| AUDHome--> Union Democracy Review--> Articles SUBSCRIBE to Union Democracy Review! From the November-December 2005 issue of Union Democracy Review #159 Union democracy online survives two lawsuitsBy Matt NoyesNow that the internet has become a main venue for free speech in unions, the fight for union democracy has to be fought anew. Bureaucracy springs eternal. Authoritarian union officers turn to new tools to suppress dissent in this new arena. The right of union members to criticize their union officials is well established in the U.S. thanks to the LMRDA and the landmark Salzhandler v Caputo decision. In one respect, unionists' rights to free speech in their unions are stronger than in society at large. Intemperate speech that might, outside the union, justify charges of slander is explicitly protected inside the union. Anyone who seeks recourse against slander in the union can still sue for protection in state court. But they simply cannot utilize the union's disciplinary procedures against their critics. However, the LMRDA was written before the internet was more than a dream. What are the rights of union members online? The outcome of two test cases in court is mixed, but generally bodes well for union democracy. Cullen et al v. Ybarrolaza TeamsterNet is one of the largest forums for discussion of Teamster union affairs. Independent and free from control by Teamster officials, it allows for debate of Teamster union politics and personalities, often in colorful, even vulgar, language. Billy Cullen and six other officers of Nashville Teamster Local 480 brought suit in Tennessee federal court against TeamsterNET, its owner, Phil Yabarrolaza, and ten "John Does." The object of the officials' ire?: disparaging comments posted by some anonymous authors on the TeamsterNet discussion board. Cullen and the other union officials claimed that Ybarrolaza, as publisher of the website, was liable for the comments posted by those anonymous John Does. They sought compensation of $74,999 each plus punitive damages and an injunction forcing Ybarrolaza to remove the offending material and to divulge the identities of the John Does. Ybarrolaza's attorney, Charles Lee Mudd, Jr., argued that the Tennessee court had no jurisdiction ---Ybarrolaza lives in California--- and that the Communications Decency Act protects providers of an online forum from liability for comments made by users of their services. In April, the Tennessee Circuit Court dismissed the suit against Ybarrolaza. In a limited finding, it held that Tennessee lacked personal jurisdiction over Yabarrolaza, leaving TeamsterNet and its participants free to continue debating. "I feel very good about the win," wrote Ybarrolaza on his site, certainly for myself and my family as we were placed in jeopardy by its financial implications and burden. I also feel great about it for TeamsterNet and our community of posters... We did good, real good, for free speech rights for all of us that use the internet as a communication medium" UFCW v. Sigurdurs and the Members for Democracy In early 2002, The United Food and Commercial Workers international office filed suit in Canadian court against the Sigurdurs and "John and Jane Doe" owners of a website called "UFCW Local 1518 Members for Democracy." The suit arose out of a dispute over the website's address (or "url"): www.ufcw.net. For over three years, the UFCW did little to pursue the suit other than adding David Watts, a Canadian UFCW representative, as a fellow plaintiff on behalf of all Canadian UFCW members. In the years after the suit was filed, ufcw.net, the Members for Democracy site expanded to include reform efforts not just in the UFCW but in other unions, in both Canada and the United States. It grew into a popular rank-and-file website, with about 6,000 visitors a month and steady participation in its forums. (Members for Democracy won Honorable Mention in AUD's 2004 Best Rank-and-File Website contest.) In October 2005 the UFCW activated the suit and its attorneys faced off against the Sigurdurs, who, to avoid attorney fees, represented themselves, before B.C. Supreme Court Judge Beames. Its attorneys based their complaint on three claims: 1. Members for Democracy [MFD] used the union's name and acronym in their website address without the union's permission. 2. Some of its postings were "defamatory of the UFCW." 3. By using the UFCW name and acronym, the MFD website was "passing itself off as an au theorized UFCW website and benefiting from the confusion. The UFCW attorneys sought a permanent injunction against MFD restraining it from using the URL, www.ufcw.net and from using the name and acronym anywhere on their site. They asked for "general punitive and exemplary damages." The Sigurdurs replied that anyone looking at its website could hardly confuse it with an official union website and so there was no misrepresentation. The name was chosen simply to reach out to the community with which MFD wished to engage. In the end, the union achieved a formal, even trivial, court victory which actually left the MFD website free and unscathed. The judge ordered the MFD to stop using the address www.ufcw.net and directed MFD to pay the union a token fine of $100. However, in her ruling, the judge agreed with many of the Sigurdurs' arguments. She drew conclusions that may be helpful to other internet activists: A reform-oriented website like MFD, she indicated, can continue to use the union's name and acronym as part of its URL as long as it adds other words which distinguish it from the official site. The Sigurdurs and their supporters seem happy with the result, feeling that if the UFCW won an indecisive skirmish, they are winning the war. (To find the MFD site under its new url, see AUD's Rank-and-File links page or list of RSS feeds.) Wanda Pasz, a writer and workplace issues specialist who helped the Sigurdurs with legal research, believes that "if this case was tried in the United States... our chances of winning" a total victory would have been better. U.S. law provides more protection for protest websites and for union members involved in internal union politics, and the practice of using the union name, acronym, and number in the URL and in the name of the reform website is widespread. (See the list of rank-and-file links on AUD's website.) Moreover, in the U.S. the LMRDA offers further protections for free speech in unions. There is no LMRDA in Canada. The UFCW, one of the Change to Win unions, has not been shy about using lawsuits to punish dissent. As one of the MFD editors noted, "During the period 2001-2003 the UFCW was busy suing a lot of... Canadians who sued the internet to express their views about its practices and achievements. Many of the other defendants settled or otherwise backed off." (UDR No. 41 wrote about William Gammert, a grocery store worker who incurred the UFCW's wrath by posting a copy of the union's constitution on his website. The MFD recently reported on the case of Hugh Finnamore, a former UFCW officer sued by the UFCW for criticizing union officers.) Note to website activists: If you receive a demand letter or other threat from union officials or attorneys, it is important that you get legal advice. Please contact AUD. (Thanks to Wanda Pasz for background on this article.) Articles on the internet and union democracy: See also AUD's 50 Guidelines for building an effective rank-and-file website, and the sample homepage.
Previous Article: Update: still subverting union democracy in 2005 Next Article: In the Operating Engineers (IUOE) This website is made possible by contributions from union members and supporters like you. Please help us build the movement for union democracy, join or contribute to AUD. |
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Union democracy online survives two lawsuits
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment