The Widgetator: Newsletter Challenge (08/07/07)

That is where Global Spec come in: I think you will find that your details are kept private except if disclosure is required by a court of law. Also, the journal and its officers can in principle be sued if a site for which they are responsible doesn't take suitable care to avoid publishing libellous material. That is why they need to be careful of their T's and C's, and also why they have to be able to show they are suitably policing the site (you may have noticed that nearly every site that is open to general users has a mechanism for reporting abuse).

The reason I'm loosely aware of this is that I have an acquaintance who was on the receiving end of web-libel, and the lawyers were able to arrange that many search engines ignored those sites; I also believe that at least some western service providers denied access until the offensive material had been removed.

Fyz

So, can a commentator here say (no pun intended!) Product A is good, but Product B is bad, based solely on personal opinion formed by personal usage (anecdotal evidence) or "I heard that...." (hearsay evidence), without backing it up by scientific data, and not fear being sued by the maker, importer, or seller of Product B?

If this is not so, then there could be a real damper on product reviews that are based on opinions and subjective (although trying to be objective) analysis and not only on experimental data or data provided by the manufacturer.

Is that why most car magazines seem to only publish positive reviews of new cars and new accessories, because of the fear of being sued, or just the loss of advertising revenue?

BTW, what laws protect the reputation of products anyway? Libel, as I understand it only pertains to people and their characters, does it not? Isn't it a tried and true advertising scheme to say your product is good and competitors' products are bad, whether or not it is true, yet you do not see them suing each other over that, do you?

One case that comes to mind is where Consumers Union and their magazine, Consumer Reports was sued by Suzuki after CU found in their tests and published in CR that the Suzuki Samurai SUV was unstable in turns and even had a wheel lift off the ground. Of course Suzuki lost the suit, because CU is always meticulous in their testing and could show the data, and CR takes no outside advertising anyway!

But what of individual writers and bloggers, like us? Here in the US anyway, our First Amendment rights to Free Speech and Free Press preclude government interference or criminal action, but does it protect us from private lawsuits?

I think I just felt a chill!

You'll probably be unsurprised to learn that this Brit is not the least bit expert in U.S law. However, I'm pretty certain that this would be a matter of State, rather than Federal legislation. That will make it complex for the internet, but my understanding is that, if you knowingly take actions that will have effect in any US state you can in principle be prosecuted under the laws of that state.

If that's not the case, I fail to understand how the US courts have supported the holding of British businessmen for actions that were not against British law at the time of commission. (The fact that their deportation was requested and granted under the terms of an agreement that was nominally intended solely as a counter-terrorism measure is another matter - Caveat Legislator, is what I say; not that I have any particular brief for these guys - if guilty, what they did may not have been illegal at the time, but it was certainly not moral).

Returning to lying about products: I believe that many States have laws that extend libel protection against defamy to corporate entities and to products (albeit under different names), in the same way that they ban false claims in advertisements (hence, presumably, the whole language of statements that don't mean what you think?). Wasn't there something about Oprah and the banana?

BTW, if you say "you heard..." and the statement is defamatory, I suspect you may need to be able not only to prove that you heard it, but also that you had reasonable grounds for believing it - unless you make it clear that you believe the statement to be false, which leads to another minefield of weasel-wording and obfuscatory language. (Warning: those sentences are becoming unduly convoluted, which could be a sign that I don't know whereof I speak)

Fyz

*If there was an emoticon showing a raised hat, I would use it here.

How about this: C∫ \ :)

Nice one - or this perhaps?

.Ω

^O|^O
. ~

Fyz

That's good, Fyz, very pictorial, but a bit roomy.

What about this: (-: \þ

Yes, I like it. And I would always have preferred to lay down while raising my hat...