I am afraid I know the answer....

[Sadforhim]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Mississippi
My husband was convicted of a felony 12 years ago, served his time, paid his fines and has tried to move on. He was given a chance at a pharmaceutical company because of his knowledge, and has worked his way up to president, with everyone in management knowing his past. Two months ago, a sales rep tried to convince the owners to fire him, to no avail (thank goodness!). The rep left shortly thereafter, angry at all involved but most of all my husband. That all being said, the week after he left, a post on a pharmaceutical board (identical to FreeAdvice) from anonymous stated FYI and copied the entire document to the board. Is there any way I can legally
compel the webmaster to remove and monitor that post? It is nothing new to me, our kids or our friends and family. I just don't want any more professional damage to be done. Please advise. Thank you...What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[swalsh411]

What "entire document" did he post on the forum?

 

[Zigner]

I think the "document" referred to the publicly available information pertaining to her husband's felonious past...

 

[Sadforhim]

Yes - the document where they brought charges against him.

 

[swalsh411]

That is public record. And besides you said it was widely known already. If it ever comes up, your husband should just say "yes that's true but it was a long time ago and there is no need to discuss it" and move on.

 

[quincy]

You could do as swalsh suggested, which is probably the wisest course of action, or you could speak with an attorney in your area about whether the publication could be seen as an invasion of your husband's privacy.

Yes, the record of your husband's arrest and conviction are available to the public for viewing and for copying, but there are times when accessing and then publishing another's criminal record can invade a person's privacy (ie. if the public record that is published is of a crime committed years ago, is not currently newsworthy or a matter of public interest, and the intent behind the publication is to cause a person harm). These are not easy actions to pursue and they are even harder to win. Success would depend on a combination of factors which may or may not be present in your husband's situation.

There is no defamation, unless the sales representative included comments of his own to go along with the copied document (other than just a "FYI"). For defamation, what is published must be false.

Invasion of privacy is not limited to false statements, however.

A review by an attorney in your area of the website and the facts behind its publication could give you a better idea whether it is worth the effort to try and obtain a subpoena compelling the website to reveal the identity of the poster and/or an injunction to have the document removed from the website. This would only be worthwhile if the attorney believes there is an actionable case based on the facts. A court will not issue either if a case has no merit.

Finally, even if there IS a legal remedy, and a subpoena/injunction is issued by a court based on the facts, you would have to decide if the costs that must be incurred in pursuing the anonymous poster is worth it. You must weigh how much damage and what kind of damage this new publication is causing your husband (in his career, in his community) against how much damage can be done to your husband by bringing a suit (ie. more publicity on his past crime) and how much money you are willing to risk to pursue a remedy in court.

 

[Zigner]

What was the felony?

 

[quincy]

If it was a drug offense, then the publication of the record could be seen to have relevance now, and no civil action against the poster would likely be successful.

 

[Zigner]

If it was a drug offense, then the publication of the record could be seen to have relevance now, and no civil action against the poster would likely be successful.

Right - and even fraud could be considered relevant. In fact, I can't think of many felonies that WOULDN'T be relevant with regard to an executive at a pharm. company.

 

[quincy]

The key word is COULD.

For instance, perjury can be a felony punished by jail time.

Whether a 12 year old crime has any relevance, especially when time was served and a successful career built in the years since. . . . .well, it really depends on a combination of factors, and the type of felony is only one of the factors. Age at the time of the crime is another.

IF relevance can be shown, then the odds of a successful suit become slim.

 

[Sadforhim]

The felony was bank fraud. The U.S. Attorney told us the only reason they were charging him was to get at his father. They believed when they charged my husband, his father would agree to a plea deal to testify against the banker, which was the U.S.Attorney's true target. Nope! His dad insisted he was not guilty and proceeded forward, protecting the banker, not his son. My husband was a man about it, accepted the sentencing, served his time, and has quietly gone about his business raising a family and working for the company. He is so very greatful for the chance this company gave him after his incarceration; he works there as diligently as he would if it were his own.

 

[Sadforhim]

Thank you so much for your answers. It seems I was right...I know the answer. We will just buck up, carry on and be the better humans. It really
can't hurt anyone we love, as we were as up front with our kids way back then (as best you can be to children in a matter like this) and our family and friends. Thanks again.....

 

[quincy]

Sadforhim, it is relatively easy to locate the thread on your husband that is posted on the other website using just the information you have provided in your original post here. To prevent or limit viewers of this thread from hopping over to the other site to view that thread, you may wish to remove the type of company for which your husband works.

A couple of things I noticed in reviewing the other thread:

The website in question, first of all, has numerous daily threads and thread postings, so the thread about your husband should be buried soon enough. It will still be accessible with a site search under your husband's name or the company where your husband works, however, but there is not much you can do about that. I am not sure how often "search functions" are used on forums (based on the postings to this site, I would say they are used rarely), but a Google search of your husband may still turn up that site's thread.

That said, although the court record does reflect negatively on your husband, the comments posted about your husband and the court record are largely in support of your husband (ie. the fact that the crime was committed in the past, he served his time, and he was able to build a successful career in the meantime). I did not see anything defamatory in the comments posted by "anonymous" or the other responders (except potentially about the woman mentioned in the posts).

I think the decision you've made about the whole issue is the best one that can be made under the circumstances. Again, it seems that the support is with your husband, who has overcome tremendous odds by rebuilding his life and his reputation in the years since his conviction.

I wish you all good luck.

 

[BOR]

The key word is COULD.

For instance, perjury can be a felony punished by jail time.

Whether a 12 year old crime has any relevance, especially when time was served and a successful career built in the years since. . . . .well, it really depends on a combination of factors, and the type of felony is only one of the factors. Age at the time of the crime is another.

IF relevance can be shown, then the odds of a successful suit become slim.

True, the term FELONY has a serious overtone to it.
Depends, as you say.

In may state we have 5 levels of felony, it was only to felony 4 until about 1999, I think, then 5 was added.

Some of these are really no different than a misdemeanor of the 1st degree, it it simply the classification the Ohio General Assembly affixed to it.

What about false light defamation quincy, you know about that then I do!

 

[quincy]

Well, in this particular case BOR, the felonies involved were pretty serious ones. What was published about the husband is not especially applicable to the husband's current position within his current field, but there were no false statements made and no false implication that his past felonies related to his current competence in his current position.

The information seemed to have been posted mostly as an FYI - and I do not believe the information that was published by "anonymous" had the impact he had hoped for. On the contrary, it seemed that the replies were more in support of the husband.

From my reading of the court decision that was posted, and in reading the postings made by others to the thread, there is no defamation and there is no invasion of privacy action (under which "false light" would fall in most states, Ohio being an exception) that could be successful if pursued - although Sadforhim could always have an attorney in her area review the site as well for another opinion.

False light covers the making of statements about a person (or the posting of an actual picture of the person) in a way that implies something untrue about the person. False light cases arise most often when an unaltered photo of a person is used to illustrate an article about something that can be shown to have no reasonable connection to that person (ie. a true unaltered photo of a woman used to illustrate an article on prostitution or rape, when the woman is neither a prostitute nor a rape victim), or when statements that were actually made are falsely attributed to another person (ie. saying someone uttered an ethnic slur when they did not).

It is certainly possible that a false light action could arise if people are led to believe that a felony is more serious than it actually was (ie. implying that the person committed murder instead of perjury).

Here, however, there appears to be no false light and no defamation. What was published is exactly what it is. It is unfortunate that a disgruntled sales rep felt the need to dredge up an old public record in an attempt to turn others against the husband, but there does not appear to be anything illegal in what he did, nor does it appear that there is any legal recourse available, nor does it appear that the sales rep was especially successful in his attempt.