REAMOND
|
posted on April 4, 2002 06:47:55 PM
Anybody with the time and money can squash anybody without money for posting a negative comment no matter how meritless the case is.
http://salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquatic_plants/index.html
|
sweetboo
|
posted on April 4, 2002 07:08:28 PM
Unbelievable. I can actually see both sides of this story. But come on people...let's get real here. We should be able to vent our feelings. Imagine if all the bad stuff we say here about eBay were to cause such a fuss 
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 4, 2002 07:17:09 PM
Sweetboo- you seem to assume that the case had merit. I don't. Merely expressing a negative factual experience with a company and even throwing in some poetic license to express your dissatisfaction isn't libel. The truth of the statement is a complete bar to libel.
This case was settled simply because the defendants didn't have the money to defend themselves. Settling the suit was the cheapest thing to do. Some of these poor schmucks even paid this guy to settle.
These suits are called "slap" suits. They are generally meritless, but filed to finacially exhaust the opponent without ever going to trial and thereby forcing a settlement.
I think the judge should have stepped in and prevented this from happening.
|
twinsoft
|
posted on April 4, 2002 07:34:11 PM
Hard to know, since we didn't read the actual comments that were posted.
The suit may not have merit, but I think we all know how easily chat boards do slip into libel and defamation. It's par for the course. People should be responsible for their words. It's really for a judge to decide.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 4, 2002 07:39:34 PM
The article did quote what two of the defendants said. The other defendants were being sued for using the company name to raise defence funding.
"Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't." He went on to detail his gripes about the company's customer service, based on what he said was a delayed shipment of plants he'd ordered.
Resler -- apparently realizing he'd left out an "s" in his original post -- later followed up with this amendment: "to clarify: Pet Warehouse OK, Pets Warehouse NOT."
In classic Net slambook fashion, other members of the list responded to Resler's messages by sharing their own experiences with Pets Warehouse. One post on May 22, 2001, as recorded in court documents, quotes Sean Carney of Weslaco, Texas, sloganeering: "Remember petSWEARhouse, buy their plants and you'll be swearing!"
|
capolady
|
posted on April 4, 2002 08:39:33 PM
What the hell happened to free speech in this country? Complaining about the lack of customer service by a company and advising others not to go there is not libel or defamation. That's caled "word of mouth" advertising. It has sent some businesses to the top and others to the cellar in this country for generations. Sueing because someone expresses an opinion is bogus. The company owners statement that he couldn't defend himself is also bogus. He had enough info to launch a suit therefore he had enough info to contact the man in question and see if he could straighten out the mess and make a satisfied customer out of him. Now that the mess is splashed all over the internet he really has bad advertising. I wonder if his next move is to sue everyone who has read the article and refuses to frequent his business?
|
outoftheblue
|
posted on April 4, 2002 10:34:12 PM
This is great! Now we can get ripped off and sued for complaining about it. What a deal! 
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 4, 2002 10:54:25 PM
Could it be that economic and corporate interests are eclisping free speech ?
There are several other cases out there where companies are filing law suits for libel for negative things said on BB. In some cases the companies aren't filing to get into court, they are filing to get a subpoena to make the ISPs identify the posters.
Monied interests basically own our justice system. Juries are the only saving grace. Remember that when called to sit on a jury.
|
twinsoft
|
posted on April 4, 2002 11:24:46 PM
Yes, I read the article. If all that was said was "buy their plants and you'll be swearing," then why would anyone even take the lawsuit seriously? And of course suing for trademark infringement based on mentioning a company's name in a chat room is ridiculous. That's what I don't understand - why would anyone take this seriously?
It doesn't sound like big money vs. the little guy, it sounds like some chat room looney bird. JMHO.
(P.S. - correct spelling is "defense," not "defence."
|
gravid
|
posted on April 5, 2002 05:37:29 AM
You could just do something to shut them down for a day if they refuse to refund you or treat you right. Consider it a form of "speech".
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 5, 2002 08:02:22 AM
The guy that filed the suit had to have more money than the defendants, or he would have had to drop the suit. The defendants gave this guy cash and other considerations to settle the suit because they didn't have the money to fight it.
One defendant estimated that it would cost $50,000 to fight the suit.
|
robnzak
|
posted on April 5, 2002 08:43:34 AM
if this company ever sells on ebay, I pity the fool that leaves a neg.
robnzak - 1st editions
|
RB
|
posted on April 5, 2002 09:27:47 AM
Hmmm ... I hope the UPS legal hounds never read these forums ... I'd be in major ka-ka for the things I have said and continue to say about these crooks 
In retrospect, being a Canadian living in a country where everyone doesn't sue everyone else, *if* the UPS yahoos ever did send me a legal notice, I could simply respond with this:
Dear [insert lawyer name]:
In response to your recent threat of legal action against me for libelous comments, bite me.
Yours truly,
Rob
[ edited by RB on Apr 5, 2002 09:33 AM ]
|
bidsbids
|
posted on April 5, 2002 09:46:43 AM
Crap, Meg Whitman could have me sent up the river for life for all the nasty stuff I said about her on this forum alone.
All you need is one person with a chip on his shoulder and a lot of money he is willing to spend and you have a slap lawsuit on your hands.
I think it may be best to avoid message centers similar to www.mootropolis.com because it is way too easy to get caught up in a nasty flame war there. One wealthy nut scorned and a legal review gets underway.
edited to fix a stupid spelling error!
[ edited by bidsbids on Apr 5, 2002 09:50 AM ]
|
RB
|
posted on April 5, 2002 10:20:07 AM
I double-dog dare anyone to try to sue me for anything I have ever "said" on the internet. What a crock ...
|
alwaysbroke
|
posted on April 5, 2002 10:32:30 AM
This should have been laughed out of court. Look at all the anti-Walmart, K-mart, etc. posts on various boards. Are citizens going to have to start speaking their opinions in hushed tones, behind closed doors? I agree that he shot himself in the foot with his stupid law suit.
|
alwaysbroke
|
posted on April 5, 2002 10:33:35 AM
I wish an organization with deep pockets and lots of time would class action this right back at him.
|
trai
|
posted on April 5, 2002 10:37:16 AM
RB
"I double-dog dare anyone to try to sue me for anything I have ever "said" on the internet."
Be careful what you wish for, it might come true. Its a sick sad world we live in.
Can not help but wonder whats next? This is just plain crazy!
|
RB
|
posted on April 5, 2002 12:54:03 PM
Hey trai ... not to worry ...
I---AM---CANADIAN
... and our lawyers are just as poor as the rest of us 'cause we don't sue each other everytime one of us calls another a name!
... and, we don't necessarily believe the nonsense in the article referenced in the first post. If this *is* true, I suggest way too many people have way too much time on their hands.
|
tomwiii
|
posted on April 5, 2002 02:02:59 PM
This whole situation seems, to me, to be...
PRETTY FISHY!
|
alwaysbroke
|
posted on April 5, 2002 02:17:58 PM
What if we just boycott lawyers and make a People's Court. Might keep the loss/expenses from $1,000's down to $1's.
Too bad we didn't have an Andy Griffith-type to act as lawyer. "Now Floyd, I'm sure 'ol Joe didn't mean it the way it sounded."
|
fluffythewondercat
|
posted on April 6, 2002 08:14:33 AM
I'm sure I'm going to be unpopular for saying this, but if a group of people attempted to systematically destroy my business by publishing undocumented statements and waging Web page crusades to "take me down", yes, I'd be suing them, too.
As a long-time veteran of Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists, I can attest that there are not many 100% factual postings, particularly when it comes to relating experiences with a business. Details get exaggerated, facts twisted, rudeness implied where none existed. Self-serving statements abound.
Ok, sure, if you have a documented record of a bad experience with a business, including names, dates, times and places, go ahead and post it. You can't be sued for stating the truth. But way too many people are playing fast and loose with truth because they want to slam someone or their business.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on April 6, 2002 10:38:13 AM
These people weren't playing fast and loose with the truth, the were stating opinion based on their dealings with this company.
Stating an opinion such as "I wouldn't deal with this company" should not be actionable, any more than saying that the Ford I bought wasn't a good car so I wouldn't buy Fords.
Opinion doesn't need to be factual to be protected.
|
bidsbids
|
posted on April 6, 2002 11:29:51 AM
Some of the defendants said it would cost $50,000 to defend themselves. What if you're as poor as a church moose? Can you get legal aid of some sort and fight the suit on principle? Wouldn't one case thrown out of court or one case where the bringer of the frivolous lawsuit loses and has to pay all court costs be a huge benefit to everyone on message boards on the internet?
|
tomwiii
|
posted on April 6, 2002 11:41:38 AM
What do you call...
500 laywers on the bottom of the ocean?
|
alwaysbroke
|
posted on April 6, 2002 12:04:34 PM
Drowned.
|
alwaysbroke
|
posted on April 6, 2002 12:12:45 PM
I think there is a difference between posting an opinion on a board and sponsoring web sites in an effort to close down a business. Not everyone on that list should have been sued. I'm disturbed that the court forced the little people to pay a huge fine for agreeing that their customer service was poor. Has Rush Limbaugh ever been sued for libel? How about Joan Rivers (nothing is sacred to her). What about the people who write in to the opinion sections of the newspapers/magazines. Think of all the books in print that relate bad experiences with a person or organization.
Good can come of companies hiring people to lurk the boards. For ex: I have seen new policies announced on eBay after hearing complaints on this board first. The same thing for Paypal.
|
RB
|
posted on April 6, 2002 12:29:37 PM
What if you're as poor as a church moose
Tell them to take a hike. If you can't figure that out by now, you're just the type of person these lawyers are looking for. There is nothing ... repeat NOTHING this company can do. The whole thing in a hoax.
|
RB
|
posted on April 6, 2002 12:30:05 PM
tom ...
A good start!
|
tomwiii
|
posted on April 6, 2002 01:01:56 PM
RB:
|
