Charter School Firm Attacks Online Criticism

Lane writes "News-Press.com reports that 'Charter Schools USA is threatening legal action against parents who use an Internet discussion board to air grievances about Gateway Charter.'" This despite comments which the parents say are based on the public record, and posted anonymously.

Comments

So much for freedom of speech

[jnmontario]

Another great example of somebody with expensive lawyers telling (read: threatening) the average person what they can do or think. Yay America.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[karmaflux]

Listen closely: this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?

Looking at some of the comments on that site, I can see why CSUSA thinks they have a case. Most of the worst posts have now been deleted, but the parents were in there accusing teachers of all kinds of horrible crimes, as well as CSUSA of condoning them.

If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.

You're so worried about "freedom of speech" -- a concept which you seem not to understand -- but you seem to have forgotten all about "due process of law."

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[karmaflux]

You sort of missed the point there. If you are getting ripped off, then you are legally entitled to tell anyone who'll listen about your woes.

However, if Bob's clerk is rude to you, and you begin parading around town claiming that Bob raped your family and set fire to an orphanage, you are breaking the law.

If CSUSA wants to take Reigelman to court, they must think they have proof that some statements on her message board are false, and they must think they have a legal right to justice.

Now, if CSUSA doesn't have any evidence that the postings were libelous, then Reigelman will win the suit (and will also win her countersuit for legal fees, if her lawyers are worth a damn). They may even be found guilty of barratry.

The point is that this is not a frivolous lawsuit or a First Amendment violation. This is a company taking the matter before a judge, because they think they have been wronged. This is how things are supposed to work. This is due process.

As a side, note, because the site owner claims to monitor the site -- specifically because she claims that all the content is "fact-based" -- the ceases to be protected by the laws that protect, say, Slashdot from being held responsible for the idiocy of Anonymous Coward. She has taken responsibility for the content of her site, and so she is now going to have to prove that all those angry posts are based entirely in fact.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Due process involves the right to a fair and public trial and thus is applicable here. That is, Ms. Reigelman has the opportunity to defend herself and CSUSA has the opportunity to sue. Neither side gets dimissed out-of-hand.

Also in your second paragraph you're forgetting about the discovery process. Many of the worst forum posts have been deleted, which probably would have satisfied CSUSA, but now the website users are claiming nothing they have ever said was a lie, and that CSUSA is bullying them, which could just be more defamation. Only through discovery can there be resolution on that.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[mejesster]

Why does this have nothing to do with freedom of speech? Yes, libel is against the law, but this wouldn't be the first time we, as a society, have questioned what exactly the Constitution means in its language, nor would it be the first time that we have reconsidered such things. Most importantly, despite the potential merits of the case, I think both I and many others here are particularly concerned about the idea of a discussion-based internet community (like say, slashdot) being sued out of existence by some company trying to make a couple extra cents or cover its ass.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution. It is very clear in what it is intended to mean. The main purpose is to protect the rights of the people or the press to criticize the government without having to worry about "disappearing" in the middle of the night. That is something that happens in too many countries. If this company is doing all of these horrible things, then the parents should take their case to court. If they are making this up the company has every right to press them to desist.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Charter schools aren't just any corporation. They receive taxpayer money to do a job usually performed by government bodies (public schools) and are therefore acting as an arm of government. So yeah, I'd say this is a First Amendment issue.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[An Onerous Coward]

No, this isn't "a company taking the matter before a judge." It's a company threatening to take matters before a judge unless an entire forum is nuked.

The fact is, the C&D claim there are unlawful, defamatory, and libelous statements being published, but aren't willing to cite specific instances of unlawful, defamatory, or libelous statements. That indicates--at least to my twisted, paranoid mind--that the lawyers know they don't actually have a case, and are hoping to shut the site down with pure, unadulterated braggadacio.

Also, you admit the possibility that the lawyers might end up being found guilty of barratry, and then claim with absolute certainty that "this is not a frivolous lawsuit". These cannot both be true.

Finally, your analysis of the website owner's legal liabilities is probably misguided. It may be that all she is required to do is to talk to the people who wrote the "defamatory" posts, and have them give their assurance that everything happened as the poster said. Otherwise, reporters wouldn't be protected from lawsuits if it turns out their sources were fraudulent.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[dougmc]

it would indicate libel as libel relies on accusing a person of something that would be considered illegal in a court of law.

You seem to be confused about what libel means.

Libel does not have to be `accusing somebody of doing something that's illegal' -- all it has to do is damage somebody's reputation. (It (the claim made) also has to be false.)

If I accuse you of having lots of one night stands with random women, that might damage your reputation, especially if you're a priest or married. But having that sex is not against the law, but my claim may still be libel -- as long as it's not true.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander claims, though our legal system can make it very expensive to even defend yourself against a claim of libel, even if you have that proof.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[tom's a-cold]

If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.

This argument might make some degree of sense in those cases where there is no connection between the government and corporations. The reality is that "charter school" firms exist solely due to government fiat.

The whole reason there is freedom of speech is to make it possible to criticize government policy. If my local school board and teachers are not doing their job to my satisfaction, I have the right to criticize them. I'm sure that even you will agree with this.

Now the governor decides to privatize the provision of my kids' education. That's what a "charter school" is in case you didn't realize. So suddenly that same criticism of the same public service is no longer criticism of the government, it's defaming a company? The rule should be that speech regarding the performance of companies funded by the government is the same as speech regarding the government itself. Otherwise your fundamental right is being abridged solely because some bureaucrat decided to contract out. That's nothing but a slimy way for them to duck accountability.

So...

[thegoogler]

Are they going to sue slashdot?

Bad move

[A beautiful mind]

Honestly, i couldn't have found a worse course of action to take by that organization, to dig their own grave. First they only had to deal with 65 parents, now its in the press. Talk about bad PR.

Are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll get invited on morning shows, they'll hire a professional public speaker, and they'll stay on message, which will include God/Jesus. Now is the time to buy stock, not short it.

Money to blow...

[Hexzero]

Sometimes media attention and a little /.ing is all it takes for a travesty to come to the mainstream. A charter school that wastes its time and financial resources on a lawsuite that can be considered frivoulous at best, should not be recieving state and gov't funds. Just another crap use for the joke the gov't calls no child left behind. Yeah, I am sure the funds are not connected. ERate is that perfect.... How much is a retainer for a medium-sized firm? Lets deduct that from the per head dollar amount the school gets from the state. Could that money have been used more efficiently? Probably... Perhaps we can get the government involved next. Senate hearings on closing the website down... Sounds like a viable option in todays government...

difficult to deal with

[Inigo Montoya]

This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.

Sad.

Re:difficult to deal with

[notque]

This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.

Sad.

It's only sad if they are not difficult to deal with, which from the message board it would seem they are.

I would think the administration would want to deal with their concerns head on. If they are wrong on the message board, that would easily be addressed at a PTO meeting.

Which CSU has canceled until the end of the School year.

Seems pretty difficult to deal with to me.

That's the great thing about privatization

[smchris]

Accountability!

Oh? Never mind.

Re:First Amendment?

[Bloater]

If anything stops the nonsense I hear about in America it will be parents. Mothers are a force to be reckoned with.

Right...

[Rev.LoveJoy]

CNN clearly never does this.

-- RLJ

Re:This is a job for 'offshore ISP'

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, the US citizen is still attackable, but the plantiff now has the problem of proving who the owner of the website is. Good luck with that.

(notice I said "proving", as in proving in a court of law. Figuring out who the owner is woud be a simple job for a private investigator, if perhaps somewhat expensive. Just trace the money)

Having read the forum...

[Sfing_ter]

Having read the forum, these people think that their children are attending a "private" school. A charter school is a school that is not run by the public school structure but is bound by their rules... Many of the arguments and problems they have (claimed/state) are the same things that happen in "public"schools. They need to do some reality checking, if they go to the local school board they can get a lot more done than what they are doing now.

Also, these people are citizens of the Hangin-Chad state o' FlowRidda. It is now wonder they do not understand what is going on or how to go about getting things done.

Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[kfg]

No, if you read the mission statement you'll find the school itself is the product, so the poor kids don't even have that going for them.

The kids are the natural resource. Have you seen how they handle natural resources?

KFG