Comments on: Noonan v. Staples: “The most dangerous libel decision in decades” http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/ A collaborative effort to figure out the future of journalism. A project of Harvard University. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:39:00 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Le libelle diffamatoire sur le web social | rezopointzero.com http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/comment-page-1/#comment-48486 Le libelle diffamatoire sur le web social | rezopointzero.com Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:33:38 +0000 http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=2031#comment-48486 [...] l’arrêt Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 539 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008), un courriel envoyé par un gestionnaire de la compagnie Staples [...] [...] l’arrêt Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 539 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008), un courriel envoyé par un gestionnaire de la compagnie Staples [...]

]]> By: Martin Langeveld http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/comment-page-1/#comment-9454 Martin Langeveld Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:01:03 +0000 http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=2031#comment-9454 katana: Sure, there are generally accepted privacy protections against an employer disclosing medical information and other facts not directly relevant to employment. But in this case, the disclosure is not of private medical information irrelevant to work performance; the issue is simply the (by all accounts) truthful disclosure of the fact that Noonan violated company policy and was therefore terminated, and (most importantly) the inference of actual malice from the act of that disclosure. katana:
Sure, there are generally accepted privacy protections against an employer disclosing medical information and other facts not directly relevant to employment. But in this case, the disclosure is not of private medical information irrelevant to work performance; the issue is simply the (by all accounts) truthful disclosure of the fact that Noonan violated company policy and was therefore terminated, and (most importantly) the inference of actual malice from the act of that disclosure.

]]> By: katana0182 http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/comment-page-1/#comment-9434 katana0182 Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:16:13 +0000 http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=2031#comment-9434 I find the behavior of Staples in this matter to shock the conscience. Staples isn't a newsgathering organization - and personnel matters in any organization ought to be handled confidentially. The First Amendment is meant to protect meaningful speech, like that of a news organization reporting about matters of public concern, not publicly meaningless speech about a private citizen's private business. What if you were taking certain psychiatric medications - had a sexual preference you didn't disclose openly - had an affair outside of marriage - or had a stigmatizing disease like AIDS? Do you feel that it's right that someone who happened to learn of this and then publicly disclosed it could claim truth as a defense to a claim of invasion of privacy, slander, or libel? I would say that to allow this would be an outrage. Some things are not meant to be known. The private business of clearly private citizens living private lives is one of those things. I find the behavior of Staples in this matter to shock the conscience. Staples isn’t a newsgathering organization – and personnel matters in any organization ought to be handled confidentially. The First Amendment is meant to protect meaningful speech, like that of a news organization reporting about matters of public concern, not publicly meaningless speech about a private citizen’s private business.

What if you were taking certain psychiatric medications – had a sexual preference you didn’t disclose openly – had an affair outside of marriage – or had a stigmatizing disease like AIDS? Do you feel that it’s right that someone who happened to learn of this and then publicly disclosed it could claim truth as a defense to a claim of invasion of privacy, slander, or libel?

I would say that to allow this would be an outrage. Some things are not meant to be known. The private business of clearly private citizens living private lives is one of those things.

]]> By: RunToGold.com http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/comment-page-1/#comment-9400 RunToGold.com Sun, 08 Mar 2009 06:51:25 +0000 http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=2031#comment-9400 <strong>Noonan v Staples - For The Good Of The Cause...</strong> Defamation case where truth is not an absolute defense with applications to financial investigative journalism. ...... Noonan v Staples – For The Good Of The Cause…

Defamation case where truth is not an absolute defense with applications to financial investigative journalism.
……

]]> By: Truth may no longer be libel defense… « Kelly’s Blog http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/comment-page-1/#comment-8916 Truth may no longer be libel defense… « Kelly’s Blog Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:12:50 +0000 http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=2031#comment-8916 [...] libel suits – that truth always succeeded as a defense, has been sharply redefined in the recent Noonan vs. Staples case called “The most dangerous libel case in decades.” The plaintiff won the appeal [...] [...] libel suits – that truth always succeeded as a defense, has been sharply redefined in the recent Noonan vs. Staples case called “The most dangerous libel case in decades.” The plaintiff won the appeal [...]

]]> By: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Noonan v. Staples: “The most dangerous libel decision in decades” http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/comment-page-1/#comment-8755 DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Noonan v. Staples: “The most dangerous libel decision in decades” Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:35:19 +0000 http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=2031#comment-8755 [...] Read it. [...] [...] Read it. [...]

]]> By: Lawsuit Over Email Leads to Disturbing Libel Decision http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/comment-page-1/#comment-8527 Lawsuit Over Email Leads to Disturbing Libel Decision Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:11:42 +0000 http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=2031#comment-8527 [...] Sue WalshEmail: sue@theemailadmin.comSite: About: See Authors Posts (49) on February 24, 2009 The NiemanJournalismLab blog is reporting that a federal appeals court in Boston has handed down a decision that has [...] [...] Sue WalshEmail: sue@theemailadmin.comSite: About: See Authors Posts (49) on February 24, 2009 The NiemanJournalismLab blog is reporting that a federal appeals court in Boston has handed down a decision that has [...]

]]> By: Printed Matters » Right to be wrong, wrong to be right http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/comment-page-1/#comment-8180 Printed Matters » Right to be wrong, wrong to be right Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:41:22 +0000 http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=2031#comment-8180 [...] in the States, the courts seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Even if a statement is true, a court said in the case of Noonan vs. [...] [...] in the States, the courts seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Even if a statement is true, a court said in the case of Noonan vs. [...]

]]> By: Gordon Firemark http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/comment-page-1/#comment-8064 Gordon Firemark Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:50:38 +0000 http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=2031#comment-8064 Thanks for the mention and quote. Nice article! Thanks for the mention and quote. Nice article!

]]>