Where's that eye rolling emoji support on Slashdot when you need it most?
Then I would use it on your post. Thanks I'll be here all week. Try the fish and tip your waitstaff.
But seriously having rules to keep ISPs from preventing a free and open internet is exactly what's needed considering how they have tried to mess with it before. It's like those ridiculous warning sign label you've seen: "Do not lift lawn mower when it is running." It's ridiculous but you have to think there's a reason they are there. Some idiot cut his fingers and sued because there wasn't a label.
Given that net neutrality regulations haven't taken effect yet, there's nothing to dismantle.
Are you aware of the history of Net Neutrality battles? Because this statement seems to underscore either a complete lack of knowledge or inherent dishonesty. The FCC Open Internet Order went into effect June 2015. So your statement is factually incorrect or a lie.
So the Obama administration SAID they'd implement net neutrality.
And the FCC issued an order which went effect in 2015. Your point?
Does that bind the Trump administration?
As much as any new administration having to follow what a previous administration did. There are rules and procedures in place.
If so, it's going to be interesting to see what your response is when that logic is used to force President Bernie Sanders to build a wall on the US-Mexico border...
What the fuck does that have to with this action? Bringing up unrelated hyperbole about things that may not happen isn't remotely relevant to my point: Undoing something isn't always easy.
Net neutrality is being revoked in the same manner it was implemented: by regulatory fiat. If the revocation is improper, it's very existence was improper in the first place.
That's false logic. It assumes that reversal of something is equally as easy as implementation. That's not remotely true in the real world. Putting in a road can take a few years. Removing a road and restoring the area to what it was before the road might take a decade.
What is "anathema to America's founding spirit" is giving a federal agency control over what private publishers can and cannot say. That is what FCC net neutrality regulations do.
You must follow the same black == white logic that Pai espouses. First of all ISPS like Comcast is not a private publisher. They are middleman. It has been clear in the last decade that they've imposed changes to their own benefit and against their customers. The FCC had to step in multiple times to stop that. Second what you'res saying isn't remotely true and nonsensical. What you're saying is as idiotic as saying: The law gives law enforcement too much power over my driving when they say I can't drive on the sidewalk and run over pedestrians..
Comcast charging more for Netflix, on the other hand, isn't "censorship". It is "anathema to America's founding spirit" for the federal government to force printers to print content that they don't want to print.
What kind of idiocy is this? Of course Comcast doesn't want competition but it's not up to Comcast to dictate what their customers want. Their customers wanted Netflix; Comcast wants more control and money. It's that simple.
Wu got it backwards: the legal case for net neutrality regulation is exceptionally weak, as is the evidence that it is needed in the first place; and the whole thing was regulatory overreach.
Again, idiocy. No one wants regulations. Regulations exist because of jerks and assholes who don't play nice. Take for example, noise ordinances. Nobody really wants them UNTIL you get that asshole neighbor that likes playing music at all hours. The police can't do anything because there's no ordinance. The whole situation is parallel to your neighbor causing a nuisance. So you get noise ordinances passed but then the asshole neighbor does a lot of business with the city council members and suddenly they're removing the noise ordinance because it's "overreach".
This challenges to the reversal will go down in flames in court, unless they find some progressive activist judge.
You do realize that nothing in the FCC mandate or function existed at the time of the Constitution because nobody knew what EM was? So what would it be like without regulation? How about every single one of your devices interfering with every other device. FM band? Pschaw. One state decides that's their police frequencies. ..
We are still rewarding CEOs when they get caught doing unethical shit.
Only when the unethical shit doesn't hurt the stock holders and investors. If it screws over customers, employees, and partners, then it's fine for CEOs. For example, Martin Shkreli never suffered any kind of real punishment for raising the price of Daraprim to extravagant amounts while CEO at Turing Pharmaceuticals. No, he was convicted of securities fraud for lying to investors while at MSMB Capital Management and Retrophin. You never screw over the investors as they are mostly wealthy and can bring real harm to you.
Oh here we go again. The simple fact is that Snyder is not a good director. If you can't tell a story in 2 hours, you're not a good story teller. Stop trying to cram 4 movies into a single one
At this point it should be no secret what kind of movie Snyder will make. However I have to also blame the studio for their interference. It seems to me DC wanted to cram in multiple movie story lines so that they can catch up to Marvel. And Snyder didn't say no.
But also I have to give credit to Marvel for the choice of directors as they have been willing to take chances on lesser known directors like James Gunn, the Russo brothers, and Taika Waititi who focused more on story telling.
Critics want edgy, ground breaking artistic media because for the most part they watch way too many movies and are burnt out and cynical.
Some critics want edgy. Some of them just want movies to be good.
The rest of us who watch maybe 25 movies a year are for the most part just looking for a good time.
25 movies a year? What kind of time do you have? I see maybe 5 movies a year. So I have to be selective what I watch. And people with children have to watch the movies that their children can/want to watch. If a movie gets terrible reviews, I'm not wasting my time on it but I pay attention to the substance of the criticism. That means I've watched some independent movies are Sundance winners. It also means I've seen both John Wick movies because they were exactly what the critics say they were: all high-paced action, little plot which is what I wanted to see.
Universities... supposedly places where differing thoughts and opinions can swirl around, have become bastions of intolerance for any differing opinion or belief.
Yes because before universities existed, intolerance never existed. I mean visiting the south a hundred years ago you'd find that they were very welcoming of all minorities. Universities and college are a place where differing opinions can come together; however, that does not mean everyone who goes there espouses an opinion you would like.
The issue is at the "elite" level. Since left handers are rare in society in general, the chance of facing one at lower levels of competition is also rare. As such, lefties will get more playing time, more coaching, etc as they go up the ranks as being a leftie gives them a slight advantage. By the time they get to elite levels, the lefties make up more than a good percentage. But those who make it to the elite levels still have to be good athletes and skilled.
It's a false dichotomy argument: "net neutrality gives too much power to corporations" ignores the logic that being against net neutrality also gives too power to corporations, they are just different corporations. In the case for net neutrality it's giving power to content providers, hardware/software vendors, and the consumers. Being against net neutrality is really only giving power to ISPs.
Talk about an apples to oranges comparison. What the OP is saying is if you have Comcast, most likely you can't get another suitable ISP this no competition. Mobile isn't a viable substitute. Satellite isn't a viable substitute. For many consumers, there isn't another cable company they could use and fiber isn't everywhere.
Hi, this is Bernie Bernstein, I’m a reporter for the Washington Post calling to find out if anyone at this address is a female between the ages of 54 to 57 years old willing to make damaging remarks about candidate Roy Moore for a reward of between $5000 and $7000 dollars. We will not be fully investigating these claims however we will make a written report. I can be reached by email at albernstein@washingtonpost.com, thank you
Bernie Bernstein? To me that sounds like a fake name like "McLovin". Also no newspaper offers "a reward" like that.
The caller might have well offered a million dollars of his Nigerian inheritance if the recipient would divulge his bank account information.
It really is part of the culture. People rely on things to be on time. Now different parts of Europe have different standards. In Switzerland and Germany, if the train schedule says 15:13 departure, it leaves at 15:13 not 15:12 or 15:15. So you have to be on time to catch the train. In Italy, the trains are on time most of the time. That 15:13 train might be 15:14 or so.
I'm entirely speculating on what happened but in the many cases of these disputes like this I've seen: Client and professional agree on a quote for work. Client makes requests that increase the amount of work and is surprised the bill is higher in the end. Client and professional have a dispute about the bill which gets heated and the professional threatens legal action to get paid. Client pays the bill. The now unhappy client (under the assumed guise of anonymity) posts an negative review but changes key facts to make the professional look bad.
While not a mirror of this situation, this happens all the time in reviews. This story from an Irish hotel Doolin is one example. The review says that "the hotel staff and hotel is Deceitful" and that "Emma at the desk lied to me" among the other complaints about the price. The hotel's response was to point out that they believe their employee Emma made a mistake in billing which was corrected the next morning and the reviewer was never charged the amount they claim. They also take issue with the reviewer trying to publicly shame their employee.
And I've said facts can be the downfall of defendant. From a distance this case mirrors many that I've seen. Now I'm speculating to what I think happened based on what I've seen: Client and professional agree for work to be done. There might have been a misunderstanding about what the original quote included or did not include. Most of the time the client asks the professional to do more work than the original quote and is surprised when the bill is higher because of the request(s). The client and professional have a dispute about the bill. The professional has to repeatedly ask for the bill to be paid and threatens legal action. Client pays the bill but then posts a negative review of the professional. In some cases (especially under the guise of anonymity) the client lies about the circumstances to make the professional look bad.
You might want to review the laws governing defamation in the USA. Intent, insomuch as it can be inferred based on real-world evidence, such as what was said, how it was said, etc, very much pays a role.
Please present case law where motives and intent being a part of an ordinary defamation suit. Again, actual malice is only required for public officials not for ordinary people. Intent does not have a role
if you want to say they are dishonest, for example, you describe what they did, exactly, to create that impression, and leave all expression of your on sentiment out of it, to avoid any outward appearance of malice, which is what will get you into trouble even if your accounting of facts is entirely truthful. If you think they were rude, you recount what exchange occurred to create that impression. Without any outward negative terms used to describe them, directly, they have no basis for a malicious motive, and cannot possibly show how a truthful account was not at least accurate from what you knew at the time that you said those things.
This again relies on your false presumption that malice is a legal standard to be met in defamation. As I've stated before, it is not. This law firm explains the role of actual malice in defamation. They make the clear distinction if the plaintiff is a public official or not and how the malice standard hinges on it..
All of this does presume,however, that you are actually telling an unbiased account (albeit still one limited to whatever you had experienced) of what happened, which should be quite simple to do if you are willing to adhere simply to the unemotional telling of the actual real wold events,as they actually occurred or a you actually experienced them personally
And the same applies to you. You don't know any more of the case than I do; however, I think I've presented more actual case law to support my line of reasoning than you.
Oh.... and if you have a record of both financial transactions, you can also say "he double charged me" without any worries either.
Er what? In this case the claim is that the accountant's final bill was for double what the original estimate was. The claim is not that accountant erroneously charged the client twice for the same bill.
According to some sites this is the review in question:
Too bad there is no zero star option! I made the mistake of using them and had an absolute nightmare. Bill was way more than their quote; return was so sloppy I had another firm redo it and my return more than doubled. If you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action. I chalked it up as a very expensive lesson, hope this spares someone else the same.
Reading this story, it appears this is a common thing that happens with quotes and estimates. The tax accountant gave an estimate of $200 based on the understanding that the tax preparation was a simple return. The actual return out more complicated so the bill went up to $400 and thus began the dispute. Whenever I used a tax accountant, it was understood that the more complicated my tax situation was, the more complicated return and thus the higher the bill. Bear in mind, I used a tax accountant when I knew that the tax would be complicated that year (bought/sold a house, moved cities and jobs, went from salary work to contract work, etc).
According to the reviewer, not only was there the bill dispute (which appears was paid), the work was "sloppy" and another firm was used to double the amount of his/her tax refund. The reviewer thus implies the accountant was also incompetent. The reviewer also implies that the accountant was unprofessional and screamed/harassed the client.
Of course if you say something like "I wasn't happy", you're fine... that's clearly an expression of your own personal feelings, which are entirely protected... not because it is simply your own opinion, but because it is true (or presumed to be true, as you are the most knowledgeable person about your own feelings).
And that is not what happened in this case. The reviewer stated facts that could be challenged.
lIn fact, the only way that opinions are actually protected in any way from being defamatory is under the category of being a "fair comment", which itself may be an opinion, but one which is itself formed entirely based on accurate facts, and do not allege dishonorable motives or intentions against the person about whom the statements were made. If the outward appearance exists that the comment was made out of malice (in particular to the judge), regardless of how much you might try and disguise it as just your own opinion, then trying to use that defence will not pass, unless the other party has a real shitty lawyer.
A) You have already presumed that the facts were indeed accurate. The accountant gets to challenge such facts. B) Motives and intentions are not an element in determining the truthfulness of facts or defamation (which the lawsuit is about). Motives and intentions are separate and not necessary to this defamation lawsuit. The accountant has to show 5 elements to win:
Someone made a statement
that statement was published
the statement caused you injury
the statement was false
the statement did not fall into a privileged category
Nowhere does intent or motive a factor for defamation of ordinary people. For public officials and figures, there is the actual malice standard set by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. However this accountant is not a public figure so does not apply here.
I may not give it much weight if there were a lot of positive reviews.
But the question is not whether someone merely got a bad review; the problem is whether the review was defamatory; whether or not the review as true. For example this story of a bad hotel review. The reviewer claims that the basic gist of their complaint was that "Emma lied" to them by billing them at a rate they should not have paid. The hotel responded to the reviewer's claim by pointing out that the hotel realized by the next morning the price was wrong and changed their bill before they checked out so they were never actually charged the price they claim. The hotel feels that their employee Emma merely made a simple mistake in applying rates but that publicly shaming her and calling her a liar was uncivilized.
If what you do is simply state a factual accounting of a negative experience that you had, it is impossible to disprove the accounting because by definition, the account is factual.
That is bullshit and you know it. The reviewer made a claim; the bill was double the original estimate. You can't say a "negative experience" somehow negates factually what the bill was. A court does not deal with feelings when it comes to facts.
f I truthfully say that such-and-such a company refused to offer any sort of refund on an appliance that was well within its warranty period, but did not actually work as it should have*, for example, I can do that without worrying in the slightest about any possible negative repercussions on account of so-called defamatory remarks because the only way that they can allege that the statements were false is to either assert that never offered any customer satisfaction warranty in the first place (which is easy to show), or that they actually *did* offer a refund when asked about it (which is also easy to prove because there would be a financial record of the transaction).
All of that is irrelevant to the discussion and case at hand and again, just bullshit.
*This happened to me, actually. My wife and I bought a convection oven a few years ago...
Again, irrelevant to the case at hand. A reviewer made statements which the accountant claims is defamatory: that is the crux of the suit. The statements contain a number of facts which can be proven or dis-proven. Nowhere in case law can I find one example of where dissatisfaction with a product allows a person to make defamatory or untrue claims about the provider of the product or service. There's a difference between: "I wasn't happy" and "He double charged me".
Slashdot Mirror
Where's that eye rolling emoji support on Slashdot when you need it most?
Then I would use it on your post. Thanks I'll be here all week. Try the fish and tip your waitstaff.
But seriously having rules to keep ISPs from preventing a free and open internet is exactly what's needed considering how they have tried to mess with it before. It's like those ridiculous warning sign label you've seen: "Do not lift lawn mower when it is running." It's ridiculous but you have to think there's a reason they are there. Some idiot cut his fingers and sued because there wasn't a label.
Given that net neutrality regulations haven't taken effect yet, there's nothing to dismantle.
Are you aware of the history of Net Neutrality battles? Because this statement seems to underscore either a complete lack of knowledge or inherent dishonesty. The FCC Open Internet Order went into effect June 2015. So your statement is factually incorrect or a lie.
So the Obama administration SAID they'd implement net neutrality.
And the FCC issued an order which went effect in 2015. Your point?
Does that bind the Trump administration?
As much as any new administration having to follow what a previous administration did. There are rules and procedures in place.
If so, it's going to be interesting to see what your response is when that logic is used to force President Bernie Sanders to build a wall on the US-Mexico border...
What the fuck does that have to with this action? Bringing up unrelated hyperbole about things that may not happen isn't remotely relevant to my point: Undoing something isn't always easy.
How much money does the ISPs give you to post lies?
Net neutrality is being revoked in the same manner it was implemented: by regulatory fiat. If the revocation is improper, it's very existence was improper in the first place.
That's false logic. It assumes that reversal of something is equally as easy as implementation. That's not remotely true in the real world. Putting in a road can take a few years. Removing a road and restoring the area to what it was before the road might take a decade.
What is "anathema to America's founding spirit" is giving a federal agency control over what private publishers can and cannot say. That is what FCC net neutrality regulations do.
You must follow the same black == white logic that Pai espouses. First of all ISPS like Comcast is not a private publisher. They are middleman. It has been clear in the last decade that they've imposed changes to their own benefit and against their customers. The FCC had to step in multiple times to stop that. Second what you'res saying isn't remotely true and nonsensical. What you're saying is as idiotic as saying: The law gives law enforcement too much power over my driving when they say I can't drive on the sidewalk and run over pedestrians..
Comcast charging more for Netflix, on the other hand, isn't "censorship". It is "anathema to America's founding spirit" for the federal government to force printers to print content that they don't want to print.
What kind of idiocy is this? Of course Comcast doesn't want competition but it's not up to Comcast to dictate what their customers want. Their customers wanted Netflix; Comcast wants more control and money. It's that simple.
Wu got it backwards: the legal case for net neutrality regulation is exceptionally weak, as is the evidence that it is needed in the first place; and the whole thing was regulatory overreach.
Again, idiocy. No one wants regulations. Regulations exist because of jerks and assholes who don't play nice. Take for example, noise ordinances. Nobody really wants them UNTIL you get that asshole neighbor that likes playing music at all hours. The police can't do anything because there's no ordinance. The whole situation is parallel to your neighbor causing a nuisance. So you get noise ordinances passed but then the asshole neighbor does a lot of business with the city council members and suddenly they're removing the noise ordinance because it's "overreach".
This challenges to the reversal will go down in flames in court, unless they find some progressive activist judge.
You do realize that nothing in the FCC mandate or function existed at the time of the Constitution because nobody knew what EM was? So what would it be like without regulation? How about every single one of your devices interfering with every other device. FM band? Pschaw. One state decides that's their police frequencies. . .
We are still rewarding CEOs when they get caught doing unethical shit.
Only when the unethical shit doesn't hurt the stock holders and investors. If it screws over customers, employees, and partners, then it's fine for CEOs. For example, Martin Shkreli never suffered any kind of real punishment for raising the price of Daraprim to extravagant amounts while CEO at Turing Pharmaceuticals. No, he was convicted of securities fraud for lying to investors while at MSMB Capital Management and Retrophin. You never screw over the investors as they are mostly wealthy and can bring real harm to you.
Oh here we go again. The simple fact is that Snyder is not a good director. If you can't tell a story in 2 hours, you're not a good story teller. Stop trying to cram 4 movies into a single one
At this point it should be no secret what kind of movie Snyder will make. However I have to also blame the studio for their interference. It seems to me DC wanted to cram in multiple movie story lines so that they can catch up to Marvel. And Snyder didn't say no.
But also I have to give credit to Marvel for the choice of directors as they have been willing to take chances on lesser known directors like James Gunn, the Russo brothers, and Taika Waititi who focused more on story telling.
Critics want edgy, ground breaking artistic media because for the most part they watch way too many movies and are burnt out and cynical.
Some critics want edgy. Some of them just want movies to be good.
The rest of us who watch maybe 25 movies a year are for the most part just looking for a good time.
25 movies a year? What kind of time do you have? I see maybe 5 movies a year. So I have to be selective what I watch. And people with children have to watch the movies that their children can/want to watch. If a movie gets terrible reviews, I'm not wasting my time on it but I pay attention to the substance of the criticism. That means I've watched some independent movies are Sundance winners. It also means I've seen both John Wick movies because they were exactly what the critics say they were: all high-paced action, little plot which is what I wanted to see.
Universities... supposedly places where differing thoughts and opinions can swirl around, have become bastions of intolerance for any differing opinion or belief.
Yes because before universities existed, intolerance never existed. I mean visiting the south a hundred years ago you'd find that they were very welcoming of all minorities. Universities and college are a place where differing opinions can come together; however, that does not mean everyone who goes there espouses an opinion you would like.
The issue is at the "elite" level. Since left handers are rare in society in general, the chance of facing one at lower levels of competition is also rare. As such, lefties will get more playing time, more coaching, etc as they go up the ranks as being a leftie gives them a slight advantage. By the time they get to elite levels, the lefties make up more than a good percentage. But those who make it to the elite levels still have to be good athletes and skilled.
It's a false dichotomy argument: "net neutrality gives too much power to corporations" ignores the logic that being against net neutrality also gives too power to corporations, they are just different corporations. In the case for net neutrality it's giving power to content providers, hardware/software vendors, and the consumers. Being against net neutrality is really only giving power to ISPs.
Talk about an apples to oranges comparison. What the OP is saying is if you have Comcast, most likely you can't get another suitable ISP this no competition. Mobile isn't a viable substitute. Satellite isn't a viable substitute. For many consumers, there isn't another cable company they could use and fiber isn't everywhere.
Which seems more like a design flaw than a manufacturing defect: "MS didn't design their device to charge while under a full work load."
From what I understand, there is a drawback when trying to use the smallest lithography and 3D in that 3D transistors like FinFET have been necessary for a while to combat leakage.
In the San Bernandino case, the iPhone was a 5C which didn't have a fingerprint scanner.
Not so much "faith" but it's one of those things that can't be controlled. You have to roll with the punches when it comes to that stuff in Italy.
Hi, this is Bernie Bernstein, I’m a reporter for the Washington Post calling to find out if anyone at this address is a female between the ages of 54 to 57 years old willing to make damaging remarks about candidate Roy Moore for a reward of between $5000 and $7000 dollars. We will not be fully investigating these claims however we will make a written report. I can be reached by email at albernstein@washingtonpost.com, thank you
Bernie Bernstein? To me that sounds like a fake name like "McLovin". Also no newspaper offers "a reward" like that.
The caller might have well offered a million dollars of his Nigerian inheritance if the recipient would divulge his bank account information.
It really is part of the culture. People rely on things to be on time. Now different parts of Europe have different standards. In Switzerland and Germany, if the train schedule says 15:13 departure, it leaves at 15:13 not 15:12 or 15:15. So you have to be on time to catch the train. In Italy, the trains are on time most of the time. That 15:13 train might be 15:14 or so.
I'm entirely speculating on what happened but in the many cases of these disputes like this I've seen: Client and professional agree on a quote for work. Client makes requests that increase the amount of work and is surprised the bill is higher in the end. Client and professional have a dispute about the bill which gets heated and the professional threatens legal action to get paid. Client pays the bill. The now unhappy client (under the assumed guise of anonymity) posts an negative review but changes key facts to make the professional look bad.
While not a mirror of this situation, this happens all the time in reviews. This story from an Irish hotel Doolin is one example. The review says that "the hotel staff and hotel is Deceitful" and that "Emma at the desk lied to me" among the other complaints about the price. The hotel's response was to point out that they believe their employee Emma made a mistake in billing which was corrected the next morning and the reviewer was never charged the amount they claim. They also take issue with the reviewer trying to publicly shame their employee.
And I've said facts can be the downfall of defendant. From a distance this case mirrors many that I've seen. Now I'm speculating to what I think happened based on what I've seen: Client and professional agree for work to be done. There might have been a misunderstanding about what the original quote included or did not include. Most of the time the client asks the professional to do more work than the original quote and is surprised when the bill is higher because of the request(s). The client and professional have a dispute about the bill. The professional has to repeatedly ask for the bill to be paid and threatens legal action. Client pays the bill but then posts a negative review of the professional. In some cases (especially under the guise of anonymity) the client lies about the circumstances to make the professional look bad.
You might want to review the laws governing defamation in the USA. Intent, insomuch as it can be inferred based on real-world evidence, such as what was said, how it was said, etc, very much pays a role.
Please present case law where motives and intent being a part of an ordinary defamation suit. Again, actual malice is only required for public officials not for ordinary people. Intent does not have a role
if you want to say they are dishonest, for example, you describe what they did, exactly, to create that impression, and leave all expression of your on sentiment out of it, to avoid any outward appearance of malice, which is what will get you into trouble even if your accounting of facts is entirely truthful. If you think they were rude, you recount what exchange occurred to create that impression. Without any outward negative terms used to describe them, directly, they have no basis for a malicious motive, and cannot possibly show how a truthful account was not at least accurate from what you knew at the time that you said those things.
This again relies on your false presumption that malice is a legal standard to be met in defamation. As I've stated before, it is not. This law firm explains the role of actual malice in defamation. They make the clear distinction if the plaintiff is a public official or not and how the malice standard hinges on it..
All of this does presume ,however, that you are actually telling an unbiased account (albeit still one limited to whatever you had experienced) of what happened, which should be quite simple to do if you are willing to adhere simply to the unemotional telling of the actual real wold events,as they actually occurred or a you actually experienced them personally
And the same applies to you. You don't know any more of the case than I do; however, I think I've presented more actual case law to support my line of reasoning than you.
Oh.... and if you have a record of both financial transactions, you can also say "he double charged me" without any worries either.
Er what? In this case the claim is that the accountant's final bill was for double what the original estimate was. The claim is not that accountant erroneously charged the client twice for the same bill.
According to some sites this is the review in question:
Too bad there is no zero star option! I made the mistake of using them and had an absolute nightmare. Bill was way more than their quote; return was so sloppy I had another firm redo it and my return more than doubled. If you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action. I chalked it up as a very expensive lesson, hope this spares someone else the same.
Reading this story, it appears this is a common thing that happens with quotes and estimates. The tax accountant gave an estimate of $200 based on the understanding that the tax preparation was a simple return. The actual return out more complicated so the bill went up to $400 and thus began the dispute. Whenever I used a tax accountant, it was understood that the more complicated my tax situation was, the more complicated return and thus the higher the bill. Bear in mind, I used a tax accountant when I knew that the tax would be complicated that year (bought/sold a house, moved cities and jobs, went from salary work to contract work, etc).
According to the reviewer, not only was there the bill dispute (which appears was paid), the work was "sloppy" and another firm was used to double the amount of his/her tax refund. The reviewer thus implies the accountant was also incompetent. The reviewer also implies that the accountant was unprofessional and screamed/harassed the client.
Of course if you say something like "I wasn't happy", you're fine... that's clearly an expression of your own personal feelings, which are entirely protected... not because it is simply your own opinion, but because it is true (or presumed to be true, as you are the most knowledgeable person about your own feelings).
And that is not what happened in this case. The reviewer stated facts that could be challenged.
lIn fact, the only way that opinions are actually protected in any way from being defamatory is under the category of being a "fair comment", which itself may be an opinion, but one which is itself formed entirely based on accurate facts, and do not allege dishonorable motives or intentions against the person about whom the statements were made. If the outward appearance exists that the comment was made out of malice (in particular to the judge), regardless of how much you might try and disguise it as just your own opinion, then trying to use that defence will not pass, unless the other party has a real shitty lawyer.
A) You have already presumed that the facts were indeed accurate. The accountant gets to challenge such facts. B) Motives and intentions are not an element in determining the truthfulness of facts or defamation (which the lawsuit is about). Motives and intentions are separate and not necessary to this defamation lawsuit. The accountant has to show 5 elements to win:
Nowhere does intent or motive a factor for defamation of ordinary people. For public officials and figures, there is the actual malice standard set by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. However this accountant is not a public figure so does not apply here.
I may not give it much weight if there were a lot of positive reviews.
But the question is not whether someone merely got a bad review; the problem is whether the review was defamatory; whether or not the review as true. For example this story of a bad hotel review. The reviewer claims that the basic gist of their complaint was that "Emma lied" to them by billing them at a rate they should not have paid. The hotel responded to the reviewer's claim by pointing out that the hotel realized by the next morning the price was wrong and changed their bill before they checked out so they were never actually charged the price they claim. The hotel feels that their employee Emma merely made a simple mistake in applying rates but that publicly shaming her and calling her a liar was uncivilized.
If what you do is simply state a factual accounting of a negative experience that you had, it is impossible to disprove the accounting because by definition, the account is factual.
That is bullshit and you know it. The reviewer made a claim; the bill was double the original estimate. You can't say a "negative experience" somehow negates factually what the bill was. A court does not deal with feelings when it comes to facts.
f I truthfully say that such-and-such a company refused to offer any sort of refund on an appliance that was well within its warranty period, but did not actually work as it should have*, for example, I can do that without worrying in the slightest about any possible negative repercussions on account of so-called defamatory remarks because the only way that they can allege that the statements were false is to either assert that never offered any customer satisfaction warranty in the first place (which is easy to show), or that they actually *did* offer a refund when asked about it (which is also easy to prove because there would be a financial record of the transaction).
All of that is irrelevant to the discussion and case at hand and again, just bullshit.
*This happened to me, actually. My wife and I bought a convection oven a few years ago...
Again, irrelevant to the case at hand. A reviewer made statements which the accountant claims is defamatory: that is the crux of the suit. The statements contain a number of facts which can be proven or dis-proven. Nowhere in case law can I find one example of where dissatisfaction with a product allows a person to make defamatory or untrue claims about the provider of the product or service. There's a difference between: "I wasn't happy" and "He double charged me".