/04/21/julie-ann-horvath-on-github-inv...
3. http://www.dailydot.com/business/julie-ann-horvath-names-git...
She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on Twitter, but I can't help but think that nothing would have changed had she kept silent or quietly hired an employment lawyer after being forced out.
1. http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/19/5526574/github-sexism-scan...
2. http://recode.net/2014/04/21/julie-ann-horvath-on-github-inv...
3. http://www.dailydot.com/business/julie-ann-horvath-names-git...
It's an interesting counter-point, but I'm not sure it's an example to be lauded; most of her complaints were found to have no basis in fact, and she's likely poisoned any future legal suit she might wish to bring.
Additionally, she's incurred significant personal liability in the process.
> She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on Twitter, but I can't help but think that nothing would have changed had she kept silent or quietly hired an employment lawyer after being forced out.
I can't help but think the court of public opinion has been used to bludgeon an opponent, not achieve justice.
The public absolutely lacks the facts necessary to judge the merits of the accusations, and the objectivity necessary won't be forthcoming through inciting angry internet mobs. This wasn't something as simple as Sterling's overt racism -- and even then, the public's ability to observe and act on his overt racism wasn't possible until it saw the cold light of day through objective and verifiable evidence.
The safest and likely most productive way for GitHub to be held to account, if GitHub as an organization needed to be held to account, was by providing a clear, objective statement of the allegations, vetted by her lawyer, and if possible, a tenacious lawsuit and refusal to settle for anything less than a public statement.
Additionally, she's incurred significant personal liability in the process.
> She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on Twitter, but I can't help but think that nothing would have changed had she kept silent or quietly hired an employment lawyer after being forced out.
I can't help but think the court of public opinion has been used to bludgeon an opponent, not achieve justice.
The public absolutely lacks the facts necessary to judge the merits of the accusations, and the objectivity necessary won't be forthcoming through inciting angry internet mobs. This wasn't something as simple as Sterling's overt racism -- and even then, the public's ability to observe and act on his overt racism wasn't possible until it saw the cold light of day through objective and verifiable evidence.
The safest and likely most productive way for GitHub to be held to account, if GitHub as an organization needed to be held to account, was by providing a clear, objective statement of the allegations, vetted by her lawyer, and if possible, a tenacious lawsuit and refusal to settle for anything less than a public statement.
> most of her complaints were found to have no basis in fact
Enough of them had a basis in fact to get a founder fired.
Enough of them had a basis in fact to get a founder fired.
While I'm not sufficiently informed on the daily operations at GitHub, "basis in fact" has nothing to do with whether a C-level remains employed or not. Companies these days are hypersensitive about their reputations and you'll be considered a liability for a single misconstrued statement despite years of stellar (and most importantly, completely politically sanitary) work.
You may even get owned for politically incorrect behavior that occurs in private and completely external to your professional affiliation. Off the top of my head I can cite a handful of such ousters that have occurred in the last month, including but not limited to Brendan Eich and Donald Sterling.
We're in a really bad spot right now. The principles that undergird free society are not well regarded anymore. Make a single statement that stirs the ire of the reigning corporate thought police and you're done for, no matter how innocuous it may or may not be. People don't care about the facts, it's all about perception, and if you're perceived as a thought criminal in any of the many varied channels now considered taboo, you're "toxic" to the company. It's as simple as that.
Considering this status, perhaps aggression and even subtlety are justified if you're seeking to defend yourself against the types of accusations that would get a toxic label applied to your name.
You may even get owned for politically incorrect behavior that occurs in private and completely external to your professional affiliation. Off the top of my head I can cite a handful of such ousters that have occurred in the last month, including but not limited to Brendan Eich and Donald Sterling.
We're in a really bad spot right now. The principles that undergird free society are not well regarded anymore. Make a single statement that stirs the ire of the reigning corporate thought police and you're done for, no matter how innocuous it may or may not be. People don't care about the facts, it's all about perception, and if you're perceived as a thought criminal in any of the many varied channels now considered taboo, you're "toxic" to the company. It's as simple as that.
Considering this status, perhaps aggression and even subtlety are justified if you're seeking to defend yourself against the types of accusations that would get a toxic label applied to your name.
Eich's public behavior was absolutely material to his work. You can't work to break apart gay families and undermine gay people's constitutional rights and then expect gay people to be be perfectly comfortable working for you. And Mozilla's board reasonably felt that material to him being the CEO of a company. Well, that or his demonstrated inability to handle a corporate crisis with a big press element.
* Marriage is not a constitutional right for anyone
* The rules that say the government is not allowed to define marriage further than "two humans say they want to live together and want us to give them stuff for it" are very new, and Eich was fighting to not have this become the rule.
* Gay people should be perfectly comfortable working for people who supported Prop 8 or they're going to have a hard time, as there's a > 50% chance that a random stranger will have done so.
* Eich's ideas on what relationships the government should reward does not materially affect his performance as CEO. He'd already promised to keep Mozilla's inclusive policies.
* If you really want to say gay people would find it impossible to work for Eich, I find it hard to believe that any such persons at Mozilla are less replaceable than Brendan Eich. If they do resign in protest, Eich would've had no trouble replacing them. However, Mozilla's official statement indicated the vast majority of the company supported him, with "less than ten" current employees threatening resignation if Eich maintained his post.
* The board didn't fire or pressure Eich to leave. He resigned voluntarily as damage control. Mozilla's official statement is clear about this.
Casting anyone who supported Prop 8 as a villain is a wholly untenable philosophical stance. It condemns the majority of Californians and Americans. You can't live life with that large of a chip on your shoulder, it's completely disruptive. If you are doing so, I recommend you seek a shoulder-chip repair professional before further damage to self and others is perpetrated by political intolerance.
* The rules that say the government is not allowed to define marriage further than "two humans say they want to live together and want us to give them stuff for it" are very new, and Eich was fighting to not have this become the rule.
* Gay people should be perfectly comfortable working for people who supported Prop 8 or they're going to have a hard time, as there's a > 50% chance that a random stranger will have done so.
* Eich's ideas on what relationships the government should reward does not materially affect his performance as CEO. He'd already promised to keep Mozilla's inclusive policies.
* If you really want to say gay people would find it impossible to work for Eich, I find it hard to believe that any such persons at Mozilla are less replaceable than Brendan Eich. If they do resign in protest, Eich would've had no trouble replacing them. However, Mozilla's official statement indicated the vast majority of the company supported him, with "less than ten" current employees threatening resignation if Eich maintained his post.
* The board didn't fire or pressure Eich to leave. He resigned voluntarily as damage control. Mozilla's official statement is clear about this.
Casting anyone who supported Prop 8 as a villain is a wholly untenable philosophical stance. It condemns the majority of Californians and Americans. You can't live life with that large of a chip on your shoulder, it's completely disruptive. If you are doing so, I recommend you seek a shoulder-chip repair professional before further damage to self and others is perpetrated by political intolerance.
> Gay people should be perfectly comfortable working for people who supported Prop 8 or they're going to have a hard time, as there's a > 50% chance that a random stranger will have done so.
You're seriously arguing that people should be okay with being oppressed, as long as a lot of people are oppressing them? Like, maybe we should be flattered by all the attention?
You're seriously arguing that people should be okay with being oppressed, as long as a lot of people are oppressing them? Like, maybe we should be flattered by all the attention?
I'm not arguing that people should be OK with "being oppressed". People are free to engage in responsible social and political action to effect the changes they want. One can disagree civilly and continue his/her social activism. I'm arguing that people should accept not everyone agrees with them, and not try to get those people fired/destroyed for their disagreement.
* The reason Prop 8 was was a constitutional amendment is that equality before the law is a right enshrined in the California constitution.
* Immaterial.
* There is a difference between "voted for" and "funded". Further, Eich refused to say whether his opinion had changed. And obviously, you don't get to say what gay people are comfortable about.
* Incorrect. Promising to be bigoted only in his off hours is not a promise that will convince everybody.
* Your view apparently is that as long as you're not powerful, injustice is fine. That's not a view many share. Especially at Mozilla.
* Fair enough.
At one point vast majorities of people opposed interracial marriage. And, earlier, were in favor of slavery for black people, an institution maintained through brutality and torture. I'm not saying those people are villains, but I am saying they were wrong, and bigoted in a way that was deeply problematic. And I'm saying the same thing about people who supported Prop 8. Thankfully, as the statistics show, people are more quickly waking up to their anti-gay bigotry, so it's a dead issue here in California, and it soon will be in the rest of the nation.
* Immaterial.
* There is a difference between "voted for" and "funded". Further, Eich refused to say whether his opinion had changed. And obviously, you don't get to say what gay people are comfortable about.
* Incorrect. Promising to be bigoted only in his off hours is not a promise that will convince everybody.
* Your view apparently is that as long as you're not powerful, injustice is fine. That's not a view many share. Especially at Mozilla.
* Fair enough.
At one point vast majorities of people opposed interracial marriage. And, earlier, were in favor of slavery for black people, an institution maintained through brutality and torture. I'm not saying those people are villains, but I am saying they were wrong, and bigoted in a way that was deeply problematic. And I'm saying the same thing about people who supported Prop 8. Thankfully, as the statistics show, people are more quickly waking up to their anti-gay bigotry, so it's a dead issue here in California, and it soon will be in the rest of the nation.
> The reason Prop 8 was was a constitutional amendment is that equality before the law is a right enshrined in the California constitution.
OK, again, it's not that "the right to marry" is constitutional. It's just that some judges have decided "marriage" means giving benefits to any two humans who claim they want it. This isn't what marriage is supposed to be, but that's beside the point at the moment. Bans on same-sex marriage were considered unconstitutional because marital benefits were granted to persons who engaged in opposite-sex permanent coupling, and the judiciary decided that since the existence of sex was acknowledged, it was unfair. Enforcing this massive blind spot is obviously absurd, but again, currently beside the point. The point is there is not a constitutional right to marital benefits.
>* There is a difference between "voted for" and "funded". Further, Eich refused to say whether his opinion had changed. And obviously, you don't get to say what gay people are comfortable about.
Eich's contribution was minor, so not much of a difference in this case. Perhaps, as a wealthy individual, he routinely donates to political causes that accord with his beliefs and considers this good citizenship. You can't say that this issue was critical to Eich simply because a small contribution exists.
There was no reason to demand Eich recant his position. This is still a hot mainstream political topic. As Mozilla stated, almost the entire company was content to follow Eich; only a negligible number of employees threatened to leave. Eich resigned to prevent damage to Firefox and its users.
>Incorrect. Promising to be bigoted only in his off hours is not a promise that will convince everybody.
It doesn't materially affect his performance as CEO no matter what he chooses to believe on a social issue about as far removed from computer software as you can get.
>Your view apparently is that as long as you're not powerful, injustice is fine. That's not a view many share. Especially at Mozilla.
No, my view is that Eich committed no injustice by expressing his opinion via political contributions, and that we shouldn't displace extremely well-qualified persons because a very small percentage of people chose to have their feelings hurt by Eich's completely reasonable, defensible, and valid actions. It has nothing to do with anyone's power, just their value and contribution. Eich, as the inventor of JavaScript, provides irreplaceable value, and as he did nothing wrong, he shouldn't have been displaced.
>At one point vast majorities of people opposed interracial marriage. And, earlier, were in favor of slavery for black people, an institution maintained through brutality and torture.
However deplorable you consider these things, you need to understand the context in which such people were developed and some basics about human moral development. The black and white, scorched earth view is not beneficial to anyone except those primarily concerned with stroking their victim complex. After the South surrendered, widespread amnesty was offered, not widespread condemnation of all "bigots". One needs to learn to live with the fact that vast majorities of his contemporaries have different belief and value systems, instead of trying to force them to adopt the same value system by shame and bullying.
I don't want to get into it here, but I believe there are major differences between opposition to same-sex marriage and racial issues. Pretty much the only thing they share is that they were controversial political issues.
I agree that in the short-term, discussion on gay marriage will be chilled and it will be grudgingly accepted in light of absurdly hypocritical bullying and shame campaigns orchestrated by gay rights activists. But I don't think it will last. I think the fact that gay marriage is even entertained demonstrates that western society has been stretched to its breaking point, and I expect it to break, at which point these realities that we prefer to ignore will pronounce themselves starkly and demand recognition, as has happened over and over again when a society gets enough wealth to drink and imbibe itself into major social stupor.
OK, again, it's not that "the right to marry" is constitutional. It's just that some judges have decided "marriage" means giving benefits to any two humans who claim they want it. This isn't what marriage is supposed to be, but that's beside the point at the moment. Bans on same-sex marriage were considered unconstitutional because marital benefits were granted to persons who engaged in opposite-sex permanent coupling, and the judiciary decided that since the existence of sex was acknowledged, it was unfair. Enforcing this massive blind spot is obviously absurd, but again, currently beside the point. The point is there is not a constitutional right to marital benefits.
>* There is a difference between "voted for" and "funded". Further, Eich refused to say whether his opinion had changed. And obviously, you don't get to say what gay people are comfortable about.
Eich's contribution was minor, so not much of a difference in this case. Perhaps, as a wealthy individual, he routinely donates to political causes that accord with his beliefs and considers this good citizenship. You can't say that this issue was critical to Eich simply because a small contribution exists.
There was no reason to demand Eich recant his position. This is still a hot mainstream political topic. As Mozilla stated, almost the entire company was content to follow Eich; only a negligible number of employees threatened to leave. Eich resigned to prevent damage to Firefox and its users.
>Incorrect. Promising to be bigoted only in his off hours is not a promise that will convince everybody.
It doesn't materially affect his performance as CEO no matter what he chooses to believe on a social issue about as far removed from computer software as you can get.
>Your view apparently is that as long as you're not powerful, injustice is fine. That's not a view many share. Especially at Mozilla.
No, my view is that Eich committed no injustice by expressing his opinion via political contributions, and that we shouldn't displace extremely well-qualified persons because a very small percentage of people chose to have their feelings hurt by Eich's completely reasonable, defensible, and valid actions. It has nothing to do with anyone's power, just their value and contribution. Eich, as the inventor of JavaScript, provides irreplaceable value, and as he did nothing wrong, he shouldn't have been displaced.
>At one point vast majorities of people opposed interracial marriage. And, earlier, were in favor of slavery for black people, an institution maintained through brutality and torture.
However deplorable you consider these things, you need to understand the context in which such people were developed and some basics about human moral development. The black and white, scorched earth view is not beneficial to anyone except those primarily concerned with stroking their victim complex. After the South surrendered, widespread amnesty was offered, not widespread condemnation of all "bigots". One needs to learn to live with the fact that vast majorities of his contemporaries have different belief and value systems, instead of trying to force them to adopt the same value system by shame and bullying.
I don't want to get into it here, but I believe there are major differences between opposition to same-sex marriage and racial issues. Pretty much the only thing they share is that they were controversial political issues.
I agree that in the short-term, discussion on gay marriage will be chilled and it will be grudgingly accepted in light of absurdly hypocritical bullying and shame campaigns orchestrated by gay rights activists. But I don't think it will last. I think the fact that gay marriage is even entertained demonstrates that western society has been stretched to its breaking point, and I expect it to break, at which point these realities that we prefer to ignore will pronounce themselves starkly and demand recognition, as has happened over and over again when a society gets enough wealth to drink and imbibe itself into major social stupor.
The bit about constitutionality is about equal protection under the law. The sole legal purpose and effect of Prop 8 was to strip equal protection from gay people as regards to marriage. That's not a debatable legal point, and the court decisions are quite clear on it. You can try to justify that, but pretending like that's not what went on mainly makes you look willfully ignorant.
I don't have a black-and-white, scorched-earth view of this. I have a lot of compassion for the people who find themselves on the wrong side of a social change. And if people want to be bigoted in the quiet of their own homes, far be it from me to try to change them. But people using the power of the state to be bigoted don't get that pass until they renounce their attempts at active harm. And they also don't automatically get to be the boss of people that they're bigoted against.
Regarding the "society is about to collapse from the liberals" bit: that has been a popular line at least since Lincoln freed the slaves. Wake me when it happens. And also fuck you for suggesting that letting my friends raise their families in peace is somehow akin to drunken self-indulgence.
I don't have a black-and-white, scorched-earth view of this. I have a lot of compassion for the people who find themselves on the wrong side of a social change. And if people want to be bigoted in the quiet of their own homes, far be it from me to try to change them. But people using the power of the state to be bigoted don't get that pass until they renounce their attempts at active harm. And they also don't automatically get to be the boss of people that they're bigoted against.
Regarding the "society is about to collapse from the liberals" bit: that has been a popular line at least since Lincoln freed the slaves. Wake me when it happens. And also fuck you for suggesting that letting my friends raise their families in peace is somehow akin to drunken self-indulgence.
It is a debatable point. Some judges agree with the interpretation that you're pretending is universal, and some don't. This is why this is a controversial political issue. If gay marriage were self-evidently legal, all of these court cases would not have happened. To many, the crux of the issue that the government chose to provide rewards and recognition for those willing to engage in a certain behavior, and now there are people trying to say that they should be included because they're doing something superficially similar. Whatever you believe about homosexuality or gay marriage, permanent cohabitation with same-sex individuals is not the same as permanent cohabitation with opposite-sex individuals. Maybe you think it doesn't make a difference, but a lot of people do, and only want to use state powers to encourage the latter behavior.
The issue here is that you see this as a matter of bigotry. As long as your view of the opposition is that narrow, a constructive dialogue is impossible. I understand it may be difficult to overcome that impulse with activists constantly trying to shame people into exactly that submissive position that doesn't allow them to consider the arguments of any opposition figure without automatically self-incriminating, but I hope that people can learn not to fall for that shaming.
True, there are always people anticipating major social collapse. It just so happens that occasionally, those people are right. The fact that some of them have been wrong in the past doesn't mean the suggestion is automatically invalid.
Your belligerent, empty retort only further illustrates the validity of my arguments. The attitude of "Fuck you, and the half of society that agrees with you" doesn't really make for social cohesion or stability.
The issue here is that you see this as a matter of bigotry. As long as your view of the opposition is that narrow, a constructive dialogue is impossible. I understand it may be difficult to overcome that impulse with activists constantly trying to shame people into exactly that submissive position that doesn't allow them to consider the arguments of any opposition figure without automatically self-incriminating, but I hope that people can learn not to fall for that shaming.
True, there are always people anticipating major social collapse. It just so happens that occasionally, those people are right. The fact that some of them have been wrong in the past doesn't mean the suggestion is automatically invalid.
Your belligerent, empty retort only further illustrates the validity of my arguments. The attitude of "Fuck you, and the half of society that agrees with you" doesn't really make for social cohesion or stability.
It's not legally debatable in California, because those are the judgments that led up to Prop 8. It's settled law. And it was before Prop 8 aimed to change the constitution to strip equal protection from gay people. Which is why those paying for Prop 8 are literally guilty of trying to break up existing families.
You might believe permanent cohabitation between gay people is different, just like most people who were opposed to interracial marriage. But, in both cases, it's not materially different with respect to civil marriage. Not with regards to equal protection, because no anti-gay bigot has been able to demonstrate in court a rational basis for making that distinction. And not in my experience, where what I see is just like what I see when I visit my straight friends. Happy couples and struggling couples; childless couples and couples with happy, laughing children. Children who deserve society's protection, just like any others.
Regarding the last bit, you can't claim half of society on that. An ever-declining portion of society is anxious, concerned, confused, or misled on gay marriage. I have lots of compassion for them. There are also some people who believe it's against what their god(s) want, but correctly recognized that using the power of the state to impose their religious views on others is wrong. Them, I appreciate.
There are also some bigots -- a much smaller number than the other groups -- who say hateful and false things, as you have. They, and you, can go fuck yourselves. We survived the much greater social upheavals of reducing anti-black bias; we'll certainly make it through accommodating the smaller number of homosexuals. You and your friends can go on to be the Jesse Helmses and the Don Sterlings of your day, muttering into your bran flakes about how it's all going to fall part any day now while your grandchildren politely ignore you and get on with their lives. Enjoy it.
You might believe permanent cohabitation between gay people is different, just like most people who were opposed to interracial marriage. But, in both cases, it's not materially different with respect to civil marriage. Not with regards to equal protection, because no anti-gay bigot has been able to demonstrate in court a rational basis for making that distinction. And not in my experience, where what I see is just like what I see when I visit my straight friends. Happy couples and struggling couples; childless couples and couples with happy, laughing children. Children who deserve society's protection, just like any others.
Regarding the last bit, you can't claim half of society on that. An ever-declining portion of society is anxious, concerned, confused, or misled on gay marriage. I have lots of compassion for them. There are also some people who believe it's against what their god(s) want, but correctly recognized that using the power of the state to impose their religious views on others is wrong. Them, I appreciate.
There are also some bigots -- a much smaller number than the other groups -- who say hateful and false things, as you have. They, and you, can go fuck yourselves. We survived the much greater social upheavals of reducing anti-black bias; we'll certainly make it through accommodating the smaller number of homosexuals. You and your friends can go on to be the Jesse Helmses and the Don Sterlings of your day, muttering into your bran flakes about how it's all going to fall part any day now while your grandchildren politely ignore you and get on with their lives. Enjoy it.
Sterling? Is this seriously what we're doing now? A corporation removes a staunch racist from a position with hiring authority, and it's a free speech issue?
Yes, it's a free speech issue. He expressed a private view to his personal associate with whom he had no professional dealings. He was recorded illegally and all action has been based on a single statement, given without context, and sourced from a legal adversary. You may agree or disagree with his private views about whom he prefers his girlfriend to mingle with, but it's quite drastic to forcibly divest him of his property because you don't like it. There's certainly nothing illegal about his opinion, and there's nothing wrong with him choosing to express it in the context in which he expressed it. The only thing objectively "wrong" about his opinion is that it is unpopular.
He wasn't brought down by a case that proved his practices were discriminatory. As far as I know no one has claimed that he was discriminatory in whatever hiring capacity he had with the Clippers (which for the record is probably not major). No one would know or care if the news media had something worthwhile to talk about instead of celebrity gossip. They can replay a sound bite over and over and turn a whole city against someone, someone who didn't do anything wrong other than possessing an opinion that's considered uncouth or presented as troublesome, and more than just "public outrage", they can then get his property taken against his will. The fact that this is possible, regardless of the content of the sound bite, should be very scary to anyone interested in maintaining free dialogue.
Free dialogue necessarily requires people to feel capable of expressing very unpopular things without major ramifications. Adverse governmental action is one element of this, but not the only element. I understand that the proceedings against Sterling are held in accordance with NBA bylaws to which Mr. Sterling supposedly agreed and that they're not an external legal proceeding (though I don't doubt there would be such a proceeding if the NBA didn't have provision to strip Sterling of ownership), but as stated, public hostility toward the principles of free speech, which is becoming quite massive, is nearly as problematic, especially when our media is so conglomerated.
Our modern communication media are inherently dangerous due to the extreme barrier to entry. This is changing partially with the internet, but for the time being and foreseeable future, it's still no competition with cable and establishment outlets. This is a major social and cultural threat and the FCC should do something about it.
He wasn't brought down by a case that proved his practices were discriminatory. As far as I know no one has claimed that he was discriminatory in whatever hiring capacity he had with the Clippers (which for the record is probably not major). No one would know or care if the news media had something worthwhile to talk about instead of celebrity gossip. They can replay a sound bite over and over and turn a whole city against someone, someone who didn't do anything wrong other than possessing an opinion that's considered uncouth or presented as troublesome, and more than just "public outrage", they can then get his property taken against his will. The fact that this is possible, regardless of the content of the sound bite, should be very scary to anyone interested in maintaining free dialogue.
Free dialogue necessarily requires people to feel capable of expressing very unpopular things without major ramifications. Adverse governmental action is one element of this, but not the only element. I understand that the proceedings against Sterling are held in accordance with NBA bylaws to which Mr. Sterling supposedly agreed and that they're not an external legal proceeding (though I don't doubt there would be such a proceeding if the NBA didn't have provision to strip Sterling of ownership), but as stated, public hostility toward the principles of free speech, which is becoming quite massive, is nearly as problematic, especially when our media is so conglomerated.
Our modern communication media are inherently dangerous due to the extreme barrier to entry. This is changing partially with the internet, but for the time being and foreseeable future, it's still no competition with cable and establishment outlets. This is a major social and cultural threat and the FCC should do something about it.
I'd like to be perfectly clear on this: you believe that there's nothing objectively wrong with racism, it's just unpopular right now?
Racism as a social crime is an abstract concept and there are no objective criteria by which to determine if a thought is "racist" or not.
I prefer to judge individual actions based on their consequences and/or likely consequences, without forfeiting my right to formulate an opinion due to a popular media outlet applying an abstract negative label. In the context of news media, calling something "racist" is more about trying to forcibly project a view onto the audience than anything else.
I prefer to judge individual actions based on their consequences and/or likely consequences, without forfeiting my right to formulate an opinion due to a popular media outlet applying an abstract negative label. In the context of news media, calling something "racist" is more about trying to forcibly project a view onto the audience than anything else.
>The only thing objectively "wrong" about his opinion is that it is unpopular.
Don't confuse disagreement with subjectivity. Racism is objectively harmful, and typically based on factual beliefs that are objectively false. Some people disagree with that, and it's their right to hold that opinion, but they're wrong.
The NBA's decision was probably driven largely by a fear of private boycotts. Do you think such boycotts are wrong, too? I.e., do you think Don Sterling's right to say racist things is more important than my right to choose not to do business with racists? Or do you think the boycott would've been ok, but the NBA should've ignored it?
Don't confuse disagreement with subjectivity. Racism is objectively harmful, and typically based on factual beliefs that are objectively false. Some people disagree with that, and it's their right to hold that opinion, but they're wrong.
The NBA's decision was probably driven largely by a fear of private boycotts. Do you think such boycotts are wrong, too? I.e., do you think Don Sterling's right to say racist things is more important than my right to choose not to do business with racists? Or do you think the boycott would've been ok, but the NBA should've ignored it?
I think boycotts should be used sparingly and that people should first consider whether the deeds were sufficiently problematic to justify the potential cultural ramifications that arise when we choose to punish someone for having different beliefs or opinions than us, no matter how much we may or may not dislike them. It'd be preferable if we based our boycotts on more significant matters.
However, I think the much larger problem than boycotts from random groups (which are unlikely to be effective long-term) are the steps taken to purge Sterling entirely and divest him of his property.
However, I think the much larger problem than boycotts from random groups (which are unlikely to be effective long-term) are the steps taken to purge Sterling entirely and divest him of his property.
> Enough of them had a basis in fact to get a founder fired.
Which allegations were true? What did that founder actually do? Did she expose herself to liability through libelous statements?
On this, The Court of Public Opinion lacks the standing to rule. Your comment is a case-in-point as to why.
Which allegations were true? What did that founder actually do? Did she expose herself to liability through libelous statements?
On this, The Court of Public Opinion lacks the standing to rule. Your comment is a case-in-point as to why.
Github was willing to go on the record at https://github.com/blog/1826-follow-up-to-the-investigation-... stating " The investigation found Tom Preston-Werner in his capacity as GitHub’s CEO acted inappropriately, including confrontational conduct, disregard of workplace complaints, insensitivity to the impact of his spouse's presence in the workplace, and failure to enforce an agreement that his spouse should not work in the office."
This doesn't appear in conflict with any of my statements above.
The difference is that when she did that, she wasn't getting sued. The point of the article is, when matters have reached the court of law, keep mum and let the lawyer do the talking.
Horvath's professional standing would be greater if she took on GitHub in court, proved they were harassing her on the basis of her gender, and won.
Sure, but it's a tradeoff. The Preston-Werners have made legally threatening noises. Julie Ann Horvath's public comments have made an impressive difference in the court of public opinion, but if she gets sued in the court of actual court, they provide a lot of attack surface to a plaintiff's attorney.
I think it's great when people speak up about bad conditions: it's a big way that exploitative and oppressive behavior gets remedied. It seemed like Horvath knew the risks she was running, and I admire her bravery. But I wouldn't want people speaking up to be heedless about the risk they're taking.
I think it's great when people speak up about bad conditions: it's a big way that exploitative and oppressive behavior gets remedied. It seemed like Horvath knew the risks she was running, and I admire her bravery. But I wouldn't want people speaking up to be heedless about the risk they're taking.
If you are interested in not losing court cases, "naming names" is a very very bad idea.
If you want to hurt someone, then tweeting can be effective. So can setting fire to their dog. Neither is likely to help you win a court case though.
If someone makes a spurious allegation against you then I think you should defend yourself as much as possible, including via tweets or any other communication channels. Refuse to go quietly into the night.
Did you read the article? The point is you're making it worse by tweeting and making other public statements. You may win in court of public opinion, but you're making it easier for your opponent to beat you in actual court.
I can see both sides to the argument. Someone who was subsequently cleared of charges but whose name is still mud probably has a different value on the court of public opinion.
The blog post is pure speculation by what appears to be a layman. It has no more weight than any random comment on HN.
It's worth stating that because people are treating it as if a famed IP lawyer has made a pronouncement of fact, when in actuality it's just someone giving, like, an opinion, man.
It's worth stating that because people are treating it as if a famed IP lawyer has made a pronouncement of fact, when in actuality it's just someone giving, like, an opinion, man.
Let's see a famed IP lawyer that would disagree with the premise of the article.
Attack the contents, if you can.
There are several lawyers that I know of right here in this thread and I don't see anybody contradicting the advice.
Attack the contents, if you can.
There are several lawyers that I know of right here in this thread and I don't see anybody contradicting the advice.
Unnecessarily defensive. Was there something, anything, in my comment that is incorrect? Are you actually a contract/IP lawyer? Note that I'm not saying that you are wrong, because honestly I don't know. Because I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know all of the specifics of this case. But am I wrong in what I said about the authority of the post?
This is why people preface things with IANAL.
People often petition to the public (Tesla quite recently) in such cases -- regardless of pending lawsuits -- because the damage in perception can be larger than any possible legal damage. And stating simple facts of truth (such as "I copied 0 lines of code") seems doubtful to aggravate anything if they are truthful. So there are separate issues of IP: Great, but they are neither worsened or relieved by a statement about code, are they?
This is why people preface things with IANAL.
People often petition to the public (Tesla quite recently) in such cases -- regardless of pending lawsuits -- because the damage in perception can be larger than any possible legal damage. And stating simple facts of truth (such as "I copied 0 lines of code") seems doubtful to aggravate anything if they are truthful. So there are separate issues of IP: Great, but they are neither worsened or relieved by a statement about code, are they?
Don't shoot yourself in the foot is good advice, even when it doesn't come from your surgeon.
That analogy hardly fits such a complex situation. This advice is more akin to "if someone is breaking into your house, call the police and hide in a closet". Situations may be a little more complex than that.
It's someone who has been involved in the business of technology for a long time, so I'd give his opinion substantially more weight than the average HN comment. It's also bog-standard legal advice, so I'd say it doesn't need a lot of footnoting.
Years in technology means exactly nothing relating to IP/Copyright/Contract lawsuits, and I find that claim extraordinary: It is the sort of thing that builds false confidence and pseudo expertise.
It's also a bit ironic given that in this case it's someone telling John Carmack -- guy who was a founder and partner at a number of businesses to great success and for many years -- what he should do. John clearly made his own analysis and decisions, and he is hardly a green entrant to the industry. And maybe Carmack is making the wrong calls, because again years in technology mean exactly nothing.
Is it bog standard advice to shut up until a trial? Hardly. Many facing such a suit will make statements such as vigorously denies, etc. There is absolutely nothing abnormal or unexpected about that.
It's also a bit ironic given that in this case it's someone telling John Carmack -- guy who was a founder and partner at a number of businesses to great success and for many years -- what he should do. John clearly made his own analysis and decisions, and he is hardly a green entrant to the industry. And maybe Carmack is making the wrong calls, because again years in technology mean exactly nothing.
Is it bog standard advice to shut up until a trial? Hardly. Many facing such a suit will make statements such as vigorously denies, etc. There is absolutely nothing abnormal or unexpected about that.
Years in the business of technology definitely mean something in relation to both IP and lawsuits. The former being a key ingredient to tech businesses, and the latter being a a risk you must consider any time you sign a contract.
The fellow clearly says that, having been through a couple of lawsuits, that it's tempting to react to the initial wave of emotion. So he's not questioning Carmack's knowledge, he's using Carmack's situation as a handy illustration of his point.
Also, his advice isn't to shut up until trial. It is to wait out the initial wave of emotion, to talk to your lawyer, and think things through until you are truly ready to speak on the permanent record. Which is indeed bog-standard advice.
The fellow clearly says that, having been through a couple of lawsuits, that it's tempting to react to the initial wave of emotion. So he's not questioning Carmack's knowledge, he's using Carmack's situation as a handy illustration of his point.
Also, his advice isn't to shut up until trial. It is to wait out the initial wave of emotion, to talk to your lawyer, and think things through until you are truly ready to speak on the permanent record. Which is indeed bog-standard advice.
If you're sure it's a slam-dunk case that you can prove it's a spurious allegation, then go have your fun. But it's very easy to get emotionally invested in your position and fail to realize that not everyone will see things the same way.
Let me use an example: have you ever had a less-than-friendly breakup? Whose fault was it? Do you think both of you would answer that question the same way? At the time of the breakup, how much conviction did you have that you were in the right? How sure are you that a third party, that's not in either of your heads, would share your view with the same conviction?
Let me use an example: have you ever had a less-than-friendly breakup? Whose fault was it? Do you think both of you would answer that question the same way? At the time of the breakup, how much conviction did you have that you were in the right? How sure are you that a third party, that's not in either of your heads, would share your view with the same conviction?
> If someone makes a spurious allegation against you then I think you should defend yourself as much as possible
1. Defending yourself makes you look guilty.
2. Defending yourself can provide legal ammunition to the opposition.
3. If it's not a legal matter, defending yourself can provide the opposition with words to manipulate to make you look even worse.
4. If they're already making spurious allegations against you, your replies will just prompt them to make more spurious allegations, much of which you may not be able to disprove. Their process of continually coming up with "new information", even if it's fake, will seem genuine to outsiders (due to cognitive bias). Responding just gives them new avenues to attack.
5. If you do defend yourself, it has to be in the form of an attack on the opposition, to discredit them. They can continue to come up with new claims all day which will just make people believe them more. You have to make it so people don't buy anything they say.
6. Besides the tactics of one-on-one mud-slinging, multiple parties provides greater weight to claims or concerns. Even if you have proof that someone is wrong, if they have 5 people all claiming the same thing, the crowd will believe them over you.
7. If this involves some kind of tight-knit in-group or community, you have to completely discredit your opposition for anyone to give a crap what you say.
The biggest problem with defending yourself is that you think the truth will win out, or the truth will come out in the end. It doesn't. The most convincing tactics win out. Lies are a lot easier weapons to use than the truth, and a lot more effective. And all of this also becomes a lot more difficult depending on the circumstances of the claims. Nobody will care if you're right if it looks like you might be wrong.
1. Defending yourself makes you look guilty.
2. Defending yourself can provide legal ammunition to the opposition.
3. If it's not a legal matter, defending yourself can provide the opposition with words to manipulate to make you look even worse.
4. If they're already making spurious allegations against you, your replies will just prompt them to make more spurious allegations, much of which you may not be able to disprove. Their process of continually coming up with "new information", even if it's fake, will seem genuine to outsiders (due to cognitive bias). Responding just gives them new avenues to attack.
5. If you do defend yourself, it has to be in the form of an attack on the opposition, to discredit them. They can continue to come up with new claims all day which will just make people believe them more. You have to make it so people don't buy anything they say.
6. Besides the tactics of one-on-one mud-slinging, multiple parties provides greater weight to claims or concerns. Even if you have proof that someone is wrong, if they have 5 people all claiming the same thing, the crowd will believe them over you.
7. If this involves some kind of tight-knit in-group or community, you have to completely discredit your opposition for anyone to give a crap what you say.
The biggest problem with defending yourself is that you think the truth will win out, or the truth will come out in the end. It doesn't. The most convincing tactics win out. Lies are a lot easier weapons to use than the truth, and a lot more effective. And all of this also becomes a lot more difficult depending on the circumstances of the claims. Nobody will care if you're right if it looks like you might be wrong.
Depends who they're defending you against - the court of law or the court of public opinion.
As a very highly paid barrister once said to my father "your mistake is that you think because you're right, you're going to win. You won't."
In a court of law being right may not be enough.
As a very highly paid barrister once said to my father "your mistake is that you think because you're right, you're going to win. You won't."
In a court of law being right may not be enough.
I agree with the spirit of this but there's also "Do I want to be right or do I want to win?" It's great to rally the public to your cause but if it reduces your odds of winning the case, it's probably not worth it.
The point is that if they make a spurious allegation in a lawsuit, your lawyer should defend you as much as possible. That's the whole point of a lawyer.
By making public statements, you're talking straight to the prosecutor/opposing attorney. As the warning says: Anything you say may be used against you in court.
While that may help you in the courtroom, the court of public opinion doesn't wait for a verdict. It confuses silence with guilt. Acquittals are less likely to make front pages than acquittals.
> While that may help you in the courtroom, the court of public opinion doesn't wait for a verdict. It confuses silence with guilt.
No, it confuses silence with confirmation of its prejudice. If the court of public opinion does not think you're guilty your silence will support that, if the court of public opinion thinks you're guilty your silence will support that.
No, it confuses silence with confirmation of its prejudice. If the court of public opinion does not think you're guilty your silence will support that, if the court of public opinion thinks you're guilty your silence will support that.
It's almost impossible to overcome the public's prejudice. Is it better to remain silent and allow people to make their assumptions or put out new statements that will also likely be misconstrued and potentially make things worse?
Yes, but...
* Public opinion has little or no monetary value where the courts have tremendous costs. Things said in public to influence public opinion can increase your court costs (possibly including judgement costs) tremendously.
* The public's attention span, and thus its opinion, generally is measured in days, maybe weeks. Court verdicts are forever.
* Public opinion has little or no monetary value where the courts have tremendous costs. Things said in public to influence public opinion can increase your court costs (possibly including judgement costs) tremendously.
* The public's attention span, and thus its opinion, generally is measured in days, maybe weeks. Court verdicts are forever.
Does the public care about this? I really don’t think so. This is a case about some boring legalities. I really can’t see it having any impact on how Carmack is viewed.
There are probably many other situation in which that is not the case, but here I really can’t see anything bad happening as a consequence of Carmack not responding publicly.
There are probably many other situation in which that is not the case, but here I really can’t see anything bad happening as a consequence of Carmack not responding publicly.
What about gamers? They are their customers, and they can be a fickle bunch under the right circumstances. A recent example could be the reaction to the DRM in the latest sim city, and other games. A counterexample however could be EA, which most gamers loathe but continues to sell plenty of games. (Edit: Although now that I actually look it up EA is behind sim city. So who knows.)
Gamers don’t care at all about people stealing IP. They don’t have a problem with it.
About this - possibly not.
About other things that people, particularly celebs, are taken to court for - absolutely.
About other things that people, particularly celebs, are taken to court for - absolutely.
Acquittals are less likely to make front pages than acquittals.
Circular statement error. Parser 'sploded. Go to sleep? [Y/n]
Circular statement error. Parser 'sploded. Go to sleep? [Y/n]
This is true. Sometimes it is better to respond and risk losing in the legal court of tomorrow than stay silent and lose in the court of public opinion today.
This article has some flaws. For instance, Carmack isn't getting sued, Oculus/Facebook is.
Also, I didn't get the impression that Carmack was "angry" when he tweeted that. I always get the impression that he is pretty calm about all of the things he's saying, and the two tweets being referenced are just statements about his perception on the case. Since anger is the tone of the entire "mistake" from the article's perspective, it seems the article author is the one jumping to conclusions and writing things on the internet before they're due.
Also, I didn't get the impression that Carmack was "angry" when he tweeted that. I always get the impression that he is pretty calm about all of the things he's saying, and the two tweets being referenced are just statements about his perception on the case. Since anger is the tone of the entire "mistake" from the article's perspective, it seems the article author is the one jumping to conclusions and writing things on the internet before they're due.
Good points! Have an upvote...
The actual defendant for now is Oculus Rift (because I suspect that's where the money is), but Carmack is very much in the line of fire (as the one who allegedly did the deed) and is currently CTO of Oculus Rift, so even if he's not the named party he definitely is in a defensive position here.
On top of that his current interest is in this particular case probably not aligned with Oculus Rift.
That means that your words should be weighed on a gold scale, especially when uttered through a public medium. I've fixed the post to take into account your comments.
The actual defendant for now is Oculus Rift (because I suspect that's where the money is), but Carmack is very much in the line of fire (as the one who allegedly did the deed) and is currently CTO of Oculus Rift, so even if he's not the named party he definitely is in a defensive position here.
On top of that his current interest is in this particular case probably not aligned with Oculus Rift.
That means that your words should be weighed on a gold scale, especially when uttered through a public medium. I've fixed the post to take into account your comments.
I've gotten my karma pummeling elsewhere in this thread for taking this to task, but this is one of those cases where raw speculation is voted up on HN purely because the speaker panders to this audience, and the audience returns the favor. Put that blog post under a less known (on HN at least) name and it would would rightly have disappeared as raw uninformed speculation.
Without commenting on why Zenimax would launch such a lawsuit now and be public about it, I can't help but see Carmack's response as a potential intimidation move, e.g "You may win in court, but you will lose in the court of public opinion, and this will hurt your business more than losing this suit. Now think again about wether you really want to sue".
That would be an exceedingly dumb strategy because if such a link could be made then it would open up Carmack to yet another round of damages if the suit would be lost.
Blackmail is not a sound legal strategy if you have a lot to lose. If you're on your last dime and you don't own anything that can be seized you might try this route.
Blackmail is not a sound legal strategy if you have a lot to lose. If you're on your last dime and you don't own anything that can be seized you might try this route.
> That would be an exceedingly dumb strategy because if such a link could be made then it would open up Carmack to yet another round of damages if the suit would be lost.
How exactly? Plenty of people sue a company, lose the case, and still do a lot of damage to the company because of the distraction and public confidence. One example, is startups getting sued that are looking for another round of investment. They are definitely harmed even if they win the lawsuit. It cuts both ways. Sometimes a victory can be made to cost more than settling -- for either side. That's why people settle. If you can make the PR cost higher, the price to settle comes down.
How exactly? Plenty of people sue a company, lose the case, and still do a lot of damage to the company because of the distraction and public confidence. One example, is startups getting sued that are looking for another round of investment. They are definitely harmed even if they win the lawsuit. It cuts both ways. Sometimes a victory can be made to cost more than settling -- for either side. That's why people settle. If you can make the PR cost higher, the price to settle comes down.
I'm confused - was the case of John Carmack cited because his tweets have now been raised in court and have hurt his case? I haven't been following this situation so I've zero context.
It's only been a day to two since thise was public, I'm doubtful that they're being mentioned in court.
Ah so it's just general cautionary advice. I'd be interested to see if this comes up in court.
I found a true gem hiding amidst great advice: the only lawyer that’s yours is the one you pay
Corporate lawyers exist to protect the corporation.
Corporate lawyers exist to protect the corporation.
I understand what the common wisdom is ("shut-up") when it comes to this type of thing, and I understand the stated reason why ("it will get used against you!"), but I don't understand the "how" part.
Carmack made a very clear, short public message about it. Rather than being any kind of admission, it was the opposite. A complete denial. How could Zenimax use that to strengthen their case? He's likely to repeat the same denial to the court anyway.
I'm not pretending I know better than the common wisdom, just trying to understand it better. If you were Zenimax, how would you use this tweet against him?
Carmack made a very clear, short public message about it. Rather than being any kind of admission, it was the opposite. A complete denial. How could Zenimax use that to strengthen their case? He's likely to repeat the same denial to the court anyway.
I'm not pretending I know better than the common wisdom, just trying to understand it better. If you were Zenimax, how would you use this tweet against him?
It wasn't a complete denial ('code' and 'patents' are not the only work products protected by IP laws and by employment contract terms).
That alone makes me believe this was not vetted by his lawyer unless they specifically wanted to misdirect the opposition. I don't think that's likely, and such misdirection would most likely fail anyway assuming the opposite side is halfway competent.
Making falsifiable claims in public simply does not help.
As for how Zenimax could use this against Carmack, let's not make their lives easier than we have to.
That alone makes me believe this was not vetted by his lawyer unless they specifically wanted to misdirect the opposition. I don't think that's likely, and such misdirection would most likely fail anyway assuming the opposite side is halfway competent.
Making falsifiable claims in public simply does not help.
As for how Zenimax could use this against Carmack, let's not make their lives easier than we have to.
I'm curious to when/if there are exceptions to this standard advice. When could it be a strategic move?
I can't think of any - I know that having been sued (OK it was my start-up, but I took it rather personally) and it was incredibly stressful and at the start I nearly replied to the other side with communications trying to naively "sort things out" that could have made things even worse.
My stress levels decreased hugely when all communication was put into the hands of our lawyers - and it was eventually resolved with both sides walking away and paying their own expenses, which wasn't great as we had done nothing wrong but was probably the least worst option.
Honestly - if someone raises a legal action against you - talk to a lawyer who specializes in the relevant area and do what they tell you, which is likely to include no public statement without their approval.
My stress levels decreased hugely when all communication was put into the hands of our lawyers - and it was eventually resolved with both sides walking away and paying their own expenses, which wasn't great as we had done nothing wrong but was probably the least worst option.
Honestly - if someone raises a legal action against you - talk to a lawyer who specializes in the relevant area and do what they tell you, which is likely to include no public statement without their approval.
Exactly. The desire for communication with the public is mostly based on emotion, not on a rational decision. Lawyers give you rational advice.
Having been involved in a lawsuit last year, even after I won, I still don't dare to publicly talk about it for fear or repercussions. I simply ask myself: what do I have to gain, and what do I have to lose?
Usually the risks and impact of the things I have to lose outweigh the things I have to gain, and it's a good way of making myself shut up.
Having been involved in a lawsuit last year, even after I won, I still don't dare to publicly talk about it for fear or repercussions. I simply ask myself: what do I have to gain, and what do I have to lose?
Usually the risks and impact of the things I have to lose outweigh the things I have to gain, and it's a good way of making myself shut up.
Approximately as frequently as when replacing John Carmack with a lawyer would improve your codebase.
For criminal matters, the short answer is, never. See Don't Talk to the Police. [1]. You want a defense attorney to handle this.
For civil matters, although IANAL I think similar reasons apply, so similar answer: Don't Talk to the Public. If you're truly famous enough to need to break this rule, then you need an attorney who specializes in high-profile cases like this.
Edit: By "cases like this", I mean an actor or athlete level of celebrity. Probably not John Carmack, despite how famous and awesome he may be within our circles. Really, the smartest thing is to just "shut up". Even though a false accusation is a genuine personal violation and you want to defend yourself, the best defense usually won't be DIY.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
For civil matters, although IANAL I think similar reasons apply, so similar answer: Don't Talk to the Public. If you're truly famous enough to need to break this rule, then you need an attorney who specializes in high-profile cases like this.
Edit: By "cases like this", I mean an actor or athlete level of celebrity. Probably not John Carmack, despite how famous and awesome he may be within our circles. Really, the smartest thing is to just "shut up". Even though a false accusation is a genuine personal violation and you want to defend yourself, the best defense usually won't be DIY.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
When your lawyer tells you it is a strategic move.
Agreed. Also it can help with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_public_opinion which can be a major factor in the outcome.
Maybe when your position largely depends on the public opinion and will be taken from you before you have a chance to have a trial. Maybe there is no pattern but elected officials, rock stars, often cry out their innocence when being accused of something, while having great lawyers.
Perhaps if you can't afford a good lawyer to defend yourself so you have to attack the reputation of the sueing company hoping they will drop it from public pressure?
This is a HARD thing to cope with.
I've been through it once, and I lost much sleep over many nights just because of it. Especially the first time, you have NO idea on how to deal with it. I can say that the best advice is to do nothing UNTIL you talk to your lawyer, and I can confirm that YOUR lawyer means the one YOU pay.
Try to stay calm. Things like this take months, sometimes even years, to unfold.
Good luck.
[deleted]
I am very confused that Carmack finds himself in such a position.
Carmack quite famously made "Fuck You Money" over a decade ago. He was driving garages full of super expensive cars. He should have been the one with the levers.
Instead he became, effectively, an employee again. Why? Why would he do that?
Carmack quite famously made "Fuck You Money" over a decade ago. He was driving garages full of super expensive cars. He should have been the one with the levers.
Instead he became, effectively, an employee again. Why? Why would he do that?
funding Armadillo can't have been cheap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_Aerospace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_Aerospace
pretty much, he said Armadillo had drained all of his 'crazy money' at a QuakeCon a couple years ago
Why is this up-voted? This is basically don't be a dumb-ass 101
Tweets aren't under oath or anything, but it opens up Carmack to lots of questions and possibly affects his credibility.
Often times cases come down to "he said / she said" types of claims and how a jury views them.
If ZeniMax mentions the tweets in court, it will likely be to try and make Carmack look like he acted out of hand, and that he rushed to make claims that arne't true (i.e. the IP / code distinction the poster makes).
Here's the thing about software suits. Most judges / juries are in a TERRIBLE position when it comes to evaluating the nuance involved in a suit like this. Think about the average person and how much they understand about what you do.
Lawyers will try to boil it down to themes and narratives that portray you as "bad." "Winning" in terms of how you evaluate claims or the press or your followers evaluate claims does not matter. It's all about how the lawyers convince a judge or jury you are wrong.