[191086] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Zayo Extortion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan Hall)
Thu Aug 18 00:00:11 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jonathan Hall <jhall@futuresouth.us>
In-Reply-To: <56221.1471438917@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:11:59 +0200
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Anne Mitchell <amitchell@isipp.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Guys,
Actually, thank you for the responses. I was hoping you wouldn=E2=80=99t =
take my attempt at friendly and humorous conversation the wrong way. I =
appreciate the education on the topic, as well. :)
However, I=E2=80=99d like to ask a few questions on it, if you don=E2=80=99=
t mind? (Also - you=E2=80=99re right, it=E2=80=99s not the freedom of =
speech act I=E2=80=99m thinking, wasn=E2=80=99t it some form of =
=E2=80=98decency act=E2=80=99 ? I digress, though=E2=80=A6)
For something to actually be considered libel, isn=E2=80=99t it required =
that the statement be untrue, damaging in a way that must be proven and =
actually knowingly false?
Proving damages would be hard=E2=80=A6 But putting that aside, proving =
what he is saying is not true (unless it=E2=80=99s just 100% false and =
they have recorded evidence of it) might be even harder if they don=E2=80=99=
t have proper records of past due balances, or properly recorded =
communications (i.e. email). And where is the line drawn with regards to =
him/her knowingly making statements that are not true? And wouldn=E2=80=99=
t it still alsol require a general purpose public figure, or a limited =
purpose public figure, to prove malice in the instance? I don=E2=80=99t =
think the company would qualify as a general or limited purpose public =
figure. That would pretty much apply to actors, performer and/or social =
activist types - or politicians. Not a service provider=E2=80=A6=20
If he perceives it to be extortion, then it would be difficult to say =
that him claiming extortion is libel. The definition of extortion is the =
general practice of obtaining something, especially money, through the =
use of force or threats. In this case, the company is using the threat =
of disconnection as the force, and they are indeed attempting to collect =
money. So, if we take it from a literal definitive view of =
=E2=80=98extortion,=E2=80=99 the word, by definition, fits the scenario. =
It doesn=E2=80=99t imply wrong doing, really, and could be applicable to =
any and every service provider in existence today - even the =
pharmaceutical companies with regards to withholding medication that can =
save lives unless absurd amounts of money is paid. I=E2=80=99d say the =
entire world could be classified as extortionists if we go by the actual =
definition.
J
> On 17 Aug 2016, at 15:01, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 01:11:09 +0200, Jonathan Hall said:
>> And either way, defamation requires some form of punitive damage be =
proven in
>> order to act ually win that case.
>=20
> In addition to the other things already pointed out, punitive damage =
doesn't
> need to be proven.
>=20
> *Actual* damages have to be proven. Punitive damages are damages =
added
> as punishment, to make sure the responsible party learned their =
lesson.
>=20
> So fir instance, if a corporation's negligence results in a worker's =
death,
> his family may be awarded $5M in actual damages for the loss of their =
loved
> one - and then another $20 million in punitive damages, to make the =
corporation
> (and possibly the industry segment as a whole) take notice that sort =
of
> negligent behavior will not be tolerated....
>=20
