since9
Campaign Veteran
Article: Woman sued for defamation after leaving bad Yelp review:
There's no difference in threshold requirements for defamation between Journalism and a private consumer.
Here's an example (example ONLY, people!) of two statements, one of which might past legal muster as defamation and one of which is not defamation at all, but merely opinion:
Defamation: The gentleman on the right (Dan) who says "there is, intentionally, a high threshold for journalists, for we in the media. On Yelp!, I don't know if you have exactly the same protections," is an idiot who knows nothing about the law.
Opinion (not defamation): The gentleman on the right (Dan) who says "there is, intentionally, a high threshold for journalists, for we in the media. On Yelp!, I don't know if you have exactly the same protections," doesn't appear to be as well-versed in the law as he may believe himself to be.
Both statements say the same thing... ALMOST. Both statements question the validity of Dan's statement. The difference is that the first statement personally attacks Dan himself, while the second statement merely questions whether or not Dan is correct. The first statement meets defamation requirements, whereas the second statement is an opinion.
Similarly, if a Yelp! review states OPINION i.e. that the product is poorly-made, or the service was deplorable, that's someone's OPINION, and people in the United States of America are protected under state, federal,and ultimately Constitutional laws with respect to freedom of speech, including offering negative product and service reviews on Yelp!
Dan is right in that "as long as they're deserved" and key: "as long as you're not just making things up, there's not a case for anyone to come after you."
What I didn't hear any of them ask is, "How could a judge possibly allow for such a ridiculously frivolous lawsuit in the first place?" It's the court's JOB to protect the people, including from frivolous lawsuits. The average American does NOT have the funds to mount a legal defense every time some thin-skinned Yelp! business gets flamed because of bad products or services. It is the DUTY of the court to review the customer's statement and determine if there are any grounds for the business' claim of defamation. When a court tosses every such claim into the legal system, they are in DERELICTION of duty and have HARMED the citizen.
At that point in time, the court opens themselves and/or the municipality up to lawsuit for having harmed the citizen by allowing frivolous claims to proceed and draining the citizens' funds.
This is why I like Dan's suggestion about the woman "counter-suing the guy for putting her through this whole mess." No one who leaves a product review, deserved or not, should EVER be drug through the legal muck and mire designed to separate honest, hard-working people from their money.
For that matter, she should also sue the judge who allowed the frivolous lawsuit to proceed, or at least the municipality that appointed or elected the judge. No municipality should EVER tolerate judges who're incapable of accurately applying the law. Reviews are OPINIONS. Positive or negative, they are, by nature, about the product or service.
Do you agree or disagree? If so, why or why not?
There's no difference in threshold requirements for defamation between Journalism and a private consumer.
Here's an example (example ONLY, people!) of two statements, one of which might past legal muster as defamation and one of which is not defamation at all, but merely opinion:
Defamation: The gentleman on the right (Dan) who says "there is, intentionally, a high threshold for journalists, for we in the media. On Yelp!, I don't know if you have exactly the same protections," is an idiot who knows nothing about the law.
Opinion (not defamation): The gentleman on the right (Dan) who says "there is, intentionally, a high threshold for journalists, for we in the media. On Yelp!, I don't know if you have exactly the same protections," doesn't appear to be as well-versed in the law as he may believe himself to be.
Both statements say the same thing... ALMOST. Both statements question the validity of Dan's statement. The difference is that the first statement personally attacks Dan himself, while the second statement merely questions whether or not Dan is correct. The first statement meets defamation requirements, whereas the second statement is an opinion.
Similarly, if a Yelp! review states OPINION i.e. that the product is poorly-made, or the service was deplorable, that's someone's OPINION, and people in the United States of America are protected under state, federal,and ultimately Constitutional laws with respect to freedom of speech, including offering negative product and service reviews on Yelp!
Dan is right in that "as long as they're deserved" and key: "as long as you're not just making things up, there's not a case for anyone to come after you."
What I didn't hear any of them ask is, "How could a judge possibly allow for such a ridiculously frivolous lawsuit in the first place?" It's the court's JOB to protect the people, including from frivolous lawsuits. The average American does NOT have the funds to mount a legal defense every time some thin-skinned Yelp! business gets flamed because of bad products or services. It is the DUTY of the court to review the customer's statement and determine if there are any grounds for the business' claim of defamation. When a court tosses every such claim into the legal system, they are in DERELICTION of duty and have HARMED the citizen.
At that point in time, the court opens themselves and/or the municipality up to lawsuit for having harmed the citizen by allowing frivolous claims to proceed and draining the citizens' funds.
This is why I like Dan's suggestion about the woman "counter-suing the guy for putting her through this whole mess." No one who leaves a product review, deserved or not, should EVER be drug through the legal muck and mire designed to separate honest, hard-working people from their money.
For that matter, she should also sue the judge who allowed the frivolous lawsuit to proceed, or at least the municipality that appointed or elected the judge. No municipality should EVER tolerate judges who're incapable of accurately applying the law. Reviews are OPINIONS. Positive or negative, they are, by nature, about the product or service.
Do you agree or disagree? If so, why or why not?
Last edited: