01-10-2003, 10:29 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Free Speech and The Internet: A Fish Story
This article scares the bejeebers of out me! 8O In a nutshell, people on a public discussion list began swapping stories about negative experiences they had with a certain vendor. The vendor is now suing the owner of the mailing list for upwards of $15 million. How long will it take for a Pocket PC OEM to come knocking on my door for the negative things said about them in the forums, or on the front page? It's a scary concept isn't it? What's the line between expressing your opinion and slander/libel? I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, so I'm pretty much in the dark on this one...but this article made me wonder how long it will be until it happens here? It would be public-relations suicide for a Pocket PC company to sue Pocket PC Thoughts, but some companies don't care about what people think of them.
Anyway, read the article and share your thoughts. But don't say anything bad about Buzzle.com or anyone else! :lol:
|
| |
|
|
|
01-10-2003, 10:38 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 248
|
|
Loser
Let's hope he loses. So far the courts have been pretty reasonable if I am not mistaken. Of course, all it takes is one court. I just read an article on jury mandering where they talked about how lawyers are taught to pick jurors that know nothing abotu the particular topic. Moreover, they pick ones who are least liekly to understand what's at stake. In so doing, they hoep to manipulate the jury for large sums. anyways, here
s to hoping no one takes offense to this site.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-10-2003, 10:39 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 713
|
|
Quick! Somebody slander me and I'll sue Jason for enough $$ for one of those HP 5450s. :lol:
|
| |
|
|
|
01-10-2003, 10:40 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 37
|
|
It is only slander if it is not true.
Oh, and in ref to
Quote:
|
In so doing, they hoep to manipulate the jury for large sums.
|
Jurys dont set sums. The judge does.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-10-2003, 10:42 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,329
|
|
It'll never fly. There is nothing illegal about swapping stories about bad experiences. And nothing illegal about baring someone from responding to a post.
And then there is this:
Quote:
|
Novak attests that he tried to respond to the posts -- he'd been a subscriber to the list for a number of years -- but "APD maliciously blocked the e-mails sent to the mail list by the plaintiff thus not afford [sic] him an opportunity to defend himself."
|
WAH!!!!! Sounds like someone is playing cry baby. Is it illegal for my friends and I to discuss how crappy Microsoft�s business practices are without them defending themselves? LOL Remind me to invite Bill to my next ***** session
Ya know I'm starting to wonder if there should be new rules applied to lawsuits in that if the plaintiff doesn�t win the lawsuit they have to eat the defendants defense attorney bill. Might make idiots who brings such suits think about if their complaint is legit or not. (Coffee spilling woman anyone?)
|
| |
|
|
|
01-10-2003, 10:50 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 797
|
|
Scary
As owner of website where opinions are regularly espoused, this scares the hell out of me.
It's not whether or not I'm right, it's can I afford to defend myself. Truth be told, I doubt I would be able to, and I imagine a lot of you fit into that category as well.
Frankly, were Palm or Microsoft, or a politician ever to sue me, I'd have to beg for a settlement just because I wouldn't be able to afford an attorney, and that's probably what these dolts were hoping for when they sued the mailing list operator for 15 million dollars.
God, I hate being bullied... :twisted:
|
| |
|
|
|
01-10-2003, 10:52 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 169
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathan1
It'll never fly. There is nothing illegal about swapping stories about bad experiences. And nothing illegal about baring someone from responding to a post.
|
Don't count on it, you never know what is going to happen in the American Court System. I love my country, but sometimes our people who live here are just plain stupid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathan1
Ya know I'm starting to wonder if there should be new rules applied to lawsuits in that if the plaintiff doesn�t win the lawsuit they have to eat the defendants defense attorney bill. Might make idiots who brings such suits think about if their complaint is legit or not. (Coffee spilling woman anyone?)
|
If I am not mistaken this is how it works in England, or something similar. You have to remember though, that the laws are written by lawyers. Do you really think they are going to create a law that will have a negative effect on their earning potential?
-Eric
|
| |
|
|
|
01-10-2003, 10:54 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 37
|
|
As to the defendants bill yes just make a countersuit for your defense costs and if you win they will probably be forced to pay them. As to cost of defense...if you defend yourself the only real cost is time out of work and travel i suppose, but yeah it really sucks that people can win without wining just cause the defendant cant afford to pay for his defense.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-10-2003, 10:57 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 189
|
|
Relax (kinda)
Truth IS an absolute defense in Libel and slander cases. Also, journalists and their publications (which your front page would presumably qualify as) have higher protections, they would have to prove not only that it was untrue but that their reputation had been irrevocably damaged AND that the inaccuracies were stated ON PURPOSE. A very difficult standard. As for the bulletin boards, I'm assuming you already have a disclaimer somewhere that the opinions stated are those of the user and not necessarilly thoughts. That's the RELAX part.
The real reason companies sue publications is to make them defend themselves in court. Lawyers, especially good ones, cost a LOT of money. Imagine spending $100k defending yourself from a $10million suit. Kinda makes you sad. The mere threat of litigation was so worrisome that it made 60 min's pull their anti-tabacco story until other journalists found out about it and shamed them into airing it several years ago. You may prevail, but it may be a pyrrhic victory. 8O
|
| |
|
|
|
01-10-2003, 11:06 PM
|
|
5000+ Posts? I Should OWN This Site!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,133
|
|
Legally, I don't believe the suit has any basis. If I were one of the people sued, I would countersue. While it might be difficult to afford an attorney to defend themselves, I think an attorney might be much more interested with an easy countersuit, and might be convinced to do both for a cut of the countersuit.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
