Comment Re:Hmmm? (Score 2, Informative) 257
>but the moment you LIE that company can sue you into extinction.
In a libel case four things must be proved, not just whether or not something was a lie -
1) The statement made was false.
2) The statement made was fact, not opinion.
3) The statement was reputation damaging.
4) Some degree of fault on the part of the plaintiff. (Strict liability in some cases, but more often negligence, or in most cases actual malice)
Statements such as "This is a very unethical company." is opinion, and would probably not meet the qualifications for libel. Definitely wasting their time on that one unless that particular poster of the group being sued made more solid statements.
The other claims of people being paid off are more like supposed facts. However, showing that these posters did any real damage to the company, well. Probably not going to happen. Oh, they can sue, but they probably won't win. So indeed you can go about lying, but if the statement did no damage (whether nobody believed it, or it was too insignificant to do anything)... well, your libel case is toast. The article cites another similar case where a company blamed a stock price drop on a poster, but was awarded nothing.
Of course, if the company is found to be corrupt or whatever the posters are claiming, their case is screwed. Heh.
Even then... in Ollman v. Evans, one thing about determining fact vs. opinion is "What is the broader social context in which the statement appears?" These message boards could be determined as a place for sharing opinions. Now their are 3 other criteria they look at, and the statements about paying people off would seem to be fact, but this might... might... cause it to still be considered opinion. Long shot really, but message boards are a long way from the front page of the New York Times...
I don't understand why the company is bothering to pursue this one.
In a libel case four things must be proved, not just whether or not something was a lie -
1) The statement made was false.
2) The statement made was fact, not opinion.
3) The statement was reputation damaging.
4) Some degree of fault on the part of the plaintiff. (Strict liability in some cases, but more often negligence, or in most cases actual malice)
Statements such as "This is a very unethical company." is opinion, and would probably not meet the qualifications for libel. Definitely wasting their time on that one unless that particular poster of the group being sued made more solid statements.
The other claims of people being paid off are more like supposed facts. However, showing that these posters did any real damage to the company, well. Probably not going to happen. Oh, they can sue, but they probably won't win. So indeed you can go about lying, but if the statement did no damage (whether nobody believed it, or it was too insignificant to do anything)... well, your libel case is toast. The article cites another similar case where a company blamed a stock price drop on a poster, but was awarded nothing.
Of course, if the company is found to be corrupt or whatever the posters are claiming, their case is screwed. Heh.
Even then... in Ollman v. Evans, one thing about determining fact vs. opinion is "What is the broader social context in which the statement appears?" These message boards could be determined as a place for sharing opinions. Now their are 3 other criteria they look at, and the statements about paying people off would seem to be fact, but this might... might... cause it to still be considered opinion. Long shot really, but message boards are a long way from the front page of the New York Times...
I don't understand why the company is bothering to pursue this one.
