Reminder: It's Still Not Illegal For Someone To Criticize You
from the but-it-won't-stop-the-lawsuits dept
We've written about similar stories plenty of times in the past, but Adam writes in to let us know about a new article highlighting companies who sue those who leave negative reviews of their business online. The businesses complain that the negative reviews can have a serious impact on business -- which no one doubts. But, assuming that the review is truthful or just an opinion, there's really not much that can be done about it. Most companies would be better served responding to the criticism, rather than busting out the lawyers. Even if they feel the criticism is unjustified, it makes more sense to address the points, rather than pulling out the blunt threat of a lawsuit.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Double negative use there in your title, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: double negative
If you're referring to "...not illegal...," that's not a double negative, but I guess you would have preferred "It's Still Legal For Someoen To Criticize You."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Don't Need No Double Negatives
It's an application of "litotes", of which it appears you are not unignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree
(ahem) mart. There, better?
When you grow up and have something productive to add, let us know. Perhaps this will be after January 21st you can be "Mart".
Jerk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tell the lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now we "reap the rewards" of bad parenting decades ago.
Well, now you can see the outcome. These "emo equipped" CEOs (and other top dogs) obviously can't handle constructive criticism because they were never brought up to deal with it properly.
Spare the rod. Spoil the child.
It's amazing how many times congress keeps removing the rods needed to punish offenders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't take resonsibility - blame your parents!!
Decades ago, even thinking of suing for any of these reasons would have been laughed at now one can sue for just about anything. I bet that has nothing to do with spanking and if it does I'm sure those CEOs would be suing their parents for either spanking or not if they thought it would remove them from taking responsibility.
Or maybe we should blame the government since so many seem to want them to parent us....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't knock Wikipedia. Wikipedia generally has good data. But every once in a while you run into something that makes you scratch your head. You know, the cleverly hidden sentence that reads "so-and-so is a X". It's always a good laugh whenever you're graced with such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those would be slander or libel. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing criticism.
I find it odd that you criticize me for not understanding the issue, when it would appear to be you who did not understand it.
Does that mean I should sue you? After all, according to you, "criticism" can be slander or libel -- and you are lying in your claims about what I said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It can be a fine line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It can be a fine line
One is false, one is true. There is no fine line there. It's either true or it's not. Big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double negatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other related news.
Here's the copy of The New York Times Special Edition. My guess is you'll be engrossed for an hour. http://www.nytimes-se.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets bring back the SS and Gestapo
criticism and brings out lawyers to quash criticism
should be given the "SS" "Gestapo" award of the year.
Just think.. what is next.. book burings outside
corporate offices of articles that are not nice
to them.
Sieg Hiel !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]