Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: 9i New Features E-book

Re: 9i New Features E-book

From: Niall Litchfield <>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:15:15 +0100
Message-ID: <40c37b4b$0$20507$>

"Don Burleson" <> wrote in message
> > Just so you know ... in the United States freedom of speech protects
> > you if you express a personal opinion about someone in a public forum
> > provided your statement is not an incitement to violence or a
> > reference to criminal behavior.
> Hi Daniel,
> As they say, the 1st Ammendment does not allow you to scream "fire" in
> a crowded theater. You are quite correct about personal opinion, but
> this protection does not extend to statemenmts of fact. here is a
> great link on the subject:
> FYI, this is the standard for Libel and Defamation in the USA:
> . The statements are false;
> . The statements "were made maliciously and intentionally with full
> knowledge of their falsity or in complete and reckless disregard of
> their truth or falsity, for the purpose of injuring and destroying a
> personal and professional reputation";
> . The Defendant "acted with actual malice."
> Let's say, for example, that someone were to publish the following
> about you, using their podium as an Oracle "expert" and status as an
> employee of Oracle Corporation. In additiona to publishing the
> statements below, assume that they e-mailed the statements to your
> clients, business associates and employers:
> "Daniel Morgan peddles non- and misleading information . . . It
> is, frankly, a disgrace, and I make no apologies whatsoever for
> calling it tough."
> "be warned about Daniel Morgan, because his advice is frequently
> technically complete gibberish."
> "I'll just keep quietly pointing out what a fraud Daniel Morgan is
> anytime he pops up here."
> As you can see, these are NOT personal opinions; they are statements
> of fact, they are false, and by their tone, designed to assault your
> professional reputation.

Actually I read that whole rather unfortunate thread ( or thereabouts) as opinion. Words like gibberish, and peddles probably rather give the game away. Howard also got jumped on by many in public and in private for being rather too harsh on you. If he did email your clients, business associates and employers (though I thought you were self-employed) that would indeed be wrong. On the other hand writing to people's employers threatening to sue them because what may have been said by one of their employees in a public forum does also seem to me to be rather underhand, or perhaps it wasn't you that does that please tell.

Oh and the script you provided at the time was rather embarrasingly incomplete as well.

> Remember, the Brits have no First Ammendment rights. That's why the
> British tabloids are free to publish all kinds of falsehoods as if
> they were fact, without fear of retribution from those they damage.

I do hope you ran that statement past your lawyers before you posted something that purports to be a statement of fact and is by its tone designed to assault the professional reputation of UK tabloids, and indeed somewhat ironic. FWIW we in a strict technical sense have no first amendment rights - not having the american constitution and all - it doesn't mean that the papers can print lies and get away with it. Indeed a prominent tabloid editor just lost his job after printing something he believed to be true, which wasn't.

Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Received on Sun Jun 06 2004 - 15:15:15 CDT

Original text of this message