Yogi Bear said:
TheFiatLux said:
Of course Greg doesn't have control of what Facebook posts, but he does have control about whether or not this site reposts it.
So you think the right move for him would have been to delete the original post about her Facebook post?
*Yogi Bear, this is going to go over your head, so just move on; unless, you want to continue to put your intellectual incapacity on flamboyant display.
I'm not responding to your post because I have any hope that you'll be able to comprehend what I'm about to write and form a well-reasoned response. I'm responding because your failed attempt to make a point via a rhetorical question actually raises a valid question for BearGreg: why only remove the content that is seemingly unfavorable for the claimant?
In addition to the fact that the claimant's FB post strategically alleged almost all of the factual elements necessary to establish a prima facie case for the opt-used CA causes of action for harassment, discrimination, failure to remedy, etc., the other clear indication that attorney work product went into her FB post is how strategic she was in naming and not naming people within the Cal football program and school administration. Clearly, her lawyers were concerned about the potential liability for libel that could come from her post. They limited the naming to the people who could arguably called public figures thereby only naming people they believe would have to carry the shifted burden of proof to establish falsity.
Things like the potential liability for libel are probably not on the minds of poor, simple-minded people like Yogi Bear but was probably on the minds of the claimant's lawyers in posting on FB and BearGreg and the Bear Insider staff in deciding to remove certain content from these boards.
However, as a well-informed person who is experienced in operating an internet message board, BearGreg is probably intimately aware of the broad distributor immunity that a board like this enjoys as a result of Section 230 of the CDA and that the likelihood of BI being found liable for libel is next to nothing. "No one can 100% verify they are from and to her" is not the legal standard to establish an exception to the immunity, and no one has been able to 100% verify that her FB post allegations are true either. So why remove only the content that tends to portray the claimant in a bad light?
Well, BearGreg is probably aware that as a public entity, Cal and its high caliber team of (probably overpaid) lawyers will not act unreasonably, irresponsibly vis-a-via BI thereby exposing themselves to anti-SLAPP liability; whereas, the likely bottom-feeding scumbag extortionists representing claimant will probably have no problem rattling their sabers and even suing BI for injunctive remedies to get anything portraying claimant in a negative out of the public light.
It's probably a wise business decision for a company that probably lacks the financial resources to defend an injunction suit and counterclaim for anti-SLAPP. Plus, why deal with the headache if you don't have to?
But, it does raise an ethical dilemma for BI. Why only remove the unsubstantiated claims that portray the claimant in a negative light and not the unsubstantiated claims that portray our university in a negative light? Is it bias? Is it cowardice? Either way, it demonstrates a lack of integrity and an unwillingness to stand on principle.
Have the stones to keep both sides of the story up, or have the integrity to be fair to both sides by removing all of the unsubstantiated claims.
