Saying Something Online May Get You Sued
Julie
read occasionally.
The short version: Seems a guy posts some comments critical about an
online petstore in a list-serv group. He complains that he gets late
delivery, overcharged on his credit card, and poor service when he
calls to set it right. Pretty soon he and others who agree with him
about the poor service along with the list owner and host get sued by
the store owner.
I've read alot of the stuff posted online and it looks legit. The
store owner is still suing people even sued people who put up a link
to the defense fund that was set up for the people getting sued. They
have spent alot of money so far and the case is not settled yet after
over 6 months. The guy who made the first comments forked over $4000+
to get it dropped just for him.
This is an outrage. IF you want to read more about it try:
http://www.thedefensefund.com/
http://www.petsforum.com/psw/
The first one has a good summary. It also has a link to the defense
fund.
Oh-one more thing, this store sells cat supplies too.
Julie
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
(http://www.snopes2.com/) yet, but I'm sure it will be.
America is still a free country (at least in theory) and
people are perfectly free to bitch about poor service from
merchants (on the internet or anywhere else) without danger
of lawsuit. America is a very litigious society, but
there's no way you can be sued for expressing what is
clearly a personal opinion, no matter how many
fellow-posters agree with you. (That's what the First
Amendment is all about!)
GraceCat
then to the Petswarehouse site themselves. Every single item that the
people were complaining about was in the shipping policy on the website.
Granted they may have put policy up there after the fact but it looked to me
that the people were attacking company policy, slamming them for something
they've already admitted may happen ($20+ for shipping, reduced quantity for
shipping, overnight delivery from their distribution, not from date of
purchase etc). Simply saying their service department sucks is entirely
different. I think you can do that. IMHO I think they're prefer you to
call *them* and say I dealt with so-and-so. She was extremely rude. It's
important to note that service department does not equal the entire company.
And they might indeed have a service department with generally thought of
rude people. Who knows??? I think it would take a lawyer to explain
defamation and slander of character here. That's what the lawsuit is based
on, and evidently a judge agrees with prosecution because it's set to go to
trial next month. This has been ongoing for a year. I do know defamation is
tricky, and sometimes very hard to walk with the first admendment.
Shopping for bridal gowns, I was treated rudely by one formals shop. I went
to another and they bent over backwards helping me. I was miffed for
several reasons at the first. At that we had a "Sound Off" in our local
paper. I sent in my rant about the quality of service. I named these
people. My rant was based entirely on personal experience and fact. I was
told by the editor of that particular forum that I could not slam these
people, or any company by name, in the paper because it would garner them a
lawsuit. I'm guessing this is the same as that. Evidently, you can express
your opinion... however. The First Admendment is not "but" proof. There
are a couple buts up there or else there wouldn't ever be a such thing as
defamation or slander. One thing that confused me was that on the original
poster/complainer of Petswarehouse, included in his closing was something
that I thought should have excused him from this lawsuit. "Your miles may
vary" He made it a point to include that this was his personal experience
and yours may not be as bad as his was dealing this this company. I don't
understand that part of it at all.
America *is* a very litigious society, and that is a very sad fact. I agree
there.
Grace
"Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C9EC23E...@earthlink.net...
TJ the Flabulous Dust
with the company that built my house, we have had major battles, and I told
them I was going to but a sign in my yard that said: "XYZ Builder really
Sucks, do not use them", they said they would sue me, now they probably
could have messed with me on that, don't really know. It's a blanket
statement that may be true in my case but not necessaryily in all cases. So
I told them then I will have it say, "In my experience with XYB Builder I
found them to really suck, I personally would never use them again nor
recommend them to anyone". Now that is MY opinion aobut MY experience with
them. So there! :P
TJ (who has finally given up the fight with them 'cause it cut into my chat
time)
Mary
>fund.
>Oh-one more thing, this store sells cat supplies too.
I was sued by a large public company for posting critical comments. They sued
me just to try and quiet me. I represented myself pro se and won. If anyone
gets sued, please go to http://www.johndoes.org They helped me with my legal
research. We must protect our freedom of speech. Don't let big companies bully
you into silence when you're just trying to warn others about bad
products/services.
Sherry
Mary, I don't know much about this subject, at all, but I was under the
impression that if what you are saying about the company/person can be proven
to be true, it isn't libel. To sue for libel, doesn't the plaintiff have the
burden of proof to prove that it is a false statement? I am all for free
speech, and what you are saying about big business is true. But, even in the
case of individuals, no one should have the right to slander or libel another's
name all over the internet.
Sherry
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
Sherry wrote:
>
> Mary, I don't know much about this subject, at all, but I was under the
> impression that if what you are saying about the company/person can be proven
> to be true, it isn't libel. To sue for libel, doesn't the plaintiff have the
> burden of proof to prove that it is a false statement? I am all for free
> speech, and what you are saying about big business is true. But, even in the
> case of individuals, no one should have the right to slander or libel another's
> name all over the internet.
How long have you been posting to newsgroups? True, this
one is fairly mild and well-mannered, but follow a "flame
war" or two on some of the others. "Freedom of speech"
means freedom for the other guy, too - even if you
disapprove of what (s)he says and how (s)he says it! (And,
IMO, it's a freedom too precious to jeopardize by trying to
control what people are "allowed" to say, or to post on the
internet, however distasteful I may find some of it.)
You should read some of the posts on rec-travel-europe, when
people get pissed off at an airline or tour company! I
really don't think that kind of litigation over opinions
expressed in newsgroups will hold water - they aren't
exactly "in print", and given the anonymity of the internet,
how do you prove the person complaining is who they say they
are? I could use the name of some famous opera singer,
here, and in my posts pretend to be that person. So long as
I didn't try to gain by it financially (or defraud other
people) my electronic alter-ego could be whoever I chose to
be. (We have quite a few of those, on some of the music
groups - as well as a few who really ARE famous people.)
Anyway, I forwarded the original post (with the attached
links it gave) to Urban Legends - let them sort out its
legitimacy. Myself, I always tend to mistrust on principle
anything that involves a plea for money from strangers on
the internet. (Legitimate charities have legitimate
addresses and credentials, not just web-pages.)
GraceCat
and their complaints were held up as truth utilizing the
shipping/packing/order receipts received, names dates times for phone
calls... Gathering all the information they could, it wouldn't be a case for
lawsuit. However, if in any way they could not back up these claims, or
Petswarehouse can prove they're false, these people are liable for spreading
malicious and false advertisement against a company. Your opinion can say
they suck, but these people directly attacked something that is specifically
discussed in their shipping policy online. If an airline ripped you off or
charged three times the going rate and you have proven this complaint
against them, then what's there to defame? It becomes fact, they overpriced
and gouged customers.
I did find a website that explains defamation and from this definition,
I'd say Petswarehouse was within their rights. IMHO The argument in this
particular trial, I believe, will be in part whether or not they were
issuing a personal opinion and "fair comment". I read the posts and I saw
very little fact and a great deal of they did/they said/whine, moan, pout
and cry.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html
Grace
"Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C9FFBE7...@earthlink.net...
Sherry
>and their complaints were held up as truth utilizing the
>shipping/packing/order receipts received, names dates times for phone
>calls... Gathering all the information they could, it wouldn't be a case for
>lawsuit. However, if in any way they could not back up these claims, or
>Petswarehouse can prove they're false, these people are liable for spreading
>malicious and false advertisement against a company. Your opinion can say
>they suck, but these people directly attacked something that is specifically
>discussed in their shipping policy online. If an airline ripped you off or
>charged three times the going rate and you have proven this complaint
>against them, then what's there to defame? It becomes fact, they overpriced
>and gouged customers.
>
> I did find a website that explains defamation and from this definition,
>I'd say Petswarehouse was within their rights. IMHO The argument in this
>particular trial, I believe, will be in part whether or not they were
>issuing a personal opinion and "fair comment". I read the posts and I saw
>very little fact and a great deal of they did/they said/whine, moan, pout
>and cry.
Just a thought. I wonder if, in our lifetimes, laws will be the same for
internet postings as they are for newspaper publications. You certainly
couldn't say the same things about people/businesses in published media that
people do on the internet.
Sherry
Mary
>internet postings as they are for newspaper publications. You certainly
>couldn't say the same things about people/businesses in published media that
>people do on the internet.
Actually I follow these lawsuits very closely. They have recently ruled that
online comments are only personal opinions. They are not held to the same
candle as newspaper articles. They are part of our freedom of speech. I went
through a lengthy lawsuit after I made some negative, yet very honest, comments
about a public company. I won the suit. All my projections for the company also
came to pass :-D
Jack
http://www.petswarehouse.com/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimatebb.cgi
There was never a desire to seek (nor will there ever be) the
restraint of anyone's free speech that is critical of this company's
products or services, the focus of the suit is on the commercially
false speech, computer fraud, tortious interference, trademark
infringement and the damage it has caused.
Some of you have read comments in this and other chat rooms to the
effect I "sued for someone having posted critical comments about this
business" or that customers are sued for voicing there opinions
relating to the companies products or services. Not the true story!
That is a "spin" the defense fund and their supporters would like to
have you believe. It is in fact another lie by them.
Their attacks, to champion themselves and to raise the profile of
their cause so their proponents would keep financially supporting a
supposed "successful" group.
This would allow them to continue the concerted efforts to harm the
company. Their ultimate goal is to raise money in their pursuit to
harm.
By doing so at YOUR expense the effect of their actions has an adverse
impact on commerce.
In so doing that speech is commercial. Not afforded the same
protection as non-commerical speech
Andrea Fuller
>internet postings as they are for newspaper publications. You certainly
>couldn't say the same things about people/businesses in published media that
>people do on the internet.
Well, with news papers, they have a physical address, physical presence
and physical evidence that the judge and jury can see and touch. On the
internet, who gets sued? The original poster (assuming no forged
headers), the ISP of the appender, the intervening service machines
between two points in the trail, the ISP that gives you access to it,
you for reading it? All appends are is a string of electrons that you
can read if you share the same language and use a character set that
shares some characteristics of the source character set. (Character set
is why some readable characters on one end turn into gibberish at the
other. A brilliant example of this is receiving a Japanese e-mail in
kanji on a machine that understands English. Japanese is DBCS, so this
is an extreme example.) There is no one point where blame can be laid.
That is why child porn busts are now co-ordinated by all the countries
involved to catch all the fish in one go. While the internet is a good
source of information and fairly unregulated due to how it works, you
can never say that this specific person is at fault. It just isn't that
simple. Especially when you consider how many countries are on the net.
And look at email addresses. My email address shows who my ISP is
(Demon), but I also have yahoo, hotmail and work email addresses, And
you only have my word that I am in fact Andrea Fuller rather than Peter
Smith. In order to verify that I am who I say I am, you would need me to
prove it. Demon has full details on me, because they provide a service I
pay for, so they know where I live, what IDs I use, my phone number, and
numerous other details. Work have full details on me for obvious
reasons. Yahoo, hotmail and other free email address providers do not
have any checking systems for verifying any of this. As long as you use
the right password with the right ID, you could be anyone. The really
vicious people know this and use it to their advantage.
--
Andrea Fuller
Owned and operated by fur kids Grace, Poppy and Flo
Folding for the future with the Arthritis Warriors team (7). S+206 WU+105
Andrea Fuller
>impression that if what you are saying about the company/person can be proven
>to be true, it isn't libel. To sue for libel, doesn't the plaintiff have the
>burden of proof to prove that it is a false statement? I am all for free
>speech, and what you are saying about big business is true. But, even in the
>case of individuals, no one should have the right to slander or libel another's
>name all over the internet.
And sometimes on-line complaints work. A UK computer vendor (PCs,
laptops and components) was getting mega derogatory comments on one of
the UK computer newsgroups. Not only have they improved their procedures
as a result, but the company owner is on that group and appends on his
companies behalf. What a star! It is a pleasure to give feedback when
you know that your experiences will be read by a real person and that
action may be taken as a result.
Sherry
>>internet postings as they are for newspaper publications. You certainly
>>couldn't say the same things about people/businesses in published media that
>>people do on the internet.
>
>Well, with news papers, they have a physical address, physical presence
>and physical evidence that the judge and jury can see and touch. On the
>internet, who gets sued? The original poster (assuming no forged
>headers), the ISP of the appender, the intervening service machine
I certainly don't think the ISP should be held liable, although I did read
about the Demon case a few years back where they *were* held accountable. They
can't monitor every post! I assume that the deciding factor, maybe in this
case though, was the fact that the ISP was made aware of the problem and failed
to remove the posts?
Sherry
Andrea Fuller
>about the Demon case a few years back where they *were* held accountable. They
>can't monitor every post! I assume that the deciding factor, maybe in this
>case though, was the fact that the ISP was made aware of the problem and failed
>to remove the posts?
Yes, the subject of a 'slanderous' append complained to Demon and Demon
ignored the complaint. Duh! They now have procedures in place to deal
with this.
Gregory Gooden
Anyone who is interested in the OTHER side of Jacks/Bob's story, check
out the rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants newsgroup,
http://forums.compuserve.com/vlforums/default.asp?SRV=Fishnet (in the
Aquarist and the Law section) or perhaps the
http://www.thedefensefund.com website. Jack would like to tell you
that the defendants are liars, and that the people that support them
are liars, but those statement are (yeah, you guess it) a LIE!
Raising money? Yes, to defend people who are being victimized by a
frivolous lawsuit.
Take a few moments to familiarize yourself with this issue, because
it's NOT about aquarium plants. It's not even about freedom of speech
anymore. It's about frivolous and abusive lawsuits (and petty
harassment) and what those can do to innocent people. And it could be
YOU just as much as it was the defendants.
Respectfully,
Gregory Gooden (not a defendant, but a furious supporter of them)
http://www.thedefensefund.com
Brian Short
So if what you say is true, what did you sue them for?
Did your customer service not live up to their expectation? If so,
then how can it be libel?
Are you trying to sue your way out of this?
Are you planning on suing everyone who is questioning you?
Do you really think that suing everyone into oblivion is going to help
your reputation?
Are you expecting everyone to believe that there's some sort of
conspiracy against you, organized on this mailing list?
Looking forward to your responses...
-Brian
Barry
wins because he has the money. Money-bought-justice...-Pets Warehouse
style! Buy and get sued! Jack, instead of receipts, do you send your
customers subpoenas?
p...@petswarehouse.com (Jack) wrote in message news:<41f9af29.02032...@posting.google.com>...
Bol Bitis
> I couldn't find this up on "Urban Legends"
> (http://www.snopes2.com/) yet, but I'm sure it will be.
> America is still a free country (at least in theory) and
> people are perfectly free to bitch about poor service from
> merchants (on the internet or anywhere else) without danger
> of lawsuit. America is a very litigious society, but
> there's no way you can be sued for expressing what is
> clearly a personal opinion, no matter how many
> fellow-posters agree with you. (That's what the First
> Amendment is all about!)
>
FYI-This case recently received a lot of national media coverage:
Salon.com:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquatic_plants/index2.html
Slasdot: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/04/1459235
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/news/734035.asp
TechTV carried it on their "Screensavers" program.
BB
David Stevenson
>I couldn't find this up on "Urban Legends"
>(http://www.snopes2.com/) yet, but I'm sure it will be.
>America is still a free country (at least in theory) and
>people are perfectly free to bitch about poor service from
>merchants (on the internet or anywhere else) without danger
>of lawsuit. America is a very litigious society, but
>there's no way you can be sued for expressing what is
>clearly a personal opinion, no matter how many
>fellow-posters agree with you. (That's what the First
>Amendment is all about!)
I did not realise this was America.
However, there is little doubt that breathing can get you sued in the
USA. So?
--
David Stevenson Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm
Liverpool, England, UK <c...@blakjak.com> Emails welcome
Nanki Poo: SI Bp+W B 7 Y L+ W+ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q B+ PA+ PL+ SC
Just when you think something's idiot proof, they invent a better idiot
M Newell
in this country without chance of being sued. It has to be truthful. If
someone tells a story from their point of view, and the injured party can
prove that the point of view was grossly or intentionally warped, they can
successfully sue for liable. And even if you are telling the absolute
truth, you'd better be able to prove it, because someone could still sued
you and you would have to prove your statements.
Dewi Williams
Dewi.
Tektor
pay lawyers to deal with the lies. ;)
Bridget
David Yehudah
two-headed martians. :-)
Dewi Williams wrote:
>
> So would this mean that the tabloids are true!? ;)
--
"Who is a Jew? A Jew is he - or she - whose song can not be muted, nor
can his or her joy be killed by the enemy. . .ever."
Elie Wiesel
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
the world, as we are all aware. However, the lawsuit that
was under discussion was taking place in the U.S., SFAIK -
thus my post was so-oriented, as well.
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
can say whatever you damned well please, so long as it's
clear you are expressing your personal opinion. How many
people angrily addressed as "you miserable son of a bitch"
were actually born out of wedlock? They may haul off and
belt you one, but saying it is not an indictable offense!
Being outspoken in your disapproval of someone or something
may not make you very popular, of course, and someone may
even decide to object physically. If the disagreement
escalates into an actual fight, the police may step in, but
unless you are saying it to a judge in a court of law (where
it might count as "contempt of court") you are free to say
'most anything you choose to anyone you wish. I guess there
ARE such charges as "inciting to riot" which might limit
your freedom of speech somewhat, but bad-mouthing some local
merchant you feel has cheated you is hardly in that
category! (And a "riot" in cyberspace would be a bit
difficult to pull off, n'est-ce pas?)
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
Dewi Williams wrote:
>
> So would this mean that the tabloids are true!? ;)
No, but if Ms. Newell's allegations are true, I'm pretty
sure that a) she does not live in the U.S., and b) I'm glad
I don't live where she does!
GraceCat
influential (think very noticable in local city, lawyer, judge, prominant
citizens) a son of a bitch won't get you a lawsuit, but saying they're borne
out of wedlock might. We can pretty much say what ever we want around the
middleman, but those with the proper backing and support can bring you to
court and win. As I said, depends on if you take on the big dogs or cuss
the little dogs :)
Grace
"Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3CB644D2...@earthlink.net...
GraceCat
You're correct, I agree :). If it's an opinion, you're covered. As long as
you state it's your opinion, this is true. You can't be held liable.
Stating something that can be construed as fact with the intent to cause
disruption of anytype on the other hand, is where the problem is I believe.
Luckily, we're not that sue happy yet in the US. I do remember a case with
Opera Winfry against the Cattleman's Association. She had said on her show
that eating beef is dangerous and she wouldn't recommend it. the CA came
back and said because so many people listened to her and went by her advice,
the sales in beef were dropping. They sued for damages and asked she make a
public statement that beef is safe to eat. I know the court found her at
fault because it is fact she touches so many people's daily lives, it did in
fact cause a problem, so on and so forth, she was delivering untrue
information and causing a panic against beef. that sort of thing....
Anyway, that's sorta what I meant. When stuff like that gets to be high
publicity, there's a great chance a lawsuit might happen.... Otherwise... I
agree, you can say whatever you want :) :) :)
Grace
"GraceCat" <grac...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ubckcri...@news.supernews.com...
Bern
(Bern says, momentarily de-lurking) IIRC Dewi is up in Armidale in
Australia.
IIRC (my legal studies were rather a while ago), IN at least New South
Wales and possibly other states even truth is not a complete defense. If
the statement was true but not in the " public interest" you can still get
hammered.
Bit late here so i can't dream up a good example )but I do very clearly
remember that phrase from uni. Hmm, perhaps revealing that the Prime
Minister regurlary spat tobacco on the carpet at home, or some such. The
story would be damaging but true but could be argued to be not in the public
interest.
Ah well, lurk mode on and purrs for all and their owners.
Cheers
Bern
Reality is a chronic condition,
but one frequently ignored by cats.
bern_c...@pcug.org.au
(remove the obvious bit to reply)
"Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3CB645AB...@earthlink.net...
David Stevenson
>can say whatever you damned well please, so long as it's
>clear you are expressing your personal opinion. How many
>people angrily addressed as "you miserable son of a bitch"
>were actually born out of wedlock? They may haul off and
>belt you one, but saying it is not an indictable offense!
Even in the USA there are laws about libel and slander. That's not
indictable, of course, but you can be sued for demeaning someone else's
character by saying something untrue.
--
David Stevenson Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm
Liverpool, England, UK <c...@blakjak.com> Emails welcome
Nanki Poo: SI Bp+W B 7 Y L+ W+ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q B+ PA+ PL+ SC
Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send
David Yehudah
law book "The Uniform Code of Military Justice" we were taught that we
could even say nasty things to an officer if we prefaced the remark
with, "In my opinion. . ." That was free speech at work. If we just
called him names, that was insubordination and punishable.
Cheers,
Dave
--
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
GraceCat wrote:
>
> I think it depends on who you talk about Evelyn. Calling somebody
> influential (think very noticable in local city, lawyer, judge, prominant
> citizens) a son of a bitch won't get you a lawsuit, but saying they're borne
> out of wedlock might. We can pretty much say what ever we want around the
> middleman, but those with the proper backing and support can bring you to
> court and win. As I said, depends on if you take on the big dogs or cuss
> the little dogs :)
Politicians must be milder where you are! Perhaps they
choose their words more carefully, and of course words like
"bastard" did not used to be allowed on the air (in these
permissive days, I'm not sure), but I've heard plenty accuse
their opponents of being crooks, and they don't get sued for
it! (But maybe it's true?) Also, the "big dogs" may win
the first round (with local judges in their pockets), but
one can appeal, and the ACLU exists for such miscarriages of
justice.
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
David Stevenson wrote:
>
>
> Even in the USA there are laws about libel and slander. That's not
> indictable, of course, but you can be sued for demeaning someone else's
> character by saying something untrue.
Nonsense! Perhaps if you state it as fact, in a large
enough forum to cause some sort of public ripple (like the
Oprah show someone mentioned - although why anyone would
consider HER an authority on ANYTHING escapes me), but so
long as it's clearly your personal opinion, you can say what
you like about anyone or anything. (And they can retaliate
in kind, with the same guarantees.)
Julie Cook
"Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)" wrote:
>
> How many
> people angrily addressed as "you miserable son of a bitch"
> were actually born out of wedlock? They may haul off and
> belt you one, but saying it is not an indictable offense!
>
I learned this one the hard way during one of the first really nasty
arguments that my ex and I got into. It was the only time I ever called
him that and I learned that it was, at that time, just the excuse he
used to hit me. The other two times he had other excuses.
Julie
Lisa Katt
David Yehudah skrev i meddelandet <3CB6F131...@netzero.net>...
>When I was in the Navy back in the 50's we had to take a course in the
>law book "The Uniform Code of Military Justice" we were taught that we
>could even say nasty things to an officer if we prefaced the remark
>with, "In my opinion. . ." That was free speech at work. If we just
>called him names, that was insubordination and punishable.
>Cheers,
>Dave
>
So you could have said "In my opinion you are a mean bastard" to an officer
and got away scot free? But if you forgot the "In my opinion..." you were
punished?
I wonder if that gave them the idea for Jeopardy?
Elisabet
GraceCat
"Lisa Katt" <lisak...@hotmail.comkatt> wrote in message
news:uMDt8.1041$iB4....@nntpserver.swip.net...
I had heard something similiar. "You are a mean bastard, Sir" was possible,
but if you left off "Sir" it would then become punishable.
Grace
David Stevenson
>> Even in the USA there are laws about libel and slander. That's not
>> indictable, of course, but you can be sued for demeaning someone else's
>> character by saying something untrue.
>
>Nonsense! Perhaps if you state it as fact, in a large
>enough forum to cause some sort of public ripple (like the
>Oprah show someone mentioned - although why anyone would
>consider HER an authority on ANYTHING escapes me), but so
>long as it's clearly your personal opinion, you can say what
>you like about anyone or anything. (And they can retaliate
>in kind, with the same guarantees.)
I think you will find laws fro libel and slander do exist in the USA,
you know.
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
David Stevenson wrote:
>
>
> I think you will find laws fro libel and slander do exist in the USA,
> you know.
Indeed they do, but you notice I keep qualifying my comments
with the term "personal opinion" - one may express any
"opinion" one likes, so long as one does not state it as
fact, or allege it to be true. (Certainly plenty of
Americans consider our current president a moron, and say
so, yet none has been thrown in jail yet - but that's
"politics".)
David Stevenson
Politicians are fair game: it goes with the territory. But I really
think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think saying "in my
opinion" is any defence to slander or libel. If you find someone with a
fair amount of money and time try writing "She is a bitch who will sleep
with anyone for $5, in my opinion" and see what happens to you.
GraceCat
"David Stevenson" <c...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >
> Politicians are fair game: it goes with the territory. But I really
> think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think saying "in my
> opinion" is any defence to slander or libel. If you find someone with a
> fair amount of money and time try writing "She is a bitch who will sleep
> with anyone for $5, in my opinion" and see what happens to you.
>
> --
> David Stevenson Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm
> Liverpool, England, UK <c...@blakjak.com> Emails welcome
> Nanki Poo: SI Bp+W B 7 Y L+ W+ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q B+ PA+ PL+ SC
> Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send
It isn't a situation of if it's somebody with alot of money, or we have
libel laws or even if you say "in my opinion".
It's a fact that it has went to court, and people have been found guilty of
slander that is not protected under the 1st amendment. It's happened once. I
imagine it'll happen again if enough is said about the wrong person. The
first admendment does not cover *everything* we say, nor should it. Try
taking any ad out in any newspaper in big bold letters using Dave S's
suggested phrase and you'll be told by an editor that it can't be done due
to possible lawsuits etc. BTDT, even though my rant was validated and a
dress shop treated me lower than low, I could not complain in a section of
our paper made for local complaints. It wasn't an opinion, but fact they
refused me service (they wouldn't sell a wedding dress, but would be happy
to rent... we're guessing they get more money from renting than someone
coming in and buying.. didn't make sense to me either). I addressed it, I
wrote my complaint that I couldn't buy from a certain shop, but I could
happly spend just as much money to rent a dress. ($800 to buy, $600 to rent
a wedding dress) Regardless, the newspaper would be held liable for printing
my rant. Go figure.
Grace
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
David Stevenson wrote:
>
> opinion" is any defence to slander or libel. If you find someone with a
> fair amount of money and time try writing "She is a bitch who will sleep
> with anyone for $5, in my opinion" and see what happens to you.
I'd be unlikely to say something like that unless I had
reason to believe it was true - anyway, if it was "written"
on the internet, how would "she" find me? I appear to be
straightforward about my identity and where I live, but how
can anyone really know? Or, if the person I say I am
actually exists, that I am really that person? (It's plain
to see you aren't conversant with many Usenet newsgroups -
people take advantage of their anonymity in cyberspace to
say a lot worse things than that - frequently!) Also, you
and I are in two different countries - I've no idea what the
laws are in the UK, and was not speaking for them. The
alleged court case that touched off this discussion,
however, was in the U.S. - at least my responses have been
made under that assumption.
David Stevenson
>>
>> opinion" is any defence to slander or libel. If you find someone with a
>> fair amount of money and time try writing "She is a bitch who will sleep
>> with anyone for $5, in my opinion" and see what happens to you.
>
>I'd be unlikely to say something like that unless I had
>reason to believe it was true - anyway, if it was "written"
>on the internet, how would "she" find me?
I was saying whether slander and libel exist in the USA. I did not
mention the medium, the difficulty, or anything else. OK, let me try
again, try writing "She is a bitch who will sleep with anyone for $5, in
my opinion", signing it with your name, address, eddress, telephone
number, fax number, and write it on a flyer, get them printed and
distribute thousands.
Do you really think that you will find that the fact that you say "in
my opinion" will act as a defence to libel or slander?
> I appear to be
>straightforward about my identity and where I live, but how
>can anyone really know? Or, if the person I say I am
>actually exists, that I am really that person? (It's plain
>to see you aren't conversant with many Usenet newsgroups -
>people take advantage of their anonymity in cyberspace to
>say a lot worse things than that - frequently!)
Thankyou for your presumptions. However, it is just possible that I
am slightly more conversant with Usenet than you think.
> Also, you
>and I are in two different countries - I've no idea what the
>laws are in the UK, and was not speaking for them.
I said ***** IN THE USA ***** which just ***** MIGHT ***** have
given you a clue that I was not talking about UK laws.
> The
>alleged court case that touched off this discussion,
>however, was in the U.S. - at least my responses have been
>made under that assumption.
That is true, but has ***NOTHING*** to do with what I said later.
I shall say it one more time. Please this time do not assume that I
am saying something totally different or that I am completely ignorant.
In the **United States of America** ...
... there **are** laws against slander and libel.
Saying "in my opinion" is not **of itself** a defence to slander or
libel.
If you do not believe this then try libelling someone in print **in a
way that you are traceable** ...
... libelling someone with enough money to pursue the matter ...
... and including "in my opinion" in the libel.
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
David Stevenson wrote:
>
> I was saying whether slander and libel exist in the USA. I did not
> mention the medium, the difficulty, or anything else. OK, let me try
> again, try writing "She is a bitch who will sleep with anyone for $5, in
> my opinion", signing it with your name, address, eddress, telephone
> number, fax number, and write it on a flyer, get them printed and
> distribute thousands.
>
> Do you really think that you will find that the fact that you say "in
> my opinion" will act as a defence to libel or slander?
It wouldn't have to - they'd simply commit me to a mental
ward! (;->}
Trebor Kavon
> p...@petswarehouse.com (Jack) wrote in message news:<41f9af29.02032...@posting.google.com>...
> > http://www.petswarehouse.com/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimatebb.cgi
SNIP
> Take a few moments to familiarize yourself with this issue, because
> it's NOT about aquarium plants. It's not even about freedom of speech
> anymore. It's about frivolous and abusive lawsuits (and petty
> harassment) and what those can do to innocent people. And it could be
> YOU just as much as it was the defendants.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Gregory Gooden (not a defendant, but a furious supporter of them)
> http://www.thedefensefund.com
An interesting sidelight to this is I tried to place an order with
petSwarehouse.com today and when I got to the checkout page, it said
that the transaction would be secure. However, the small "padlock"
did not appear in my browser indicating that the transaction was not
secure nor was the page in frames mode (sometimes while in frames, the
"padlock" does not show but the transaction is still secure.)
To learn more about this lawsuit and how it is a threat to our ability
to communicate on the Internet, take a look at the recent national
media coverage it has received:
Long Island Business News:
http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249
Salon.com:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquatic_plants/index.html
TechTV:
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/opinion/story/0,24330,3379331,00.html
MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/734035.asp?0na=x23125G0-&cp1=1#BODY
CyberLine:
http://www.cyber-line.com/deepthoughts/dt-04062.htm
Misc:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/04/1459235
http://www.io.com/~riddle/causes/?item=20020405
http://www.ebizcritique.com/business.asp?bizid=511&category=Pet%20Supplies
http://overlawyered.com/letters/01/aug.html
http://216.168.47.67/psw/Default.html
http://www.sponsordirectory.com/cgi-bin/Listings/search.cgi?query=petswarehouse
(average rating = 1 out of 10...)
http://www.newyork.bbb.org/nis/newsearch2.asp?ID=1&strBCode=01210000&ComID=0121000000034115
(the BBB report, which gives it the lowest possible rating
KT