Comment Technology deliberately stifled (Score 4, Interesting) 305
Sorry for a wiki link, too lazy to look up more sources. Basically we'd have better battery technology if Oil & Car companies didn't deliberately stifle technology
Were these women sexually harassed on FaceBook ? If not it has nothing to do with the case.
I wouldn't agree with that statement. Suppose there's a wall post by the defendant, or a note or a message to a friend that says something on the lines of "Boy my employer is a hottie, I'd just like to take him for a ride if you know what I mean!" - how would that having nothing to do with the case? A statement like that would pretty much throw this case out - if it's reasonable (or provable) that she was the one that made these statements (meaning someone else didn't make the statements via a hacked account) then I don't see why facebook statements can't be used or relevant.
One of the tidbits of information the plaintiff claims is relevant is this
; a photograph of herself wearing a shirt with the word “CUNT” in large letters written across the front (a term she alleges was used pejoratively against her, also alleging that such use offended her);
Now we're getting into a bit of a grey area here, but such a photograph would be relevant. Now it's obviously not acceptable to call your employee a cunt to their face, I would expect harassment charges to stand here. But if the defendant hears the employer using that term to describe someone else, or happens to overhear that term being used and the defendant isn't the person being referred to - then such a picture of the t-shirt would be quite relevant. If the defendant claims that "such use offended her" by simply overhearing the word, but if a photograph shows her in a shirt with CUNT on it - then it's pretty clear she doesn't have a valid claim to simply be offended by hearing the word
You make a good point on being "forced to give the password to others" - but this is the plantiff, not the defendant. If it was the defendant, then I'd be more outraged. But if the defendant says "the plaintiff first sent me sexually suggestive messages on facebook!", it seems perfectly reasonable for the judge to request proof from the plaintiff
discovered a novel way to stay mentally healthy with the help of drugs
How may times SHOULD you have gone to jail for saying something: 0.
Incorrect. We don't know what he said - perhaps you have some absolutist position on discussion over the internet - that *anything* can be said without being an arrestable offense. How about some reminders of things that are said that are most certainly illegal?
- Yelling fire in a crowded theater (inciting panic)
- Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
- Extortion
- Threats of violence, rape or murder
I shouldn't have to re-iterate that old mantra of "not all free speech is free!", and you may disagree on the law on some points like what "racial hatred" is exactly. But if you don't like what someone said and send them a message saying you will find and murder them - do you honestly believe that you shouldn't go to jail? Threats of murder get you jail time, whether it's done in person, over the phone, or over the internet - despite being "just something you said".
So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand