Attorney Sues Website Over His Online Rating

An anonymous reader writes "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting that a local attorney is suing legal startup Avvo over a rating that was algorithmically assigned. The story covers the controversy of computers grading humans. 'Browne, who has participated in a number of high-profile cases in the state, including the defense of arsonist Martin Pang, said in an interview that Avvo is being irresponsible with the ratings and called them a fraud. And he questioned why Supreme Court justices and prominent lawyers score so low. Three other attorneys interviewed by the P-I also expressed doubts about the rating system, while News.com reported that the site "seemed to be riddled with bizarre errors."' Such practices are not new: the New York Times earlier this year reported on Google using algorithms to determine applicant suitability. But what happens when you don't like the result? Can a computer program be considered defamatory?"

Comments

Re:My Opinion?

[cpt kangarooski]

I can think of a few reasons why supreme court judges would be legitimately rated low.

I suspect that you mean to say 'justices,' not 'judges.'

commerce clause inversion

Which would be, what? The negative commerce clause?

allowing states to take people's property

Why? States have always had that power. Indeed, the federal Constitution only requires that governments pay fair compensation to the owner when they seize property under the eminent domain power. It not only doesn't prohibit it, but by making it conditional, it supports the idea of eminent domain. Which is not a bad idea, actually; that is how governments builds roads, among other things.

Allowing congress to blackmail the states by withholding highway (and other) funds

So you're saying that the Constitution imposes limits on the federal government spending its money which would prohibit this? Please feel free to point them out.

cowardly and un-statesmanlike refusal to hear critical cases of government malfeasance (like Robert Newdow's)

Pft. Newdow's case was hardly 'critical,' though I also would've liked to have it heard. But the Constitution does put significant procedural limits on the federal courts, and Newdow really did have a problem with standing. The Supreme Court once told George Washington to piss off (more politely than that) under similar circumstances, once. If you're going to complain that they are too loose with the Constitution, you need to realize that it is a two-edged argument.

Re:My Opinion?

[cpt kangarooski]

See: Fair compensation. It is fair market value, but there is no market value when the government condemns something.

Which is why the government will make an offer based on their appraisal of the value. And if you don't like it, you can negotiate for a better price, and ultimately sue for a better price. Then each side brings in appraisers and a jury decides based upon the evidence presented to them.

This isn't difficult. Courts have to make decisions about how much things cost all the time.

The Ninth amendment clearly establishes states rights.

No, the Ninth merely says that the enumeration of rights elsewhere in the Constitution cannot be read to mean that they are the only rights. It doesn't establish any rights at all, in fact. Nor does it say how many rights there are, or what they are.

Also, you pretty obviously haven't read it, because it doesn't mention the states at all. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you see the word 'states' in there? I don't.