11 ms·

President Signs Law Protecting Your Right to Review

70 points by DiabloD3 10y ago

mrfusion 10y ago
A vendor can still sue you (for libel I guess?). They just can't put prevent bad reviews with a contract?
- chc 10y ago
  Suing reviewers for libel seems like a losing proposition. Schemes like this rely on the remedy for bad reviews being cheap and easy. Libel suits are neither.
  - slededit 10y ago
    Sure suing is expensive, but threatening to sue is quite easy.
mrfusion 10y ago
It's weird how some issues become partisan and others don't. I wonder what made both parties support this? Why can't that happen more often?
- hackuser 10y ago
  A major change was that the Congressional GOP opposed everything Obama tried to do until the last year, a scorched earth tactic to damage Obama regardless of the costs to the country and world. Then, in an effort to appear a little less obstructionist in an election year, they passed some bills. But even then they set new norms for obstructionism; for example, they refused to vote on a Supreme Court nomination, something unprecedented in U.S. history, and refused to do anything about the sequester, again an unprecedented act. I'm pretty sure they refused to provide aid to Flint for their water crisis and or to provide funding for the Zika virus. If it costs them nothing politically - and what were the consequences of their obstructionism mentioned above? - they will do it. The Democrats, who do little to confront and extract costs from the GOP, are effectively complicit IMHO. EDIT: Some edits
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    There is only one rule in politics: win. Harry Reid recognizes that when he boasts about telling an outright lie about Mitt Romney's taxes on the Senate floor. About the episode he says: "Romney didn't win, did he?" [0] He's right. Whether Reid told a lie or not is irrelevant. He helped secure the Presidency for his party, an outcome that will echo in history for a long time. Exercising Congress's prerogative to vote and not vote on whatever it damn well pleases is fair game. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/harry-reid-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes-hes-still-not-sorry/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/ha...
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > There is only one rule in politics: win I strongly disagree. Politicians have always balanced their interests with others, such as those of the nation. They have the power to destroy the country, physically (by engaging in nuclear war, as a simple example) and politically (e.g., they could impeach every president, pass destructive laws, and never confirm Supreme Court nominations). It's not at all "fair game"; their responsibility is to govern the nation to the best of their abilities and to be responsible to the rest of the world. There's a reason that the current Congress' actions are unprecedented.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        Your argument assumes that everyone agrees on what the interests of the nation are, and how to achieve them. In fact, there is vicious disagreements on just that point. That is the central divide in our politics. The Republicans and Democrats both think they're doing what's best for the nation.
        rootusrootus 10y ago
        Didn't we pass some legislation a while back which cut back significantly on the amount of 'pork' allowed in a bill? I feel like that has bitten us pretty hard as a practical matter -- because if we go strictly on ideology, nothing happens because there is no incentive. Maybe little compromises and adding in some back scratching would make congress move again?
- c0g 10y ago
  My impression is that it is because the electorate of both parties is likely to support it and it doesn't clash with donor's preferences.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    The congressional GOP's approval rating is (or was) at record lows. It wasn't about pleasing their electorate.
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      > The congressional GOP's approval rating is (or was) at record lows. It wasn't about pleasing their electorate. The only approval rating that matters is the approval rating from their own constituents. And that's always been a lot better than their overall approval rating. Or to put it another way, "everyone thinks Congress is doing a bad job, but they think their Congressman is doing a good job".
      - hackuser 10y ago
        > The only approval rating that matters is the approval rating from their own constituents A good point, but remember that most are in single-party districts; they need to please people in their party primaries but the voters in the general election have no choice.
- Dagwoodie 10y ago
  There's no major money in play politically, so they are able to do the right thing.
kyriakos 10y ago
anyone knows if there is an EU-wide law protecting reviewers ?
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  Well, both the ECHR and CFREU protect freedom of expression, though I don't know if they are much use here, since it's not the government censoring you. Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: > 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. > 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#Article_11_.E2.80.93_Freedom_of_expression_and_information https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights...) Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: > 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. > 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...)
ap22213 10y ago
It should be noted that libel laws are still in effect. That means that companies can and will pressure authors to remove reviews through extortion - i.e. threat of a libel suit. Even if the threat is baseless, most people will remove reviews just to avoid a legal headache. Believe me, I was threatened more than once, but I was way too busy to deal with a lawsuit. But, it still pisses me off. As an aside, it's kind of f'd up that a company can even sue for libel. These were original common laws - i.e. person vs. person. Now, companies are 'people'. I am not a lawyer, so I don't understand the nuance. (which, btw, is also messed up: it's barely possible for non-specialists to understand the laws to which they're held accountable.) Rant Over.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  I wish the state legislature would put a limit on the number of unsuccessful libel lawsuits a lawyer could file. They file because they have the money to file, and some very bruised egos. I can't remember one they won. In my state of California, a Plastic Surgeon managed to rack up over 70 bad Yelp reviews. She then tried to sue 12 of her former patients. The judge threw the lawsuits/lawsuit out. Poof!
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    A limit on the number of lawsuits you can file is a limitation of your Constitutional right
    - exclusiv 10y ago
      While I agree, there should be repercussions. It's borderline harassment though to fire up frivolous cases.
- ap22213 10y ago
  icantdrive55, you appear [dead]. (Does that mean that I'm dead, or you're dead? I don't know.) Anyway, your story is very similar to one of my experiences. I had a medical issue. So, I found a specialist from one of those "top specialist in your metro area" lists. I scheduled an appointment, waited a few months, went to the appointment, and I had one of the worst service experiences ever. I posted a review that explained my expectations and experience just to warn others. I was quickly contacted by the doctor's lawyers (even though I had posted the review 'anonymously') and extorted into altering the review.
scottlamb 10y ago
Does this law negate DeWitt Clauses? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt
codecamper 10y ago
How about business's right to protect against fake reviews? Maybe thats already in the law?
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  Doesn't that just fall under libel?

70 points by DiabloD3 10y ago

mrfusion 10y ago

A vendor can still sue you (for libel I guess?). They just can't put prevent bad reviews with a contract?

chc 10y ago
Suing reviewers for libel seems like a losing proposition. Schemes like this rely on the remedy for bad reviews being cheap and easy. Libel suits are neither.
- slededit 10y ago
  Sure suing is expensive, but threatening to sue is quite easy.

mrfusion 10y ago

It's weird how some issues become partisan and others don't. I wonder what made both parties support this? Why can't that happen more often?

hackuser 10y ago
A major change was that the Congressional GOP opposed everything Obama tried to do until the last year, a scorched earth tactic to damage Obama regardless of the costs to the country and world. Then, in an effort to appear a little less obstructionist in an election year, they passed some bills. But even then they set new norms for obstructionism; for example, they refused to vote on a Supreme Court nomination, something unprecedented in U.S. history, and refused to do anything about the sequester, again an unprecedented act. I'm pretty sure they refused to provide aid to Flint for their water crisis and or to provide funding for the Zika virus. If it costs them nothing politically - and what were the consequences of their obstructionism mentioned above? - they will do it. The Democrats, who do little to confront and extract costs from the GOP, are effectively complicit IMHO. EDIT: Some edits
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  There is only one rule in politics: win. Harry Reid recognizes that when he boasts about telling an outright lie about Mitt Romney's taxes on the Senate floor. About the episode he says: "Romney didn't win, did he?" [0] He's right. Whether Reid told a lie or not is irrelevant. He helped secure the Presidency for his party, an outcome that will echo in history for a long time. Exercising Congress's prerogative to vote and not vote on whatever it damn well pleases is fair game. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/harry-reid-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes-hes-still-not-sorry/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/ha...
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > There is only one rule in politics: win I strongly disagree. Politicians have always balanced their interests with others, such as those of the nation. They have the power to destroy the country, physically (by engaging in nuclear war, as a simple example) and politically (e.g., they could impeach every president, pass destructive laws, and never confirm Supreme Court nominations). It's not at all "fair game"; their responsibility is to govern the nation to the best of their abilities and to be responsible to the rest of the world. There's a reason that the current Congress' actions are unprecedented.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      Your argument assumes that everyone agrees on what the interests of the nation are, and how to achieve them. In fact, there is vicious disagreements on just that point. That is the central divide in our politics. The Republicans and Democrats both think they're doing what's best for the nation.
      - rootusrootus 10y ago
        Didn't we pass some legislation a while back which cut back significantly on the amount of 'pork' allowed in a bill? I feel like that has bitten us pretty hard as a practical matter -- because if we go strictly on ideology, nothing happens because there is no incentive. Maybe little compromises and adding in some back scratching would make congress move again?
c0g 10y ago
My impression is that it is because the electorate of both parties is likely to support it and it doesn't clash with donor's preferences.
- hackuser 10y ago
  The congressional GOP's approval rating is (or was) at record lows. It wasn't about pleasing their electorate.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > The congressional GOP's approval rating is (or was) at record lows. It wasn't about pleasing their electorate. The only approval rating that matters is the approval rating from their own constituents. And that's always been a lot better than their overall approval rating. Or to put it another way, "everyone thinks Congress is doing a bad job, but they think their Congressman is doing a good job".
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > The only approval rating that matters is the approval rating from their own constituents A good point, but remember that most are in single-party districts; they need to please people in their party primaries but the voters in the general election have no choice.
Dagwoodie 10y ago
There's no major money in play politically, so they are able to do the right thing.

kyriakos 10y ago

anyone knows if there is an EU-wide law protecting reviewers ?

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Well, both the ECHR and CFREU protect freedom of expression, though I don't know if they are much use here, since it's not the government censoring you. Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: > 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. > 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#Article_11_.E2.80.93_Freedom_of_expression_and_information https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights...) Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: > 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. > 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...)

ap22213 10y ago

It should be noted that libel laws are still in effect. That means that companies can and will pressure authors to remove reviews through extortion - i.e. threat of a libel suit. Even if the threat is baseless, most people will remove reviews just to avoid a legal headache. Believe me, I was threatened more than once, but I was way too busy to deal with a lawsuit. But, it still pisses me off. As an aside, it's kind of f'd up that a company can even sue for libel. These were original common laws - i.e. person vs. person. Now, companies are 'people'. I am not a lawyer, so I don't understand the nuance. (which, btw, is also messed up: it's barely possible for non-specialists to understand the laws to which they're held accountable.) Rant Over.

icantdrive55 10y ago
I wish the state legislature would put a limit on the number of unsuccessful libel lawsuits a lawyer could file. They file because they have the money to file, and some very bruised egos. I can't remember one they won. In my state of California, a Plastic Surgeon managed to rack up over 70 bad Yelp reviews. She then tried to sue 12 of her former patients. The judge threw the lawsuits/lawsuit out. Poof!
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  A limit on the number of lawsuits you can file is a limitation of your Constitutional right
  - exclusiv 10y ago
    While I agree, there should be repercussions. It's borderline harassment though to fire up frivolous cases.
ap22213 10y ago
icantdrive55, you appear [dead]. (Does that mean that I'm dead, or you're dead? I don't know.) Anyway, your story is very similar to one of my experiences. I had a medical issue. So, I found a specialist from one of those "top specialist in your metro area" lists. I scheduled an appointment, waited a few months, went to the appointment, and I had one of the worst service experiences ever. I posted a review that explained my expectations and experience just to warn others. I was quickly contacted by the doctor's lawyers (even though I had posted the review 'anonymously') and extorted into altering the review.

scottlamb 10y ago

Does this law negate DeWitt Clauses? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt

codecamper 10y ago

How about business's right to protect against fake reviews? Maybe thats already in the law?

colejohnson66 10y ago
Doesn't that just fall under libel?