Slashdot Mirror
Maryland Court Weighs Internet Anonymity
Cornwallis writes "In a First Amendment case with implications for everything from neighborhood e-mail lists to national newspapers, a Maryland businessman argued to the state's highest court yesterday that the host of an online forum should be forced to reveal the identities of people who posted allegedly defamatory comments. The businessman, Zebulon J. Brodie, contends that he was defamed by comments about his shop, a Dunkin' Donuts in Centreville, posted on NewsZap.com. The shop was described as one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.' Talk about a Negative Nellie! At least the article didn't say the shop was the 'most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'"
Zebulon!?!?
Anonymity is the bane of a civilized society and should not be tolerated on the Internet.
In order to encourage open communication in [forum X] I agree to hold this list harmless, and waive any implied rights to defamation... blah blah blah or some such crap. Could a disclaimer/waiver hold up in court? They work for personal injury, why not "social injury"?
meh
I should be allowed to silence dissent. I should be able to bully people through seemingly legal means so that their use of the first ammendment doesn't go unpunished. The first step is getting their names.
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
"We don't like your comment about some random Dunkin Donuts. Please turn over your entire internet history so that anyone on the planet can sue you for defamation."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I didn't know opinion was liable.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
I think we have lost that right for the most part. Or rather we have been giving it away at every turn.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Of whether the dunkin donuts was actually dirty. Has this Brodie dude even provided the court with evidence that his establishment isn't unsanitary-looking? I mean, what if these weren't just a couple trolls, but real customers who saw that this particular dunkin donuts was really nasty?
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
"The question of the state of cleanliness is a material fact in the issue. Someone please post ZoeTroped pictures of the restaurant so that we may see its condition. It's only defamation if it's false."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
the arguments continued... that Zebulon would bring down a fleet of Vogon constructor ships upon the first ammendment if he should not be pleased.
I posted that weak ass hitchhiker reference just because I was hoping to be one of the first people to say something diparaging without being anon... posting anon coward would be too obvious. perhaps the forums should use the coward moniker..seems to really put people in their place here!
Well that, and Zebulon really made me think of mork from orc... :)
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Now it all makes sense. His remark: "one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'" is obviously because Homer Simpson was in there giving to Lisa and Bart in some sort of orgy. Was this Dunkin' Donuts in Australia, because I think that judge was onto something. Maybe they weren't drawings, but polaroids.
"I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
.. I'll have to reveal myself?
Stating an opinion is not defamatory.
I think bush is the worst president we've ever had.
Should i be expected to be sued by bush for defaming his name?
Instead of hiring a legal team, wouldn't that money be better spent, oh, I don't know, fixing up your store?!
There're reasons I won't go to any fast food place other than In-N-Out. One is I have yet to enter one where I felt the urge to break out saniwipes if I accidentally touched a table.
Customer service is dead. Next he'll be suing people because they're shopping at a competitor...
he should be more worried about the actual conditions of his store. I'm not naive enough to think that people don't use the internet to cause trouble, but if the comment is echoed throughout the forum, he's most likely got a problem on his hands. He may not like someone coming out and saying that his store is filthy, but if the comment is true, then this falls under the realm of informing citizens.
Somehow, I doubt he wants the poster's name and address to send him coupons.
"osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
Why does some second tier fast food owner bring up one of the biggest precedent setting cases ever?
Can he be bringing up a weak version of a precedent setting case to angle for a pro-rights victory?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
If that's the case, wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire a janitor, instead of a lawyer?
obviously the article and summary don't state exactly what the posters in question were talking about. but from what was given, - is there really any defamation going on? can the plaintiff prove that the statement was untrue? this comment was back in 06. the state of his store -now- hold little bearing on comments made 2 years ago. on top of that, the post seems highly opinionated. it's very possible that the poster's history with food service doesn't include many with less than pleasant standards. if that was the case, would the comment not be truly stated? and can a true statement be defamation in maryland? IANAL, so it's a serious question. and if there was no defamation, why bother with determining the first amendment standing of the issue, when there may well be no issue?
Huh. I picked up coffee and an egg sandwich from that very establishment yesterday morning. The place was spotless. Then again, it was the first time I've ever been there.
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. --Hofstadter's Law
The original poster was clearly making a joke by posting it anon. irony is thick and funny in that post.
oddly, this post is informative, but should be moderated as sadly informative.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
I'm actually ticked at my local health inspector because they don't make this easy for my city. It's easy to look up this sort of info at other places
http://www.txkusa.org/health/Food_Report.pdf
Here is the real slashdot test. What did this guy happen to score on his local health inspection and how easy is that for his usual customers to obtain and see his results?
I actually think the judge needs to throw this right out. This is an opinion about a food serving place and it isn't even that harsh. If he doesn't want to hear what his customers think of his place, then he doesn't need to listen to them. Maybe, just maybe he needs to clean up his shop and present a better public image for his customers?
I wouldn't be surprised if his competitors are eating him alive.
Is Kerrigan Mahan available to do the voices?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Thank christ Maryland isn't the center of the known universe. Maryland can do whatever the hell it feels like, and all the citizens can cow down to its respective governments, but as for me, Mr xxxx yyyyy, I will revel in my internet anonymity.
That's easy for you to say. I have to go through Maryland on my way to the beach!
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
The only people who have the ability to resuse to testify or give evidence are priests, spouses, and various other job classifications. As far as I know, ISP owner isn't one of them.
A subpoena is a subpoena. I will agree that courts have been issuing them inappropriately in some cases, but I don't see how this qualifies.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I don't understand how this could be a problem. He didn't falsely claim the store poisoned him or anything, he just simply stated out of the stores he's seen, it was one of the most dirty. That's just an opinion, and as far as I know we're still allowed to voice our opinion.
...because he was already shot down by every other court governing his precinct in Maryland. A lot of people bring crazy cases to supreme courts.
Opinions are not statements of fact, something that apparently escapes even the highest court in Maryland. Slander and libel are passing off false statements as fact. This is why in the newspaper you always hear about the alleged crime, or how the government may be involved in massive surveillance domestically, or that the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) could be real.
Hopefully the court will realize that one person making his/her own opinion known in a public forum (anonymously or otherwise) does not constitute a malicious attempt to degrade the reputation of another. If not, we may have to bump Florida from the 2008 dumbest judiciary system award.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
*whoosh*
NewsZip.com is registered in Delaware, and this is a state court from another state, attempting to impose a court order outside of its jurisdiction. What, pray tell, gives them a basis to even think about doing this? I'd like to see the federal statute...
My opinion: the judge should require the plaintiff here to first prove that the statements were defamatory. You don't need to know who said them to do that, the statements stand on their own. Once the owner has a ruling that the statements were in fact defamatory, then demand the identity of the person who made them so they can be held to account for them.
As a law student, it seems *entirely* prudent to me that a business man should be able to get a subpoena to get the IPs and names of people who are posting defamatory comments on the internet (assuming they are in fact defamatory). That said, NOTHING should prevent a person from being able to make anonymous posts. It is only IF your posts break the law that you should be "discoverable". Likewise, a person should be able to rant and rave about the government as much as they want. But if they make a post advocating an assassination, they face discovery of their IP/name. Seems 100% reasonable.
Increasingly (and scarily) jurisdiction is being extended through some pretty tenuous reasoning.
That whole Lori Drew case was a woman in Missouri being sued in Los Angeles -- because the servers are located there.
Sadly, the internet seems to have created cases where lawmakers still say "well, you're guilty here" -- which is kind of scary. Just think, there is a precedent in the US which allows you to be subject to the laws of a jurisdiction you don't live in and possibly have never visited.
One of these days, any international travel might risk you being apprehended by on the basis that something you posted online is illegal in that country and you have been found guilty in absentia!
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That is usually what it is called when you are doing something that affects a business in a negative manner. Slander and libel are problematic because even though we are all "journalists" now, the publishing of an opinion probably doesn't carry that much weight.
The question is more likely can you have an unmoderated forum of nothing but negative comments about businesses without ever incurring legal liability? For most of the history of the world, the answer has been no, you can't. Today, with the Internet the operator of the forum may be hard to find, too hard for an assembly of people with torches and buckets of tar to locate and deliver punishment.
I'd think that the operator of the forum can either shield participants and take all the heat or serve up the participants and hope nobody actually sues them. In today's world, betting you will not be sued is a very risky bet.
Following the logic on this argument would mean that on the streets when you flip someone off or yell out some odd obscenity you would have to follow it with your name and address...ala:
"Thanks for cutting in front of me asshole...you dumb ass motherfucker...IM RICK WARRAN and I LIVE AT 212228 xxxx!!!!"
The scariest part is that these case is absurd on a number of levels, but at least one judge so far thinks this Zebulon J. Brodie whackjob actually had a valid point.
First off, the First Amendment protects freedom of expression. We're not all the way there yet, but most intelligent people (including many judges) agree that anonymity is essential to guarantee free speech without fear of reprisal. One exception of course is for libelous or defamatory statements but those do NOT include negative criticism framed as opinion.
The statement "[one] of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen," is very clearly an opinion by the author and he or she is making a personal judgment of the place in comparison to other food-service stores.
Zebulon J. Brodie is one of the biggest douchebag assholes that I have ever read about on the Internet.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
A foxy way to fortify an opinion, e.g. "Some people say the doughnuts at this particularly DD are, well, delicious."
Free speech and free press should, by default, be transcendent over property, reputation, religion, and even security. The laws and judicial opinions we have today are full of cruft from old moments of political expediency.
The "'Fire!' in a theater" argument is an example of a poor decision that is often used to justify continued eroding of free speech. People are born with all rights; as they grow older they allow them to be taken away. They justify it by their need to live in a pink and fluffy padded cell.
It is up to each individual to decide for themselves what to say and think. If I don't want to say something to hurt someone's feelings, then it is my decision, not the law's.
But you might expect a visit from Knights Who Say Ni for insulting the shrubbery of the world.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
And to whomever modded this Offtopic: Whoosh!
Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
Did you say Dissent? As in: a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to an idea (eg. a government's policies) or an entity (eg. an individual or political party which supports such policies)? Over criticism of a local Dunkin Donuts?
Now, I happened to know people, who were dissenting with Soviet Russia (yes, that one) by signing their names on letters to foreign governments, the UN, and NGOs exposing USSR's abuses of human rights, for example. They faced not just potential monetary loss for defamation, but incarceration (in extremely hostile camps), forced "medical" treatments, beatings, and death. It never even occurred to them to try to be anonymous...
Are you sure, the term "Dissent" is appropriate here?
Yes, as a matter of fact, if they speak ill of me, they better be able to back it up and repeat it in my face. There is a good reason, an accused has the right to face their accuser in a US court.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
[citation needed]
Here, I'll help you find one. From TFA:
A Circuit Court judge in Queen Anne's County ordered the company to hand over the information. The company appealed, setting up yesterday's argument in Annapolis.
A lower court actually ruled against the defendant. The decision was appealed on first amendment grounds.
Doesn't Dunkin Donuts still use styrofoam? That in and of itself is disgustingly dirty.
I heard the guy running this store smells funny actually.
Sorry Maryland, but you're too small of a state to be allowed to decide such an important issue for the whole country - even if your ruling would only apply within your own tiny state boundaries. You need to punt the issue to some larger state - like Texas or California.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Utini sits at his desk, pina-colada in hand, surfing Slashdot. Occassionally taking a pull from his -- slightly too effeminate -- cigarette holder, containing a Gauloises cigarette. Its dark, heady odour fills the room, while thick smoke hangs in layers, waiting to be disturbed by a draught.
All is calm like this for several minutes, then suddenly, outraged by what he sees as a crime against free expression, Utini is forced to down his drink and cigarette upon the table. He must fight against those who would destroy the anonymity the Internet affords. He writes furiously and ceaselessly for several seconds, penning a Slashdot post he is sure will make the original poster repent from their stupidity, and save anyone swayed by the flawed argument.
He finishes writing, diligently presses the Review button, before submitting the post. He is certain this will do good, he may have even saved the Internet as we know it! This is a good day.
Almost immediately after pressing the Submit button, he hears a dull roar in the distance. It's beyond his log cabin, beyond the small garden with its piles of wood and lumberjack's tools. He strains his ears before going outside to look over the tops of the trees surrounding the mountain retreat.
The noise is increasing in volume, the source of it is getting closer. Utini squints as a shape begins to define itself, turning at first from a dot, to a blob, then taking shape as some sort of aeroplane. He has time to observe that the plane must be moving at phenomenal speed before it has practically overtaken him; with a mind-shattering screech, and noise of engines, Utini sees that, somehow, the plane is the post he replied to. Puzzled he reflects that it must have been a trick of the mind. The anonymity argument must have really bothered him. He thinks this until a piece of paper drifts down from the sky, landing at his feet.
Seeing the paper is folded, Utini opens it up, and not without some trepidation. Upon it is written a simple message, so simple it seems bizarre that the Anonymous Coward went to such lengths to get it to him. The paper said:
"Wow." thought Utini, "That's got to be the most roundabout way to tell someone they've misunderstood a joke."
That's probably only half the story. If there is a Baskin-Robbins attached to that Dunkin Donuts, it probably SMELLS like SOUR milk and OLD ice cream.
"Brodie is not certain which poster is responsible for that and other remarks that he claims were defamatory, and he has only their screen names."
Oh please oh please let it be "NewYorkCountryLawyer"...
What is stated in TFA would clearly seem to be a personal opinion, and as such protected. Certainly the poster's valid opinion of the state of the DD shop is at least equal to that of the owner. I don't see the case here, or why it was allowed to get this far.
Note to anonymous poster: Next time document your comment with a couple shots from your camera phone. Truth is an excellent defense in the USA against such charges. Also add the words, "In my opinion..."
In Britain, however, this would be an entirely different matter.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm not sure that's a good analogy. The "stranger" at the party might just be a stranger to you. Or maybe not.
If the stranger is a stranger to everyone, then nobody else at the party who heard the remark, will have reason to assign any credibility to it, thus you are not effectively defamed. Essentially no harm has occurred (though that's not emotionally realistic, I realize).
If the stranger is just someone you don't know, but other people who hear the remark may know, then the remark may carry some weight and you were really defamed.
Presumably, this internet case is one like AC posting on /. : nobody (except the poster and possibly the site's admin -- an insignificant audience) knows who it is, so no one has reason to take it too seriously.
I wouldn't make the party analogy, because harm may actually occur there. I don't think that creates an obligation for the host, but it's still a situation that doesn't quite match.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Sp what did it Weigh??
!) 42 lbs?
2) The same as a duck?
3) 10 Newtons?
4) Tom Brokaw or some other anchor
5) 1 library of congress
6) Rhode Island
7) more than CowboyNeal
8) ????
9) 4 bars of Gold pressed Latinum
I'm not entirely sure why a person bringing an action that may or may not succeed to a Maryland court is reason to deride the state. Don't get me wrong, like every good NOVA resident, I'm pretty sure Maryland is the root of all stupidity - but this isn't why at all.
You apparently intended to be funny, I presume? That was unintentionally much more insightful than you realized, if so. Anonymity actually is contributory to many disruptions and deteriorations in an ethical society. Ethics and anonymity are not synergistic bedfellows.
I think I have just borne witness to the most epic "woosh" ever.
Maybe he's mostly upset because he's gay and has sex with the donuts after hours.
He also beats his gay lover while he wears baby outfits sucking on a pacifier.
Maybe this guy was a "bubble boy" who had lived in cleanrooms all his life, and this was the first food shop he had seen since stepping outside that world? After all, he properly qualifies it with "one of the most" and "I have seen". That says nothing of its absolute nature.
[One] 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'
Even if the owner had the name of the individual, he wouldn't have a defamation case. The statement is specifically the poster's experience. Neither the owner, nor his lawyer can prove that this Dunkin Donuts isn't "[one] of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-services places [the poster has] seen." It's clearly stated as an opinion formed on personal experience.
If say to my friend (lets call him Jim) that I particular restaurant "makes some of the worst fries I've ever had", and the restaurant finds out that Jim was told that, can they subpoena Jim for the name of the person he heard it from? Probably not. Even if they could, could they sue me for it? No way.
Throw the case out and fine the owner for wasting the court's time. This is the owner being over-sensitive (for someone in the fast-food business) and downright foolish, and his lawyer is just cashing in on some easy money for time spent on a case that he/she knows isn't going to get off the ground.
Yep. He's an asshole!
IANAL but from what I recollect this guy is going to have a hard time justifying his demand for the poster's information to a judge.
My understanding is that in order to prevail in a legal action of this kind you must demonstrate that you have a case, e.g., give good reason to believe that the person may have defamed you.
The problem with the quote mentioned in this article is that it's not defamation if it's true. So without knowing who the poster is how do they hope to establish that the poster has been to less clean food-service establishments?
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Should I mop the floor and clean the bathroom or hire a lawyer? Hmm... I'll hire a lawyer.
Maybe so, but the guy runs a donut shop. It's not like the patrons are there for the health food.
Fairfax County, VA keeps very accurate and accessible records for health inspections.
http://www.healthspace.ca/Clients/VDH/Fairfax/Fairfax_Website.nsf/Food-FacilityHistory?OpenView&RestrictToCategory=1B64E891566CA31385257340006C52A9
Zebulon's establishment appears to have been visited three times recently, with no *major* violations.
> First, it needs to be determined if he was defamed. Maybe the accusations are true.
You know, this reminded me of a *very* old news story where someone took a picture of a rat in a Dunkin' Donuts and it caused a huge fuss. I had all but forgotten about that, too. I think the news at the time quipped that you should avoid the chocolate sprinkles.
Oh, and then there's that stupid thing where people decided that one of their spokeswomen was wearing a "terrorist" scarf or something. But that was totally idiotic.
I'm sure this isn't what they wanted to remind us of. If they'd wanted to solve this normally, they should have posted on the forum rebutting the claims made rather than suing.
I think that's already happened. Something about the German government prosecuting in absentia, a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. for selling Nazi memorabilia and artifacts on eBay, then nabbing him when he got off the plane on a vacation.
It's entirely possible I have some details wrong, but it's not the first time I've heard of this occurring.
Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is only valid for criminal cases.
Civil cases just neeed (I think...) a "preponderance of the evidence."
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
finds that it weights 48 pounds.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
How on Earth is this a First Amendment case? It's speech against a business, not the government. First Amendment only protects free speech against the government.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
This reminds me of the time on IRC when one channel operator, a network administrator in real life, insisted all channel participants must speak on the channel using their own nicks, if they spoke from behind a bot they were summarily banned. His argument was that the internet was not built for anonymity, that speaking from behind a bot was subverting the original purpose and intent of the internet.
Don't you think Zebulon Brodie would have been better off just letting it go? By bringing the lawsuit he's bringing all this negative publicity down upon his allegedly dirty Dunkin' Donuts.
One of the primary jobs of a good libel lawyer is to advise his client when NOT to sue.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
One of these days, any international travel might risk you being apprehended by on the basis that something you posted online is illegal in that country and you have been found guilty in absentia!
This has already happened a few times, hasn't it? I seem to remember a case where an internet gambling mogul was arrested vacationing in the USA even if all his stuff was in England (servers, etc).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4yX2rkpBc From Mr. Show
It makes sense to me, not that my opinion matters, that a Pseudonymous person is inherently incapable of defamation.
If someone takes the trouble to use a Pseudonym, or post as Anonymous Coward, then they have no credibility, and so can not defame.
Claims by a pseudonym are similar to a statement like:
While it may or may not be true that so and so in fact blows goats for canned food, someone hiding behind a pseudonym is not to be taken any more seriously than a fictional character. Or in other words, How is putting words into the mouth of a Pseudonym and different than putting words into the mouth of a Fictional character?
...
Anybody else read Zebulon Brodie and think Zaphod Beeblebrox?
The only thing this has done for me is to remind me of that time there was a picture of a rat inside a Dunkin' Donuts and all the media were joking that you should "avoid the chocolate sprinkles."
In general, internet defamation lawsuits do little but draw attention to the defamation. And if it was bad enough that a few people read the allegedly defamatory stuff, invoking the Streisand Effect is pretty much always a bad play.
But not all of the lawyers are as smart as you are, NYCL. I mean, some of them are even crazy enough to work for the RIAA...
First and foremost, I am not a lawyer in any way. I have only incidental and accidental experience with law. Given where I grew up, law is still a strange beast to me. You have been legally forewarned.
defamation is strange because its cross accusatory. When you accuse someone of defamation, it is on you to prove what they said was not true at the time. Its only defamation if its grossly untrue.
Not sure how this plays into him wanting names, I am pretty sure that should not happen for any reason before some element of the court proceedings.
Basically, he needs to be able to prove his innocence before he can prove the accused of wrongdoing, and he should have to do that before he gets names. Its always near impossible to prove ones innocence.
Assuming you don't believe me, think about how you will prove your not a pederast. Mere accusation is practically damnation in some cases.
Best you think twice before buying awesome mint cookies from girl scouts. Turn them away. "Go away little girl, I don't need your kind around here; have shotgun". Above all, DO NOT GIVE HER MONEY! Its practically a shut case if she is wired.
On the other hand, he is probably guilty as sin, for running an unclean shop, lets not forget what we are talking about.
As per usual, DO NOT LISTEN TO ME for anything important. I will stear you wrong. Sometimes intentionally. Unless it saves your life. Then you can listen to me, and give me credit of course.
I am pretty serious about defamation being a hard row to hoe. Its usually used as a threat to make people think about what they are saying, most times the threat is used it goes no where near court for good reason. Its usually used to prove that the words you say can cut both ways.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
"Internet Anonymity" does not exist. It's a fantasy and really doesn't have anything to do with this.
he gets to vote!
It's only libel if I get caught. ;)
You are mixing the concepts of rights and privileges. Rights belong to you. Privileges are given to you by someone else. They are like a licence. If they can be given, they can be taken away. Rights have no such limit.
you are hawking the most overhyped dishwater coffee on the planet. anyone with an honest comparison of your swill to stuff such as I brew on my desk at work would seem to defame you. You have no fame. Go sit on a cup of your "coffee", buster. Your case cannot do anything but harm free speech.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Really? I think that we should all post our opinions of this gentleman's lawsuit on newszap! Hmmm?
Social Credit would solve everything...
So if my post is tagged "Funny" I'm safe from libel, but not if it's "Informative".
What about "Troll" ?
Now I'm sure nobody is going to dunk their donuts at his rathole.
Offering a subjective opinion on an Internet forum (Cesspools of the intrawebs, those) doesn't constitute a defamatory statement. How many customers of dunkin donuts regularly visit Internet forums? It's not like-
Oh, wait.
What if it really IS the most dirty place that person has ever seen? How can you invade someone's privacy without showing harm? IANAL, but this seems pretty obvious (at least based on my professional opinion of the 4 sentences in the summary). It's one thing if he had said "there are dead rats in the kitchen"; but he didn't; he said it was one of the most dirty places he had seen. How can you disprove that or even show that it LIKELY isn't true?
Should be thrown out.
It's a bird!
It's a plane!
It's an excellent point soaring far over over Utini420's head!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!