Virginia Woman Is Sued For $750,000 After Writing Scathing Yelp Review

First time accepted submitter VegetativeState writes "Jane Perez hired a construction company and was not happy with the work they did and alleged some of her jewelry was stolen. She submitted reviews on Yelp and Angie's List, giving the company all F's. The contractor is now suing her for $750,000. From the article: 'Dietz, the owner of Dietz Development, filed the Internet defamation lawsuit filed last month, stating that "plaintiffs have been harmed by these statements, including lost work opportunities, insult, mental suffering, being placed in fear, anxiety, and harm to their reputations." Perez's Yelp review accused the company of damaging her home, charging her for work that wasn't done and of losing jewelry. The lawsuit follows an earlier case against Perez, which was filed in July 2011 by Dietz for unpaid invoices. According to the recent filing, the two were high school classmates.'"

Comments

Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

freedom of speech

Re:Shrug

[Raven42rac]

Doesn't apply to defamation/slander.

Re:Shrug

[kthreadd]

Unless it's true!

Re:Shrug

[realityimpaired]

Free speech doesn't mean no consequences. Libel and Slander are two very well known examples of situations where your speech has consequences.

This will hinge on proving that her statements (particularly about the stolen jewelry) were true. If they were, then she's protected by free speech. If they prove to have been false, then she's screwed.

Re:Shrug

[Raven42rac]

Correct, it has to both be false and malicious.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it does. Freedom of speech is a restriction on the power of the Legislative Branch ("Congress shall make no law ..."). It doesn't mean that the Judicial Branch can't give orders to ban speech (gag orders) or the Executive Branch can't order its workers to censor information (classified information). Additionally, it doesn't mean that one citizen can sue another one for slander (but at the same time that slander and libel aren't crimes).

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

freedom of speech

I really wish the founding fathers had outlawed freedom of blatant idiocy.

Protip: Take a high school civics class; you might finally understand exactly what 'freedom of speech' means and why it doesn't apply in this situation.

Bonus Hint: It has everything to do with government censorship, and nothing to do with free reign to slander and spew libel.

Re:Shrug

[diamondmagic]

"No consequences" is misleading.

"Free speech" means the government will not bring force against you for your speech. False and malicious speech, however, is a type of fraud: a different crime.

Re:Shrug

[Fluffeh]

freedom of speech

Freedom of speech means you are allowed to say it, not that you aren't then responsible for what you said. If you say something slanderous, defame someone you are still liable to be held accountable for your statements, but you can still live in the joy of being able to go out right afterwards, say it all again and start the process over.

Re:Shrug

[cob666]

If they were, then she's protected by free speech.

Freedom of Speech has NOTHING to do with this case. Freedom of Speech applies only to the governments ability to restrict speech and doesn't apply to what you can say in an online forum. If what she said is in fact true then libel doesn't apply because truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.

Re:Shrug

[Keith111]

And if it's not, behold the dreaded Streisand effect.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

go put your real name up so i can blog about how you molest kids, steal from your neighbors, etc

Re:Shrug

[Raven42rac]

Congress didn't make the laws, the individual states did. Womp womp.

Re:Shrug

[kelemvor4]

I think everyone knows that our governments hate freedom of speech.

Thank you, captain obvious. Fortunately some of our laws were made during the brief time when the government was run by the people.

Re:Shrug

[Raven42rac]

The first amendment has been interpreted by common and case law to not protect you in cases of slander or libel. If you're arguing for an entirely literal interpretation of the first amendment well then I'm not entirely sure what to tell you.

Re:Shrug

[ShanghaiBill]

Fortunately some of our laws were made during the brief time when the government was run by the people.

When was that? Or do you mean run by the people who were white male landowners who didn't pick the losing side in a recent war?

Re:Shrug

[maz2331]

"The lawsuit follows an earlier case against Perez, which was filed in July 2011 by Dietz for unpaid invoices."

Wouldn't that earlier suit have needed to prove that the work was done to satisfy the original contract in order for the court to order her to pay the bills? I want to see what the outcome of that case was - her negative reviews may have been a case of "sour grapes" over being ordered to pay a bill that was legitimately owed, or they could be follow-up to an actually shoddy job.

At this point, none of us have enough information to even speculate as to the eventual outcome of this case.

Re:Shrug

[kelemvor4]

Fortunately some of our laws were made during the brief time when the government was run by the people.

When was that? Or do you mean run by the people who were white male landowners who didn't pick the losing side in a recent war?

Yep, those are the ones I mean.

Re:Shrug

[Desler]

You need to look up the incorporation doctrine. The First Amendment has applied to the states for 65 years now.

Re:Shrug

[Firehed]

It does, but you can still sue for damages.

Either way, sounds like Not News to me. The fact that it's based on a Yelp review rather than a sign tacked up somewhere doesn't change the nature of the case.

Re:Shrug

[Raven42rac]

Well cool, it still hasn't been found to apply to slander/defamation/libel cases.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

A little thing called the 14th Amendment incorporation ... 1st amendment incorporated to state governments

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

For fraud it has to be malicious. For defamation it merely has to be false (incompetence counts).

Re:Shrug

[Raven42rac]

Calm down I've already been told. I was wrong on the internet.

Re:Shrug

[lightknight]

Ah, but they did.

So, according to the Constitution, what are we supposed to do when Congress violates the Constitution?

Re:Shrug

[Gordonjcp]

This is why the US needs to update its antiquated libel laws to be more like the law in the UK. Over here, if what she says is true then there is simply no way she can lose. In the US system, anyone can say anything - true or untrue - they like about anyone else (yes, even you) and unless you've got much deeper pockets than them there's nothing you can do about it.

In the UK, the person telling the truth wins. In the US, the person with the most money to pay for lawyers wins. I prefer our way.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

And Perez has the burden of proof. So far I'm not on her side.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a civil suit, its passed on preponderance of the evidence. The other side has to show evidence that those statements are false.

Re:Shrug

[Shoten]

Yes, but you can easily make the case that objectively false statements (as were made in this case) on a website intended to guide people in choosing a vendor are inherently malicious. It's not a casual conversation; it's going to a place whose sole purpose is to drive business towards or away vendors, and making untruthful statements. The woman didn't just give her opinion, but make non-subjective statements that were false on a website that she knew was a basis for reputation. That meets the standard for malice in my book.

Re:Shrug

[jamesh]

Unless it's true!

Truth isn't always a defense against defamation in all jurisdictions. The statement "I think they might have stolen my stuff" is obviously true (she really does think this), as is the statement "I think you are sexually attracted to sheep" (let say for arguments sake that i really do think that). If I posted that somewhere and you were in a job that involved sheep and your job opportunities suffered because of it then it could be deemed to have defamed you without actually lying...

Re:Shrug

[jamesh]

Correct, it has to both be false and malicious.

Close. It would have to be false, malicious, and a provable statement of fact. There are plenty of situations in which someone could express an opinion about you which was both defamatory and completely unprovable.

Re:Shrug

[HornWumpus]

Funny. Exactly backwards. Truth is not a defense to libel in England. They even make jokes about it on southpark Tom Cruise: 'I'll sue you in England'

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you prove a negative? That is, how do you prove that something is missing?

Re:Shrug

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The plaintiff is asking the government to force her to pay them money as a result of her speech.

Re:Shrug

[egamma]

And Perez has the burden of proof. So far I'm not on her side.

No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?

Re:Shrug

[pclminion]

False, my wife was sued for libel and lost, despite her statements being completely true. In fact, the court seemed totally uninterested in whether it was true. It was a jury trial, if that matters.

Re:Shrug

[curunir]

The important part is that the reviewer is being sued. This is the way this stuff is supposed to work. Too often we see stories here on /. where the online service provider is being sued.

Kudos to the plaintiff in this case for not suing Yelp and Angie's List...regardless of who's in the right, the right two parties are in court.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

The plaintiff is asking the government to force her to pay them money as a result of her speech.

Correction: The plaintiff is asking the government to force her to pay them money as a result of damage caused to them by her speech. If (I stress "if") her speech was false (thus making the damage unjustifiable), then it is right and proper for the government to force her to compensate them for the damage she did.

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

Almost. It doesn't have to be malicious unless the person in question is considered a public figure -- I doubt that this contractor would qualify as a public figure. He would, however, have to demonstrate that she knew or should have known it was false (or spoke in reckless disregard of the truthfulness or falsity of the statement). Because she accused him of a crime, it qualifies as defamation per se if it's false. (At least, that's how defamation law works in California -- I assume it's about the same in Virginia, as this isn't one of those torts that tends to work differently from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Civil court, its preponderance of evidence.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

This will hinge on proving that her statements (particularly about the stolen jewelry) were true. If they were, then she's protected by free speech. If they prove to have been false, then she's screwed.

Why would you go shooting off your mouth about the law when you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about? The truth of a claim doesn't settle whether it is libelous or slanderous. The plaintiff has to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly made false statements with the intent to cause damage to the plaintiff.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Be rich* and take it up with the judicial system (or before that, hope that your president vetoes it--hahahaha yeah right...)? If that fails... well... you're just fucked. Only remaining option is revolution.

* If you're not rich... good fuckin' luck. I suppose just having some organization with enough money behind it will work as well, but the point is more "have a lot of money to pay for the challenge in court."

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

Lawyers in the UK aren't free, and there are plenty of lower-cost lawyers in the US. It is true that court costs have been going up as government funding for the courts goes down, creating barriers to access to justice for plaintiffs and defendants alike -- perhaps somewhat ironically, this is in part because the courts are an easy target due to the blithely-swallowed meme that America is particularly litigious, and/or that civil litigation is some kind of ticket to easy street. And it is certainly also true that big fish sometimes play dirty tricks like burying the other side in paperwork to strong-arm a settlement, but, again, that's not inherent to the US system, and a clever lawyer can find cost-effective ways to protect his or her client's interests.

But perpetuating the meme that there is no real justice in the US is precisely the sort of thing that allows the politicians to get away with undercutting the justice system. The public doesn't trust judges or lawyers, so the politicians have an easy target when it's time for budget negotiations, and the entire civil justice system suffers for it. So funny enough, by disparaging the US court system (without offering any actual facts, statistics, or comparative surveys of US versus UK litigation, naturally), you're perpetuating the ignorant, unfair stereotypes about it that eventually result in actual harm to overall justice. But hey, what do you care -- not like you're an American who's gonna be hurt by it, right?

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

The fact that it isn't IMPLICATED by defamation laws does not mean it doesn't APPLY. The First Amendment most definitely applies to defamation laws; it's simply that defamation laws that fit within certain guidelines of acceptable restrictions on speech have been held not to run afoul of the First Amendment. Same thing with obscenity laws, laws against incitement or fighting words, etc. The First Amendment applies to everything to do with speech -- it's just that it applies differently to different things, because the First Amendment does not actually protect any and all speech.

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

(1) First Amendment applies to states, too, so if you're focusing on the word "Congress," you're focusing on the wrong part of the Amendment.

(2) The pertinent part of the Amendment is "abridging the freedom of speech," and when you give a group of academic nerds like the Supremes an excuse to analyze and pick apart a juicy bit of text like that, you wind up with all kinds of interesting and detailed legal opinions delineating VERY SPECIFICALLY just what those five words mean and what their required effect is -- and you STILL wind up with all kinds of nebulous regions and margins where the application is not wholly clear a priori.

Bottom line is, Constitutional law is not simple, it shouldn't be simple, and anyone who claims it is and/or should be has about as much business writing and interpreting law as a three-year-old has voting for president.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Never let the fact that you may be wrong stop you

Re:Shrug

[amicusNYCL]

Well done, my reply would have been much snarkier.

Let's play a game: name an inspirational figure from history, and lets all find a way to tear them down.

Re:Shrug

[firex726]

And the onus is in the accuser to make his case.

He has to prove the claims about the theft and shoddy work are false.

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

The courts are part of the government. When you ask a court, i.e., the government, to require someone to pay you money for having said something, you are asking the government to punish someone for having spoken, based on the content of that speech -- in other words, PRECISELY the sort of thing that the First Amendment addresses. So this case actually has a LOT to do with the freedom of speech.

The thing is, even though Americans like to throw around the words "freedom of speech" like they're some kind of talismanic defense to government action, they're not. The First Amendment is not absolute. None of our laws are absolute, including, yes, the part of our laws that comprise the Constitution. There are plenty of kinds of speech that the government can regulate. The meaning of the phrase "abridging the freedom of speech" has been hacked out and analyzed extensively by the federal courts. You could spend an entire career studying First Amendment jurisprudence and still have unexplored permutations. On its face, a successful lawsuit for defamation is the government using its power to inhibit an individual's right to speak, based on the content of that speech. On its face, that's a First Amendment issue. ALL THAT THIS MEANS is that the government must analyze the inhibition of speech within the context of First Amendment jurisprudence to determine whether government action would VIOLATE the First Amendment. That's how this works. A "First Amendment issue" doesn't translate into "free speech, end of story." All it means is that there's an analytical step we need to take to make sure we aren't infringing on important legal rights. Basically, that's how the courts "check" the executive and the legislature.

Re:Shrug

[amicusNYCL]

If they were, then she's protected by free speech. If they prove to have been false, then she's screwed.

That's what I like about this story. I don't know the facts of the case, I don't know which side is in the right. But if they disagree with the review then they're right to sue her frankly, and there will most likely be one of two outcomes. Either she wins, and she gets to change her review to say that her claims have been upheld, or she loses and has to remove the review and face a penalty. At this point, with how little I know about the case, I'm OK with either outcome.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

And Perez has the burden of proof. So far I'm not on her side.

No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?

In civil suits it doesn't always work that way. The burden of proof can shift to the accused and, in this case, I would be surprised if it didn't.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth (based on facts, not opinions) is an absolute defense to libel. (I am aware of the ruling in Noonan v. Staples that attempted to limit this.)

The judge should have heard the guilty verdict, then directed a verdict of not guilty to be entered.

Re:Shrug

[amicusNYCL]

In fact, the court seemed totally uninterested in whether it was true.

I'm going to guess that she couldn't prove it.

Re:Shrug

[ifiwereasculptor]

True, you can do that with pretty much every great historical figure. See:

Churchill - racist.

Thomas Jefferson - racist.

Hitler - so-so painter.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech means free speech. Free of restrictions, free of consequences, free of requirements of truth or falsehood. Libel and slander laws are a restriction on free speech that we tolerate for the benefits they provide, the same way we tolerate other restrictions on our freedoms when appropriate. Please don't Orwellianise "free speech" into meaning something less than it is.

Re:Shrug

[QRDeNameland]

Hitler - so-so painter.

...and vegetarian.

Re:Shrug

[tompaulco]

When you ask a court, i.e., the government, to require someone to pay you money for having said something, you are asking the government to punish someone for having spoken, based on the content of that speech -- in other words, PRECISELY the sort of thing that the First Amendment addresses
Not.
The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not limit your speech. It does not guarantee that you won't have to buy airtime or a printing press to make your speech. It does not guarantee that you won't have to pay damages to another entity if you make a fraudulent or damaging statement using your powers of free speech.

Re:Shrug

[BasilBrush]

If she lost it's because she couldn't show beyond reasonable doubt that it was true.

Re:Shrug

[BasilBrush]

No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false.

You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.

You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?

Yes, we all know it. It's for criminal law, not civil law. Libel is civil law.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech doesn't mean no consequences.

Every Chinese citizen enjoys complete freedom of speech. The ones who speak of Tiananmen Square also enjoy the consequences, but such is the price of freedom.

Your argument is irrational. Of course anyone is free to do anything they want if they accept the consequences. You're free to shoot anyone in the face (and, hopefully, go to jail as a consequence), but nobody speaks of free murder, why is that? (hint: it's because you aren't free to do as you please, be it murder or speech)

Re:Shrug

[Nostromo21]

Also, one ball blank shootin mofo!

Anyone got anything on Ghandi or Mother Teresa? ;)

Re:Shrug

[QRDeNameland]

Unless it's true!

The statement "I think they might have stolen my stuff" is obviously true (she really does think this), as is the statement "I think you are sexually attracted to sheep" ...

I was a little disturbed that they didn't actually quote what she said, at least from what I saw in TFA. IMHO, there's a big difference if she said "They stole my jewelry!" and "I think they stole my jewelry as items were missing afterwards." The first would clearly be libelous without proof, the latter I'm not so sure.

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

Did you read the entirety of my comment? You seem not to have understood it, given that you apparently think I said the First Amendment protects defamation, which is the opposite of what I said. The First Amendment protects against more than just prior restraint -- and it would be pretty ineffective if that's all it protected against. The First Amendment also protects your right not to be persecuted, injured, or otherwise retaliated against by the government for making protected speech. That's why, even though your employer may be able to fire you for making certain political statements (as long as there is no state law granting such statements affirmative protection even from private actors), the government can't fine you for making them, and your employer has no right to sue you for making them. Defamation is an exception to this rule, but that doesn't mean that defamation is an area of the law that First Amendment jurisprudence doesn't touch on. It means that defamation has been found not to be protected by the First Amendment, meaning that the government CAN make laws restricting it -- because the right to free speech is not absolute. The analogy is not to buying airtime, because it's not a question of having to purchase the right to make damaging statements -- it would be a violation of the First Amendment, for instance, if a website could successfully sue you, after the fact, for posting comments without paying a fee to do so (assuming that there was no valid contract between you and the website requiring such payment). In essence, it's the difference between an affirmative charge/fine for making speech versus paying for a particular means of making that speech.

But maybe downmodding is the punishment I deserve for trying to have a thoughtful and analytical discussion about jurisprudence with internet backseat lawyers...

Re:Shrug

[sribe]

Truth is most certainly an absolute defence against libel in the UK.

Actually, it is not.

Re:Shrug

[Eskarel]

That's not entirely true. Truth is a defense in England it's just not a complete defense. If you say something that is false you're screwed, but something true also has to be the intended audience's business, at least as far as I understand it(the law here in Oz is similar). So if you were to post on the internet that you're next door neighbor is a transvestite, you could be sued for libel, even if it's true because it's no one's business that he's a transvestite. Essentially just because something is true doesn't mean you should say it. Libertarians like the creators of South Park tend to see this as a travesty of freedom, and it certainly can be if the court takes it that way, but it does provide some protection for privacy which US law simply does not provide. There are the usual exceptions for public figures and politicians (if your member of parliament cheats on his wife it's considered in the public interest where the same information about Joe Blogs from down the street isn't). It's actually quite a reasonable approach to the law IMHO.

That said of course in this particular case, while IANAL, I would guess that this woman's situation would be the same in the US and the UK as in this context she'd most likely have a right to share this particular information(the performance of a service provider is the business of people interested in hiring said service provider). She'd simply need to prove that her statements were true(most of them anyway, property damage and an incomplete job would probably cover her even if she obviously can't prove the jewelry loss).

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

nuh uh... he ate all those jews I thought.

Re:Shrug

[DirtyLiar]

Also, one ball blank shootin mofo!

Anyone got anything on Ghandi or Mother Teresa? ;)

Both gay.

Re:Shrug

[QRDeNameland]

Funny. Exactly backwards. Truth is not a defense to libel in England. They even make jokes about it on southpark Tom Cruise: 'I'll sue you in England'

I'd like to see how the UK courts (or any court) would rule on this online review. (Scroll down to comment 38...my friend who was taking Champix to quit smoking found this. I don't know if it's a troll or not, if so, it a brilliant one, if not, it's even more so. It won the Internet for me that day.)

I took Champix for 3 weeks and they turned me Gay. I left my wife and kids for another Man with no reasoning involved. I am an ex army fitensss guru and work on building sites and have slept with many women and no way ever a man before. I stopped taking champix and returned to my wife in disgust at myself. Have you had any other cases like this?

Re:Shrug

[DirtyLiar]

At this point, none of us have enough information to even speculate as to the eventual outcome of this case.

Look out it's the Fact Police!

You're type of input is unwanted here! Don't you know /. stands for gut-reactions, ignorant opinion and Wild-Ass-Guesses?

Re:Shrug

[murdocj]

Reasonable doubt is the level of proof in criminal cases. In civil it's preponderance of evidence.

Re:Shrug

[khallow]

I imagine the other poster did read your post. That apparently is not a defense against unwarranted criticism. Here's the statement of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The courts aren't Congress. So technically, they can abridge your speech without violating the First Amendment, though possibly violating other parts of the Constitution in the process (such as divisions of power). It is worth noting that courts do on occasion order people not to discuss particulars of certain evidence and other things presented in a case and a number of courts have rules against photography in the courtroom.

But slander and libel have additional characteristics beyond being speech. As the grandparent noted, they are fraudulent and/or harmful actions. That is the basis on which defamation law is based.

A more extreme example would be an explosive device that is triggered by a certain phrase. If I intentionally say that phrase in order to kill someone (even if I had nothing to do with the device, either planning, construction, or deployment), then I'm committing murder. The crime is the harm committed (someone getting blown up) not the speech. Hence, I don't believe the First Amendment would apply here.

it would be a violation of the First Amendment, for instance, if a website could successfully sue you, after the fact, for posting comments without paying a fee to do so (assuming that there was no valid contract between you and the website requiring such payment). In essence, it's the difference between an affirmative charge/fine for making speech versus paying for a particular means of making that speech.

The actual part of the Constutition this would violate is the clause against ex post facto law which is in the original Constitution.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth is most certainly an absolute defence against libel in the UK.

Actually, it is not.

Prove it.

Re:Shrug

[pclminion]

How on earth was she supposed to prove it? Let me give the context for this. My wife and I met with a certain kind of medical professional after our first son was born. This person said things to us that we found profoundly disturbing. After deliberating about it, my wife decided to file a complaint with the board which certifies people who work in this profession. It wasn't like badmouthing somebody on the Internet or in the newspaper, it was this formal process. Now obviously, when you file a complaint you have to describe what happened, which my wife did.

The board apparently studied our complaint and took some kind of action against this person (something mild, I don't remember exactly, but we got something in the mail about it). A couple of months later my wife was served with the lawsuit.

At the time, we had very little capacity to pay a high-priced lawyer. The person was asking for $150,000! So on a long shot we called our homeowner's insurance company and it turned out they would defend the case under our insurance policy. I have no idea if the attorney sucked, didn't care, or if something else went wrong but the jury found in favor of plaintiff for $5k. Our insurance company paid, but it was a disgusting experience.

I found out later that this woman has a history of serial lawsuits. Not long after our case ended, she sued the board which had sanctioned her. I know this, because she fucking subpoenaed me as a witness in that case. Did I mention she was representing herself? She asked me a bunch of nutty questions for two hours which I had no idea about -- like asking me to tell her what I thought some email meant, which I had never seen before (it had nothing to do with me or my wife).

I don't know what happened after that. What a terrible shitty thing it was. Makes you scared to speak up when somebody is abusive to you. We got slimed.

Re:Shrug

[Gr33nJ3ll0]

Honestly, Ghandi slept in the nude with young girls, and had an very intimidate relationship with a woman who was not his wife. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html Mother Teresa supposedly squandered the money that people donated to her on various things not related to the orphans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aplank/Criticisms_of_Mother_Teresa

Re:Shrug

[plover]

Best Godwin Evar!

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually NO, this is a civil suit, it is up to her to show her statements are true for her not to be held libel. If you make statements that affect someone else's business and reputation you need to be able to back them up with cold hard facts. The onus will be squarely on her to show proof of her statements.

Re:Shrug

[snl2587]

But wait: shouldn't it be the charge of the plaintiff to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the speech was indeed libel (false and malicious)?

Re:Shrug

[Gogo0]

that was hilarious!
#39 is in response to it, seems to take it pretty seriously.

I have to say, thats the first time Ive heard of that one but nothing would surprise me with regard to this weird medication â" it makes some people hate and attack others in a way thatâ(TM)s completely out of character, so why not make someone feel ANYTHING theyve never felt before? It messes with your brain chemistry, anything could happen.

So dont blame or hate yourself, Barry â" blame the drug. Blame Pfizer...

Re:Shrug

[russotto]

Lawyers in the UK aren't free, and there are plenty of lower-cost lawyers in the US.

You know what you call the party who hires a "lower-cost" lawyer? The LOSER. You may as well not show up and lose by default, at least then you don't have to pay the lawyer.

But perpetuating the meme that there is no real justice in the US is precisely the sort of thing that allows the politicians to get away with undercutting the justice system.

It's not just a meme.

Re:Shrug

[mosb1000]

Actually, the person accusing slander has to prove the claims made are false. At least, this is how it is supposed to be in the US.

Re:Shrug

[mosb1000]

She doesn't have to! She's not the one attempting to use the force of law to get her way. You've got it totally backwards.

Re:Shrug

[shentino]

This is just a business trying to use its legal muscle to squash criticism.

I will also note that truth is an absolute defense to these sorts of things.

I hope that she doesn't back down, and that they wind up having to prove their case in court.

Re:Shrug

[shentino]

This, thankfully, is not the UK.

Re:Shrug

[shentino]

What's on the books and what actually happens in court aren't the same thing.

Don't you know anything about bias, selective prosecution, and all of that jazz?

Re:Shrug

[shentino]

Would you still wish that if you didn't trust who would be the judge of what qualifies as idiocy?

Re:Shrug

[deimtee]

There's no link to the actual yelp post, but the FA says she accused them of "losing" jewellery. It will come down to whether she said:
1. "they lost it", or
2. "they stole it".

1. is an acusation of incompetence, - possibly libel, hard to prove.
2. is an accusation of a crime. Libel if she can't prove they did steal it.

Re:Shrug

[sydneyfong]

Truth is a defense in England it's just not a complete defense.

I don't know why Slashdot seems to think that truth is not a defense for defamation in English common law. It's been quite a few years, but if I remember correctly, when I studied English law (I come from a jurisdiction that inherits it), truth was a "complete" defense -- and particularly there really is no "intended audience business" crap.

Your transvestite example may hit some privacy or antidiscrimination laws or hate crimes or that kind of thing (I have no idea), but as far as English common law of defamation goes, you're clean if you can prove it's true.

Reference: my crappy memory and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Justification

Re:Shrug

[bongomanaic]

Almost. You will successfully defend a libel case if you can prove that the defamatory statements are substantially true, regardless of whether privacy was breached. What has changed is that it has become somewhat easier to win a claim for breach of privacy: Human rights law in England recognises both the right to freedom of expression and the right to a private and family life and courts have been left to try to balance these competing rights whilst Parliament dodges the issue.

Re:Shrug

[Renraku]

As an example, let's say that you have a hotel room. You go out on the town one day and come back to your laptop, camera, etc, all missing. It isn't a stretch to say the hotel stole them. The only people that should have had access to the room were yourself and the hotel. There's no 'losing them' because no one should have taken them into their possession to begin with. The MOST that should have happened was that they get rearranged within the room so that housekeeping can better clean up the room (like moved off the bed and into the chairs/onto the table).

This isn't even like when the TSA rips off your goods from your bags...because it could have been LOTS of people in the airport, not just the TSA.

Re:Shrug

[ChrisMaple]

Citation needed. I saw no evidence in TFA that the homeowner's statements were false.

Re:Shrug

[QRDeNameland]

Also, one ball blank shootin mofo!

Anyone got anything on Ghandi or Mother Teresa? ;)

Both gay.

Also, one ball blank shootin mofo!

Anyone got anything on Ghandi or Mother Teresa? ;)

Both gay.

With each other, no less.

Re:Shrug

[iamhassi]

No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false.

You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.

Yes but it's so wide open it would be very difficult to prove she's lying. She says they damaged her house, he says they didn't. Good luck proving they did zero damage. Unless they have a signed affidavit from her stating everything was perfect and there was no damage then she can say there was damage. Only way they could possibly win against her is if they've never heard of her and they never did work on her house at all.

if this lawsuit worked then car manufactures could sue eveytime someone wrote a review saying a car interior felt "cheap". And how are they going to prove $750,000 in loss sales are directly because of her review? If she counter-sues they're screwed because she'll likely win

Re:Shrug

[iamhassi]

I read the lawsuit. They have no basis for the $750,000. Doesn't explain how they came to that number at all. Damn attorney for ripping off this developer because he just wasted a lot of money filing this and going to court.

Re:Shrug

[iamhassi]

How do you decide if someone did a "bad job" or not? That's like arguing over if a game or movie is bad or not, what you think is fine I might think is bad and I might even leave a negative review, would I be sued then for not liking something?

Re:Shrug

[icebraining]

Hitchens on Mother Teresa; Mommie Dearest.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Chairman Mao preached celibacy and arranged marriages while secretly fucking young groupies.

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

Jesus Christ. Here's how this works: the courts don't have power to issue any orders that are not authorized by law (i.e., the legislature, and as has been pointed out at length in this discussion, the First Amendment applies to state legislatures as well as Congress). If the court is doing something, it's because (1) it's enforcing a law enacted by the legislature (or rule promulgated by an executive agency, subject to the laws enacted by the legislature), or (2) it's overstepping its constitutional authority. Either way, if the court is issuing an order that abridges the freedom of speech, as that term is defined through applicable case law, then the court has violated the First Amendment (and, to be clear, the Supreme Court has consistently held that courts, like legislatures, are bound by the First Amendment). Yes, I used shorthand in my earlier comment. Didn't realize that folks around here needed an explanation of every nitpicky detail of how law works laid out in order to understand broader points. I officially apologize for painting a picture of trees and hoping people would understand that it was a forest.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying defamation isn't speech? Why? Acknowledging that it is speech neither means it's protected by the First Amendment nor threatens the First Amendment's effectiveness. Nuance is preferable to absolutism, even though it does result in some measure of imperfection. Clinging to the idea that the Constitution is full of easy-to-understand bright lines is how radical movements are formed. The Constitution is a patchwork of competing ideas and points of view developed primarily by large numbers of rich, straight, Anglo-Saxxon religious white men over the course of a couple hundred years or so. And Constitutional JURISPRUDENCE? The notion that there's something magical about Supreme Court decisions is laughable. Yes, precedent is important, because stability is important. Societies need some basic level of stability to enable growth, which requires calculated risk-taking. But there's nothing magical about the Constitution or its interpretation, and regarding it with the borderline reverence that many do is the path to absurdity and cultural stagnation.

Ex post facto laws are laws that are written to retroactively alter the legal effect of actions that have already occurred -- it's usually used in the criminal context. As you yourself already noted, a court case isn't legislation, so no, a website suing you for not paying an amount you didn't agree to pay isn't an ex post facto issue. The scenario I was discussing was one where the court would have already had the power to order you to pay damages to the website (that's the First Amendment issue -- there's an operation of law that permits you to be sued for having made speech. That's not ex post facto, even though intuitively it might seem that way because we don't live in a society with that law, so it's natural to assume it's a new creation if it happens in a hypothetical world). And I'm not sure what you mean by "original Constitution." There's only one Constitution, unless you're trying to contrast the Articles of Confederation?

This discussion has moved well beyond my interest at this point, but I would like to thank y'all for reminding me that apparently law school had some value, after all. Shit, I wonder if this is how my doctor feels when I self-diagnose on WebMD.

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

You know what you call the party who hires a "lower-cost" lawyer? The LOSER. You may as well not show up and lose by default, at least then you don't have to pay the lawyer.

Ahhhhhhh, now I get it. Here I thought you were just an ill-informed, disgruntled anti-lawyer type, but now I see that you're actually a big firm lawyer trying to justify your ludicrous rates. I used to work in a big law firm with lots of people like you. Even thought I liked it, didn't want to get laid off when the recession hit. Years later and working for a small firm that charges actually affordable rates, pays me a lot less, and lets me have as much of a life as I want, I realize now how completely fucking miserable I was in biglaw, as were the vast majority of the other lawyers I worked with.

If there's any part of you that can still be gotten through to, please listen, friend: it's never too late to get out. I promise you, it's not as scary out here as you think it is. There is life on the other side of the thousand-pound billable hour, and it's pretty goddamned good.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the lawsuit. They have no basis for the $750,000. Doesn't explain how they came to that number at all. Damn attorney for ripping off this developer because he just wasted a lot of money filing this and going to court.

I can see how they might be able to prove that if they lost a job worth $750000 and the guy specifically cited that review as the reason he backed out otherwise they are screwed. Similarly it she may be able to prove they charged for work they did not do, assuming she did her paperwork, but it was dumb of her to accuse them of theft because she'd have to prove it and the fact that they are still walking the streets suing her kind of speaks against her having any proof of theft.

Re:Shrug

[DES]

How do you decide if someone did a "bad job" or not?

That may be open to interpretation, but "billed for work that was not performed" (IIUC he already sued her over those bills and won) and "stole jewelry from my house" is not. Those are statements of fact which she will have to either prove or retract.

Best summary I've read, by someone who is usually opposed to this kind of lawsuit but sees this particular case in a different light:

http://www.popehat.com/2012/12/06/yelping-about-bad-publicity/

Re:Shrug

[Fjandr]

Defamation doesn't work the same way, because it is typically quite easy to provide evidence that casts doubt on the truth of the defendant's claims. Once that's been done, the person who made alleged defamatory remarks must prove that they had a factual basis. In case there is little or no evidence jewelry was lost or stolen by the contractors, such support will be very hard to come by.

Re:Shrug

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.

>

well, no. the plaintiff in a civil suit has the burden of proving his case. that the statements in question are false is one of the elements of defamation, and therefore the plaintiff must, in fact, be able to show that the statements were false. He cant just stand up and say 'Nuh-UH' and mysteriously shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

'allegations on matters of fact' are all that defamation is concerned with. if its not an assertion of fact, its an opinion, and therefore protected as free speech. And as to the great civil versus criminal distinction, well that's not terribly relevant. just replace innocent with not liable and guilty with liable, and you're good. The point is that the person asserting the legal claim (plaintiff in a civil case, the state in a criminal case) has the burden of proving their case, regardless of defenses offered by respondent/defendant. If a plaintiff can't show by a preponderance of the evidence that the supposedly defamatory statements were false, then his case fails, even if the respondent offers no evidence on the subject at all.

Re:Shrug

[AlecC]

Hitler - so-so painter.

...and vegetarian.

Untrue. His doctor occasionally put him on a vegetarian diet in an attempt to cure flatulence, but he was very find of German sausages. Goebbles pushed the vegetarian to make him look saintly.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Name the doctor -- if you lost a lawsuit, it's a matter of public record, right? Would be nice if Google would forewarn others from dealing with that person.

Re:Shrug

[drinkypoo]

If the settlement doesn't require your silence, then name the person who wrongfully sued you.

Re:Shrug

[lxs]

So he was bisexual.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not how Libel works in the U.S. or most places. If I am not mistaken and IANAL, the plaintiff must prove that she had little or no reason to believe that her comments were true and that the plaintiff was indeed harmed by these statements. The requirements are different for the press and people in the public eye.

Re:Shrug

[Spugglefink]

Let's play a game: name an inspirational figure from history, and lets all find a way to tear them down.

George Jetson!

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

And Perez has the burden of proof. So far I'm not on her side.

No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?

Oh, don't go bringing that "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit in here! This is a Legal system now, which is all about money, not Justice. In fact, you could even call that statement defamatory, suggesting we don't know anything about the basic Rights that we ignore anyway...that's grounds for a lawsuit!

(and yes, this is exactly how fucking stupid this shit can get.)

Re:Shrug

[dkf]

You know what you call the party who hires a "lower-cost" lawyer? The LOSER.

Not in all jurisdictions. Maybe you are inhabiting somewhere where price-gouging by legal representatives is encouraged, but most places regard that as an abhorrent incentive for lawyers to serve only themselves and not their clients. (In the UK, the handling of who pays legal fees is a grant of the judge in equity, and if the judge feels that one side has not taken reasonable steps to limit the cost of proceedings, they can grant the costs against that side even if they win. Usually, the two sides are best off bringing broadly matching levels of legal power.)

Re:Shrug

[flyneye]

This is a building contractor we are talking about, the odds of the woman slandering them are pretty slim in my experience. They should probably pay her for not elaborating her complaints in more detail. Hey, this is Earth right? Yup, right planet. Just the way it works out here.

Re:Shrug

[Beezlebub33]

Mother Teresa was responsible for many more deaths than lives she helped. Her fanatic opposition to birth control (yeah, I know she was Catholic) combined with her fame, political power, and control over funding meant that she was able to completely block even the most basic birth control use, condoms. The result was spread of disease (esp. HIV) and many unwanted pregnancies, largely causing the overpopulation, poverty, malnutrition, and early childhood death that she was supposed to be so committed to stopping.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but the reason for such sites is to guide people towards services that you are happy with. If you are unhappy and say so then you are simply assisting the public.
                                I, for one, got a really lousy deal from Sears on a large purchase. It was so bad that it is almost comical and it did cost me several thousands of dollars in losses. That is a fact. Now if Sears would like to sue me then jump on it as i would love to meet them in court. Sue me Sears! I dare you!!!!!

Re:Shrug

[nukenerd]

$749,999 is to pay the lawyer. The damage was $1.

Re:Shrug

[Dragonslicer]

You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.

>

well, no. the plaintiff in a civil suit has the burden of proving his case. that the statements in question are false is one of the elements of defamation, and therefore the plaintiff must, in fact, be able to show that the statements were false. He cant just stand up and say 'Nuh-UH' and mysteriously shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

The problem is that, as the saying goes, you can't prove a negative. If the woman alleges that someone stole her jewelry, how is that person supposed to prove that they didn't?

Re:Shrug

[khallow]

And I'm not sure what you mean by "original Constitution." There's only one Constitution, unless you're trying to contrast the Articles of Confederation?

There are numerous amendments. So the Constitution changes with time. Hence, there is no one Constitution.

Re:Shrug

[dkleinsc]

In addition, Gandhi was quite racist towards Africans.

Re:Shrug

[thegarbz]

Notice this isn't a criminal prosecution?

Re:Shrug

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Basically, one need not prove anything, but rather show by a preponderance of the evidence. I know what you're getting at, though. However, because the standard is lower than what the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' a similar plaintiff would go about demonstrating rather that there is no proof that he stole anything. Particularly with an accusation of theft, this can be done without seeming as wishy-washy as that makes it seem. When something is stolen, something worth smearing it all over the internet, you should probably have gotten the police involved. did defendant report the item stolen to the police? did they pursue the matter? was the item really missing? if not reported, why not? There are also means by which parties in civil cases can execute searches against each other for discovery purposes. The real smoking gun would be finding that the item was never stolen. Or stolen by someone else.

In this case specifically, however, according to Dietz' complaint (linked through the huffpo article), its clear that by her own words, Perez did not think Dietz was involved with the jewelry going missing until the collections proceeding Dietz brought against her when she refused to pay. And that she'd told the police she did not suspect him. And that she had just moved cross country, and later found at least some of the supposedly stolen pieces mixed in amongst other belongings. So, some of the items in question were demonstrably not stolen and there is a suspicious alignment between the collections case and her allegations of theft where before she had informed the police otherwise. Its not beyond a reasonable doubt, but taken with everything else detailed in the complaint, it paints a pretty vivid picture.

Re:Shrug

[JasterBobaMereel]

I call Godwin ....

Re:Shrug

[compro01]

it makes some people hate and attack others in a way that's completely out of character

In other words, the typical results of nicotine withdrawal.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

The plaintiff is asking the government to force her to pay them money as a result of her speech.

You really don't want to go down that road. It leads to "the defendant used government roads to get to the private venue" and "the defendant used police services to prevent private reprisals." The government enforcing civil judgements is a completely different field than the government taking independent action.

Re:Shrug

[BasilBrush]

Your blog says you went to law school. One can only assume you were kicked out pretty soon. Because you're wrong on this fairly basic element of law.

The plaintiff has several things to prove, but the falsity of the statement isn't one of them.

"the defendant must prove at least one the following elements to avoid liability for libel:
The [substantial] truth of the defamatory communication."
http://www.pa-newspaper.org/legal/legaltopics/defendingagainstlibel

As I said.

Re:Shrug

[egamma]

IANAL but I read this law blog Short version: plaintiff has to prove (preponderance of the evidence) that she made a statement of fact (not opinion or hyperbole) that is demonstrably false.

She made two statements of fact:

• Invoice for services not rendered
• Stole her jewelry

Re:Shrug

[tehcyder]

So if you were to post on the internet that you're next door neighbor is a transvestite, you could be sued for libel, even if it's true because it's no one's business that he's a transvestite

No, if your next door neighbour IS a transvestite, s/he can't successfully sue you for saying so.

Remember what happened with Oscar Wilde? He sued the Marquis of Queensberry for libelling him as a "sodomite" and lost. Queensberry's defence was that Wilde was in fact a homosexual, and he produced enough evidence for this to get the case thrown out (after which Wilde was arrested for the crime of homosexuality as it then was).

Re:Shrug

[BasilBrush]

You're wrong.

"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e. whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e. whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

Re:Shrug

[BasilBrush]

You're mistaken.

She's not the one attempting to use the force of law to get her way.

That's not a legal argument.

Re:Shrug

[tehcyder]

And the onus is in the accuser to make his case.

He has to prove the claims about the theft and shoddy work are false.

That is not true. The defendant can try to justify the words in many ways, but showing they're true is by far the most effective. The accuser has to show that he has incurred damages thanks to the words, the defendant is the one who needs to justify them.

It may be impossible for the accuser to "prove" that the theft didn't take place. If the defendant had said that the accuser enjoyed raping and murdering children, what is the latter supposed to do? Get a parade of non-raped-and-mudered children in the area to testify that he hasn't molested them? That doesn't prove anything.

Re:Shrug

[firex726]

You got it turned around.

The burden of proof is clearly on the accuser, not defendant. He could remain silent and still win if the accuser does not make his case.

Showing that he suffered damages/loss of business is NOT sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof in a libel case. Otherwise you'd open the door for any and every business to sue over any bad review and could win by simply showing they suffered a loss.

> You're honor, they accused me of discriminating against blacks and I suffered a monetary loss!
>> Do you discriminate?
> Well yes, but I still suffered a loss.
>> I rule in your favor.

Re:Shrug

[tehcyder]

Honestly, Ghandi slept in the nude with young girls, and had an very intimidate relationship with a woman who was not his wife.

That's interesting, but I thought we were looking for bad things against him?

Re:Shrug

[BasilBrush]

Yes but it's so wide open it would be very difficult to prove she's lying. She says they damaged her house, he says they didn't.

That's only one of the statements she made in the review. Others are not a matter of opinion but of fact, and ones that are trivially easy to judge - such as the outcome of a previous court case.

Again, no one has to prove she's lying. She has to show that she told the truth.

this lawsuit worked then car manufactures could sue eveytime someone wrote a review saying a car interior felt "cheap".

Giving opinions in reviews is protected in law, and that would come under this category. Several of the statements the woman made though were not opinions but claimed statements of fact, which are not protected unless true, and unless she can prove them to be true, she's going to lose.

Re:Shrug

[tehcyder]

The plaintiff is asking the government to force her to pay them money as a result of her speech.

Whether you call it government, the courts, the legal system or whatever, there obviously has to be some means of enforcing civil damages or else they're totally meaningless.

Same with contract law: you can have the best contract laws in existence, but if someone can just walk away without suffering any consequences, they're equally meaningless.

Re:Shrug

[i kan reed]

That's not an excellent way to get sued again.

Re:Shrug

[green1]

Assuming all she said is "bad job" then it is hard to define, but if she stated that they built things off-level, or that there were gaps in trim, or that the paint peeled off after a week, or whatever else, then it would be easy enough to check, and would meet the usual definition of "bad job" fairly quickly.

Re:Shrug

[sribe]

An "allowable defense" is not the same thing as an "absolute defense", nor is it a "barrier to litigation". Also, that's civil--under some circumstances truth is not even an allowable defense for criminal defamation--or it was, if you google you'll quickly find a 2011 article in The Guardian about proposed changes to British defamation law to bring it more in line with the rest of the civilized world, but no follow-up as to whether the changes ever happened.

Re:Shrug

[heefeneet]

Truth is most certainly an absolute defence against libel in the UK.

Actually, it is not.

Actually, it depends on which part of the UK. England & Wales has the libel law you are referring to. Scotland does not - libel falls under defamation which has truth as an absolute defence. I don't know about Northern Ireland.

Re:Shrug

[JesseMcDonald]

False and malicious speech, however, is a type of fraud...

Fraud is when you use false speech (or other deception) to get something, generally in the context of a contract. It comes down to deliberately undermining the "meeting of the minds" required for a contract to be valid. Not all false and/or malicious speech is fraud.

Re:Shrug

[HornWumpus]

Mother Teresa refused to give any pain killers to the dying she was 'caring' for. Claimed the pain was good for their souls. When she was dying she took lots of opiates of course.

Ghandi wasn't 'anti violence' after he was the one with power. Look at what he did to the Muslim minority. Not that he shouldn't have, but I bet people that do admire him think he shouldn't have.

Re:Shrug

[HornWumpus]

No. True. He proselytized herbivorism and hated hunters. He would have fit right into PETA.

Re:Shrug

[mosb1000]

In the US, it's up to the plaintiff to prove the defendant's guilt, the defendant has merely to cast doubt on the plantiff's case, so yes this is a legal argument, and no, you don't know anything about this. In the US, you are not, nominally, required to prove your innocence in any circumstances. Sensible people can see that an innocent person will not always be able to prove their innocence, so the only way to avoid punishing the innocent is to require proof guilt.

That being the case, in the US it is necessary to prove a persons statement false in order for it to be considered slander or libel.

Re:Shrug

[alexo]

And Perez has the burden of proof. So far I'm not on her side.

No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?

egamma secretly sodomizes kittens.

Go ahead, prove it false.

Re:Shrug

[BasilBrush]

Your strange spelling of "defence" reassures me that you're not even British. I've made my point and backed it up. You haven't backed up what you say, and have now tried to muddy the issue with criminal defamation, which no one was talking about.

Re:Shrug

[BasilBrush]

"the defendant must prove at least one the following elements to avoid liability for libel:
The [substantial] truth of the defamatory communication."
http://www.pa-newspaper.org/legal/legaltopics/defendingagainstlibel

Re:Shrug

[lonecrow]

Ditto in Canada (naturally seeing how our laws are based on the UK common law tradition)

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually for libel and slander both require three things:
1. That you knew you were making a false statement. Note, this isn't the same thing as what you are saying being true; just that when you made the claim you didn't believe the claim to be false.
2. That you meant to do harm with the statement.
3. You can prove damages

The National Inquirer has avoided damage a number of times based on things like "We don't know who Tom Cruise's mother really is, it could have been a Yeti for all we know" or "We didn't mean any harm when we said that Bill Clinton is a Zombie." Etc. It is hard case to win, but my guess this settles out of court.

Re:Shrug

[HiThere]

If you could prove it, it wouldn't be secretly, so it would be false.

So all you need to do is show that it isn't secret, and you've proven the statement false. I really can't imagine any other way to prove it false. (Proving a negative is always hard.)

However, this is why civil courts operate on "the perponderance of the evidence". If you can't provide any evidence that it's a true statement, and he is normally not considered to behave in that way, then the civil court would find against you. Damages, however, would probably be limited to paying for your lawyers.

In the case in the article, damages, while speculative, are probably more significant. And the prior suit between them may enter into things. So might the precise way in which the statments made to Yelp were made. (Does Yelp edit statements made to them? That could also be significant.)

The requested damages *sound* unreasonable. But I don't know his business, so it's hard to be certain. And the accusations sound plausible. (Enough so that *I* wouldn't be hiring him...of course, all I read is the Slashdot summary, which is often misleading. Perhaps he should sue Slashdot, too.)

In this case, I would currently side with the customer...but it wouldn't surprise me that further investigation of the evidence would show that was unjust.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

If only the AGW debate worked that way.

Re:Shrug

[sribe]

I've made my point and backed it up.

No, you haven't. You've changed the subject from "absolute defense" to "allowable defense".

Here, try this google search "libel reform site:www.guardian.co.uk"

Re:Shrug

[sribe]

Actually, it depends on which part of the UK. England & Wales has the libel law you are referring to. Scotland does not - libel falls under defamation which has truth as an absolute defence. I don't know about Northern Ireland.

Yes, I meant England, because that's all I knew about. But like many of us here in the U.S., I am frequently guilty of sloppy usage as thought "Britain", "England" and "the U.K." were all identical. Thanks for the clarification--much more useful than the other respondent who's still arguing with me that truth is an absolute defense, by quoting an excerpt from Wikipedia that says it is an allowable defense ;-)

Re:Shrug

[Myopic]

You were defendants in a jury trial and you weren't even there to see how your case was presented?

Anyway, I sure hope you agreed to bear witness! Man, I would relish that chance. I'd make sure to ring up the other lawyer team ahead of time to chat about what I knew and would be willing to say.

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

There are numerous amendments. So the Constitution changes with time. Hence, there is no one Constitution.

An amendment CHANGES the Constitution. It doesn't create a whole new one. There's only one Constitution, and even if the words don't change, the interpretation does. There's no "original" Constitution in the sense of some concrete thing that we can point to and say "it used to be that," except, I guess, to the extent that you're literally only talking about the specific words on the page, which... okay? But... that doesn't really get us anywhere. The Constitution is the Constitution, and no one part of it is somehow more important than another just because the words have been there longer. If anything, the newer parts of it could be considered more important, as the newer parts are the result of added learning and experience beyond what we had, collectively as a country, at the time of first drafting.

Re:Shrug

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

well, as it turns out, i clearly should have gone to bed rather than try to explain anything. the way that plaintiff's burdens of proof work with defamation, and veracity and fault, have evolved more out of the ways that media reports news than interpersonal relations between two people that spill out to 3rd parties. The burden of the plaintiff as to fault is determined by whether they are a public or private figure. The one requiring actual malice, the other merely a negligence standard. In both cases, the issue is whether or not the defendant knew, or should have known that the statements were false. Actual malice being knowledge that the statements were false, or reckless disregard for whether they were true or false - negligence being whether or not defendant exercised a reasonable level of care in determining that the statements were true before making/publishing them.

This all becomes much more murky when applied to the modern era where statements can be disseminated by a single person wide enough to have a sever impact on someone else's reputation without the intervention of the media. Basically, the requirement that the statements be false and that they be made 'with fault' get sortof commingled. you're right, the burden of proving the truth of the statements is on the defendant. However, in cases such as this, where the defendant made statements concerning matters in which she was a participant, or of which she had firsthand knowledge, the notion of establishing her negligence in failing to check the veracity of her claims (spoken with fault), and establishing that her statements were false are basically the same thing. When the events which are the subject of her statements are events about which she has firsthand knowledge, there is no question of negligence in ascertaining the veracity of her claims. She has actual knowledge that some of the pieces of jewelry were simply misplaced when she moved. she has actual knowledge that his collections action against her was not dismissed for cause, but because he failed to file a timely response to a motion. from reading the complaint, the list could go on for a while. Saying that the plaintiff has the burden of showing that defendant failed to show reasonable care in making sure that statements she made concerning her own actions were true, but not the burden of proof for the veracity of the statements themselves is a meaningless distinction. This is why Virginia is a state where plaintiffs can simply foreclose truth as a positive defense by showing falsehood. 30 years ago, this would have been a word of mouth situation, and would likely never get this far. It would be much harder to have and show damages this great from one lady running her mouth off at the coffee shop, and were it a subject of defamation per se, it would be less likely that the speaker would have first-hand knowledge (and still be talking about it in public anyways) and thus the question of reasonable care in ascertaining veracity makes much more sense.

Now, since you went ahead and made it personal, why dont you just go and fuck right off. I'm hardly the first person to go off on /. half-cocked in the middle of the night. my media law class was several years ago, and that's obviously not my practice area. Also, i'd just point out that if you read the whole sentence you quoted from the PA newspaper thingie, the defendant's burden to prove truth only comes in when the plaintiff has made their case, and truth as an affirmative defense is being asserted.

Re:Shrug

[khallow]

An amendment CHANGES the Constitution. It doesn't create a whole new one.

Ok, so you understand me even if you don't approve of my viewpoint and I understand you.

The Constitution is the Constitution, and no one part of it is somehow more important than another just because the words have been there longer. If anything, the newer parts of it could be considered more important, as the newer parts are the result of added learning and experience beyond what we had, collectively as a country, at the time of first drafting.

So order of succession for the presidency or the end of Prohibition is more important because they were changed later than say, due process and the First Amendment? Do tell.

Re:Shrug

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I'm surprised Angie's List ever got off the ground. I knew a guy who strted a similar thing locally in the mid '90s.

He posted examples bitching about certain contractors (he was a contractor himself) and immediately got hauled into court.

Re:Shrug

[DarwinSurvivor]

I don't know about the US, but I can guaratee you that in Canada libel and slander must meet 3 criteria:
1) It must be false.
2) The accused must have known it was false.
3) It must damage the reputation of the defendant.

Re:Shrug

[pclminion]

Only my wife was a defendant. And it's not like being there would have helped. When the insurance company provides an attorney for you, the attorney is really working for the insurance company, not you. They are going to do whatever the insurance company thinks is best. I tried several times to provide information and influence the lawyer's decision making and was politely ignored.

It sucks, but we would have been more money out of pocket had we hired our own lawyer. As it happened we didn't pay a single dollar for any of this crap.

Re:Shrug

[LynnwoodRooster]

Ghandi - vegetarian AND wore an adult diaper. Mother Teresa? Short and spoke with a fully accent... See, it can be done for ANYBODY!

Re:Shrug

[diamondmagic]

Yeah. It's probably worth mentioning it's debated to what extent you can prosecute someone when there is no contract (explicit or implied) to uphold. And more often than not it's the libel and slander cases themselves that are fraudulent, if not all the time.

Re:Shrug

[Rich0]

In the US for civil suits alleging libel the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In the UK it is actually on the defendant. In general the US is pretty liberal regarding freedom of speech - winning a case of libel is not a trivial matter unless it is pretty blatant.

I'd be hard-pressed to think of examples of civil actions brought by private parties in which the burden of proof lies with the defendant.

There certainly are cases where regulations require a company to maintain certain records for inspection at any time, and violation could result in either a civil or a criminal action. In such a situation the only real burden of proof on the government is for them to say that they asked for the defendant to produce the record and they failed to do so. That gets close to a situation where the burden of proof is on the defendant, but that is really only the case because the laws/regulations are fairly strict to begin with (simply failing to maintain a record is a crime - the government does not need to prove something bad happened as a result).

Re:Shrug

[Rich0]

They would need to prove actual malice per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That is, they'd have to prove that she knew the accusation to be false, or that it was made with flagrant disregard for its truthfulness.

If the workers were the only ones with access to the house and it was generally kept locked, and there were no other signs of intrusion, then it would be hard to argue that she had anything other than a reasonable believe that they had stolen it. Sure, that would never be adequate evidence to have them arrested, but in a libel case the burden of proof is on them to show that such a belief was not reasonable.

Re:Shrug

[Rich0]

Actually, they have to both prove that the statements were false, and that she either knew they were false or was reckless about making statements without care for whether they were false.

She doesn't actually have to prove anything, though she can of course provide evidence if she wishes.

The article you linked to says as much. He didn't consider the suit frivolous, but he did state that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and that libel cases in the US tend to be an uphill battle unless it is really egregious.

Re:Shrug

[Rich0]

Sounds like the court was a bit out of hand. I suspect that an appeal would have corrected some of the issues in this trial. However, as you pointed out, it isn't like those are free.

As you said insurance companies aren't really in it to prove a point. Their position is whatever is calculated to have the overall best outcome for them. If it is cheaper to pay them off they'll just do it. If it is cheaper in the long run to fight tooth and nail in the face of incredible odds, they'll do that (sometimes just to deter future suits). The legal costs of your one case are completely trivial to them - the decision to settle or appeal is just like you deciding whether to buy or lease a car.

Re:Shrug

[Rich0]

From everything I've seen and experienced, the US court system is incredibly expensive. The one time I had to use the courts it cost thousands of dollars even for a matter that got settled without a trial, and the lawyer really wasn't terribly expensive by most standards I've seen. I'm sure the cost would have been in the $10-20k range if it went into a serious trial, let alone appeals. That's the cost of a car that lasts 20 years for a case that lasts 20 weeks only because everything gets dragged out by latency.

Re:Shrug

[Rich0]

You know, every time two parties go to court having paid "reasonable" legal fees, one party loses. I'm sure they're likely to think that if only they had spent more that they'd have done better. Judging by most investigative journalism I've seen, I'm inclined to agree.

And yes, having a relative who is a lawyer and who once upon a time used to work for a big firm, I tend to agree with your observations regarding those sorts of firms. That said, just the stories of holiday parties alone gives me plenty of contempt for the entire profession. If my employer did half the nonsense the average law firm does around the holidays, they'd be sued out of existence.

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

You know, every time two parties go to court having paid "reasonable" legal fees, one party loses. I'm sure they're likely to think that if only they had spent more that they'd have done better.

I've no doubt they think that very thing. Regret is one of the most, er, regrettable human emotions we have. It's utterly useless yet stubbornly persistent. It's easy to tell ourselves that having done something differently would have caused a different outcome, and impossible to prove -- and also, unfortunately, to falsify.

Judging by most investigative journalism I've seen, I'm inclined to agree.

Care to give an example of the investigative journalism you're referring to? While it's certainly true that price can act as a proxy of sorts for quality, it's far from a perfect correlation, and testing those sorts of things is heavily subject to confirmation bias.

That said, just the stories of holiday parties alone gives me plenty of contempt for the entire profession. If my employer did half the nonsense the average law firm does around the holidays, they'd be sued out of existence.

I can't tell if you're talking about the unjustifiably lavish expenditures, the excessive drinking, or the sexual harassment. All exist, certainly (though the first far less so in this economy), but the same kinds of charges could easily and quite rightly be leveled at startup culture -- as well as banking and finance, and, hell, pretty much any industry where loads of money get thrown around. Do you hold the same amount of contempt for technology entrepreneurs as a whole, then?

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

Yup. Precisely. And you can expect court costs to continue to rise as we siphon money away from the judiciary, forcing the civil courts to gradually become self-funding. It's easy to snark about legal fees, and certainly, hiring a lawyer ain't cheap. But, while having a lawyer is a major advantage, it isn't a requirement to enter the court system, whereas things like filing fees are. Every person has the right to seek redress before the court on his or her own behalf, period. But when you de-fund the entire court system such that the courts have to require people to pay higher and higher amounts in order to be heard, you create a situation where the only ones who have access to justice are those who can afford to purchase it.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

For fraud it has to be malicious. For defamation it merely has to be false (incompetence counts).

Almost, in VA you have to prove that it damages you as well, unless it's defamation per se. In this case, since she's claiming that he's a terrible at his job, it's probably defamation per se.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

For fraud it has to be malicious. For defamation it merely has to be false (incompetence counts).

Not so:

Negligence and Actual Malice
Like other state laws, Virginia law imposes a lower burden on private citizens than public figures. Private citizens usually only need to show that the defendant acted with negligence. That means the defendant made the false statement without taking care to confirm the veracity of the statement. However, if the damage to the person’s reputation is not readily apparent from the contexts of the false statement, the actual malice standard applies. Actual malice means that the defendant made the false statement with the intention of damaging the plaintiff’s reputation. The actual malice standard also applies to public figures, public officials and limited purpose public figures. Limited purpose public figures have put themselves in the public eye for a specific issue and the actual malice standard only applies to statements regarding that particular issue.

Re:Shrug

[dbIII]

Except for the ones he helped as a civil rights layer in South Africa I suppose?

Re:Shrug

[dbIII]

Libel differs all over the place so you are both right if you are standing on either side of a border.

Re:Shrug

[Rich0]

I can't tell if you're talking about the unjustifiably lavish expenditures, the excessive drinking, or the sexual harassment. All exist, certainly (though the first far less so in this economy), but the same kinds of charges could easily and quite rightly be leveled at startup culture -- as well as banking and finance, and, hell, pretty much any industry where loads of money get thrown around. Do you hold the same amount of contempt for technology entrepreneurs as a whole, then?

If they do the stuff above, sure. The lavish expenditures don't bother me so much - the latter two do. The drinking only concerns me insofar as it results in senior employees making demands of junior ones to accommodate their irresponsibility. Stuff like driving them around, ignoring assaults, not minding the groping, and so on. But hey, they're team players, right?

Re:Shrug

[DirtyLiar]

Also, one ball blank shootin mofo!

Anyone got anything on Ghandi or Mother Teresa? ;)

Both gay.

With each other, no less.

LOL. I almost posted it that way! :)

Re:Shrug

[Fjandr]

NYT v. Sullivan was limited to libel suits by public officials regarding press reports detailing their actions within their official capacities, and the actual malice in that case was knowledge that it was a lie or failure to investigate the truth of the claim.

Common law requires the truth to be proven to whatever standard is set by the court. A statement of truth is only an affirmative defense if you can actually prove it is the truth. Making public allegations while not being able to positively prove them isn't protected speech when they are held up as factual and objectively representative of the truth.

Re:Shrug

[Hognoxious]

2) The accused must have known it was false.

How, without combining things from 2 sci-fi shows, is it possible to prove what somebody knew (or didn't) at some point in the past?

And Is being drunk a defence? I've got so rat-arsed that I temporarily didn't know my address and even what my native language is.

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

If they do the stuff above, sure. The lavish expenditures don't bother me so much - the latter two do. The drinking only concerns me insofar as it results in senior employees making demands of junior ones to accommodate their irresponsibility. Stuff like driving them around, ignoring assaults, not minding the groping, and so on. But hey, they're team players, right?

I agree with you on all counts (though the lavish expenditures do legitimately make me uncomfortable -- at least insofar as you'll see partners making upwards of a couple million a year who get stingy with staff bonuses but think nothing of throwing money at recruitment and parties, as though a 25-year-old kid from Harvard is worth so much more of your time than the secretary who's saved your ass from a malpractice suit more times than you've ever bothered to thank her for). My point wasn't that they aren't problems; it's that I don't see why it's fair to tar the entire profession for the acts of the bad actors within it. As a female attorney who's been the victim of some pretty disgusting sexual harassment by various bosses, for instance, I don't see why it's fair to say to me "you lawyers suck," when I'm a lawyer and I'm also a victim of the very behavior you (rightly) find so reprehensible. So my only point is that sweeping generalizations are unfair. "Lawyers" aren't the problem; assholes are, and I'd posit that the only reason there is a larger proportion of assholes in my profession than in the general public is because there's so much money in the profession (which is also why these kinds of things happen in Silicon Valley and Wall Street as well). Irresponsible behavior is bad, and the fact that you're a rich bastard doesn't magically change that fact.

Re:Shrug

[Hognoxious]

well, no. the plaintiff in a civil suit has the burden of proving his case.

It's often quoted here on slashdot that US and the UK (ignoring the Scots, who no doubt do it differently) work the opposite way round. To sum up, in the UK the newspaper (etc) must prove the allegation they printed. In the US, the person who according to the story sucked a donkey's cock must prove he isn't, never has been, and has no intention of becoming an onagrofellatist.

I've never seen a reliable explanation of how, in the US, one proves a negative.

Re:Shrug

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Well, with regards defamation, in the US, while the defendant has no burden to prove that the defamatory statements were true, they do have the burden of proving that they had no actual knowledge they were false, and did not negligently (or recklessly in the case of public figures) publish them without regards to truth. This is a sortof compromise between making the plaintiff carry their case, and not putting a chilling effect on freedom of the press. In practice it basically means that if one has a reasonably trustworthy source for some information, you can publish it without too much fear of being successfully sued for libel.

The 'how do you prove a negative' complaint is often raised on /. but in practice its not the challenge you might think. To use your donkey-fellating example, while it may be difficult to prove that one has never blown a donkey, its less difficult to prove that the story either came unsubstantiated, which would be negligence with regards to truth, or came with specific instances of of donkey-sucking, which could be verified. If not attempt to verify was made, again, negligence with regards to truth. If reporter chooses to guard their source, the court holds them in contempt.

This case, however, is an example of an even less troublesome 'proving a negative' situation. Allegations of theft are pretty easy to disprove. Some, at least, of the jewelry was later found misplaced by the defendant, because she'd done a shoddy job packing. Her statements that plaintiff was under investigation by the bbb were demonstrably untrue. Her statements that the police were investigation him for the theft of the jewelry would be verifiable by asking the police. Her statements that his collections case had been dismissed for cause was demonstrably untrue. Rather, it was dismissed on procedural grounds because he had missed a filing deadline. She made all these statements about things that are readily verifiable independently. So really, the proving a negative thing would be no problem.

Another justification for holding defendants responsible only to a negligence standard for doing their due diligence regarding truth, is that truth has always been an absolute defense against defamation charges. Defendants will always make the strongest case they possibly can, so if an argument can be made that something is true, they will make that case, regardless of whether or not the plaintiff has made the case that the statements are false.

Re:Shrug

[Nostromo21]

I had to ask ROFLMFAO! In hindsight, I should have put up Cartman as the pinnace of virtue at /. Next time I'll know better.

Re:Shrug

[Anonymous Coward]

If you knew what you were talking about you'd be aware of the distinction. You clearly don't, so just shut up.

Re:Shrug

[DarwinSurvivor]

If you say your boss does crack and he has no record or history of doing so, you're going to have to explain why you thought so (found a crackpipe under his desk, etc).

Re:Shrug

[Rich0]

Yes, but the burden of proof remains on the plaintiff to show they were harmed, and a false statement is only harmful if it actually is false.

Re:Shrug

[Rich0]

I will tend to agree that from what I've heard at the executive levels in big corporations things can get a bit out of hand as well. Perhaps the fact that law firms are much smaller and half the employees report to an "executive" is the reason for the issues being more widespread. Perhaps it is money as you suggest. I think another common feature is that at that level those making hiring decisions tend to be fairly networked so if you sue one of them chances are you'll never get another job at a similar level again.

Re:Shrug

[Hognoxious]

In practice then, it comes down to the same thing; if the publisher can't substantiate or at least provide good evidence for his statements he loses.

In the UK(AFSWDTD), it's because he can't play the "it's the truth" card because he has no (or not enough) evidence that it is true.

In the US, having no evidence would mean he's guilty by reason of negligence as to the veracity of the staements.

If the publisher, on either side of the Atlantic, had security camera footage of the plaintiff kneeling down under an equoid or even reliable witness statements from farmers or seaside fairground owners he'd be home and dry and the case would be laughed out of court in short order.

tldr: anyone who claims that in the US the plaintiff must prove the statements are false is talking shite.

Re:Shrug

[Holladon]

As I think about it, there could also be the fact that higher-ups at law firms are counter-intuitively less likely to be called out on their bs than higher-ups in a lot of other fields. Generally speaking, if you work at a law firm, you fall into one of two categories: attorney or support (which is, yes, very broad and covers a lot of different areas). If you're an attorney, the consequences of suing for harassment and the like are, as you note, significantly higher than if you're a low-level clerical worker -- partly because of a combination of higher opportunity cost (losing a career future in the law means turning your back on a lot more money than losing a career future in reception work) and the emotional attachment to sunk cost -- and your job mobility is likewise probably generally going to be better than it is for your average victim of workplace harassment (or, hell, your average employee). Plus, a pretty significant chunk of support staff at a law firm are better-educated and better paid than your average white-collar desk monkey. Yes, there are some receptionists and data-entry types, but there are also paralegals, legal secretaries, forensic data analysts, law librarians, and higher-level tech support -- all of these roles tend to be filled by people who, like lawyers, are better-educated than average, more skilled than average, better-paid than average, etc. In other words, people who have invested in their careers and have a lot to lose by pissing off anyone powerful in their sector.

The net effect is that I think it's probably the case that, at least in the large law firms where such stories tend to be generated (just as at big financial companies and moneyed startups/tech companies), there's paradoxically a disincentive to put up a strong fight against illegal and/or dickish behavior, because (1) you have better access than most to alternatives and (2) you're more "trapped" in your career field than most and also have more to lose by leaving it. Because there's a disincentive, the behavior is given an environment in which to flourish.

Re:Shrug

[Fjandr]

No disagreement there.

Who are they?

[gelfling]

Apple?

Re:Who are they?

[kthreadd]

Has Apple actually done something like that?

Re:Who are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, iTunes for Windows.

Was this libel?

[klingers48]

If not and there was demonstrable harm to the property, will this even make it to trial?

Re:Was this libel?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm not a fancy lawyer or nothing; but this suggests that it could.

Specifically: "In Virginia, a statement that does any of the following things amounts to defamation per se:
(some irrelevant ones omitted)
hurts the plaintiff in his or her profession or trade."

A nasty yelp review would reasonably seem to be something that would hurt a contractor in their profession or trade. However, in order to be defamatory, the statement has to be a false statement of fact. If what she says turns out to be substantially true, he can just go cry about it(and "Nasty yelp review upheld in court of law" probably doesn't help your PR any). If she is lying or terribly ill-supported, though...

Re:Was this libel?

[ZombieBraintrust]

From the link you provided

To be “actionable,” the statement must be a false statement of fact.

A review score is an opinion. Her unhappyness is also an opinion. He would have to show the fact statements in the review were lies. Specifically he would have to prove that Jewelry was not stolen.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

A review score is an opinion. Her unhappyness is also an opinion. He would have to show the fact statements in the review were lies. Specifically he would have to prove that Jewelry was not stolen.

It's a civil case. No one needs to prove anything.

However, your main point is worth reiterating. If you must give someone a negative review, avoid stating any facts. Keep it to your opinion. Things like "I felt the quality of work was very poor. They didn't do what I expected. I'd recommend using someone else." are all perfectly safe and just as damaging.

Re:Was this libel?

[Zaelath]

You're confusing criminal law and civil; as the defendant she's the one with the burden of proof.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

He would have to show the fact statements in the review were lies. Specifically he would have to prove that Jewelry was not stolen.

What? No. More likely than not she'll just have to post a retraction of some kind at her own expense and remove her Yelp review.

This is a big problem though. The place I work at has had quite a few bogus statements made in Yelp reviews, I suspect to net the reviewer more points. Just outright bullshit. But history shows that calling people out on their bullshit does more harm than good (it just looks bad)... so you just cross your fingers that most people won't be lying assholes.

I try not to read many individual reviews for places before I go, because I know how bogus they can be without any corrective response. I do occasionally use aggregate ratings though if the number of ratings filed is pretty high.

Re:Was this libel?

[Zaelath]

To add: he's got to prove the damages to his business first, then the burden shifts to her to prove his business ripped her off.

Re:Was this libel?

[beltsbear]

He would only need to prove that it there were lies on her part that were substantial. He would not need to prove the entire review false. He would not need to prove her jewelry was not stolen. Statements like "I think he did a poor job" or "he was rude" are acceptable if true and hard to disprove.

Re:Was this libel?

[Kjella]

A review score is an opinion. Her unhappyness is also an opinion. He would have to show the fact statements in the review were lies. Specifically he would have to prove that Jewelry was not stolen.

That's far from the only "fact", there's at least three in the summary that are not opinion

  Perez's Yelp review accused the company of
1. damaging her home,
2. charging her for work that wasn't done and
3. of losing jewelry.

Those are all matters of fact, not opinion the court could look into. Also, this is a civil case not a criminal trial so the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Can she offer any evidence she had the jewels? Did she file a police complaint? The court system won't just take her word for it, if she's just throwing out accusations without a shred of evidence he might not have to prove a thing and still win. After all, how could he prove that jewels that doesn't exist haven't gone missing?

Re:Was this libel?

[ShanghaiBill]

You're confusing criminal law and civil; as the defendant she's the one with the burden of proof.

Nitpick: Since this is civil court, she doesn't have to "prove" anything. She just has to present enough evidence to show that her accusations are probably true. A "preponderance of the evidence", is a much lower hurdle than the "no reasonable doubt" standard of criminal court.

Re:Was this libel?

[rsborg]

From the link you provided

To be “actionable,” the statement must be a false statement of fact.

A review score is an opinion. Her unhappyness is also an opinion. He would have to show the fact statements in the review were lies. Specifically he would have to prove that Jewelry was not stolen.

The score is opinion and even if the contractor was the best in the world, she could review with a 1 star and it's all completely subjective and not debatable.

Her assertion that the contractor stole her jewelry is definitely objective and should be falsifiable. If it's false, and she did his with intent to harm, she's committed slander/libel.

Re:Was this libel?

[Zaelath]

Yeah, the reasoning being "no one's being jailed or killed by the court".

It seems a reasonable standard, until you see it being applied by Judge Judy (is that still on?)

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing criminal law and civil; as the defendant she's the one with the burden of proof.

Huh? In both criminal and civil courts in common law systems (e.g. the UK and the US, including Virginia), the burden of proof is on the person bringing the suit - the state for criminal cases, and the plaintiff for civil cases. The threshold of proof is different, though, with "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, and "preponderance of evidence/balance of probability" for civil cases.

The default assumption going into the courtroom is that she hasn't done anything wrong - at least not at the level the court needs to intervene in. As the plaintiff in the case, the burden of proof is on him. He has to show the judge that there is "preponderance of evidence" that her actions are libelous ("preponderance" is somewhat loosely defined - any evidence at all might be considered a "preponderance", if the defense doesn't provide any countering evidence). That said, there may be a number of defenses available to her that would require her to prove something, but it would be incorrect to say that the defendant has the burden of proof in civil cases.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the defendant has the burden of proof in civil cases, but it might from confusing "civil cases" (as opposed to "criminal cases") with "civil law" (as opposed to "common law") legal systems. It is sometimes incorrectly said of civil law systems that they are "guilty until proven innocent" (i.e. burden of proof on the defendant). (I say "incorrectly" as because as I understand it, it more like that by the time a criminal case goes to trial in a civil law system court, the prosecutor has already shown evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in the equivalent of a grand jury, so for the trial proper it's mainly the defendant attempting to show where the "grand jury" got it wrong.)

Re:Was this libel?

[gnasher719]

"hurts the plaintiff in his or her profession or trade."

If the contractor did a good job and got an awful review, then the review hurt him. If the contractor did an awful job and received an awful but correct review, then I would argue that it was not the review that hurt them but the bad job that they did.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Preponderance of evidence means that the burden of proof is shared equally between the parties. Both parties need to prove their case and the winner is the one that best proves their case. There's no presumption that either party is right or wrong.

Re:Was this libel?

[xigxag]

In both criminal court and in civil court, the plaintiff, not the defendant, has to prove his case. It's still known as the "burden of proof," regardless of whether the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal proceeding or in civil court where the standard is usually preponderance of the evidence. To have a prima facie case, the plaintiff has to establish all the elements of a defamation suit by the preponderance of the evidence. If the plaintiff can't do that, case dismissed.

Of course, neither standard of "proof" is anything like proof in the mathematical sense. So to that extent, you could conceivably claim that nobody ever has to "prove" anything in any court of law. Except for Math Court.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

The score itself is an opinion, however, the statements that he caused damage, overbilled, and that his employees stole from here were not. The easiest statements to disprove would be the first two; the third is a bit harder.

Re:Was this libel?

[AK Marc]

You are arguing theory against reality. Most of the time the respondent must prove their innocence, or they lose.

Re:Was this libel?

[BasilBrush]

Huh? In both criminal and civil courts in common law systems (e.g. the UK and the US, including Virginia), the burden of proof is on the person bringing the suit - the state for criminal cases, and the plaintiff for civil cases.

You're certainly wrong in the UK. For libel the plaintiff has to prove they have been financially damaged by the statement. It is then up to the defendant to show that what they wrote was true. If they can't show it was true, the plaintiff wins.

In other words you can only publicly write damaging things about people if you can show them to be true.

It's not up to the person that has been defamed to show they are not true.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe more people aren't chiming in on this. Truth is an absolute defense to slander and libel. What those previously mentioned laws do is prevent people from being too quick to lie to damage someone's reputation.

Re:Was this libel?

[Eskarel]

It's called an affirmative defense. It works the same way that self defense does in a murder trial. They prove you committed the act, you have to prove you had a right to.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Judge Judy is one of the most popular daytime shows by all accounts currently and she's raking in millions.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Her assertion that the contractor stole her jewelry is definitely objective and should be falsifiable.

She didn't state that the contractor stole her jewellery: she stated that her jewellery went missing, and the contractor had the only key. How do you falsify that? If the contractor can somehow prove that he never possessed the jewellery, it's still possible that someone else picked the lock, and the reviewer posted in good faith. About the only way it could be falsified is if the jewellery turned up still in her possession. And even then: what if she was simply absent-minded, and forgot where she left it? How do you prove intent to harm?

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems a reasonable standard, until you see it being applied by Judge Judy (is that still on?)

That's not a really a regular Court of Law, it's basically just Arbitration.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like she'll need to prove whether or not it was in fact the construction company that stole the jewelry.

I don't think she wants to prove they didn't do it.

Re:Was this libel?

[rtb61]

The likely reality here, it is a nothing contractor with little to no work on the books seeking to win some money court. When you are a high quality builder one bad review is meaningless and generally everyone accepts that as a crooked client seeking to skip out on payment. Been there done that and had one of those clients every year pretty much with out fail. Suing for defamation, what for no one cares and you just makes it look like you have something to hide. The only time builders sue for defamation are when they are crap builders and have no work on the books because they have become known as crap builders from multiple sources. Word of mouth among supplies and the trades can kill a builders reputation.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or until it's used to seize your house as proceeds of crime despite the face you haven't been charged with any crimes.

Re:Was this libel?

[tehcyder]

In other words you can only publicly write damaging things about people if you can show them to be true.

Exactly. This is why Private Eye is continually being sued: a lot of the things they get sued for are (probably) true, but they won't always have strong enough evidence to back up their claims. For example, they might have relied on anonymous informants and/or people who can't afford to repeat things in court for whatever reason.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

3. of losing jewelry.

Those are all matters of fact, not opinion the court could look into. Also, this is a civil case not a criminal trial so the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Can she offer any evidence she had the jewels? Did she file a police complaint? The court system won't just take her word for it, if she's just throwing out accusations without a shred of evidence he might not have to prove a thing and still win. After all, how could he prove that jewels that doesn't exist haven't gone missing?

Would you file a police report against someone for theft of property if you've paid them to work on your home and they haven't completed the work?
What kind of service would you reasonably expect after the police report was filed... if any?

Re:Was this libel?

[datavirtue]

Even if it is true you still have to prove it. Not true in court unless you can prove your statements. So, even if your opinion is that he sucks and ripped you off, you better damn well have solid proof that substantiates those claims or you will have a judgement against you.

Re:Was this libel?

[Rich0]

Defamation per se simply means that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove that he was harmed. The plaintiff still needs to prove that the statement was false, and that the defendant either knew that it was false or acted with negligence with regard to whether it was false.

Re:Was this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an important difference between US and UK libel law. In the US, the plaintiff must prove with a preponderance of the evidence that the libelous statements are false.

This could have been prevented...

[tomjonesonrepeat]

by reputation.com

Re:why is this news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

because the reputation of nerds on internet is pretty bad too... maybe they should sue as well

Re:Push push push

[preaction]

Maybe YOU haven't seen one.

Re:why is this news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

nerds are used to that though, ipso facto, it isn't news to them...

Yelp should idemnify her

[timeOday]

If posting to Yelp is a huge financial risk, the site will quickly die.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you indemnify people from committing crimes, is it even possible to do such a thing? Yelp is better off without such people.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anubis IV]

Why would they do that? That would be an open invitation for every rival organization in town to post patently false statements about every other organization, all without having to concern themselves with the fact that they're engaging in libel. Placing the burden on the reviewer is the right way to handle this, since it ensures that there is pressure on them to only report facts that are accurate representations of what took place. It's work fine up until now, but without that liability, everything would fall apart.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[uslurper]

Bullshit. If you are posting something both false and with the intent to financially harm another individual or company, you should be accountable for your actions.

For example:
"Lincoln is a Natzi and should be shot in the head"

Is an example of something that one could be held liable for (if lincoln were alive today)

Or if a newspaper were to publish a review like "Apples iPhone is a peice of junk with a 1 inch screen and battery life of 10 minutes and cannot make a call"
They would be in the same boat.

-Now if the original Yelp poster had said "I had a very unpleasant experience and will not use their services again", that would have been fine. Or if she filed charges of theft and the company was found guilty, then she could post what happened.

What I dont get is that the contractor I beleive can remove bad posts if they sign up for Yelp. Maybe they didn't know. Maybe that is not true anymore.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the parent poster is correct. Courts don't see content posting sites as a conduit for information shared by others (such as how ISPs can get away with transmitting child porn and they are not at fault). Because: tor. Tor cases have already set the precedent that says, you can't use the "I'm only a network retransmitting the information of others" defense. This would obviously make too much sense!

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[nmb3000]

If posting to Yelp is a huge financial risk, the site will quickly die.

Sadly, it looks like they're going the other way.

Here's the Yelp page for Dietz Development. Look at the reviews and you can see that Yelp has been censoring them pretty heavily. All of them are from the last day or two and the review in question has been removed.

This was a great opportunity for Yelp to stand up for consumer rights and freedoms, but instead they've stuck their head in the sand. Even if they'd put a notice at the top of her review saying that "the statements here are not those of Yelp's, blah blah blah lawyer speak" that would have been fine. However, they've shown they have no backbone and won't stand behind their users.

What if Slashdot editors deleted comments anytime somebody looked at them wrong; what effect would that have on the quantity and quality of the discussion here? There's only been a tiny handful of times that a comment here has been censored -- hopefully it stays that way.

I've never used Yelp before because I wasn't real familiar with them. Now that I am I'll never use them in the future.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[nmb3000]

Just found the actual comment she left via the Daily Mail:

This is the text of Perez's original review posted on Angie's List in August 2012.

Overall: F

Price: F

Quality: F

Responsiveness: F

Punctuality: F

Professionalism: F

Description Of Work: Dietz Development was to perform: painting, refinish floors, electrical, plumbing and handyman work. I was instead left with damage to my home and work that had to be reaccomplished for thousands more than originally estimated.

Member comments: My home was damaged' the "work" had to be re-accomplished; and Dietz tried to sue me for "monies due for his "work." I won in summary judgement (meaning that his case had no merit). Despite his claims, Dietz was/is not licensed to perform work in the state of VA. Further, he invoiced me for work not even performed and also sued me for work not even performed. Today (six months later) he just showed up at my door and '"wanted to talk to me." I said that I "didn't want to talk to him," closed the door , and called the police. (The police said his reason was that he had a "lien on my house"; however this "lien" was made null and void the day I won the case according to the court.) This is after filing my first ever police report when I found my jewelry missing and Dietz was the only one with a key. Bottom line do not put yourself through this nightmare of a contractor.

If that kind of review is worth $750,000 in damages then the Internet is boned. I thought the RIAA's damage calculations were bad -- There must be a trillion dollars worth of "harmful" reviews for places on Google Maps alone!

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they do that? That would be an open invitation for every rival organization in town to post patently false statements about every other organization, all without having to concern themselves with the fact that they're engaging in libel.

You're not very familiar with Yelp, are you? This is pretty much what happens.

Though, there are plenty of genuine reviews for most places, so whatever noise is thrown in usually gets weeded out. All things considered, it actually works pretty well.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

If posting to Yelp is a huge financial risk, the site will quickly die.

I doubt it. There's nothing anyone can do if you tell the truth, or if you proceed every remark with "in my opinion...". Perhaps it will make some people think
before they make up blatant lies to sound good or throw out accusations without any proof.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[timeOday]

OK, then how about this? If she wins in court, then Yelp should cover her legal expenses.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

If that kind of review is worth $750,000 in damages then the Internet is boned. I thought the RIAA's damage calculations were bad -- There must be a trillion dollars worth of "harmful" reviews for places on Google Maps alone!

The damage amount is high for sure, but I thought that was par for the States? But if this is the actual and entire review, I have no sympathy for the woman. Personally if I were interested in hiring Dietz and saw this review I'd ignore it and hope she'd get sued for wasting bandwidth. The review is useless, full of unsubstantiated derogatory opinions and sensationalist remarks like "I had to call the police" and provides zero details about the complaints.

"My home was damaged' the "work" had to be re-accomplished;" Well how was it damaged? Did they drop a few spots of paint on a lampshade or did they flood her basement? Did Dietz redo the work or did she have to hire another contractor? She should've included the details of the damage in the review to add weight to her opinion.

"Despite his claims, Dietz was/is not licensed to perform work in the state of VA." Fair enough, that's actually a decent claim and tells me to double-check his status.

"Further, he invoiced me for work not even performed and also sued me for work not even performed." Again, no details so no way to judge. Was he supposed to replace a light bulb and forgot or he skipped the painting entirely? Did he skip the painting because he's incompetent and a cheat or because she chased him out of the house with a broom?

"I said that I "didn't want to talk to him," closed the door , and called the police." She called the cops simply because he dared to knock on her door, once? Oh no! That makes her look like an over-reacting nutcase more than anything.

This is after filing my first ever police report when I found my jewelry missing and Dietz was the only one with a key. Most likely she hid her jewelry somewhere before the renovations and forgot about it. Simply because she called the police doesn't make Dietz guilty, it does make her look like an over-reacting nutcase, again.

Actually, that last bit about stealing the jewelry is totally uncalled for and people need to learn not to make such unsubstantiated accusations on the internet. If it goes unchecked the entire internet becomes a pile of "well my dad can beat your dad" (more than the current 85%). Based on that last sentence, I'd say she deserves to lose $750k.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[phantomfive]

If that kind of review is worth $750,000 in damages then the Internet is boned.

If she is lying, then she definitely deserves a punishment.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[amicusNYCL]

If that kind of review is worth $750,000 in damages then the Internet is boned.

This has nothing to do with the internet, if none of what she says is true, or even just the majority of it, then she deserves a fine that big. That much money is a good year or 2 of work for a small contractor business that he may have lost. That review is clearly out to destroy his business. If what she said is correct, then it's not a bad thing to get that information out where other people can see it. If she's completely wrong, then that much money is justified. If she's not wrong, then Dietz is screwed, he's out of business, and rightly so.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? It's not the score she gave that's the problem, it's the potentially libelous statements in her review.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless of course everything she said is true... You seem a bit too quick to judge against her.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Rennt]

Before we get too excited about ruined businesses, it's best to remember that Yelp has a fairly enthusiastic but narrow user base. I'd be surprised if even 2% of the contractor's potential clients had read the review (before the Streisand Effect kicked in of course).

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Holladon]

Now that's certainly interesting. Claiming that he isn't licensed is susceptible to a defamation claim if false. The other portions of it are a lot fuzzier, and assuming she actually did file a police report, the jewelry stuff is probably not actionable as defamation since she's technically reporting facts, unless he can show that the filing of the report itself was blatantly malicious/completely and utterly baseless. I can't imagine him getting mileage out of anything else written in the review -- it's all close enough to opinion that I don't think it's terribly likely that he'd get very far with it.

Keep in mind that you can claim any amount of damages you want in a lawsuit, and you can sue anyone for anything (subject to possible liability for abuse of process, bad faith, and similar laws designed to curb harassing lawsuits). The numbers look big and scary, but it's very unlikely he'd be able to demonstrate that her review was responsible for that much damage to him, even if he was able to persuade a judge that the review is defamatory (from reading it, I'd say he'd have to make a pretty strong showing -- and who knows what the facts are, maybe everything she wrote really and truly is a lie -- we have no way of knowing). Yes, it certainly is frustrating to be sued and have to deal with big threatening numbers like $750,000, but always remember that the rule of thumb really and truly is that, as long as you're being an overall decent and honest person, it's really really unlikely that you'll wind up having to pay out a huge judgment to some jackhole who decides to sue you without any legitimate basis. I'm not saying it never happens, but I've been a litigator for almost ten years, and I have not once in my career seen someone I believed to be a legitimately innocent/upstanding civil defendant have to pay more than a relatively low sum (nuisance damages -- sucks, but at least it's not almost a million bucks). I have, conversely, seen plaintiffs who were probably wronged in some manner walk away with legal fees that exceed their recovery (or obtain no recovery at all), which also sucks, but in fairness, they picked their lawyers and opted to take the risk. (I've repped both plaintiffs and defendants, and I've had clients who were pristine and clients who frankly fucked up, and my assessment of who "should" have won is presented here independent of which side I was on). The system isn't perfect, but copyright cases aside (because, yeah, that area of the law IS legitimately fucked), on the civil side of things, in my experience it's apocryphal for a plaintiff to get a big win in a case they had no business whatsoever winning.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[inglorion_on_the_net]

I don't see why Yelp should chose sides. If Dietz feels that he has been harmed by false claims, suing for defamation seems a sensible thing to do. Let the court look at the case and determine who is telling the truth. This seems to me like the system working as intended.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[AK Marc]

For example:
"Lincoln is a Natzi and should be shot in the head"

Is an example of something that one could be held liable for (if lincoln were alive today)

I doubt it. For one, the statement doesn't sound believable, and it's been found that if people don't believe the statement, it can't cause harm. For another, what harm could it cause?

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[interkin3tic]

If they indemnify this woman, they have to do it every time someone sues someone else for libel over their service even when it was clearly a rival organization? I'm actually asking. I'm guessing they can pick and choose who they pay the lawsuit fees for.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[AK Marc]

Actually, that last bit about stealing the jewelry is totally uncalled for and people need to learn not to make such unsubstantiated accusations on the internet.

" This is after filing my first ever police report when I found my jewelry missing and Dietz was the only one with a key. " What's wrong with that? Are you asserting that she had filed other police reports? That her jewlery was never missing? Or that she never filed a police report? She did not accuse them of anything, nor did she say they stole anything. She obviously suspects they did, and appropriately filed a police report to investigate. I'd say that of everything in there, that's one of the least actionable sentences. There are a few facts, all relatively verifiable. If they are true, then she should be clear, right?

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

You would assume once a precedent is set that a true statement on Yelp can't be claimed as libel it would be much more unlikely that a company would bother trying to sue someone under the same conditions.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

She obviously suspects they did, and appropriately filed a police report to investigate. I'd say that of everything in there, that's one of the least actionable sentences. There are a few facts, all relatively verifiable. If they are true, then she should be clear, right?

Her suspicions have no bearing on the quality of Dietz's work and therefore have no place in a review of said work. The only reason she'd mention it is to harm Dietz's reputation further. Yes it's a fact that she filed a police report, so what? As I said, there are many other possible explanations to her jewelry "disappearing." Now Dietz may be a complete sleezeball, we can't tell by this review. All we can tell for sure is that she is a sleezeball.

BTW, I had a female neighbor who hated my guts because she didn't like men with my skin color. She'd get in the elevator with me, yell at me, call the cops and tell them I harassed her, then write a letter to the building's manager and occupants "warning" them about me. Completely sleezy and I'll tell you why: yes it was a true fact that she had to call the police repeatedly, but she'd omit the fact that the cops would tell her to "get a life."

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm judging the review and the review is useless.

She hasn't provided any detail for us to determine if anything she says is remotely true. And anybody with a half a brain can figure out that if you're going to give someone straight Fs in a review (or straight As) you better provide lots of details to backup your score, read my post again, there are lots of details missing, no way to know if she's really telling the truth or blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anubis IV]

Again, why would they do that? I believe it's already standard practice for the defendant to simply countersue the plaintiff in order to recover their legal costs, so the idea is unnecessary in the first place. And if Yelp extends an open invitation to pay legal fees in case of a victory, they'd still be encouraging the behavior I already described.

If I was a rival of a competing company, I could post borderline libelous statements that make them look horrible but probably won't be ruled against in court. The result is that my competitor would be in a catch-22: they can leave the review alone and suffer the consequences of having a scathing review, or they can sue me with the knowledge that there's a good chance I won't incur any costs of my own, despite the fact that even if they win, they'll still be out of pocket for a load of money. That's not much different than it is now, to be honest, but at least right now there's a chance I won't recover my costs, making it something that can at least work out a bit for them. Plus, with Yelp guaranteeing to cover my costs if I win, I would probably hire the best lawyers, thus decreasing my chances of losing even further while likely incurring no additional costs.

Long story short, you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and in doing so, you're making an actual problem worse.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[bloodhawk]

Then she will have no problems in court with this law suit is she can show everything she said is true.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. keep dreaming!

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if she loses in court, the Contractor should cover her legal expenses.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

Its an internet review, you moron. She's not going to go into thorough detail about the shit job the contractor did, other than to say it was a shit job because [i]blah[/i]. She already explained she won a judgement in court that said she didn't have to pay for his terrible work. She has already gone through, and proved, to the only authority that matters (a judge), that the job was shit and the case meritless.

He has the gall to show up on her door to do what, exactly? 'Talk' to her? Do you even realize how that looks to a woman? How terrifying that must feel, to have this guy that thinks she owes him something, to show up, out of the blue, with no warning whatsoever, 'just to talk'.

And you think that's not a good reason for her to call the cops.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

when did slashdot become a bunch of old tools rooting for the man?

i would prefer as long as a person doesn't make a general habit of it,
that we would err on the side of letting folks exaggerate, etc. at least
then we we might get real, non-astroturfed opinions.

captcha: robotics

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[russotto]

Long story short, you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and in doing so, you're making an actual problem worse.

The actual problem is that once you can be sued for a review (win, lose, or draw), you're less likely to post one. While for a business suing and being sued is just a normal part of doing business, for an individual being sued totally fucks up your life while the suit is going on (and suing does too, if the other side has a halfway decent lawyer). It costs you significant amounts of money and time you'll never recover at best, and can bankrupt you. So if people start regularly being sued for posting bad reviews, even if all the lawsuits are without merit and are resolved in favor of the defendant, people will stop posting bad reviews; it's a chilling effect. Without bad reviews, review sites are worthless.

The legal system can't fix this because the legal system IS the problem.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[fightinfilipino]

Sadly, it looks like they're going the other way.

Here's the Yelp page for Dietz Development. Look at the reviews and you can see that Yelp has been censoring them pretty heavily. All of them are from the last day or two and the review in question has been removed.

This was a great opportunity for Yelp to stand up for consumer rights and freedoms, but instead they've stuck their head in the sand. Even if they'd put a notice at the top of her review saying that "the statements here are not those of Yelp's, blah blah blah lawyer speak" that would have been fine. However, they've shown they have no backbone and won't stand behind their users.

What if Slashdot editors deleted comments anytime somebody looked at them wrong; what effect would that have on the quantity and quality of the discussion here? There's only been a tiny handful of times that a comment here has been censored -- hopefully it stays that way.

I've never used Yelp before because I wasn't real familiar with them. Now that I am I'll never use them in the future.

that's not quite accurate.

Yelp uses an automated algorithm to filter out some posts: "How do you decide which reviews to filter? We use filtering software to determine which reviews should be filtered on any given day among the millions that are submitted to the site. The software looks at a wide range of data associated with every review. We invite you to watch this short video for more detail about how it all works." http://www.yelp.com/faq#why_filter

as a site dedicated to enabling ordinary people to post reviews about businesses in their own communities, Yelp provides a great service for consumers. but Yelp also has its own concern to try to keep reviews on its site relevant as much as possible. it doesn't serve anyone to allow users to publish reviews that have little to no connection to the actual businesses being reviewed. Yelp's reputation for being a place where you can get low-noise, high-signal reviews is on the line. and having too much noise as compared to actual signal does not serve Yelp's users either, as they won't get a reasonably accurate picture of businesses reviewed on the site.

i'll acknowledge that Yelp is treading a fine line here. i think they understand that. but to say that Yelp is "undermining consumer rights and freedoms" here is completely unfair and unabashedly silly. filtered posts can still be seen if you click on a link below the reviews. Yelp explains why they have been filtered but still allows users to access said posts.

and even then, if you go to Dietz Development's page now, there are a slew of negative reviews, completely unfiltered, that have nothing to do with Dietz Development's services or customer relations. most of them are backlash "internet badass" posts shaming Dietz for suing. while allowing people to review businesses like Dietz and provide said reviews online for the public is a general good, allowing for higher noise to signal and for reviews that have little to do with the actual quality of a company is not.

there was a Florida pizza restaurant President Obama visited during this year's Presidential campaign. the owner of the restaurant was, apparently, a conservative, but he was excited to host the President all the same and even gave Obama a hug. as a result, hundreds of trolls crashed the restaurant owner's Yelp page and posted negative review after negative review. many of the "reviewers" acknowledged never having eaten at the restaurant. some of the "reviewers" had never been to Florida. would you say Yelp should keep all those "noise" posts anyway? i would argue no. the posts were marginally-relevant, if at all, to the actual pizza restaurant, the quality

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[shentino]

Customers need to be able to complain without being intimidated by the threat of a lawsuit.

Ever heard of a SLAPP?

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[AK Marc]

Her suspicions have no bearing on the quality of Dietz's work and therefore have no place in a review of said work.

So you view the work and professionalism of two contractors as equal, even if one rapes your wife and steals your dog, when the other leaves a thank you card on the table when done?

I think most people would consider a felony committed while working as relevant to job performance, even if not explicitly about job quality.

BTW, I had a female neighbor who hated my guts because she didn't like men with my skin color. She'd get in the elevator with me, yell at me, call the cops and tell them I harassed her, then write a letter to the building's manager and occupants "warning" them about me. Completely sleezy and I'll tell you why: yes it was a true fact that she had to call the police repeatedly, but she'd omit the fact that the cops would tell her to "get a life."

So she was prejudice against people like you, so you are prejudice against people who you perceive to be like her. That makes you worse than her, because at least she isn't preachy about her biases like you are.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you say it's not believable? He WAS shot in the head.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Aranykai]

Honestly, being a licensed contractor in my state and dealing with residential construction for almost 15 years now, licensing means almost nothing. All it says is you payed your monetary dues and are bonded IF the county the work performed in requires it. Most states have no requirements that you be licensed and it is not illegal to operate without the license. Additionally, if you are in a county that requires bonding, you are still required to have that insurance if you are not licensed.

All contractors should be researched and you should ask for references. Being licensed doesn't make them any less likely to be incompetent or rip you off in my experience.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[ChrisMaple]

So she's supposed to spend hours writing dozens of pages just to make you happy?

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[AK Marc]

That he was a member of the Natzi party? What is a natzi anyway?

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

This supposed court case would lead me to believe that she had proven that her claims were true, but without details of what she had won it's hard to speculate. If her claims were proven in court, then in your 5th paragraph I'd say she'd have a right to call the police due to the prior court case. I'd certainly be cautious about the guy turning up on my door step following a court battle. Not really an over-reaction.
I agree with the jewellery accusations, as they are just that. It's fair that it has been reported to the authorities, but the result of this is unknown, so she should probably have highlighted this fact or omitted it altogether.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

So you go to your PC and go through a real good proxy from a non treaty nation, use a live CD OS designed not to leave any traces. Get a five minute mail box. Join up and verify through the five minute mail box and leave the worst complaint known to man. Be certain to have a wide open wifi connection for absolute possibility that you never did it and make your enemy twitch like a burning worm on a summer sidewalk.
                          Those who seek to punish should remember that a lie or false complaint may be designed to open up an argument that exposes some other real wrong done by a person or company. Think of it as if you deliberately released false data inside your firm because you are aware of a spy in your employ. The opposing firm that hired the spy might spend a lot of money tooling up and trying to produce a product that has no chance of working at all. Or picture a cop getting a confession that a suspect was committing a burglary at a specific time by accusing him of a murder many miles away. In panic of a murder conviction the suspect gives up a complete confession as proof that he was elsewhere and could not have done the murder. Of course the cop knew that all along.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

So you would cast the first stone?

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you left out the most damning evidence, he sued her for the work he supposedly did and lost in summary judgement. To me this puts a lot of credibility behind her statements.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

Or better yet, if she wins in court Dietz should cover her legal expenses.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[SecurityGuy]

Her suspicions have no bearing on the quality of Dietz's work and therefore have no place in a review of said work.

They have tremendous bearing. In fact, I don't care how good your work is if you're going to rob me while you're doing it. You're taking the most conservative approach possible in assuming that she might have misplaced the jewelry or outright lied about it. I don't have jewelry, personally, but I have a safe with papers I don't want to lose or burn in a fire. I know exactly where it is. I see it every day. If I hire you to work on my house, give you a key, no one else has a key, and it goes missing, you're darned right I'll suspect you took it. I won't straight out accuse you, but I will absolutely call the police and tell them it went missing and you're the only one with a key. Draw your own conclusion.

BTW, I had a female neighbor who hated my guts because she didn't like men with my skin color.

This just sucks, and she's an evil person. The original story, though, has verifiable facts. There would be witnesses. She should have shot some video. She claims she won a summary judgement. There's a record of that. If she hired a second contractor to fix the damage done by the first, that second contractor should be able to testify to the state of the place when he started work.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying AK Marc rapes babies, but he hasn't said he doesn't. You have to ask yourself: why not?

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but OP also said that she filed a similar complaint on Angie's List. The usage there is totally different I think, and he probably would have had a much larger impact from that.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[phantomfive]

So you would cast the first stone?

Happily. Just because some adulterers in ancient Israel wouldn't, that's no reason I can't today.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

She was already being sued before she posted, so it's not really that big of a chilling effect. If someone is suing you, you're an idiot if you thing bad mouthing them in print is a good idea.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

Look for Christopher Dietz on http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/LicenseLookup/ to verify if he is licensed in Fairfax Virginia.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[Anonymous Coward]

In first grade, we learn how to start sentences with a capital letter. In college, we purposely undo our learning because we become self-important pricks who feel a need to stick out among our peers.

Re:Yelp should idemnify her

[bhiestand]

While I don't entirely disagree, it's unclear whether he represented himself as licensed/bonded and whether or not he actually is (haven't seen any commenters here check). I suspect there are many situations where, if only for liability purposes, a person will only want to hire licensed and bonded contractors. So this is something that can be mentioned in reviews either way.

That said, you're right. Licensing is no guarantee of competence or ethics. You should see the shit work, performance by a licensed electrician, I've been repairing lately... huge chandelier hanging from drywall toggles, Romex strewn loosely throughout an attic (in, under, on, and around insulation), etc. I'll be sure to include pictures if I write a review on Yelp >_>

Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[OzPeter]

So where are:

1. The complaint/lawsuit for restoration of damage to her house?
2. The complaint/lawsuit for the work that was not done (but apparently billed)?
3. The police report/lawsuit detailing the theft of the jewelry?

All of the above are things that should be taken seriously if they actually happened. Complaining on Yelp/Angies List only and not following through in the correct legal channels gives credence to the lawsuit against her.

So WTF is this doing on /. anyway? This just seems like it is here because it's a typical lawsuit but a computer is involved

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[p0p0]

The only thing that pisses me off about this is how much they are suing for. There is no way someone can pay that amount of money back in their lifetime, and they surely didn't do that much damage to you. Why aren't these sort of things set at a limit? If they are, why is it so bloody high?

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Xtifr]

So WTF is this doing on /. anyway? This just seems like it is here because it's a typical lawsuit but a computer is involved

Hey, it's enough of a difference to make it patentable. :)

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Your patent is denied...

This just seems like it is here because it's a typical lawsuit but a computer is involved

Now if you were to have said

This just seems like it is here because it's a typical lawsuit on a mobile device

Then that would be a whole different ballgame...

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Jack9]

> why is it so bloody high?

Because, in the US, you can sue for any reason (even faulty reasoning or unactionable claims) with any stipulation on what you are seeking, generally speaking. Different localities have differing laws to mitigate this type of stupidity, but I guess not that county.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful, talk like that get's you negative moderation around here apparently..

linky

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[im_thatoneguy]

Online reviews are a pretty big part of the internet. Yelp is one of the most popular websites on the internet.

If writing a review or using Yelp can get you sued for $750k then that would have huge ramifications for internet users and prominent internet companies like Yelp.

It also illustrates the interesting new territory we enter where users are demanding the rights of "media" and being granted publishing rights but not educated in the rules and practices that protect you as a publisher. Part of breaking down and democratizing the access to global access and speech is that suddenly everyone is a publisher not just from a power standpoint but also from a legal and liability standpoint.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Anonymous Coward]

>So WTF is this doing on /. anyway? This just seems like it is here because it's a typical lawsuit but a computer is involved

If it's good enough for the patent office it's good enough for Slashdot.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a cap in Indiana of $500,000 dollars for gross negligence and malpractice if a surgeon cuts off the wrong leg so that you lose both legs. It's going to go way down now.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[rodarson2k]

The damages to a Local Contracting Company for one bad review on Yelp are apparently more money than the average contractor makes in a lifetime.

Of course, 700k of that will go to his lawyer, so it comes out to a semi-reasonable amount.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Altrag]

Which suggests there should be a difference in law distinguishing between publishing (commercial) and "publishing" (rambling on your favorite forum.)

There's already a distinct difference from a user perspective -- if something is published in the Wall Street Journal, people assign it huge credibility. On the other hand, "these guys suck!" posted by J.Random.Dumbass on Yelp or Slashdot or anywhere else is pretty much ignored.

We (as users) will check the average *'s on review sites but we don't generally put a lot of faith in any single review because people have something the law doesn't -- logical reasoning and a concept about how people work.

The law is supposed to have that (in the form of a judge being impartial and not a complete moron) but implementation is pretty spotty since well.. judges are people too and nobody is completely impartial about much of anything (never mind if someone's slipping them a few bills behind the scenes.)

I suspect that in absence of the woman providing proof (especially the jewelry thing) that the company will probably win because regardless of circumstance, that is "publishing" and therefore libel.

But I also suspect that the $750k will be reduced to sub-$10k unless the judge is a complete asshat and/or has zero concept of what sites like yelp.com are for and allow users to do. (Well, things might also change if its discovered that she's plastered the post all over multiple sites. That goes from pissed off ranting to intentional damage to the business at that point.)

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[TubeSteak]

TFA says he's suing for $750k but only claiming damages of $300k
So in reality, the maximum he'll get is $300K + lawyers' fees (assuming he can prove the Yelp post resulted in $300k of damages)

If the State of Virginia prosecutes her for libel, the maximum fine is $500.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[im_thatoneguy]

Agreed, but it'll be tricky since the Wall Street Journal also has a blog where they pretty much post random crap from their writers.

So do you assign different domains different arbitrary values? Is it based on the number of viewers? The Yelp domain probably gets more viewers than the WSJ so its reach is arguably higher. Do you base it on reliability and perceived accuracy? Would that mean that Fox News can publish libel while the NYT can't?

It's tricky to draw that line and it previously used to come down to money but now we all can post to equally professional websites as the WSJ for a few dollars a year--and feasibly get more views than their columnists.

Contrary to the OP's statement: the fact that it happens to have a computer involved does make it interesting.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[sconeu]

They're here.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[amicusNYCL]

I was just getting ready to respond to your numbered list with a reasonable response, then I read your last sentence, laughed, and agreed.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Holladon]

Because, in the US, you can sue for any reason (even faulty reasoning or unactionable claims) with any stipulation on what you are seeking, generally speaking. Different localities have differing laws to mitigate this type of stupidity, but I guess not that county.

A claim for abuse of process never operates to automatically bar a lawsuit against you before it happens; that would require the law to be omniscient, which it isn't and doesn't purport to be. Abuse of process is a tort claim, and it's fundamental to tort claims that you must be damaged before you can seek recovery for the wrong. As far as I'm aware, every legal jurisdiction in the US recognizes some form of abuse of process tort -- she just wouldn't be able to file a lawsuit against him for it until she has a basis for it, and generally speaking, the basis for the tort doesn't arise until you've won the first lawsuit (thereby evidencing its abusive nature).

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[tompaulco]

The only thing that pisses me off about this is how much they are suing for. There is no way someone can pay that amount of money back in their lifetime, and they surely didn't do that much damage to you.
If one can't afford to pay that much, then one should not do that much damage to somebody else. Just because someone doesn't have any money doesn't mean that the person who's livelihood they damaged should get off cheap.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[tompaulco]

The damages to a Local Contracting Company for one bad review on Yelp are apparently more money than the average contractor makes in a lifetime.
So, in an average 45 year career, a contractor will make on average less than $20,000 a year? Huh, then why are there so many contractors?
Actually, it is quite easy that this review could cost him $700,000 in a single year. He probably brings in a couple of million a year, and pays 95% of that to subcontractors/employees/materials. Thanks to this lady, he probably will have far less business, but still most of the same fixed costs. He could easily lose $700,000 a year for several years thanks to her.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[sribe]

All of the above are things that should be taken seriously if they actually happened. Complaining on Yelp/Angies List only and not following through in the correct legal channels gives credence to the lawsuit against her.

Not really. It's perfectly possible that she consulted an attorney and found that it would cost more than it was worth to pursue her claims.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[AK Marc]

Unless the judge decides it was frivolous revenge suit based on previous dealings and fines the contractor and dismisses the case with prejudice.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[bloodhawk]

while 750k seems unreasonable, so does sub-10k. "If" she has made unsubstantiated claims or just outright lied then she really should be held responsible for any decline in their business, if that is 100 or 200k (or even 750k) then that is her bad luck and the judge should certainly impose that cost. Business's shouldn't have to wear the costs of morons. Now this isn't to say the company is in the right, they could well be total sleeze bags that deserve everything said, but the onus is on the person making the claim to have evidence to prove that. simply being uneducated of the consequences of your statement should not excuse you for the damage you cause.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[sootman]

> All of the above are things that should be taken seriously if
> they actually happened. Complaining on Yelp/Angies List only
> and not following through in the correct legal channels gives
> credence to the lawsuit against her.

Well, the sucky thing is that there are TONS of things that are true, but not provable. I've been fucked over MANY times by contractors and workers, but none of it is provable because I didn't get whatever they promised in writing, didn't take certified before and after pictures, didn't videotape them every second of every day, etc etc etc.

And then there are all the things that would cost more to pursue than they're worth -- am I really going to take the time and expense to sue some shithead who knocks a hole in my drywall, scratches an $80 table, or nails a couple studs in crooked? No, but that doesn't mean they don't suck, and that shouldn't mean that I'm not allowed to complain.

My friend just last week got some furniture from Rooms To Go and it was damaged. TODAY he stayed home to receive the replacements and not only was it also damaged, but the guys who were moving it damaged two other things on his house. (Wall and door sill.) He can (and will) complain, but if needed, how could he prove it? "Wait right there guys. Before you bring that in, I'm going to take photos of every surface you will pass, then print them, then we're all going to sign and date them, and I'm going to video record us signing and dating them, then put that video into a sealed envelope and have it notarized." What the fuck can you possibly do to protect yourself? (Speaking of which, he was told that the guys -- even though they were driving those great gaudy Rooms To Go trucks -- are not actually employees of Rooms To Go. Just FYI.)

Source: homeowner for 14 years, and I've dealt with everything from a loser concrete guy who took $500 and never did any work, to arguing with Home Depot for two years about a $60k job. YOU ARE NEVER SAFE, and you don't always have recourse.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Altrag]

base it on reliability and perceived accuracy?

Yes. Of course its hard to codify "perceived" into law and that's where its up to a judge to use proper discretion. Fox News gets credibility not because they're necessarily good, but because there's a boatload of people who think they're good (regardless of evidence.)

People who don't see your posting or don't believe are not lost customers and thus not a harm to business.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Online reviews are a pretty big part of the internet. Yelp is one of the most popular websites on the internet.

If writing a review or using Yelp can get you sued for $750k then that would have huge ramifications for internet users and prominent internet companies like Yelp.

It also illustrates the interesting new territory we enter where users are demanding the rights of "media" and being granted publishing rights but not educated in the rules and practices that protect you as a publisher. Part of breaking down and democratizing the access to global access and speech is that suddenly everyone is a publisher not just from a power standpoint but also from a legal and liability standpoint.

I thought that this (why this story is on Slashdot) would be blatantly obvious. The fact that someone has to ask is disturbing in itself.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[thegarbz]

So where are:

1. The complaint/lawsuit for restoration of damage to her house?
2. The complaint/lawsuit for the work that was not done (but apparently billed)?

Wait what? The proper first response to either of these is to sue? What kind of a world do you live in?

She followed the proper process. She refused to pay the bill. They argued. HE SUED, not the other way around, and she was awarded summary judgement. You don't go suing someone just because they sent you a bill.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we know the price of the repairs? What if it was $100? Would it make sense to do 1 and 2? Not for me. I'd lose more than $100 initiating 1 or 2.

Great point on 3. Though we don't know if it exists... unless you see where it explicitly says contrary.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Chelloveck]

TFA says he's suing for $750k but only claiming damages of $300k. So in reality, the maximum he'll get is $300K + lawyers' fees (assuming he can prove the Yelp post resulted in $300k of damages)

So, $750k then.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[redlemming]

So WTF is this doing on /. anyway? This just seems like it is here because it's a typical lawsuit but a computer is involved

Abuse (or potential abuse) of the tort system is part of a much bigger problem in the US legal system. Most of our laws are written by legal professionals, prosecuted by legal professionals, and judged by legal professionals. Our presidents, governors, and legislators are almost all legal professionals.

This causes legal professionals, as a class in society, to be able to have enormous influence over the nature, scope, and form of the legal system.

Is this a problem? Well, do you believe it is an accident that the USA is known as the "Land of the Lawsuit"? Do you believe that the interests of legal professionals as a class in society will necessarily align with the interests of the rest of society?

A legal system that is complex, confusing, scary, or contradictory to ordinary people, or to us Slashdot nerds, massively increases the long term demand for the services of legal professionals. Hence, legal professionals, as a class in society, are in a position of conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system.

Very few people outside of the legal profession are aware of these conflicts of interest, aside from the law nerds.

These ethical conflicts of interest have implications for contract law (which affects all nerds that are not self-employed), for copyright and patent law (with obvious implications for nerds), and many other areas of law (some of which will affect us nerds).

Like a cancer that has metastasized, these ethics problems can potentially affect any part of the body of law.

Also, ethics problems within the legal profession can greatly impact the cost and availability of technology.

Further, the ethics problems in the US legal system aren't covered very well in the mainstream press (which is presumably too busy covering sports and scandals), which means these issues can only be addressed in other forums, such as here.

I have no personal knowledge of this case, and thus don't actually know whether or not the case does involve abuse of the tort system or ethics problems, but it is certainly appropriate to be discussing it here.

Re:Ok .. bad work, damage, theft

[Anonymous Coward]

In civil court, your only remedy is to be made whole.
In other words, he'll only get paid for any damage he can prove.

Oblig. xkcd

[Anonymous Coward]

http://xkcd.com/958/

Talk about being an insecure loser...

[Anonymous Coward]

... including lost work opportunities, insult, mental suffering, being placed in fear, anxiety, and harm to their reputations.

Yeah, riiight. I know the effects of actual mental harm. I have been a victim of it all my life. And: This is not one of those cases.
If a simple Internet comment causes that to you, then you already needed a therapy, long before the comment, as you have to seriously rethink your self-confidence issues. (PROTIP: It's all in your head. The comment can't do anything to you, unless you validate it. E.g. with a defensive reaction, showing that it needs to be defended from in the first place. But I think in that case, you just won the world championship. Congratulations.)

Re:Talk about being an insecure loser...

[Anonymous Coward]

PROTIP: That's how all libel lawsuits are worded.

Re:Virgin

[iplayfast]

Who would have thunk it? On US citizen suing another. Oh the shock of it all!

I see the Internet is involved but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

has the world run out of Apple vs Samsung topics or something?

did she file a police report?

[alen]

was the contractor convicted of the crime?
did she win a civil lawsuit for the home damage?

No? then she deserves to be sued. You can't bad mouth people and spread false information about them without being able to prove it

Re:did she file a police report?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is America. You're innocent until proven guilty, or until you run out of cash.

Re:did she file a police report?

[cdrudge]

According to the review on Yelp, she won a summary judgement on a civil lawsuit the contractor filed. She did file a police report, but only after he showed up on her door step to "talk" after she won the judgement. Nothing was mentioned regarding criminal charges.

Reading the review, the only thing that I don't think could be substantiated in the review was that he stole her jewelry. She never comes out and says he did, but implies it by saying the jewelry was missing and he was the only other one with a key.

Re:did she file a police report?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm 90% certain that someone stole from me, I understand that there isn't sufficient evidence to convict them in court - but I'll certainly make other people aware that I consider this person a probable thief. Note that the person in this story was actually quite careful to give a clear impression. Instead of saying "X is a thief!", she said:

I found my jewelry missing and Dietz was the only one with a key.

I.e. she stated the facts she observed, and left readers free to conclude for themselves how likely it is that Dietz is a thief (versus, e.g., the possibility that someone else picked the lock).

Re:did she file a police report?

[BasilBrush]

Of course these things could only be substantiated if they were true.

Seems like it'll be an easy case to judge one way or the other.

Re:did she file a police report?

[Wrath0fb0b]

No? then she deserves to be sued. You can't bad mouth people and spread false information about them without being able to prove it

Actually, in the US you can spread unproven information and the the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the facts in question are false (not merely unsupported) as part of their libel/slander claim:

How to prove libel
There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false.

Re:did she file a police report?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if said person then sues you for defamation as you have been telling other people he is a possible thief the burden of proof of that crime shifts squarely to you, especially if they can show that you telling people that has diminished their business. Great care needs to be taken when making negative statements if you cannot prove them.

Re:did she file a police report?

[ZombieBraintrust]

Accourding to the following http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244344/Yelp-review-lawsuit-Jane-Perez-ordered-change-negative-comments-business.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
She did file a police report but the police could not find evidence that Perez stole the jewelery. The judge had her remove that part of the review. There was a prior civil lawsuit that she won against the contractor. The judge did not have her remove that statement. It was pretty much the only thing the judge had her remove.

Re:did she file a police report?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you totally CAN and SHOULD BE ABLE TO.

The framers of the constitution, in the first amendment, specifically gave all Americans the right to be assholes, and it is in fact our most cherished right; i.e. Slashdot exists.

QED.

Re:did she file a police report?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad cdrudge explained this to you.. can you read? Are you mouthing off without seeing the yelp review she wrote? Looks like you're in the majority I'm sorry to say.

Re:did she file a police report?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if her jewelry is stolen, and she thinks his organization is likely responsible for the theft, and she writes what she thinks based on the available data, and someone else actually stole it, is that libelous? I think not.

Re:did she file a police report?

[Rich0]

Are you suggesting that I can't write a bad review about a product unless I've first taken the manufacturer to court?

You might feel that way, but the laws certainly are not written that way. As long as she reasonably believes her statements to be true she cannot be sued for making them. Well, at least the plaintiff should not be able to win - in the US you can be sued on any whim of fancy if somebody wants to spend the money to do it.

Mystery solved

[ildon]

According to the recent filing, the two were high school classmates.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Mystery solved

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is in a small town or "tight neighborhood" it's nothing unusual to conduct business with someone that you knew in high school. This information is only useful if they had some sort of social history together like romance or a close friendship; aka it's probably just bad reporting trying to insinuate some dirt between them.

Let me do the talking.

[westlake]

The lawsuit follows an earlier case against Perez, which was filed in July 2011 by Dietz for unpaid invoices.

The first thing a lawyer will tell you to do when faced with a lawsuit is to keep your big mouth shut.

Don't feed ammunition to the plaintiff's attorneys.

Don't dig yourself in to a deeper hole.

Re:Let me do the talking.

[phantomfive]

Apparently that lawsuit was dismissed before she wrote the review.

Re:Let me do the talking.

[BasilBrush]

By "apparently" you mean "according to her in the disputed statement on Yelp."

Re:Let me do the talking.

[phantomfive]

Yes. If she's utterly lying, then there is no hope for her. Or rather, maybe this case will be the only hope for her: maybe she'll learn there are consequences of lying.

Re:Let me do the talking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe she is a compulsive liar and unable to control her outbursts. Is that too far fetched? Surely all the spectrum disorder types here can understand that?!?!

Bunch of fucking hypocrites....

Re:Let me do the talking.

[DMiax]

Unless you have already won that lawsuit in a summary judgement, which is what she claims (and it would be easy to disprove, so it is very unlikely that she is lying on that one)

SLAPP

[pwizard2]

This sounds like a S.L.A.P.P. suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Basically, if someone fucks you over and you speak out about it, they sometimes retaliate by suing you. The plaintiff gambles on the likelihood that the victim will just slink away rather than go through an emotionally-damaging (and expensive) legal battle and the bad guy basically wins. These lawsuits are weapons... it's not about justice.

Re:SLAPP

[Frosty Piss]

Re: SLAPP...

First of all, IANAL.

But on-line or not, are you allowed to libel someone without consequences?

From the oracle Wikipedia:

libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)â"is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image.

Did she file a Police Report? Is this theft story simply bullshit because she had some "issue" with the contractor?

You know, it's hard to tell, but it will all come out in court.

But if it's all bullshit and the lady is full of it, than she did indeed damage the company and she is guilty of libel, and she needs to understand that this is not how you handle things in a civilized society.

Perhaps if she had some "issue" that was "legitimate", she should have hired a lawyer?

I call bullshit.

Re:SLAPP

[pwizard2]

IANAL either, but it is my understanding that libel must be proven. Something is not libel or slander if it's true.

Re:SLAPP

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing: maybe in decades past filing a police report actually meant something, but if the property involved isn't going to be covered by insurance, would a reasonable person bother to file such a report? Unless you're in the top 2% economically, the police aren't going to go help you get your stuff back unless they were present while it got stolen and saw the theft, assuming these days that it wasn't the police committing the theft but that's another issue...

Insurance has deductables. Insurance has penalties for filing legitimate claims. If I have a $500 deductable and lose $700 worth of stuff to theft, unfortunately I have to think hard before I file a claim. It should not be that way, but that's just another way the game is rigged against regular people.

(Before some apologist for the insurance industry opens his or her mouth: if statistics say that 5% of group X is going to have a claim of approximately $Y during a given year, and in fact 5% of that group does experience such losses within the given parameters, it is WRONG to try to change their rates or risk class because they were already paying what your pricing model said they should be. Most people don't get statistics of course, and Americans have some kind of cultural acceptance of getting ripped off by large corporations.)

In this instance, one of the quotes above seems to indicate that a police report was filed, but the point remains that I don't believe a reasonable person would conclude that just because a police report wasn't filed that the items in question didn't exist since a police report, absent evidence of a break in or something like that, is essentially worthless. In fact, in some locations/circumstances one might be well advised NOT to file such a thing because it becomes public record, and can then be used by insurance companies to further rip you off even if you never tried to collect a dime from them.

I at least keep all receipts for all very valuable items for as long as I own them--just in case of this kind of thing, or in case of a disaster and an insurance company trying to weasel out of paying a claim.

Re:SLAPP

[Anonymous Coward]

Did she file a Police Report? Is this theft story simply bullshit because she had some "issue" with the contractor?

In her review, she claims to have filed a police report

Perhaps if she had some "issue" that was "legitimate", she should have hired a lawyer?

According to her review, she declined to pay for work that was not performed, was sued by the contractor for payment, and went to court, which found in her favor. Not to pay for work not performed sounds like exactly what you're supposed to do. Responding to claims in court often requires a lawyer.

Either way, the claims made in her review should have court documents associated with them and be easily falsifiable. Why would she make up such specific claims just to bad-mouth a lousy contractor? If they're lies, they're outrageous, and she ought to pay some damages, but I gotta say, it's much easier for me to believe that a guy would make a false claim to be a licensed contractor, throw up some drywall and paint without replacing rotten or termite-eaten studs, and sue for full payment, than it is to believe some housewife would make up an elaborate story of false time spent talking to police and judges. But maybe that's just because the evening news is filled with stories of guys claiming to be contractors and walking away with "deposits" for work to be done.

Re:SLAPP

[Anonymous Coward]

In her review she does state she had to file a police report for the first time ever because of the theft.

Re:SLAPP

[Python]

This lawsuit was about her allegedly making false statements about criminal acts, and Yelp and Angie's list telling the contractor that they would only take action with a court order. Willfully making false statements in a public forum that accuse someone of crminal acts is defamation. Defamation is not protected speech, it's never been protected speech.

The judge agreed with the plaintiff that she did willfully make false statements and alleged criminal acts. You don't have a right to do that. That's illegal, and that kind of speech has never been protected under the first amendment between private parties. This isn't a SLAPP lawsuit, it's a basic defamation lawsuit. There's no Internet privilege to defame someone.

Re:SLAPP

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers are expensive. Yelp reviews are not. It boils down to the same reason retail stores have "complaint forms." Most of those forms don't ever get read. Same with "incident reports." They get filed away and often nothing happens unless the customer does contact a lawyer or threatens to do so. The reason for this is that just venting a bit and feeling like you got to tell your side of the story is enough. Maybe the jewelry wasn't worth enough to pursue in that manner.

You should note that one of her claims is that he is not, or at least was not, licensed in the state of VA to perform work. This isn't the sort of thing you make up and say out loud. This alone could very well invalidate any and all claims the plaintiff has because, if true (and it's a matter of public record and easy to verify; no courts required) then chances are he'll be liable for all of her additional costs as well as eligible for huge fines or even jail time depending on the specific local laws. He may also be barred from ever being licensed in the state. Now, if that particular claim is false then he certainly has grounds for defamation; however, I find it suspicious that she won a summary judgement against him when he tried to sue her previously. Again, that's a matter of public record and, I suspect, that that case will play a big role in this one.

DISCLAIMER: IANAL; however, I have two of them in my immediate family.

Re:SLAPP

[DMiax]

Did she file a Police Report?

FWIW, she claims to have filed in the review.

Perhaps if she had some "issue" that was "legitimate", she should have hired a lawyer?

She did something simpler. She did not pay the contractor, who sued her and lost in a summary judgement. At least according to her review.

She made very specific and falsifiable statements in her review, so a court should have very little trouble verifying them. And thus no one gives or should give a fuck about whether you call bullshit or not.

Re:SLAPP

[ad0gg]

Most states have anti-slapp laws on the books. California one is pretty nice, you can file a motion to dismiss, you don't even have to go through "discovery" and produce documents etc. You can also counter sue for legal fees. Sadly virginia doesn't have this type legislation but I think she can still file a motion to dismiss and hopefully get an understanding a judge.

Awkward

[_UnderTow_]

"two were high school classmates."

That's going to make for an awkward High School reunion.

Re:Push push push

[Opportunist]

There is no such thing.

Now HUSH!

Lemme get this straight

[Opportunist]

He sued her over unpaid invoices. She hired him again. He accepted work from someone who didn't pay bills before.

I really have no idea why they even WANT to do business with each other anymore. Could it possibly be that the whole crap has NOTHING to do with his work, her jewelry or anything but two kids who somehow crossed each other at high school (e.g. one wanted to go out with the other but got rejected) and who didn't grow out of it, and now they're clogging the courts with their childish bickering?

Re:Lemme get this straight

[Obfuscant]

He sued her over unpaid invoices. She hired him again. He accepted work from someone who didn't pay bills before.

How do you know this? We know there was an earlier suit over unpaid bills. We know there was a review claiming damages to the home and lost jewelry. We don't know that she hired him again after the first lawsuit or that he accepted a second job. For all we know the bad review was a poor attempt at getting back at the contractor for the earlier lawsuit.

I really have no idea why they even WANT to do business with each other anymore.

You have no idea that they want to do business with each other anymore, so wondering why they want to is a bit premature.

Re:Lemme get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

It could happen....

1) she refused to pay the first invoices...
2) she tried to hire him again (either to fix the work she thinks he previously screwed up... or to get more free work from him)
3) he accepted it thinking he could steal something to compensate for what she owed him
4) he stole the jewelry

one or both of them have to be liars/thieves though.

Re:Lemme get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Lemme get this straight

Completely wrong. Try again.

Re:Lemme get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazingly, I saw this story today and at first was like no way, I knew a Jane Perez in high school! I wondered if this was the same one! Then I saw the contractors name, and was like "holy crap" I knew a guy in high school with that name too!! Just to give some background, to my knowledge, these two rarely if ever interacted. They were in completely different social groups. I was a small high school however, and as such you knew everyone from 1 or 2 grades above and below you, even if just their names. I highly doubt that there was ever any beef in between them, in fact I surmise that she might have used his company just to give a fellow classmate some business. What's happened since however, is starting to look like some high school drama for sure lol.

Re:Lemme get this straight

[ZosX]

And that's the rub with this whole thing. Unless we were there and witnessed it, we have no idea what went down. For all we know she is a lying deadbeat. I'm not saying that's the case, and to be honest, I'm more inclined to be sympathetic to her, but without any real evidence its hard to say what really happened here. A review and a lawsuit doesn't tell me much.

Re:Lemme get this straight

[ZosX]

I might add that I don't think this contractor is licensed if some other comments are correct. So its very likely a fly by night operation, but then again I could be totally wrong.

That's not a freedom

[Hentes]

You are also free to kill someone you just have to face the consequences afterwards.

Re:That's not a freedom

[Desler]

Yes, it is freedom. "Freedom of speech" meant that you would get no governmental reprisal for saying something. It has never applied to slander and defamation of someone else. This is common law precedent predating the founding of the US.

Re:That's not a freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong. there is an a priori restriction on murder. There are no a priori restrictions on speech.

Re:That's not a freedom

[AK Marc]

Then why is it that every time I announce my intention to commit murder against someone (president, wife, children), I'm arrested before I can complete the act?

Re:That's not a freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Because threatening someone's life is illegal. It's one type of illegal speech. It doesn't even need to be a serious threat.

Re:That's not a freedom

[AK Marc]

So you are free to speak, and free to murder, but not free to speak about murder? How does that work?

Re:That's not a freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you live in a funny place. I announce my intention to murder at least half a dozen people each week. Co-workers, celebrities/sports referees, neighborhood children. Some days, I threaten my own kid's life multiple times. No arrests yet, nor even funny looks from law enforcement.

If you're being arrested regularly for your death threats, they must rise to a pretty high level, and it turns out that "intended murder" and "conspiracy to commit murder" are both crimes. Maybe you're confused about just exactly why the police arrest you so frequently.

Re:That's not a freedom

[tehcyder]

You are also free to kill someone you just have to face the consequences afterwards.

I think a lot of Americans fall down by thinking there is a simple and clear cut distinction between "speech" and "action", so that you can somehow have absolute free speech without this requiring absolute freedom of action. In fact there are grey areas. The standard "shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre" is one example.

Slander/libel is another: your words can self evidently have an actual impact on the life of someone else, or else the concept wouldn't exist.

Ultra-libertarians like to repeat the childhood rhyme of "stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" but that's palpably untrue. If by lying I destroy your business or artistic reputation or marriage, I have caused you actual harm.

I can't wait...

[uslurper]

I can't wait for this to be on JUDGE JUDY.

Careful with contractors in your State

[AlienSexist]

Contractors are people you don't screw around with. Some states, like Texas, allow contractors (even auto repair shops) to put a lien on your property if you do not pay them. The fine print of some Mortgage Loans require that you notify them immediately if any liens are placed on the property. Failure to comply might allow the mortgage lender to force you to buy absurdly priced insurance (like 3x-4x market rate) from their selected insurer. Then you have all the hassle of clearing up the title and being unable to sell the property until things are properly cleaned up.

I've personally had a case where a contractor vanished but all his sub-contractors continued to work and deliver materials. The contractor didn't pay them so we had to. At least the sub-contractors got paid for the work they did do (which was quite excellent). We had to sue the contractor's company and get a judgement. There's nothing to collect, however, and the owner is now in prison. Not because of his dealings with us but because he decided to pretend to be a cop, lure "models" to a hotel, then sexually assault them while threatening arrest. Had to do a double-take on the evening news when his portrait was on the screen along with his full name.

Re:Careful with contractors in your State

[HornWumpus]

Bullshit.

Your mistake was paying the contractor for anything that wasn't done prior to paying.

The only money they get up front is for supplies, which if you are smart you will purchase yourself.

Milestones and material payments all need to be spelled out in detail. Especially penalties for schedule delays.

90% are scumbags, they will balk at these kind of terms. That is because they were planning on ripping you off. Never pay anything up front. If they complain, fuck them. There are millions of contractors out of work right now. Need a plumber/electrician/carpenter? Throw a rock, you'll hit three.

Re:Careful with contractors in your State

[AlienSexist]

Your mistake was paying the contractor for anything that wasn't done prior to paying.

The only money they get up front is for supplies, which if you are smart you will purchase yourself.

That is what we did. We only lost some materials money. Sound advice for anyone reading...

Re:Careful with contractors in your State

[HornWumpus]

Good. Let me add. See paid invoices from the subs and verify before making final payments to the general.

Re:Careful with contractors in your State

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Many people get burned when subcontractors are not paid and put a lien on their property: Subcontractor Liens

My rules of thumb for hiring contractors:

1. Soon as you buy a house start hiring local contractors for small jobs. Doesn't matter if you can do the jobs yourselves, this is to test prospective contractors without losing too much in one go. If they're crap you're out a few bucks, if they're good you know who to call when you have a major job.

2. Estimates are not an exact science, renovations are always full of unforeseeable complications. When the contractor tells you it'll cost $2000, mentally tell yourself "OK so it'll really cost $3000" and budget to pay $3000. So when the job overruns and ends up costing $2400, you're still "under budget" and you can pay the contractor in full without feeling cheated.

Re:Careful with contractors in your State

[AK Marc]

I've personally had a case where a contractor vanished but all his sub-contractors continued to work and deliver materials. The contractor didn't pay them so we had to.

You didn't have to. Your agreement was with the contractor, unless you meant you hired a PM, and the contractors who did the work contracted with you to do it, in which case they are not sub-contractors. And most states, (like TX and AK, the only two I know the law on) allow contractors who improved the property to place a lien. The nice thing is that you don't have to pay the insurance if you bond the entire amount in full. If they lien for $5000, the insurance could cost twice that in a year, but you bond that $5000 in full, and you don't have to pay any insurance.

When I left Alaska to move out of the country (good luck in the impending crash), my mother-in-law placed a lien on my home in Alaska to prevent us from moving. It made the pending sale fall through, causing us actual loss. But suing your mother-in-law is a bad idea, so the house is still there, rented out for now. But we did file in small claims court to get the invalid lien removed. I had to go small claims because no lawyer would help me. "never get involved in family disputes" and "I don't even know how to fight that lien, it's obviously illegal and should just be ignored by the title company (she fabricated a personal debt and placed a lien for $2000 against the house as blackmail for moving away with her grandchildren).

Re:Careful with contractors in your State

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheers Buddy I threw the rock and three bloody plumbers are suing me!!

then shouldnt all slashdotters get sued ?

[detain]

Most people here constantly posts their opinions on people and companies relating to every article that passes through. While alot of us back up our posts with facts (as we know them) and links, but we're all basically doing the exact same thing she is. My opinion is that she falls in the same category as any of us. That being said what she posted I think should be protected by law unless perhaps she knowingly made up some of her claims. As long as she believed her claims to be true (regardless of wether they were or not) I think she should be allowed (by law) to post all she wants.

Re:then shouldnt all slashdotters get sued ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christopher Dietz also murdered those kids that he stalked, lured, groomed, and raped.

Is this real?

[roc97007]

It sounds like the script for a Lifetime movie.

Doesn't the contractor get he just made this worse

[Anonymous Coward]

So tell me - who would engage a contractor who had sued a previous customer because he didn't like their opinion of his work? Essentially, he's reinforced the reason not to do business with him - even if he wins this, he loses. He would have been much smarter to listen to the customer's issues, try to work it out with them in return for an update to their posting (IF he was a good contractor in the first place - who knows).

Not entirely fair to the contractor here

[Todd Knarr]

I'd note that in this case the review went beyond merely "I think they did bad work.". As noted here the contractor's allegations are of false statements of fact, eg. that the review stated that the contractor had invoiced for work not performed. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a statement of fact that's either true or false and if she did falsely claim she was invoiced for work nor performed when either she wasn't invoiced or the work was in fact performed (even if performed badly) it is legitimately actionable. The contractor may or may not be able to prove his case in court, but it's not the usual nebulous "they said bad things about me" lawsuit.

Re:Not entirely fair to the contractor here

[AK Marc]

She one at least one case in court against the contractor based on the previous work (he sued her for pay, she claims the work wasn't done, she won the case). So I think the available facts at this point support her more than him. And her accusations of theft were lists of facts that imply, but do not state, what she thinks happened to the lost items.

Re:Not entirely fair to the contractor here

[DES]

She won at least one case in court against the contractor based on the previous work (he sued her for pay, she claims the work wasn't done, she won the case).

IIUC this is one of the statements which the current lawsuits claims are materially false.

Re:Not entirely fair to the contractor here

[AK Marc]

The "facts" (as best we can tell from reports) is that there was a lawsuit previously that she won. I didn't see in the current suit where he asserts he never sued her (but I haven't read any of the papers directly, just reports about the dispute, which may not be completely accurate.

The original review

[flimflammer]

Overall: F
Price: F
Quality: F
Responsiveness: F
Punctuality: F
Professionalism: F
Description Of Work: Dietz Development was to perform: painting, refinish floors, electrical, plumbing and handyman work. I was instead left with damage to my home and work that had to be reaccomplished for thousands more than originally estimated.
Member comments: My home was damaged' the "work" had to be re-accomplished; and Dietz tried to sue me for "monies due for his "work." I won in summary judgement (meaning that his case had no merit). Despite his claims, Dietz was/is not licensed to perform work in the state of VA. Further, he invoiced me for work not even performed and also sued me for work not even performed. Today (six months later) he just showed up at my door and '"wanted to talk to me." I said that I "didn't want to talk to him," closed the door , and called the police. (The police said his reason was that he had a "lien on my house"; however this "lien" was made null and void the day I won the case according to the court.) This is after filing my first ever police report when I found my jewelry missing and Dietz was the only one with a key. Bottom line do not put yourself through this nightmare of a contractor.

At first I was leaning in favor of the contractor but if what is actually said in this review is accurate (it will be easy to tell in the courts), then this contractor is seriously sleazy. I am curious why she would hire a contractor that isn't even licensed to work in the state though?

Re:The original review

[Cruciform]

People don't necessarily realize the legal protections (or lack thereof) they have when dealing with licensed and unlicensed contractors.
Ontario had a public ad campaign to specifically address that because of the number of people being ripped off by guys who weren't working up to code, and could just shut up shop and open under a new name the next week.

Re:The original review

[amicusNYCL]

I am curious why she would hire a contractor that isn't even licensed to work in the state though?

According to the recent filing, the two were high school classmates.

Re:The original review

[stymy]

Perhaps she only discovered that Dietz wasn't licensed after some/all of the problems she described?

Re:The original review

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worse if you are an honest but unlicensed contractor in California. Business and Professions Code section 7031 voids any attempt of an unlicensed contractor to collect for any sort of payment for any work done. That means you can hire someone that is unlicensed and then stiff them and they have no recourse.

Re:The original review

[AK Marc]

Most people don't check certifications, and they were old high school classmates, so maybe there was some familiarity there as well.

Re:The original review

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they do have a recourse. They could have gotten themselves licensed like they are supposed to.

Re:The original review

[ChrisMaple]

Do you not understand the word recourse ? If the contractor had a license in the first place, it's not recourse. If the contractor gets a license after performing the work, he performed the work unlicensed and has no legal leverage, no recourse.

Re:The original review

[dawich]

She says he lied about the licensing thing - I've had this happen as well - contractor said he was licensed, had a copy of a license, but research with a friend proved that the license was long expired. And licensing, in some states, is just paying a fee.

Never understanding "freedom of speech"

[Cruciform]

Since Slashdot launched there have been hundreds of articles dealing with conflicts over speech.
And each article usually has a couple of dozen people explaining what 'freedom of speech' means in the context of law and government.
And yet the same asinine "But it's freedom of speech!" comments pop up every single time.

Do these people read the summary, post, and then never read a single comment therefore remaining ignorant of what it is they're wrong about?

This isn't about the government restricting freedom of speech. This is an individual making a statement, and being sued by they object of that statement. This is speech with consequences, not censorship. The court will then decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant are in the right.

Re:Never understanding "freedom of speech"

[skyraker]

Yeah, some people seem to think freedom of speech is a very loose thing when it isn't. But it can be a case where the court does end up accidentally restricting free speech. If the decision is worded in such a way that it opens the door for companies to massively sue anyone who has given them a poor review, then people will be afraid to write anything critical on the internet, and that intrudes on free speech. The judge in this case will have that in the back of his head, as judges do in all libel cases.

Home repairs

[volmtech]

No one has mentioned the DIY channel's "Holmes on Homes" show. He's a licensed contractor who repairs the mistakes and shoddy construction done to peoples homes. This show is based in Canada but American contractors do the same things. They never name the original contractor but in one show the wiring job was so bad the licensed electrician brought in to fix it said he was going to government building codes department and get the other guy's license pulled. Makes me glad I'm skilled enough to do my own home repairs.

Nice PR control

[Arno Stark]

Instead of addressing the issue and making sure the work was done and that nobody had stolen the jewelry, he instead sues her and then it makes the front page of Slashdot. So is this the Streisand Effect? If he ignored it, or dealt with it better, it wouldn't have gotten so bad? Didn't the contractor just make this worse for him now? Freedom of speech does not apply, it is only protection from the government. He has to prove her statements are false and she knows they are false and that she meant to defame him. If the statements are true, well sucks to be him.

Re:Nice PR control

[BasilBrush]

He has to prove her statements are false and she knows they are false and that she meant to defame him.

That's not how libel works. The plaintiff only has to show that it was damaging. The person who made the statement has to show that it was true, otherwise she loses.

This is easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you print something and make accusations that are either untrue or not been proven as true then you have damaged the other persons reputation and thus open to a lawsuit. If I get on a forum and say someone stole from me after they had been convicted of theft by stealing from me Im in the clear, if I know someone has stolen from me and I post it online without a actual court conviction then I am open to a lawsuit.

I dont know why this is news worthy, this is common and basic fact, it has been for a long time now. Whats next are they going to post a story about how someone broke into a liquor store, shot the clerk, took the cash register and was "shockingly" arrested for it? Or maybe a story about how a lady got a parking ticket for parking in the fire lane?

Re:Doesn't the contractor get he just made this wo

[mark-t]

I expect that this is the reason for the large amount being sued for, and a way they will likely argue that the review has caused "irreparable harm"

Re:Was this libel? They are morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Contractors are idiots to begin with, very few of them actually do there jobs right, and there is no telling what they did or did not do if you peel off the floor and walls. Wiring, Plumbing, proper installation without taking short cuts.

Contractors have become another pyramid scheme, just because it looks decent after it is done does not mean they did what was demanded of them by the homeowner. For this contractor to be filing a lawsuit, to me, appears they did not do there job or previous jobs the way they should have been done, and other people were also unhappy with there work, but did not bother to go online to file a complaint, or bad review.

This will not go anywhere in front of a sane judge, if I am the judge I would want a inspector to go through not only the women's home but the other projects this company did, but unless the inspector has x-ray eyes there is not telling what they did underneath. Also to review the web sites to see the other reviews or ratings from other homeowners, having a bad review is not libel. The only other thing is, this company doesn't have any viable references from others and is trying to win the jackpot only to then shut down, another scheme they are very good at doing when they have been caught for poor work.

If you are going to hire a contractor, make sure you get blue prints done, (and have copies) by an architect, and make sure the architect can see the house/room after it has been gutted to make sure any layout of plumbing and wiring is followed to a T. Always make sure you or someone qualified sees any work prior to the contractor covering it up. If they start with an attitude over it, then they are morons and bad contractors, they should also be discussing anything they see that may need changed with you or another source you want to use to make sure it is done the way you want it.

Then if they try the lawsuit BS you have witnesses that are qualified and were present through the process. But people usually do not do this because of cost so this is what they get instead, Now by the time she is done with lawyers and everything else she would have been better off going through the above process.

If you hate free speech.

[mosb1000]

This is of course the way it should be

. . . if you hate free speech.

Re:If you hate free speech.

[tehcyder]

This is of course the way it should be

. . . if you hate free speech.

Free speech does not, even in the US, extend to slander and libel. In actual fact, the more libertarian you are, the more important suing for slander and libel become, since you do not want to depend on pre-emptive government interference (aka "laws") stopping you saying anything, and yet there needs to be a way of preventing people getting away with trashing your reputation short of shooting them in the head.

Re:If you hate free speech.

[Dainsanefh]

I would rather have a central certification authority to certify truthfulness of any information to be released. Disinformation is what causing the downfall of democracy.

Re:If you hate free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

you have it wrong preventing people being shot is unwarranted nanny-state communism interference and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. if i value my reputation as worth more than the cost of to hire hit man it makes sense for me to pay him to shoot you in the head. likewise if you do not value you're life enough to hire a bodyguard that is a perfect example of how a FREE market should work.
--
roman_mir

Seems to me all of her ducks are in a row.

[Anonymous Coward]

From her original Yelp review:

Member comments: My home was damaged' the "work" had to be re-accomplished; and Dietz tried to sue me for "monies due for his "work." I won in summary judgement (meaning that his case had no merit). Despite his claims, Dietz was/is not licensed to perform work in the state of VA. Further, he invoiced me for work not even performed and also sued me for work not even performed. Today (six months later) he just showed up at my door and '"wanted to talk to me." I said that I "didn't want to talk to him," closed the door , and called the police. (The police said his reason was that he had a "lien on my house"; however this "lien" was made null and void the day I won the case according to the court.) This is after filing my first ever police report when I found my jewelry missing and Dietz was the only one with a key. Bottom line do not put yourself through this nightmare of a contractor.

Seems she's got plenty of evidence.

I guess that proves.

[Anonymous Coward]

He is pretty much a douche bag 750,000.

Freedom Of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought american citizens had freedom of speech?

Re:Virgin

[flyneye]

Not sure what this has to do with nerd news, but I'm pretty sure the solution to all this is to arm the two parties and face them off at 10 feet rather than utilize my taxes and plug up my courtrooms that have more important issues to deal with than controlling the financial activities of two random submorons.

Re:Virgin

[flyneye]

Bad grammar!
Who would think it?
To ask who would have thunk it, is to inquire about the identity of the party responsible for testing ripeness of watermelon.
Just sayin...

Should Libel even be a crime?

[trout007]

Libel starts with the assumption you own "your" reputation. But what is your reputation really? It's what other people think about you. You do not own what other people think about you. If someone writes a bad or even false review of someone you shouldn't be able to sue them. No real damage is done. You have just attempted to change peoples opinions of you or your work. Heck movie reviewers do it all the time. You don't think a bad movie review hurts box office?

The solution to libel is more speech. The contractor gets to tell his side of the story and try to win back his reputation. I see this often on Angie's List. A contractor has overall positive reviews and then there are one or two F's. The contractor follows up with their opinion on what happened and it's up to you to figure out who you believe.

Hasn't this come up before?

[skyraker]

I'm certain we've had internet defamation suits in court before. But if not, the judge would really need to be careful how to handle this. On one hand, the internet does not give anyone the right libel another person or company. But a poor review shouldn't always be taken as libel either, or else you pretty much tell people they can't complain when services rendered were poor. You do that and thousands of lawsuits from companies will come up. As for whether the defendant has the burden of proof or not, they don't in this case. As the case is simply about the review and its affect, the plaintiff has to show that not only was it not true, but that the review itself led to a damaging loss of business. That second part is harder to prove, as he will literally have to find people that will admit in court that they were going to use him but changed their minds directly as a result of that one review alone. And unless every single one of his reviews was stellar, it becomes easy to argue that that one article may not have been the only reason a customer turned away.

This is DC. Expect this shit.

[Entropius]

So, if you read the WaPo story, it mentions that the defendant is from Fairfax and the contractor/plaintiff is from DC itself. Fairfax, for those who don't know, is in the Northern Virginia area agglomeration of "cities" along I-66 where people who work in the District and don't want to deal with the clusterfuck that is DC live. (Then they only have to deal with the clusterfuck that is commuting to DC, but they can at least live in jurisdictions with saner laws and have decent schools to send their kids to.)

I have lived in DC for a year, and a relative has lived here for many years. She recently wanted to have some work done on her house, and caught the contractor shooting speedballs (heroin/cocaine) in her bathroom, then running up and down the stairs and onto the roof while under the effects. This didn't surprise me, really, at all; given how much of *that* goes on, I don't doubt the allegations are true.

This town is a shithole, and it's a shithole full of people who will sue anyone at the drop of a hat for anything, or really take any opportunity to get ahead at someone else's expense, fair or not. "Slit Grandma's throat for a nickel" isn't just an exaggeration around here. The phone books have a "You could sue a doctor and make a pile of money! Call us!" ads on the spine; there are ambulance-chaser billboards all over; etc.

What is the point of this comment?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the recent filing, the two were high school classmates.

Seriously, what is the point of this comment? Two people meet *somewhere*, no? What's it matter that these two were former classmates with each other?

Now, saying something like, "According to the recent filing, the two have a long-standing history with each other dating back to high school."

Even better would be, " "According to the recent filing, the two have a long-standing history with each other dating back %N% years."

Re:bad job in construction

[TaoPhoenix]

Unlike writing a review saying a game is "bad", it's often far easier to define "bad work" in construction in any of several categories. In a sense construction is one of the more notorious fields that shysters can lurk in, and this has resulted in some basic protections for both sides. So let's say she wanted a room painted, if anything the construction company did wasn't up to code, BOOM, it's "bad work". Or, presuming they did their contracting process right, it may be valid work, but if they didn't actually use the right grades of materials and tried to save a buck, it's breach of contract.

there's no prior restriction on speech either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to China.

Say that the government is corrupt.

You will be able to.

You have freely spoken your mind.

Go to NYC.

Shoot someone dead.

You have freely killed someone.

Foolish to sue

[Anonymous Coward]

Alot of people/businesses don't understand that ONE bad review is not the end of the world. I would argue it may even help the business by validating that the reviews are real. The construction company owner should have responded to the review via the mechanism in the Yelp provides. By suing he has upped the ante and will lose even if he wins. Would you hire a construction firm which sues customers that aren't happy with their work? I wouldn't.

When I see businesses with 5 stars I"m suspicious of the reviews and business. This doesn't imply that some of the businesses are good enough to garner such a high rating.

Credit Angencies

[sycodon]

Actually, this is the flip side of something we all currently live with today, your Credit Rating.

Three different businesses act as an Angie's List for businesses. While the data they collect is much more limited, it can have they same devastating affect on an individual as this (Dietz) has experienced.

Also, businesses frequently make mistakes that take a substantial effort to correct and some have deliberately placed false information in a person's file.

Lastly, even if information in the file is correct, it can often mis-characterize your ability to pay your debts, which is the purpose of the credit file in the first place. Suppose you have an unexpected medical expense and you have to pay $1000 for a procedure to avoid seriously medical consequences...like dying. So you make the payment and also skip making your credit card payment or mortgage payment.

Now, it's next month, you can catch up on both, but what's in your file now? A missed payment, which can reduce your score by 50 points and make you ineligible for many things.

  Dietz wouldn't hesitate for a second to ding the credit of someone that stiffed him for a payment. So the bottom line for him and any business that believe they are injured by Yelp or Angie's list reviews...Suck it!

Legal threat to me Re:Ok .. bad work...

[Anonymous Coward]

I received a nasty email from someone I posted true but negative comments about many months before, after the business refused to offer a refund after saying (in writing) that it would.

The jerk made it a point to mention that I had been traced through my IP address, although I used a pseudonym from an email account that has never had my real name associated with it, and I used a computer that was not associated with me. As someone who lacks the networking know-how of the slashdotters, I find it troubling that someone who is not law enforcement can just ask Yelp to give up their server logs apparently, and look at every other provider's logs along the way as well. Think twice before you put anything on Yelp.

Burden of proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, but I don't think they will have any trouble proving their claim. It will then fall on her to back up her statements with evidence. I hope she has it, otherwise she will end up paying a lot of money.

Thought this was about my work for a moment...

[Anonymous Coward]

This surprised me greatly to see, as I'm working for a company who is currently trying to sue someone on yelp that also gave us a bad review (Although it turns out the person had a personal grudge and never paid for any services we offer).

As absurd as this sounds, I'm starting to think our company might have a chance of winning after reading this. Even though we'd all (apparently) get bonuses or vacation time or something, I'm still completely against it. Freedom > Quick money.

Hell hath no fury!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell hath no fury, and so it will take a $750,000.- lawsuit, most of which the lawyers will get, to settle all of this. "Ask Janie Smith to the prom instead of me you rat bastard! You said I was the only one you two timing looser! I'll fix you and that former-best-friend Janie Dietz! Yelp, Facebook, here we come!" And so it goes....

Re:Virgin

[iplayfast]

If I had mod points I would moderate you at +1 missed the obvious.