That's definitely the most dramatic possible interpretation, and is thus the one the Internet will fixate on. Giant crowds of uninformed bystanders can be counted on never to pick the most boring narrative.

That's a little head in the sand, though isn't it? The phrase "full extent of the law" is pretty charged, I think.

That being the case, perhaps he should have chosen the words of such a high profile message more carefully.

Sounds like legalese boilerplate that the GH legal team recommended. Nothing more, nothing less.

Harassment allegations aside, the fact that the wife of the founder had the access/freedom she did was a bit of a WTF for me. I can understand that perhaps GH decided that was the termination-triggering offense, not the allegations.

It's probably aimed more at reminding GitHub employees of the possible legal ramifications of publicly supporting the allegations and dampening further discussion in general.

I don't see how that's less dramatic though, especially since the meaning of that statement is pretty obvious.

Whether you interpret it as normal, like you do, or inappropriate and/or sad, like I would, is a different matter.

Yes, definitely, the most boring conclusion is that it's a calculated plot to suppress the opinions of Github employees.

For that one line, which other explanation do you have that better fits Occam's razor?

I would have a lot of trouble finding any other interpretation than him attempting to stop certain people from saying certain things and thus suppressing the discussion, whether successfully or not.

It's a reminder that freedom of speech != freedom from consequences. They're asking everyone to not ride on this infamous situation to perpetrate any more falsehood. Because if you do you'd have to help yourself with a little bit of law.

What is a less dramatic interpretation?

"Please don't slander me further as I try to move on with my life" ?

I think you're missing the "or else".

"The full extent of the law" might not really be very far.

The fact that it might be an empty threat doesn't mean it isn't a threat.

I asked this on the main thread on this, but why hasn't Horvath filed a lawsuit. There seems to be enough there for one on some merit.

Some possible explanations:

a) There is zero legal merit. As an outside observer, I don't know one way or another. I presume you don't either. (Remember the law does not always track your intuition.)

b) Even if there is some theoretical legal merit, the independent investigation results (if what we're told is the entirety of the conclusions) may make it an uphill battle to pursue the claim.

c) There is actual legal merit but the potential plaintiff is choosing not to pursue the matter.

d) There is actual legit merit and the attorneys are in settlement talks right now.

e) There is actual legal merit and a lawsuit will be filed before the statute of limitations expire.

Who knows?

Could you please remind us your credentials in this case, or are you yourself some "uninformed bystander" on "the Internet"? (If you're in the middle of this, perhaps you should link to it each time you comment.)

Seems like a promise to defend one's public identity from attack. Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not on the accused.

If you're attempting to get damages, then you are the accuser, and naturally the burden of proof falls on you.

Good. If you make claims you should be prepared to back them up - especially when someones livelihood is on the line.

That can mean only the people able to hire a high-end legal team can receive justice.

What alternative are you suggesting?

There isn't necessarily a solution. I'm just pointing out that underprivileged folks are often at a disadvantage. "The truth shall set you free" sometimes only applies if you can afford to fight the other side's lawyers for a few years.

Well, if Julie ever spoke up again, I would be the first up my hand and donate to her legal defence.

Just curious, what would be your motivation? Do you know her personally?

No I don't know her personally but from what I've read I believe the intimidation she described. I've felt the bipolar intimidation from founders before and am completely sympathetic towards her and the situation. Nobody deserves to be that situation.

If she doesn't feel vindicated, sure, we'd support her lawsuit against both GitHub and P-W. Also it depends on what she says, not forgetting we interpret situations differently and with different levels of intensity. She should tread cautiously.

Don't know about the US, but where I live making wrong claims that damage somebody's reputation is illegal. I think it makes lot of sense to sue people who accuse you of sexual harassment. What other recourse is there? Arguing about it will never work.

US has a law against libel too

Or to anyone who makes further false claims. Seems like a standard line.

sounds more like a fact https://github.com/blog/1823-results-of-the-github-investiga...

edit: re. "unequivocally confirm this and we are prepared to fight any further false claims"