Tempers Flare Over Ill-Tempered Sword Remarks

msaulters writes "The Austin American Statesman is reporting on Daniel Watson, a Hays County swordsmith who is suing a group of San Francisco-based techies, charging that they extorted him by posting negative comments regarding his sword-making business on the discussion forums they host and then offering to clamp down on such comments if he bought advertising with them. On the one hand, this sounds very chilling, as the defendants, Sword Forum International, are very well-known and respected in the world of sword-making, and abuse of that position would be very un-cool. On the other hand, they make some valid points in the article, and historically, the ability to express your opinions freely online is one aspect of the internet that arguably should never be curtailed."

Comments

Libel

[Picass0]

If the site's staff are expressing an opinion, it is protected speech. It they are attempting to pass off BS as fact and damaging the reputation of the swordmaker, it's libel. He can sue them and he should win. You have the freedom to say anything you want in America, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences if you're a liar.

"I think you suck" is an opinion.

"You suck and here's a bunch of untrue claims about you" is libel.

There are existing laws that can be enforced if any have been broken. There is no need for news laws, or any reason for this to have a chilling effect on web sites.

so the website is mightier than the sword?

[Sevn]

someone was going to say it