In case of public shaming, it is important to note that it is a public defamation. If your point wasn't proven (=recognized by a court), then the company can ask for damages, so you may have to go for a trial anyway. Moreover, too many male's careers were broken by illegitimate morale accusations, which doesn't do any good for peace with women. So I agree wich cpks, either sue and prove your point or don't say it.
Edit: klodolph is correct, I didn't think laws of US could be that much opposite from Europe (France in my case).
If your point wasn't proven (=recognized by a court), then the company can ask for damages
This is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. US defamation law is much less friendly to plaintiffs compared to most European countries, especially the UK (for example). This may surprise you, but in the US, it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that a defamatory statement is false. You have to also prove that the defendant knew the statement to be false, or you have to prove negligence by "clear and convincing evidence". This is for private plaintiffs, the standard for "public figures" is higher.
I can recognize the attitude that "if you can't prove it in court, then shut up", but there are always going to be a few really important things that you want to say that can't be proven in court. I'm not saying this is one of those times (it really isn't) but those times exist.
And I'm not taking sides on this particular case, just to be absolutely clear.
If Ann calls Bob a cheat and a liar she has the defences of:
1: truth
2: fair comment (eg, Bob isn't a cheat or a liar but has behaved in a way that would make a reasonable person to think he is)
3: protection (eg Ann could have said it in the House of Commons and is thus immune from prosecution).
To get damages Bob (if he's a public figure) has to show that Ann was malicious -- that Ann knew the comments to be untrue or she recklessly disregarded the truth; if Bob is a private individual he only needs to show Ann was negligent in obtaining the truth. (That's compensatory damages. For punitive damages malice has to be present.)
In the case of a claim of sexual harassment, proving the claim false is that first step, sure. But the second step is almost a fait accompli. Barring a psychotic break, it's pretty hard to made the original claim, about what happened to themselves, didn't know it was false.
For clarity, too, I'm speaking in the genetic, not specific to this incident.
It's not a question about whether you speak out. It's a question of whether you do it through proper channels.
And yes, I'd much rather accusers speak out only through proper channels, at least when those channels work pretty well. In the US, they're not perfect, but they do work pretty well.
No sensible company is going to sue an alleged victim of sexual abuse whose only complaint is that allegations were not probably dealt with. It is more a fault of Google for not resolving the issue in a way that left her not feeling like she needed to leave.
And I am sorry but if you think this will result in some "war with women" then I fear for the IT industry. Professional conduct is what should be expected. It works for every other industry.
Comments
In case of public shaming, it is important to note that it is a public defamation. If your point wasn't proven (=recognized by a court), then the company can ask for damages, so you may have to go for a trial anyway. Moreover, too many male's careers were broken by illegitimate morale accusations, which doesn't do any good for peace with women. So I agree wich cpks, either sue and prove your point or don't say it.
Edit: klodolph is correct, I didn't think laws of US could be that much opposite from Europe (France in my case).
This is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. US defamation law is much less friendly to plaintiffs compared to most European countries, especially the UK (for example). This may surprise you, but in the US, it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that a defamatory statement is false. You have to also prove that the defendant knew the statement to be false, or you have to prove negligence by "clear and convincing evidence". This is for private plaintiffs, the standard for "public figures" is higher.
I can recognize the attitude that "if you can't prove it in court, then shut up", but there are always going to be a few really important things that you want to say that can't be proven in court. I'm not saying this is one of those times (it really isn't) but those times exist.
And I'm not taking sides on this particular case, just to be absolutely clear.
English defamation law recently (2013) changed.
If Ann calls Bob a cheat and a liar she has the defences of:
1: truth
2: fair comment (eg, Bob isn't a cheat or a liar but has behaved in a way that would make a reasonable person to think he is)
3: protection (eg Ann could have said it in the House of Commons and is thus immune from prosecution).
To get damages Bob (if he's a public figure) has to show that Ann was malicious -- that Ann knew the comments to be untrue or she recklessly disregarded the truth; if Bob is a private individual he only needs to show Ann was negligent in obtaining the truth. (That's compensatory damages. For punitive damages malice has to be present.)
In the case of a claim of sexual harassment, proving the claim false is that first step, sure. But the second step is almost a fait accompli. Barring a psychotic break, it's pretty hard to made the original claim, about what happened to themselves, didn't know it was false.
For clarity, too, I'm speaking in the genetic, not specific to this incident.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
There's only a second wrong if the accuser is just outright lying. Or do you prefer that victims of harassment never speak out?
It's not a question about whether you speak out. It's a question of whether you do it through proper channels.
And yes, I'd much rather accusers speak out only through proper channels, at least when those channels work pretty well. In the US, they're not perfect, but they do work pretty well.
No sensible company is going to sue an alleged victim of sexual abuse whose only complaint is that allegations were not probably dealt with. It is more a fault of Google for not resolving the issue in a way that left her not feeling like she needed to leave.
And I am sorry but if you think this will result in some "war with women" then I fear for the IT industry. Professional conduct is what should be expected. It works for every other industry.