Be careful about critical comments

[jdellman]

I saw this post tonight, and do not know any further details about it, but thought it was worth mentioning. It was posted on www.thekrib.com. The following was the post:

PetSwarehouse.com Sues Hobbyists
Robert Novak, claimed owner of Petswarehouse.com has filed a 15 million dollar lawsuit against several aquarium hobbyists who have posted critical comments about his business. A special website has been set up by John Benn for contributing to the defense fund, and progress on the case. You can follow discussions about the lawsuit at http://petsforum.com/psw/.

The lawsuit may not be successful or even valid, but I am sure Al would appreciate the restraint in critical comments. (At least against Big Corporations, feel free to rip on each other.) :) :)

Jim

[mattm025]

Wouldn't that fall under freedom of speech and opinion? Does that company think it doesn't apply to the people who feel they've been ripped by them?

[shaunn]

A lot of the cases have been dropped. There is a thread somewhere is closely following all of the cases. It still would cost you to defend yourself.

[brewmaster15]

Thanks Jim,
Its sad that there is that kind of a litigation mentality out there but its true.. I have been threatened here more times than I can say for what others have posted....Most of the them are just annoying baseless threats, but as shaun points out...you still have the expenses associated, and what complicates things is the fact that membership is spread across statelines and even countries.

-al

[CeratopsianCanus]

say what you like if it is true, because the guy ( novak) lost his lawsuit and his company is now up for sale.

[Cosmo]

Corporations will file frivolous lawsuits because they KNOW the average person cannot affort to go to court and defeat them. Unless you're willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to defend your right to what you consider to be free speech, you need to be very careful of what you say in print. There is a fine line between free speech and libel/slander.

If you can't afford to go to court and prove what you said is true, you lose.

Jim

[jeep]

Thanks Jim,
Its sad that there is that kind of a litigation mentality out there but its true.. I have been threatened here more times than I can say for what others have posted....Most of the them are just annoying baseless threats, but as shaun points out...you still have the expenses associated, and what complicates things is the fact that membership is spread across statelines and even countries.

-al

For this reason, I hope all of our members understand why Simply has the "positive attitude" mission statement. A lot of people don't like the fact that Simply may lock or move threads of a negative nature, but the owners of the site are not a large corporation and the threat of lawsuits are not something they need in thier lives... :)

[John_Nicholson]

As someone that has owned a discus forum before the threat of a lawsuit is a pain. After lots of thought on the matter I got to the point that I just did not care. I decided that I would speak the truth and let everything else take care of itself. All this sort of thing does is to keep me from doing business with the company that files the suit. I think that this suit has already fallen apart but I have not checked on it in a couple of years.

-john

[CeratopsianCanus]

of course you shouldn't be offensive, there is no need for that stuff, and the best way to win an argument is usually not to take part in it. but I was told that under the law truth is an absolute defence.
I got sued once, on legal advice from a lawyer friend I just played it very passive, , the quote weas ' let them tell it to a judge', making them start all the motions and prove their case, that they didn;t have. it cost me nothing but a little time. the other party ended up really ticking of the judge with the BS and having to pay all the costs, my time, court time etc. and they went out of business, kinda like this guy novak.
i guess it depends if you are easily intimidated or not

[maraxus]

that lawsuit ended in failure for novak.

[Tad]

of course you shouldn't be offensive, there is no need for that stuff, and the best way to win an argument is usually not to take part in it. but I was told that under the law truth is an absolute defence.


Good points CeratopsianCanus,
the biggest problem with this type of lawsuit by Petswarehouse is that those being sued normally live in different states to where the suit was filed. It may be frivolious but the pain for those being sued is in emotions and economics to protect themselves in such a lawsuit. I like John being a former owner of a discus forum have researched and read volumnes of case study over internet laws especially in the area of slander. Some internet case law seems specific and inargueable and others are open to interpretation. Time will tell and hopefully self correct what can be said and posted even on a hobby message board. There seems to be some real restrictions on ones 1st Amendments rights! Time will tell!,

JMO,
Tad

[Anonapersona]

When being critical in print, it is a good idea to couch things in ways that cannot be considered slander. "I believe", 'In my opinion" "It sure looks like" are good ways to start a sentence. It is when you make a declarative statement, "he stole my money", "he cheated me", "he is stupid" that you are in dangerous territory. Keep in mind that proving what you say is true is typically the issue, what I think is easy to prove.

Note that I am in full support of being critical, in the spirit of excercise of intellect, not as in the sport of putting down others for fun or for revenge.

[brewmaster15]

CeratopsianCanus,
say what you like if it is true, because the guy ( novak) lost his lawsuit and his company is now up for sale

I don't know the outcome of the case in terms of legalities and believe that in most cases a frivilous lawsuit will be thrown out..but I would hazzard a guess that even if Novak lost the case..The defendents had to shell out some serious money in their defense. :mad:

I just went to the site where theres info on the case...http://216.168.47.67/psw/Fund.htm

Heres what the case was projected to cost...

It is estimated that preliminary legal expenses will run about $15,000 for the group. If the case proceeds to trial, attorney's fees and expenses will run upwards of $50,000.

and this is what the defendents in that case went thru ...
http://216.168.47.67/psw/Docket.htm


You can bet that I too have looked into every thing legal pertaining to this site and my liabilities. What I saw was not clear cut in terms of what I can be held accountable for.

John,
After lots of thought on the matter I got to the point that I just did not care. I decided that I would speak the truth and let everything else take care of itself I agree with you. speaking the truth is always important... for me The way it is done and the venue used is also though. As the former owner of a site you also know its not so much the people that are speaking first hand truth in a thoughtful manner that cause the problem ...Unfortunately Its the people speaking just to speak and add their 2 cents to a controversial topic ... aka the flame thread .Those who don't know and in most cases don't really care what the circumstances are that are the problem. This is where the water gets muddy.


The problem with internet law is precidence... Theres not alot yet for a judge to cite as prior cases and to rule on...which means many things can go in any direction.

-al

ps...
Anonapersona...well said. :)

[CeratopsianCanus]

it is true that having to sue or being sued is a royal pain in the buttocks and presents a moral dilemma about what to allow and what not to. How much truth is too much?
All kudos to the management here for keeping it generally a civil place for a good convo.
:)
CC

[Cosmo]

The problem with internet law is precidence... Theres not alot yet for a judge to cite as prior cases and to rule on...which means many things can go in any direction.

-al

ps...
Anonapersona...well said. :)

As Al alluded to, the American jurisprudence system is based upon presidence, not on laws as most of us think. Laws are open to interpretation and cases are often decided on decisions based on those from previous cases held in different courtrooms... if there aren't any that apply, the judge is on his own so you'd better hope he/she likes you lol

Besides, the what constitutes the "truth" can be interpreted many ways... proving your interpretation is the correct one can sometimes be challenging.

Jim

PS. Shouldn't Carol weigh in on this one :confused:

[Carol_Roberts]

I only weigh in on cases at work, lol. Anonapersona is correct . . . everybody can freely state their opinion. When deciding a case you look at the State or Federal statutes and how those statutes have been interpreted in the past by other courts - especially appellate or supreme courts.

[CeratopsianCanus]

right now American law is not so much decided by precedence but by presidents, kinda scary given the guy in that office right now.

[Howie_W]

Hi all,


Just a quick reminder to please respect everyone's political views and refrain from posting them here in the forum.


Thank you. :)


Howie