[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Internet Libel
joelle at witty_org wrote:
"Steve [Pushak] is definitely not alone in this view.
"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."
Steve Dixon:
[>And just where do you get your facts Mr. joelle at witty_org? The last time I
>checked there were about 1500 subscribers to the APD in total and of those,
>nearly half were outside of the United States. Most of us can't even give
>away our surplus cuttings and many of us buy plants only rarely if at all.
>Those facts couldn't possibly turn into a "hundreds of thousands of dollars"
>loss.]
Attacks with intent to damage a company¡¦s reputation are acceptable if you think they don¡¦t cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars? Then how about $50,000 in lost business? .... $30,000? .... $20,000??? Your argument attempts to avoid the illegality and injustice of the vindictive damage done by individuals that use the list to attack a company¡¦s reputation based on their single bad experience.
"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."
[>That's exactly what we did. Joe Ducey, a San Francisco Channel 4 KRON
>reporter, came to my house and discussed the case for several hours. He
>reviewed the email notes Novak complained of; he surfed the PetSwarehouse
>web site; reviewed the complaint itself; talked to several First Amendment
>experts; why he even phoned up Robert Novak and discussed the case (to the
>extent Novak was willing to discuss the case); and he agreed to fly a camera
>crew to NY to interview Novak. While events of September 11th and a
>promotion for Ducey have intervened, we still expect the news report shortly
>(which may be picked up nationally). And I can assure you that Ducey and
>Channel 4 have not concluded that we were attempting "to extort unreasonable
>concessions from the business that went bad." What would those concessions
>be anyway? My own best judgment is that Ducey and Channel 4 have reached a
>conclusion that suits such as Novak's really are a threat to our First
>Amendment right to speak openly in America. That's certainly the conclusion
>reached recently by a California Court of Appeals, in a case not related to
>Novak's suit.]
Good for you! However, I was not taking the Plaintiff¡¦s side in the current case. I made that very clear during my last discussion. I was addressing Steve¡¦s general point about the slanderous abuse of other companies that takes on the list from time to time. Please try to separate the two points; it would help greatly in this discussion.
"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."
Steve Dixon:
[>You really don't get it, do you? There were no whisper campaigns. The
>Better Business Bureau report by itself without more makes the case against
>Novak. The facts of our experiences with PetSwarehouse which were carefully
>described by most of us speak for themselves. When Novak's henchmen
>threatened me in an email note, and when I called them back personally, they
>claimed my reference to the BBB report was itself defaming PetSwarehouse.
>And they claimed they had a claim against the BBB for the information found
>there. What has become of that threat and claim? Has the BBB modified the
>report on PetSwarehouse? No, they've only added additional complaints to
>the report and pointed out that many of the complaints really do relate to
>the Internet mail order business. Has Novak proven a defamation claim
>against me? No, he hasn't. He hasn't been willing to take me on at all.
>Why do you suppose that is, if his claims are meritorious?]
Reply:
I think I do get it. In the current situation my sympathies lie with the 90% of the named defendants. I think the BBB references speak for themselves and this is perfectly fair, just and legal. But there is another issue at play here that is not being addressed. What about other business that is damaged on the list by real whisper campaigns by individuals or their competition? Is the only one who deserves to have their rights respected the one with the deepest pockets or a New York lawyer in the family, regardless of the merits of their case?
There is a flaw here in this free-wheeling-devil-may-care-anything-goes attitude with regards to negative discussions of companies on the list that is bound to come back to haunt us all in the future. Regardless how the current case unfurls, the managers need to address it now before other much more sympathetic companies decide to enforce their rights against slander and go after other list members as individuals or the list managers themselves.
"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."
Steve Dixon:
[>This is utter and complete nonsense in my view. I'm glad you're not
>defending American values Mr. joelle at witty_org. Please leave that activity
>to others.]
Reply:
How sentimental. Kinda sweet actually. Now, climb down from the flag pole and address reality; no one gives a dam about values when they are confronted by a financed, persistent and desperate legal opponent willing to sustain damage in order to destroy you. Money talks.
I seem to remember a little know fact about American law. Corporations are legally regarded as having the same rights as people. They are generally, much more powerful than individuals. They win more often than they lose...when they are in the wrong. They always win when they are in the right.
A corporation can also do business under several different names all perfectly legal that are not under attack. They can do this, maintain profitability while they drag you through court. I¡¦ll bet my thumb that¡¦s what the Plaintiff is doing in the current case.
The need to address corporate slander is there and the list will have to address it sooner or later. Will it be addressed because it is the moral thing to do (which it is)? No, people only move to defend self-interest. It will be addressed in order to avoid its legal demise and personal bankruptcy of its managers should they be sued a second time by other corporate entities defending their interests.
Steve Dixon:
[>Honestly folks, for the first time since this whole sordid mess arose, I
>find myself wondering if the Jack/Mike/Bob cabal that distorts the
>conversation over at Compuserve have finally figured out that they never
>were denied access to the APD, and decided to bring their poison over here.
>I hope and pray that is not the case. ]
Reply:
I don¡¦t understand this point. Who are these guys? Never met them and don¡¦t know them.
Steve Dixon:
[>And by the way, what is your name and location Mr. joelle at witty_org? What
>is the reason you choose not to identify yourself. Most of us on this list
>are perfectly happy to identify ourselves to each other.]
Reply:
Joelle is my name and I¡¦m not ¡§Mr.¡¨
I don¡¦t feel like being sued by the Plaintiff.
While I write this, I got this response from a lister to an earlier comment.
I wrote in support of Steve Pushak:
„« [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. ]
Their response:
[>Actually, it _is_ our God-given right. It's enshrined in the Constitution. >And, yes, a single poor experience _does_ give us a right to damage a >company's reputation and cost it hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost >business. That's how competition encourages good service. ]
This is just the kind of selfish, vicious and vindictive an attitude that prompted my original post. I won¡¦t say who wrote this. Obviously they realize there may well be something objectionable about their view or they would have voiced it on the list. Besides that, it is a naive and misinformed view. Can you all not see how easy it is to manipulate people when nefarious individuals that think like this exist out there?
Try to separate yourselves from the current case and think: Arn¡¦t consumers hurt when mediocre companies use underlings in the guise of disgruntled customers to attack superior competition? Don¡¦t consumers get hurt when larger, established companies with higher prices and several cronies slander smaller companies with lower prices and less resources and drive them under?
Some have commented that the opinions of members about online and retail sellers is beneficial to them. I agree. But it is also damaging if that opinion is allowed to be manipulated behind the scenes by vested interests or even by lone, vindictive individuals.
There is a truism I learned when working in retail years ago; ¡§A customer with a good experience will speak well of a business with three other people. A customer with a bad one will speak ill to twelve other people.¡¨
We are not helped when we can¡¦t tell which praise or criticism is both real and representative or fabricated and contrived. One more time for the record, I am not in anyway alluding to the current fight. The Better Business Bureau has made its definative statement after investigation so that¡¦s that. That in fact, is my main point; there are avenues for this sort of thing where the truth is investigated and truly helpful judgements are posted. Pretending that the list is an unmoderated ¡§newsgroup¡¨ may be good for the war effort against today¡¦s Plaintiff, but it is not true.
I have been told (off list) that what I propose that the list should have a group of a ¡§approved vendors¡¨ is impossible because the list could get sued by vendors that are not included. This argument is baseless. Example; Consumer reports magazine has never been sued by companies it has <not> reviewed. There is no basis for damages.
If the list managers agree with the comments I¡¦m getting that the list¡¦s current ability to gather customer evaluations of companies (however flawed and subject to abuse) is so important, then they will spend the time to construct a suitable forum to gather and evaluate such opinions. A forum that is less subject to manipulation and abuse.
I just found and read ListMom¡¦s verdict:
[>I've been reading Steve's comments re: moderating the list and banning
>critical comments of companies and the responses to them with
>interest for the last couple of days and have been thinking them over.
>First, I am unwilling to moderate the APD. While I understand the
>benefit of moderating some lists, I do not believe the APD is one of
>those lists. The APD does not exist "as a safe forum for your
>vindictive ravings because you think the cost/risk/responsability of such
>behavior on the Internet is so small", it exists as an open forum for
>aquatic gardeners to exchange information and pass on knowledge. If a
>part of that information/knowledge includes telling others about
>unsatisfactory (and satisfactory) experiences with vendors, so be it.
>The Communications Decency Act offers list and forum managers quite a bit
>of protection against the type of lawsuit that Bob Novak has filed; I
>don't intend to give up any of that protection by putting myself in the
>position of controlling what does and doesn't appear on the list.]
Think a little further into the future, Cynthia. I and the vast majority of the aquarium world is behind you in this fight. However, don¡¦t count on the same support financial or otherwise in the future if this flaw that I described goes unaddressed and the list is sued yet again.
_______________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE email address for your WILD SIDE! Choose from over 350
outrageous email addresses at http://www.WildEmail.com