[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Internet libel

Steve said:

> "I urge all of you readers and contributors to the APD to refrain from 
> making negative comments about businesses or even the appearance of doing 
> so. "

Steve is definitely not alone in this view.

This view does seem to have ruffled a few feathers indeed. Many responses conceitedly presuppose that his view is a singular one. Typical. As if the popular view is supposed to be the moral, practical or just one. 

 I for one, support this view.  Those who don’t seem to think it's their God given right to speak their minds about this or that company and to hell with the consequences.  You seem to think that your single, poor experience with a company gives you the right to amplify your opinion in a public forum and damage its reputation and cost it hundreds of thousands of dollars.  

Try that stunt in front of a local store on your own street, and you'll quickly find yourself sued.  Under these circumstances, people contact the local media who do some serious fact-checking before they alert their public on some "Sunshine special" on the 6 O'clock news.  Should they find your experience an isolated incident; your case gets dropped.  The media can also quickly determine if this was your own attempt to extort unreasonable concessions from the business that went bad. 

Even if they find your case has merit they are also aware of the need to protect themselves legally before they speak.  They stick to the facts.

  That's why you think the plant-list exists, as a safe forum for your vindictive ravings because you think the cost/risk/responsability of such behavior on the Internet is so small.  

The obvious naiveté of many listers who believe such comment w/o question encourages this behavior.  

The problem is the list is vulnerable to the abuse of such individuals because it has no one to investigate such claims.  Example; the oldest trick in business is to have hired henchmen start "whisper campaigns" against their competition.  I've read in newsgroups that this tactic has already driven several businesses under who could not afford to defend themselves.  Yet, naive readers still look at such campaigns as giving them the headsup.

I am not saying that this is the case in the current situation.  There is enough BBB information out there to raise serious questions about the Plaintiff.  However, if you are not prepared to stand the consequences of your public opinions, don't expect the lists' hosts to do so for you.

There are proper avenues for your grievances such as the Better Business Bureau.  The list will have to police itself better against false charges in the future or it will be forced to shut down.  The best solution would be to ban all negative company discussion on the list and construct a "complaint box" where individuals can state their case and it can be investigated. Those recurring claims found to have with merit would result in the company not being on the "approved vendors list" which the list should create.  This would provide an avenue where the sun can shine on both charges/countercharges.  It would be require a little time and a little effort.

 The simplest solution as Steve suggested is not to have any negative comments tolerated on the list, period.  My preference would be for an approved vendor's list but I am not optimistic.


_______________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE email address for your WILD SIDE! Choose from over 350
outrageous email addresses at http://www.WildEmail.com