Legal question about Freedom of Speech on the forum and the threat of lawsuits

xbob

Apologies if this is OT. It's about the forum itself rather than coins.

I was thumbing through a Numismatist magazine that I got at the last Baltimore coin show and ended up reading a two page open letter about a lawsuit (most of you know the one) that kind of bothered me. The most troublesome part IMO was about an online forum member being sued by a grading company just for posting his opinion about their service. Now he has (had?) to come up with a bunch of legal fees to defend himself. It's kind of old news but I don't know if it ever got resolved in or out of court.

Is a statement of opinion open to legal trouble if somebody, or some company doesn't like what you have to say? It would stink if everybody had to completely sugarcoat their posts in fear of being sued. Luckily, that hasn't seemed to happen and even negative comments are usually done politely .

From a legal standpoint though, are we always at risk or are we somehow protected? Or are there just limits?

Are there any lawyers in the forum (or members with legal knowledge) that can answer this?

MrEureka

You cannot make a statement of fact and protect yourself by calling it an opinion. If I were to state that IN MY OPINION you have repeatedly molested your neighbor's children, you will sue me and win. That's because my statement wasn't a subjective opinion. It was a statement of fact, erroneously called an "opinion". Likewise, if I were to state that "It is my opinion that TPG XYZ is incompetent, corrupt and owned by a secret member of a satanic cult", I would completely expect to get sued and lose my furry white ass. Unless, of course, I could prove that my so-called opinion was correct.

greghansen

From a legal standpoint though, are we always at risk or are we somehow protected?

Very broad question. From a very general point of view, yes we always are at risk of being sued when we offer opinions about others...just as we are at risk for an automobile accident every time we drive. Practically speaking, the risk of being sued is extremely small, and there are usually many warning signs that your conduct is getting very risky, well in advance of any actual suits. If you want to learn more, here is a basic free site that has lots of FAQ about libel and slander.

FreeAdvice legal issue website

cladking

I don't believe it's necessary to sugarcoat anything but if you speak negatively
about a man, his character, or his business you'd do well to be able to defend
the statements or at least be relatively confident that he won't be interested in
suing. No one likes law suits but they are always avoidable if both parties exibit
good will and usually avoidable if either party exercises common sense before
the fact.

coynclecter

If I am correct, anyone can sue anyone for anything. The court clerk doesn't review filings to decide if they have merit. If the forms are filed out correctly then it will find it way into court. You can have it thrown out, but that costs money.

Now if they have the ability to win, that's a different story. The hard part is that even if they have absolutely NO chance to win, it still may cost money to defend yourself. Of course, there's always a chance of a countersuit, but that costs money too.

Bottom line is that unless you are a lawyer, lawsuits, valid or not, cost money.

I might add that most often costing the other guy money is the only objective. It's a way to shut them up and scare others. Having sued before I have found that even solid cases can take years and cost much more than you will ever get.

flaminio

xbob

Thanks for the replies. I read the applicable topics at the link you provided Greg and it was very informative. It certainly confirmed that we are liable for our online statements when they do damage to others (assuming it can be proved).

I understand the threat of lawsuit is minimal, but disturbing none the less. It's good to be aware of our own liability just in case. The golden rule still applies.

relayer

Freedom of speech is only protected when adressing the government and the truth is a defense to libel.

mgoodm3

Sounds like the key to things is to insult people with words that have no specific meaning, not make statements about their character/propensities. You should say "XXX is a douchebag" rather than "XXX sodomizes farm animals"

Cratylus

The fact that an innocent person has to shell out his own hard-earned money to defend himself against what may amount to a frivolous lawsuit is one of the great travesties of our legal system. We need to adopt a "loser pays" system. If the person bringing suit knew that his case was tenuous at best (or if he was filing it simply as a way to "get back" at somebody), he would think twice about filing that turkey with the court if he knew that he'd have to pick up the tab for ALL the legal fees for both parties.

K6AZ

From the legal website that Greg linked:

ARE THERE DEFENSES TO DEFAMATION?

Establishing the truth is the single most effective defense that can be offered. If the remark is truthful and it "hurts", is embarrassing, or subjects you to ridicule, there is little you can do. Unfortunately, unless the remark is false, you have no recourse.

The absolute defense to a defamation/libel suit is the truth. Even then, the subject of your post can still sue you and cost you money, even though they know what you said was the truth.

xbob

<< <i>From the legal website that Greg linked:

ARE THERE DEFENSES TO DEFAMATION?

Establishing the truth is the single most effective defense that can be offered. If the remark is truthful and it "hurts", is embarrassing, or subjects you to ridicule, there is little you can do. Unfortunately, unless the remark is false, you have no recourse.

The absolute defense to a defamation/libel suit is the truth. Even then, the subject of your post can still sue you and cost you money, even though they know what you said was the truth. >>



That's exactly what gave me the willies. The fact that someone can throw a law suit at you and you have to come up with money to defend yourself even when you were truthful.

I just read and old post about it and realized who was involved. I am sorry if I brought up a sore subject. It stinks rotten that such a thing happened.

stman

<< <i>It would stink if everybody had to completely sugarcoat their posts in fear of being sued. >>



Yes, but many of the dealers on here like it this way.

K6AZ

Bob, have a look at my website here:

A close look at Accugrade

Everything on that site is the truth, and has been verified (with the exception perhaps of the Charlotte transcripts, which contain testimony from others).

greghansen

Not that I want this to ever happen to anybody, but if you should get sued for defamation or libel; and you are a homeowner (or are living with a relative who is a homeowner); the very first thing you should do is take the homeowners insurance policy to a lawyer who knows what the heck he/she is doing to review your policy to see if you have coverage for the suit. It is not intuitive, but many homeowners policies provide liability coverage for such suits. Most people think of their 'homeowners' coverage as only covering their home or its contents, but generally the policies have a very broad definition of 'liability' protection, that covers residents of the household as they travel about the world inflicting harm on other citizens. If yours does, your in much better shape to defend because your homeowners carrier will be obligated to hire a lawyer to defend you without any further expense to you. Just a little tidbit of wisdom from my world!

RGL

We are dealing with libel with the written word. If you are a public figure -- so deemed by your position or your own quest for the spotlight -- it requires a "knowing and reckless disregard of the truth" to prevail. That is, you knew what you were saying was false and you "published" it regardless. That is a very high standard to prove for any public-figure plaintiff. How do you prove a person uttered a statement they knew was false? It is hard to read people's minds. Fair and reasoned opinion is permitted ... However, if you are deemed a private figure, one whose position is not in the public limelight and you do not seek same, the standard for libel is less. You need only show carelessness and deviation from standard care to prevail on libel. I think a very strong case can be made, based on his "high profile" and attempts to thrust himself into the public arena, that the plaintiff in question is a public figure and will not prevail. However, anyone can file a suit and saddle defendants with legal fees to defend themselves ...

TonedPeaceNut

We need to adopt a "loser pays" system. If the person bringing suit knew that his case was tenuous at best (or if he was filing it simply as a way to "get back" at somebody), he would think twice about filing that turkey with the court if he knew that he'd have to pick up the tab for ALL the legal fees for both parties.

We don't want a loser pays system. Many times, most people believe they have a good case before they seek legal advice. A good lawyer will be able to advise his client that it is or isn't. Often though, until discovery has been completed, you really don't know if there's a solid case. This is why our system uses a Summary Judgement motion early on in the litigation. Now granted, you still have to pay a lawyer to defend you to get to that stage, but there's is a way to get the lawsuit dismissed before the big legal fees start.

My answer -- make the lawyer pay, not the client. As a lawyer, he/she would be in the best position to know whether the case is a winner/loser and/or whether it will survive a challenge @ Summary Judgement. If you screen your cases closely, do an excellent job of intake and fact finding and have do some preliminary discovery you won't have to pay out much. But if you're sloppy, don't do what you're suppose to do and just file to file lawsuits -- you might have to pay for your mistakes.


TPN

Barry

<< <i>You should say "XXX is a douchebag" rather than "XXX sodomizes farm animals" >>


Just don't call anyone a fishwife

Greg makes a good point about checking your insurance policies. When I was served in the first Accugrade suit (the one in FL court), I called my insurance agent. He asked me to send him a copy of the complaint, and he called back a few days later with the good news - I was covered 100% by my Umbrella Liability Policy. This is a pretty inexpensive add-on for liability protection that covers any liability in excess of my homeowner's and auto policies, and also covers any liability not covered by the two. State Farm hired the legal firm and put me in touch with the lawyer. He filed all the paperwork to answer the complaint and I was eventually dropped from the suit. I never saw a bill.

lathmach

Isn't the suit being discussed a "Tort of Disparagement" action being brought by a third party grading service against some internet users on this and another forum?
If it is, it may be a whole different ballgame than a libel action against an individual, as the business being defamed was a legitimate business, operating within the law.

Ray

CoinResource

How about "loser pays double"?

K6AZ

<< <i>Isn't the suit being discussed a "Tort of Disparagement" action being brought by a third party grading service against some internet users on this and another forum?
If it is, it may be a whole different ballgame than a libel action against an individual, as the business being defamed was a legitimate business, operating within the law.

Ray >>



All I can say is you're out in left field with your take on it.

MrEureka

I'll give you a hypothetical that may illuminate some of the issues at play:

Dealer X, a well-respected specialist in Registry coins, observes my inventory online or at a coin show. He concludes that in my 7-figure inventory, I have no "finest knowns" in popular series, no Godzilla toners, and far "too many" esoteric rarities for which there is a limited market. (All of these things are true, a reflection of my quest for "value". ) He then repeatedly posts messages on this forum blasting me and my inventory for those very reasons, for the express purpose of stealing my customers, damaging my reputation and gaining other advantages.

Lawyers: I think I've been unfairly disparaged. Do I have a reasonable case?

mrearlygold

<< <i>I'll give you a hypothetical that may illuminate some of the issues at play:

Dealer X, a well-respected specialist in Registry coins, observes my inventory online or at a coin show. He concludes that in my 7-figure inventory, I have no "finest knowns" in popular series, no Godzilla toners, and far "too many" esoteric rarities for which there is a limited market. (All of these things are true, a reflection of my quest for "value". ) He then repeatedly posts messages on this forum blasting me and my inventory for those very reasons, for the express purpose of stealing my customers, damaging my reputation and gaining other advantages.

Lawyers: I think I've been unfairly disparaged. Do I have a reasonable case? >>








I'm not a lawyer but would certainly write a retainer check in order to launch a retaliatory legal salvo.

And they would continue for a long time too.

Tom

Russ

<< <i>It would stink if everybody had to completely sugarcoat their posts in fear of being sued. >>



This is precisely why I am always all sweetness and light.

Russ, NCNE

mgoodm3

<< <i>Just don't call anyone a fishwife >>




That would be a screaming fishwife.