Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the sticks-and-stones dept.

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.'"

2 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. Who are they? by gelfling · · Score: 0, Troll

    Apple?

  2. Re:Shrug by Holladon · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.