Another Attempt At Using the Courts To Suppress an Online Review

gandhi_2 writes with this excerpt from the SF Chronicle: "A San Francisco chiropractor has sued a local artist over negative reviews published on Yelp, the popular Web site that rates businesses. Christopher Norberg, 26, of San Francisco posted the first review in November 2007 after visiting Steven Biegel at the Advanced Chiropractic Center on Valencia Street. In the six-paragraph write-up, Norberg criticized Biegel's billing practices and said the chiropractor was being dishonest with insurance companies. ...The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a local nonprofit that supports free speech online, is considering helping with Norberg's defense. Matt Zimmerman, an attorney with the group, said Biegel will get far more negative publicity from filing the lawsuit than from a bad review on Yelp. He said the foundation is seeing more and more cases of people trying to use the courts because they're unhappy with postings on the Internet."

Comments

Chiropractors are quacks anyway

[trolltalk.com]

I'd trust a veterinarian to treat me before I'd trust one of those fraud artists.

Long history

[binkless]

Chiropractors have had many detractors over the years and have a long history of using political manipulation and legal intimidation in response. They pursue a variety of goals including suppression of criticism of their questionable practices and mandating insurance coverage for chiropractic "care." They have generally been successful. That they try to suppress online criticism is a predictable continuation of longstanding behavior

Re:Long history

[SirLurksAlot]

I'm not going to argue with you one way or the other regarding chiropractors and their methods as I don't have any experience or knowledge of them specifically. I will say however that I think you're missing the point. The issue at hand, alleged libel in a public forum, can be applied to just about any business. It just happens to be a chiropractor in this case.

Re:Long history

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

In other words: If someone actually commits libel against you in an internet forum, you are screwed:

If you sue them, you create a lot of headlines (the streisand effect), causing much more damage to your reputation. If you win the case, nobody will care (the media is not interested in some random dude being wrong in a forum). If you lose, it's even worse.

So what else can you do, really? Must be something that doesn't cause negative publicity. You might try adding a positive review to the forum under a pseudonym. But if anyone finds out about this, you have caused even more harm to your reputation.

The takeaway message seems to be: Don't trust anyone on the internet, for there is no penalty for lying on there.

Re:Long history

[aurispector]

Yup. Accusing someone of illegal activity (in this case insurance fraud) is serious business. If the guy is an asshole he deserves a poor reputation but that doesn't include being called a criminal. This isn't a free speech issue at all. Regardless of your opinion of chiropractors, free speech does not mean you can call someone a criminal unless you can prove it.

Re:Long history

[russotto]

This isn't a free speech issue at all.

For any free speech issue on the Internet, there's someone to claim that it isn't one for some lame excuse or another.

free speech does not mean you can call someone a criminal unless you can prove it.

So if someone commits a wrong against me, and I can't muster up enough objective evidence to prove it, I must remain silent about it upon penalty of law? Some free speech.

Here are the statements that are claimed to be libelous:

a) "A friend told be to stop going, cause of Dr. Biegel billed his insurance company funny awhile before."

One should be prevented by law from posting such a vague assertion online?

b) "So I saw the guy for 2 visits, expected a bill for about 125 bucks... So ends up, Biegel billed me for over $500. I called to pay, and he couldn't give me a straight answer as to why the jump in price, we got into an argument..."

Assuming Dr. Biegel did in fact bill the defendant over $500, there's no false statement of fact here. Nor anything that would be defamatory per se even if it were false. "He couldn't give me a straight answer" is a matter of perception.

c) "He called me back to cover his ass, and had reasons as to why he could bill for the extra amount, then tells me he would still write it off because he wanted to keep his word from the previous conversation. One reason he gave me, was that he runs a business and would stick it to insurance companies (even though that drives my premiums up, and makes me wonder who else he sticks it to).

This is an example of an unprovable statement -- an unrecorded phone conversation. Should the defendant be forbidden by law from repeating Dr. Biegel's (alleged) words because he can't prove that Dr. Biegel said them?

d) "The next day I received a voicemail from the receptionist, she told me that she talked to my insurance company and found out that my case settled, and even though it was for an amount less than expected, they felt I owed them $125

It's not clear why Dr. Biegel even thinks this statement is libelous.

e) [I was a bit put off by the fact that] "he wasn't keeping his word anymore".

A bit vague to be the basis of a libel claim.

f) [I don't think good business means charging people whatever you feel hoping they'll pay without a fuss.] "Especially considering that I found a much better, honest, chiropractor."

The first part isn't libelous at all, it's a matter of opinion and the practice it implies the plaintiff engages in isn't illegal. The second part implies the plaintiff _isn't_ honest, which is clearly the defendant's opinion based on the other things that happened.

If this review is held to be libelous, then just about any write-up about a similar dispute can be held to be libelous. Proof isn't always going to be available, and to require that the complaining part have such proof before even making a complaint is definitely a "chilling effect".

Re:Long history

[xigxag]

In this case the lion's share of the "bad publicity" arises because he is bringing this case to court. Otherwise would any of us have even heard of this chiropractor?

In any case, the GP is not asserting that free speech is unfettered. What he seems to be saying is that suppressing freedom of speech should only be done in narrow circumstances. Bad publicity of itself is certainly not a cause to suppress free speech. If it were, then you could never read a bad book or movie review either, papers would be forbidden from publishing the names of alleged criminals, and so on.

And as a matter of law, the burden of proof is on the other side to begin with. It's not for the defendant to dig up proof that he was telling the truth. It's for the plaintiff to prove the defendant was making false statements.

Review or Libel?

[abigsmurf]

There's a big danger in simplifying the issues here. It doesn't seem here that he's suing because it's a bad review, he's suing because he's essentially accusing him of fraud.

If he has proof to back that up, fair enough but to accuse someone of illegal practices like that when you've no proof is libel. It doesn't matter if it's done on a community site or not.

If I was running a business and a disgruntled customer posted a lie about me ("all of his PCs are built in his basement by chained up mexicans!") I would want to have some legal recourse. These kinds of lies can destroy a business, especially those on a site people are likely to visit for information on a business.

Re:this was modded +5 insightful?????

[Adambomb]

I wouldn't go to a chiropractor either.

Keep in mind that the procedures and guidelines that began chiropractics is correlational not causal observation. It is done in the sense of "well, people like it and it seems to help".

And in that context, yes chiropractics seems to help many people. The issue is that chiropractics is not Medicine. Chiropractors are not required to be medical doctors (although many medical doctors have become chiropractors as well). It also remains a fairly untested field in terms of long term effects and side effects of spinal alignments.

All these paramedical service professionals are blurring the lines for society it seems. The line dividing chiropractors from physiotherapists from doctors seem to be disappearing in peoples minds. Chiropractics basically boils down to a "it feels good, so we do it" area where the number of negative resulting cases is low enough for few to particularly see a need to stop it. If it helps you, great.

Do not equate it as rigorously tested science or medicine though.

Your brain is showing

[Pinky's Brain]

We are open minded ... if someone could come up with non anecdotal evidence and show the use of clinical trials and other scientific methods in those schools of chiropractic care you are talking about we could simply accept it as plain medicine. Alternative medicine is quackery which sometimes gets things right by accident.

Abandoning the scientific method is abandoning progress ... chiropractic care will never progress, it will remain in the realm of quackery.