Comments by "Don Taylor" (@dontaylor7315) on "Anonymous Review Site Ordered to ID Reviewers" video.

Sounds like reason enough for American companies to want the legal means to put a stop to it. So a US court conveniently turns to New Zealand law to create a decision which I suppose could now become precedent for other US decisions upholding or expanding the power and impunity of the corporate ruling class.
14
@musicloverme3993 I guess because Glassdoor is an American company.
6
I hope that's the case in NZ but I think it's possible that "defamation" might be defined differently enough to make critics culpable if they show a company in a bad light even if it's documented. In the UK protesters (against McDonald's rain forest destruction and displacement of indigenous Amazon populations) got in a lot of trouble and I seem to recall that it didn't matter that they were telling the truth. I don't remember the trial very well - I think it was in the 1980s or 90s and the protesters wore clown outfits and makeup.
5
@PDGX Of course. US courts base decisions on foreign law all the time, right?
3
@yveslaurier950 That would suggest that there's no such thing as an American website unless it's unaccessible from any other country. That's a question that's out of my depth. But as to a US court rendering such a decision, Steve indicates at 5:03 that it's not routine. However I can easily visualize a scenario where a NZ court rules that Glassdoor can either comply with the subpoena or be permanently blocked in that country.
2
The current SCOTUS is making it pretty clear that in its eyes a court can rule in favor of the wealthy and powerful and against the people on just about any grounds it pleases.
1
@cgi2002 Based on your information, is Steve then mistaken that this decision is unusual?
1
@cgi2002 It's that overall result that nags at me. We've got a SCOTUS that seems willing to take precedent from anywhere to expand corporate power. It might be counterintuitive to think this decision, international in its nature, could be applied domestically...but we've got justices on the highest bench in the land who just might not care.
1
@alanmcentee9457 Libel laws might be weaker in general (for ordinary citizens) than in the US but I'm sure I remember hearing someone talking about the case who said corporations are very shielded from negative publicity/criticism. EDIT: I take your point about the legal expenses; McDonald's went after a gnat with an elephant gun.
1
@tedkaczynskiamericanhero3916 You're a little late in welcoming me. I've been observing the growth of this system ever since Reagan's election in 1980. And no, wasn't the same before that. If you think it was you're too young to remember the Eisenhower administration. I'm not. Corporations were paying tax rates higher than Bernie and the Squad would dare demand today and contrary to the dire claims of the corporate ruling class today, it wasn't hurting profits or driving companies out of the country. They were manufacturing all the stuff we now depend on China and other countries for. People worked for the same company their entire lives and then retired without any fear that they wouldn't be adequately supported in their last years. The rich had too much influence of course, but outright corporate ownership of government hadn't been invented yet; Congress functioned in both Houses and the parties worked out compromises on a regular basis, unlike the deadlock we take for granted now.
1
Hmmm so a US court is reaching as far afield as New Zealand law to issue a decision that conceivably could begin clearing the way to expand the powers of American companies to...I dunno, maybe hunt down and fire employees for being homosexuals or union organizers or something?
1