And he too is a Chicken Hawk.

On some news vignette, I have heard that there are companies that today want to check out an employees social media personality. Now, that may have nothing to do with where a person works today. It could be a future company for an individual. It could be that one has told a co-worker, or wants to show a co-worker the "neat" forum they participate in. So, my point is, we have a right to not having our reputation/character blemished incorrectly, and that has nothing to do with whether anyone had maliscious intent to blemish anyone's reputation or character. So, since someone was accused of being me, and the accusation was incorrect, and had no maliscious intent, but my online persona is obnoxious, and not exactly what an organization would want in the way of a team playing employee, it is libelous against the person who is accused of ALSO being me.

Also, the person who was accused seemed to use a last name as a screen name. Plus, the respective profile shows occupation and city. Fairly easy to discern who that person is, if one is browsing the forum and in reality knows that person. Then to hear that the person's quite civil and articulate postings supposedly has an alter-ego that is obnoxious (aka, myself), then the person's character has been libeled, from the perspective of whether or not that person is a good risk for hiring into an organization or staying in an organization.

It all comes down to making false accusations, regardless of the supposed discernment of the accuser. The bottom line is that the accusations were false, and the two posters in question are two different people.

Pesonally, I think the accuser should publish (as a posting) a retraction of the accusation and state that "Foofie is a person that appears to be one person whose online persona is an obnoxious New York Jew." How the accuser apologizes to the accused is none of my business.

Aren't you one of those people who are always bitchin' and moaning about off topic posters, Beth?

I love that concept. It's libel if someone is accused of being you.

While I find it humorous, I doubt any court would find it a legal basis for libel. Just because you make up **** doesn't make it a valid legal argument. It would still require harm be shown. That would be damn near impossible. Just because you misread something in the newspaper doesn't make it an argument that anyone else will except.

I did not say anything was libel from a legal perspective for a court case. I said it was libelous. Meaning that it goes against the right of a person to enjoy a good reputation. One cannot enjoy a good reputation if that person is thought to be me, as an alter ego on the forum (something colloquial called a "sock-puppet").

Every state in the US has their own defamation laws. And, over time courts have new precedents. Plus, there are situations where people can say things about some people, who are in the public arena, that allows for criticism within certain limits, especially if it is considered one person's "opinion." Regardless, claiming that someone is me is not a benign accusation, since I have worked so hard at enjoying my freedom of speech regarding religions, countries, etc. And anyone with such vitriolic opinions might not be considered a good employee, whether or not the organization is team oriented.

Also, to think we are all anonymous can always be a false belief, since we all have the right to tell friends, associates, etc. our screen names. My point being, that while one can make an argument for it not necessarily wise to use one's legal name, as a screen name, I believe it is acceptable to the rules of the forum, and we should at least not think that we will be accused (falsely) of being someone else also, in my opinion.

Since a defamatory statement might not damage a person's reputation in the present, and could damage a person's reputation in the future (at a new employer), the concept of defamation might not have the same time constraints as say the crash of an automobile?

You seem to appreciate the fact that being accused of being Foofie is a pejorative adhominem (talking in the third person is just one of my idiosyncracies). I think it would be less of a potential libelous accusation if "Foofie" was just used as a pejorative adhominem, rather than accusing someone of being me. It would warm the cockles of my heart to read postings where one poster was so irate with another poster that he/she would reply in the next post, "You are just a Foofie!" The use of the article "a" makes all the difference.

I guess it's not libel to state "You are a liar."

You should really say I am mistaken, unless you have proof that I have lied (intentionally) from "my understanding" of the definition. You see, to say something is libelous, is just pointing out that we all have a right (in the US) to enjoy a good reputation, if we did not do something to besmirch that reputation. That is a legal term; look up the definition in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with whether or not the person who was libeled would, or could, pursue legal action. And, claiming that a "civil" poster has a second identity, as Foofie with Foofie's very vitriolic opinions, can be besmirching a person's character for purposes of being an employee that will get along with a diverse work team. Trust me, I did not offer my political/sociological opinions to co-workers in days gone by.

Any reason that you are continuing this repartee with me is beyond my comprehension. So, since I have a greater vested interest in Foofie being just Foofie, than you, I would ask you to end this repartee. [Foofie looks at the computer screen and tells Parados to end this repartee.]

Since I have never stated you were anyone but Foofie, I'm unclear why you are even bringing that up. I have only stated that your argument that someone accusing someone else of being Foofie on an anonymous forum is not libel under any reading of the definition of that word. However, you are a liar under some definitions of that word even if your factual untruths were unintentional.

Certainly you are free to stop responding at any time. I have no control over you as you have no control over me.

A quick Google returned a number of hits, including this one (NPR seemed like a good reference hit):

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/03/21/149095385/a-job-at-what-cost-when-employers-log-in-to-dig-in

So, if this is the new world the younger generation lives in, then a forum, or any social digital media would not necessarily be always anonymous.

And, if we notice, it appears not everyone has an obscure screen name. In a perfect world, we should not have to hide our identity, because of concerns about our true identity being known. So, to compound that concern, we also have to be concerned about being accused of being another, less likable, less hirable (aka, Foofie) person? Now that is a reason to hide one's true identity, since we might not be so anonymous. Do we know what techy intracacies can be done on background checks for security clearances? I choose not to be trusting and think that I am truly anonymous. One doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes in a world of only six degrees of separation.

You might want to actually read the article and then compare that to what you stated earlier.