Libel is irrelevant. The REAL issue is the plethora of businesses harassing people with lawsuits because they told the truth (e.g. "took my car in for repair, they didn't fix it, different shop did it properly"). Businesses are trying to silence people who report them for failing to provide products or services agreed to.
6:00 - Band cancels a two hour show after one hour, attendee who paid $200 for a ticket says "I was ripped off, they stole my money", is that "opinion" and "defamation"? Or a failure of the entertainer to provide what was promised?
Businesses always have rights and lawyers, cops, politicians on their side, as it should be! Who gave you rights?? Shut up, vote for red scumbag or blue dirt bag and his hoho! Read the constitution, oh! wait we never taught you to read. 😂 Lol! So long suckers! If you sue them, the results are a matter of public record, now they can't say anything or just don't use them if you can!
I am starting to see contracts that have a clause about not posting negative comments about the business online. For customers that sign these contracts, they could lose a lawsuit for telling the truth.
@@theBear89451 Non-disclusure agreements don't cover criminal acts. By the same token, fraud by a business (failure to provide services paid for) doesn't and shouldn't be exempt. Besides which, if a business put that in a contract, I would not sign it. I would POST THAT CONTRACT so that everyone would know about their attitude and the risk of dealing with them.
@@TH-camChannel-rg2sb no, I think oppressing your public by claiming "professionals" have no obligation for a factual base to a story while public reporting of personal experience without evidence makes the private individual at risk for liable. Yes. That's some 1984 stuff. The powers that be can lie while the public cannot tell the truth without facing charges. Did you read the book?
@@TH-camChannel-rg2sb Apparently, you've never read Orwell. The point of the Ministry of Truth was to push "Media Speak" (fake news) to quell truth spoken by the citizenry. Try Rand, she is wordier, but may be easier for you to understand.
Given that the "review" was done by a competitor, there is a case for "actual malice." But there shouldn't be more gentle standards for big-moneyed elites.
Yes but it's also subjective, does the store actually smell like grandma's attic? The court can't determine what something smells like to you personally. :)
I think it should be the opposite. A company can afford to fight, meanwhile if a person gets threatened they can be made to take back a legit review because they can't afford to fight even a winning case.
As someone who has written many reviews for Google Maps, I can tell you that Google has standards for the reviews. If a review is not in compliance with Google standards, it is removed. (Much like an editor would do) A review that said, "Don't go to this place, but go over there instead" is the very kind of review that would be zapped by Google. So it doesn't surprise me that the review disappeared. It is the kind of review that Google would remove. To be clear, I don't see myself as a journalist, but more as a tour guide. My reviews are to help people who are visiting, or new to the area, know what they can find when going to the different places I write about in the reviews. Any negative reviews I write are always truthful and accurate. It would be helpful if I had the same protections as the media, but I guess those protections may be the reason why so many do not trust the media. They don't have to be truthful. I do.
There shouldn't be different standards for anyone. As the 9th circuit noted in Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox (2014) the 1A applies to all equally and it doesn't matter if you're posting on Facebook or a professional journalist working for institutional media.
Do you hear yourself? That case was never brought before the SCOTUS. This is not another circuit court deciding an appeal differently; It is the SCOTUS hearing and deciding on a lower-court case. I'm not commenting on the decision, itself, I am just saying your "reasoning" is what MAKES NO SENSE.
@@DiffEQ The SCOTUS has nothing whatsoever to do with this video, it's a state Supreme Court. And the only court higher than the 9th Circuit appeals court decision I cited is the actual SCOTUS.
@D Smyth : MEDIA is the most evil branch of the government. they hide behind freedom of the 'press' and can create Fake News out of thin air. the courts just support the other branches of government.
@@scottmcshannon6821 Considering that the case has been ruled on by two additional courts since the circuit court ruling, it is a pretty safe bet that there is some evidence of the post, even if it is via affidavits of people who saw it before it was deleted.
Not necessarily. It sounds like a tongue-in-cheek review, an obvious parody. It really doesn't matter, or would even repulse, if a piano store smelled of grandma's attic. If they suddenly lost business over the review, that might be different. I think readers take online reviews with a whole shaker of salt.
If you want to just outright lie about someone then you have to do like the "professionals" and say " I got it from an anonymous source in high authority" . Sure seems to work for them.
I would think, if anything, the higher standard would apply to media since they should presumably be trained on how to report responsibly. So this seems backwards from what it should be. Of course, I really think we should just have one standard for everyone.
The idea, as I understand it, is that media organizations would be crippled defending against nuisance lawsuits if they couldn't get them dismissed in early hearings because of the more rigorous standard. I'm not saying I agree with the logic.
I personally saw a situation where this law would help I was in Boston, i drive there all the time, at fancy restaurant with a friend. there were 3 instagramers eating a huge amount of food. (ok, mostly taking pics and nibbling, the amount of waste was like 90% They then discussed how to get out of the bill and came up with all sorts of stuff, from salt in the soda, hair in plates , stuff like that. They tried their game and the owner wasn't having it. He called the cops in the end because of them causing quite the scene. While waiting in the now locked restaurant (the owner was very apologetic to the rest of us inside , but we all understood and supported him) . the 3 girls were actively online posting fake reviews and discussing them OUT LOUD, we could all hear it. They laughed about destroying his company with reviews, they even called some friends to post fake mean reviews. it was awful behavior. This law would be legit, a great tool in situtations like this, where people are just out to make a scene, hurt people with reviews, or even just writing fake reviews for attention. I do think though there should be a sort of pre-mediation situtation where the reviewer has to prove some truth to their claim or the owner can prove falsehood in the review before taking up court time.
"This law would be legit, a great tool in situtations like this, where people are just out to make a scene, hurt people with reviews, or even just writing fake reviews for attention." You mean, where you can demonstrate "actual malice." In the situation described, you are talking about something intentionally false. That's just it. I think that should be the standard all the way around. As it is, it is the standard for professionals.
I’m currently suing a guy because they decided to leave a review saying one of my workers said something racist while misgendered him (he’s a black trans woman). Card only business so I ran them name and couldn’t get any hits on sales, watched the camera for not only the day they claimed to come in but the entire week, and never saw them come in. Found out through social media that they were a friend of a young lady I had fire that morning. Online reviews are messy. And Yelp is about as corrupt as it gets. After providing proof they refused to take the review down. But basically said if I paid them hundreds to join their program it would be taken care of.
A few years ago the local newspaper had a food critic review our restaurant. He complained about three items he didn't like. None of those three were on the menu nor had ever been on the menu. We were wondering if he was confused or was just making the whole thing up. I'll often read reviews but am not really one to believe them unless they are backed up by something else.
Nearby to here, they recently built a new hotel, from the ground up. Because of the pandemic it didn't open right away. It was getting negative online reviews, while it had still never been open for business.
Crazy is crazy, many years ago the washing machine where I lived broke. Seems like such a simple thing, go to the store and buy a new one. Nope not in this family, the 80+ year old mom had to go to a specific place, the entire family bought their appliances there. I stayed out of the transaction completely 9at first). The mom picks out a new washing machine, it is delivered and installed (Just a side note as a grown male, I was not allowed to use the washing machine, and thank God I did not buy this machine or was at all involved with delivery and hook up). The mom calls for me an hour after it was delivered, can I look at it, it isn't working (it starts working and stops). I can't see anything wrong with it. I call the store. Hey you guys just delivered the washing machine, any chance you can send someone over to look at it (this was a mom and pop type place) they say no, we have to call the manufacturer. I am like it hasn't been in the house 2 hours maybe you can send someone out, it might be something simple. Nope, so now I have to call Maytag or whomever. They ask if I called the store, I said yes, they said they don't do repairs, whatever, they will send someone out next week. Now I have to tell this 80+ year old woman she can't do laundry for a week. The store had a website and there was also a community website you could leave reviews for local businesses. I said I was very disappointed with XYZ, they delivered the washing machine it didn't work, they refused to send someone out to look at it, now we have to wait a week for a manufacturer tech to come out and look at it. They got very upset at my post but never denied it. Tech gets out and orders a new motherboard or something, he will be back in 2 weeks. This woman is losing her mind. I am getting upset, my fiance is telling me just don't touch it, but I was the one dealing with the manufacturer. I made another post an update on the washing machine they said it was a bad motherboard will be at least 2 weeks longer, great customer service by XYZ, they could have taken it back and delivered another one and had it repaired at their store. They were getting angry, if I don't stop posting they will consider legal action against me. The tech comes back with the part, installs it, the machine is not working, he goes through, all he can think is to order more parts, if that doesn't work they will have to replace it, it will be 3 weeks for the parts. I say, can you wait 5 minutes, he says sure, why? I say technically I am not allowed to touch the washing machine, don't ask. I pull the machine out, I check the connections and the drain tube thing. There was some kind of cap on it, no idea why, I took a picture, the tech guy is laughing. I take the cap off put it back in the drain pipe, we try the machine again it works. Everyone is happy, he got a tip for his great work, he looked at me I said it is cool, she is happy, it is all I care about about now. I posted again, with the picture, had the tech guy in it. If they sent someone out to check, they probably would have found this, the situation was the installers made a mistake. They shut up after that. No apology, nothing. Nobody in their family bought an appliance from them again. Don't mess with Oma and her laundry. I am sure everyone at her church and in the neighborhood heard the story.
there is a different standard for business, than regular people- that's all it is Touchy subject though, as there are exceptions to both sides of online reviews- insane consumers or mass review attacks, and businesses slandering each other.. The 'honor system' only gets you so far
It is funny because in Japan even if it is true the injured party and family can sue the person making the statement. The last I heard they were taking some steps to change that law in Japan.
@@davidh9638 It's simple, your mother told you to always tell the truth. Or to put it another way if you don't have anything nice to say about someone don't say anything at all. Have we as a society become so debased that lying is considered OK? IT'S NOT!!!
Steve, you are at least as much a journalist as was Benny Franklin. You keep an online journal. People seek your journal out for understanding their cultural environment and to get informed of the most recent events. You are actually famous for providing not just a commentary service, but one of factual assessment. You have a regular readership and following that is larger than most small and medium town news sources could ever have hoped to achieve. If being a journalist was a death-penalty offense and you got arrested for it, we'd have to be breaking you out of the klink, and your John Dillinger life would begin in earnest, because you would be found guilty.
Also consider that Franklin's Pennsylvania Gazette was published weekly and had a circulation of a couple thousand copies... I'd say Lehto (by raw numbers, at least) is much more of a journalist than Franklin was. As far as historical significance... well... no comment.
He's had plenty of material and articles published by reputable sources; he most definitely qualifies for a press pass in many cases. I bothered to look, and definitions are pretty much inclusive of Steve's processes.
This court Accidentally forgot to add the flip side to that ruling. I'm sure it was just an accident or an honest mistake or they just didn't think of it. Lucky for them I did. How many consumer reviews are bought off? There needs to be a just as severe law on companies that offer money or gifts for a positive review. While we're at it if there's a way to implement a Law prohibiting people from accepting comps from a company to give a review would be great. Consumers are damaged when they read reviews that are false and believe those reviews then purchasing the product only to find out it's not what it's claimed to be. If a product is good it will stand on its own Merit.
I had an Amazon company offering me a quarter of the price of a product that was nearly useless to delete or change the review. I told them stop contacting, still got emails daily! I have had to contact Amazon about sellers doing this sort of thing.
Why do you have to be part of a media organization to get protection for press? Press is not only just about who employs you, it's what one does. It's your actions that makes you press.
This is a blow against consumers. Good or bad, we offer reviews as a service to other humans (for whatever they are worth.) We take our own time to do it, and get nothing in return. Now it seems Oregonians are more likely to get sued for it? If it sticks it won't end well.
@Albo alt not talking about defamation. Talking about a honest, truthful review now. If a company doesn't like what you have to say, now they can sue you even if it's truthful!
on the other GOOD hand, it gives people a way to stop the false reviews and the bullying reviews. If people can't act right, then they deserve to be brought to court for their actions as long as reviews are valid and honest, i don't see a problem here. HOWEVER, there does need to be a way to let people prove their reviews are true if the idea of court is brought about, like a pre-mediation situtation
@@HeavenlyiceDream On the flip side to that, you're opening the door for people to be brought to court for merely voicing their opinion. If they bought a product/service and had a poor or very bad experience or product, and voice their concern, what is to stop someone from claiming they are lying and trying to defame said product/service? You should never have to fear repercussions for voicing a mere opinion.
Whatever free speech protection goes to organized journalists should go to all Americans. (or vice versa) How can judges decide otherwise? What is their standard? Is it the constitution? Is it equal representation under the law? Is it fairness and equity? What is it?
I read the other day that "freedom of the press" referred the right of all Americans to use the means of communication of the day, the printing press. It doesn't mean the current interpretation, that of some special group of businesses known collectively as the Press.
FREEDOM of speech and freedom of the press are rights afforded to everyone! If everyone is truly created equal, as our constitution claims, this ruling is unconditional. Pretty sure SCOTUS has already made that decision.
First draft of the 29th Amendment to the US Constitution: "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and is entitled to it. They are also entitled to the repercussions".
IT IS MY OPINION, AND I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, that a big factor in this case was that the reviewer (poster) was a competitor of the plaintiff who anticipated financial gain from the posting of a negative review. Of course, this might not be factual. lol
That's true, if you constantly post a positive review of one company will the competition be able to sue you for harm. "You didn't say anything good about me!" . That would be crazy.
That's a good question. Maybe its just hard to run a society when people don't want to tell the truth, or even know what the truth is, or even believe there is such a thing as Truth.
It seems to me that some people made a big deal about "activist judges" awhile ago, then proceeded to work on getting their type of judges into the courts. Now we are reaping the benefits of the ideological doofuses who are now in the judicial system. All Ideology, and very little judgement.
I don't care, I will be honest with my reviews, and noone will ever get a cent regardless of any court judgement. I am completely willing to go full scorched earth if necessary. I have nothing to lose.
Your review is your opinion and is protected under the first amendment. This wasnt a customer or a form of political protest type of review. This was another business slandering another, which is why the libel lawsuit was able to proceed.
With the way MSM companies have behaved past decade or more, they should be stripped of this protection and be sued all day long every day. It'd make it so they would actually be forced to publish only facts and society would benefit from it.
Truth should be a protection from libel. Media shouldn't everyone should have to tell the truth. Even if you're writing a review. This is win for the truth.
Agreed. How would they even define who is the press and who isn't in this day and age of Twitter/Facebook/TH-cam channel/Other Self Published Content? What rule could possibly correctly cover the complete range of "Professional Journalist" (who might be just starting out and making a name for themselves)?
Anytime you get one of these types of phony libelous reviews, or a threatening post on your TH-cam channel, or a social media site, or any such like, TAKE A SCREEN SHOT. Even if the offending post is deleted you have a record. And don't alter the photo with Photoshop or whatever by resizing it or cropping. Just save it as is. That should be admissible in court.
I gave a reviewin person recently for a steak house in Tucson, AZ, the meat was very tasty, the service was great, but ! The steak knives they use were like butter knives, and you are fighting to just get a cut. So I did the reasonable thing, asked for more napkins, and used my hands, the owner came over to see what was wrong, needles to say. They got someone a job, sharpening all the dam knives. That's how it should work, specially with how much we pay to eat there.
For someone to be held liable for a TRUTHFUL review of a service, etc.... Is wrong in many ways. Now, a business can wrong you for JUST BECAUSE and would not have to worry now that you are gonna run your chops about said business. I'd take this to the Supreme court. The hell with state courts. Hope they do.
You can't be held liable for a truthful review. The question is do they have to prove whether the review was both false and malicious. This particular case, the review was both false and malicious because the review wasn't from a customer but a competitor posing as a customer.
I'm of two minds on this. Businesses shouldn't sue over bad reviews IF they are true. Reviewers shouldn't lie either. But that's what this case is about, a competitor lying in a review to harm another business. That case should go forward IF it can be shown the person who is accused of doing it, did it.
Steve you’re kind of a journalist in that you are like a news anchor speaking on issues of the day in a non politically biased way which is impossible to get anymore
The standards should be the other way around. It should be easier to sue journalists and politicians. It shouldn't be about malice, at least, if it is, then that should be criminal. But if they make a mistake, they should be made to compensate, which may mean millions of dollars to replace a person's opportunity lost in life. It should be about the damages. You are right of course about true statement or opinion. That problem though isn't present in the justice system. The stautes are good, it's people, and it's one of the biggest social problems on so many levels. Peace
I can see it now: Someone offering reverse journalism employment. For a small fee, they'll add you to their roster of Journalists, credentials included.
Loser pays laws could thin out many lawsuits. But I worry that the US is not very good at identifying and weeding out the corrupt in government. Bad actor bribes or blackmails judge to rule in their favor, loser who had a legitimate claim is bankrupted.
"This was the worst steak I ever had. It was underdog and flavourless. The wait staff at Huddy's Bistro is a joke!" Cross examination : Really the worst steak you ever ate? We have witness testimony from your in laws about last years fourth of July. Is it true you were in charge of the BBQ?..... 😉"?
This would be an absolutely horrible case to try to establish a precedent about citizen journalists. This was a case of a competitor giving a suspect review, not an actual customer giving his unbiased opinion.
As several have noted, below, there a number of different facets to this situation. However, the first thing that stands out is the courts' specious claim that the first amendment is variable, depending on the speaker. It is not, and the law is wrong, as currently applied. There is no special standing for media, large or small, and the individual citizen has all the rights that any corporation or organization does.
I wanted to tell people about a doctor that performed surgery on me but refused to give me pain medicine when I was in the recovery room. I wanted to tell people what he did but I refused to be sued by the guy. I believe his justice will come but it won't be from me!
An old injury of mine flared up yesterday, forcing me to remain relatively immobile for long hours and going through multiple ice packs. It still hasn't completely settled yet today. In my opinion, it's an objective fact that "yesterday was a bad day."
The "Actual Malice" standard shouldn't exist for anyone. Especially not journalists, who should be held to a higher standard than regular folks, not a lower one. That being said, this guy should have to pay BIG TIME!!! Lying about your competition should actually be a crime.
Our own current president said we take truth over facts. Your truth is greater than the facts. So if the president says it we should take it seriously.
Slander is not just Defaming someone nor is it libel spoken. Slander has its own unique meaning that most people are unaware of and I recommend you check your Blacks law dictionary for its true definition. I have the strange feeling you may be surprised.
I'm guessing these piano store owners weren't exactly spring chickens when the lawsuit started in 2013. Even though the OR supreme court ruled that the lawsuit can continue, I'm guessing one or the other of them isn't gonna cross the finish line. I think the real surprise here more than the ruling is that "it smelled like grandma's attic" and "they aren't trustworthy" is probably going to take more than a decade to get any kind of justice. I think living with that over your head for 10 years is the real injustice. -edit Like for real though, how is the plaintiff gonna prove that it didn't smell like grandma's attic and that someone couldn't ever under any reasonable circumstances have thought that they were untrustworthy 10 YEARS AGO?. It's still the plaintiff's responsibility to prove that and there's just no way. I mean if they haven't done any remodeling or cleaning in 10 years, Yeah, its gonna smell like grandma's attic.
The law considers a corporation to be a "legal person." So if a corporation sees a right that individual flesh-and-blood persons have, and which the corporation covets, then the corporation sues to get those rights for itself, under the Fourteenth Amendment. That's how corporations now have freedom of religion. But if an individual wants the same rights as a corporation, or wants the corporation to bear the same burdens of citizenship as actual people, then of course that is out of the question. That's why a corporation is never summoned for jury duty, or subject to the military draft when there is one. I am surprised that a corporation has never run for President.
So "real news" can say mean things about a person/product but a citizen leaves the same review and the court is like 'punish the citizens protect the elites!'
I would think it should be reversed. That media should have the higher standard. I would think if your job is to find the truth so to speak than you should be held to a higher standard.
I had a new Competitor at the time do that . They made stuff up on Google saying “ looks like dangerous place, broken bottle in parking lot for more then a day. I sent customers there way when I didn’t have something in stock. That was until 3 different customers I sent told me that they said I sold used products as new and we did illegal deals in the parking lot. After a while they business failed. They sold a lot of consignments and they went out of business some reason they told there customers to go to my shop to pick them up after filling a moving tuck with out notice . I had to deal with there angry customers for a few weeks.
What changes how one looks at that line. Must have pay from a recognized news outlets, ie abc, NBC, CBS, USA today, news York times. Should have taken classes from a Recognized college.
@@DarkElfDiva I understand your worries but i find them outside the purview of the legal system. The separation of power between the legislative, executive and judiciary should sufice. As a prerequisite to society you must trust that the social contract will pe uphold by all individuals/parties implicated. "The Party" and/or a represetant is not a valid legal judge. If there is a consensus that a judgement is not compatible with objetive reality, then it is not a law issue but a societal one. The remedy of which is the creation of a new social contract.
Freedom of Press can not be revoked. Those core freedoms mentioned in the various articles of the Bill of Rights are not granted by said document, they are Human rights that have existed since the dawn of mankind and civilization. The Bill of Rights simply protects those rights, and thus can't be revoked.
I live in Oregon and I HATE HATE HATE this state more and more every day. It has become a wretched and backwards-headed place to live. No shortage of online examples that show what a decayed and ridiculous sewer this state has become. I can no longer find a single example of logical, right-thinking activity in government of any kind. This story is just one of many many many examples of what an absurd and horrible state of the union that Oregon has become.
I think the reason for the double standard has to do with the way life was before the internet. The "sphere of influence" of a newspaper was orders of magnitude larger than the sphere of influence of the average person. All this changed with websites such as Yelp.
The issue here is that journalists working for a corporate media actually have a financial incentive to go easy with criticism of those who could potentially put ads (i.e.: industrial military complex, pharmaceuticals, amongst others). So comparing them to online reviewers is a risk thing and should only be done on a case-by-case basis and in consideration of the fact that online reviewers are often believed to be more trustworthy.
If anything the standard should be reversed. Big media has a duty to get to the truth. They have the big budgets to fact check. They have the money for lawyers to vet their actions. Individuals dont have those advantages therefore the malice test should apply.
Just speak to your experience. Instead of saying it's untrustworthy, say I don't trust for reasons. Represent yourself in court and make fun of them when you win.
The huge problem is people are primed to believe a screen recording and a digital post of words then actually listening to people around them in their community.
Steve, I thoroughly enjoy your video commentaries. In this episode I noticed that the logo on your shirt is “Lincoln Patriots”…is that from Sioux Falls (SD) Lincoln High School? If so, that is the school I graduated from in 1976! By the way, I now live in SE Michigan (Oakland County).
What's the difference between the Detroit Free Press running a story about XYZ, Inc's or John Doe's alleged bad behavior and the same reporter posting about it on Facebook? Are they both not exercising of one's free press rights? Freedom of speech?
Libel is irrelevant. The REAL issue is the plethora of businesses harassing people with lawsuits because they told the truth (e.g. "took my car in for repair, they didn't fix it, different shop did it properly"). Businesses are trying to silence people who report them for failing to provide products or services agreed to.
6:00 - Band cancels a two hour show after one hour, attendee who paid $200 for a ticket says "I was ripped off, they stole my money", is that "opinion" and "defamation"? Or a failure of the entertainer to provide what was promised?
@@guessundheit6494 I think that would fall under fraud as 2 hours of service was scheduled for the payment, and only half was delivered.
Businesses always have rights and lawyers, cops, politicians on their side, as it should be! Who gave you rights?? Shut up, vote for red scumbag or blue dirt bag and his hoho! Read the constitution, oh! wait we never taught you to read. 😂 Lol! So long suckers!
If you sue them, the results are a matter of public record, now they can't say anything or just don't use them if you can!
I am starting to see contracts that have a clause about not posting negative comments about the business online. For customers that sign these contracts, they could lose a lawsuit for telling the truth.
@@theBear89451 Non-disclusure agreements don't cover criminal acts. By the same token, fraud by a business (failure to provide services paid for) doesn't and shouldn't be exempt.
Besides which, if a business put that in a contract, I would not sign it. I would POST THAT CONTRACT so that everyone would know about their attitude and the risk of dealing with them.
I love how the courts say that "professional" journalist have lower standards for truth than regular people. This is actual 1984 stuff.
You will be happy.
This is not what 1984 is jesus christ.
@@TH-camChannel-rg2sb yes because the ministry of truth was well known for their accurate reporting in 1984
@@TH-camChannel-rg2sb no, I think oppressing your public by claiming "professionals" have no obligation for a factual base to a story while public reporting of personal experience without evidence makes the private individual at risk for liable.
Yes. That's some 1984 stuff. The powers that be can lie while the public cannot tell the truth without facing charges.
Did you read the book?
@@TH-camChannel-rg2sb Apparently, you've never read Orwell. The point of the Ministry of Truth was to push "Media Speak" (fake news) to quell truth spoken by the citizenry. Try Rand, she is wordier, but may be easier for you to understand.
Given that the "review" was done by a competitor, there is a case for "actual malice." But there shouldn't be more gentle standards for big-moneyed elites.
Yes but it's also subjective, does the store actually smell like grandma's attic? The court can't determine what something smells like to you personally. :)
I think it should be the opposite. A company can afford to fight, meanwhile if a person gets threatened they can be made to take back a legit review because they can't afford to fight even a winning case.
We've lived in a world with gentler standards for money for centuries, man. Unfortunately that's never going to change.
As someone who has written many reviews for Google Maps, I can tell you that Google has standards for the reviews. If a review is not in compliance with Google standards, it is removed. (Much like an editor would do)
A review that said, "Don't go to this place, but go over there instead" is the very kind of review that would be zapped by Google. So it doesn't surprise me that the review disappeared. It is the kind of review that Google would remove.
To be clear, I don't see myself as a journalist, but more as a tour guide. My reviews are to help people who are visiting, or new to the area, know what they can find when going to the different places I write about in the reviews. Any negative reviews I write are always truthful and accurate.
It would be helpful if I had the same protections as the media, but I guess those protections may be the reason why so many do not trust the media.
They don't have to be truthful.
I do.
There shouldn't be different standards for anyone. As the 9th circuit noted in Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox (2014) the 1A applies to all equally and it doesn't matter if you're posting on Facebook or a professional journalist working for institutional media.
Do you hear yourself? That case was never brought before the SCOTUS. This is not another circuit court deciding an appeal differently; It is the SCOTUS hearing and deciding on a lower-court case. I'm not commenting on the decision, itself, I am just saying your "reasoning" is what MAKES NO SENSE.
@@DiffEQ The SCOTUS has nothing whatsoever to do with this video, it's a state Supreme Court. And the only court higher than the 9th Circuit appeals court decision I cited is the actual SCOTUS.
Courts are moving ever so quickly to put us behind a modern iron curtain.
@D Smyth : MEDIA is the most evil branch of the government. they hide behind freedom of the 'press' and can create Fake News out of thin air. the courts just support the other branches of government.
@D Smyth You domesticated poltroons won't fight.
Yes, they are colluding with politicians, law enforcement and the media. They all protect each other.
Silicon Curtain ...
Based on the details of the story, the competitor absolutely posted with intent to do harm to the other business (ie: malice).
since the review had been deleted i didnt hear any facts that the competitor had actually posted the review.
@@scottmcshannon6821 Considering that the case has been ruled on by two additional courts since the circuit court ruling, it is a pretty safe bet that there is some evidence of the post, even if it is via affidavits of people who saw it before it was deleted.
Not necessarily. It sounds like a tongue-in-cheek review, an obvious parody. It really doesn't matter, or would even repulse, if a piano store smelled of grandma's attic. If they suddenly lost business over the review, that might be different. I think readers take online reviews with a whole shaker of salt.
If you want to just outright lie about someone then you have to do like the "professionals" and say " I got it from an anonymous source in high authority" . Sure seems to work for them.
I would think, if anything, the higher standard would apply to media since they should presumably be trained on how to report responsibly. So this seems backwards from what it should be.
Of course, I really think we should just have one standard for everyone.
The idea, as I understand it, is that media organizations would be crippled defending against nuisance lawsuits if they couldn't get them dismissed in early hearings because of the more rigorous standard. I'm not saying I agree with the logic.
I personally saw a situation where this law would help
I was in Boston, i drive there all the time, at fancy restaurant with a friend.
there were 3 instagramers eating a huge amount of food. (ok, mostly taking pics and nibbling, the amount of waste was like 90%
They then discussed how to get out of the bill and came up with all sorts of stuff, from salt in the soda, hair in plates , stuff like that.
They tried their game and the owner wasn't having it. He called the cops in the end because of them causing quite the scene.
While waiting in the now locked restaurant (the owner was very apologetic to the rest of us inside , but we all understood and supported him) . the 3 girls were actively online posting fake reviews and discussing them OUT LOUD, we could all hear it.
They laughed about destroying his company with reviews, they even called some friends to post fake mean reviews.
it was awful behavior.
This law would be legit, a great tool in situtations like this, where people are just out to make a scene, hurt people with reviews, or even just writing fake reviews for attention.
I do think though there should be a sort of pre-mediation situtation where the reviewer has to prove some truth to their claim or the owner can prove falsehood in the review before taking up court time.
sounds like the law change wouldnt be necessary, since the malice and intent to harm was witnessed by many
"This law would be legit, a great tool in situtations like this, where people are just out to make a scene, hurt people with reviews, or even just writing fake reviews for attention."
You mean, where you can demonstrate "actual malice." In the situation described, you are talking about something intentionally false. That's just it. I think that should be the standard all the way around. As it is, it is the standard for professionals.
I’m currently suing a guy because they decided to leave a review saying one of my workers said something racist while misgendered him (he’s a black trans woman).
Card only business so I ran them name and couldn’t get any hits on sales, watched the camera for not only the day they claimed to come in but the entire week, and never saw them come in.
Found out through social media that they were a friend of a young lady I had fire that morning.
Online reviews are messy. And Yelp is about as corrupt as it gets. After providing proof they refused to take the review down. But basically said if I paid them hundreds to join their program it would be taken care of.
A few years ago the local newspaper had a food critic review our restaurant. He complained about three items he didn't like. None of those three were on the menu nor had ever been on the menu. We were wondering if he was confused or was just making the whole thing up. I'll often read reviews but am not really one to believe them unless they are backed up by something else.
Nearby to here, they recently built a new hotel, from the ground up. Because of the pandemic it didn't open right away. It was getting negative online reviews, while it had still never been open for business.
The double standard is odd, but in this case, the fact that the comment was made by a competitor, “actual malice” is implied.
So, when does a libel lawsuit become a SLAPP lawsuit? Wealthy entities have endless undeserved advantages in court over the rest of us.
Ben hiding in the dark, on top of OED Vol V, Steve's RHS
Crazy is crazy, many years ago the washing machine where I lived broke. Seems like such a simple thing, go to the store and buy a new one. Nope not in this family, the 80+ year old mom had to go to a specific place, the entire family bought their appliances there. I stayed out of the transaction completely 9at first). The mom picks out a new washing machine, it is delivered and installed (Just a side note as a grown male, I was not allowed to use the washing machine, and thank God I did not buy this machine or was at all involved with delivery and hook up). The mom calls for me an hour after it was delivered, can I look at it, it isn't working (it starts working and stops). I can't see anything wrong with it. I call the store.
Hey you guys just delivered the washing machine, any chance you can send someone over to look at it (this was a mom and pop type place) they say no, we have to call the manufacturer. I am like it hasn't been in the house 2 hours maybe you can send someone out, it might be something simple. Nope, so now I have to call Maytag or whomever. They ask if I called the store, I said yes, they said they don't do repairs, whatever, they will send someone out next week. Now I have to tell this 80+ year old woman she can't do laundry for a week. The store had a website and there was also a community website you could leave reviews for local businesses. I said I was very disappointed with XYZ, they delivered the washing machine it didn't work, they refused to send someone out to look at it, now we have to wait a week for a manufacturer tech to come out and look at it.
They got very upset at my post but never denied it. Tech gets out and orders a new motherboard or something, he will be back in 2 weeks. This woman is losing her mind. I am getting upset, my fiance is telling me just don't touch it, but I was the one dealing with the manufacturer. I made another post an update on the washing machine they said it was a bad motherboard will be at least 2 weeks longer, great customer service by XYZ, they could have taken it back and delivered another one and had it repaired at their store. They were getting angry, if I don't stop posting they will consider legal action against me.
The tech comes back with the part, installs it, the machine is not working, he goes through, all he can think is to order more parts, if that doesn't work they will have to replace it, it will be 3 weeks for the parts. I say, can you wait 5 minutes, he says sure, why? I say technically I am not allowed to touch the washing machine, don't ask. I pull the machine out, I check the connections and the drain tube thing. There was some kind of cap on it, no idea why, I took a picture, the tech guy is laughing. I take the cap off put it back in the drain pipe, we try the machine again it works. Everyone is happy, he got a tip for his great work, he looked at me I said it is cool, she is happy, it is all I care about about now.
I posted again, with the picture, had the tech guy in it. If they sent someone out to check, they probably would have found this, the situation was the installers made a mistake. They shut up after that. No apology, nothing. Nobody in their family bought an appliance from them again. Don't mess with Oma and her laundry. I am sure everyone at her church and in the neighborhood heard the story.
there is a different standard for business, than regular people- that's all it is
Touchy subject though, as there are exceptions to both sides of online reviews- insane consumers or mass review attacks, and businesses slandering each other.. The 'honor system' only gets you so far
"..reckless disregard for the truth.." That would describe several national media outlets.
Not to mention almost all Republican politicians...
@@davidgriffith3938 the reds are the lessor of 2 evils lately.
It is funny because in Japan even if it is true the injured party and family can sue the person making the statement. The last I heard they were taking some steps to change that law in Japan.
And many other places. It's been mentioned as one reason for emigrating from England to the USA.
@@davidh9638 I would of guessed it was the food. "More black pudd'n gov-nor?"
The truth is always a defense against libel, so just be truthful. Is that so tough?
But what if what you want to say about your across-town competitor, isn't true?
@@davidh9638 It's simple, your mother told you to always tell the truth. Or to put it another way if you don't have anything nice to say about someone don't say anything at all. Have we as a society become so debased that lying is considered OK? IT'S NOT!!!
Steve, you are at least as much a journalist as was Benny Franklin. You keep an online journal. People seek your journal out for understanding their cultural environment and to get informed of the most recent events. You are actually famous for providing not just a commentary service, but one of factual assessment. You have a regular readership and following that is larger than most small and medium town news sources could ever have hoped to achieve.
If being a journalist was a death-penalty offense and you got arrested for it, we'd have to be breaking you out of the klink, and your John Dillinger life would begin in earnest, because you would be found guilty.
Also consider that Franklin's Pennsylvania Gazette was published weekly and had a circulation of a couple thousand copies... I'd say Lehto (by raw numbers, at least) is much more of a journalist than Franklin was. As far as historical significance... well... no comment.
He's had plenty of material and articles published by reputable sources; he most definitely qualifies for a press pass in many cases.
I bothered to look, and definitions are pretty much inclusive of Steve's processes.
This court Accidentally forgot to add the flip side to that ruling. I'm sure it was just an accident or an honest mistake or they just didn't think of it. Lucky for them I did.
How many consumer reviews are bought off? There needs to be a just as severe law on companies that offer money or gifts for a positive review. While we're at it if there's a way to implement a Law prohibiting people from accepting comps from a company to give a review would be great. Consumers are damaged when they read reviews that are false and believe those reviews then purchasing the product only to find out it's not what it's claimed to be. If a product is good it will stand on its own Merit.
I had an Amazon company offering me a quarter of the price of a product that was nearly useless to delete or change the review. I told them stop contacting, still got emails daily! I have had to contact Amazon about sellers doing this sort of thing.
Why do you have to be part of a media organization to get protection for press? Press is not only just about who employs you, it's what one does. It's your actions that makes you press.
So, basically, all businesses will have five star reviews, because no one will be willing to be sued by corrupt owners of shops.
Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe:
Protecting you from malicious online reviews since 1889.
Miss those guys!
This is a blow against consumers. Good or bad, we offer reviews as a service to other humans (for whatever they are worth.) We take our own time to do it, and get nothing in return. Now it seems Oregonians are more likely to get sued for it? If it sticks it won't end well.
That depends on whether the post is valid criticism or an obvious hit piece like the post by the referenced suit.
Don't lie or cheat and you should be fine.
@Albo alt not talking about defamation. Talking about a honest, truthful review now. If a company doesn't like what you have to say, now they can sue you even if it's truthful!
on the other GOOD hand, it gives people a way to stop the false reviews and the bullying reviews.
If people can't act right, then they deserve to be brought to court for their actions
as long as reviews are valid and honest, i don't see a problem here.
HOWEVER, there does need to be a way to let people prove their reviews are true if the idea of court is brought about, like a pre-mediation situtation
@@HeavenlyiceDream On the flip side to that, you're opening the door for people to be brought to court for merely voicing their opinion. If they bought a product/service and had a poor or very bad experience or product, and voice their concern, what is to stop someone from claiming they are lying and trying to defame said product/service? You should never have to fear repercussions for voicing a mere opinion.
Whatever free speech protection goes to organized journalists should go to all Americans. (or vice versa) How can judges decide otherwise? What is their standard? Is it the constitution? Is it equal representation under the law? Is it fairness and equity? What is it?
I read the other day that "freedom of the press" referred the right of all Americans to use the means of communication of the day, the printing press. It doesn't mean the current interpretation, that of some special group of businesses known collectively as the Press.
FREEDOM of speech and freedom of the press are rights afforded to everyone! If everyone is truly created equal, as our constitution claims, this ruling is unconditional. Pretty sure SCOTUS has already made that decision.
yep, Corporations are 'more equal' than people....yes, Animal Farm reference.
First draft of the 29th Amendment to the US Constitution: "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and is entitled to it. They are also entitled to the repercussions".
IT IS MY OPINION, AND I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, that a big factor in this case was that the reviewer (poster) was a competitor of the plaintiff who anticipated financial gain from the posting of a negative review. Of course, this might not be factual. lol
Is falsely praising a business harmful to a competing business?
so true, witch is what google does when u can pay to be first search in their engine.
That's true, if you constantly post a positive review of one company will the competition be able to sue you for harm. "You didn't say anything good about me!" . That would be crazy.
That's a good question. Maybe its just hard to run a society when people don't want to tell the truth, or even know what the truth is, or even believe there is such a thing as Truth.
The government should not be able to decide who is a journalist. This will invariably lead to disparities in free speech.
Steve, you're an editorialist or a commentator.
It seems to me that some people made a big deal about "activist judges" awhile ago, then proceeded to work on getting their type of judges into the courts. Now we are reaping the benefits of the ideological doofuses who are now in the judicial system. All Ideology, and very little judgement.
Duelling pianos....is that anything like duelling Banjos ?
Dueling pianos sounds like something PDQ Bach would've done. 🙂
If you can imagine an 88-string folk instrument. (Tom Lehrer)
I don't care, I will be honest with my reviews, and noone will ever get a cent regardless of any court judgement. I am completely willing to go full scorched earth if necessary. I have nothing to lose.
If you have nothing to lose then going "...full scorched earth if necessary." just means you're singeing some dirt and it's not even your dirt.
@@Le_Comte_de_Monte_Felin No. Any bad reviews I leave will be honest reviews. I wouldn't leave a bad review if it wasn't absolutely deserved.
@@Le_Comte_de_Monte_Felin That’s a funny take on the “nothin to lose”-“scorched earth” combo
Your review is your opinion and is protected under the first amendment. This wasnt a customer or a form of political protest type of review. This was another business slandering another, which is why the libel lawsuit was able to proceed.
You'd think that these Judges had never heard of "Equal Protection Before the Law."
With the way MSM companies have behaved past decade or more, they should be stripped of this protection and be sued all day long every day. It'd make it so they would actually be forced to publish only facts and society would benefit from it.
You mean there are double standards in this country ? Who would of thought that
Sounds like there are more than double.
Steve is a news presenter with a legal background
Glad to see a Patriots fan. Go Patriots!
Truth should be a protection from libel. Media shouldn't everyone should have to tell the truth. Even if you're writing a review. This is win for the truth.
TRUTH always outweighs one being pissed about a review. If it happened, I can talk about it. Sue Me !
have they never read the smith-mundt act? rather its subsequent repeal is of concern.
The constitution does not define who is the press. I think anyone can be the press if they write or video publicly.
Agreed. How would they even define who is the press and who isn't in this day and age of Twitter/Facebook/TH-cam channel/Other Self Published Content? What rule could possibly correctly cover the complete range of "Professional Journalist" (who might be just starting out and making a name for themselves)?
If your review is truthful, it's not a problem.
Anytime you get one of these types of phony libelous reviews, or a threatening post on your TH-cam channel, or a social media site, or any such like, TAKE A SCREEN SHOT. Even if the offending post is deleted you have a record. And don't alter the photo with Photoshop or whatever by resizing it or cropping. Just save it as is. That should be admissible in court.
It is admissible but it absolutely shouldn't be. Way too easy to fake that. Only a subpoena of TH-cam's own data should be admissible.
I gave a reviewin person recently for a steak house in Tucson, AZ, the meat was very tasty, the service was great, but !
The steak knives they use were like butter knives, and you are fighting to just get a cut. So I did the reasonable thing, asked for more napkins, and used my hands, the owner came over to see what was wrong, needles to say. They got someone a job, sharpening all the dam knives.
That's how it should work, specially with how much we pay to eat there.
For someone to be held liable for a TRUTHFUL review of a service, etc.... Is wrong in many ways. Now, a business can wrong you for JUST BECAUSE and would not have to worry now that you are gonna run your chops about said business. I'd take this to the Supreme court. The hell with state courts. Hope they do.
Your 1st amendments are only protected in relation to government. So if you post a negative review, better be sure you can back it up.
Of course truth is a defense, in the USA, just like always.
You can't be held liable for a truthful review. The question is do they have to prove whether the review was both false and malicious. This particular case, the review was both false and malicious because the review wasn't from a customer but a competitor posing as a customer.
I'm of two minds on this. Businesses shouldn't sue over bad reviews IF they are true. Reviewers shouldn't lie either. But that's what this case is about, a competitor lying in a review to harm another business. That case should go forward IF it can be shown the person who is accused of doing it, did it.
0:45 It's crooked that the press has a different standard that protects them over standard people.
Wow. Society's opinion of journalists has fallen so low that even *_lawyers_* would rather not be labeled as such.
Steve you’re kind of a journalist in that you are like a news anchor speaking on issues of the day in a non politically biased way which is impossible to get anymore
He is covering the news with expertise. It's definitely journalism
The standards should be the other way around. It should be easier to sue journalists and politicians. It shouldn't be about malice, at least, if it is, then that should be criminal. But if they make a mistake, they should be made to compensate, which may mean millions of dollars to replace a person's opportunity lost in life. It should be about the damages.
You are right of course about true statement or opinion. That problem though isn't present in the justice system. The stautes are good, it's people, and it's one of the biggest social problems on so many levels.
Peace
How does a matter of free speech even get into a state supreme court?
The question is regarding a federal constitution, not a state one.
I can see it now: Someone offering reverse journalism employment. For a small fee, they'll add you to their roster of Journalists, credentials included.
A lot of problems seem to stem from not having the losing party pay for the winning party's legal and other costs.
Loser pays laws could thin out many lawsuits. But I worry that the US is not very good at identifying and weeding out the corrupt in government. Bad actor bribes or blackmails judge to rule in their favor, loser who had a legitimate claim is bankrupted.
Double standards for the press are how we got in this mess. It needs to stop.
Oprah: "You're a journalist. You're a journalist. You're all journalists!"
Steve, you are not only a journalist, you're one of the best! (my opinion, of course;)
5:48 I think this was the biggest laugh I have ever gotten from this channel lol
"This was the worst steak I ever had. It was underdog and flavourless. The wait staff at Huddy's Bistro is a joke!"
Cross examination : Really the worst steak you ever ate?
We have witness testimony from your in laws about last years fourth of July.
Is it true you were in charge of the BBQ?..... 😉"?
"I'd never eat my own cooking!"
Roll tide!
Apparently journalists in Oregon must be licensed!
This would be an absolutely horrible case to try to establish a precedent about citizen journalists. This was a case of a competitor giving a suspect review, not an actual customer giving his unbiased opinion.
As several have noted, below, there a number of different facets to this situation. However, the first thing that stands out is the courts' specious claim that the first amendment is variable, depending on the speaker. It is not, and the law is wrong, as currently applied. There is no special standing for media, large or small, and the individual citizen has all the rights that any corporation or organization does.
Its Oregon. They dont have an actual legal system there. Nor do they have an actual state government.
I wanted to tell people about a doctor that performed surgery on me but refused to give me pain medicine when I was in the recovery room. I wanted to tell people what he did but I refused to be sued by the guy.
I believe his justice will come but it won't be from me!
If your account is factual then you should have the freedom to post it as a warning for others without fear of reprisal.
@@lexpox329 it was but I couldn't prove it
An old injury of mine flared up yesterday, forcing me to remain relatively immobile for long hours and going through multiple ice packs. It still hasn't completely settled yet today. In my opinion, it's an objective fact that "yesterday was a bad day."
This is Muther Nature, I'm gonna sue.......
The "Actual Malice" standard shouldn't exist for anyone. Especially not journalists, who should be held to a higher standard than regular folks, not a lower one.
That being said, this guy should have to pay BIG TIME!!! Lying about your competition should actually be a crime.
Our own current president said we take truth over facts. Your truth is greater than the facts. So if the president says it we should take it seriously.
In Finland companies are not protected against libel. Companies do not have honor that could be violated. Here libel is a crime.
So will the courts start issueing press passes? And on the back they can list the extra rights you get..
Slander is not just Defaming someone nor is it libel spoken. Slander has its own unique meaning that most people are unaware of and I recommend you check your Blacks law dictionary for its true definition. I have the strange feeling you may be surprised.
Since ALL people are journalists via Supreme Court. This goes against well established law.
I'm guessing these piano store owners weren't exactly spring chickens when the lawsuit started in 2013. Even though the OR supreme court ruled that the lawsuit can continue, I'm guessing one or the other of them isn't gonna cross the finish line. I think the real surprise here more than the ruling is that "it smelled like grandma's attic" and "they aren't trustworthy" is probably going to take more than a decade to get any kind of justice.
I think living with that over your head for 10 years is the real injustice.
-edit
Like for real though, how is the plaintiff gonna prove that it didn't smell like grandma's attic and that someone couldn't ever under any reasonable circumstances have thought that they were untrustworthy 10 YEARS AGO?. It's still the plaintiff's responsibility to prove that and there's just no way. I mean if they haven't done any remodeling or cleaning in 10 years, Yeah, its gonna smell like grandma's attic.
The law considers a corporation to be a "legal person." So if a corporation sees a right that individual flesh-and-blood persons have, and which the corporation covets, then the corporation sues to get those rights for itself, under the Fourteenth Amendment. That's how corporations now have freedom of religion.
But if an individual wants the same rights as a corporation, or wants the corporation to bear the same burdens of citizenship as actual people, then of course that is out of the question. That's why a corporation is never summoned for jury duty, or subject to the military draft when there is one.
I am surprised that a corporation has never run for President.
Well at least FEELINGS will be protected, if not truth, the law, commerce, or the public.
So "real news" can say mean things about a person/product but a citizen leaves the same review and the court is like 'punish the citizens protect the elites!'
the fact that there are different standards means we've already gone too far astray.
Any business that has filed a suit should have that noted on all review sites.
I would think it should be reversed. That media should have the higher standard. I would think if your job is to find the truth so to speak than you should be held to a higher standard.
There are a lot of people who sincerely believe their opinions are objective fact. A lot!
TN just passed a law that criminalize false online reviews.
Enjoying your channel so much, keep it up! I do work in Oregon, ty!
I had a new Competitor at the time do that . They made stuff up on Google saying “ looks like dangerous place, broken bottle in parking lot for more then a day. I sent customers there way when I didn’t have something in stock. That was until 3 different customers I sent told me that they said I sold used products as new and we did illegal deals in the parking lot. After a while they business failed. They sold a lot of consignments and they went out of business some reason they told there customers to go to my shop to pick them up after filling a moving tuck with out notice . I had to deal with there angry customers for a few weeks.
What changes how one looks at that line. Must have pay from a recognized news outlets, ie abc, NBC, CBS, USA today, news York times. Should have taken classes from a Recognized college.
In other news; Tucker Carlson moving to Oregon.
'I've always loved the place' asked Tucker, rhetorically.
Revoke journalist rights! If they lie they lie.
@@DarkElfDiva
I understand your worries but i find them outside the purview of the legal system.
The separation of power between the legislative, executive and judiciary should sufice.
As a prerequisite to society you must trust that the social contract will pe uphold by all individuals/parties implicated.
"The Party" and/or a represetant is not a valid legal judge.
If there is a consensus that a judgement is not compatible with objetive reality, then it is not a law issue but a societal one. The remedy of which is the creation of a new social contract.
Freedom of Press can not be revoked. Those core freedoms mentioned in the various articles of the Bill of Rights are not granted by said document, they are Human rights that have existed since the dawn of mankind and civilization. The Bill of Rights simply protects those rights, and thus can't be revoked.
I live in Oregon and I HATE HATE HATE this state more and more every day. It has become a wretched and backwards-headed place to live. No shortage of online examples that show what a decayed and ridiculous sewer this state has become. I can no longer find a single example of logical, right-thinking activity in government of any kind. This story is just one of many many many examples of what an absurd and horrible state of the union that Oregon has become.
This is just an "ugh" case. Nuff said.
Freedom of the press means that the government doesnt get to decide who is or isnt press.
I think the reason for the double standard has to do with the way life was before the internet. The "sphere of influence" of a newspaper was orders of magnitude larger than the sphere of influence of the average person. All this changed with websites such as Yelp.
The issue here is that journalists working for a corporate media actually have a financial incentive to go easy with criticism of those who could potentially put ads (i.e.: industrial military complex, pharmaceuticals, amongst others). So comparing them to online reviewers is a risk thing and should only be done on a case-by-case basis and in consideration of the fact that online reviewers are often believed to be more trustworthy.
If anything the standard should be reversed. Big media has a duty to get to the truth. They have the big budgets to fact check. They have the money for lawyers to vet their actions. Individuals dont have those advantages therefore the malice test should apply.
So, Can you sue Yelp for asking for your review, positive or negative? Sounds like the court has decided to silence all critics.
Just speak to your experience. Instead of saying it's untrustworthy, say I don't trust for reasons. Represent yourself in court and make fun of them when you win.
The huge problem is people are primed to believe a screen recording and a digital post of words then actually listening to people around them in their community.
Steve, I thoroughly enjoy your video commentaries. In this episode I noticed that the logo on your shirt is “Lincoln Patriots”…is that from Sioux Falls (SD) Lincoln High School? If so, that is the school I graduated from in 1976! By the way, I now live in SE Michigan (Oakland County).
But the person suing has to prove that got injured. ☝️🧐
I think they are wrong. This should go to the Supreme court. EVERYONE is media.
What's the difference between the Detroit Free Press running a story about XYZ, Inc's or John Doe's alleged bad behavior and the same reporter posting about it on Facebook? Are they both not exercising of one's free press rights? Freedom of speech?