Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:motivation (Score 1) 192

Another manager threatened to beat an underperforming employee's head in with a baseball bat.

Now, that's what must be a highly motivating work environment :/

One must wonder how their hiring process works, i.e. letting such characters through the gates, since recent reports don't paint a pretty picture.

Negan will hire anyone, but loves to bash in heads with a baseball bat. One could certainly call "perform well so you do not die" to be a highly-motivated work environment.

Comment Re: This is not surprising (Score 1) 245

And then, there's Benghazi. Clear case of treason, and no Democrat is interested.

Clinton clearly dropped the ball with Benghazi. Her negligence had fatal consequences, and her apology did not sound sincere. However, I would not call what she did "treason:"

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Source: The Constitution of the United States: Article III, Section 3.

She was negligent and failed either to provide additional support for the consulate or authorize their withdrawal to a safer location. She did not levy war against the United States, nor did she adhere to or provide aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. She was a spineless coward who clearly did not respect her subordinates or value their lives: but she did not commit the crime of treason. I think in general some people throw that word around a little too loosely without understanding what it means.

Comment Fond Memories (Score 1) 39

RIP.

I can remember playing when I was a kid. Was so addictive and fun to play that people would gather around and try to beat each person before them, get the high score. Many a weekly allowance wasted on this title... but the better you got at the game, the cheaper it became to play.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 433

I don't know about law in any of the US, but in the UK: a private letter is considered to be "published", for libel purposes, the moment it is opened (by someone other than the party being libelled, or someone acting as their agent and with their express permission to open it)

Yes. It is roughly the same in the U.S. See HERE, in the section headed "Publication".

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 433

With the intent to cause damage. Look it up. They damaged party has to prove intent. Which is why there are almost never successful; libel or slander cases in the US.

This is not true. At least in most states, intent to harm is not required.

What IS usually required is to show that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that the statement was false.

That is not quite the same thing.

Comment Re:This. Libel need not be public, but must be unt (Score 1) 433

It's amazing to me how many people don't get the difference between stating an opinion and stating something as fact. I am thinking of a certain Slashdot frequenter who fits that profile.

There is a great deal of legal precedent in that regard. For example, calling someone "an ass" or similar is pretty definitely an opinion, even if it's stated as though it were fact: "You're an ass."

In college law classes there is a rather famous case study from, I think, the 17th century.

A guest at an inn told the innkeeper: "My horse can pisse better ale than you serve here."

The innkeeper sued the customer for slander. The judge ruled: "The accused did not slander the innkeeper. He complimented his horse."

So, while there are lines as to what is acceptable speech and what is not, it pays to be cognizant of where those lines are. And many people have no clue.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 4, Informative) 433

This is quite incorrect. I would say dangerously incorrect. At least in most of the U.S.

In general, actionable defamation (of which libel and slander are particular examples) only requires that you express untrue, damaging things to someone other than the party you are referring to. There is NO specific requirement that it be public.

And "damage" is used loosely here. Damage could mean damage to their career, or damage to their public reputation, or even just damage to a single friend's opinion of them.

If you wrote untrue, damaging things in a document to your HR department, that could definitely be considered libel, and would likely be actionable. Specific cases vary, but again in general.

Of course, truth is (again in general... most U.S. states) an absolute defense. So if what you wrote is true and you can demonstrate that it is, by a preponderance of evidence, then you're probably safe. But you'd better have that evidence.

In addition, most corporations have as part of their employment conditions that you can't sue the company or other employees as a result of negative opinions expressed as part of "official" company communications, such as an employee review or exit interview.

Again in the U.S., that is simply not true. "Most" corporations do NOT have such a clause in their contract, and there is a very strong push to stop that practice in those states where it is still allowed. Because in some states such clauses are specifically prohibited by law, and the list of those states is growing.

Comment Re:Newsreels (Score 1) 348

Fantasy. DRM and the DMCA make reverse engineering and backup impossible.

OP was talking about analog reels made decades before digital film and the DMCA. Yes, the DMCA effectively castrates fair use and other provisions of copyright law when dealing with digital media that has anti-circumvention mechanisms in place but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The more pressing issue is much of this media is physically controlled by entities that have zero incentive to digitize or distribute it. The relevant laws here would be about trespassing or theft, as one would need to break into a vault and physically steal reels to do anything with the material.

Slashdot Top Deals

Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal

Working...