Bashers beware

[Verrry Eeeenteresting]

Online Company-Flamers: Beware
By Jeffrey Benner

2:00 a.m. March 1, 2002 PST
Dan Whatley has a few words of advice for those inclined to flame the CEO of an unpopular company.

Whatley learned last week he had lost a $450,000 defamation lawsuit for statements he had made about a company called Xybernaut on an Internet message board. He said he didn't even know the suit existed.

~~~~~~
Lawyers say defamation lawsuits against message board posters by companies wanting to silence their online critics are on the rise.

"It's not unusual," said Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a cyber-rights group. "We hear about people being sued for online posts -- and getting into crazy situations -- about once a week."

~~~~~~~
Few of these suits make it to a courtroom. Often, in exchange for dropping a suit, companies demand a retraction and an apology, along with a promise that the defendant never posts about the company again.

That's exactly what happened last year to Nora, a mother of three and full-time day trader from Houston (she requested her last name not be published). She was among several outspoken posters sued last year by Viragen, a small biotech firm in Florida that is trying to genetically engineer chickens to lay cancer-curing eggs.

~~~~~~~~~
Despite important court rulings in the past year protecting the right to express critical opinions on message boards, suits against posters continue.

Nineteen states (Virginia is not one of them) have laws protecting against frivolous litigation intended to suppress free speech. These "anti-SLAPP" laws allow defendants to recover their legal costs in suits deemed "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation."

In Global Telemedia International vs. Does, a SLAPP suit tried in federal court in California last February, the judge ruled that typical message-board flaming does not meet the standard of defamatory speech. Such language must appear to be a statement of fact, not mere opinion.

[Marble Eyes]

Something smells in Denmark... A guy looses a 450,000 defamation
lawsuit and he doesn't even know he was being sued? Um, don't you have to be "Served" notice of be sued, or a supena to appear?

Perhpas this should be checked out at Urban legends.

[SnellTier]

Last I checked, stating facts ... and facts only (without name-calling or statements of opinion accompanying them) ... was not defamation.

You might do an online search on "defamation lawsuits" and then read the items it finds. I just did, after reading your post. Courts hold statements of fact as perfectly within the realm of safe communication. They feel it is important dispersion of information to people who need to know.

If you stick to stating facts you are fine. The area of opinion (based on suspicion or partially-correct facts) is where you can get into trouble, but, interestingly enough, courts have recently found that message board "flaming" is not defamation ... that it it typical and normally accepted behavior for that realm. That is, at least, what I found when I did the search I mentioned above.

[sib]

It is interesting, people need to be aware of what they are saying. On the otherhand, one can say just about anything they want if they qualify themself. That is, if the state "it is my opinion" or "I believe" and then go on with their rant. Though they may sound similar, there is a world of difference between saying, "Acme Widgets suck" and "It is my opinion that Acme Widgest suck".

Persoanl responsibility makes the difference, again.

There are plenty of products that I dont care for, but rather than waste my energy on ranting about what doesn't work for me, I'd rather spend that energy and find something that DOES fit the bill. And then, be happy I found something that works.

[Cangl]

Good point Sib! Seems a pity that the info on most pages does not serve as the handwriting on the wall. Management oblivious to the known is a *&** of a lot worse on it's profits then product issues like quality, price and bashing.

[Ralph]

It's not actionable if it's true.

To be actionable, the statement must be (1) defamatory; (2) of or concerning the plaintiff; (3) cause damages to plaintiff.

And, stating your opinion is generally not actionable unless it appears to the reader to be based on fact. For example, "I know Al Lindner and he ..."