3 ms·

Just a friendly reminder to all the bloggers out there: You can be sued for these kinds of statements.

by rriepe 15y ago

clobber 15y ago
Not so sure. To quote Zed Shaw: "If they have a blog, speak at conferences, publish papers, or write books then they are public figures" Thank Larry Flynt
- j_baker 15y ago
  I would hardly call Zed Shaw an authoritative source to quote on libel law.
- RobAtticus 15y ago
  IANAL but I believe Larry Flynt's case only established that a public figure can not be awarded damages for "emotional distress" caused by hurtful remarks done in satire or parody. I do not believe that affords protection from libel should the criteria for libel be met (which, as others have pointed out, is quite difficult to prove).
jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
You likely have a fundamental misunderstanding of libel law. With libel, truth is the ultimate defense, and somebody's opinion isn't really libelous as long as it's presented as opinion. Unless the facts in the post are made up, which seems unlikely, the writer is fine.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Unless you live in the UK, where truth is not always a defense against libel.
- rriepe 15y ago
  Groupon smells like a ponzi scheme? Fine. Careful, Groupon could turn out to be a ponzi scheme? Great. Groupon is straight-up a ponzi scheme? That's pushing it, and would raise any lawyer's eyebrow. The problem here isn't so much about facts and opinions, or even necessarily the presentation, it's about the term "ponzi scheme" which is very, very legally charged. Check out the episode of Bullshit! on pyramid and ponzi schemes-- not so much for the content of the episode, but for the fact that they avoided saying "ponzi scheme". Or, imagine this: The New York Times ran this piece, even in the opinion section. Does it seem like a libel case now? Keep in mind that libel and a libel case are entirely different. A company could very well bring a case to court and drain thousands from you in legal fees just to protect their reputation. And they'd have a pretty good case too. Yeah, malice probably isn't there, but they could certainly argue a reckless disregard for whether or not this was actually true.
  - jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
    Anybody can file a libel case, just as anybody can have a libel case laughed out of court. The reason why you don't hear about libel cases being prosecuted every day is that libel is unbelievably difficult to prove.
  - rayiner 15y ago
    Tortious interference?

Just a friendly reminder to all the bloggers out there: You can be sued for these kinds of statements.

by rriepe 15y ago

Just a friendly reminder to all the bloggers out there: You can be sued for these kinds of statements.

Not so sure. To quote Zed Shaw: "If they have a blog, speak at conferences, publish papers, or write books then they are public figures" Thank Larry Flynt

j_baker 15y ago
I would hardly call Zed Shaw an authoritative source to quote on libel law.
RobAtticus 15y ago
IANAL but I believe Larry Flynt's case only established that a public figure can not be awarded damages for "emotional distress" caused by hurtful remarks done in satire or parody. I do not believe that affords protection from libel should the criteria for libel be met (which, as others have pointed out, is quite difficult to prove).

jeffreymcmanus 15y ago

You likely have a fundamental misunderstanding of libel law. With libel, truth is the ultimate defense, and somebody's opinion isn't really libelous as long as it's presented as opinion. Unless the facts in the post are made up, which seems unlikely, the writer is fine.

sliverstorm 15y ago
Unless you live in the UK, where truth is not always a defense against libel.
rriepe 15y ago
Groupon smells like a ponzi scheme? Fine. Careful, Groupon could turn out to be a ponzi scheme? Great. Groupon is straight-up a ponzi scheme? That's pushing it, and would raise any lawyer's eyebrow. The problem here isn't so much about facts and opinions, or even necessarily the presentation, it's about the term "ponzi scheme" which is very, very legally charged. Check out the episode of Bullshit! on pyramid and ponzi schemes-- not so much for the content of the episode, but for the fact that they avoided saying "ponzi scheme". Or, imagine this: The New York Times ran this piece, even in the opinion section. Does it seem like a libel case now? Keep in mind that libel and a libel case are entirely different. A company could very well bring a case to court and drain thousands from you in legal fees just to protect their reputation. And they'd have a pretty good case too. Yeah, malice probably isn't there, but they could certainly argue a reckless disregard for whether or not this was actually true.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
  Anybody can file a libel case, just as anybody can have a libel case laughed out of court. The reason why you don't hear about libel cases being prosecuted every day is that libel is unbelievably difficult to prove.
- rayiner 15y ago
  Tortious interference?