The Bad News Thread

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I wouldn't post it on a place that is very visible or easily found. Nobody knows who I am, and there are other Redskins fans in the building.

Thing is, my employer can't fire me for simply posting photos of a person sleeping on the job. Now if I were to post some racist comment or tweet from my social media site, that may be a bit different.

Also, maybe we should question YOUR management skills if you would instantly fire a person for posting a photo of a person at work. It's sad the whistleblowers catch more heat than the people doing wrong.


Not looking for another job. My boss is going to retire within a few years so we won't have to deal with it much longer. The 93K a year wiring manager is retiring in July so that's one gone from the mix. The good thing for me though is I don't have anything tying me down so I can pack up and move if I want. I like my job and I enjoy working for my alma mater. That said, I'm just frustrated this kind of crap goes on.

Clearly you don't have the strongest understanding of legal liability. Posting this on the Internet with the level of descriptiveness you did exposes you to the possibility of charges of libel. Like you say, nobody will probably find out. But the reason I question your judgment is you clearly haven't thought through the cost/benefit here. What do you gain out of doing this? Venting? That's an emotional decision and shows you're too reactionary to ever be considered for management duties where thinking before pressing send isn't just a suggestion, it's required.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Clearly you don't have the strongest understanding of legal liability. Posting this on the Internet with the level of descriptiveness you did exposes you to the possibility of charges of libel. Like you say, nobody will probably find out.

I assure you, I think before I act on anything. I'm pretty analytical about stuff and I'm quite aware of the situation. Hell, I work in a field dictated on logic. Libel. That would mean something I said is false. Well considering I have the evidence and people to back up the statements, I'd say what I said was the truth. Libel is when the statements are false. Maybe JR can roll into here and shed some light on the legal aspect of it. I mean hell, if Dan Snyder didn't have a shot in hell at winning against Dave McKenna on the piece he wrote, what's the odds on some bum winning against what I said? I told you, we have evidence (which we save) of these wrongdoings. Pictures, camera footage, falsified documents....and so on.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But the reason I question your judgment is you clearly haven't thought through the cost/benefit here. What do you gain out of doing this? Venting? That's an emotional decision and shows you're too reactionary to ever be considered for management duties where thinking before pressing send isn't just a suggestion, it's required.

Venting? Nah. At this point, you have to laugh at the shit. It's comical, which is why we take these pictures send them to other co-workers so we can laugh. Quite frankly, I don't even care at this point. What are they going to do to me? Fire me? /laugh

It would be very hard for them to do that with the type of damning information I hold. They would slit their own throat in doing so. If my superior wants to lose his job as well, by all means have at it. Besides, I've only seen four people fired in the 10+ years I've worked with the state. Even one of those had a chance to resign the final day because they didn't want to fire him. He chose poorly.

The only thing that doesn't make me management material is that I can't cover up shit, nor sit on things that aren't right. I can't lie to my co-workers and blow smoke up their ass. If that is what it takes to be a "management material", I can honestly say I'm a much better person than any manager out there. Besides, who gives a fuck about being a manager? I certainly don't. My sense of self worth isn't defined by a title, salary or promotion.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I assure you, I think before I act on anything. I'm pretty analytical about stuff and I'm quite aware of the situation. Hell, I work in a field dictated on logic. Libel. That would mean something I said is false. Well considering I have the evidence and people to back up the statements, I'd say what I said was the truth. Libel is when the statements are false. Maybe JR can roll into here and shed some light on the legal aspect of it. I mean hell, if Dan Snyder didn't have a shot in hell at winning against Dave McKenna on the piece he wrote, what's the odds on some bum winning against what I said? I told you, we have evidence (which we save) of these wrongdoings. Pictures, camera footage, falsified documents....and so on.




Venting? Nah. At this point, you have to laugh at the shit. It's comical, which is why we take these pictures send them to other co-workers so we can laugh. Quite frankly, I don't even care at this point. What are they going to do to me? Fire me? /laugh

It would be very hard for them to do that with the type of damning information I hold. They would slit their own throat in doing so. If my superior wants to lose his job as well, by all means have at it. Besides, I've only seen four people fired in the 10+ years I've worked with the state. Even one of those had a chance to resign the final day because they didn't want to fire him. He chose poorly.

The only thing that doesn't make me management material is that I can't cover up shit, nor sit on things that aren't right. I can't lie to my co-workers and blow smoke up their ass. If that is what it takes to be a "management material", I can honestly say I'm a much better person than any manager out there. Besides, who gives a fuck about being a manager? I certainly don't. My sense of self worth isn't defined by a title, salary or promotion.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Clearly you don't have the strongest understanding of legal liability. Posting this on the Internet with the level of descriptiveness you did exposes you to the possibility of charges of libel. Like you say, nobody will probably find out. But the reason I question your judgment is you clearly haven't thought through the cost/benefit here. What do you gain out of doing this? Venting? That's an emotional decision and shows you're too reactionary to ever be considered for management duties where thinking before pressing send isn't just a suggestion, it's required.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I assure you, I think before I act on anything. I'm pretty analytical about stuff and I'm quite aware of the situation. Hell, I work in a field dictated on logic. Libel. That would mean something I said is false. Well considering I have the evidence and people to back up the statements, I'd say what I said was the truth. Libel is when the statements are false. Maybe JR can roll into here and shed some light on the legal aspect of it. I mean hell, if Dan Snyder didn't have a shot in hell at winning against Dave McKenna on the piece he wrote, what's the odds on some bum winning against what I said? I told you, we have evidence (which we save) of these wrongdoings. Pictures, camera footage, falsified documents....and so on.

Both Schneed10's and NCSkin's statements are true.

Statements impugning someone's character that are false are, in general, actionable. The picture itself could be cause for a claim of "false light" - taking a true statement/photo out of context to impugn a person's character.

Based on the picture and his description, is NC open to charges of libel? Yup.

If everything NC says is true and he has the evidence to back it up, then, after depositions, document discovery and subpoenas for records, he will likely prevail after a motion for summary judgment. However, if the other side can bring in enough to make any of the various factual (not opinion) statements a question of fact that reasonable people could differ on, then it would go to trial if even on a limited basis.

As a State employee, it is unlikely the State is open to any sort of suit based on this because posting on a football website is clearly outside the scope of NC's duties even if he does so in business hours. The same would likely be true for any employer although some of the statements imply that the higher ups know of the behavior. So a suit against them would be unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss but just might.

Given the anonymity of the internet, someone would need to have some real desire to bring suit. If they did, had an ax to grind, and found out NC's identity, a lawsuit would ensue.

Based just on the statements posted and the pictures specifically identifying the guy, any such lawsuit drafted by a reasonably competent attorney would survive a Motion to Dismiss because to do so all you have to do is state a legal basis for recovery: NC made defamatory statements about me, they are false, I am entitled to damages. The dispute is not legal but factual. Accepting that what NC says is true (and I, a State employee also, do) NC would prevail in the end, but only after retaining an attorney, paying for depositions, paying for the attorney to draft & argue a motion for judgment, and, possibly, going to court.

It would take a driven plaintiff, but proving you are correct could turn into an expensive proposition -- I have a case where a former employee is suing the employer for asking him to resign after he sexually assaulting another person at the office. He will lose because he is wrong, and I will have great fun arguing to the jury - but it is costing my client a ton to prove it.

... and that is my two cents. You can send my retainer through my paypal account.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Given the anonymity of the internet, someone would need to have some real desire to bring suit. If they did, had an ax to grind, and found out NC's identity, a lawsuit would ensue.

Thank you for the breakdown. Let's not forget this gem as well.


http://rt.com/usa/ip-constitute-pers...ight-suit-973/


To be sure this ruling would apply to pretty much everything else eh?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Thank you for the breakdown. Let's not forget this gem as well.


IP address does not constitute a person, judge rules in copyright suit — RT USA


To be sure this ruling would apply to pretty much everything else eh?

Well, sure, if all they have is an IP address for the "NCSkins" account on the Warpath, that alone is not proof you, the individual behind the computer, made the comments. However, unlike the facts of the decision cited, we are talking about more than a mere IP address. In this case, there are specific statements and a picture of a specific work place in connection with a specific IP address.

As I understand it, the copyright ruling simply says - just b/c it was downloaded by your computer, it is not proof any specific person downloaded the pirated material ("Hey, I didn't do it, my brother uses my PC, so does my neighbor, and this weird guy down the street who I occasionally let check his e-mail. Anyone of them could have pirated it when I wasn't watching").

Essentially, proof that your IP address downloaded illegal materials, in and of itself and without any other extrinsic evidence, is legally insufficient to prove you downloaded illegal materials - i.e. they lose automatically and all you have to say is "you have failed to state a legal claim". You do not even have to allege that the computer was used by another person. Rather, if all these companies have is information saying "IP address X downloaded material", then they lose on a Motion to Dismiss as a matter of law.

However, if they have info that "IP address X downloaded material" and a statement from IP address X's owner that "Oh no, only I use that computer" or proof that IP address X's owner has the pirated materials on his device (or some other device), THEN it becomes a factual question that survives a motion to dismiss because there are more facts in play than the simple "this IP address downloaded the materials". [Again, copyright not my area - just working off some basic principles]

In this case, if someone can demonstrate that your personal computer (or your work computer) was used, the statements and photo are pretty damn specific and, in conjunction with an IP address identifiable to you or a computer you regularly use, it would at least raise a factual question as to whether or not you were the one who made the statements. Once past the motion to dismiss, they could subpoena the hard drives from the IP addresses used, certainly they would (I would) subpoena files from your work relating to your internet usage, depose coworkers, look up every post by "NCSkins" to see if it gave any information identifiable to you. Further, if you post from work (or during work hours), it could, possibly, result in a sanction from your employer - particularly if they get subpoenas for your work comps hard drive or Public Information Act Requests about your computer usage.

Again, as I said, it would take a really, really motivated plaintiff to choose to do all those things b/c it would not be cheap to pursue. From all that you said, I doubt that the individuals in question qualify. But, the original assertion was that the photo coupled with the specific statements left you open for charges of liable. I think it very clearly does "leave you open". I suspect, however, (1) it would be too costly for the potential plaintiffs in question; (2) their desire to pursue would be significantly cooled by the knowledge that they are likely to eventually lose.

At the same time, if they are willing to exert the time and money to chase you down, they likely could force you to spend time and money defending their charges. Truthfully, had you not posted the picture and just gone with the pronouns and descriptions, I would have said "No problem". Again, even with the picture, not likely to result in anything, BUT, if they have the right kind of crazy, have money to burn, and just want to make your life sh** for a bit, well, the pictures let them do that - even if you ultimately prevail.

When it comes to posting the pictures, if it were me, I wouldn't do it and I would recommend to any client of mine not to do so. I get where you coming from, really, I do (Just look at some of my posts in the Gear Grinding thread). I just think you may have let your frustrations get the better of your judgment.

I may be misreading the cited opinion, but I don't think so. Further, this is just my two cents and is not in any way intended as legal advice - 'cause I ain't licensed in "Internet Land". An attorney in your jurisdiction could read this and say "He's full of sh**" (Certainly, saden1 questions my legal competence on a regular basis). At the same time, I would give this same two cents to a friend with whom I was sharing a beer - whether we were doing so in my home State or one with terrific beaches and cool lighthouses.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

(Certainly, saden1 questions my legal competence on a regular basis).

Case closed you moron.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

At the same time, if they are willing to exert the time and money to chase you down, they likely could force you to spend time and money defending their charges. Truthfully, had you not posted the picture and just gone with the pronouns and descriptions, I would have said "No problem". Again, even with the picture, not likely to result in anything, BUT, if they have the right kind of crazy, have money to burn, and just want to make your life sh** for a bit, well, the pictures let them do that - even if you ultimately prevail.

When it comes to posting the pictures, if it were me, I wouldn't do it and I would recommend to any client of mine not to do so. I get where you coming from, really, I do (Just look at some of my posts in the Gear Grinding thread). I just think you may have let your frustrations get the better of your judgment.

I think I simply don't give a fuck at this stage so me and my co-workers turn it into humor at this point. We know nothing is going to change as long as the primary enabler stays around. Besides, knowing the stuff I have over the people above me gives me quite a bit of leverage to not give a fuck and probably why I posted them to begin with. If I felt I had anything really to lose, I probably wouldn't have posted it. The guy in question doesn't have money, and he knows the stuff I've said is right and can be proven. When it comes down to it, you better know your opponents hand before you go all in and turn your cards up. Overall, the advice is sound and most people would do well to take heed to it. Thank you for the breakdown and the advice JR. A beer has been earned my good man. That's two I owe you now.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

back to the lesson in warpath psychology, i think we can see that bad news brings confrontation then comedy followed by logical analysis. Good news gets a round of hearty good cheers. No wonder bad news sells. More clicks here.

...and that's our media in a nutshell.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I think I simply don't give a fuck at this stage so me and my co-workers turn it into humor at this point.

My ass. You: