![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
I'm now encouraged to go post slanderous and libelious information that I may 'cleverly' interpret as my opinion.
I'm now encouraged to go post slanderous and libelious information that I may 'cleverly' interpret as my opinion.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1504-100x100.png\")
So, \"Consumerist sucks\" is okay?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-527042-100x100.png\")
Yeah that's okay, your entitled to your opinion. Now, if you said that \"Comsumerist sucks because they sleep with your spouse\" that would be grounds for slander.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
@Adam2010: And in many states, accusing a woman of sexual immorality is still libel per se! You could get two lawsuits for the price of one there!
As long as you are not accusing them of bestiality, have at it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-387761-100x100.png\")
@sebadoh128: Accuse a scamming scumbag of being bestial and see how stupid he is.
\"No, your honor, I said he was 'bestial' and his company was 'incestuous'. It's not my fault he's uneducated.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-42681-100x100.png\")
@sebadoh128: On the other hand, IIRC, the Supreme Court ruled that Larry Flynt didn't libel Jerry Falwell when a Hustler parody of a liquor ad campaign stated that Falwell lost his virginity with a chicken, reasoning that the claim was so ridiculous that no reasonable person would find the claim credible. [/IANAL]
And in that spirit:
BILL GATES EATS PUPPY MARINATED IN HIS OWN URINE!!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-395879-100x100.png\")
What if you said you wouldn't be surprised if everyone at the car dealership practices bestiality?
option b, create a fake idenity / name so when you post your comments they will be suing the fake idenity and not your real one. So you can have total freedom from the \"man\".
@atomoverride: They can also most likely track you by IP address if something came up. However if you used a public computer like a school computer that didn't require a login post away! Our library requires login's and keeps track of who is on which computer when, so that wouldn't work. Also don't post many details about your situation directly or you may be found out!
@Outrun1986: They would have to get your identity from your ISP and any ISP worth its salt won't give that out without a subpoena. (I think the RIAA and the MPAA have some sort of dispensation that doesn't require them to get a subpoena every single time they want to track down a filesharer. [/IANAL])
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-548699-100x100.png\")
@Hyman Decent: I think the RIAA and MPAA still need to get a subpoena for now(although I believe the RIAA is seeking to make relationships with ISPs and get alleged offenders' internet connections dropped without going to court). As I understand it, they do so by making \"John Doe\" lawsuits first to be granted a subpoena. Then, after they get the alleged offenders' info from the ISP, they drop the John Doe lawsuit and file the real lawsuit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37033-100x100.png\")
Can your mac address be seen by sites you visit? If so, you're going to want to either spoof, or have an extra network adapter you ONLY use on open networks.
@atomoverride: If your review provides enough details of your experience, the business or practitioner that's the subject of your review may be able to figure out who you are.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-74137-100x100.png\")
I'm a dentist, and I actually just got a mailing from a company called Dental Justice [dentaljustice.com] that specifically mentioned \"web defamation deterrence\" as one of their services.
Either it's becoming a bigger problem, or some lawyers want practitioners and small business owners to BELIEVE it's becoming a bigger problem.
I'm not signing on with them, but I'd love to know what their \"copyrighted template\" says on this subject.
@FangDoc: I LOVE how they use the cute animals. Especially on the page with the benefits and the link to sign up.
@FangDoc: I think it IS becoming a bigger problem, but I doubt there's a damn thing \"Dental Justice\" can do to help prevent it.
The ways disgruntled clients can fuck with you online are just unreal these days. And (as I'm sure you know), disgruntled clients are not always disgruntled for any reason except that they're total idiots.
(I had a client who's STILL furious with me, like three years later, for WINNING their case. Because it turned out the opposing party, whom they hated with the fire of a thousand suns, had made an honest (if stupid) mistake. I recovered their money, which was their purpose in suing, but I failed to prove the opposing party ate babies and committed routine criminal fraud. These clients are STILL running around town saying what a rotten attorney I am. I'm just glad they're not net-savvy.)
I don't know of a good way to handle that problem without stifling the ability of consumers to complain about companies that really DO suck, but I know it fills me with dread whenever I get one of those e-mails saying, \"You've got a new review on our site!\" Even though I haven't really had a bad one yet. I'm sure it's just a matter of time.
(Actually, I do know how a lot of professionals handle that problem, and that's refusing to take clients they suspect might grow up to be problems of that sort. Which also isn't a great outcome.)
@Eyebrows McGee: (Actually, I do know how a lot of professionals handle that problem, and that's refusing to take clients they suspect might grow up to be problems of that sort. Which also isn't a great outcome.) ~ Why would that be a problem turning away work that may come back and bite you in the ass? I see it as risk management.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6798-100x100.png\")
@FangDoc: You nailed it - they want you to believe it's becoming a bigger problem, so big that you need to be \"insured\" against it by purchasing their services. They also want you to believe that they can magically protect you from it or make it go away if it happens to you. They sometimes make claims that they can erase defamatory or even merely negative information about you from the internet.
Mind you, following this advice doesn't so much ensure that you won't get sued, so much as give you a better shot at winning. Unfortunately, it is all-too-common for corporations to use lawsuits to coerce or extort the people they are suing, since it's often cheaper to settle than to defend.
Hey, surely its really easy to ensure that your postings are truly opinion for all to see ?
\"I believe dentist xxx is truly terrible and seeks to rip off clients with unnecessary procedures\"
\"My opinon is dentist xxx........\"
\"My experiences lead me to believe........\"
\"Other clients agree with me that.....\"
If you have a terrible experience and then state, \"This dentist is terrible and rips off all his clients\", then well, you deserve to land in hot water. How does YOUR one experience give you the ability to make such a generalized statement ? It doesnt.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-321187-100x100.png\")
@BritBoy: No. Merely taking \"It is my opinion that\" on the front doesn't magically protect you from defamation.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-175610-100x100.png\")
Let's test this whole thing out:
I think I'm an asshole! What am I going to do about it?
\"...you can't just say \"it is my opinion that everyone at the car dealership down the street practices bestiality.\"\"
I think you might still be OK on this one. If you took the 'in my opinion' out you'd be in trouble though, unless you could prove it.
@nacoran: Shouldn't the plaintiff have to prove otherwise? I mean if I say factually they have sex with the animals at the dealership, and they say Im being libelous, to win their case they have to prove that no one at that dealership has or or ever had had sex with an animal. The hilarity of them proving this might just make it worth being sued.
@nacoran:
The \"in my opinion\" part is irrelevant; it's whether the statement would be interpreted as factual by a reasonable person; this example is pretty clearly stating something as a a fact rather than an opinion.
Another important thing to keep in mind with these cases -- the plaintiff has to prove falsity; the defendant is not required to prove truth, even though proving truth is a great way to win a case. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
Seens like this is exactly what I am going through now with this annoying realty firm in NW Florida. I sued them six months ago and put the info online and last week I got served with their own suit.
Their application asks for a temporary injunction, permanent injunction and final judgment prohibiting the Defendant as follows:
a. further slandering, defaming or even naming the Plaintiff Waterstone Resorts LLC on any blog site, website or any other media outlet and avenue, rather it be his personal blog or website or any other blog or website;
b. order the Defendant to disable any and all blogs and websites operated by the Defendant;
c. to provide a list to the Court of all parties the Defendant contacted by email, phone or any other form of communication in relation to Plaintiff Waterstone Resorts LLC.
In addition to asking for injunctive relief, damages unspecified they also demand a 'public apology'. The whole thing runs about 40 pages, but only 7 are the actual text of the submission, the rest is exhibits.
Take a look at: http://waterstoneresortsllc.blogspot.com and
http://nautiluscovesuit2008.blogspot.com
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-396144-100x100.png\")
DISCLAIMER: While the following MAY be factual, this comment is only my opinion and does not include a false statement.
No need for a complex explanation. If a statement is factual, that is an affirmative defense to libel, slander, or defamation.
I could be wrong on this, but I believe part of the analysis of the opinion-writer's liability hinges on whether the target of their criticisms is also a public figure.
For example, if ordinary person A publishes libel about ordinary person B, person A might be in trouble, but if ordinary person A publishes libel about the President they are in the clear.
If my recollection is correct, the reason the two situations are handled differently is based on the fact that a person like the President puts himself out to the public. By making himself a public figure, he necessarily welcomes the public to derive opinions about him.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-502932-100x100.png\")
@Stretch31: I'm a journalism student, and you hit the nail on the head with this. Public figures that file libel suits have a much more difficult time of proving it because of something called \"fair comment.\" It means that they know they're subject to more attention, as well as criticism, in the media.
Both public and private figures must not only prove that there was defamation and it was false. However, public figures but they also must prove that the libeler knew the information was false and had malicious intent.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-94321-100x100.png\")
more dangerous legal advice from the internet.
first of all the defamation standards are from New York... and are likely inapplicable in your locality.
second of all SLAPP and law is highly complex and varies from state to state. furthermore as it is a nascent and rapidly evolving area of law, Courts' subjective interpretation of the law can vary widely... and I'm talking from personal experience. worst-case scenario is that you file a SLAPP against a Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff files an anti-SLAPP cross-complaint against you... and if the Court agrees with the Plaintiff... you could be on the hook for HUGE attorney's fees related to opposing the motion.
if I could contribute anything of value to this discussion... it would be this: be reasonable.
nobody likes an anonymous coward on the internet. if you're going to completely trash someone's business in a way that is going to put off potential customers... don't be surprised when they poke you back.
if the business really screwed you over, then by all means publish that fact. but it is critical that you remain CALM, COMPOSED AND TO THE POINT. if you have a valid grievance and you state it in a reasonable matter... you're going to be very well-insulated from liability. if you get on the internet and write a really angry and nasty review... be prepared for the subject of your review to get really angry and nasty in return.
like I always tell people... when you've lost your temper... you've lost the argument. pretend you're \"The Dog Whisperer\" and remain \"calm and assertive\".
There goes some of the honest reviews out there because people will be afraid to bash a company too heavily after this.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-527174-100x100.png\")
HEY YELP! YOUR FATHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR MOTHER SMELT OF ELDERBERRIES!
Now I just sit back and wait for the supoena to be served...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-88849-100x100.png\")
I left a negative review about a motorcycle shop that I had a bad experience with and the very next day started receiving phone calls and having people showing up at my house asking about my bike that I was supposedly selling for $350. I can't prove that the folks at the motorcycle shop are the person who falsely advertised my bike on Craigslist but the moral of the story is to think twice about posting negative reviews about businesses/people who have your home address and phone number.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-255368-100x100.png\")
Add that information to your on-line complaint. Not that you're saying the company did it... Just saying it happened.... Which it did.
@MrSmokesTooMuch: You could theoretically have a bunch of pizzas, escorts, gay porn all sent to the business address. You know...theoretically.
most people that are unsatsified customers are usually poor consumers. Like my landlord who told me his cable didnt work well after he yelled at the cable installer guy who showed up at 8pm on a 5-8pm call, after my landlord requested he show up at 5. Granted, many problems are also the business fault, which is why we have consumerist.
Why doesnt the dentist just go online and explain himself? All it takes is this: \"The appointment was late because if two people shows up 5 minutes late, someone asks me a question for 5 minutes, and I am 5 minutes slow/go pee, then I find something new in someones mouth for 10 minutes, all of which routinely happen in one morning, I am now about a half hour late. And thats if office staff can move ALL the paperwork as fast as possible. I am sorry, but thats just what happens in an office.\"
These situations also usually suck for Drs. and dentists since they are bound by HIPAA and cant talk about anything, but patients can say whatever they want.
@redkamel: That line of \"defense\" would make me trust that dentist less. If these kinds of delays are \"just what happens\", then the only reasonable response is to build time into the schedule to accommodate those 5 minute diversions. If you're frequently running a half hour late, you're not managing your time correctly.
The last I checked, the plaintiff had to prove the statement was false (except in food defamation cases, ugh). This is, of course, different in the UK, where the defendant has to prove his innocence. That's why you can write (almost) anything you like here, but as soon as it's published in the UK you're more likely to get sued over negative statements - even if they're factual.
When people are allowed to post anonymous reviews, you will therefore encourage lots of corporate shills and PR companies to post fake positive reviews at the same time encouraging competitors and whiners to post fake bad reviews. Plus if you look at some bad Yelp reviews they're over the top ridiculous. Someone orders a dish from a Chinese restaurant and gives them a bad 1-star review because the dish is too hot. The next person gives them a 1-star review because the same dish is too cold. But the 99% of people who were satisfied with the meal don't leave reviews because they have better things to do with their lives. But the 1-star reviews skew overall results.
@johnfrombrooklyn: P.S. I'm not Chinese nor do I own a Chinese restaurant. I just avoided a local Chinese restaurant because of bad reviews. Then I finally went to it out of desperation and it was just fine.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25155-100x100.png\")
This seems to be pretty straightforward. If you have intimate knowledge of a fact that is related to the plaintiff and you take that fact and misstate it for the purpose of delivering personal injury, then you are committing a crime.
How often does any of us have factual knowledge about anyone else on a BLOG? I would imagine the only real world application is an existing/ex-employee taking factual information about said company and falsifying it for the purpose of defamation. Well, that person may pay for their mistake. In other words: a real corporations name is used. So, don't use real names ;-) (i.e. MallWart)
Change computer's mac address.
Get software firewall that blocks everything.
Download a new browser that will have no history or cookies. Like opera.
Search for an overseas proxy and put that into browser.
Go to site and make new account. Use a free temp email if needed.
Post all the truth and criticism you want.
Leave.
Remove now pointless browser and reset mac address.
Rest assured no one will ever catch you or be able to prove you did it.
If you did commit a crime, wipe out whole hard drive and reinstall OS.
@Corporate_guy: And pray like hell that they don't guess it's you. Because even if you magically wiped all computer evidence of your existence, a defendant in a civil lawsuit will still have to respond to discovery.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-95687-100x100.png\")
S.L.A.P.P. eh?
Somebody needs to concoct a clever strategy and make the acronym for such actions B.I.T.C.H.S.L.A.P.P.
In all seirousness though, from some of the doctors and dentists I've met through repairing their computers, they have massive egoes that must be stroked. They also turn into massive drama queens if their ego gets bruised.
I'm sure my dad would have been sued for libel if he posted on the internets how bad his search for a Urologist went. He went to three different Urologists before he found one that was worth a damn.
Causes some injury to the plaintiff
For some kinds of defamation, the plaintiff does not need to show actual damages because certain things are presumed to be defamatory. If I say that my dentist is a thief and a child molester who gave his victims AIDS, he doesn't need to prove that he actually lost money as a result of my statements (although he would get more money if he does).
Yeah, but who does the company sue when the Streisand Effect hits full force. Themselves?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-349596-100x100.png\")
If you are reading the Consumerist website, then you should know by now that writing something with the scent of asshole lingering on it, will get you nowhere. (or I'd at least HOPE we've taken that lesson.)
Whether you are upset by your cable service, had a vehicle break down because Midas incorrectly changed your oil, or someone in the medical profession touched you in your naughty parts and overcharged you after coping the feel....
No one's gonna really give a damn when you are clearly writing a complaint with your broken pride or emotions. Just write the damn truth.
(Oh, and if your Doctor touched your naughty parts... might wanna contact the authorities. I hear thats bad.)
Libel also has to have malicious intent. The party claiming you were libelous HAS to prove that you wrote the offending piece with the intent to do harm to them. As a journalist, we are told this many, many times throughout school.
@CSUSam: Wrong. You must have gotten somebody else's notes from class that day.
What you are thinking is the \"malice\" requirement when the subject of the defamation is a public figure. In that case, it's not enough to show that there was false information published, but that it was published with actual knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether or not it was false. (So if the NYT, say, publishes a story suggesting that John McCain had an affair, that is held to a different standard than if it published a story saying YOU had an affair.)
Please don't spread misinformation like this.
This has to be a joke.... I'm gonna tell my parents on you and my dad and beat up ur dad... losers
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-606922-100x100.png\")
gonna have to check out this yelp thing and start screaming from the mountain tops about some of my recent experiences...it's so hard to find a doctor that gives a damn...
Nice legal article! I appreciated it.
It should be noted that for Public Figures and Matters of Public Concern, the plaintiff has to prove actual malice to prove defamation. This means they have to prove that the defendant had the intent to lie and cause harm, or had a reckless disregard for the truth.
I think a good lawyer could argue that Yelp reviews on doctors and dentists are a matter of public concern, since their job is to serve the public, and opinions about their professional work are of importance to the public. If that is the case, then it is almost impossible to prove malice.
My company has been trashed on Yelp.I run a photography company, and among other things, there was a post that we had cancelled a contract with someone two weeks before a wedding.
Completely false. Yet, being we are only a small business we can't really do anything about it.
Most likely the person is using fake contact information. Yelp doesn't really seem to care. So we're stuck. Without doing anything there's a blemish on our company. It's kind of depressing .
I always get m feeling hurt when I'm punished for something I didn't do, but sometimes that's the way it goes.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-148086-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-357874-100x100.png\")
Getting sued for giving your honest opinion, based on facts, on a site that collects opinions is just wrong.
@geoffhazel:
I'd be very mindful of keeping my opinions just that, opinions. Once a person make his/her opinion a fact whether it's true or not; they had better be ready to be held accountable for their statement(s). I'll bet that this eventually gets tossed out, unless they are able to show significant damages directly incurred from those statements.
@geoffhazel: If you represent your posting as a factual account of your experience with the business or practitioner, it's not just an opinion.