Slashdot Log In
Mom Makes Website, Gets Sued for $2 Million
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sun Nov 13, 2005 04:04 PM
from the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished dept.
from the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian stay-at-home mom of 3 recently created a website to report on environmental problems around her neighborhood. The general public and governmental workers lauded her for her efforts. The environmental Ministry spokesman was even quoted as saying 'Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry'. However, not everyone was quite as happy, as she soon found out, when one company decided to sue her for libel to the tune of $2 million."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
But she has to prove it, and they've got the bigger pocket books...
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
People will bring up the RIAA suing grandmothers, and rightly so. The difference, as I see it, is that the RIAA believes - rightly or wrongly - that they're losing millions and millions of dollars to piracy. Look at it that way and it makes sense that they're willing to trade some bad press for a lessened erosion of their bottom line. Nothing in the article led me to believe that Activa was being so seriously affected by this one little site.
I guess what I'm saying is there's just enough information to make me think something else is going on here, but not enough to know what.
Parent
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Informative)
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zQLM8Fs0lo8J:
Google's cache of her geocities page!
Parent
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Informative)
Justification
If a person publishes a statement which lowers the reputation of another, the law presumes the falsity of the statement and the defendant then has the burden of proving the truth of the statement. If it is the truth anyone is free to say it. However, if the plaintiff consents to the statement being made, he/she cannot later argue they have been defamed. Actionable defamation only consists in a false statement impairing ones reputation.
From here, about half way down, under "Canada".
Parent
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
in Canda? (Score:5, Funny)
heh (Score:5, Interesting)
Worse: Sue said woman for more than she can ever possibly make under normal circumstances, breaking her family apart and probably separating her three kids.
They could have made it 'better' by being like "We're glad you brought this to our attention and we're going to fix it. Thanks for your vigilence!"
That's it! (Score:5, Funny)
Poor summary (Score:5, Informative)
Typical STFU lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, a little bit more details about which claims company thinks are false would be helpful for more concrete judgement.
Legal fee issue not quite true (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite true. Canada has a loser-pays system, so the losing party has to pay the winning party's costs, but it's usually only a portion (depending on the case - if the judge feels the actions by the plaintiff are malicious and without merit, then the losing party will receive most, if not all, of their legal fees paid by the plaintiff).
In Soviet Russia... (Score:5, Funny)
In South Korea, only old libelous... damn.
I, for one, welcome our Libelous Housewife... shit.
Uh, well, good for her. Fuck the man. Yeah.
Anyone got a link to this woman's website? I'm giving odds that theres a few crafty animated gifs on there.
Haven't we been over this already? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Money is all that matters.
2) If you are not a millionaire, you are a second class citizen
3) You are not allowed to buy from a small company if there is a bigger one available
4) If something a company sells you is crap, well, too bad.
5) If you buy something from a company, they own you
6) Speaking against anyone or anything richer than you is illegal.
7) It is the government of the companies, by the companies, for the companies.
8) Anyone who doesn't go to the Commerce School deserves to be screwed over
Let's see, we're all guilty of...well, pretty much everything.
She has a lot to lose (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, the problem I have is that even if she drops the website and the company continues to pursue the lawsuit, she has so much to lose. She's risking the well-being of her three kids to battle a libel case, one which she (presumably) has no funds to support. I'm not suggesting its wrong to take a stand, but I know first-hand what it is like to battle a corporation when you are being sued. My best friend was sued $150,000 by a company (he had an accidental fire in the house he was renting) and lost everything. The company never got a dime from him, but he was forced into bankruptcy, fell behind on all his bills, and to this day is still being tracked by companies trying to collect for unpaid bills. He lost to the one with financial superiority, and this really threw his life off course -- all over an accidental fire. Now he can't get a mortgage, credit cards, or much else.
If I was in this woman's position, I'd value the well-being of my kids over battling a corporation, because odds are she will not walk away from this in a better position than she was before this lawsuit started.
That site was pr0n for the builder's attorneys (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is all good (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a "you have wronged us, we deserve damages" lawsuit. The company knows she couldn't ever pay $2 million. This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.
Let's hear it for coporate censorship. If you say something we don't like, make sure you're willing to give up your life for it.
Parent
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:5, Insightful)
...therefore, to silence others, acuqire their property. Landlords can silence tenants, shopping malls can evict patrons wearing political slogans the management disgrees with, etcetera.
Typical libertarian capitalist fallacy that puts property as a primary right, rather than as a secondary tool to ensure primary rights.
Parent
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:5, Insightful)
But discrimination results in people not being able to make so much money, and thus not being able to own property, and thus not being able to reduce the acreage available for bigots to be bigoted on, and so on. Seems like that'd create an underclass, which never ends well.
I could care less about what media companies might do with the freedom to libel. Who cares. If you're in the public eye, accept it. If you run a big business, combat it with great quality of service.
But how do people find out about your excellent quality of service or great product if the people getting paid to talk loudly are all saying it sucks? The system you describe would allow any company to cover another with as much slime as they could buy, which would tend to lead to horrific monopolies - a classic market breakdown effect. Slime does have an effect, and it's not always trumped by quality of service. Besides, do you really want to produce a system in which only the biggest liars are able to survive? We're close enough to that already without adding fuel to the fire.
Parent
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:5, Insightful)
So then, as a matter of principle, you won't be suing me when I rent a few billboards near your house and put your name, address, and photo on them, along with labeling you a known liar, thief, and pedophile. Hope you produce some seriously high-quality products, my man.
Parent
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:5, Funny)
Drop dead.
-jcr
Parent
Re:A classic example of... (Score:5, Informative)
A more accurate statement would be that `several states have enacted legislation to provide some protection against SLAPP lawsuits'. These laws do not 1) cover the entire US, and 2) do not generally make SLAPP lawsuits illegal. Instead, they change things a little to make it easier to defend against these sorts of lawsuits.
And of course, the woman is in Canada, so US law generally doesn't apply there. (We didn't invade yet, did we?)
Parent
Re:Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent