Dookie

The First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government abridging the freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the 14th Amendment requires the individual States to recignize this right. The Supreme Court has also, through the years, carved out significant chunks of the "right of free speech," e.g., you cannot shout "FIRE" in a movie theatre. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that imposes on the general public a duty to allow others free speech on private property. If you want to stand on my lawn and make statements that I don't care for, I can and will tell you to shut up.

As with all forms of speech, the laws such as libel and slander apply to the internet and have been held to be Constitutional. Under the standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court, there's nothing wrong with voicing your honest opinion or dissatisfaction regarding a person/business. However, there is something definitely wrong with spreading lies or mistruth about that person/business.

Truth is, and always will be, a defense to any claim of defamation. If you lie about someone in print, you can be held liable. There's some issues as to whether the person is a public figure or not, and a duty to research the truth before making any statements, but that's for another day.

itsjustme

I'll take a minute to chime in here.

The previous poster was correct, the truth is always a defense. Further, if the target of the remarks is a public entity or person (I'll happily use the example of Lute Riley Honda in Dallas), then beyond the fact that they would have to prove whatever I was saying ("Lute Riley has some of the worst salesmen and sales tactics of any dealer I am aware of") was false, they would have to also prove that I knew or acted with reckless disregard in spreading the false information.

Slander or Libel of a public entity is harder to prove. Slander or libel of a non-public entity is easier to prove. The thing to be careful about is that it isn't always apparent who is and who is not a "public person".

Hope this helps.

minboost

he should've counter-sued

The Reverend

Ditto.

Also ditto what minboost said - definitely should have counter-sued.

This is why I'm going to law school. If some shadey businessman like the owner of this fish business screws me and then tries to sue me for saying he's a shitty businessman, I will take his ass to the cleaners for it. This whole article really bothers me.

Rowland

Great article for me to use in class. I am going to print that article and take it for debate in my next Cyber Ethics and Law class. It should be interesting to here what the panel has to say about it.

Elistan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsjustme
[B]I'll take a minute to chime in here.

ltweintz

That guy is a f^cking dick. I hate people like that. If his company had treated his customers right in the first place nothing would have happened.