i think they have it right, but let me add one more piece of the puzzle. how did mr roberts order the block? through the internet from the business that resides in OH? so why does it not stand to reason as such. how many times do we see suits go to other states because of one thing or another just to get a better or think to get a better judgement. personally, i think if statements are true based on this written article, then roberts does need to pay for slander damages. it needs to go far as to remove these comments by this individual and create a restraining order for this person to desist and decease all comments. afterall, he made modifications to the block in question and then blamed the actual business.
I think the larger issue here is how the internet is changing and challenging the traditional concepts of jurisdiction. With its inherent interstate and international capabilities, using the internet in such a way that can be actionable blurs jurisdictional defenses from black and white to a grey area.
What I wonder is where is the line between free speech and slander/libel?
I’m sure you can say “I dislike X company” and will be fine, but how much can someone say before they have to worry about getting slammed with a defamation lawsuit? I am kind of torn between it. I think we need to protect companies and people from having lies told about them, but I belive in the 1st amendment more. When someone tells me something about a company or a person, I take it with a grain of salt and research it first, I dont just automaticly beleive it because a credible source told me it. Now, its kind of a parodox because you have someone that was legitamitly ripped off by a company, but can’t say anything without worrying about getting sued, but then again you have someone who just doesn’t understand the situation fully, or someone who will not listen to reason, that no matter the situation, big business is just ripping them off.
So on one hand, if we make it easy for companies to sue, you have a much harder time holding them accountable and letting the people know that the company is doing wrong, but on the other hand, you have ignorant people that all they see is big business taking their money and will not mention all the good things that the company has done for them.
“What I wonder is where is the line between free speech and slander/libel?”
If you’re making false statements/claims about someone or a business entity that will do damage to them, you’re in trouble.
If the statements/claims are true…then you have nothing to worry about.
Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with maliciously smearing someone with false statements designed to damage them. Libel is not protected free speech.
but in this case, it’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about putting the truth or an opinion that you think is right. but in this case, the fella is talking about him not able to satisfy his judgement because he altered the original block he built and it did not work. so he is out of money and has to purchase a new block. probably another that he can modify. good faith was in the company who created the original block. it would have worked properly if it had not been modified. but to go after them because you had altered it – not good! bear the weight of responsibility. you did modify the engine block and now you are out of dough because now you have to respend the money for another block (again, probably to remodify) and it probably won’t work again. that would have been fine, until you decided to defame the company because they won’t give you another block w/o spending more money. not very good choice of wording since the company did not mess anything up.
Wudchuck: If the statements are true, Roberts is guilty of nothing. If they are not true then he is guilty of libel, not slander. In addition, Roberts may just want to have the case tried in his state for his convenience, not for a better venue…
Dear Nerd: The line between libel/slander is the truth. If what you say is true, there is no libel/slander. If it is not true and malicious, it is libel/slander. You may want to consider a short course in legal liability so you are better able to counsel your clients…
Just because Roberts modified the block does not necessarily mean that was the cause of the defect. We need more facts before we jump to a snap conclusion. That’s what courts are for…
I can understand if you intentionally lie, thats libel/slander. But when you just state an opinion, you still have to worry about getting slapped with a lawsuit. That I do not agree with. Its just a shame that we seem to live in such a litigous socity.
In fact, just with what you said that I “may want to consider a short course in legal liability so you are better able to counsel your clients…” insinuates that I can not counsel my clients well. I am not upset, nor do I really care because I know, and my clients know, that I give them the best information that I can, and they are happy with me (or else theywouldn’t be insured with me). Don’t worry, I am not going to attempt to bring a lawsuit on you, because I don’t really care, but you see my point? There comes a point where the line is so blurred you can not see it.
Its not problem. I just hope I didn’t come off as angry. You know what they say about arguing over the internet. Lol
Personally, I am always trying to learn something new. I am considering going for an insurance designation. You can rarely have too much knowledge, expecally in the industry that we work in.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
i think they have it right, but let me add one more piece of the puzzle. how did mr roberts order the block? through the internet from the business that resides in OH? so why does it not stand to reason as such. how many times do we see suits go to other states because of one thing or another just to get a better or think to get a better judgement. personally, i think if statements are true based on this written article, then roberts does need to pay for slander damages. it needs to go far as to remove these comments by this individual and create a restraining order for this person to desist and decease all comments. afterall, he made modifications to the block in question and then blamed the actual business.
I think the larger issue here is how the internet is changing and challenging the traditional concepts of jurisdiction. With its inherent interstate and international capabilities, using the internet in such a way that can be actionable blurs jurisdictional defenses from black and white to a grey area.
What I wonder is where is the line between free speech and slander/libel?
I’m sure you can say “I dislike X company” and will be fine, but how much can someone say before they have to worry about getting slammed with a defamation lawsuit? I am kind of torn between it. I think we need to protect companies and people from having lies told about them, but I belive in the 1st amendment more. When someone tells me something about a company or a person, I take it with a grain of salt and research it first, I dont just automaticly beleive it because a credible source told me it. Now, its kind of a parodox because you have someone that was legitamitly ripped off by a company, but can’t say anything without worrying about getting sued, but then again you have someone who just doesn’t understand the situation fully, or someone who will not listen to reason, that no matter the situation, big business is just ripping them off.
So on one hand, if we make it easy for companies to sue, you have a much harder time holding them accountable and letting the people know that the company is doing wrong, but on the other hand, you have ignorant people that all they see is big business taking their money and will not mention all the good things that the company has done for them.
“What I wonder is where is the line between free speech and slander/libel?”
If you’re making false statements/claims about someone or a business entity that will do damage to them, you’re in trouble.
If the statements/claims are true…then you have nothing to worry about.
Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with maliciously smearing someone with false statements designed to damage them. Libel is not protected free speech.
but in this case, it’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about putting the truth or an opinion that you think is right. but in this case, the fella is talking about him not able to satisfy his judgement because he altered the original block he built and it did not work. so he is out of money and has to purchase a new block. probably another that he can modify. good faith was in the company who created the original block. it would have worked properly if it had not been modified. but to go after them because you had altered it – not good! bear the weight of responsibility. you did modify the engine block and now you are out of dough because now you have to respend the money for another block (again, probably to remodify) and it probably won’t work again. that would have been fine, until you decided to defame the company because they won’t give you another block w/o spending more money. not very good choice of wording since the company did not mess anything up.
Wudchuck: If the statements are true, Roberts is guilty of nothing. If they are not true then he is guilty of libel, not slander. In addition, Roberts may just want to have the case tried in his state for his convenience, not for a better venue…
Dear Nerd: The line between libel/slander is the truth. If what you say is true, there is no libel/slander. If it is not true and malicious, it is libel/slander. You may want to consider a short course in legal liability so you are better able to counsel your clients…
Just because Roberts modified the block does not necessarily mean that was the cause of the defect. We need more facts before we jump to a snap conclusion. That’s what courts are for…
I can understand if you intentionally lie, thats libel/slander. But when you just state an opinion, you still have to worry about getting slapped with a lawsuit. That I do not agree with. Its just a shame that we seem to live in such a litigous socity.
In fact, just with what you said that I “may want to consider a short course in legal liability so you are better able to counsel your clients…” insinuates that I can not counsel my clients well. I am not upset, nor do I really care because I know, and my clients know, that I give them the best information that I can, and they are happy with me (or else theywouldn’t be insured with me). Don’t worry, I am not going to attempt to bring a lawsuit on you, because I don’t really care, but you see my point? There comes a point where the line is so blurred you can not see it.
Point well taken. I apologize for the jab. It was uncalled for and unprofessional. Mea culpa.
Its not problem. I just hope I didn’t come off as angry. You know what they say about arguing over the internet. Lol
Personally, I am always trying to learn something new. I am considering going for an insurance designation. You can rarely have too much knowledge, expecally in the industry that we work in.