Slashdot Mirror
Mom Makes Website, Gets Sued for $2 Million
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian stay-at-home mom of 3 recently created a website to report on environmental problems around her neighborhood. The general public and governmental workers lauded her for her efforts. The environmental Ministry spokesman was even quoted as saying 'Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry'. However, not everyone was quite as happy, as she soon found out, when one company decided to sue her for libel to the tune of $2 million."
"The truth" was a solid defense against libel claims?
But she has to prove it, and they've got the bigger pocket books...
Remember Bush's Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Actually, I first applied that to Poppy many years ago, but it goes double for Dubya.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
> Bad: Woman rights remarks about your company.
that's right, you can't have people going around correcting things said about you!
If there were just misunderstanding (wrongfully interperted information), then company would have invated this lady, described problems and how they will solve that and then all problems with bad PR would go away. Of course, if they choose this course, they have something to hide - because it is typical defence nowadays - attack.
Of course, a little bit more details about which claims company thinks are false would be helpful for more concrete judgement.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
There's a big difference between being negligent and allowing your kid to play around a swimming pool or bucket and pointing out where pollution caused by corporations, et al is occuring.
The second is something that affects a lot of people who didn't cause the problem in the first place and can continue affecting people in that area for years.
Whoever moded you insightful needs to have their head checked.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
I don't think you really undestand the way the world works, buddy.
This is not a "you have wronged us, we deserve damages" lawsuit. The company knows she couldn't ever pay $2 million. This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.
Let's hear it for coporate censorship. If you say something we don't like, make sure you're willing to give up your life for it.
Parent as +2 insightful?? Mod down, please.
Nice assumption about rich stay-at-home moms, but my family had five children, my mother stayed at home, and we lived below the poverty line. I think that's more typical than the rich "busy-body do-gooders". Sorry to burst your own little self-righteous bubble.
I will NEVER buy anything related to Activa Holdings Inc. If that is how they behave when someone challenges them, then I will not support their company or any company that works with them. Since I'm in the market for a house, I will make sure that my future house was not built or supported by any company related to Activa Holdings Inc.. If they feel they have been wronged by what was posted on the website, maybe they should show how it is wrong. By sueing, its saying to me that they have something to hide. I hope there will be a way to give and support the fight against Activa. Companies that sue like this, are not companies that we need.
An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
...therefore, to silence others, acuqire their property. Landlords can silence tenants, shopping malls can evict patrons wearing political slogans the management disgrees with, etcetera.
Typical libertarian capitalist fallacy that puts property as a primary right, rather than as a secondary tool to ensure primary rights.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Here are the rules:
1) Money is all that matters.
2) If you are not a millionaire, you are a second class citizen
3) You are not allowed to buy from a small company if there is a bigger one available
4) If something a company sells you is crap, well, too bad.
5) If you buy something from a company, they own you
6) Speaking against anyone or anything richer than you is illegal.
7) It is the government of the companies, by the companies, for the companies.
8) Anyone who doesn't go to the Commerce School deserves to be screwed over
Let's see, we're all guilty of...well, pretty much everything.
To me, all speech is a natural right as a form of expression. Swearing, discrimination, yelling fire in your own theater, or even preaching the murder of another. If you don't like a certain form of expression, don't allow it on your property.
But discrimination results in people not being able to make so much money, and thus not being able to own property, and thus not being able to reduce the acreage available for bigots to be bigoted on, and so on. Seems like that'd create an underclass, which never ends well.
I could care less about what media companies might do with the freedom to libel. Who cares. If you're in the public eye, accept it. If you run a big business, combat it with great quality of service.
But how do people find out about your excellent quality of service or great product if the people getting paid to talk loudly are all saying it sucks? The system you describe would allow any company to cover another with as much slime as they could buy, which would tend to lead to horrific monopolies - a classic market breakdown effect. Slime does have an effect, and it's not always trumped by quality of service. Besides, do you really want to produce a system in which only the biggest liars are able to survive? We're close enough to that already without adding fuel to the fire.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
You're absolutely right that not everyone who cries environmental foul is right, or even legitimate. But when this woman received letters from Environment Canada (like the EPA) about her efforts, this lends a bit of credibility to her claims. Also, the fact that this development company didn't post a rebuttal that disproved her claims but rather filed a lawsuit intending to shut her up and shut her site down makes me think she was on to something.
So then, as a matter of principle, you won't be suing me when I rent a few billboards near your house and put your name, address, and photo on them, along with labeling you a known liar, thief, and pedophile. Hope you produce some seriously high-quality products, my man.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
If their actions have placed her kids at risk and (been part of what) led her to spend the expense and time of putting up the website to document their illegal actions, that should be just cause for a countersuit against them.
Sue them for direct costs, her time (at a consulting rate of $60/hour), and punitive damages of $2Million. If they have said anything public about the suit (like claiming that she lied), then she can also countersue for libel. (In Canada, You can't sue for statements made in court or court documents, but you can sue for what's said on the courtroom steps before or after you file.)
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I own stores, they're my property. If I don't want a communist shirt on my property, it's my right.
If I'm a landlord and I don't like a tenant, I shouldn't be forced to accept them. It is my property.
Yes, some racist white guy may say no to a black family. What stops another landlord from saying no problem? Competition opens doors shut by others.
I don't know about this case and I did not read TFA. But this isn't OT, it summarises my feelings after reading all of todays stories. Although many make the obvious comment that "It's all about money", money is only a piece of the jigsaw. Control through FEAR is what this is all about. With enough frightening publicity and lawsuits to stifle speech everybody clams up and we become silent. Something is needed to really put the fear of God back into the corporations. We desperately need a massive victory where a household name is hauled over the coals, no holding back. Something that utterly breaks and bankrupts a major corp. The economic impact, job losses etc have to be considered 'collateral damage'. Those jobs will reappear elsewhere in the economy so its no big. Maybe it could be Sony? Maybe one of the other media or drug companies, who knows. It doesn't really matter who, but an example should be set. It seems the government and the legal system are becomming useless to protect the individuals rights. I propose a war chest. What it really needs is a major donation by a rich benefactor and some very ruthless, determined and smart lawyers on the side of the people. Starting with about 5 or 10 million such a fund could be carefully managed, only going after cases that stand a VERY high chance of success, gaining damages and adding to the war chest. In fact with a run of luck such a scheme could snowball into a deadly machine that has the corporate weasels quaking in their boots. Seriously people, we need to get on the offensive, to attack, not just keep defending. A change of tactics is needed from passive to active and highly aggressive. Yes, I am openly advocating organised premeditated ecomomic warfare and a premptive and vicious attack against a major corp. Lets give THEM something to be really afraid of. Instead of getting a little bit angry drip by drip as each corp makes bolder and bolder moves against us, let's just pick one and go after it full force and no stopping until its dead. Any suggestions for an unredeemably evil corporation that could be 'killed'? And how?
Will this also work for copyright infringement, I.E. P2P, BITTORRENT, ECT? If so, this might be a good investment for us all.
Speaking from near-total ignorance, I'm guessing no. Slander/libel is a tort, while copyright infringement is a criminal case. I've never heard of insurance that would defend you against prosecution for criminal acts. In fact, I'd argue that such insurance would be a bad thing, since it would make people more likely to commit crimes.
As I said, though, this opinion is straight from my butt.
Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to purchase an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy. Among other things, these policies protect you from accusations of libel and slander.
While truth is an absolute defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can virtually stop any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when a multi-billion dollar insurance company is the one that is paying to defend you against the suit.
hmmm.... lets fix this one
Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to research an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy. Among other things, these policies may protect you from accusations of libel and slander.
While proof is a defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can possibly prevent any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when you have adequate protection.
ahh much better. Only thing worse than financial disaster is financial disaster after you realize your poorly researched insurance policies really don't help you in your case
Be sure of what you are buying.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
I was going to make a joke about GOTO war versus GOSUB war but in light of the current trend of never letting soldiers leave when they were originally supposed to I figure GOTO is probably a lot closer to reality.
Maybe someday our soldiers will be able to RETURN.
The U.S. has the Sullivan decision that defined libel and, if memory serves, ruled that the offending party has to prove that the particular writings at issue were made with malice and without regard to the truth. Prior to this the defendant had to prove that what he said was the truth.
This could prove to be an excellent test case of Canada's libel laws vis a vis our Charter or Rights. If Activa Holdings is successful in their lawsuit then just about any negative comment about any company made in the press, on the radio or TV or by the public is actionable. Some provinces, such as British Columbia, have SLAPP legislation that helps in defending such lawsuits but Ontario, where this lawsuit was filed, to my knowledge does not.
Also, go read the woman's site if you haven't already. The entire website is full of "I saw this, I took pictures of that. Activa is the developer of this site."
How can it be libel if she is simply reporting what she sees? It's obvious from her tone that she has concern for her neighborhood including many sincere warnings to parents in the area about specific threats (stagnant water, pressure treated wood).
I'm at a loss here as to what Activa's case is.
:wq
If I had to guess I'd say the company probably never intended it to blow up into a public fracas like this, they just assume that she would be like most people when threatened with a multimillion dollar law suit, they would cave and settle. Kind of like when a jerk on the highway cuts someone off but regrets it when it turns out to be an off duty cop lol.
I guess it is good and all that this women is documenting potential enviornmental problems in her subdivision... But really, a subdivision is a big giant enviornmental problem! It is kind of like driving a SUV, and then being pissed off because those people driving Hummers are wasting fuel.
It sucks that the woman is getting sued, that is an outrage. But I wouldn't glorify what this woman is doing too much. She seems more the neighborhood busy body who calls the police when kids are playing touch football in the street, or who get a restraining order to keep their neighbor from painting their house purple, than some real enviornmental crusader.
I know you're trying to be funny... but don't start a political battle by making fun of Canada. $20 Canadian is about $17 US and reached almost $19 recently. Also, at the risk of sounding like a "left wing Liberal, Commie bastard" Canada's monetary policy is not based upon attacking other countries and stealing their oil. One more thing: I don't think US workers share your views on the Canadian Dollar. Last time I checked, about 50% of Hollywood movies are filmed in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal because of the exchange rate - meaning less work for them.
Libel is one of the few cases where the US is better than Canada. It's one thing that routinely pisses Canadians off who discover it.
Canadian libel is based on British libel, and, we have none of the zealous first amendment jurisprudence to mitigate it. You can be seriously fucked in Canada for libel, where in the US you would not.
I'm generally not discriminatory, but I am prejudice. I don't see anything wrong with private non-violent racism.
A restaurant who refuses to serve midgets is a Bad Idea. I won't eat there. But to me, the OWNER of the PROPERTY is free to use his property that way.
Racism and discrimination by government is terrible. As a biracial person, I hate government discrimination but I will protect the private individual's right to congregate with whomever they want.
The loser-pays rule is appropriate in some circumstances, which is why judges should always have the option to allocate legal fees. But it is not a panacea.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Loser pays the would possibly work a bit better if you were forced to pay the other side the equivalent ofyour legal fees instead of theirs. I.e. if you loose your legal fees can only double (if your lawyer doesn't give you a "win or I'm free" gaurantee.)
The added bonus is that both sides are encouraged to make the case more breif, with fewer lawyers involved.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Yes, the builders may just facilitate the building ... but they need to be responsible for the quality of the finished work, not just for minimizing the dollars spent.
... Our inspector never signed his inspection form. The bank didnt seem to care for our mortagage, they accepted it, but really if there's a problem, that inspector's ass is covered because his name isn't on it. We know better now for our next home.
... they just do bad work, sell the product, shut down, open under a new name. The criminals can't be tied back to the previous company.
Adera has been forced to do some repairs, such as fixing all the popped bits of drywall where they didnt let the mud dry properly before painting it.
They get away with it by not getting all the building permits they need, so inspectors arent necessarily aware of all the work being done, or they enclose in parts of their work before the inspectors come around because most of the lazy inspectors wont force the contractors to open things back up for proper inspection.
Then there's the public inspectors you hire when buying a place (as opposed to the city building code inspectors)
But mainly most of the bad work in this city is because
I'm not worried about resale value, Vancouver is insane. This townhouse has gone up in value from $200,000 to $300,000 in 4 years time. The trick will be to sell before the problems start costing us in repairs i guess.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
No, that's not it. Let me boil it down:
I want my private properties to be private. I want to invite who I want to, and avoid who I want to.
It is not your property.
You want to tell me what I can do with my property. You want to force me to congregate with either everyone or no one. I have to rights in my property according to you. I have to be your slave, invest my time and money so you can create your better world, your utopia for all.
I don't care about that. It is my property. My private property.
They could have made it 'better' by being like "We're glad you brought this to our attention and we're going to fix it. Thanks for your vigilence!"
Unless she's full of it and they didn't do anything wrong.
I mean, if someone punches you in the face for something you didn't do, do you sit on your ass and go "gee, thanks for that" like some coward?
Personally, I would demand satisfaction.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Try doing it anonymously, if you can?
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Being sued has always been a risk of publishing. New technology, like blogging, changes nothing. The fact is that lots of people lie, and the threat of bringing suit is about the only way to protect your reputation.
There is a kneejerk tendency to assume this is an innocent blogger versus an evil corporation. Maybe, maybe not. If she's can convincingly argue that she did not commit libel, lawyers will be lining up at her door with thoughts of huge percentages in their heads. If she can't convince a lawyer who wants her to win, maybe we ought to reconsider the merits of the corporation's claims.
Publishing is publishing, whether you're the NYT or someone's cat blog. No one gets, or deserves, a free pass. Anyone unprepared to deal with the consequences ought not to publish.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Not only that, the two million dollar threat does nothing to preserve or rebuild their image. It is specifically designed to destroy this woman and to send a message to other would-be activists. They are trying to put her head on a pike here and its up to the canadians to do something about it.
That's maintaining your own industry, not helping the environment. That'd be like, oh, I dunno, sending some of the used water back into the lake you draw from if you're a Coke bottling plant.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
So, essentially, she had a nice suburban neighborhood and then somebody came in and dumped a tanker of diesel fuel all over the place. Yeah, I'd be pissed, too, if that happened on my street. I'd be demanding a cleanup.
The thing about Waterloo, as mentioned in the Google-cache version of the web page, is that the entire region of around 300,000 people depend entirely on ground water drawn from wells. This makes the problem of leaky fuel tanks particularly important in that area.
... search for activa holdings and the womans name --- but use teh cache of found links...
... being a mother and motivated to address her fear that she can't keep kids from being kids.. and getting into things they should not.
....... AS A MATTER OF SIMPLE PUBLIC RELATIONS MARKETING.
What little I read... and there is alot more to read such as city council meetings etc...
and having worked in a related field of cabinetry (one of the later things to install). It is not completely reasonabe to enforce some of her complaints as the environment of a construction site is going to be influenced by the construction. (I have no doubts that personnel at the construction site dislikes nails in the parking lot as mush as she dislikes nails elsewhere.
On the other hand and in recognition of this above fact, is she lying? The odds are she is telling the truth but perhaps expecting to much and as such
Should a construction company and sub contractors police (control teh level of hazards and garbage and etc..) the sites they work at? Yes, they should if only as a matter of public relations marketing. Otherwise it seems to me that there is a matter of private property where kids and anyone else at the construction site, that shouldn't be there, is trespassing.
When I pass by a construction site the way it is kept makes an impression on me as to the quality and attention to detail I can expect from the general contractor. Their expectations on the sub-contractors to maintain a reasonably clean appearance of the property. I get this from working on multi million dollar sites.
But I also recognize a trespassing issue.
Activa should not sue her, thats very bad PR. Instead they should require their subcontractors to maintain their trash and such, as well as post no tresspassing signs.
They should pay her any expense they have cost her in this legal mess and then do the right thing
my other post is +5 insightful
Damn.
I was injured by a medical fuck up years ago, and when I tried to file a malpractice suit I discovered that I flat out didn't have the money to even file, much less pay a lawyer (hospital lawyers vs IANAL doesn't strike me as a fair fight). I suppose it does make it fairer to raise that bar even higher.
Since the larger institutions (companies, hospitals, whatever) with the deeper pockets and the larger (more expensive) teams of lawyers already have the advantage, something tells me involving the risk of having to pay that team of lawyers isn't going to help people who really have grievances that need to be dealt with in court.
If she is telling the truth she has NO problems, if she is lying then she SHOULD be sued. The law is a TOOL in business. If their aim is to bankrupt her that is one thing but she should win if she has written something accurate.
Thinking of setting up a website?
(Score:5, Informative)
by bigtallmofo (695287) Friend of a Friend on Sun Nov 13, '05 03:16 PM (#14021837)
(http://www.insurancegenius.com/ | Last Journal: Tue Mar 22, '05 06:26 PM)
An insurance recommendation by a guy homepaged at insurancegenius.com? No conflict of interest to see here, move along....
Currently, corporations are blessed with many of the benefits of citizenship, and few of the limitations.
What we need are reforms to greatly limit the impact that corpotations can have on individual citizens.
To start, a corporation suing an individual citizen must cover that citizens legal fees, up to a certain percentage of their own legal cost, for instance 25%.
The money will be paid up front on a monthly basis, and does not need to be returned under any circumstances.
Any taxes for the legal fee reimbursement will be paid by the corporation, such that the citizen recieves, after all applicable taxes, the required amount.
The legal fee reimbursement will not be considered income for purposes of welfare, disability, unemployment, etc, and can be used for any purpose with no limitations.
Obviously the first things corporations will do is claim that their legal costs are next to nothing, because all of their lawyers are on retainer, and thus 'free'
Good job at finding the loophole, Mr. Suit, that simply means that the assumed legal cost will be the monthly salary of each lawyer who touches the case, times the number of years that the case. Alternate compensation would also need to be considered, including stock options, company cars and houses, so forth and so on.
Under current market and legal conditions, often it is such that citizens have little to no recourse when corporations violate laws in a way harmful to said citizens.
And yet, the same corporations that are effectively immune to citizen retaliation can effortlessly bankrupt numerous citizens via legal entanglements.
Corporations should not be able to force citizens into disfavorable settlements that entail large fines and the sacrifice of the citizens rights and future liability by threatening a never-ending legal battle that will cost the citizen large amounts of money even to enlist a single lawyer for the duration of their defense.
Corporations may exist solely to turn a profit for the shareholders, but they are allowed to exist solely to benefit the economy and thus the country. Suing private citizens rarely has any kind of benefit beyond establishing corporate dominance over the citizen, which is certainly bad for the country, as the country is, in fact, said citizen.
Of course, I am in no way qualified for legal or economic analysis, so obviously all of this will no doubt cause an economic recession as the rights of the pitiful corporations are simply trampled upon by an uncaring, unfeeling mass of citizens, who the corporations have no means of stopping. Which would be rather similar to the current situation, except with the trampling being the other way around.
It'll happen, no question, and it will happen under the guise of national security. Photographing building sites==terrorist surveillance, you see - clearly you may be a terrorist who is looking for ways to sneak a bomb in, and photography must therefore be outlawed.
/not/ passing? I can't.
Even if you aren't a terrorist, the photos at your website may be used by one, so publication of, say, sketches or descriptions of the malpractice must also be outlawed.
With a bit of lobbying and some palm-greasing on the part of construction firms, can you seriously see that law
Enjoy the rights while you've got 'em: you won't have them tomorrow.
Nice parrot. Any other tricks you do? Or haven't you moved beyond that in the thrid grade?
This isn't a free speech issue. Nothing has happened that has limited this person's freedom to speak or write what she pleases. Free speech does not include the right to slander or libel. You have a right to say what you wish, and I have an equal right to sue you if I believe you've slandered or libeled me. One right has nothing to do with the other.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Actually, if you don't commit slander and libel, you're pretty safe against accusations of slander and libel.
I'm an attorney living in Sunnyvale, and I thought the most effective way to show how wrong you are is to file a frivolous libel case against David Johnson of Mountain View, CA.
When you receive the summons, even though it is a joke and will eventually be thrown out, I highly suggest you hire an attorney to receive advice. I also suggest you show up to court because otherwise a default judgement will be thrown against you and I will collect on it.
It isn't about the big guy versus the little guy; it's about whether the burden of proof should lie with the plaintiff or the defendant, regardless of the circumstances.
English is easier said than done.
So, basically, one should be guilty until proven innocent in libel. Why not murder too? Surely if the cops arrest you, surely you did something, non?
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
I don't disagree, I just think a useful volume of photographic evidence is a lot easier to achieve if you don't have to buy all that film. Digital photos can go up on the web nice and quick, too, which is useful if you're making a site meant to sway public opinion.
That sounds like more of an issue for a criminal case, right? Anyhow, links to more info on the topic would be appreciated, it's kind of an interesting one. Thanks.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Libel is NOT Murder.
Lets start with that.
With Libel, you *have* made a statement. The statement is a matter of public record. That FACT is not in question.
With Murder, the FACT of the Murder is in question.
With Libel, the determination of Libel is whether the statement that has been made is True. If the statement is False Libel may have occured. If the statement is True, Libel DID NOT OCCUR.
Now, with Murder, Murder must be proven. With Libel, the truth of a statement must be proven. Since a falsehood cannot be proven, the burden must fall on the plaintiff.
Simple logic.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061