Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Sued Don't Tweet

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 118 posts

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#41

Post by teacup50 »

ilamont wrote: post #29

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 quie…

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.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#42

Post by noisy_boy »

ilamont wrote: post #29

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 quie…

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.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#43

Post by danielweber »

ilamont wrote: post #29

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 quie…

If you are interested in not losing court cases, "naming names" is a very very bad idea.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#44

Post by bhartzer »

cgshaw wrote: post #37

(another attorney here) 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 /…

Wouldn't most attorneys advise their client to keep quiet and not post on Twitter and talk to the media about the case?

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#45

Post by rayiner »

motters wrote: post #21

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.

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?

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#46

Post by esquivalience »

bhartzer wrote: post #44
cgshaw wrote: post #37

(another attorney here) 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 /…

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]

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#47

Post by ceejayoz »

teacup50 wrote: post #41
ilamont wrote: post #29

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 quie…

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…

> 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.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#48

Post by erso »

cgshaw wrote: post #37

(another attorney here) 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 /…

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.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#50

Post by pbhjpbhj »

pjc50 wrote: post #36
Luc wrote: post #22

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.

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…

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.

Post reply on HN