Slashdot Mirror
Juniper Sues Message Board Posters
Anonymous Coward writes "Juniper is suing up to 10 message board posters on Light Reading's telecom news Web site." From the article: "Only two anonymous message board users are identified in the complaint. One goes by the name "infranet_rulz" and the other by "exJuniper981." Juniper admits in the complaint that it doesn't yet know the names of any of the folks it's suing, but it will update its complaint with the courts as it gets details." LightReading has also provided a link to the court papers.
From TFA:
These persons, referred to as "Does 1-10" in the court complaint (as in "John Doe," or anonymous), are being accused by Juniper of posting harmful statements about the company and its executives on Light Reading's message boards
Just so you don't think that they're being sued for, oh, installing mod-chips in their routers or something. Basically they seem to be accused of providing inaccurate information in an attempt to influence the price of the stock (directly or indirectly).
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
These guys are free to sue anybody they want. The posters might need to defend themselves or not. I still don't see how this post is INTERESTING, though.
We are the first ones to complain that "doing something very normal with a computer suddenly makes it something new and innovating" when it comes to patents; yet we're reporting on a libel case because the sentences that are being discussed were posted on a website instead of anywhere else.
The of course one might wonder if this is not a ploy to drive visitors to a website, seeing as the original poster is the owner of the forum where the sentences were posted.
The only interesting point that can be made is: is there still a meaning to a *libel* offense? Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free? Bear in mind, this would apply to anyone and everybody - and that includes you and your company when your ex-girlfriend decides you're a prick and takes her revenge on you. Of course it also includes that company that keeps ripping off his customers shipping defective hard drives and whatnot. Any thoughts?*
* The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.
Global warming is a cube.
...all Juniper has to do is prove that these people actually made these comments. Then the burden of proof is on the posters to prove that their statements are true. So remember kids, if you are going to defame someone, do it anonymously with Tor.
Juniper is evil.. I wrote code for their legal team.. they will work you to the ground...
IANAL, but I think if you "stood outside the company grounds with a picket sign saying "Juniper Kills Children" then nothing could be done about it," you could be sued for libel, seeing as you present it as a fact. If you had something like "I think Juniper Kills Children" then you would be OK, because you are presenting it as an opinion.
crap i think i logged in by mistake...
Is a meaningful summary too much to ask? The links are slashdotted already, so all I see is a summary that carries as much meaning as "Some organization is suing some guys."
Great, I'll get right on caring about that.
Hey, excellent article summary! I'm glad you included the aliases of two of the people named in the suit. You know what might also be pertinent? WHY THEY ARE BEING SUED.
don't anonymous comments are supposed NOT to have any validity? I mean, we have Anonymous Coward, and anything said by an AC is generally classified as "troll" or "flamebait". Why bother to sue them?
I mean, for crying out loud, it's like if you go to a bar and say something bad about a company, and it turns out the CIA has the bar all wired and the police is out to get you because something you said while you were drunk. That's what anonimity is about.
If anonimity is broken, then what use is posting as AC?
Certainly these data retention laws defy free speech in the net.
So, if people make anonymous posting praising Juniper as a company, can those same people be sued for artifically inflating the stock price? And why do libel laws apply to corportions and not just human beings, enyway?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
For those of you who don't want to chase the link - here's what some of the comments are that have Juniper's undies in a twist -
The company's complaint cites an April 20 message that stated, "the man at the helm seems to be paying (off) attorneys all over the bay area to cover up the scandal which resulted in the terminations of many at the top including the VP of HR. 1) Board of director 2) CFO 3) GM 4) VP of engineering 5) VP of HR and more."
Another message cited in the complaint came a day later. According to the complaint, it said the "top management" at Juniper bribes attorneys, and that "the man at the top should join his buddy Bernie [Ebers (sic)]... "
Another message singled out in the complaint says: "This is a very unethical company."
Of course, Juniper critics can be found at other Internet message boards that aren't, as yet, mentioned in Juniper's complaint. "Arrogance coupled with timidity is a deadly combination in business. So, in short JNPR's problem is Kriens," said one Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO - message board) message board post taking aim at Juniper's CEO Scott Kriens.
Frankly, I don't see where any of these are prosecutable. One is allowed to comment on what one sees in the world, IMHO. Surely if you've had to flush your top managment and start over, there is likely some thing to some of these posts. I personally find it interesting that Juniper has chosen to lend credence to these statements by suing. Since they're suing, my assumption is that it's all true. Ooops, better not say that or Juniper will include me too!
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Hope microsoft doens't read slashdot, they might try to sue each of us individually.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
Today it's juniper..
:(
Tommorow it's balsam fur.
Think of the money M$ could make on /. alone given this precedent!!!
comming out of Santa Clara, when will the madness end?
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
Lastly, epic provides some great resources on the topic of what peoples privacy rights are: www.epic.org/privacy/drm/default.html
RIP freedom of speech (9/17/1787 - 9/11/2001). You will be sadly missed.
What on earth does this libel case have to do with 9/11?
Also, why pick that date?
Libel has been illegal for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, and lawsuits alleging libel have been brought many times before 2001.
Not to mention the fact that the TV networks have been self-censored and government-censored for decades (when was the last time a TV network showed full-frontal nudity during prime time; and when was the last time they could do so without being severely punished by the government?), and that private entities have always had the right to restrict speech in their venues. Even by your own bizarre Space Logic, "free speech" died some time long before the turn of the milennium
Does any part of your world view make sense or track with reality?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Apparently what they are being sued for isn't important enough to mention in the headline or summary!
They are being sued for defamation and libel. Apparently the message board posters have been claiming that Juniper have been bribing lawyers and spying on employees.
The difference between slander and libel is that one is published and the other is conversation, is it not? So which does a message board count as - a publication or a conversation?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Actually, political free speech triumps over libel laws. That's how you can get away with saying Clinton killed a man in Arkansas. Also free speech triumps over copyright laws, you are allowed to make satrical versions of songs. Thank you 2 Live Crew. Most decency laws on the books have been declared unconsitutional. Yippee for sodomy. Hate speech is still legal. Unlike other countries, in this country it is perfectly legal to say Jews are evil and the Holocaust never happened, and feel free to collect Nazi memorabillia.
okay "i have evidence that gid13 rapes children"
still okay with that?
And why wouldn't he be? You're just an anonymous coward, without any kind of reputation nor proof. You can be dismissed as a troll and liar, and without violating your right to free speech.
so someone needs to tell me how to stay out of court... So far i've only come up with one idea...
sudo apt-get install sun-j2re1.5 :( I hate when i have stuff sitting ready to paste that i don't want to... anyway I can only hope that sudo apt-get install sun-j2re1.5 will save me a legal case.... ok it won't
So Anyway... my real idea is...
Nick for Sale
I'll offer it for free and pay $5 to the winner who must claim they have owned my nickname since yesterday....
if anyone has any brighter ideas I'm open to them.
I think free speech is just like freedom of movement.
As the saying goes "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
Likewise, your freedom to say what you like ends where your lies harm me and mine.
I'm not so much proud of "free speech" per se; it's an inalienable right, after all, not something I can take credit for. Rather, I'm proud of being involved in a political system that seeks to strike a reasonable balance between individual freedom and individual freedom to harm each other.
But tell us, what political system active in the world today allows for greater freedom of speech and expression, and also performs as well or better, in general, than the American one, in your opinion?
Maybe we could learn from it.
Or move there.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
And what happens when he publishes that as a writer for CNN? You can still dismiss him as a liar and a troll, but somehow I doubt you would.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
You're mistaking freedom of speech for freedom of responsibility for speech. If someone yells "Fire" in a crowded theater and then is arrested for reckless endangerment is that a violation of their freedom of speech? If a doctor tells a patient that certain pills will help their heart condition, when they are truly a deadly neurotoxin, should the doctor be arrested for what he said? After all, he did not force anyone to take any poison pills.
Freedom of speech has always been limited, but the courts have a whole list of contingencies. For example, commercial speech is given less protection than non-commercial speech. I can write that Crest toothpaste not only whitened my teeth but caused me to lose ten pounds and grow more hair. Crest, however, can be sued for saying the same thing, if they know it is untrue. The highest form or protected speech is political speech. If I were to claim the CEO of some company was evil and immoral, I can be sued for slander and might lose. If I say the same thing about the president or a member of congress, there is little chance that I will lose.
If these people truly did commit libel, and have cost a company and its shareholders money with lies, then they deserve to pay that back. If they are telling the truth, then not only should the courts find them innocent, but Juniper should be charged with barratry. The problem as I see it, is that the courts are not a level and impartial field. Large companies with lots of money are more likely to win a case and are almost assured of never being found guilty of barratry. This is due to a system corrupted by money and purchased laws. Freedom of speech is relatively intact, it is just that the courts do not do a good job of making sure certain laws protecting it are actually enforced.
Actually, under a strict legal interpretation the only thing you could be persecuted for under a "yelling fire" situation is a series of civil lawsuits. Making laws that abridge freedom of speech are actually supposed to be off limits.
Tolerance of ogres is the price you pay for living in a society that can allow for genuine intellectual freedom.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I fail to see how making a negative or derogatory comment on a message board is any different than the statement made in conversation. If these people are posting, then these thoughts are making themselves heard around the watercooler, in the restaurant at lunch, and at the bar after work. If JNPR knew what was going on, they'd realize that a great deal of internet commentaries are just personal opinion, and frequently not given much credence if at at all. The last time I checked, stating your opinion was still legal. We're not living in 1984 just yet.
The only interesting point that can be made is: is there still a meaning to a *libel* offense? Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free?
If this is happening the US, Juniper will lose. Period. End of story. US libel laws are easily one of the weakest you can find in the developed world. In order to get to win a libel case, not only do you have to prove what they said was completely untrue, but you also have to prove that they knew it wasn't true and that they did for malicious intent. In other words, the burden of proof is very much on the guy trying to do the suing. It is extraordinarily rare for libel cases to be won in the US.
Now, if this is happening in say Britain, Canada, or one of the many other countries with strong libel laws, there might be something to this. That said, I think this is happening in the US. I doubt they even get past the first round of court proceedings to find the names of the suspects.
The US has a lot of fucked up policies and laws. The US stance on libel isn't one of them. Unless the posters are shown to be rivals from another corporation posting intentionally incorrect statements, Juniper doesn't stand a chance in hell.
So let me get this right. If I go to a forum, where my participation is solicited (as evidenced by the fact that I am asked to sign up, as well as the ad revenue the sight receives), and post an opinion, I get sued. Wow. So I guess we are only allowed to say nice things about companies, otherwise they use their corporate lawyers to attack us. The funny thing is that if I stood outside the company grounds with a picket sign saying "Juniper Kills Children" then nothing could be done about it, as it's my legal and constitutional (but who cares about the constitution nowadays, huh Mr. Bush?) right. But if Internet Users post an opinion on a forum it is grounds for a lawsuit. Sorry that your stock is crashing because your public have so little faith in you that they listen to every single person who posts anything slightly negative on your forum. Maybe that's your problem.
No dude you are wrong on so many different levels. First off, your participation was of your own acord. The whole having to sign up and the board gets ad revenue stuff you spewed is pure crap. Second, in this country (and others) a person is responsible for their own actions, including their words. So if you want to go on a forum and blast someone you better be able to back up your facts - otherwise you can get sued.
This kind of stuff is serious. You may not think it is a big deal, but to a multi-million/billion dollar company it is a HUGE deal. You can't just point the fingers and blame the big guys, the little guy also has to take responsibility for reckless acts. Right on for Juniper and hopefully they will be able to slam the people who are saying false things about them.
As for your ridiculous sign comment....you don't know the law do you? You are allowed, via your constitutional right, and go and protest a company. You are allowed to have a sign accusing them of doing evil and bad things...but the moment you LIE that company can sue you into extinction.
If you want a perfect example, take the organization, truth.com, that blasts the cigarette companies. They have huge tv commercials, protests, rallys, etc and you know what they can do it because they are telling facts which they have proof for.
Someone mod the above guy -1 twit
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
What this really seems to be about is whether Juniper can make Light Reading give up its posters' names.
TFA says that Light Reading's TOS suggests they will cooperate with criminal investigations, but doesn't say anything about civil proceedings...
Why does everyone always misapply the first amendment?
/., he could do that without violating your right to free speech. This isn't a government controlled forum, it is private, therefor the government has no say as to the content and cannot censor it. The owners of this forum have every right to censor any content they choose as they are not government entities. The government, however, has no right to censor the content on this forum as specified in the first amendment.
Wake up folks! The first amendment protects free speech where it involves government control. That is to say, the government cannot restrict your speech in a forum owned by you or anyone else, or in a public forum (that is, a forum created for public discourse.) The first amendment doesn't apply in message boards (which are privately owned.)
The First Amendment doesn't provide access to private media outlets you don't own. If CmdrTaco wanted to censor every post on
Free speech is great, if you understand it. Otherwise, you're just making a lot of noise and somebody is going to shut you up (as is their right in a privately owned forum.)
I don't understand what everyone is getting their panties in a bunch for. It's a well known fact that in our litigious society you can sue anyone - for anything - at any time - for any reason - while wearing any outfit - while speaking any language.
Juniper is suing two people that it cannot identify. They're not required to prove that the statements made by these message board posters are incorrect, they're just pissed that it was said at all. You could publicly call me a 'sociopathic elitist asshole' and while I wouldn't argue with the validity of the statement, I can certainly sue you for saying it.
You want to get in a huff about something? Do some research on the 16th amendment and discover that it was never ratified.
"Lame" - Galaxar
On the other hand, Mike Lynn, a partner at Lynn Tillotson & Pinker says the threat the companies feel from message board posters is real. "As individuals involved in commercial speech become so powerful that they can move stocks and affect the value of companies, you'll see more of these lawsuits," he says.
When your investors place more trust in "infranet_rulz" than in you then you've got much bigger problems than some punk bad-mouthing you on the internet.
You are sort of correct. While you are given WAY more leeway when dealing with political speeches (this is done so we can debate politics without fear of persecution) you cannot make bold statements like "Clinton killed a man in Arkansas" without evidence. If you do, you can get sued and lose - big time. Now if you said "Clinton didn't vote for this bill which gave soldiers state of the art bullet proof vests, because he hates soldiers" then you would probably be OK. This is assuming Clinton voted down the bill (obviously) - otherwise you would sound like a complete raving moron when Billy C went on stage and says "Uhm, let the record reflect that I voted for the bill and I did not have sexual relations with that woman" :D
Or a better example "Clinton is responsible for the death of 15 people while he was governer"...and yea, Clinton was responsible for the overall police force of arkansas as governer and someone could stretch the truth a bit and say it was his fault police officers killed criminals.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
in this country it is perfectly legal to say Jews are evil
While that may be true, according to the complaint Juniper thinks it is not legal to say, "Juniper is unethical." If that is the case it would not surprise me, since our government and legal system are more about protecting the interests of corporations than those of individuals.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Malicious intent is only for public figures. For normal people, the standard is lower.
--Message deleted by CmdrTaco--
Nonsense. Freedom of speech means freedom from government persecution concerning your speech. Enforcing a civil judgement is a government action. The government makes the civil laws that are applied in these direct-action lawsuits.
Now, it is disputable whether "freedom of speech" applies to libel/slander. However, to say that the constitution doesn't protect you from the consequences of your actions is preposterous - if I shoot everyone who associates with people I don't like, that's hardly freedom of association, now is it?
Civil actions are based on laws, which are passed by congress. "Shall Make No Law" applies to everything that happens in a court room, not just ones where the government is the prosecutor.
Fsck, even I know this shit, and I'm a Canuck.
Ah, so when it becomes a televised news buletin, then freedom of speech no longer applies. Got it.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
you show the nation that this news writer is a liar and a fraud, then he steps down from his job for reasons unrelated to the incident... iirc something similar happened at CBS recently
HA! In a perfect world that'd be enough. Unfortunately, we (humans) tend towards morbosity. So even if said news writer steps down, and the news company publishes a retraction/apology (hopefully, not hidden in the classifieds in microscopic type) you will have been unfairly involved in a scandal and during the time it took to solve it, you were "an alleged something" (a child rapist in this example). And unless something extraordinary happens, there will be people who believe that "where there's smoke, there's fire".
I like free speech as much as the next person. But if you throw a wild accusation *without proof*, then you deserve to be punished.
No sig
This has to be one of the least informed Slashdot discussions I've ever seen. With a very few exceptions, people who obviously know nothing about the law are spouting off about what they think it is or would like it to be. Here are a few facts about US libel law.
First, only statements of FACT are actionable. You can publish all the negative opinions you like and you're okay.
Second, truth is an absolute defense to libel. This is not true in every country, but it is true in the United States.
Third, there is a difference between public figures and everybody else. In order to win, a public figure must show that the libel was not only false but malicious, that is, that the libeler knew or ought to have known that the statement was false and nonetheless made it for the purpose of damaging the reputation of the person libelled. The idea is that the freedom of public discourse requires that people be able to make reckless statements about matters of public interest without fear of being sued. On the other hand, if the person libelled is not a public figure, he or she can win without proving malice.
Fourth, the false factual statement must be one that would cause the average person to feel injured. Thus, for example, if you mistakenly publish that John Smith drank tea, not knowing that he is a Mormon and that for him this is an accusation that he has violated the rules of his religion, you're probably off the hook.
Fifth, certain types of statements are considered to be intrinsically defamatory. These include allegations of criminal conduct and, interestingly, the allegation that a woman is unchaste.
Sixth, contrary to one poster's assertion, hedging a statement by saying "I think that X" or even "It is reported that X", does not necessarily get you off the hook. From a purely linguistic point you would think that it would, since you are not asserting the truth of the allegation, but libel law doesn't work that way.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I have studied the law of defamation to some extent. A wee bit of googling would turn up the same information.
This is not accurate. Defamation (libel or slander) in the United States requires not only that the statements be false, but also that you made them with malice.
This kind of stuff is serious. You may not think it is a big deal, but to a multi-million/billion dollar company it is a HUGE deal. You can't just point the fingers and blame the big guys, the little guy also has to take responsibility for reckless acts. Right on for Juniper and hopefully they will be able to slam the people who are saying false things about them.
The "also" statement above seems to imply a long and hallowed tradition of "big guys" (i.e. multi-*illion dollar companies) taking responsibility for reckless acts. Please provide some references for that. You also seem to gloss over the inequities and difficulty in getting fair treatment from the civil court system between an entity with effectively unlimited legal resources and an individual who probably has little if any disposable income to spend on defending himself from a suit. The threat of tort can be used to discourage criticism without regard for the validity of the claim, since most people don't have the resources to defend themselves. Then too, corporations can apparently rely on folks like yourself to assume they are correct. To wit, your whole final statement about the alledged false things said.
As for your ridiculous sign comment....you don't know the law do you? You are allowed, via your constitutional right, and go and protest a company. You are allowed to have a sign accusing them of doing evil and bad things...but the moment you LIE that company can sue you into extinction.
Sued into extinction? At best a company should recover damages and perhaps have a punitive reward. What public interest is served by allowing a company to sue someone into extinction? It's certainly not in my interest.
Rather than sue the posters, wouldn't it be better to travel cross country to Hollywood to stop them from making the movie? Along the way they could steal a monkey and all sorts of hilarity might ensue!
Libel and slander aren't criminal matters. "Libel laws" are precedents set by civil trials. You don't go to jail for libel, but the offended party can (and often do) sue for damages. The bulk of past judgements have shown that public figures have less grounds for a case than the average citizen... This is strangely not the case for corporations.
Politicians don't usually pursue their enemies for libel because it's not in their best interest to do so. It's better for a politician to be aloof and ignore outlandish charges... Hoping to make the accuser look like a crackpot. A libel suit, however, will keep the accusations in the media, as well as potentially backfire and make the accused look petty, vindictive-- or that they have something to hide. And there's always a good chance the accused politician could lose the case, which would be defacto guilt and probably devastating to their reputation.
>but the moment you LIE that company can sue you into extinction.
In a libel case four things must be proved, not just whether or not something was a lie -
1) The statement made was false.
2) The statement made was fact, not opinion.
3) The statement was reputation damaging.
4) Some degree of fault on the part of the plaintiff. (Strict liability in some cases, but more often negligence, or in most cases actual malice)
Statements such as "This is a very unethical company." is opinion, and would probably not meet the qualifications for libel. Definitely wasting their time on that one unless that particular poster of the group being sued made more solid statements.
The other claims of people being paid off are more like supposed facts. However, showing that these posters did any real damage to the company, well. Probably not going to happen. Oh, they can sue, but they probably won't win. So indeed you can go about lying, but if the statement did no damage (whether nobody believed it, or it was too insignificant to do anything)... well, your libel case is toast. The article cites another similar case where a company blamed a stock price drop on a poster, but was awarded nothing.
Of course, if the company is found to be corrupt or whatever the posters are claiming, their case is screwed. Heh.
Even then... in Ollman v. Evans, one thing about determining fact vs. opinion is "What is the broader social context in which the statement appears?" These message boards could be determined as a place for sharing opinions. Now their are 3 other criteria they look at, and the statements about paying people off would seem to be fact, but this might... might... cause it to still be considered opinion. Long shot really, but message boards are a long way from the front page of the New York Times...
I don't understand why the company is bothering to pursue this one.
I feel... vindicated...
Heh. I made up that definition of fraud on the spur of the moment. As you've just ably demonstrated, it's not really a workable definition.
Now that you've got me thinking about it, I'd say that legal fraud has a lot to do with legal theft. Thus, libel, because it leads to material loss, tends to be less legal than adultery.
Plus, a lot of what makes a community function is an ability to recognize that there are sizeable grey areas, and that most questions of law and custom end up getting decided on a case-by-case basis, through debate on where exactly to draw the line in each case, rather than by applying a single cookie-cutter approach to all cases.
So I'm comfortable saying that my speech is free, even though there are some things I'm not free to say, in the same way that I'm comfortable saying I have freedom of movement even though there's some places I cannot go, and that I have freedom of action even though there's some things I cannot do.
Because, by and large, I am more free--better informed, wealthier, healthier, less restricted by government--than most people alive today, and much more free than most people who have ever lived prior to today.
Another reason why I'm comfortable saying that my speech is free is not because I believe it's absolutely free in the sense of Totally Free Speech, but because it is relatively quite free indeed. I'm hard-pressed to think of a political or social regime, in effect in the world today, that grants its citizens more freedom of speech than mine does. I suspect that those few that do have other glaring flaws that make them totally undesireable overall.
But I could be wrong about that. Do you have in mind any social or political systems that offer more freedom of speech, and are generally robust in other crucial areas, such that you would be proud to be a citizen under that regime instead of this one?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
I, I, I ... It's great that you believe yourself to be so open-minded. What about his sister, girlfriend/wife, employer, friends and family?
Think long and hard - soul search, as it were. Imagine if the caretaker for your children were accused of being a pedophile or child pornographer or any number of other hideous things. Would you leave your children in their care while you waited for proof? What about one of your friends or family members? Your significant other, your child's teacher? Priest?
How do you think those around you would act towards you if you were accused of something like this? I can tell you it's not as easy as it sounds. Two of my friends have been on the receiving end of these accusations and their lives were forever changed. One went to court and was not charged in the end. Truth be told, nobody but him and his two young children know the truth to this day. The other turned out to be a misunderstanding. His daughter told his ex-wife where daddy touched her, it turned out he was towelling her off after her nightly bath. He lost custody for several weeks and almost went to trial over it.
These accusations are VERY serious, life-altering things; I can't stress that enough. Poeple have lost their jobs, marriages, close friendships, become alienated from their families or even lost their lives over them.
If you ever find yourself in such a situation, and I hope it never comes to pass, but consider then how valuable repercussion-free speech is when you've lost everything and are being brutally beaten with no sympathy from anybody you thought loved you.
It's one thing to have the freedom to be able to disagree with your elected officials or to express an opinion or negative experience you've had with a company, product, or service, but it's another entirely to be able to literally say whatever you want without penalty. That's why slander and libel laws exist - to protect people's reputations from being unduly tarnished by anyone with a vendetta.
That being said, this case appears to have some merit. Accusations of bribery, fraud, and miscarriage of justice on a notorious message board could have serious repercussions for the company. It should be noted, too, that freedom of speech, the 1st amendment, the CCRF et al. do not protect against civil litigation due to speech; they merely prevent the government from creating laws that inhibit free speech or using the criminal justice system to penalize speakers.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
The first google search on "16th amendment" pulls up this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment16/ .
Click on the "history" link and you'll get a different story than the amendment never being ratified.
Thanks,
Leabre
The truth does not need laws to protect it.
More about cyberslapping here.