Slashdot Mirror
Domain-Name Protest Is Protected Speech
Lunartik links to this Detroit Free Press report, writing "The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled Friday that Michelle Grosse did not violate the law when she used the name of Lucas Nursery and Landscaping Inc. for a Web site she created to complain about the Canton, MI nursery. 'This is a very important case,' said Paul Levy, staff attorney with the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. 'This is a mainstream circuit court that said using the Internet and the name of the company to criticize a company is perfectly legitimate.'"
What are you talking about? 2600 won that lawsuit.
A link courtesy of the archive.org.
Ok, So the the federal courts have ruled in favor of these people, this is a Good Thing[TM] IMHO...However, who's to say they can't try to then persue this through ICANN which has its own rather nutty Domain Dispute Policy which has done things like uphold a claim by Molson (beer) to own canadian.biz (which was later overturned in canadian courts...) Who exactly has the ultimate jurisdiction here?
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
A summary of that decision is here. The basics of the case are that the defendant used the company name in conjunction with the term "sucks" and Bally sued because the site could "confuse" consumers. Of course, Bally thankfully lost.
Today, there are several sites that warn about Bally Total Fitness' fraudulent and misrepresentative activities.
According to archive.org, 7/20/2001, the page read as below. Seems like a very straightforward and factual complaint, unlike many of the xxxxsucks.com domains I see now. My Lucas Landscaping Experience I hired Lucas in Canton, MI to landscape my new home last year. I was very displeased with the results. Here is my story. Lucas didn't use slag sand for the base of any retaining walls. The results you can see above -- sinking walls. After less than a month and lots of rain, the walls sank in three places. Brick circles built around two identical trees between the sidewalk and curb were made two different sizes. Lucas refused to repair them. The ground was not prepped before sod was laid. Unfiltered topsoil and sod were laid on top of existing weeds. The grade in the backyard was altered to prevent proper drainage. Inspectors from Canton Township confirmed this. Most of the sod was laid hastily during a rain storm which resulted in numerous holes throughout the lawn. Sprinkler heads were covered up by sod -- (they did fix that the next day). Lucas does NOT warranty sod so they refused to repair the holes. What I didn't realize until it was too late was that Lucas would not take credit cards or a personal check, they wanted cash or money orders only. This provided me with no way to hold back payment until my concerns were addressed. I've learned a very expensive lesson about fine print in contracts. I wish I'd gotten those verbal promises in writing. The Better Business Bureau was usless. Lucas never once came out to look at the finished product. Instead they replied to the BBB with an absurd letter. Apparently that is all they need to do to stay in good standing. I paid $5400 to a second contractor to remove all of the sod and retaining walls, regrade, rebuild walls and lay all new sod. My landscaping is now beautiful! Many, many more photos are available if you are interested. Feel free to e-mail me today.
For those interested to learn more about Public Citizen, here is their website.
well, it is, as long as you do it in a medium where nobody cares (ranting at pals in your living room) or where it costs you a ton of money and nobody pays any attention because you are not a well known content provider (tv, any print media) or where you get arrested for disturbing the peace (car-mounted loudspeaker). but if you think for one second that 500 meg/50 gig shell/ftp/email account you pay $5/month for gives you the right to besmirch the public-minded selfless corporate sugar-daddys who improve your sad little existence on a daily basis, and to do it in front of the entire wired planet, at no additional cost, well, you are a thief and a traitor to the [insert greed-driven dog-eat-dog financial philosophy of choice here] dream. and that's the reason we'll have that upstart internet so enmeshed in restrictive laws - within a short time we'll have made the internet safe for business, just like tv is now! </bile>
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Conversely, had she been selling "Lucas Nursery Sucks!" T-Shirts, or had provably falsified the complaint, then she would've been acting in bad faith (out to either profit through bashing them, or engaging in slander) and therefore would have lost the case.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
The full text of the opinion here if you're interested.
"The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
But the domian name was *NOT* the company's legal name. It was "www.lucasnursery.com" that you may imply belonged to "Lucas Nursery and Landscaping Inc."
Since she did not sell or offer to sell the site so cyber-squating was out.
If PETA did grab McD's first they would still in control, if they did not offer it for sale. That is why Mr Nissan lost use of his site in a fight with Nissan Motor Corp.
Though my opinion he was business man working under his name as a business name first, so Missan Motors should be paying him.
http://www.nissan.com
Libel is false and malicious by definition.
... (Duhaime's Law Dictionary) Georgia Code 51-5-1 G states: A libel is a false and malicious defamation of another, expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs, tending to injure the reputation of the person and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. The publication of the libelous matter is essential to recovery. Section 51-5-3 further says: A libel is published as soon as it is communicated to any person other than the party libeled. ..."
To answer your specific question ("can it be libel if it's true), yes it can.
To ask the question you probably wanted to ask:
"Can it be libel if it's fairly and accurately presented without prejudice, and it's true?"
No, it can't.
Be prepared to defend yourself and your facts; a supporting conviction would help. Careful how you phrase things.
"
Most jurisdictions would define it similarly. Check yours first.
Now we just need a judgement striking down "Thou shalt not speak badly of us," terms in EULAs, which have been used to intimidate publications into not running negative reviews.
I believe there have been cases where these clauses were struck down. Of course, if I read this groklaw article about the difference between a license and a contract correctly, an EULA can't actually prevent you from doing anything that isn't forbidden by law. If this is the case, I'm surprised nobody has tried to use this point as a defence.
These clauses tend not to be policed too heavily anyway. A lot of publishers can't afford to back down. Since they rely on their reputation, they have to fight for the right to print their honest opinion.
I thought that in the US, the truth was an absolute defense against libel?
I believe that in the UK and other countries, that might not be the case.
Disclaimers: IANAL (nor do I play on on TV). IAN British.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
It's interesting that you mentioned PETA, which was involved in one of the earlier domain name disputes. peta.org once pointed to a site which linked to webpages pages dealing with animal products and hunting, under the banner People Eating Tasty Animals. Sadly, the lobbists managed to take control of the domain.
You can still find a copy of the page at http://mtd.com/tasty/ Since it is so old, most of the links are broken. However, the hate mail section is still up.
So if PETA had beaten mcdonalds.com in registering that domain name, it would still take you to a protest site today.
Bad example, someone beat peta to the punch on registering peta.org, they sued him for it. Primarily because his "organization" was the People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. Eventually Peta won and they now control the domain name, but here is an archive of the original peta.org page.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
What's sad is the fact that the media's reporting of legal issues is so shoddy and rife with partisanship that people seem to think some circuits are overturned more often than others, when this is not the case.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?