Re: [APD] Legal implications of free speech...

[urville <urville at peoplepc_com>]

I dont care quite honestly. i mean i wont say it again cause i dont need 
the bs nor do i want
to read about it. but quite frankly i dont give a poo. It's america, and 
if you dont want to
have bad things said about your business than dont do business. and 
better yet dont do
 any bad business. how hard is that. i'd PERSONNALLY rather fight in 
court to know
that someone cant blame me for thier doing. period. sure all businesses 
get bad reviews
from time to time, but groups of people and unrelated people enmasse is 
another matter.

thats like trying to say the business should be able to sue for being 
held accountable
 in a class action suit. i'm not saying it doesnt happen just thats its 
wrong. and it isnt impossible
i dont see McD's sueing that 30 days guy. so the very use of legal means 
speaks apdes about
certain subjects.


Robert H wrote:

>>>As I recall, none of the recent
>>>      
>>>
>litigation involving a pet vendor and several customers ever got to the
>point where the merits of the case were presented and evaluated.
>However, many defendants, not able to represent themselves pro se, had
>to spend their own money on attorneys.  And this has dragged on for years.<<
>
>It didn't really need to go all the way since the majority of us settled. 
>And those that did not have dragged on into legal limbo. What do you think 
>the price was we paid? It cost us money, people gave up WEB sites and other 
>things not to mention the anguish and torment. And beyond that PW won in the 
>long run. He changed forever how this forum and every other aquarium forum 
>operates. In the last four years every aquarium WEB forum now has a strict 
>policy of not allowing negative comments of businesses. And whether anyone 
>admits it or not, although the bravado, over exaggerration, and lies by the 
>plantiff were dispicable, there was an underlining truth behind it that we 
>were irresponsible in our comments.  It didn't matter if it was the truth or 
>not.  People went overboard. And while this may not be a popular thing to 
>say on this forum, it is a realization that many of us have come to 
>privately.
>
>  
>
>>>I think it best to pass on my negative
>>>      
>>>
>experiences with vendors privately wherever possible.<<
>
>If your opinion is asked for that is one thing, but when someone takes it 
>upon themselves to go on a mission to privately contact anyone at any 
>opportunity for unsolicited feedback, it is just as dangerous and 
>irresponsible. A year or two ago a vendor in AZ was getting a flood of 
>negative comments on the internet. At some point a couple people started 
>giving people this feedback in private email and private forums. But some of 
>these people who were recieving these comments were actually satisfied 
>customers of this vendor and forwarded the messages to the vendor. Every 
>business has to deal with this, particularly on the internet. I have had my 
>own problems to deal with. What I learned out of the whole legal ordeal was 
>for myself anyway, that to be responsible I need to determin where the line 
>is from being informative and being vindictive just because I was "wronged". 
>It is an easy line to cross.
>
>Robert Hudson
>www.aquabotanic.com 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
>http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants