Re:Our statement on the results of the Jacob Appelbaum inves...
by mjg59 on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:06PM
(#12175174)
If your argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to say things that harm the employment prospects of others, whether the accusation meets the threshold of criminal behaviour or not seems irrelevant. So why is crossing that threshold different? Why is it ok to say "We have evidence that this person did not turn up to the office" but not "We have evidence that this person engaged in sexual harassment"?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Our statement on the results of the Jacob Appelbaum inves...
by ddevault on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:12PM
(#12175223)
Because there's a significant difference between acusing someone of crimes and acusing someone of not being a diligent worker. And no, I'm not arguing that this is related to harming someone's employment prospects, but their reputation in general (which happens to encapsulate their employment prospects).
Re:Our statement on the results of the Jacob Appelbaum inves...
by mjg59 on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:31PM
(#12175371)
There are crimes I can be accused of that will enhance my reputation rather than diminish it. There are perfectly legal things I could be accused of that would destroy my career and my social relationships. If your argument is about reputational damage, then using criminality as the threshold for "It's not ok to make a public accusation" is entirely arbitrary.