Yes, I'm sure she would love to sue the university too. However she likely doesn't have a case there.
I hope she wins the lawsuit because they sloppily doxxed her and broke the terms of service of Disqus in doing so.
> Viola acknowledged writing most of the posts. But she denied being behind the anti-Muslim screed. That was critical to Sorokin’s decision to allow the libel and defamation part of Viola’s suit to proceed. The former professor “has plausibly alleged that Benton may have been negligent in his failure to verify that she was the author,” the judge wrote. He also took note of how Benton managed to discover and reveal her identity. Viola wrote her comments “based on the promise that her user information would be used for ‘moderation purposes only,’ which was violated when Benton posted her information on Twitter,” Sorokin wrote.
Have you considered that if the standard for defamation were actually as you hope it is/should be, she'd get about a microsecond to enjoy her victory over Nieman Lab before being crushed by Seth Rich's family over her rumormongering in that case?
Being sloppy is indeed enough to be sued. If I started telling people "microtherion is a Nazi" - you could sue me without proving I knew you are not a Nazi.
… on a Motion to Dismiss, which means literally "if we take everything the plaintiff says as the gospel truth, and dismiss anything the defendant says, would the plaintiff have a case?"
> It's literally mentioned in the article.
The judge allowed some of the numerous claims to proceed to the next trial stage, while dismissing others outright.
If you follow the article's link to the ruling, you will find that actual malice is literally the standard applied to many of the counts, which were indeed dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss stage: "mere negligence or deviation from professional standards is insufficient to allege actual malice".
Whether that standard applies to the libel charge depends on whether the plaintiff is a public figure, which apparently in that state is never decided in the Motion to Dismiss stage. However, the next step is generally a Motion for Summary Judgment, and odds are good that she will be found a (Limited, at least) public figure, at which point the Libel, Defamation, Emotional Distress, and Tortious Interference counts are history.
> you could sue me
Anyone could sue anyone for anything. Would I win? I doubt it.
> I hope her lawsuit is very successful. She was clearly targeted, ostracized, and fired for speaking her mind.
Those two statements have no connection to each other, since the lawsuit has nothing to do with her being targeted, ostracized and fired, instead (as you say) it's about her being defamed.
actually maybe the targeted is in reference to Nieman.
I guess I see not a legal connection, but the kind of connection that people often make in informal speech.
For good reason, many wrong things are completely legal, and still should be condemned.
If you are a journalism professor and are unable to recognise disinformation when you see it (e.g. Seth Rich conspiracy theories) then it calls your job competency into serious question. Yes, the firing would make Temple a better place to learn.
> try to ignore everything that Weinstein has become since then
I feel like this is difficult to do. I'd sort of argue that "we caught a bad faith actor early" is a good thing. Maybe you could argue that Bret wouldn't be what he is today if he weren't fired, but I don't really find that convincing.
It's a violation of the TOS. The recourse is Disqus cuts the offender's access (either the individual or the institution) for violating the TOS.
1) a false statement purporting to be fact (he says she wrote what she says she didn't)
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person (yes, the doxing)
3) fault amounting to at least negligence (maybe debatable, but he accused her of writing something knowing only that an account registered to her posted it. He never asked her about it and has already admitted fault in accusing her without asking.)
4) damages (yes, her career)
Legal consequences imply non-free speech; employment consequences are more complicated.
edit: Responding to dead response; not gonna vouch for you again with that attitude...
Every freedom has consequences. You've got the right to bear arms, but you can shoot yourself in the foot. You've got the freedom to move about the country, but you can miss your sister's wedding if you're in another state. You've got the freedom to vote, but your elected politician won't always vote in the way you'd like. You've got the right to drink and smoke, but you might get cancer or other diseases. You've got the right to piss off your friends by spouting off hot takes, and you might lose those friends if they don't like what you have to say.
The issue isn't exactly about free speech but discrimination. And this happens in a million other ways too: being overweight, having a certain accent, being shorter than average. The fact that people have to resort to a "free speech" defence is indicative of the problem. And, of course, there will be "consequences"...no-one doubts that are consequences for not being like other people.
And if someone is discriminating against another person in hiring (btw, inevitable...height/weight/accent, it is basically impossible to remove this, people are fairly safe on religion because no-one can tell what religion another person is without asking) then that is enough. There is no need to examine the person's statements and try to work out how they would behave in a hypothetical example (doing this is discriminating...you aren't judging a person on their actions but how you believe they would act in a hypothetical you invent...would you like to be judged this way?).
No, please read my comment more carefully, because I said none of that.
I don't believe that she did or didn't say anything. I said "alleged" and meant it -- I've read exactly one article about this person and never heard of her before.
I said that having a post like that under one's name could be used as evidence against their employer in the case of a Title VII claim. Not that it would definitely indicate that the poster is racist; not that the poster is "dangerous" -- I'm said that the poster could reasonably be viewed as a legal liability to their employer.
> you aren't judging a person on their actions but how you believe they would act in a hypothetical you invent...would you like to be judged this way?
Another example of non-free speech: if you admit to having done a crime, that will be used against you in court (note, the admission itself is not a crime -- but it is evidence). If you express intent to do a crime, and somebody alleges that the same crime happened, and you're placed at the scene of the alleged crime, then your expression of intent will be used against you in court. Whether or not I want that to happen to me is irrelevant. That's how the legal system works.
Freedom of association permits us to choose who we do and do not associate with based on that individual's own choices.
There are laws in place to prevent employers from coercing employees into political action - i.e. you won't get your annual bonus unless you donate to this political candidate - but these are protections from extortion, and not exceptions to the general rule that political party is not a protected class.
When it comes to discrimination of employees by employers, then the protected classes, personal choice, and freedom of association are highly relevant irrespective of country.
The important distinction is that you can be punished under the law for the intent + consequences of speech. For the fire example, if no one reacted at all to me yelling "Fire!", the state could not go after me. Now, if I caused a stampede or other behavior from those in the theater, I could be sued for various things (manslaughter if someone died, criminal mischief, or disturbing the peace).
It's also the same reason the government can go after mob bosses for hiring a hitman to kill someone. They just said something (like, "take that guy out"), which is just speech. But if the actions that resulted in the speech can be directly connected, you can get in trouble for it.
EDIT: To make clear here, intent and consequences matter here. It's why you rarely see cases against speech brought, as intent must also be clear and provable in court.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There can be, and are, private consequences to speech. I may not invite you back for dinner for example, other consequences may be more impactful.
That the COVID virus leaked from a lab was branded as a conspiracy theory - until now all of the sudden it isn't.
Censorship is a "cure" far worse than the problems it purports to fix. Even worse is using such flimsy pretexts to FIRE someone.
That people are so casual in accepting ruining peoples live's for simply having the wrong GROUPTHINK is utterly mind boggling to myself. Sadly the "smarter" one seems to think they are the more susceptible they seem to be in rationalizing away any concerns that should be firing off in their little heads.
Those ignorant of history doomed to repeat it and all that :(
IMO at the very least the case is a lot more nuanced than you're making it out to be. For example: the fired professor was propagating conspiracy theories about Seth Rich. From the free speech angle, sure, she's free to say whatever she wants. But if you're a journalism professor and you aren't able to tell when something being propagated in the media is a baseless conspiracy theory, what does that say about your ability at your job? And as a teacher? It is not flat out wrong to fire someone for engaging in actions that cast doubt on their professionalism. At the very least it's open for debate.
I think there's an interesting debate to be had over her having done this anonymously: if she separated it from her professional persona is she less culpable in a professional sense? Personally I'd still argue no, but I think this is why she's targeting the Lab and not her employer: it's a lot easier to argue that unmasking her (thus combining her anonymous and professional identities) was wrong than to argue that firing her was wrong.
It seems their argument is going to be centered around one particular post expressing an anti-Muslim sentiment. Benton said she wrote it, she said she did not, thus he defamed her. All the posts were made under the same Disqus account so she might have a hill to climb in proving that it wasn't her. I'm very far from a lawyer but this feels like a case designed to set the professor up as a cause célèbre on the right rather than one designed to win.