[anigbrowl]

If I was bringing such a suit, I'd focus on the content of the blog post where she mentioned his verbal acknowledgment that the firm was a conference sponsors, and argued that wearing a shirt with his employer's logo made him a representative of the firm, the implication being that he was unfit to carry out his duties as a corporate representative.

I couldn't tell you if there's precedent for that; I haven't looked. If so, it might just as easily support a counter-suit for IIED or NIED. I hope nobody files any lawuits; if they do I'm going to take a vacation from HN and stick my head in a bucket of water until it's over.

[tptacek]

Oh, good point about the conference sponsor stuff.

Still: there's a big gulf of persuasive evidence between saying someone is not acting in the moment as an effective representative for their firm, and in directly procuring the severance of an employment contract between them and their employer.

I think this case, or any case in the other direction, is extremely far fetched.

[anigbrowl]

Indeed. Likewise, a counter-suit would be reaching for the outer limits of what constitutes emotional distress. That's why I'm hoping it won't end up in court; both sides would have to make stretch arguments, and the underlying issues would get lost in all the kindergarten Constitution-thumping and posturing.

When I was a young internet evangelist I used to think that always-on internet availability would lead to a breakout of civil communication in some sort of 21st century Agora. Unfortunately, I overlooked the fact that people behave badly in crowds.