Are you saying Glassdoor should rewrite user posts that the company claims are libelous?
Honestly I’m not sure how many negative posts could reasonably be considered libel, but for those that genuinely could be, Glassdoor is probably better served by just removing them than wading into liability both from posting and from modifying them.
Nope. That should be between the company and whoever did the post, frankly.
I don’t see how Glassdoor would have any liability unless they were somehow presenting it as their own opinion.
They might want to take it down as part of overall community moderation if it violates their TOS of course, say if it includes cursing, or has racist remarks or whatever.
I’m pointing out libel has a definition, and posting what is clearly an opinion isn’t it. It has to be making statements which are presenting false facts as true.
That they’ll almost certainly find ways to take down ‘undesired’ messages that paying customers don’t like seems like something they do, which is shitty and undermines their nominal reason for existing, is… sad but seems to be what is going on. Nothing to do with libel.
* Company tells Glassdoor the review is false and to take it down
* Glassdoor says the review is from an anonymous user and not them, so they should sue the user
* Company asks for the name of the user so they can sue them for libel.
* Glassdoor refuses to turn over the user because it ruins the anonymity
* Company sues Glassdoor for libel because they refuse to produce proof they didn't create the libel. Glassdoor now has to face the lawsuit or turn over the user and destroy the anonymous premise of their website thats fundamental to their business model
My understanding is that the courts have a different take on it.
Stating ‘x killed y’, even if I wholeheartedly believe it is libel if it turns out someone else killed y, and x had reputational damage due to my statement. I’m asserting something is true, full stop.
Stating ‘in my opinion, x killed y’, if I wholeheartedly believe it, is not libel, even in the same situation, because even if x did not kill y, it is still true it was my opinion that it was true, and I was being clear about that. I wasn’t asserting facts, I was asserting my opinion. Opinions are protected, as long as they can’t be confused with false assertions of facts.
Now, if it turns out there is evidence that I didn’t actually have that opinion and it was all a game to destroy x’s reputation, I might still get hit.
It’s the same reason ‘allegedly’ gets used by the press so much when someone gets arrested.
Regardless of what the courts find later, it was indeed alleged. And that matters if someone tries to come after them later. Which happens.
The news sells itself as making factual reports (except for ‘entertainment’ or ‘editorial’ sections), and can’t get away with saying it’s all just an opinion.
If you have pointers to case law that disagrees, I’d much appreciate it!
It's not quite the same thing - it's under oath, rather than public speech - but in the Alex Jones, Sandy Hook libel case, the Judge Gamble admonished Jones:
“You believe everything you say is true, but your beliefs do not make something true,” Gamble said. “That is that is what we’re doing here. Just because you claim to think something is true does not make it true. It does not protect you. It is not allowed. You’re under oath. That means things must actually be true when you say them.”
I'm not a lawyer and don't know American libel law so I can't speak to that. I will say there's a big difference between using "allegedly" and "believe". Belief in what you say being your opinion is implicit (unless, of course, you're lying). You have no access to facts outside your opinion. It's the nature of your statement which indicates whether it's a statement of fact or opinion, not whether you say "in your opinion" or not. "Allegedly" has a very different purpose; it imputes the statement of fact to someone else. Someone else has stated (in their opinion) a fact; they alleged it. Rather than qualifying a statement as a belief, it qualifies it as the truth of it being someone else's responsibility.
I think you're misunderstanding what is going on there.
Alex Jones didn't say 'In my opinion sandy hook blah blah blah'. He said 'Sandy hook blah blah blah'. He presented those things he was saying as facts, not as something that was 'just his opinion'. Under oath it's a similar rule, but does allow more leeway regarding the persons knowledge. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...]
And what the Judge is telling him, if you do that, it doesn't matter if you think they're true or not, what matters is if they are actually true. Or at least under oath, it's plausible they he believes they are actually true and it's not all delusions or whatever.
Especially if you're saying them in a large venue, with real impact on real people.
Actual truth is an absolute defense for libel in the US. If what you're saying is true, you are not committing libel. Period. even if you think it's actually false when you're saying it
Thinking something is true if it is actually false is not enough in 99% of cases, assuming it is being presented as a fact and not an opinion (which requires no verification and is generally protected from libel in the US).
There is a bit of an escape clause, which is libel generally also requires that the false statements were made with some degree of recklessness, negligence, or maliciousness.
As in, they were not only false, but the person saying them also didn't do the basic amount of checking appropriate in the circumstance to avoid harm before saying them.
Like if someone goes on TV and says 'OJ died today, he was murdered by John Smith' and they never bothered to verify it and just overheard a hallway conversation or whatever. John Smith, and probably OJ would have pretty solid libel cases.
If someone did check and got it confirmed, say with OJ's agent, or the appropriate law enforcement authority, they'd generally get a pass, as they weren't reckless or malicious. It was an honest mistake based on information that should have been sufficient to determine if the fact was true or not. The law enforcement authority or agent might be in trouble though.
‘In my opinion the New York Times is a pile of lying garbage’ or whatever for instance isn’t libel.