Not to be contentious, what sort of law does your employer practice?
Harrassment is really hard to prove (even at the civil burden of "preponderance of the evidence, which is a lesser burden than the criminal, "beyond a reasonable doubt"), because generally one has to show real harm.
For all that the comments are painful, it's hard to see how the reputations, livelihoods, or other aspects of the subjects lives have actually been affected.
Libel is even harder (though making a Time v. Sullivan claim is a stretch, I can see how it might be done... the reasoning would go, "The convention was a political event, the people depicted were taking part in a political event, as such they are players in such an event, and move from the role of private citizen; having entered into the public forum).
Since there has been some back and forthing (in lots of fora) anyone who is pictured, who made so much as one comment, might be so stripped of the protections of Sullivan.
The real problem is that, yes, a case can be made. It's even possible that one might win, but the possible rewards are small (what have the people who are making the harassing comments with which to pay damages. The ISP has the protection of being a common carrier, and so they can't be named in the suit), and the costs high.
Harrassment/libel suits are not taken on spec, they are cash up front. The odds of getting so much as court/legal fees in actual recovered damages are slim (and the best hope is for a default judgement because the respondent's don't contest; because they don't want to pay a lawyer).
Is it possible to sue, sure... anything's possible, and there is enough of a case there to keep it from being thrown out on it's face, but it's far from a certain thing, and (were I a gambling man), I'd lay odds against them winning.
As I said, I am not a lawyer, but years spent with a lot of libel insurance, and studying to be a paralegal make me think there really isn't enough case there.
Re: Because it wasn't working where I wanted to post it
Harrassment is really hard to prove (even at the civil burden of "preponderance of the evidence, which is a lesser burden than the criminal, "beyond a reasonable doubt"), because generally one has to show real harm.
For all that the comments are painful, it's hard to see how the reputations, livelihoods, or other aspects of the subjects lives have actually been affected.
Libel is even harder (though making a Time v. Sullivan claim is a stretch, I can see how it might be done... the reasoning would go, "The convention was a political event, the people depicted were taking part in a political event, as such they are players in such an event, and move from the role of private citizen; having entered into the public forum).
Since there has been some back and forthing (in lots of fora) anyone who is pictured, who made so much as one comment, might be so stripped of the protections of Sullivan.
The real problem is that, yes, a case can be made. It's even possible that one might win, but the possible rewards are small (what have the people who are making the harassing comments with which to pay damages. The ISP has the protection of being a common carrier, and so they can't be named in the suit), and the costs high.
Harrassment/libel suits are not taken on spec, they are cash up front. The odds of getting so much as court/legal fees in actual recovered damages are slim (and the best hope is for a default judgement because the respondent's don't contest; because they don't want to pay a lawyer).
Is it possible to sue, sure... anything's possible, and there is enough of a case there to keep it from being thrown out on it's face, but it's far from a certain thing, and (were I a gambling man), I'd lay odds against them winning.
As I said, I am not a lawyer, but years spent with a lot of libel insurance, and studying to be a paralegal make me think there really isn't enough case there.
TK