Blog Faces Lawsuit Over Reader Comments

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "In a legal case being watched closely by bloggers, an Internet company has sued the owner of a blog for comments posted to his site by readers, the Wall Street Journal Online reports. Traffic-Power.com, which sells tools for boosting Web traffic, sued Aaron Wall, age 25, over statements posted in the comments section of Wall's search-engine-optimization blog, SEOBook.com. (Wall also has posted about the case.) 'Legal analysts said the case falls into somewhat murky legal territory, but that Mr. Wall may have some protection from liability under federal law,' WSJ.com says. 'Courts generally have held that the operators of computer message boards and mailing lists cannot be held liable for statements posted by other people. Blogs might be viewed in a similar light, they said.' However, Daniel Perry, a lawyer who has followed the case, says that Wall's case is complicated by his own negative comments about Traffic-Power, which could be seen as a competitor to his site. 'To be candid, he sort of moved into this moving propeller,' Perry said. 'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'"

Comments

Sure, now even less blogs with readership

[Neo Minder]

ALthough not a blog reader myself, other I know do read them daily. There have been reports in the last few years as well about companies going after employee blogers. Now these types of issue start popping up. Blogs the true free press? We shall see. ----- The Neo Minder

Re:Sure, now even less blogs with readership

[Rei]

It could be worse. In Iraq, Khalid Jarrar was recently arrested for simply viewing comments in a blog.

Re:Sure, now even less blogs with readership

[javamann]

Spoken like a true 'Anonymous Coward'

Re:Sure, now even less blogs with readership

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you sound like a terrorist. Perhaps we should lock you away for a few months.

Re:Sure, now even less blogs with readership

[budgenator]

REI, honestly, you're too smart to really belive that bullshit aren't you, the writing is too uneven, it's from several people trying to perp a hoax.
think about
1 Khalid is from a country where untill recently being arrested meant you just disapeared unless you were being made into an example and you and your family were tortured for days, then released.
2. he was arrested for viewing a blog.
3. then he tells what happened in a blog!
just doesn't make sense

Re:Sure, now even less blogs with readership

[mikael]

I'm curious - was Orwell's "1984" translated into Arabic? I tried a Google search and couldn't find anything.

Re:Sure, now even less blogs with readership

[Rei]

As someone who has personally corresponded with the whole family before as one of the organizers of the ill-fated Jarrar Family Tour of the United States, and met people who met them personally, I can assure you that they are quite real. Raed, Khalid's brother, is the Raed of "Dear Raed" fame (infamous "Salam Pax"'s blog, the owner of which later ended up becoming a journalist, and who earlier was the interpreter of Slate reporter Peter Maass). He's also a friend of Ghaith ("G in Baghdad"), a reporter for "The Guardian", who has published some amazing articles in the paper. Raed was also one of the heads of CIVIC in Iraq, which is anything but a fictional organization. Here's a Democracy Now interview with Raed, in case you want to hear his voice.

Also, my nick is Rei, not REI (an outdoor gear store).

If you want great English, read Raed's blog. His brother Khalid doesn't speak as well as he does (although is quite readable), and his mother Faiza often has to rely on a translator.

Re:Sure, now even less blogs with readership

[Rei]

1984 is famous the world over. And yes, there is an arabic edition.

Power of the pulpit

[the_rev_matt]

"The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people."

Actually, that's one of the greatest strengths of the internet. True freedom of speech.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Beatbyte]

"The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people."

Actually, that's one of the greatest strengths of the internet. True freedom of speech.

That's the way it was. Unfortunately with the profitability of the Internet as a whole, the U.S. government wants to "own" it and therefore make it follow it's rules... Sadly I don't seeing anyone fighting it.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[twiddlingbits]

Mod -2 Uninformed Comment. The US Gov't does NOT own the Internet. And every attempt to regulate content in the USA has been struck down, except that DMCA crap the RIAA uses and I think that is coming. Free Speech has NEVER EVER been 100% free, for example you can't slander/libel someone, you can't yell FIRE in a crowd, etc. There are lots of folks fighting the overly broad restrictions, such as the EFF and the ACLU as well as others.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

Read his post again. He says "WANTS to own it". From what trends I've noticed as well, I'd have to agree with him. Court rulings are repeatedly trying to push jurisdiction farther than they should.

The Internet was much better before all the commercialism ruined it. Now, any company that sees any negative opinions on their products just start jumping up and down, crying like little babies, and start using the legal system as a stick to beat their enemies with. Suck it up, fix your product, and realise that not everyone is going to like you. Weren't people taught this back in elementary school? It's pathetic.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[ifwm]

It's not freedom of speech that's the issue here.

It's freedom from the consequences of your speech that is being debated.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[kilodelta]

True freedom of speech is being quashed at every opportunity by those who have a greater financial status.

Of course every once in a while David beats Goliath but on the whole we get squeezed tighter and tighter every day.

This is precisely why I use an alias on any blog I post to.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Eil]

"The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people."

You mean, if I were to say this:

"Daniel Perry is a two-bit fucktard who plainly doesn't understand what the Internet is all about. He spreads lies, deceit, and only wants to sue people for their hard-earned money while he accepts fat checks from his clients. What a worm, that guy."

That would mean Slashdot might be held liable in a lawsuit, amiright?

Also, if you're not allowed to make negative comments about people on the Internet, then about 98% of all blogs ever written would be in violation of the law.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[vain gloria]

Actually, that's one of the greatest strengths of the internet. True freedom of speech.

That's true freedom of speech proportionate to access, which is often a function of wealth. People on dial-up or using the facilities in their local library have significantly less of this freedom of speech than you or I, as do schoolkids without home access. Those using public facilities may also find that their freedom of speech is curtailed by restrictions placed by the providers of that service. That's without even touching on the inability of those less tech-savvy (sometimes through choice) to fully exercise this same freedom or those living under more restrictive regimes.

The freedom you describe is that of the individual, not an overarching concept or automatic right enjoyed by the entire net community.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Drooling Iguana]

I thought that freedom of speech was one of the US's rules.

(P.S. There's no apostrophe in "its" when it's used to denote posession. The apostrophe should only be used to indicate a contraction of "it is." Just so ya know.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[computational super]

Sadly I don't seeing anyone fighting it.

Actually, Ian Clarke is - but unfortunately, he rarely gets much support... any mention of Freenet here, for example, turns into "You don't care about Chinese dissidents, you're just enabling child pornographers". Well, forget Chinese dissidents; I'm more concerned about "corporate dissidents". How long before people who post book reviews on Amazon.com get sued for slander when they say that a book's no good? Freenet has the capability to turn the internet back into what it ought to have been from the start.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Kainaw]

Actually, that's one of the greatest strengths of the internet. True freedom of speech.

Don't confuse freedom of speech with freedom to say anything you want. I am free to state that I disagree with your views. I am not free to state that I saw you rape and murder two nuns last thursday because (hopefully) it is not true. Blogs are usually unmoderated and commonly full of half-truths or outright lies. Even /. lies repeatedly with the phrase "received a patent" when it should read "applied for a patent" or "passed a law" when it should read "submitted a proposal". In my view, blogs are dangerous because the half-truths build up over time and form a national point-of-view that is absolutely wrong. Then, you end up looking like a wacko when you say something like, "Lincoln stated in his first debate with Douglass that blacks are 'not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment.'" Perhaps every blog requires a factcheck.org sidebar.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

>if you're not allowed to make negative comments about people on the Internet,

that's an over-simlification, isn't it?

negative comments: some are just negative, others cause real harm. If you go out of the way to spread an untruth that you know will cause financial or other damage, you can be legally held liable for your actions. That's true in print, tv, radio, etc, why shouldn't it apply on the net?

But this issue is really about who is responsible, isn't it? The anonymous caller to a radio talk show or the radio station? The anonymous poster on a blog or the owner/publisher of the blog?

Re:Power of the pulpit

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Actually, Ian Clarke is - but unfortunately, he rarely gets much support... any mention of Freenet here, for example, turns into "You don't care about Chinese dissidents, you're just enabling child pornographers".

That's because he is going about it the wrong way. Freenet simply is not capable of delivering what he claims its design goals are (and spare me links to fake Chinese dissident's sites please which cannot be accessed by them using the Web). In oppressive countries, as soon as you are found to be using Freenet (i.e. your PC has Freenet packets coming in/out) your ass is crass for "anti-government" activities. You see, there is no "but I am entitled to sending encrypted data!" defense there. So for that purpose, unless some radical stealth system is put in place involving magic and pixie dust, Freenet is useless for these dissidents.

It can be useful in the West, where you do enjoy these rights to privacy (somewhat) but then, instead of fighting for your rights, you are simply giving in and for every encroachement on your freedoms, you simply try to hide deeper in the grasses of the Internet to escape the "man" and his laws. Wrong strategy, because if you keep it up, sooner or later you will find yourself in jail just for having Freenet client installed as the laws become repressive enough to match these less-then-civilized countries of the so called "axis of evil".

Freenet is a curious technological idea but it is completely wrong-headed and impractical, and in fact extremely dangerous to the not-quite-technical-savvy dissidents who might get a false sense of security by trying to use the damn thing and find themselves in the slammer shortly afterwards.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Weren't people taught this back in elementary school?"

Back in elementary school I was taught:

The bigger kids get more lunch money.

Being popular is more important that being smart, honest, skilled, etc.

Fair means that things are structured so that everyone is all the same (everyone passes to the next grade, everyone gives a valentine to everyone else)

Re:Power of the pulpit

[digitalrevolution]

I agree. Even if the blog owner had written it himself it should be fine. He paid for his web site didn't he. Nobody is forced to look at his blog.
What's next ? Sue me because I have a Sore-Loserman bumper sticker ?

Re:Power of the pulpit

[glassjaw rocks]

"That would mean Slashdot might be held liable in a lawsuit, amiright?"

Possibly. But I doubt it.

"Also, if you're not allowed to make negative comments about people on the Internet, then about 98% of all blogs ever written would be in violation of the law."

You do know the difference between a negative comment and libel, don't you?

libel:
      1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
      2. The act of presenting such material to the public.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.

Didn't it start out using military funding? So at one point it was meant to be used to beat people up, in a rather round-about fashion...

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Silicon Jedi]

Wow, you are an uncreative moron with no sense of purpose or destiny. I hate the weak willed.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

So why isn't the discussion about whether what he said is true as opposed to whether or not he has the right to say it?

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Daniel Perry is only someone who is following the case online right?

Re:Power of the pulpit

[IgnoramusMaximus]

1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

And how do you determine its falseness? Court trial? A trial initiated by, say, a 2 billion dollars a year corp against your basement-dwelling (hypotetically) ass. Result: no freedom of speech whatsoever as the court costs alone will utterly ruin you before you even get to the actual trial proper. For practical example, check out the "RIAA vs. teenagers" circus. Result: no freedom of speech against those powerful enough to shut you up.

I am not sure, but I dont think this is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. Specially that some of them were great believers in anonymous speech, publishing under pseudonyms themselves. See "Publius".

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

teh internets pwned by teh gov't? bad thought. bad thought. bad thought, no biscuit!

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.

Of course it is - What a stupid comment.

And if this case proves otherwise, I expect to see many "child" lawsuits filed when the next election comes up, since elections are the best example of using the Internet to beat up others.

Damn... Gotta remember to fwd. my /. login info to work... I hate being an Anonymous Coward.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[cyberworm]

"Daniel Perry is a two-bit fucktard who plainly doesn't understand what the Internet is all about. He spreads lies, deceit, and only wants to sue people for their hard-earned money while he accepts fat checks from his clients. What a worm, that guy." That is a libelous statement (or is it slander, I forget which is printed, and which is spoken) but the main point I do remember from my high school journalism class, is that if the words "It is my opinion;" "I think that;" or any other verbage that plainly states it's an opinion, changes the position of the statement altogether. Opinions when noted as such, are protected free speech. When you boldly make an opinion, and express it as if it were fact, then you are in fact in a position to be acted against by "Daniel Perry" in a court of law, and your only defense is to prove your statement true in a court of law. IANAL

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

I taught your mom back in elementary school. heh heh.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[klept]

Actually, they're the same thing. If you have to worry about consequences, then you dont have free speech. If the rich can sue you for opening your mouth, you dont have freedom of speech. And trust me, I have been around some of the mega rich. They are wackos beyond our wildest imagination. Better to ere on the side of free speech so we can keep all our freedoms. "The public interest takes precedence over the private"-Plato

Re:Power of the pulpit

[makomk]

Freenet does have its uses in free, democratic countries. For example, it probably makes a good early warning sign - if the government starts clamping down on its use, time to break out the ammo boxes and prepare for a revolution.

It might also have other uses in a country transforming from free to a dictatorship - I don't know. That really remains to be seen - and hopefully we won't have to find out.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

Your comment might be valid if it was another situation, but not this one.

If you read the article, or even just the Slashdot blurb about it, you will see that SEOBook.com and Whatever-Power.com are 2 sites about the same thing : Optimizing your site position in a search engine.

Thus, they are competitor. Its more like if Ronald McDonald was publicly saying that The Who's-your-King-Now guy was a fraud. Its not just a random, out of the blue blogger's opinion about something.

Of course, Ronald might litigate that The King tried to run a fake McDonald behind is back in the first place, which seems to be what happen between SOEBook and Traffic-Power. Traffic Power opened a fake web forum to cash in on the SOE eBook popularity, and to slander that Wells character at the same time.

Anyway, I don't see how this thing would be something followed by every blogger, its a dispute over 2 money making business, not a blogger and a business... but IANABS (I am not a blogger scum)

Re:Power of the pulpit

[aaqubed]

Apparently YOU missed some of the article, as well. Or, atleast, you missed the title. "Blog Faces Lawsuit Over Reader Comments."

That's where the Ronald McDonald analogy fails. It's more like if a guy sitting in a McDonald's started slandering Burger King, with a Burger King exec right next to him (and recording it). The Ronald McDonald of this situation did not make the comment in question, he just failed to remove it. That is why bloggers are following this. It's not just a dispute between two money-making businesses, it's a dispute regarding comments made by visitors to a website of one of the businesses about the other.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Perry said. 'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'" aren't Slashdot posters then guilty as h*ll of bashing Microsoft so gleefully? Take ALL the friggin lawyers and put them in Iran or China for a couple months.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Klaus Obermeyer]

It's not freedom of speech that's the issue here.

It's freedom from the consequences of your speech that is being debated.

And under Slashdot law the consequence of that comment is death.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Freenet does have its uses in free, democratic countries. For example, it probably makes a good early warning sign - if the government starts clamping down on its use,

I hope you have you ammo boxes handy as this is bound to happen rather soon. Freenet use is at this point nearly completely restricted to child pornography and a small number of die-hard believers in the concept of Freenet, since the supposed target audience, the dissidents, would be nuts to use it, for the reasons I described. This distribution of contents makes Freenet a sitting duck for the "Think Of The Children" political charlatans, and it also makes any defense of Freenet impossible in a typical political context. I really think that Freenet is such a wrong-headed implementation of a sounds-good-on-paper idea that it does far more harm than good to the struggle for preservation of Freedom of Speech and other Liberties.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

You determine it's falseness by whether it's untrue or not.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[m50d]

OT but how does he get modded up for this? It's not original, there's even someone saying it in the next post above him, it's not insightful, it sounds like it's being repeated by rote.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

From the blurb, and the article : "However, Daniel Perry, a lawyer who has followed the case, says that Wall's case is complicated by his own negative comments about Traffic-Power, which could be seen as a competitor to his site. 'To be candid, he sort of moved into this moving propeller,' Perry said. 'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people."

This is more than visitors related comments. He joined the party.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[m50d]

Everyone is "weak willed" at that age, they don't know any better. You can't blame elementary school kids for being impressionable, they're kids.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[budgenator]

libel:
1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

I wonder if that means that Traffic Power has a burden of proof that their reputation is capable of suffering damage rather than being irreputable? This link to the Los Vegas BBB
suggests the they have little in the way of reputation to damage especialy the part,

2005 The Bureau has been unable to ascertain that the firm has a valid business license. Consumers who do business with an unlicensed firm do so at their own risk.

More seriously the other part of the law suit is about trade secrets, which unless Navada has some bizzaro laws, doesn't means that the "secret" can't be used by anyone as if it were some self-declared patent, but actualy has to be a secret. If somebody else discorves the secret through ligitimate means, the Secret owner is shit outa luck.

I've gotten the impression that Trade Secret has been using commonly available search engine spamming techniques to temporarily raise the clients page ranks, and the clients now realise that what they purchased is both common knowlege and ineffective for a period longer than it takes the check to clear. Having clients sign a NDA, to keep common knowlege secret probably wouldn't hold up in court very well either.

The other thing that occured to me is that Traffic Power seems to thing that most of the people posting comments on SEO book are astroturfers, kinda makes you wonder what they are up to don't it.

For anybody who has used Traffic power or any of its DBA'a here a link to WEB Pro NEWS explaining how to get your website re-indexed by Google after it has been search engine optimised by Traffic Power and therefore remove from Googles index. Getting banned from Google for using a search engine optimizer is pretty intense.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[the phantom]

Thank goodness for the ACLU. Seriously, if a 2 billion dollar corporation decided to sue my ass, and I had a case, but could not defend it, I am fairly sure that the ACLU or some other organization would be more than willing to help out.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[ikkonoishi]

Libel. Not Slander.

Slander is speech.

Libel is printed. /pedantic

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Eil]

It's a little sad that you have to explicitly mark opinion as such. I guess I've just always taken for granted that everything I read or hear is somebody's opinion unless there's some kind of proof behind it.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You determine it's falseness by whether it's untrue or n

This sounds good in theory and is reasonably easy when it comes to, say, laws of physics. Try the same for an accusation of "Corp X is a thief, they used political influence to get law L enacted, they should be investigated ..." etc.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Thank goodness for the ACLU. Seriously, if a 2 billion dollar corporation decided to sue my ass, and I had a case, but could not defend it, I am fairly sure that the ACLU or some other organization would be more than willing to help out.

Isn't this why O'Reilly on FOX wants ACLU declared an anti-american "terrorist organization" or something to that effect?

Re:Power of the pulpit

[cyberworm]

yeah, but you know what they say "I read it on the internets, it must be true." ;)

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Foobar of Borg]

Isn't this why O'Reilly on FOX wants ACLU declared an anti-american "terrorist organization" or something to that effect?

Well, that and screaming, "Shut up! You shut up!" to guests who are able to make decent points against his raving. The sad thing is that he is probably the sanest talking head on FAUX News.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[rtb61]

Don't confuse facts and opinions. You have every right to voice your opinion not matter how damaging to others it is. You have no right to voice facts unless you have proof and most importantly the money to enable you to show the proof. Publish online in what ever form and beware to remember the legal niceties or if not be able to defend yourself or at the very least inflict considerably more harm upon them then they can upon you.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[ifwm]

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

You can't say things that aren't true in order to harm someone. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Go back to social studies class.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[ifwm]

So why didn't you get modded off topic, and more importantly, why are you such a crybaby about it?

Re:Power of the pulpit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and one of the great strengths of the real world is that you are held accountable for what you say, even if you do it on the internet.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[m50d]

I'm not being a crybaby, I'm complaining in the hope that it will change things. Insightful moderations should go to things which actually are insightful.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[klept]

Well, if it's the stupidist thing you ever heard, I suggest you read up on the current US law and US Supreme court decisions for over 30 years. Your crowded theatre argument is an ancharcism, and actually was used by Justice Holmes as a hyperbole and a specious analogy to suppress someone's free speech. That yelling fire in a theatre has to do with a seperate body of law, like terristic threatning. The defamation law today leans toward free speech, and the reason is what I originally stated. The interests of free speech are much more imporant than somebody's hurt feelings. Oh there are a lot exceptions to this general law, but it has to be quite vicious and quite damaging, and the exceptions many times are quite narrow and qualified. And when it has to do with public figures, issues, and politics, there are no exceptions. Free speech rules. And the present case, as I understand it, in Slashdot, had to do about someone giving an evaluative opinion about a product. And that too bro is free speech with what I recall are no exceptions. See I may not like a fool like you calling me stupid. But it is your right. Unfortunately there are a lot of wackos out there that make a lot of noise that obscure the imperative issues in a democracy. But if they werent allowed free speech, then none of us would have it. Paying too much attention to them is the real culprit, but then that is another issue. Please try not to abuse your freedom too much in the future, and understand that tolorance of others thinking will make life better for all of us.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[ifwm]

Funny how you're being a crybaby while claiming not to be a crybaby.

WAAAHHHHHAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Power of the pulpit

[m50d]

By your apparent line of thinking anyone who complains about anything is a crybaby. Gandhi, Lincoln, Mandella...

Ahem

[stecoop]

The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people

What makes you think your law applies in my country? I know that US law may like to be extended to every reach of the world but those countires own their internet too which would apply to their laws.

Re:Ahem

[Anonymous Coward]

ahem... as far as i can tell, all parites involved are located in the US, so US laws would apply to them. and where does it say the US is trying to enforce internet laws in other countries? looking for something to bitch about are we?

Re:Ahem

[Anonymous Coward]

lol what?

Re:Ahem

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT?!? Yeah damn US and their crazy notions of freedom of speech! Now did I miss something or is this story about a US company suing a US blog in US court? What is your country? Dumbland?

Re:Ahem

[ifwm]

So you WANT the ability to anonymously lie about people? Even when such lies have very real consequences?

Because I have heard that you like raping three year old boys. And then you eat them.

Re:Ahem

[Brandybuck]

So what country are you from, that it's an anarchist's utopia? I suspect that even in your earthly paradise, there are laws against slander, libel and perjury, and possibly against insider trading and false advertising as well. All of these acts involve speech. And all are illegal in most nations.

Re:Ahem

[poot_rootbeer]

What makes you think your law applies in my country?

My understanding is that most, if not all, industrialized nations have some sort of laws covering defamatory speech. And among those, the United States' laws are often more LENIENT than those in other countries.

Re:Ahem

[SlayerofGods]

/sigh
The plaintiff is a US company and the defendant is a US citizen.
That comment was directed at a case taking place entirely in the US legal system.
How is that comment insightful? It's more of trolling then anything else.

Re:Ahem

[msuarezalvarez]

I actually think that everyone has the right to lie, anonymously or not, about anything. I happen to think that one should not lie---but this is a rather different thing.

Now, these `real consequences' you mention: I think we all have a duty to make as sure as we can that those real consequences do not befall on anyone because of lies.

Note I have not said all this is easy!

Re:Ahem

[Anonymous Coward]

You're new to this world aren't you? Welcome to The United Nations of America, third planet from the sun.

Re:Ahem

[budgenator]

a better sumation is it's about a company that's service doesn't get you a better pagerank, but infact gets your site kicked off Google sueing somebody is a state court before that somebody's law suit in federal court gets heard, and quite possibly goes class-action.

hmm...

[justin12345]

'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'

This guy has obviously never been to /.

Two Slugs Battle It Out...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

So, honestly, two operators in a dirty business go at each other, my personal feeling is I hope they both go down. It's kind of like two porn sites arguing which has the sluttiest bitches...

Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out...

[SeekerDarksteel]

So, honestly, two operators in a dirty business go at each other, my personal feeling is I hope they both go down. It's kind of like two porn sites arguing which has the sluttiest bitches...

Yeah, when two sites are talking about their respective bitches I too hope they both go down.

Wait, you meant the porn sites, didn't you....nevermind...

Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out...

[truckaxle]

Nice analogy but I don't think it fully applies. There is nothing inherently evil about search engine optimization. The search engines are do or die for small e-commerce sites and optimizing your content to get the most notice is something you cannot ignore.

Now spamming link sites to increase your page ranking (ie getting more google votes) can be seen as sleazy. If you do a Google search on any niche product and look at the top google fetches typically will find a sleazy seo behind the scenes providing mass links. I wish google would improve it algorithm to validate these links.

Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you here. Nothing screams 'asshat' like "seo marketing".

Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out...

[javaxman]

Saeed says:
So, honestly, two operators in a dirty business go at each other, my personal feeling is I hope they both go down. It's kind of like two porn sites arguing which has the sluttiest bitches...

truckaxle says:Nice analogy but I don't think it fully applies. There is nothing inherently evil about search engine optimization.

Whoa there truckaxle... are you saying there's something inherently evil about slutty bitches? You've never met *good* slutty bitches? Trust me, they're out there...

Anyway, the analogy doesn't work because when two porn sites argue about who has the sluttiest bitches, they both win- it's called a publicity stunt. By contrast, when two search engine optimization companies sue, someone's going to end up paying a lawyer. So at least one of them is going to lose. That's how it's different.

Of course, what Saeed is really getting at is that he doesn't care. These guys can go screw each other, that's OK with him...

Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out...

[TheOldSchooler]

It's kind of like two porn sites arguing which has the sluttiest bitches...

Now there's a scenario where everyone wins!

Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out...

[Aggrav8d]

An interesting choice of analogy, considering you just said you "hope they both go down".

Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out...

[RM6f9]

Yea, verily! Amazingly, my sig here on /. bumps my link popularity. Makes me wish I had the time to set up a serious competitor to the "big" search engines.
    That someone would try to sue a blogger for posting opinion implies their belief in a probability of success: That is the part of this topic I find frightening.

Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out...

[m50d]

There is nothing inherently evil about search engine optimization.

A good search engine will show me the results I want to see, the most relevant to my query. Therefore any SEO technique must distort this, making their site appear higher than I would want it to. They are improving their profit at the expense of my searching, damaging in a tiny way the quality of life of many people. It's evil, plain and simple.

Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out...

[budgenator]

I wish google would improve it algorithm to validate these links.
I'm sure they are working on it in the meantime using traffic power's optimization thechniques seems to get you Blacklisted on Google.

Libel or 1st Amendment?

[emidln]

Maybe I don't understand, but if this isn't libel then isn't it covered under the 1st amendment's free speech clause?

Re:Libel or 1st Amendment?

[Fareq]

That's the crux of the matter, isn't it...

Trade Secrets and libel/defamation? Or just speech?

Well, somehow I doubt the whole trade-secrets thing... what is their secret "we're evil"?

Re: libel/defamation, the ultimate defense is truth. You can say all the nasty things you want about someone -- so long as they're true -- and it's not defamation or libel [or, rather, since my example said "say," slander].

Re:Libel or 1st Amendment?

[MoralHazard]

Sort of. The 1st amendment says that "congress shall make no law..." restricting your freedom of speech, and subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court have determined that this applies to acts of the Federal, state, and local governments in general. It does NOT say that private citizens can't restrict each others' speech.

The most obvious way the private citizens would restrict each others' speech is lawsuits, brought by one private citizen against another. Libel and slander are examples of this, where you can seek compensation from someone who's harmed you by saying or publishing falsehoods that damage your character. Trade secrets, nondisclosure agreements, and other kinds of claims can work, too.

It's possible to use these sorts of claims to put a prior restriction on another person's speech, such as if a business pre-emptively sues a newspaper to stop it from printing a libellous article. This usage is much less common, though, because the courts generally don't like to impose that kind of prior restraint on people. The burden to prove that some is GOING to damage you is a lot higher that proving someone has ALREADY damaged you.

While technically the courts are imposing and enforcing the restrictions and penalties on speech, it isn't considered a government action because the court is merely acting on behalf of the plaintiff in the lawsuit. It's kind of a semantic distinction, but it's necessary to preserve the existence of libel and slander and all the rest as actionable offenses (things you can sue over). And there are a lot of good reasons to keep those things in the law.

Re:Libel or 1st Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say everything UNTRUE you want about a company/people too...see for it to be slander/libel they DO have to PROVE damages...not just that said statement is untrue...So let me be the first to say fuck you stupid company who is sueing a blog...the bad press you get will surely help your cause you asshat.

Re:Libel or 1st Amendment?

[NubKnacker]

It's not that really.

The guy is being sued for comments made by 'others'. That's just going overboard. Like someone else pointed above, is Slashdot to be held responsible for comments made by us?
To a certain extent I'd say yes, if someone was advertising an anti-corporate site AND the /. editors refused to remove the comment. But only if it was brought to their attention.

Otherwise no. What, we're going to go around suing theregister.com's, Andrew Orlowski for pointing out that the new IE7 did not allow Google's searchbar to be installed? (Which turned out to be nothing more than a bug)

Dangerous Territory

[Nerdfest]

I'd spout off some disparaging comments about lawyers, but am now afraid to ....

Re:Dangerous Territory

[Dibson]

Don't be afraid. Didn't you read the article? Insult the lawyers and /. will take the blame!

Re:Dangerous Territory

[Overzeetop]

Hmmmm....time to punish Taco for all those dupes!

I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[bgfay]

I just bought a Scion xA and had to drive forty miles out of my way to do it. The reason was that my local dealership screwed around with me so much that I couldn't stand to buy from them.

I went on the site scionlife.com and in their "Review Dealers" section ripped Romano Scion of Syracuse, NY. I told how they had done me wrong and advised others to never shop there.

Is ScionLife liable? Am I? Is Slashdot liable now that I've put it up here?

And finally, if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to remove it, am I liable for a hate crime?

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[KinkifyTheNation]

Having a swastika on your garage door isn't a crime.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[vistic]

It depends if the swastika is a backwards Nazi one I guess. A normal swastika has been a symbol of good fortune for thousands of years in India.

I think people take slander, libel, and general censorship too seriously. Just remember that freedom of speech/expression of ideas is just an illusion in America. So watch your back.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[kraada]

Whether or not you actually are liable, you can (and may well) be sued for libel and defamation of character. Even if you're innocent, the question arises: how willing are you to defend yourself? How many lawyers will you hire for how many years just to prove you didn't do it?

The lawsuit isn't bad because the website is going to get convicted it's because if these suits are going to continue popping up websites will not be allowed to let comments be posted due to the cost of proving themselves innocent.

Being a litigious society sucks because of the amount of time and money wasted on lawyers. And that's really 99% of the reason why we should care.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhmm ... I just went and looked up your review. First, its hardly scathing. Second, if that is your worst experience at a car dealership, you are lucky. I mean, really, your description hardly makes it sound like they are "everything to despise about car dealers."

http://www.scionlife.com/dealers/romano_scion

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA? Don't think so.. yet.

However, in a place like Germany, you could be shackled up and jailed for it. No exaggeration here.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[bgfay]

Now that I re-read it, I see that you're probably right. I'm not as good at really flaming someone as I had hoped. Oh well. Still, I did say unkind things about them. Is this so different from what is being described in the article to which these comments are attached?

By the way, Scions are pretty cool. Go get one.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[ScentCone]

Is ScionLife liable? Am I? Is Slashdot liable now that I've put it up here?

I think the main question you should be asking is whether or not your comments were factually correct. If you're not BSing, you're not libeling. That doesn't stop you from getting sued, of course, but it hopefully stops them from winning, and helps you to successfully counter-sue for your costs if they're being jerks about it.

And finally, if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to remove it, am I liable for a hate crime?

No. Um, unless you're in one of those countries where not acting to remove someone else's nazi artwork is a crime... and there are some countries with really odd rules about that sort of thing.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[lbmouse]

I doubt it will every be banned in the US... it is also a very important American Indian symbol.
 
So, a Native American visting Germany would be arrested for a hate crime if they wear symbols of their heritage? That is stupid.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[homer_s]

And finally, if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to remove it, am I liable for a hate crime?

We have many swastikas in our Hindu temple - nobody has complained.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[pclminion]

Whether or not you actually are liable, you can (and may well) be sued for libel and defamation of character. Even if you're innocent, the question arises: how willing are you to defend yourself? How many lawyers will you hire for how many years just to prove you didn't do it?

Depending on your state, you can file a motion under SLAPP laws to protect yourself. If you are innocent of libel/slander, it is not allowable for a larger entity to quash your speech by threatening an expensive legal action.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably depends on the context..

Although, I oppose banning any symbol or form of speech in the first place.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[DeathFlame]

That's not stupid. You need to follow the law of the land.

You take your porn to singapore? Your going to get fined/jailed or whatever.

You bring your weed back from Amsterdam? Your going to get arrested in the US.

You say you mostly drive on the highways where the speed limit is 60mph and you want to drive the same on any street (including say a residential street) and the cop still gives you a ticket? Know why? Because laws and rules often have boundaries.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[ifwm]

Truth is an absolute defense, so if what you said is true, you're fine.

"And finally, if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to remove it, am I liable for a hate crime?"

Um, I'm tempted to make a comment about how silly this is, but I think you will realize it yourself given time.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just becuase its law does not make it not stupid.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[cyclopropene]

Truth is an absolute defense

If only that were true. Sadly, money often trumps truth in legal matters.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[DeathFlame]

If you think laws shouldn't have boundaries, then THAT's crazy.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[That's Unpossible!]

Is ScionLife liable? Am I? Is Slashdot liable now that I've put it up here?

Liable for what? If you spoke the truth about them and can prove it, you have nothing to fear.

If you libeled the company, yes you are liable.

In my opinion, ScionLife and Slashdot would not liable for your libel, but could be liable if they were notified the information was libel and did not pull it (then again, only if you libeled them, which would really have to be proven in a court of law).

And finally, if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to remove it, am I liable for a hate crime?

The hate crime was committed against you, so why would you be liable for it? This is like asking if a company would be liable if a user libeled it on its own site. The analogy is bad.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[S3D]

It depends if the swastika is a backwards Nazi one I guess. A normal swastika has been a symbol of good fortune for thousands of years in India.

That is more of urban legend the the fact. Nazi were using both swastika, sometimes simmetrically in decorations. More often they were using right-faced swastika - "good" or "normal" Indian swastika. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Nazi_Germany

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is:
1) People would have to know about SLAPP protection
2) It'd still be money out of pocket to hire a lawyer to file for protection. If you're too poor to defend yourself, odds are you are also too poor to say you're too poor to defend yourself.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did I say that?

I said just because a law exists doesn't automatically mean the law isn't stupid.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[dgatwood]

What we need is just ONE multimillion dollar SLAPP-back counter-suit win by one of these blog websites to stop these BS lawsuits NOW before they get worse.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[Minwee]

Yep. I'm sure that everybody would understand the difference between a forwards and backwards swastika. Just like everyone knows what niggardly means.

My faith in humanity is tempered by what it is that I have faith that they will do.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[aicrules]

Ah, the opposite of disparaging remarks...an endorsement of a product! Well, I bought one based solely on your endorsement, I then crashed into my house due to faulty breaks and killed my whole family. I'm holding you liable because you said it was a cool car and I should go get one.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "backwards" swastika.

You have access to Google - use it please. The swastika has been used in both "directions" for thousands of years, meaning the same thing. Just because the Nazis chose one orientation for their symbol doesn't magically make it the "evil" one.

I swear, a little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[thehemi]

Lawsuits would be more interesting if the suing party had to pay all/most defense fees if they are unable to prove their case in a court of law. It makes no sense for someone to have to spend money to defend themselves against someone who just decides to throw a lawsuit together.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[DeathFlame]

We're arguing two things. I'm saying that having to follow the german law, if in germany is not stupid. A more general look at it. Your saying the law itself is stupid. Which isnt what I was talking about.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[lbmouse]

Woosh... right over the head. A law in a country banning a symbol of Native American pride is stupid, not following a law.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[revery]

The other problem here is that under the law, lawyers are officers of the court, and as such, judges are to hold them accountable for filing frivolous lawsuits. More often than not, there is an Old Boy's Club mentality involved and many judges are not willing to reprimand a lawyer who is clearly unethical or seeking to seriously strain the intent of the law.

To compound the problem, most legislatures, the only government bodies with any real power to affect appointed judges, have refused to hold the judges accountable, and have instead, pretended to be powerless, even going so far as to hope that judges will legislate some of the more controversial things that they themselves would be risking re-election were they to try it. It's all rather sad.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[DeathFlame]

Then you wordered what you said badly. You should have said "That is a stupid law"

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[realityfighter]

Actually, if you can show that your comments were truthful, it's likely that the suit would be thrown out before you go to trial. The company would probably get fined for filing a gratuitous lawsuit as well. In fact, if you recieved a C&D like the idiotic one involved in this case, you could probably countersue for the company's attempt to diminish your right to free speech at their convenience before the original suit is heard.

IANAL, TINLA et al

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to remove it, am I liable for a hate crime?

Surely some form of copyright covers the use of such a symbol. A quicky sprayed facsimile that drips paint and is not geometrically correct is sure to piss off the owners of such a well-recognized marque.

Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business...

[Murasaki Skies]

I believe something at least similar to this is done in England. The problem is that you then can't afford to sue unless you know you'll win (or have lots of money). Obviously, you can't easily sue corporations that will slap you with millions in legal fees when they weasel out of it. I think a better solution would be for either side to pay the others legal (and transportation, time wasted, stress caused, etc.) fees when they were ruled to have been clearly and knowingly wrong (i.e. didn't have a case) in suing or defending. If neither side can be ruled to be that, then the government would pay both side's fees. It's true that this means higher taxes, but at least poor people can sue, and it should cut back on frivolous lawsuits as well, as you could be forced to pay the defendant's fees. Of course, it will never happen, and, if it did, it would still be made to favor the rich, as everything is, but it would still likely be an improvement.

Text of the lawsuit

[notdanielp]

The lameness filter blocked me, so find it here.

14. At unknown date or dates, Doe I, alone or in concert with Does I through X, began disseminating Plaintiff's trade secrets to the public, with such information now available on various web sites. Among other things, Defendant or Defendants posted proprietary relating to Plaintiff's solicitation, procedures on publicly accessible areas of the internet.

Re:Text of the lawsuit

[notdanielp]

Aw heck while I'm at it here's the coral cache of the above link: http://www.seobook.com.nyud.net:8090/archives/0011 30.shtml#more

How dumb.

[Poromenos1]

How can you sue someone for other peoples' comments on his/her blog? Most people don't even read the comments, and are certainly not responsible for their content. That's like suing the phone company for what someone said on the phone.

Re:How dumb.

[laughingcoyote]

I'm inclined to agree. I think it's more that the courts have ruled you actually have the right to anonymity, so they're going after the first guy they -can- identify. I really doubt if it's going to go over, though. Certainly, I'm sure there's mountains of libelous text in Slashdot's archives, but I don't really think you can sue Slashdot for that.

Re:How dumb.

[glesga_kiss]

That's like suing the phone company for what someone said on the phone.

The TV networks got sued/fined over the "wardrobe malfunction" with Janet Jackson, which is a better analogy. The phone network is private; TV and web are broadcast. Different rules, though the web should have it's own rules. For example, if someone complains about an unreasonable slanderous post, I'd say it would be fair to expect the site owner to investigate it at the very least. If you are the one ultimately in control of the data, you are the only one able to remove it.

Re:How dumb.

[rovingeyes]

Most people don't even read the comments

Thats only on /. ;)

Re:How dumb.

[MadEE]

Web sites are not broadcast, they are accessed. There is a lot of difference there and it puts it more in the realm of the telephone then television.

Re:How dumb.

[kaligraphic]

The difference with the telecoms, actually, is that they have "common carrier" status - which means that they can't discriminate between customers of their common carrier function, save for the obvious matters of location and billing. (Rates must also be offered nonpreferentially, though it is typically accepted that rates need not be the same as long as each customer or potential customer had the option of a given rate.) This is akin to a bus being obliged to provide transport, subject to its capacity, to all people who both wish to make use of the route and are willing to pay a standard fare.

Television networks, on the other hand, are private carriers, meaning that they can pick and choose what they broadcast. Naturally, this is a system of necessity, as available time and bandwidth are both strictly limited. Because the television networks chose of their own volition to carry the Super Bowl and its accompanying controversial halftime show - even if they didn't know in advance that it would be controversial - they are considered responsible for that content.

Of course, that's a somewhat simplified explanation, but you can look up the relevant legislation if you're interested.

Of course, aside from this little piece of telecom trivia, I mostly agree with your point there.

Very interesting legal complications

[confusion]

Because it's the Internet, there are so many permuations of where the server is, who owns the site, and who made the comment, and where all those people live. Certainly, a company needs to do what it can to defend it's name, but I've got to believe it's going to get a LOT harder to do so.

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/

Was it slander?

[Transcendent]

If it wasn't slanderous, then what is the problem? People have the right to present their review of any product, or anything.

All the articles I read about it only say he posted a negative comment about the web-search boosting product. Did he lie about it, or was it a fair comment that he made?

Some people will sue others over even looking at them funny. Overall, though, I have my money on Aaron Wall.

Re:Was it slander?

[GryMor]

It can't be slander, slander is oral. It may be libel, but that hinges on the truth of the statement, something it may be impossible for the blogger to prove as he isn't the one who authored the comment.

Re:Was it slander?

[donnyspi]

The burden of proof should be on the offended party to prove the website owner was the one who posted the comment.

well...

[AxemRed]

It shouldn't matter if he made negative comments too, unless he specifically asked for people to post the defaming comments. It's like, if I made a blog where I complained about the president, it wouldn't be my fault if someone posted a threat against him on my message board.

Comment about the article

[ReformedExCon]

I'm not going to comment much on the actual article. Some bozo is getting sued by a company run by bozos. Your daily dose of hardcore Americana.

But it's absolutely awesome that the Wall Street Journal (of all places!) is submitting articles to Slashdot. Long the sole remaining North American bastion of expert journalism, the WSJ eclipses all other fishwrap in journalistic integrity and quality. Even the venerable New York Times is just a shadow of the nationally distributed Wall Street Journal. If they are taking a direct interest in submitting articles here, I am both impressed and giddy with excitement.

As is commonly joked, I for one welcome our new Wall Street Journal overlords.

Re:Comment about the article

[scheming daemons]

Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.

Why would I need saved from your past?

but apparently...

[kevin lyda]

...the court systems are there to beat people up with.

Re:but apparently...

[ifwm]

How sad that he's modded funny, when the reality is he's correct.

I despise the litigousness of my country, especially now that so many people consider the court to be a get rich quick opportunity.

Re:but apparently...

[jcr]

I wonder just how many people have become millionares in the Medical Malpractice Lottery?

-jcr

Re:but apparently...

[kevin lyda]

very few. and those who have tend to spend that money on the care they get.

but please don't let such pesky facts interfere with your mindless beliefs in right-wing talking points.

Re:but apparently...

[jcr]

Well, thanks for that message from the Trial Lawyers' Association. Do you have any figures to back it up, or were you just being snotty out of habit?

-jcr

Horse pucky

[fatcatman]

'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'

Horse pucky. If you aren't free to share your opinion, then this isn't the United States I thought I lived in. More and more, it seems like the freedom of speech is directly related to how much money you have.

There is a huge difference between blatently attempting to undermine and destroy a reputation, and simply expressing your opinion (negative or otherwise). The ability to express one's opinion, even if said opinion is extremely negative, should be protected speech.

The people filing this lawsuit are nothing more than schoolyard bullies.

Re:Horse pucky

[Anonymous Coward]

freedom of speech is directly related to how much money you have

Agreed. I propose a change in terminology, to "moneydom of speech".

The people filing this lawsuit are nothing more than schoolyard bullies.

You'll be receiving a call from our lawyers regarding this statement. Ta ta!

Re:Horse pucky

[ScentCone]

The people filing this lawsuit are nothing more than schoolyard bullies

Unless they're right. In which case they're making sure that another party isn't abusing the first amendment and BSing while presenting nonsense as fact. It could be done by either party, for any reason, and the only issue is whether or not the person posting his comments, or allowing the other comments to stay up on his web site, are truthful.

The truth may indeed be extremely negative, but who cares, as long as it's the truth. But a lot of people post demonstrable lies in blogs, hoping that the search engines will pick up on it, etc. The person being lied about should have recourse, whether large or small.

In this case, how have you made your determination about the truthfullness (and thus, non-libelous) nature of the web content in question? I didn't see enough to go on, so you must know more.

Re:Horse pucky

[Russ Nelson]

The person being lied about should have recourse,

They do. They can post the truth to the Internet.
-russ

Re:Horse pucky

[dgatwood]

Well, at the moment, money is power. Therefore, what you really mean is that freedom of speech is directly related to how much power you have.

To that end, what do you mean by "more and more"? When exactly do you think that it wasn't that way? The only difference is that it used to be settled with duels instead of lawsuits.

Why can't we all just... get along?

Re:Horse pucky

[wintermute740]

"Horse pucky. If you aren't free to share your opinion, then this isn't the United States I thought I lived in. More and more, it seems like the freedom of speech is directly related to how much money you have."

Welcome to the Soviet States of America... Or hadn't you noticed?

Re:Horse pucky

[fatcatman]

It could be done by either party, for any reason, and the only issue is whether or not the person posting his comments, or allowing the other comments to stay up on his web site, are truthful.

As I said, "There is a huge difference between blatently attempting to undermine and destroy a reputation, and simply expressing your opinion." I read several of the comments in question and they look to be nothing more than name calling and bitching.

Look, it's one thing to come out and say, "Site x hires illegal aliens; it's owners use cocaine and beat their wives." It's quite another to say, "They suck, their service sucks, I had dealings with them and this is how it went down."

How long until people are unwilling to write about horrifying business experiences due to fears of a lawsuit? Whether the experience is true or not is immaterial: When you're sued for libel you aren't "innocent until proven guilty", you're guilty unless you can prove your comments were true. Considering the nature of most business complaints ("x happened, I called company, worthless customer service reps told me y, I'm never using them again and you shouldn't, either"), how are you going to prove any of it? Besides that, how are you going to afford a team of lawyers to fight this out for several years at $300 per manhour?

If you really think about it, in our litigious society, you're better to keep your mouth shut - or some company with deep pockets can take everything you own for the simple fact that they don't like what you said. That's not right.

Re:Horse pucky

[ScentCone]

How long until people are unwilling to write about horrifying business experiences due to fears of a lawsuit?

But this hasn't changed in decades, if not centuries. People have been writing letters to local (and national) newspapers, picketing storefronts, sending out mailings, and doing a all sors of things to express both their rational/righteous/deserved and irrational/malicious/undeserved scorn of some company, individual, church, politician, or other entity. The concept of libel law, and of defamation of character, goes back WAY before blogs, and people have been using the courts on both sides of this issue all along.

The difference, now, is that you don't even have to bother using a stamp and an envelope to say what you think, and a wider audience is right at your fingertips. And where a newspaper would look at certain claims and say "can you prove this, or at least give me the name of the crappy car salesman at the dealer you dealt with," the web server you're posting to doesn't ask - and Google will just pick it right up.

The standards (of libel) haven't changed, and the lawyers for the person taking offense will have to mention to their client that if they're not able to satisfy a jury that they've been unjustifiably harmed, they're wide open for a countersuit that they'll almost certainly lose. That hasn't changed one bit.

I think what has changed is that a lot of twits post things online thinking that it's essentially a game. They confuse MMORPGs with reality, and vice versa. They think that ranting to some other enthusiasts in their tiny little corner of the blogosphere will earn them street cred, and don't consider that they're subject to the same libel issues that writers in every media have always been subject to.

The question of whether or not other people posting to your site make you liable for their libel... that's an interesting one. Hence the many disclaimers on most sites that get any traffic. The issue there would be, probably, whether or not you edit people's comments. If the plaintiff can show that you remove certain comments from your blog's responses (say, to kill spam, etc), then they can show that you're making editorial decisions... and that probably opens you up for a libel defense.

If you really think about it, in our litigious society, you're better to keep your mouth shut - or some company with deep pockets can take everything you own for the simple fact that they don't like what you said. That's not right.

Frivalous lawsuits are a fantastic drain on our economy - all of them are. Look at the woman who just won $250 million from a drug company because her husband (already dying of various cardio problems) took Vioxx. There isn't a single indication that what killed him had anything to do with his pain meds, but because they had pulled the drug off the market for potential risks in some (unrelated to his) cardio problems, a dimwitted jury decided that (as usual) all coportions are evil, and that she deserved a quarter of a billion dollars. Or the idiot woman (now $20 million richer) who dumped her McDonald's coffee in her lap while driving. The medical suits are certainly the worst, though. People can't stand the thought of their own mortality, and the fashion now is to blame doctors and hospitals for, essentially, not being gods. Oh well - too off topic. You get my drift, though - I agree that we're too litigious. But I don't think we're seeing a rash of libel suits in the way that we're seeing suits in other areas.

Re:Horse pucky

[Citizen Gold]

Horse pucky. If you aren't free to share your opinion, then this isn't the United States I thought I lived in. More and more, it seems like the freedom of speech is directly related to how much money you have.

This isn't the United States you live in. This is New Zealand.

Re:Horse pucky

[SheeEttin]

The people filing this lawsuit are nothing more than schoolyard bullies.

Congratulations! You have just summed up corporate America!

Re:Horse pucky

[Weirdofreak]

Actually, he's right.

The internet is everybody's stump.

Re:Horse pucky

[Pollardito]

When you're sued for libel you aren't "innocent until proven guilty", you're guilty unless you can prove your comments were true.

i don't think that's the case, don't they have to prove that it was untrue, that you knew it was untrue when you said it, and that you said it in order to harm them? there isn't a "shadow of a doubt" requirement of proof that would be present if you were being tried for murder, but they still have to prove you guilty rather than you proving yourself innocent

WTO

[nurb432]

you are right, until you factor in the effect of the WTO treaties..

All they have to do is attach the term ' commerce ' to the case, and the more favorable laws apply .

Re:WTO

[stecoop]

All right choose the favorable law in this scenario:

Some guy lives in France that doesn't allow hate speech from the stuff that happened in WWII; the guy reads the hate speech deemed illegal in France posited by someone that lived in Russia and the server resides some place in China.

Ok, so we go after that bad guy and got him shutdown (I don't know which bad it was but it is done).

Now the same guy that lives in Russia has very strict pornography laws. He then reads the web site of the guy that read the hate speech (whom is a museum curator) and it has liberal pictures of nudity deemed art in France. However, in Russia it is pornography (just say). Now whom do we go after? Ok so now we have a guy in Russia and a guy in France incarcerated; soon this launches WWIII due to the mess and the world is doomed - problem solved?

Re:WTO

[nurb432]

The world is doomed anyway..

But yes the WTO really messes the concept up of right and wrong.. But this is their goal, they want the power to decide right and wrong. To play judge, jury AND executioner. One world government, in effect.

WSJ used to carry slashdot feed...

[Anonymous Coward]

in the days when slashdot mattered more. Now the feed is gone and no one cares.

Ah, ye children with no memories.

"...the Internet is not your personal..."

[cnelzie]

The person making that quote obviously hasn't spent anytime on Slashdot, TheForum.com (NSFW!) and many other sites that feature extreme brutality in the form of words all over the Internet.

Its a sad day

[834r9394557r011]

There are tons of people out there saying microsoft blows, and I havn't heard of them getting sued. I think they are just scared because, it must be true. Personally I have never used any of their tools, but I think they should be able to handle a few people badmouthing them. I think this is a gross overreaction on their part. I say to them "MAN UP" and "GROW UP" and maybe make your product better if it has problems, don't sue the guy who wants to save people the headache and money of using said product.

Re:Its a sad day

[ifwm]

"There are tons of people out there saying microsoft blows, and I havn't heard of them getting sued"

That's because truth is an absolute defense.

the only reason they sue...

[kwoff]

...is for the publicity. If they had simply ignored this blog, who would know about this company whose initials are TP? Now everyone on slashdot, among other web forums, knows. Troll successful.

WTF

[Sheepdot]

'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'

I beg to differ.

Hurting someone else's feelings is my spaghetti-god-given right.

Re:WTF

[bilbravo]

May you be touched by his noodley-appendage.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

spaghetti-god given? or united states constitution given to united states citizens? because the only appeal to authority that i found linked from your post included the united states constitution.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

RAmen, you ass clown.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Mixing memes with reality can lead to confusion.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of

The First Amendment only explicitly disallows any of the rights from being abridged by Congress

did you not understand ?

I want to read the comment

[SilentReallySilentUs]

Anyone has the exact content of the comments?

Re:I want to read the comment

[JLavezzo]

No, but reading the Summons, it sounds like they're claiming someone stole their trade secrets and posted them as comments on SEOBook.com.

RUN OSDN RUN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

+++no carrier

yes it is

[suezz]

""To be candid, he sort of moved into this moving propeller," said Mr. Perry, a former Orange County judge. He said courts would likely focus on how Mr. Wall responded to requests to remove material from his site, and Mr. Wall's criticism of Traffic-Power.com. "The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.""

wrong try again - it called freedom of speech -

like I can say microsoft sucks and is a convicted monopolists that uses strongarm tactics to undermine the open standards in the industry.

I also can say Linux rocks.

since when are we going to sensor what people say on the internet. I tell people all day that microsoft sucks - so you are telling me I can get sued for that. Can we all say Back in the USSR. There I knew you could.

Re:yes it is

[DeathFlame]

You can say whatever you want, if it's an opinion.

You can't say "Bill Gates rapes little boys and girls"

You CAN say "I think Bill Gates might rape little boys and girls"

I think.

Re:yes it is

[DeathFlame]

Seems I was right for a few years (1974-1990), but then a new case in 1990 set a standard of being able to prove the "opinion" false for there to be a libel suit.

In other words, as it applies to the case posted above, if Traffic-Power.com can prove what was said on the blog is false, then there's a libel suit there.

That of course doesn't explain WHO would be at fault.

Re:yes it is

[Manfre]

In Soviet Russia, the internet censors you!

Re:yes it is

[jcr]

You can't say "Bill Gates rapes little boys and girls"

Well, to be precise.. You can say it, and he can try to recover damages from you in court. To recover damages though, he'll have to be able to show damages, like someone not doing business with him because they believed your allegations, or the bill from his shrink for therapy he had to get because of the emotional trauma of you hurting his feelings.

Somebody slandered me a couple of years ago, and I talked to a litigator who specializes in this kind of case. I was advised that it really wasn't worth my time to pursue it, since I wouldn't be able to show that anyone had believed him (ergo, no money damages.) I could have obtained a court order to quit slandering me, but it really wasn't worth the cost.

-jcr

Re:yes it is

[KillShill]

"since when are we going to sensor what people say on the internet."

since it "undermines national security"

Huh?

[TheAwfulTruth]

"The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people"

It isn't?

Last I heard people were free to express an opinion, even one that is "wrong". :)

Well sure, spreading lies and actively defacing or hurting an individual should be frowned upon, but bad-mouthing a company or a competitor you don't like? Hello? Slashdot anyone? Yes, the editors get involved in this too. Slashdot is as much of a bash fest as it is a news and informative opinion medium.

If merely bad mouthing a company that you don't like is not legal, Slashdot would have been sued out of existance long ago! Half the comments made about companies we don't like here are in fact complete nonsense and out-right lies.

If cases like this hold up, places like Slashdot don't have much of a future. As much as I hate the large amount of truly idiodic comments that cross this site, I don't want to see it taken down by corporate lawyers and I sure as hell don't want to feel like every word I say, interpreted in any number of ways by any number of people might suddenly land me in jail. :(

Re:Huh?

[pete6677]

The reason Slashdot hasn't been sued (successfully, anyhow) is because there is a large company behind them that would pay for lawyers. Anyone knows they would not just fold and take down the site. Lawyers know that small site operators can be intimidated by a legal letter and just take their site down. That is what they are hoping for.

If you run a website that is the slightest bit controversial, you had better be prepared to deal with legal threats. Otherwise, you might as well just save yourself the trouble and shut down. Not saying that's the way it should be, but that's the way it is in the United States and just about everywhere else for that matter.

Re:Huh?

[twiddlingbits]

Slander and libel are not criminal offenses, thus no jail time. Other than that I agree with you! What he said on his blog is not any different than what someone might say in PC Magazine, or the editorial page of the newspapers. It is OPINION, slander/libel also have to have malice(deliberate attempt to harm), and that is very hard to prove

Re:Huh?

[SlayerofGods]

That depends on how you phrase the statement.
'Microsoft is an evil company that eats babies'
Is a no no because it could be taken as a statement of fact. And would seem that I have some sort of factual bases for my argument even if there is none, thus it could damage Microsoft's reputation.
However
'In my opinion Microsoft is an evil company that eats babies'
Is ok because it's my opinion, I need no facts to back it up.
Clearly the comments on Slashdot are opinions and as such are protected.
It's really all about appearance. If it's clear that your comments are to be take as nothing more then commentary you'll be ok.
If you write something that reads like a research paper that is full of slanders remarks about a company your going to get in trouble.

Of course you can always be sued no matter what you do. It's just the speed at which the case is dismissed will just depend on how clear the fact that your statements are commentary is.

(not to be taken as official legal advice)

Re:Huh?

[Kelson]

There's opinion stated as opinion, there's opinion stated as fact, and then there's bald-faced lies.

"X is a terrible company, don't do business with them" is opinion.
"It's widely known that X is a terrible company" is opinion stated as fact.
"X is a terrible company because it does Y, don't do business with them" is a mix of opinion and fact, and hinges on whether "X does Y" is true or false.

Some of these are protected speech, in the sense that it is perfectly legal to say them.

All of them are likely to piss off X if they think you're influential enough to hurt their sales.

X is, of course, free to react to your statement as long as they do so in a legal manner. They might kick you out of their store if you do walk in there again, pointing to their "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign. They might turn around and badmouth you. "Oh, he's just some guy on the internet posting from his mother's basement, what does he know?" They might threaten you with a lawsuit in order to get you to retract or at least remove the comments, though in some states filing the suit could be illegal unless they can prove you've actually libeled them (look up SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)

Re:Huh?

[SlayerofGods]

I should clarify.
You just can't go off on someone for no good reason.
You have to have some reason, any reason, to think what you do.
But it's pretty easy to demonstrate that I may have reason to believe that Microsoft is evil (the eat's babies is a bit over the top...)
I wouldn't need to prove, that in fact, Microsoft is evil, I would merely need to point to a couple of news stories about Microsoft bullying companies or it's anticompetitive practices to prove that in fact I am of the belief that Microsoft is evil.
You also can't benefit from finically from your commentary.

Yes it is a personal stump to beat on people

[Anonymous Coward]

And Daniel Perry can only have an orgasm if he kills a dog.

Free Speech Ain't Free

[Nom du Keyboard]

Freedom of Speech is not free. It's costs are measured by the expenses of defending it.

Screw you, buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell do you know? Those words were asking for it, strutting around the Internet like they own the place.

"God bless the child that's got his own" freedom..

[scotty777]

Freedom of speech and press once needed the protection of law. Now we have it because of the Internet.

Billie Holiday & Arthur Herzog Jr said it best:

Mama may have, papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own
He just worry 'bout nothin'
Cause he's got his own

I don't get it

[Overzeetop]

Everything I know about IP I learned on slashdot, but...

(Sorry, I've always wanted to say that. Actually, most of what I know about IP was learned while helping my SO study for her IP class in her MBA program)

Let me get the facts straight, as the article seemed a little light on details. Some guy, in the US, posts factual information or personal opinion on his weblog, and allows others to do so as well. These include unkind words about a company who makes a product or service which may compete with a product or service with which the author is financially involved. (try and parse that one)

A Trade Secret, traditionally, is something so necessary to your core business and so valuable that you believe that keeping it a secret is more likely to make you money than patenting it, or it is unpatentable. Telling the world a trade secret is only unlawful if you are contractually bound not to tell, or if you came by the information through theft or other nefarious means. Once a trade secret is no longer secret, you have no protection (hence the incentive for patenting and licensing).

So, unless this guy stole the information, or is under a nondisclosure agreement, this looks an awful lot like free speech. The others who posted in his site may have written unkind things as well, but the comments are (I assume) clearly delineated as visitor comments, and not the writings of the author. I think you can go pretty far toward slander without getting into trouble that way.

I'm wondering why this is even an issue, unless its just punishement through lawyer fees, regardelss of the outcome.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering why this is even an issue, unless its just punishement through lawyer fees, regardelss of the outcome.

That's exactly what it is. It costs money to defend against a harassment lawsuit. However, I'm surprised that this one ever got filed. It has "frivilous" written all over it. Usually, it only goes as far as the threatening letter from some sleazy lawyer.

Another problem with fighting a harassment lawsuit is that even if you prevail, you may not be able to recover your costs even if you are awarded damages in your counter-suit. All too often, the businesses that do this sort of thing are fly-by-night concerns that will simply close down if you win against them.

Defense?

[Anonymous Coward]

I run a message board and I have been threatened by companies in the past to remove message posts by my users. Could someone link me to court decisions that support a message board owners rights so I can prevent bullying in the future?

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[the_raptor]

Seriously when did people get this idea that you should be able to say whatever you want and never have any consequences? All freedom of speech means is that the Government won't try to stop your (should be political) speech. It doesn't mean you can libel and slander people anonymously consequence free.

Why should you be allowed to go around staring negative rumours about your business competitors? How would you like your boss to lie to a future employer that you got fired for drug abuse or for having kiddie porn?

People want rights but never seem to understand that responsibilities are just as important for the functioning of society.

One of the great problems with the Internet currently is that there are so many anonymous cowards, who troll, spam and lie. There is very little consequence to such actions so people aren't inhibited.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG mod down!!!!11
That comment is way to intellegent for slashdot!! It doesn't fit into the slashdot hivemind!

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[interiot]

Some random commenter in the dark depths of the internet should be able to say whatever they damn well please, because nobody is listening. If Bill O'Reilly gets on TV and says that I financially support terrorists, when I don't, then that can cause actual harm to my reputation, because way too many people watch his show. If some weirdo on the internet says that, and only 1 person reads the comment, who cares?

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

But we've had the a "popular" and commercial net for 10 years now, and really in that time I don't think the world is going to end from a truckload of trolls and some slanderous ACs. In the end, the world has kept turning and for all the whinging about spam, my gmail is spam-free, and my old hotmail catches 99 out of 100 spams.

I don't see what the big problem is really. All the pushes that have been made against the o-so-terrible-trolls have been made by corporations trying to protect themselves, half of the time justifiably and half of the time to just shut people up they don't like.

All in all I see no compelling reason to change the current system. I do see many abuses by sue-happy corporations and by sinister governments if provisions are put into place to link comments with people.

No matter what you say, as soon as you develop a system to filter and track you will have an army of moral crusaders trying to ban various things. And I have to tell you, I much prefer a couple of trolls, and the opportunity to hear the dirt on corporations (false info can get corrected very quickly on the net, I am dubious as to the effectivenss of a slander against a reputable company) than to have my porn supply cut off, have swear words filtered out, and having the potential for CIA and other intelligence agencies to start profiling "dissenters" via automation as they have done (totally unjustifiably) many times in the past.

So no. Let some artificial legal structures aka "corporations" have a cry that "they" (they aren't human) are being slandered (when was the last time you saw one go out of business due to slander?). I am sick of corporate sponsored law, there is no reason to de-anonymise the net.

Viva the trolls!

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a blog is not a commercial site. It is, at its most expansive, a community of like-minded folks (and their opposites to supply all the 'troll' comments) expressing opinions. At its most limited, it is ONE person's opinion. Blogs have never claimed (AFAIK) to be anything else.

It should be known and understood by all concerned that a blog is not acredited, not tested, not staffed by experts, nor prone to any other form of legitimacy.

The only way a blog gains popularity is if enough people have an opinion on it - good or bad. Enough good opinions, and there's probably something to it, because all those people agree. Enough bad opinions and it's good reverse advertising for who/whatever is being slammed.

But either way, it's just people's opinions & anecdotes. And, IMO, these should not be repressed simply because a company doesn't like what they're saying. If they don't like it, change business practices so that the site loses it's ammo and it'll die out by itself.

It used to be that word-of-mouth was the way by which businesses lived or died. Mom & pop stores HAD to do right by their customers or they didn't get the business. These days, for internet businesses, bloggers are the word-of-mouth.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[moviepig.com]

One of the great problems with the Internet currently is that there are so many anonymous cowards, who troll, spam and lie.

It's not a problem, but merely a behavior.

The problem is (and long has been) the degree to which we've tended to believe the printed word, no matter the source. The Internet's gradually improving that situation.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[FhnuZoag]

I wonder about that... The real solution to the free speech problem isn't censorship, but to keep track of reputation. If people knew that what they say would matter, and that saying stupid things will mean fewer listeners, then we would solve many problems.

Give every poster an ID. Log all messages from each ID, and allow others to invest their own reputation in people and donate points. In short, a reputation market. Of course, there will be karma whores, and stuff like that...

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[miffo.swe]

You should most certainly have the right to express your opinion. Even if it happens to collide with some crazy islam fundamentalist group or hurt the feelings of a company on the slope. If i tell someone that product a. sucks because it cant do thing b. thats in no way slander. Its a fact that I think makes the thing suck. If i just makes things up like the "Get The Facts" campaign its not legally wrong, just damn unethical.

Its a big difference between slander against a physical person and a company. I know they are almost the same in the US except when it comes to enviroment and eco crime.

The responsability you talk about is the one thing i hate the most, "politically correct" demands that you never quiestion the establishment. What a free world that was was it?

I dont see trolls, liars and anonomyos cowards as any problem at all. If you cant think for yourself and draw your own conclusions youre bound to be enslaved by the ones with more power than you. They just keep people on their toes but thats perhaps the problem?

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the great problems with the Internet currently is that there are so many anonymous cowards, who troll, spam and lie. There is very little consequence to such actions so people aren't inhibited.

Speaking as an AC I'd like to point out that just as many people with login names spam and lie and make things up. Some percentage of ANY population is basically a lying scumbag and the larger that population the more likely those people will be there. I do agree with you that there are generally little consequence to many actions on the net and consider this the Wild West of the internet. But then if accountability actually meant anything wouldn't you Americans do something about your sad politilcal snafu?

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Nikker]

The only problem with this is that no one is trusted enough to declare the diffrence between good and bad. And once the diffrence is made what do we do? If you are found infringing what happens? Who has the final word?

Aww common you know this will just be another bone to throw a lawyer. Once that happens you won't be able to afford your justice. If anything the Internet is here for one thing only, to force us to pull our heads out of our asses and make decisions for ourselves. There is no way of policing it in the way evreyone will benifit from it.

So sure we can set up a system to procecute infringers but rules are based on perception.

If I buy a product you say is great and I seem to think other wise would I be infringing to write about it? Should you be allowed to make claims unattested? Maybe if you removed all advertising / marketing lingo, pictures etc and made no claims what so ever and relied principally on these comments would it be better?

So while I do see your point you do have to consider there are people who will bad mouth and those who will praise and those who will just shut up and take it, regardless of your rules, hopes and dreams. The goal should be how do we satisfy all of them and still function as a society.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[ambrosine10]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Libel/defamation laws apply only in a very select minority of cases, where a clear harm can be demonstrated.

We have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and we ARE free by law to say our opinion whenever and wherever we feel like it.

One of the great problems with the Internet currently is that there are so many anonymous cowards, who troll, spam and lie. There is very little consequence to such actions so people aren't inhibited.

Yeah, better prepare for the imminent collapse of civilization.
Are you smoking crack? This unfettered freedom of speech is exactly what makes the net so great. The power of the press is longer concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. Now anybody with a PC and net connection can contribute to human dialogue. Traditionally libel laws were used to try and squelch the power of the little man to speak out against established power structures. The net has been the great equalizer.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[DroopyStonx]

Just because it's something you don't agree with doesn't mean it should be censored.

Someone's "lie" could actually be the truth, but sometimes people are too bullheaded and sheepish to pay it any thought.

You might consider someone a troll, but they could actually be saying something insightful that others are too ignorant to pick up on (happens here on /. all the time).

Just because one person, or a group of people labels something doesn't mean that's what it is.

It's not a "problem" of the internet - the problem is with people like that can't tolerate the fact that other people's thought or ideas that are out of the ordinary might not be exactly in tune to what they believe.

Reading is not an inconvenience. It's the morons who are gullible enough to take what they read literally who are the problems.

Libel, slander, and threaten someone all you want, but if people are honestly dumb enough to blindly follow it without researching, then that's THEIR problem.

So yeah, one of my past employers can say I got fired and lie all they want, but if the current company hiring me actually believes it, they are just as at fault.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Hosiah]

Why should you be allowed to go around staring negative rumours about your business competitors?

As opposed to Microsoft, who can do no-goddam-wrong. Microsoft would *never* say bad things about their competitors, would they? Because then you'd see them getting persecuted the same way this blogger is. Yes, very just indeed.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[zCyl]

All freedom of speech means is that the Government won't try to stop your (should be political) speech.

I have news for you. Lawsuits are empowered by the government, so if the government empowers someone to sue you regarding a comment, then the government is not granting you freedom to speak that comment.

And freedom of speech is not restricted to supporting or rejecting a political candidate. Honest protest of any issue is permissible, and among consenting adults discussion of essentially any topic is permissible. If Burger King were putting cyanide in their french fries, and a blogger posts about this, would you say this is not covered under free speech because it has nothing to do with an election, and that Burger King should then have the right to sue the blogger?

The only case under which Burger King would have the right to sue would be if Burger King could demonstrate that there were no cyanide in its french fries, that the blogger intentionally fabricated the story to damage Burger King's reputation, and that a reasonable person would believe the story produced by the blogger.

Guaranteeing freedom of speech, and thus a free society, requires far more than just not putting people in prison for making political statements.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

You can lie and slander your business competitors anonymously all you like. Proud American tradition. The Internet just leaves a bit more of a trail.

Responsibility - as you mention in a few cases - is quite important, but there is a definite difference between responsibility and oppression. Once communication is regulated in the way you seem to want to, this line will start creeping. I personally feel that some of the things already going on to limit anonymity of Internet communication are disturbing, and your mainstream argument of, "it's for your safety from the bad people who will hurt you," should not fly with people of intelligence.

You want responsibility? Allow people to prove themselves more intelligent and self-empowered than jerks who spam and lie and troll. Don't ask me to support a crutch for your corporation that needs protection from the possibility that these trolls might be believable and / or right.

There's very little benefit as well as very little consequence to me calling you an idiot, or saying you work as a corporate / government / religious drone attempting to bring 'grassroots' support to your own particular brand of fascism. I wouldn't particularly find it interesting to do it in the first place, but it has virtually 0 effect upon the real world. And the situation will continue to be that way for a while yet.

This is why I can say it all day. I'm not even that anonymous. But even if I were, I would deserve to be able to call you all these things if I believed them. And it would depend entirely upon the listener to believe or disbelieve me.

You want someone to pick on? A cause to go fight? Go push for more education, try to find a way to make our society more critically-thinking. I say the internet and TV might even eventually do that for us, despite how inane it all is.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[avi33]

Mr. Wall, 25 years old, who runs an Internet marketing business from his home, said the suit "is so vague in nature that it's hard to know what I'm being sued for."

To use your own logic, there are well-traveled avenues that you could use to prevent your boss from lying about you. They are libel and slander laws, and if it happens with company compliance, you could set yourself up to never work again.

This guy is being served with a murky lawsuit, and the plantiff's counsel offered to drop the whole thing if he removed every bit of referring content to their company. If their counsel really did their homework, they would have documented each and every infraction on his site, included it in the suit, and asked for specific remedies (whether it be money, removal of content, etc.) Upon receiving it, he could get useful legal counsel, and either fight it or comply. Instead, they're trying to intimidate him into silence.

That would be like Microsoft suing slashdot over critical posts and offering to drop the whole thing if every reference to MS was removed from this site.

Maybe before you try the Uncle Ben defense (With great power comes great responsibility) you should RTFConstitution.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[NickFortune]

Seriously when did people get this idea that you should be able to say whatever you want and never have any consequences?

You know, the GP only contained three lines. One of them was blank and one of them was a quote.

This is what it said:

"The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people."

Actually, that's one of the greatest strengths of the internet. True freedom of speech.

So I have to ask: what part of that did you read as saying "people should not be held accountable for acts of libel committed using the Internet"?

Why should you be allowed to go around staring negative rumours about your business competitors?

Sounds like standard practice to me. Nothing Jonathan Schwartz doesn't do fairly routinely in his blog, as far as I can see. I'll not start on Microsoft and their sponsorship of groups like the Alexis de Tocqueville institute or I'll e here all night.

How would you like your boss to lie to a future employer that you got fired for drug abuse or for having kiddie porn?

Interesting. One moment we're talking about deating the relative merits of a competitors product, the next: kiddie porn!

I don't really think that allowing people to say "my product is better than that of my competitor" will open the legal floodgates for PHBs everywhere to frame slashdotters worldwide for paedophilia. Perhaps you are still trying to equate "free speech" with "anarchy".

One of the great problems with the Internet currently is that there are so many anonymous cowards, who troll, spam and lie.

And has Aaron Wall trolled, lied or spammed? As far as the courts are concerned, that remains to be determined.

This is a complicated case. At issue are wether Wall posted anonymosue to his own blog or not; whether anonymous posts to bulletin boards should be controlled and if so to what extent; the legality of a whole range of viral marketing and astroturfing; and of course whether it is in anyone's interest to encourage corporations to silence (possibly legitimate) criticism with lawsuits.

Really, it's far from cut and dried.

But if your best analysis of the scenario is "Anarchy! Paedophiles! You will all become Unemployable!" then people may start to wonder whether you have some personal stake matter. And of course, if this case succeeds, such comments may well become actionable under law.

Or perhaps you were counting on the your slashdot alias to shield you from the consequences? I notice you provide very little in the way of personal information.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[narkalepse]

I think that you are missing the point. You are right: "...that there are so many anonymous cowards, who troll, spam and lie." And the comments on the blog seem to indicate that the individual who wrote them is one of that group. But that does not mean that an owner of a blog should be held liable for what other people write to him - or even in continuation of his own ideas. He can (and should) be held responsible for what he has said, but he should not (nor should anyone) be held responsible for the comments of others.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

Must....purge....intelligent....poster!.....gah!

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[sillybilly]

Which is why anonymity is the moderating effect on what's being said. Take everything you hear and see with a grain of salt.
I'd rather read the "unfounded and unbacked" information from anonymous sources, like Deep Throat, because, you never know, it may be true. It's a source of ideas, but you have to look beyond what's being said, and be able to reject anything you hear or see. If you can't do that, if you can't look beyond even the facts that seemingly make sense, and practice caution, and always evaluate things for yourself, take no earthly authority for granted, you have a problem.
Now when TV says it, a Newspaper, or even an internet thing, say the CNN website, or whitehouse.gov, that's a whole another story. It should be a whole another story. Tell me, just how much does TV's, Newspapers, CNN live up to not spreading FUD taking orders from the Whitehouse, to truly show all sides of the story, to be true journalists and go into the heat of the battle, and show a mature public what's really going on, instead of assuming the public doesn't need to know and treat them like children. Especially that we put so much trust into the press, comparatively speaking, compared to something said by an Anonymous Coward somewhere on the Internet. How about when Dan Rather gets forced out for being a journalist?
Free speech is sacred, that's why it's the very 1st amendment of the Constitution, instead of the 2nd amendment, and it's especially important in the press. But I guess once it's been surpressed in the press, it's time to go after the Internet Anonymous Cowards, suppress their freedom of speech too. It shows just how sad the state of affairs is these days.
It's one thing when your ex employer slanders you about drug abuse or kiddie porn, it's another thing if it comes from an Anonymous Coward. Your ex employer can really affect your life, the press can really affect your life, but if some Anonymous Coward goes around calling you crazy to your face, well, the 1st amendment of the Constituion guarantees you your freedom of expression, but it does not guarantee you your freedom of not being offended. There are two sides to every story, and to every unbounded freedom there should be a limit, a moderation and check, inasmuch as it affects others. But when it comes to freedom of expression, this right has be trampled and abused so much in the past, that we'd rather draw that line of balance on the getting very offended side of things, just to be on the safe side. Those on power will always go after this freedom first, because it provides mind control.
In all this offending the measure of power is what moderates how much scrutiny one is allowed to get. Just like with taxes, we don't have flat taxes, but ones that counter the natural law of strong get stronger, weak get weaker, because we don't want to live in a world where the captain jumps ship first, because he's the strongest, then goes around touting how he'd jumped so many sinking ships, while the women and children who couldn't make it in the 'free market place' of power, didn't, because they were weaker than him. If you're very high up the chain, if you're an Enron executive, a CEO, or the President of the United States, or a big company or even a Hollywood actor, be prepared for scrutiny and slander, it's the only way to have a meaningful society, it's something that should provide a counterbalance to power. Slander and scrutiny of those in power, in power to affect the lives of others, comes with the territory, or at least it should come with the territory. A captain of a ship should be held to a much higher moral standard and scrutiny than the rest of the crew, because so much has been entrusted into him. A homeless person running with a chicken he stole, or food he stole, because he's hungry, well, that's a fact or life. He's given welfare, but he still steals - so what? A priest, a policeman, a judge, or an Enron executive stealing the same chicken, now you should get really furious. That's somethin

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[King_TJ]

Well, the problem *then* becomes, how do you *know* "nobody is listening"?

It's entirely possible (and has already happened) that someone creates a "blog" site intended to serve as sort of an electronic version of a personal diary, accessible anyplace they have Internet access, and mainly intended for a few friends or family members to use if they care to join in. But someone stumbles onto it, discovers what they view as an interesting conversation about something of significance - and starts directing heavy traffic to it. All of a sudden, this person's formerly "unknown" comments have big influence.

Therefore, you have to consider the *potential audience* for your words before you type them - not your current actual audience. When you host a web site on the Internet, the *potential* is always quite large.

If you want to write comments that truly aren't even intended to reach an audience beyond a few selected people, you'd password protect it.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[the_raptor]

Responsibility - as you mention in a few cases - is quite important, but there is a definite difference between responsibility and oppression. Once communication is regulated in the way you seem to want to, this line will start creeping. I personally feel that some of the things already going on to limit anonymity of Internet communication are disturbing, and your mainstream argument of, "it's for your safety from the bad people who will hurt you," should not fly with people of intelligence.

Making judgements about what you apparently think I want is extremely foolish. I wasn't responding to this case in particular but to the general attitude on Slashdot that freedom of speech should have no consequences.

Making judgements is what courts are for. And apparently this case has at merit in the eyes of the plaintiff or else they wouldn't have filed. And it will be thrown out of court in short order if it doesn't have some merit. The dispute is between private citizens and its perfectly fine for the goverment to act as an arbiter. The main problems with freedom of speech happen when its a private citizen *against* the Government.

I think people should be allowed to say pretty much anything as long as they are willing to own those statements. What I have a problem with is anonymous people making mischief. I am very anti-censorship and Government interference in communications. I am also against most Western Governments currently in power and think that a revolution is probably the best way to sort them and their big business friends out.

And if my Government wants to do something about me saying these things they know exactly where I live.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[mhearne]

The original 10 amendments to the Constitution *are* your civil rights. The only one of those rights that hasn't been abrogated by Political Correction, or outright criminal action on the part of the government, is the first amendment.

They will let you bitch and moan all you want - it really doesn't change a thing.

Since you mentioned the boss lying about drug use or criminal behaviour, it happens all the time. Someone at the VA wrote into my record that I am a narcotics addict, and made that lie public. It doesn't matter that I have no arrest record for drugs, or that it never happened, the rumor is enough.

Can I sue the VA? Sure, anybody can sue anybody. But could I afford it? Not without a class action, and then I would have to find all the other people who've had the same thing done to them, and that in itself would take a lot of money.

So, the best solution is to lie right back, I guess. It's all just going to turn into a childish flame-war, whether on a message board, or in court.

By the way, the only time I post anonymously (which is seldom) is when I am seriously worried about government retribution. Look what happens to whole countries (like France) who disagree with our present government's policies.

Be well,

Michael

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[the_rev_matt]

I agree that responsibilities come with rights. The proper response to libelous or slanderous or just downright hateful speech isn't to gag people, it's more speech.

It is beautiful irony to me that one of the greatest features is also one of the greatest problems.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[gfody]

in writing you can't hear the obvious lunacy which would normally decrease their credibility, not to mention other factors that tend to reduce the speaker's influence on you (their dress, demeanor, etc)

It's like a stranger in a suit and tie walks up and says to you firmly, "you will die at 6 o'clock". Your experience up until 6 will be slightly less uncomfortable than if some hagard crazy said that to you.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think one of the great problems with the Internet is you.

Studies show that 9/10 people do get fired for either drug abuse or for possession of kiddie porn.

Get a free iPod mini by visiting: www.iwantamini.com

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[DreamCoder]

What you've said is true, but if you RTFA the negative comments in question were posted by a blogger who apparently (according to him) gets about 100,000 hits per months. He's not Bill O'Reilly (after all, who is?) but that's not exactly a dark corner of the internet, either.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[iamwahoo2]

the general attitude on Slashdot that freedom of speech should have no consequences

That is what "free" speech means. It does not mean that you do not have to pay to speak (although it is also free as in beer).

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[bentcd]

Some random commenter in the dark depths of the internet should be able to say whatever they damn well please . . .
The internet has precious few dark depths. If I was considering buying a Traffic-Power product, I might do a google search on them in order to find out more. Google is good at dredging the dark depths, and I would likely stumble upon the blog in question and it might affect my decision. Hence, the speech should reasonably be subject to libel laws etc.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[the_raptor]

the general attitude on Slashdot that freedom of speech should have no consequences

That is what "free" speech means. It does not mean that you do not have to pay to speak (although it is also free as in beer).

Nope you are wrong. You can say whatever you want but people will argue back, call you an idiot or ostracize you. You can be a historian that denies the holocaust but you might find that you lose all professional respect and people will say nasty things about you. No one should be allowed to stop someone denying the holocaust. But that doesn't mean you can deny the holocaust and suffer no consequences.

But one of those consequences shouldn't be the government locking you up or killing you. However free speech doesn't mean other people have to accept or like what you say.

If you go around saying Linux sucks, and Microsoft have never done anything illegal; on slashdot then you will be modded down and flamed. However your comment won't be removed by the editors and is there for anyone who cares to look for it.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[iminplaya]

It doesn't mean you can libel and slander people anonymously consequence free.

If the technology allows it, then we certainly can. Freedom, or the right to offend is a good thing. Private individuals that try to censor are no better than the govt trying to do the same thing. Censorship is censorship. Besides, it's the govt that upholds libel laws. So, effectively, it's still govt that will censor. Just because somebody spreads rumors and lies, it doesn't mean you have to believe them. It still takes two... The only right you have is to refute it. You have no right to stop somebody from saying it. If a false statement is made, then put up the correct info. We'll decide who to believe. All these lawsuits are exactly the same as what China does to censor its internet. The method is different, that's all. In fact,China is likely to come down to our method of using libel, slander, and IP law so they can appear to be as "free" as the rest of us.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[aaqubed]

One of the great problems with the Internet currently is that there are so many anonymous cowards, who troll, spam and lie. There is very little consequence to such actions so people aren't inhibited.

Well, you see, there is actually a theory for this.

But on a serious note, no, it does not matter if there are anonymous cowards who "troll, spam and lie." That happens in real life, too. Intelligent people should be able to know where to get reliable information from. Anyone looking for reliable information on a certain product by reading comments in a blog is not really helping himself.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Sheepdot]

How would you like your boss to lie to a future employer that you got fired for drug abuse or for having kiddie porn?

This is a really horrible example. If I was interviewing for a position and someone said that about a potential hire, I'd either ask the applicant about it, or look up the information myself.

90% of employers know that animosity may exist between employees and former employers. It's why very few even bother contacting former employers, and instead do background checks.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[iamwahoo2]

I thought you were talking about REAL consequences, like the government forcing you to pay someone for something that you said or wrote.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Blitzenn]

" Seriously when did people get this idea that you should be able to say whatever you want and never have any consequences"

You are guaranteed the freedom to speak freely, no one ever mentioned that there would not be consequences to what you have to say. If I don't like what you have to say, even though you have the right to say it, I can take (and also have the freedom to take) all sorts of action against you, personally and legally. People have wrongly tied two issues together, Freedom and the consequences of using it.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[xsbellx]

The only case under which Burger King would have the right to sue would be if Burger King could demonstrate that there were no cyanide in its french fries, that the blogger intentionally fabricated the story to damage Burger King's reputation, and that a reasonable person would believe the story produced by the blogger.

I must disagree with some of these comments.

1) Burger King does not have to prove anything about their fries. The blogger must offer proof that Burger King added the cyanide. That cyanide was found in the fries is NOT proof that Burger King added cyanide to the fries. Cyanide could quite possibly be a naturally occuring compound in the potatoes or a result of cooking.

2) The degree of fabrication could and IMHO should only be a factor in determining restitution. It has nothing to do with determing the validity of the litigation. Even if the blogger could show he/she truly believed the comments were accurate and took every possible action to verify the statement, that does not change the fundamental fact that the statement is WRONG.

3) Please define "reasonable person". Perhaps I have a Burger King franchise in an area where the population is prone to believing whatever they read or is easily swayed by popular opinion. As a result, I have suffered grievous financial set backs due to your incorrect blogging.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually I thought freedom of speech wasn't about the right to say what you wanted to say whenever you wanted to say it, rather it's about the right of other people to say what you might not like to hear.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

The negataive comments are about a company that has been widely criticised in many webdesign forums: for pushy sales, and bad work, and work that breaks the searchengine guidelines. The company eventually got many of their clients banned for spamming Google's search engine results. The Blog posting is based on solid facts, not some rant from an unknown. There is also a very long list of complaints registered with the BBB, and I believe that the company has now changed name, presumably to try to shake off their (very bad) "reputation".

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

Though if you want to beat people up verbally, this is a good place to do it.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[bossj52]

If you believe that is the case, would it not make more sense to then go after the individuals making the comments, as requiring the blog owner to remove questionable commentary, would be in and of itself censorship, and preclude the blog site from allowing the true spirit of free speech. IMO the indivitual commentors should be held liable for slander.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[m50d]

2) The degree of fabrication could and IMHO should only be a factor in determining restitution. It has nothing to do with determing the validity of the litigation. Even if the blogger could show he/she truly believed the comments were accurate and took every possible action to verify the statement, that does not change the fundamental fact that the statement is WRONG.

So a blogger can never publish a negative statement about anyone? Because that seems to me to be the result of your viewpoint. Someone acting in good faith for the public interest should not be breaking the law.

3) Please define "reasonable person".

Uh, it has the same meaning as in all the other parts of the law it's used. It's not a new concept he's introducing.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[dachshund]

All freedom of speech means is that the Government won't try to stop your (should be political) speech. It doesn't mean you can libel and slander people anonymously consequence free.

Hmm. In case you didn't notice, the company in question is asking the Government to penalize this blogger. This is precisely where the 1st amendment is supposed to apply. Any action that the government takes has to be consistent with its obligations to protect the 1st amendment rights of individuals.

That doesn't always mean you can say what you want, there are some important exceptions (trade secret laws, non-disclosure contracts, etc. But to say this has nothing to do with the government is just silly.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Mithrandir]

Please define "reasonable person".

There is a defined legal concept known as "The Common Man" that Common Law countries use. I am specifically aware of the concept in the UK, Canada and Australia.

Loosely put, the definition is "if the common man would not find that to be a reasonable action, you loose". For example, going swimming in a large storm on a beach with signs saying beach closed due to dangerous conditions, a person going swimming and breaking their neck has no legal grounds for suing. It very effectively stops so many of the stupid lawsuits you see here in the USA before they get anywhere.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[jtpalinmajere]

The problem is (and long has been) the degree to which we've tended to believe the printed word, no matter the source. The Internet's gradually improving that situation.

I was under the impression that it was just /. that was gradually improving in that situation... and is still largely dismal. Most of the rest of the written word out there still isn't worth the bandwidth required to transmit it.

In fact, I might even contest your argument that it is gradually improving. The only merit I can give to the vast majority of content I peruse through is based solely on its entertainment value (including what I read here on /.)... and even that has largely degenerated over the years.

Now, in order to give this post any merit I suppose I have to add in some humor, so come back later tonight after you've had a few drinks and then imagine a bald monkey slipping on a banana only to fall off the empire state building... on FIRE! (everything's funnier on fire ^_^)

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[DerekLyons]

The problem is (and long has been) the degree to which we've tended to believe the printed word, no matter the source. The Internet's gradually improving that situation.

Yah - we've moved from believing the printed word, regardless of source to believing the digital word - but only from sources that we agree with.

Some improvement.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

But then if accountability actually meant anything wouldn't you Americans do something about your sad politilcal snafu?

Of course not, as you should know by now, it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[odin53]

The sense of OP's post is correct.

The First Amendment has to do with the *government's* ability (or rather, inability) to restrict a person's speech, specifically by way of a "prior restraint". The fact that the government is the one that enforces defamation laws against private parties does not implicate the First Amendment because it isn't a prior restraint by the government. A prior restraint would be something like a law "saying 'Bob is a moron' is illegal" or "if you say 'Amy is an idiot' we will penalize you $10". Defamation laws say essentially "A person who is defamed by another person can enjoin or recover damages against the defamer", which isn't a prior restraint.

Also, to invite the argument that because the government enforces a law as it applies between two private parties (like a tort) government action is implied is to put into question a lot of private acts, since the Constitution restricts so many actions of the government but not of private citizens. That is not a good thing.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[falconwolf]

It's entirely possible (and has already happened) that someone creates a "blog" site intended to serve as sort of an electronic version of a personal diary, accessible anyplace they have Internet access, and mainly intended for a few friends or family members to use if they care to join in. But someone stumbles onto it, discovers what they view as an interesting conversation about something of significance - and starts directing heavy traffic to it. All of a sudden, this person's formerly "unknown" comments have big influence.

There's another possibility in what will happen. I read an article a few months ago about a link that was posted on a blog to some photos on someone's personal website hosted by Earthlink and her website was bombarded with hits. Earthlink charged her $8,000. What gets me is my ISP is Earthlink and I don't recall there being any limits in the service agreement. I was going to post some of my photos on my personal website (and on Photo.net as well) but now I'm concerned I might get hit with a large bill as well. I suppose I could use Geocities.

If you want to write comments that truly aren't even intended to reach an audience beyond a few selected people, you'd password protect it.

If it's a personal website hosted on the ISP's servers the only way I know to do this is to use javascript to write the page if the right password is entered. However this won't stop someone who knows how to from reading it, just look at the source code.

Falcon

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[realityfighter]

One of the great problems with the Internet currently is that there are so many anonymous cowards, who troll, spam and lie.

And the great panacea of the Internet is that those lies are fact-checked and debunked almost immediately.

We no longer live in a world where everyone must go to the town square to hear the latest news. Every person reading this has the power to do research. Most minunderstandings can be cleared up with a quick trip to Google, or, at most, a quickly-written email.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[aziraphale]

Whoosh... the sound of a point going straight over your head.

The GP was saying that the problem is people have in the past tended to believe whatever they read, because only 'journalists' and 'authorities' and people with 'responsibility' have been able to stick printed words in front of them, in newspapers, magazines, books and the like. In the internet age, the boundary around 'authorities' of this sort has been eroded - we can no longer tell whether someone is just some guy on a power trip, someone in the pay of a loon with an agenda, or a genuine person with a mission to inform.

The interesting thing is, that this has actually always been the case - it's just that the internet draws attention to the fact that anything you read could actually have been written by anybody.

The GP was saying that things are getting better because people are learning to be more cynical about the sources they read in any print medium.

I'm not sure how true that is, but it is an interesting thought...

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should you be allowed to go around staring [sic] negative rumours about your business competitors?

Why should we be allowed to? I was under the impression that in a free country, the question to ask was "why should we not be allowed to do this?" Rights exist by default in the citizens, and should only be taken away if there is a clear and convincing reason to do so. In this case, there is not.

The only benefit to libel and slander laws was perhaps that certain unproven assertions one might come across were more likely to be true. In this age of anonymous, worldwide communications, even that dubious benefit no longer exists. There is no real benefit to libel and slander laws, but there are negative consequences.

One of those negative consequences is a chilling effect on free speech, oriented against those on the low end of the economic scale. You must be careful what you say about those with enough resources to sue you, and if you don't have enough resources to hire a lawyer to clear things first, you might just be better off not saying them at all.

I challenge anyone here on Slashdot (this bastion of intellectual giants) to give me a convincing reason to keep libel and slander laws around.

Citing possible negative economic consequences is not a convincing reason, because there is no evidence to back up that assertion, and because "economic harm" is in general not a valid reason to deny citizens their rights.

Citing "fairness," the idea that no one should be allowed to destroy "your good name" without consequences is not a valid reason, becase "your" good name is in fact not "yours" in any economic, legal, or moral sense; it is entirely a construct of other people's opinons, and as such you have no more right to it than the would-be slanderer or libeller has.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[falconwolf]

1) Burger King does not have to prove anything about their fries. The blogger must offer proof that Burger King added the cyanide.

You don't live in the US do you? Here you, a defendent, have to be proven guilty, it's not a Napolitan code of law wherein the defendent has to prove their innocence. Even in a civil case the prosecution has to prove with a preponderence of evidence the defendent is guilty, or some such legal term.

Falcon

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[HardCase]

If their counsel really did their homework, they would have documented each and every infraction on his site...

Not that I support this particular lawsuit, but why should the plantiff's attorney do the work for the defendant? It sounds like the plantiff's attorney is pretty savvy - be intentionally vague and you might end up with more than you expected. Don't provide details unless you have to.

The defendant's attorney's job is to get that specific info. Like I said, why would you expect the plaintiff's attorney to do the defense's work?

-h-

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[tolkienfan]

Freedom of speech is about vastly more than politics.

Remember people have been put to death for certain kinds of speech.

Never surrender one of our most important freedoms - especially by reason of a fallacy

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Ryan Amos]

Libel/defamation also only applies when there is blatant disregard for the truth. Opinion is also protected speech. As long as you say something like "I think CmdrTaco is a pigfucker" does not imply the same thing as "News Flash! CmdrTaco caught fucking a pig!" The "I think" is also not necessary (or shouldn't be) because EVERYTHING on a message board is considered opinion unless backed up by references.

A different circumstance would be if you started astroturfing on message boards that your competitor's product caused cancer when it did not.

In any case, this is probably a stunt by this SEO company to boost their Google rating by getting their page plastered all over blogs everywhere. They know how to manipulate Google better than anybody and the SEO business is pretty sleazy to begin with (I personally consider them just a half-step above spammers.)

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[SvnLyrBrto]

> Seriously when did people get this idea that you
> should be able to say whatever you want and never
> have any consequences?

Ever see those "Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten." posters? I find myself, when I see articles like this, recalling an old rhyme I learned when I was in kindergarten. It went like this:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones. But names will never hurt me."

cya,
john

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Thing 1]

in writing you can't hear the obvious lunacy which would normally decrease their credibility [...]

OH YOU CANT CAN YOU HERE IT NOW? NIGERIA 4EVA!

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

well, I would register, but that means another forum registration that I have to keep track of... >. I already have nick's and password's up the wazoo that I have to keep track of because of all the forums I visit.

Mr. Raptor does have a point, but you've got to look at the big picture. If you can get sued for saying something, then you can get sued for anything. Because what is slander is purely dependent on taste.

Example: If I said "I don't like Pepsi because it's too strong in flavor." (which is not true, btw. I prefer pepsi over coke) then by this logic, pepsi can sue me for slander.

Example 2: If I said "Microsoft's software has a lot of hole and can be danagerous for a user to use it out on the net." then by this logic, Microsoft can sue me for slander although it's true.

The idea of freedom of speech does have it's drawbacks and the founding fathers have debated about this point a lot in many meetings and papers. But knowing that speech, unpopular and even lies, are necessary (because by taste, one man's truth is another man's slander) for freedom of speech to continue, so that no one man/entity/corporation can control what a minority has to say, they allowed freedom of speech.

Anyways. I thought this was cleared up long ago. If the plantiff can prove that there is a direct cause of physical, fianacial harm done by the speech, then they have a case. Of course, I'm no legal expert so I'll leave that confirmation/smack-down to someone else.

  All I can say is... so what? A group of people doesn't like a company and made a site to complain about it. So friggin, what? If you want slander? What about Microsoft vs. Linux ( "Microsoft server are less costly than linux servers... because a copy of windows 2000 is cheaper than a full rack mount IBM server with linux loaded") or Bush and Kerry? (" John Kerry is dangerously liberal! What he says is disrespective of our troops!") Remember your (and I'm not directing this at any one person. This "you" is a generalized everyone "you") own comments next time you get jipped by a large company (*cough* *SBC* *cough*) and feel like complaining. Because complaining might mean the company gets to sue you...

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[xsbellx]

So a blogger can never publish a negative statement about anyone?

It was not my intention to imply anything of the sort, I apologize. Perhaps a re-phrasing of the point may clear up any misunderstanding.

In this hypothetical case, the blogger, posts/publishes comments. The comments are later determined to be false (everyone makes mistakes). Now the situation has changed and restitution/punishment must be determined. After all, the wronged party is entitled to something. One of the factors in determining the restitution/punishment should take into account the efforts the original blogger took to ensure accuracy. In other words more due diligence equals less restitution.

The GP originally said "The only case under which Burger King would have the right to sue would be if Burger King could demonstrate that there were no cyanide in its french fries,". Whether the french fries contained cyanide or not does not preclude Burger King from bringing suit. It will definitely have a rather strong impact on the outcome of the suit.

Sorry about point 3. It was flippant and uncalled for.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[xsbellx]

You don't live in the US do you?

No.

Even in a civil case the prosecution has to prove with a preponderence of evidence the defendent is guilty, or some such legal term.

Yes, I fully agree, he who made the statement must be the one to prove the statement.

However, the original example opens a rather complex issue, namely who is the accused and who is the accusor.

For example, let's assume a newspaper publishes an article that states you are an evil criminal mastermind producing kiddie porn. You have asked the newspaper to retract/correct the sorry but they refuse. You then take the next logical step, litigation. That the newspaper published the article is trivial to prove. Now the question becomes do you have to prove yourself innocent of the accusation or does the newspaper have to prove the accusations are correct?

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[SacredNaCl]

ll freedom of speech means is that the Government won't try to stop your (should be political) speech.

It doesn't even mean that. You have freedom of speech till enough people start listening or you say anything truly important that rattles the people in power. Then its the same here as anywhere.

If you think freedom of speech exist as you say, I suggest you go try to protest again nuclear power at a nuclear power plant, or in a town with one. Or against the war on drugs in Chicago. Or at the undemocratic unelected WTO. Hell, even the RNC or DNC. Maybe even your local water board against fluoridation.

Now if you are saying you have freedom of speech but have to pay the consequences such as: Getting arrested on trumped up charges, maced, pepper sprayed, tazered, clubbed on the head with batons, shot with plastic and/on real bullets, subjected to low frequency sounds, irradiated (coming soon to a protest near you), scientific papers rejected, loss of employment, your personal communications spied on, potential material witness arrest and endless detention (disapparence), assassinated if you get too popular & rattle too many in power. Then by all means I agree with you.

You can speak all you want in the nice little narrow box. You can even assemble without getting bashed by the police if you are doing such for say breast cancer or similar. Try doing it for the things that matter and things become a little different.

We are at a point where to protest and exercise that speech we have to bring 4 cameras, 2 cell phones, have an answering machine with a very long tape, water to deal with chemical weapons assaults, face masks, and a lawyer. It still wont stop you from being detained, arrested, beat, items stolen/smashed, harassed, communications disrupted, communications intercepted and spied on... Its only a deterrent, it decreases the odds of bad things happening, doesn't eliminate them.

Its all about keeping you out of the process. Its far worse now than it was in the 80s, but it was bad in the 80s too if you touched on defense issues or ruffled with the nuclear industry or war on drugs.

The people who say this classroom God Is An American Civics crap have never gone out and fought for anything controversial or participated in a meaningful way that ruffled those above. I highly suggest taking a sign to your local military recruiters office that says "Only a moron would let their kid sign up for imperialist conquest" and get a first hand demonstration of what I speak. Bring a few friends.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[falconwolf]

For example, let's assume a newspaper publishes an article that states you are an evil criminal mastermind producing kiddie porn. You have asked the newspaper to retract/correct the sorry but they refuse. You then take the next logical step, litigation. That the newspaper published the article is trivial to prove. Now the question becomes do you have to prove yourself innocent of the accusation or does the newspaper have to prove the accusations are correct?

When such a case ends up in court it's the plaintiff's responsibility to prove that not only what the defendent said was wrong, but in the case that the plaintiff is seeking compensation, that the defendent also did it maliciously. At least that's how it used to be but the legal landscape may of changed in that regard.

Falcon

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[jtpalinmajere]

The GP was saying that the problem is people have in the past tended to believe whatever they read

I've not seen anything that would indicate this has changed at all, no matter what lines have been blended. Sure, people have become more cynical, but only because this blending of barriers has made people create their own barriers and mini-communities of mob-think. It is my opinion that the majority of the cynicism you're lauding as a benefit of the internet blending authoritative barriers comes more from mob-think rather than rational thought. A simple example is how we here at /. have a tendency to classify certain authors as MS goons and such. What happens when said MS goon comes along and actually writes something of worth? As if /. will actually pay attention to it... it couldn't POSSIBLY have anything factual or thought provoking in it whatsoever given the author's record. We're becoming less and less concerned about what people have to say and more and more concerned about which mob they belong to and whether or not that mob is an enemy.

No, it is my belief that the "blending of boundaries" has actually done more to polarize opinions and suppress rational thought than benefit free speech and the genuine person with a mission to inform. This is not to say that opinions weren't polarized and rational thought wasn't supressed before... much like everything else, its just been made more extreme, thus my reference to the only worth of anything on the net these days being its entertainment value. Reading all these articles and rebuttals is like watching two troglodytes with infinitely thick skulls trying to break the skull of the other one with an infinitely insignificant twig... and of course, it is always funnier to envision them doing it while on fire ^_^

You're right that we couldn't discern between the loonies and the genuine guys back in the day, just as many are discovering that they cannot do so today in the internet age. However there are also plenty such as myself that already realized this back in the day and the only effect we have seen is that the useless noise has become louder and more wide-spread to such a degree that the 'good stuff' is largely getting drowned out. That doesn't exactly sound like a good thing in my opinion.

... then again, who's to say I'm not just spouting out the rhetoric of my particular mob.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Blitzenn]

"You are guaranteed the freedom to speak freely, no one ever mentioned that there would not be consequences to what you have to say"

This country is not free of repressive legislation either. The Sedition Act of 1798 made it illegal to write or even utter a word about anything that could be construed as defamitory against the United States Government. Imprisonment and deportation were the favored consequence of violating the law at the time. Thankfully that law was stricken from the books by Thomas Jefferson, when he became president. The fight to keep such laws from our books is never over however. Such laws seem to make their way into our law books with some twisted language from time to time, the latest of which is the Patriot Act.

The Law is Not So "Murky" Here: See CDA sec. 230

[Froomkin]

The Communications Decency Act, sec. 230(c)(1) says,

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

And, in sect. 230 (f)(3),

"The term ''information content provider'' means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

Why a blog with comments would be treated differently from, say, a BBS or a chat room escapes me. And I teach this stuff for a living. So much for the defamation claims.

The trade secret claim is a little harder. It's probably the case that Congress didn't have trade secrets in mind when it wrote sec. 230. On the other hand, if you read the full text of sec. 230 you will see that Congress intended fairly broad protection; in sec. 230(f)(3) it certainly wrote in very broad terms. In law there are few certainties until after a court rules, but I think the balance here points towards a finding of non-liability both on CDA grounds and traditional trade secret grounds (where innocent receivers of information, and especially journalists who receive information, are not usually liable).

So whats to prevent me...

[AviLazar]

from posting on someone's forum or blog, who I don't like, and hope they get sued.

ALright, with luck I can post as an AC on /., saying how bad a big company is, and have them sue CmdrTaco :) W000T!!! CmdrTaco I want my mod points or else!

This just shows how stupid courts can get, and I swear, judges should really just smack some people around.

Re:So whats to prevent me...

[FurryFeet]

You're right! Let's see....

*cough* *cough*

MICROSOFT SUCKS!!!

*sits down and waits for /. to crumble to pieces.

really?

[lordsid]

"To be candid, he sort of moved into this moving propeller,' Perry said. 'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'"

It's not?

Exactly

[Red Flayer]

"Traffic-Power.com, which sells tools for boosting Web traffic, sued Aaron Wall, age 25, over statements posted in the comments section of Wall's search-engine-optimization blog, SEOBook.com" (emphasis mine)

Number one tool for boosting web traffic: publicity. Hence, lawsuit.

So Which Is It?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Traffic-Power.com said in the suit that confidential information about the company has been published on the blog, and it accused Mr. Wall of publishing "false and defamatory information," but it didn't identify any of the material in question.

So which is it? Is it accurate confidential information, or is it false, meaning that it doesn't spill company secrets? Judicial estoppal says you can't argue both sides of a case.

And while we're at it, just what makes information "confidential". Can you own an idea simply by claiming it's your confiddential information or trade secret? What has happened to patients and copyrights?

Re:So Which Is It?

[weilawei]

Information is considered a Trade Secret if it is so valuable that a business feels they can only make money if they keep it secret. So secret in fact, that they don't want to risk patenting it.

If you release this stuff and you were under a NDA, then you released a Trade Secret. Presto, lawsuit. However, if you independantly (completely) discover and patent it, there goes their trade secret so long as you can prove you didn't have any connection to them.

That's the quick /. summary.

lol @ the search engine spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

because spammers are what "search engine optimization experts" are

fighting amongst each other about who gets to eat the crap that fell from the table

lets hope they both sue each other into oblivion

Arrogant blog title, almost a 'It wasnt me!'

[tod_miller]

Timely Warnings...Blogging Can Get You Sued!

No, blogging cannot get you sued, nor can owning and firing a gun.

Who you point you blog or gun at, and where you aim, that can in general cause various reprocussions.

Now stop hiding behind shit words, and face up to this properly, and for those who start talking about freedom of speech and Internet, you are playing the wrong game.

This should be tried as any other case, imagine if it was a reply in a newspaper (giving too much credit to anything that is a 'blog' *spit*). Or someone calling into a radio show. (the aspects of competition may cloud it, IANAL [as if they wasn't self evident]).

The British press

[matt me]

Possibly the most terrible institution in existence, I think it would almost be worth burning down the forests to stop them printing the Sun.

Cluestick

[jdavidb]

Mr. Wall may have some protection from liability under federal law

You mean like the First Amendment?

(Or does he have to pull out the Second?)

The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.

Thankfully he didn't beat up anybody at all! Not a single person has been beaten, not with clubs, fists, or any other method. All the guy did, if he did anything, was say something. And actually it was apparently somebody else who did it.

I'm sick and tired of government being used as a weapon for one group of citizens to harass another group on the basis of doing something which is supposed to be our right to do anyway in a free country.

If I want to say your search engine optimization company sucks, then that's my right in a free country. And actually every search engine optimization company sucks. So you guys who are upset that I said that can just go get bent.

Well, well, well

[tetrode]

This trafficy-power seems to have a nice web site.

Very decent.

Look! there is even a mailinglist I can subscribe to. Quick let's do it before someone else does it. ... fill in the e-mail address and clicks on subscribe ...

Hmm, what do I get for a page:

http://65.41.209.68/~lisa/?type=s

File not found!

The URL you have loaded has not been found on this server.

Please alert the system administrator if you believe you have reached this in error.

What a losers

Re:Well, well, well

[tetrode]

Hmm

let's send some feedback then via http://traffic-power.com/feedback.html

I click on submit

http://www.traffic-power.com/cgi-bin/tptpformmail. cgi

Not Found
The requested URL /cgi-bin/tptpformmail.cgi was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.traffic-power.com Port 80

Hurray - the company that can get you #1 into google, altavista, teoma, msn, and whatever search engine they will invent tomorrow does not have a decent mailing list nor feedback form.

What a load of crap.

Uh?

[glwtta]

'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'

Well, what the fuck is it then? If it's no longer that, it must've changed rather recently, I for example haven't heard about that change yet.

TrafficPower Sucks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone had to try it right. Will the sue /. now?

Sorry I had to be anonymouse for this :-(

Competitor Bashing?

[killercoder]

Would we feel better if this was a SCO Newsgroup (with employee's of SCO) bashing IBM or Linus? Or if it was Microsoft Newsgroup bashing Google?

How about if they lie? Spread false rumours?

Seems pretty open and shut to me - slander pure and simple.
The owner of the site was trying to portray himself as a impartial blogger about the industry - instead he is a shill for his own company. He started rumours, he lied, he slandered, he fed the fires of inaccuracy against his competitor.
He will lose, and it won't impact a bloggers rights. Be honest, post the truth, and your fine. Slander someone - and you will sued.

Re:Competitor Bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

slander and libel only come if malicious intent can be proven as well

Not the nicest SEO company

[Mr. Flibble]

As seen on this discussion and this website.

Reminds me a bit of a certan guy at SCO...

Re:Not the nicest SEO company

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for Traffic Powder (Tragic Power, etc) and I can tell you right off the bat this is a two bit fly-by-night operation that spams for leads and steals money from unsuspecting idiots. The owner Matt Marlon has changed the companies name atleast twice, I remember the first time I found out, it was because the companies name on my paycheck was different. WTF I say, wtf indeed.

Dont read to much into this lawsuit as a publicity stunt, Matt Marlon (Top boob), Lisa Kraske (boob and mailing list lady) and Tom (the sales Manager) have absolutely not a brain between them. They probably wish beyond all hope that this was a fairly secret lawsuit.I am very glad it is getting all this attention because these fools need to be shut down and hard.

The best way to hit Matt (btw his email is mm@traffic-power.com) is to hit the old New York Jew in his wallet. This man is all about money, start making him lose money on court costs and this lawsuit is as good as dead.

Repercussions

[tod_miller]

Repercussions damnit.

Repercussions of bad spelling and / or typos on slashdot? arrogant self-vaulting twatwits correctly you ad-infinitum.

BTW I am not assigning guilt, just stopping people using the Internet and 'blog' to cloud the issue.

Yes it was other peoples comments, but the fact they are on the Internet or 'blog' is irrelevant really. Or is it?

I dunno...

WTF?

[miffo.swe]

"Perry said. 'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'"

Whats this guy smoking? It wasnt like he was stalking Pamela Jones giving out her adress or something. He said som unkind words about a competitors product wich he thought sucked. Whats next, Linus Torvalds and gang going to crazytown on the infamous "Get The Facts" campaign?

Come to think of it, if this would go through i think Microsoft is the one up the creek without a paddle. Imagine all the FUD to make money on.

XP

So if I say...

[laughingcoyote]

Everyone on this site is a convicted murderer who eats babies.

Just libeled all of you! (I hope). You may begin suing Slashdot now.

Re:So if I say...

[Mister_IQ]

From sycraft-fu's earlier post, "If they were made as a joke, it's not libel."

So now you have to wait and see.

+5, Funny = no lawsuit.
+5, Informative = Lawyer up, buddy!

interpreting communications decency act

[sonarniche]

this case will revolve around the communications decency act (wikipedia) and the phrase: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

like the article says, this really is still a murky area of the law--tho some decisions (like the Zeran one mentioned) seem to grant immunity, it's not clear whether this law really extends so far. recently there was a case involving eBay and a defamatory comment posted in feedback that went to the CA supreme court.

but, it seems like blogger=user of an interactive computer service (blog software/internet etc.) and post was by another, so you might conclude that the blogger shouldn't be treated as speaker, though it depends a good amount on the interpretation of the clause, since that is pretty broad. But the trade secret issue may tear down any protection from the law, if it's valid.

it seems more intelligent to go after the actual offender, not the host of the comment, but people generally want to go after the bigger fish, and it is often more difficult to track down the actual commenter.

Psssst!

[Anonymous Coward]

the_raptor (652941) has kiddie porn and uses the marijuana. Tell a friend.

Re:Psssst!

[QuijiboIsAWord]

That's a viscious lie! the_raptor has never even touched marijuana.

Re:Psssst!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, he just French inhales the smoke from 12-year old girls.

Re:Psssst!

[thuh Freak]

cool. yo raptor, can i score some greens?

For something to be libel

[Sycraft-fu]

It must meet three criteria:

1) The statements you make must be false statements. Truth is the ultimate defence against a libel suit. No matter how bad something is that you say, if it's true, it's not libel.

2) You had to know the statements were false. If you believed you were making true statements, that is also a defence against libel. Of course that's a little harder to prove, gets in to he-said, she-said to try and prove if you knew or not.

3) The statements had to be made with the intent to cause harm. If they were made as a joke, it's not libel. Again, gets in to an argument of if you really intended to cause harm.

So, if your statements are true, and provably so, you are fine. If not it gets a little more unclear.

Now please note, they could still sue you, even if their suit had no merit. That shit happens ALL the time. Even if everything you said was true you could still be sued. Doesn't mean you'd be liable for anything if you defended yourself, but you'd still have to defend yourself.

Re:For something to be libel

[Anonymous Coward]

Think yourself lucky. In the UK only it's only (3) and not all of that; if I am found to cause harm to someone, deliberately or otherwise, then I am likely to be guilty of libel.

I wonder how anyone dares to start a Wiki or a blog...

Re:For something to be libel

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The statements you make must be false statements.
2) You had to know the statements were false.
3) The statements had to be made with the intent to cause harm.

That's US law.

In less-civilized countries, such as the United Kingdom and most of the Commonwealth, it doesn't matter if what you said is true; nor if you didn't know it wasn't true.

The Commonwealth libel laws are often used by gangster politicans such as George Galloway, Robert Mugabe, and Lee Kwan Yew to crush their opposition.

Silly Americans who think that the UK and other Commonwealth countries are democratic ought to move to one. They'll find out soon enough that the US Bill of Rights ends at the US border, along with its quaint individualistic notions of "freedom of speech", "freedom of the press", "right to keep and bear arms", "right to trial by jury", "secure from unreasonable search and seizure", "not be compelled to be a witness against oneself", "right to a speedy and public trial", etc. etc.

Re:For something to be libel

[Frogbert]

The statements had to be made with the intent to cause harm. If they were made as a joke, it's not libel. Again, gets in to an argument of if you really intended to cause harm.

This rule is the most important, you must always remember to postfix any negitive statement you make on the net with "lol" in order to protect yourself from possible lawsuit. As an example:

CowboyNeal is a rapist
- Not cool

CowboyNeal is a rapist lol
- Cool

Re:For something to be libel

[Sycraft-fu]

Something like that would be seriously considered in a court case. If the context clearly indicates that the statement is a joke, then it's not libel. Comedians make knowlingly false statements all the time and are fine, because it's clear they are joking, and there intent isn't to cause harm, just to make people laugh.

Now it wouldn't be a blanket defence, of course, but it would be considered.

Re:The Law is Not So "Murky" Here: See CDA sec. 23

[ifwm]

"I think the balance here points towards a finding of non-liability both on CDA grounds and traditional trade secret grounds (where innocent receivers of information, and especially journalists who receive information, are not usually liable)."

Isn't that really the issue here, that a blogger may not be considered a "journalist"? In that case, what protection do they have?

L. Ron would be proud

[Catbeller]

"The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people."

The hell he says. It's called the First Amendment, firstly, and secondly, speech is what the Internet is FOR! It's not a communications system run for the benefit of corporations. It's a protocol. It was designed to let people speak -- once upon a time, the people who couldn't speak because a cult or a country would destroy them for voicing the truth. No more...

There are laws covering slander and libel. If a business is suing people regardless of actual illegality, then we have a abuse of the courts a la Scientology. Sue to make people shut up; failing that, bankrupt and ruin them as a warning to others.

Another Lawsuit for Traffic-Power.com

[far_star]

Fuck, Traffic-Power.com

So it's not legal to criticize shitty products...

[eno2001]

...anymore in the U.S? God this country is going down the tubes fast. I wonder what's going to happen to Consumer reports magazine when they pot a product? Personally, I deal with two really shitty products at work that I'm stuck with because there are no alternatives. I'd love to talk about how they suck and why, but I know those companies would pull the same kind of shit. That only leaves word of mouth for now. Every chance I get in real life I tell people to avoid these products like the plague. I have also suggested that if someone went postal at either of those businesses, I'd never stop laughing.

No, it doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

All freedom of speech means is that the Government won't try to stop your (should be political) speech.

It seems like the idea here is that you should have freedom of speech if you're criticizing the government, but not if you're criticizing a business.

Considering the large number of people I run across who espouse the belief the government should have as little power as possible and businesses should take up any important functions instead, this would seem in the long run to maybe lead to not having any meaningful free speech at all.

"Libel" doesn't really have anything to do with it. Did you read the article? You know, the one this comments section is supposedly talking about? The lawsuit doesn't even specify exactly which comments that seobook.com is being sued for, and the claims which were likely to have sparked the lawsuit seem to have been corroborated by other sources. In this light it seems likely that the comments prompting the lawsuit at worst are legitimate criticisms of this trafficpower company, and at best are incorrect but honestly meant by the people who posted them.

Ever heard the term "chilling effects"? The problem is we have to err on either one side or the other. Either we are too cautious with freedom of speech and allow bad information to flourish, or we are too strict and dissuade people from exercising their freedom. There isn't a middle ground. The thing is though that if we err on the side of caution, nothing is hurt. People can make up their own minds and decide not to trust an "anonymous coward" on the internet unless what they say can be corroborated. However if we err on the other side, and wind up silencing people because they cannot risk the consequences of having spoken, then there is no way to repair this. Those comments are lost forever.

There is very little consequence to such actions so people aren't inhibited.

Ah yes, this horrible environment in which there are no negative consequences for expressing oneself... how will civilization survive.

he must be new here...

[avi33]

The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.

Because freedom of speech only applies if no one can hear you.

realism check on Blogging title

[WillAffleckUW]

Timely Warnings...Blogging Can Get You Sued!

No, blogging cannot get you sued, nor can owning and firing a gun.

You're confusing the following:

1. Anyone can sue you - it may be tossed out of court, you may win damages, but anyone can sue you who has standing with the court(s). Especially in America.

2. Owning and firing a gun is illegal in most city limits of America. Even if you eventually win the case, you can still be arrested and held for up to 72 hours without charges being filed, under many pretexts.

3. However, just because 1 and 2 are true doesn't mean you're not right in your basic premise that bloggers being sued for something another person posted is highly unlikely to ever successfully result in a negative ruling by the courts on the merits of the case.

Re:realism check on Blogging title

[tod_miller]

My point was that blogging cannot 'get you sued' as his title states. You cannot sue someone merely for the act of blogging. The content may be reason, but not the mere fact of having a blog.

Unless we enter into an agreement where you are not allowed to have a blog, you blog, and I could sue, but it wouldn't stand up would it?

Aha!!!

[Hosiah]

Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Aggressive Telemarketing

[DiveX]

"company has coerced prospective clients into signing up for its service through aggressive telemarketing"

In my case, this is certainly true. My number was listed on my personal, non-commercial website [floridacaves.com] whois registration information. They called the number to advertise their services. Unfortunately for them, it was a personal cellular number and it has been illegal for more than a decade to place telemarketing calls to such a number.

I sued them last year under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 [47 USC 227] and won a $5,149 small claims court judgment against them (for making a commercial prerecorded call to a cellular number, for failing to send me a copy of their do-not-call policy, for failing to train their staff in proper use of the do-not-call policy, and for willfully or knowingly violating the law).

I just hadn't gotten around to collecting as I thought they might have gone out of business or hidden assets, however, if they want to use their name again on public records, then they are still in business and collectable. I'll have to file to domesticate my judgment in Nevada, but that should not be too hard. Once cannot let a company like this get away with strong-arming people when they do it themselves, in my personal opinion (gained from my own experience with them).

Just because my number was listed in my website registration, it does not grant them prior EXPRESS permission that is *required* before that may place commercial calls to a cellular number.

The TCPA gives you specific private right of action to go against the companies that violate the law. Do your own research at http://www.tcpalaw.com/

On the definition of 'people'

[Haiku 4 U]

Since when did 'people'
become a synonym for
a corporation?

Re:On the definition of 'people'

[WillAffleckUW]

Since when did 'people'
become a synonym for
a corporation?

It's one of the strange things that happened in the USA around the 1930's - on the face of it, it has no basis in fact or nature, but that never stopped anyone.

Coming soon to a civil court near you...

[argStyopa]

2008 XX-XX
United Press International
In a landmark case, a recent civil action has resulted in a person being successfully sued for having a negative opinion. Said the plaintiff's attorney: "Look, everyone knew that the defendant had a poor opinion of my client. He didn't precisely say this explicitly, but it was evident in his conduct and manner. The defendant is a well-respected member of his community, and so this implied reputation had a direct negative effect on my client, both from a social and (more importantly) fiscal perspective. Knowing that the defendant didn't like my client in the least, prospective employers would view this negatively, either preventing my client from getting a good job, or reducing the scope of compensation offers. We are fortunate to have found a judge who understood the nuances of this case."
Based on extensive precedent set in the Civil Rights litigation of the 20th century, it became de facto illegal to dislike someone if they were of an oppressed minority of any type. It was practically foreordained that this would be expanded to eventually apply regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. What happened here today is expected to be repeated across the country shortly.

"Blog Wars"--coming to a theater near you!

[Sundroid]

On Slashdot, companies and individuals are being flamed and defamed every day, but Slashdot will always survive because people generally recognize the First Amendment free-speech protection reality. Out there in the business world, there are other realities to deal with -- trade secrets and trade wars. Apple sued some guy because he posted Apple's "secret sauce" on his site, but the guy is a big fan of Apple. This case mentioned in Wall Street Journal is different -- the two entities involved are competitors and hate each other, so basically, it's more in the territory of business rivalry than free-speech issue.

Just the other day, some prominent blog site published the pay scale of bloggers working for another prominent blog franchise, and I thought lawyers' phones would be ringing off the hook. People keep saying bloggers are irrelevant, the blogosphere is dull, well, my guess is that a movie titled "Blog Wars", starring Tom Cruise and Brooke Shields, could become a reality sooner than all of us think.

But we all know

[Anonymous Coward]

Traffic Power are a bunch of necrophiliacs anyway.

Traffic Power is going bust very soon!!

Oh and traffic power has been banned by google.

Oh and they are nothing but pure scam

Traffic power banned by google...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've investigated traffic power before after a customer wanted to use them for search engine optimization. They're a very shady search engine that's been banned by google, and whose customers have been banned by google. Just do a google search on "traffic power" and notice the traffic-power.com website doesn't come up at all. Isn't it funny that a search engine optimization company doesn't have their own website come up first on google when you search for them by name?

One of the things they do is create link farms to customer sites. A link farm is a bogus website with nothing but links to that website in an attempt to increase search ranking. This is why traffic power (and many of its customers) have been banned by google.

Re:"God bless the child that's got his own" freedo

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is Slavery

Re:The Law is Not So "Murky" Here: See CDA sec. 23

[Russ Nelson]

I'm sure the law around this is reasonably well settled, but it seems like there has to be a balancing act between muzzling of free speech, and protection of a claimed trade secret. If I was going to design a rational law, I would force the secret holder to put up a bond before muzzling the publisher, payable to the publisher if no trade secret is found.

Reading the wikipedia article on trade secrets, it seems that you can defend yourself against a trade secret by showing that it's no secret, that it is of no economic value, or that the holder didn't adequately protect it.

There also seems to be a risk in identifying the secret. If only certain parts of the SEObook website disappear, you can presume those were the secrets. But it seems completely unfair to require the SEObook folks to take everything down.
-russ

Um...

[faedle]

Someone needs to beat that lawyer up with a rolled-up copy of the Constitution.

"Bad lawyer! Bad!"

F*cked Company

[Overzeetop]

If FuckedCompany.com is still on line, I can't imaging much you could say or have posted on your 'blog that would get you in trouble.

SEO

[MirgNave]

Seems more likely that Traffic-Power.com is trying to SEO their own site's PageRank by having many stories link to their homepage.

Not a bad idea. They can always drop the lawsuit later and get another bump in their ranking.

It's all about the reaction.

[Agarax]

I think what he was talking about was the reaction most people here on /. had to this.

Instead of 'From reading this article I have concluded that libel and slander laws could/would not apply here and the company is in error' /.ers just start going 't3h c0rp0ration is trying to s|_|pr355 fr33 speach! First Ammendement! OMGWTFBBQ'

Re:It's all about the reaction.

[WNight]

Well, what do you call abusive legal games? Threatening lawsuits that will supposedly be dropped, if only you'd start playing nice with the evil bastards that you harmed by posting the truth. And if not, they'll sue you for everything you're worth. Still without an actual statement of what they consider harmful.

Sounds almost like Traffic Power is a company with a useless service. That Traffic Power knows they have a useless service. And that Traffic Power specifically trains their representatives in lying to avoid painful questions. (Why they aren't listed on Google, do your tricks actually work, etc.)

So yeah, a company with absolutely no credibility sues someone, with the intention of driving legitimate comments offline by bankrupting anyone willing to share the truth and yeah, people do start talking about free speech being murdered.

This is as blatant as that Robert Novak thief who ran Pet Warehouse and sued people for reporting that he sent them dead pets. Assuming people can't afford to fight these bastards in court, I really wish they'd curb stomp them in real life. What good can ever come from letting a complete bastard like Max D Spilka (Traffic Power liar/lawyer) walk the earth? Sure, behind every dirty lawyer is a dirty client, but that client isn't capable of ruining hundreds of lives without the lawyer - imho the lawyers are the ones we should target. Worthless wastes of skin. Exactly what you'd expect from a company whose business is tricking people into going to sites that don't really offer what they want.

Re:It's all about the reaction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Who knew that Novak was such a piece of shit. First he's outing CIA agents and now he's killing people's pets.

Re:So it's not legal to criticize shitty products.

[SeekerDarksteel]

I wonder what's going to happen to Consumer reports magazine when they pot a product?

They've already been sued several times, most notably by Suzuki for their claims that the Suzuki Samurai was dangerous and prone to roll-over accidents. The case eventually got dismissed without any monetary compensation or public apology or retraction but unfortunately since the case was dismissed rather than a ruling issued for CU there is still no explicit standard.

Bogus Metaphor Alert ...

[jc42]

"The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people."

This is, of course, a very traditional sort of utterly bogus metaphor.

The internet is, in fact, not capable of being used to beat up people. The IP protocol can't transport fists or baseball bats; it can only transport bits.

It's true that people often use such over-the-top metaphors to claim that they have been physically damaged by someone else's words. But they should just learn that old chant that I learned before first grade:

"Stick and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

Now, if the charge had been libel, the situation might be different. But claiming you've been "beat up" over the internet is merely laughable. The court should say just that, and charge the plaintant court costs.

Re:Bogus Metaphor Alert ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Psychological damage(words) is far worst than physical damage(stick & stones).

Re:RTFP

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod -2: Misread Original Post. GP did not claim the US owns the internet, merely that it wants to control ("own") it. And yes, thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that speech is not completely free, which doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. The internet certainly was a place where the speech was a little "freer;" where you could go about criticizing whomever for whatever without fear of being sued.

That this is rapidly changing (and not in favor of Joe AOLer) is certainly concerning, and I'd love to see some insightful discussion on the topic. Maybe we should just follow your lead, though, and quibble over stupid fucking semantic nitpicks instead.

sleazebags sue eachother

[autopr0n]

Film at 11.

Echoes

[MrLint]

This, on its face seems to have some similarities to the Pets Warehouse case. For those that didn't settle, it seems that the plaintiff got knocked down rather badly.

Public Debate

[Doc Ruby]

Any sane justice system would see this case decided in 45 minutes. The blogger is responsible for publishing his own comments; the others are responsible for publishing theirs.

There might be a day or two argument over truth, liability and damages. If the comments are not true, then the people making them in public are liable for any damages proven to be caused by those comments. Not very complicated, and certainly nothing new on which to make arguments about "new Internet technologies" which make this different.

Instead, watch this dispute consume months or years, including many days of scarce, publicly funded justice system labor. Watch lawyers pad their pockets with arguments that go nowhere, probably to arrive at either a backwards precedent, or just a settlement that settles nothing but the exchange of more money between the parties (and even more cuts to their lawyers). This is going to cost all of us even more money, immediately in the costs to the justice system to moderate this debate, probably without any benefit to future cases.

This whole notion that "X changed everything" is the biggest lie of our lifetimes. Even when that's partly true, like Columbus' return from the Western Hemisphere with proof that Europeans should conquer the territory, it changes a lot - but not everything. Like realities of physics, economics, and justice. Other laws, like those written by lawyers and approved by judges, can change, too. But those are usually changed to suit the lawyers, regardless of how they affect the rest of us.

Like saying that public speech on the Internet changes the familiar expectations of public, unmoderated speech and liability. Just like when someone posts slanderous, lying posters on a wall along a busy sidewalk. The building owner isn't liable for the damage caused by the posters, unless they're also the posterer. Likewise, people already know that unmoderated websites aren't responsible for the posts made by the public. All the noise to the contrary is just lawyers making excuses to increas their billings.

Editorial control

[Per Abrahamsen]

I believe part of the answer lies in editorial control. If you delete comments on your blog, you may be conisderet an editor rather than a common carrier, and become responsible for the content.

Another case is if you refuse to remove illegal material from your blog, when pointed out to you, you may become responsible.

Of course, if you do remove the material, it may be viewer as editorial control, so it is damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Re:Editorial control

[Lehk228]

if you remove in response to complaints that is different than removing because you want to

Guest book

[phorm]

More like sueing somebody for what a customer wrote in their guest-book, or a comment-card.

It goes back to newspapers

[Anonymous Coward]

In libel you can be sued for defamation that you publish even if you weren't the creator. Newspapers can be sued for libelous letters to the editor or even classified ads if they are published. Newspapers are held to a higher standard because they are seen as both the editor and publisher, in that they have final control of the content the publish. The courts have said that places like chatrooms that have not moderated are not held in the same standard. However, if a forum is moderated, it is held to the newspaper standard. So, if you don't moderate your blogs comments, you are in the clear (supposedly). This case is in new territory legally, and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

from the sco textbook

[sum.zero]

trafficpower.com alledge that they have been trying for over a year to get their 'trade secrets' removed from these websites, but then fail to identify just what those 'trade secrets' are so that they can be removed...

nice.

sum.zero

MOD PARENT UP INFORMATIVE

[metaphorever]

I wish I had points to mod you up as you seem to be the only person linking to trafficpowersucks.com. I took some time to look at the site and it makes a very good case for them sucking, much more so than any other whateversucks.com that I've seen.

This is important because negative speech is only libel if it is untrue. The email section especially makes it clear that these people have conned many many people, and makes me confident (I haven't read the actual comments) that whatever was posted about them is not libel but truthful criticism

about Scions...

[dR.fuZZo]

On a side note, I bought a Scion xB recently, and I very nearly walked out of my dealer like you did. Toyota makes claims about buying a Scion being easy, and about how there's no haggling and it's user-friendly. In my experience, those claims just don't seem to be true. A car dealer is a car dealer is a car dealer, I guess.

All you need to do is I think/ I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

If I am not mistaken that lets you get away with anything right? Instead of saying george b is a big nazi bone head, all you have to say is I believe GW is a big floppy XXXXX XXXk

REPLY

[Madd Scientist]

'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'

um... says who? that assumption has just as much precedence as the assumption that a blog author is liable for the slander of others if the blog is used as the vehicle for the slander. as far as the law is concerned, maybe the internet IS just a personal stump for us all to beat up people... it's good for society. the guy that no one can find any reason to beat up will undoubtedly become ruler. isn't that a good thing?

Odd smell

[Martin Spamer]

It could just be an intimidation, but give both parties business is optimissation of page ranking this whole things seems to have a very odd smell to me.

I'm suspicious this whole episode is about getting links from high page ranked sites like the WSJ and slashdot.

If the worst should happen....

[netfool]

...I'd imagine you would see what are Drill Sergeants would do in Basic.

Say you did something stupid (I never did btw...), the DS would get in your face and say (or yell) something like "You know PRIVATE, I can't call you a fucking idiot for doing that! I could get in trouble for that! Hell, I could get in trouble for for saying your an ate up shit bag who I think's going to recycled because I fuckin hate you!!! But I'm not going to do that....beat your face!"

They're rather clever.

Blog Faces Lawsuit Over Reader Comments

[alainq]

You americans are making me sick with your hypocrite actions.

Stranger than Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, many webmaster forums have a thread running, where many former Traffic Power clients explain how they were pressured to sign up, then the work done was poor quality, and eventually Google banned their sites for spamming the search engine results.

Google dropped a very large number of TP client sites out of their search results many months ago. Even "GoogleGuy" (a Google employee who posts at webmasterworld) made comment about it one day, but without specifically naming the company involved.

There is a long string of complaints about TrafficPower already registered with the BBB, and right after that, didn't TP change their name to "1P" or something? Sounds like a company trying to shake off a very bad reputation, to me.

There were no "trade secrets" to divulge. They are all there in the HTML source code of the website, and cross-linking of sites is discoverable with simple searches on the major search engines too.

Law suit is without basis, and should be laughed out of court. Court time would be better spent suing TP on behalf of all their clients that they ripped off over the last few years.

Eye of the beholder

[amrust]

Al Gore says I can do whatever I want with the Internet. Like a benevolent creator, he invented the Internet for us humans to do what we will with it. And even if I'm wrong, there's more than one Internet anyway. Just ask President Bush. So on my Internet, I choose to trash people who act like pompous aholes.

Occasionally I look up information or send email on it, also.

Never thought you'd be grateful for the CDA, hmm?

[jezor]

The U.S. law in question, which protects "service providers" from libel liability from third-party postings, has an interesting history. Back in 1995, a New York judge found that the then-proprietary Prodigy service could be held responsible for an allegedly libelous posting to its Money Talk bulletin board about the Stratton Oakmont financial services firm, on the theory that Prodigy exercised editorial control over the postings. The fact that Prodigy's editorial control was limited to automated dirty-words filtering was lost on the judge.

In response to the uproar by ISPs and online hosts over this case, the U.S. Congress enacted a safe harbor for service providers, ironically into the roundly criticized Communications Decency Act. While most of the CDA was found unconstitutional, the safe harbor remains (at 47 U.S.C. 230, and has been used by a number of major ISPs (including AOL in a case involving a Matt Drudge story) over the years.

This case will likely come down to whether a blog creator is a service provider as defined by the law and the cases that have interpreted it. What makes it interesting is that allowing public comments to a blog really falls somewhere in the spectrum between hosting a message board and publishing letters to the editor, depending on issues of control and other factors.

A few other thoughts. First, regarding those Slashdotters who have marveled at the U.S.-centric views on Internet law, it's really the European Union (through its data protection and VAT laws among others) that has sought to project its legal structure regarding the Internet to others around the globe. Also, as it happens, libel via the Internet has generated major new jurisdictional questions, as the libelers have been brought to trial in foreign countries whose libel laws are much more pro-plaintiff than those of the alleged libeler's home country. (Take a look at the Dow Jones v. Gutnick case for just one example of this.)

-------------------
Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
Assistant Professor of Law and Technology
Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT)
Touro Law Center
Co-Author, TechLawProf Blog

So basically

[Ixne]

If I'm understanding this correctly, someone could spray graffiti reading "Bill Gates is the secret lovechild of Neil Diamond" on the wall of a Blockbuster store, and either Neil Diamond or Bill G could sue Blockbuster?? Cool!

WSJ and Slashdot were duped!!

[wamatt]

This is so fake. Some smalltime little SEO operator trying to make a name by suing himself no doubt.

This should not be a story.

http://www.traffic-power.com/

has a PR (page rank) of 0. Reputation is everything in the SEO game... they have none.

Re:WSJ and Slashdot were duped!!

[Anonymous Coward]

TP were raking in MILLIONs, until Google banned them and all the sites they had worked on. There are complaints about TP all over the web, and a long list at BBB too.

Great! Set a precedent...

[Anonymous Coward]

and then let's go after the goatse guy and that "GNAA" freak.

Traffic Power.com?

[slappyjack]

When are the guys that killed that russian dude going to come after these scumbags?

That's the story i really wanna see.

Traffic-Power. Really. Fuck them.

How about a proactive legislature?

[cpu_fusion]

I just love how our legislatures are so busy fighting over everything else that they can't pass laws PROACTIVELY as technology involves. Instead, we get to let the courts interpret ancient laws against new technology.

People get to become human labrats in the legal system, having their lives turned upside down, because our lawmakers are basically fat, lazy do-nothings.

For Those Who Didn't Know

[michaelothomas]

I am a close personal friend of Aaron Wall and I have talked with him at length about this lawsuit. These trafficpower.com people are just complete scum trying to scare people into deleting negative comments about them.

If you do a quick search in google for traffic power, you'll note that the entire first page of results is all about how shady their business practices are. All their clients sites have been banned from google. Their standard operating procedures include cold-calling people, plagiarizing other sites, and they've even created fake forums to try to get back at the people that have tried to expose them.

You can read all about it at http://www.trafficpowersucks.com/.

Traffic Power has made a lot of money using aggressive business tactics to feeds on small business owners who don't know any better. They're currently in bad standing with the better business bureau, and several child companies they've created under new names are now under investigation.

Totally OT

[XFilesFMDS1013]

But I've been looking at cars recently, and the low cost and relatively high MPG of the Scion caught me eye. Any insight you can give me on the car? unfortunately, with this many responses, I'll be insanely lucky if you read this.

The real deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read every post here, but...

It seems to me the lawsuit is divided into two components: the libel component and the dissemination of trade secrets component.

The libel issue is probably dead in the water, Although, IIRC, there isn't a specific federal anti-slapp statute, most federal courts follow a state's anti-slapp statue case law where jurisdiction for the lawsuit would otherwise occur, if that state has one (not all states do). California's anti-slapp statue is particular strong, and takes a rather dim view of corporations found to bring lawsuits against individuals for the sole purpose of censoring criticism and "chilling" normal public discourse and free speech. I sense an imminent motion to dismiss for at least the libel-related counts.

The second component is more complex. Criticizing a company is fair, but publishing a company's trade secrets is not. However, like Apple's current case, I think the plaintiffs will have to prove that whatever was published was indeed a company "trade secret;" that it actively protected the secret from disclosure; that the defendants obtained the secret and disclosed it knowingly and illegally; and that disclosure of the secret has caused harm to the company.

Being that the critical trade secret(s) has yet to be identified in the blogs prior postings makes the plaintiffs lawsuit seem to be a little disingenuous in that regard. More like a legal saber-rattling exercise to induce the defendant to settle the case early according to the plaintiff's whims, which is usually an agreement to stop criticizing the company.

Thus, both components of the suit conspire to achieve the same result - suppressing free speech. There's no money to be had here, so damages don't even enter the picture.

Responsibility comes with freedom of speech

[sd_diamond]

One of the great problems with the Internet currently is that there are so many anonymous cowards, who troll, spam and lie.

Ironically, this is also one of its benefits. If people are exposed to all points of view, including the stupid ones, they learn to develop their BS filters. If not, those filters atrophy and you have a population with no critical thinking skills that is ripe for manipulation.

hey traffic-power.com!

[nemik]

googling you gives a lot of bad press about you. i think a suit against google is in order, no?

Alexis de Tocqueville

[falconwolf]

I'll not start on Microsoft and their sponsorship of groups like the Alexis de Tocqueville institute or I'll e here all night.

This is the first I've heard of this, and it's rather ironic. Much as Thomas Jefferson believed the corporate aristocracy could be the downfall of the US so did Alexis de Tocqueville. In his "Democracy in America" he was awed by the freedom from government and corporations he saw Americans enjoying during his tour in the 1820s. Basically Americans ruled themselves. He probably would of loved open source.

Oh, I see where it may of come from, Did MS Pay for Open-Source Scare?

Falcon

Re:Alexis de Tocqueville

[NickFortune]

This is the first I've heard of this, and it's rather ironic.

Indeed. Their choice of name seems cynical and manipulative in light of their publication list.

The AdTI has taken a few potshots at Linux and Open Source in general. The one that caught my attention was the paper by Ken Brown entitled Samizdat where he claimed that Linux Torvalds based used code from Minix as the basis for Linux. Subsequent investigation showed that Brown grossly msirepresented the position of those he interviewded in his research, including Andrew Tannenbaum, the author of Minux who told Brown in no uncertain terms that this was not the case.

It is a measure of how laughably skewed the paper was that even Microsoft came ot dismiss the report as being less than helpful.

Slashdot has discussed the AdTI before as well.

Re:Alexis de Tocqueville

[falconwolf]

The AdTI has taken a few potshots at Linux and Open Source in general. The one that caught my attention was the paper by Ken Brown entitled Samizdat where he claimed that Linux Torvalds based used code from Minix as the basis for Linux. Subsequent investigation showed that Brown grossly msirepresented the position of those he interviewded in his research, including Andrew Tannenbaum, the author of Minux who told Brown in no uncertain terms that this was not the case.

Thanks for the links, I'll have to spend tyme going through and read the material. If this Brown is saying these things about Linux and open source, along with the AdTI, then I'd say they're not representing Alexis de Tocqueville very well. I'll go even further and say they're distorting what he said and believed.

Slashdot has discussed the AdTI before [slashdot.org] as well.

I've cited and provided links to AdTI myself, so I found it ironic what they're saying.

Falcon

Re:Libel or Redundancy

[yintercept]

I admit the article is confusing. A guy is a accused of libel for calling a company engaged in SEO "scum".

Isn't that pretty much true by definition? It seems more a case of redundancy than libel.

the internet

[Landshark17]

The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.

It isn't?

The mods must be nucking futs.

[DigitalReverend]

I can't believe how many comments that complete miss the point got modded up.

Let me spell it out for you. Dude has blog, some other dude, posts a comment about the blog entry. Dude who owns the blog is getting sued over the actions of someone else. It's messed up, and it's wrong, the owner of the blog has no control what other people post. This would be like someone spray painting racial slurs on the side of your house and you getting sued for it.

And yet, all these people are talking as if it was the blog owners own actions that raised the lawsuit and the mods in their powerhappy and yet incomprehensible ways of doing things on this site, modded those comments up.

All this time I thought slashdot was frequented by people who had at least a reasonable level of reading comprehension skills.

Slashdot and the U.S. government. Power in the hands of idiots.

Not the first...

[Buschness]

...time this has happened. Most bloggers probably don't have the stomach to fight it.

Then again

[stonecypher]

'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'

Somebody should tell this guy about IRC.

Blog content and legal issues

[rahard]

I am currently under an informal legal discussion regarding my blogs. Apparently an organization that I am dealing with feels uncomfortable with the content of my blogs. We are currently in the process of terminating an agreement and this organization wants to have a clause in the terminating agreement stating that I will not say anything bad about them in any communication media (including blogs, of course). Well, where is "freedom of speech" then?

traffipowersucks.com also being sued!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is another person being sued by Traffic Power: http://www.traffipowersucks.com/

It is ironic that Aaron Wall (http://www.seobook.com/) only posted some facts about how Traffic Power used Black Hat SEO techniques that got their clients banned in Google, while Traffic Power created some fake forums and bashed and posted lies about SEOBook and other SEO firms, including my own company. If SEOBook sued Traffic Power right now, he would probably have much better case.

Re:traffipowersucks.com also being sued!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a long trail of complaints about TrafficPower all over the web: their pushy sales techniques, their poor-quality work, and their spammy methods that got most of their client sites banned by Google, en masse.

Add to that, the list of complaints at BBB, and recent change of name from "TP" to "1P" and this all starts to add up. I hope the judge is Internet savvy and does some prior research about those jokers.

Great

[ImaLamer]

Now I'll get blamed for my blog's illegal drug sales and gambling.

I guess I've got to be more vigilant with the blacklist.

Free Speech and civil law

[sjames]

Repeatedly In various lawsuits, I read here all about how the 1st ammendment only applies to government, but I just don't buy it.

I agree that the Constitution is not necessarily binding on individuals or corporations. However, in a civil suit, the plaintif is petitioning the government to enforce actions against the defendant. I submit that if those actions are against the constitution, the court (as part of the government) IS restrained from taking that action no matter who initiated it.

I understand that that's not how it seems to work these days. However, just because government doesn't live up to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.