Mom Makes Website, Gets Sued for $2 Million 842
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."
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.
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.
Activa claims the website has caused damage to its reputation and launched the lawsuit only after Lanteigne refused to apologize and take down the site.
--end cut--
So, it appears she is stating on the website that they have been spilling oil, etc., even possibly as a one-liner somewhere, and not documenting with photographs. If I were her, I'd find some law firm to take the case on pro-bono and spend my money getting GreenPeace out there to do soil/water testing to _prove_ that there has been oil spilled.
Voila, case won, and probably legislation started about this corporate behaviour too, so good for Mom.
I sure hope she has pictures of these spills, to start with...
Peace!
-cheez
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Informative)
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zQLM8Fs0lo8J:
Google's cache of her geocities page!
... and images (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up. (Score:4, Insightful)
How can it be libel if she is simply reporting what she sees? It's obvious from her tone that she has concern for her neighborhood including many sincere warnings to parents in the area about specific threats (stagnant water, pressure treated wood).
I'm at a loss here as to what Activa's case is.
Re:Mod parent up. (Score:3, Informative)
Too many people assume that all countries have the same laws. In some countries, truth is NOT a defence. If in truth you are a thieving, acne-scarred, malodorous butt-pirate and I call you one in a public forum, all you have to do is prove that your reputation has been hurt, not that it isn't true.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation [wikipedia.org]
Why not check out her web site! (Score:3, Informative)
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zQLM8Fs0lo8J:
ttyl
Farrell
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is in the US. I don't know much about Canadian law, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was there too.
But how much truth can you afford? Lawsuits are expensive, for both sides. Though if her story is 100% true (and I see little reason think it's not, though of course I only know what I've read on her site and the news) it's unlikely that this will ever even go to trial. But of course, a lawsuit doesn't have to go to trial to have the desired
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what's the excuse for the American media's failure to report on anything?
I mean, really, with all these great freedom of speech protections in law, why are the US media so often the most saturated with bullshit (not counting reports coming from the Iraqi information minister, and such)?
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) There's no evidence to that effect
b) My reputation is such that a statement that I rape babies would damage it and
c) I can prove that you said so without making certain minimal efforts to substantiate your claims.
My problem always comes in point b. My coverups are masterful, and my enemies far too lazy, but my rep sucks.
Pug
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm...No...
Two things:
a) If you get news from a spammer, does it really have any standing?
b) The defendant would have to prove that the spammer was false, not that he or she did not rape the baby. Remember, US law says there must be damage for one to have legal standing. It's a much better system. It keeps our police hon
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Funny)
I have proof that what you say is false! 3 words will be enough: "Bush" "WMD" "Iraq"
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not. That's why I posted the link to a discussion of the differences. Thanks for playing "Do You or Do You Not Have Basic Reading Comprehension Skills" though. In a defense of Justification (ie. "It's not Libel, it's the truth!"), the burden of proof is on the Defendant in Canadian law. Canada is not the US; our legal system is not identical to yours.
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether that ends up being true in specific issues varies, of course. But to whatever extent the typical American thinks about Canada, it's usually safe to assume a
Contrast that with Mexico --- they're just as close to us as Canada is (obviously), and they probably have more influence on us than Canada does, but I daresay most Americans (myself included) wouldn't be nearly so quick to make assumptions about government policies there.
Maybe it's because of the language thing, maybe it's something else. But I seriously doubt it's because of something
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Informative)
I sure hope not. Malice is only a requirement if the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official. Also, falsity is not necessarily an element of libel, although truth is a defense.
Unfortunately for this woman, she'll have to prove that her statements were true, otherwise, she will probably lose.
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
Knowing builders and developers like I do, I can say with out fear of contradiction that they all infringe to some extent in some fashion or othe,r some of the enviromental or safety laws. She just has to prove this, it will be pretty easy to do if all she will need is a little bit of support from knowledgeable people from the industry i.e. competitors, subcontractors with an axe to grind, ex-employees, disgruntled customers etc. (I think they needed their collective heads read for starting something that is pretty well gauranteed to blow up in their collective faces).
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Funny)
That comes from having sex with us Canadian men.
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, indeed. The USA has much better freedom of speech than anywhere else in the world. Why, here in Soviet Britain, you don't know where you're allowed to speak your mind and where it's forbidden -- I really wish we had designated "free speech zones" like you Americans!
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry - we're on the case!
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, quit trying to claim a difference in legal procedure is a vast cultural divide. I happen to agree with the U.S. system leaving the burden of proof where it is, but to make this into a "Capitalism vs Socialism" issue?
Get a grip. We're hardly perfect, and at least if she loses the suit and files bankruptcy, she can still get her kids to a doctor.
Pug
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
Has anyone here considered that she might, in fact, have done harm to an innocent company? We don't know anything about her or the company. I've known people who think they know everything, what is safe and what isn't, what's the law and what isn't (sound familiar anyone?), and just get in everyone's face. It's quite possible that she is wrong. TFA states that she said roofers weren't using proper safety equipment. Does she know what's proper safety equipment for a worksite? The point is, everyone is just assuming she's right and the company is wrong. Check your assumptions.
As for the "better law" argument, neither is better or worse. The U.S. system gives you more freedom to say whatever but at the cost of having people (or companies) slandered without remedy. The Canadian (and English) system requires that you be more careful about what you say, but means you are less likely to be unjustly attacked or at least remedied if you are. Neither is perfect.
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I thought... (Score:4, Informative)
Quote from her "Unless I see an injunction from a judge, this website stays"
2million dollars isn't really all that strange... when it comes to lawsuits, lawyers always follow the "Shoot for the moon, at least if you miss you will land among the stars" philosophy...
2million dollars also has a large scare factor attached to it, i'm sure activa don't want to go to court and would happily drop the lawsuit if she shuts down the site (and she is much more likely to do so if she is afraid of going bankrupt)
While i agree that she should be allowed to post any pictures and facts she wants, the problem exists that this is not all she is doing, she is also making wild assumptions and stating them as fact in her comments when she has little to no proof
Eastforest Homes could successfully sue her for libel over this comment, She has no proof that they were:
Having seen the site. i wouldn't want to go to court if i was her.... she isn't likely to win...
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
or the company is improperly using a libel suit to silence a legitimate critic.
She is a bit overzealous, treating each drop of diesel spilled as a life-threatening calamity, but she appears to have the law on her side.
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Informative)
There's something lots of people here are not taking into account: The law has nothing to do with the truth. Most of the time they do coincide, but correlation is not the same as causation. In theory, if the case goes to trial, and she can make her case, then you're right, she has nothing to worry about. In r
in Canda? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:in Canda? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe someday our soldiers will be able to RETURN.
Re:in Canda? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's maintaining your own industry, not helping the environment. That'd be like, oh, I dunno, sending some of the used water back into the lake you draw from if you're a Coke bottling plant.
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)
Her site is already slashdotted (Score:4, Informative)
--davecb
Re:Her site is already slashdotted (Score:4, 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).
Hooray for loser-pays (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the only way civil court proceedings can be made even remotely fair -- instead of the extortion/lottery they are in the US right now.
Re:Hooray for loser-pays (Score:4, Insightful)
The loser-pays rule is appropriate in some circumstances, which is why judges should always have the option to allocate legal fees. But it is not a panacea.
Re:Hooray for loser-pays (Score:4, Insightful)
Loser pays the would possibly work a bit better if you were forced to pay the other side the equivalent ofyour legal fees instead of theirs. I.e. if you loose your legal fees can only double (if your lawyer doesn't give you a "win or I'm free" gaurantee.)
The added bonus is that both sides are encouraged to make the case more breif, with fewer lawyers involved.
Re:Legal fee issue not quite true (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Is the big company a bully? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, you would think the firm would go out of its way to disprove her allegations. It doesn't seem to even try. At trial, the firm would likely need to show her statements as false. If she's telling the truth, I bet the firm will crumble. Rather that having all of their dirt come out in open court, they'll use a last minute excuse like "We felt bad for her kids, so we are letting her outrageous claims go... this time."
I can't wait to see how this turns out.
Reports from the local newspaper, the K-W Record (Score:4, Interesting)
--dave (who went to university in KW) c-b
Eh (Score:4, Interesting)
Case in point: I have a neighbor. He's an old man with a bad attitude who is basically a crank. He also walks around the neighborhood look for "issues" and is a total PITA if you get on his bad side. A few years ago, my boy (who was about 3-4 years old at the time) was obssessed with hoses, drains and pipes. He LOVED to put together sprinkler systems using PVC in my back yard. Of course, I encouraged him in his hobby, even though my water bill wasn't exactly pleasant news.
Well, the water running down the street just drove my neighbor insane. He tried to convince the neighborhood that the water was going to degrade the street. When that didn't work, he actually reported me to the Environmental Protection Agency (who sent out a very nice woman, who was very impressed with my son's sprinkler systems when I happily showed her around).
And I wasn't the only one -- at various times, he has had run-ins with the neighbors over phantom problems. The guy lives to find issues that don't exist.
So you'll pardon me if I don't necessarily believe this woman isn't a total wack-job without more evidence beyond this article.
Re:Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eh (Score:3, Insightful)
Found the site! (Score:3, Informative)
http://ca.geocities.com/infringements@rogers.com [geocities.com]
of course, its exceeded its transfer alloted for the day, so its down.
Typical. It IS cached by google, though.
Found some info here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=ge
Theres some info with contact information for the woman and the company.
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.
Re:Haven't we been over this already? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who needs to bother creating a Big Brother when the cowards take care of themselves?
Here's her site (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:She has a lot to lose (Score:5, Informative)
So I'd say she's valuing the well-being of her kids and those around her here, especially given the number of such cases detailed on her site.
That site was pr0n for the builder's attorneys (Score:5, Funny)
One word: Countersuit (Score:3, Insightful)
If their actions have placed her kids at risk and (been part of what) led her to spend the expense and time of putting up the website to document their illegal actions, that should be just cause for a countersuit against them.
Sue them for direct costs, her time (at a consulting rate of $60/hour), and punitive damages of $2Million. If they have said anything public about the suit (like claiming that she lied), then she can also countersue for libel. (In Canada, You can't sue for statements made in court or court documents, but you can sue for what's said on the courtroom steps before or after you file [umontreal.ca].)
aaa (Score:3, Funny)
An unspeakable outrage! (Score:5, Informative)
From the site:
"I saw a suspicious looking diesel tank. I took a closer look and saw it was intentionally supported on a pile of scrap wood on a tilt. That's when I noticed the rubber hose. The hose was being used to syphon the diesel fuel and below it was evidence of a spill. The area smelled strong and the ground was saturated."
So, essentially, she had a nice suburban neighborhood and then somebody came in and dumped a tanker of diesel fuel all over the place. Yeah, I'd be pissed, too, if that happened on my street. I'd be demanding a cleanup.
And:
I saw many unharnessed roofers and dozens of workers without hard hats actively working on site. This one unharnessed roofer was quite a site to see. The yellow cable in the roof photos is the extention cord for the nail gun this fella was using while working on a roof of the house at 23 Big Springs Court. He squatted down on the wood of the roof and slid down it like a slide.
Now, this is probably not her business. But still, this speaks of massive unprofessionalism. Some guys may be too macho to use safety harnesses, but every site I've ever been on required hard hats *everywhere*, even with nothing overhead. I don't know how things are regulated in Canada, but here in the USA that sounds like tens of thousands of dollars in OSHA fines, just for starters. Still other reports seem kind of iffy. Empty beer bottles can be left by any passing gaggle of kids - pictures of workers on the job in the daytime with the bottles in their hands would have been more damning.
It looks like she might have had pictures, but they're not coming up in the Google cache. Pity, as even a photo or two would confirm this. I pray for her sake that this gets the throwing out of court that it most probably deserves. As for Activa Holdings, stupid move. Before, they had one website bad-mouthing them, now they've got half of Slashdot.
Re:An unspeakable outrage! (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing about Waterloo, as mentioned in the Google-cache version of the web page, is that the entire region of around 300,000 people depend entirely on ground water drawn from wells. This makes the problem of leaky fuel tanks particularly important in that area.
Brutal (Score:5, Informative)
I guess the important thing to do is follow up on this story. Write, phone, fax or email the CEO of Activa Group, Werner Brummund at:
Activa Group
735 Bridge Street West
Waterloo ON
N2V 2H1
Canada
Phone 5198869400
Fax 5198868955
Email kyantz@gto.net
Send letters and emails of support and/or financial support to:
Louisette Lanteigne,
700 Star Flower Ave,
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2
Canada
butterflybluelu@rogers.com
We should spread the word about this, the more people who know about this David and Goliath fight, the better. The worst thing we can do is just shake our heads in pity and forget about this whole thing.
Btw: what materials does Activa Group sell?
Re:Brutal (Score:5, Funny)
On a pile of cash would be my guess.
Perfect test case for Canada's libel laws (Score:5, Insightful)
This could prove to be an excellent test case of Canada's libel laws vis a vis our Charter or Rights. If Activa Holdings is successful in their lawsuit then just about any negative comment about any company made in the press, on the radio or TV or by the public is actionable. Some provinces, such as British Columbia, have SLAPP legislation that helps in defending such lawsuits but Ontario, where this lawsuit was filed, to my knowledge does not.
No Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
The 'Award Winning' company that built my townhouse in Burnaby BC
They knowingly built my whole complex below code. You can not get a queen sized mattress to the top floor going up the stairs, they are too narrow (yes, this is a building code they ignored). In fact some of the original owners here forced Adera to buy special two-piece mattress sets.
Then there's the brutal water heating system. They knew damn well that once the place had sold out, the water heater system would be totally inadequate and prone to breakdowns, forcing our strata to look into a Boiler system.
Then there's the creaky floors due to various other codes being ignored, such as distance between the stringers, and the methods of tying down the floor.
Then there's the fact that every damn outlet in the house is crooked, the builders couldnt take 2 seconds to level them, not even the ones cut through tiles!
And how about the severe cracking in the cement foundation in part of our underground parking.
And the insufficient gutters and downspouts, built below code, that overflow in a heavy rain.
And there's the landscaping that has been eroding away due to poor construction, one person has pretty much lost their back yard.
Our building is only 6 or 7 years old. These are just the bigger problems
I wish the lady luck, take down those bastards
Re:No Surprise (Score:3, Informative)
I work in the industry as an architectural specifier. Bulk of my work in the last few years has been residential. The nature of the economy, both Canadian and American (I've worked in both) is such that it's a solid monetary investment for a venture capitalist. The return, while notspectacular, is better, and more stable, then i
Re:No Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Adera has been forced to do some repairs, such as fixing all the popped bits of drywall where they didnt let the mud dry properly before painting it.
They get away with it by not getting all the building permits they need, so inspectors arent necessarily aware of all the work being done, or they enclose in parts of their work before the inspe
Alarmist (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, she doesn't say anything on there that is immediately libelous as most of it is "i saw this happening the other day at the site."
I've always wondered what the internal culture is in companies that leads them to launch suits like this, as they almost always backfire even if they are won. The McDonald's lawsuit against a couple of people distributing anti-McDonald's pamphlets, for example, certainly led to much more anti-McDonald's media coverage than a couple of nutty activists could ever have managed on their own.
just planned a "save the earth" site :( (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a bunch of local and foreign companies making serious damage, and we want to give it some exposure, besides riding around on our vehicles
quite honestly that news piece made us think about how many companies would want to sue our asses if we get noticed
Our plan was to sneak around various industrial installations with a GPS and a digicam, and then post it blog-style with the help of goolge maps api
Would YOU have the balls?
Re:just planned a "save the earth" site :( (Score:4, Insightful)
Counter sue on financial grounds (Score:5, Interesting)
She might not win, but it would provide precedence for annyone who is harrassed by giant companies in the future. (Hallo RIAA, did you hear that?) IT sure would be good to see some of those corporations think twice before abusing their power in future.
I guess it is good and all... (Score:3, Insightful)
It sucks that the woman is getting sued, that is an outrage. But I wouldn't glorify what this woman is doing too much. She seems more the neighborhood busy body who calls the police when kids are playing touch football in the street, or who get a restraining order to keep their neighbor from painting their house purple, than some real enviornmental crusader.
Trial by Combat (Score:3, Interesting)
A letter from the woman being sued (Score:4, Informative)
------ Thanks so much! I have a pretty strong case of defence at my end including many letters of thanks from the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Labour. To want to sue me for $2,000,000 is just a way of "SLAPPing me." "SLAPP" stands for "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation". SLAPPs are legal actions (usually defamation actions) launched for the primary purpose of shutting down criticism, and without a strong cause of action. The plaintiff's goal in a SLAPP is not to win the lawsuit, but is rather to silence a critic by instilling fear of large legal costs and the spectre of large damage awards. Despite their right to free speech, critics may be frightened into silence e.g., taking down websites or comments made on line - if they are threatened with a defamation-based SLAPP. This method will not work with me. I've got way to much evidence at my end. I could actually counter sue for what I have been through so we'll see what happens. Either way, I'm glad it's out there in the media. Folks really need to know. With letters like yours it's great to know the message is getting out there. Thanks for your support! Louisette Lanteigne Waterloo Ont. -----
copy of letter by louisette (google cache) (Score:3, Informative)
is hosted is overloaded. so i made a copy of the google cache, here:
http://hands.com/~lkcl/activa.holdings.report.by.
At least this one is under Cdn Law (Score:4, Interesting)
Cdn law is different from US law in a number of important instiutional details. The judge can and will award costs. Even if the company is technically correct, it could still wind up paying the defense costs. Automagically if the defendant pays a nominal sum "into court" and the award is less than this.
photograph everything (Score:5, Interesting)
If that became a common practice, it's easy to imagine the bigger engineering companies collaborating with our elected officials to create laws and ordinances against "photographing at a construction site" or some shit. Something unconstitutional but meant to up the ante a litle bit for anyone who wants to take this task on.
In the mean time, give 'em hell.
Corporate Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
What we need are reforms to greatly limit the impact that corpotations can have on individual citizens.
To start, a corporation suing an individual citizen must cover that citizens legal fees, up to a certain percentage of their own legal cost, for instance 25%.
The money will be paid up front on a monthly basis, and does not need to be returned under any circumstances.
Any taxes for the legal fee reimbursement will be paid by the corporation, such that the citizen recieves, after all applicable taxes, the required amount.
The legal fee reimbursement will not be considered income for purposes of welfare, disability, unemployment, etc, and can be used for any purpose with no limitations.
Obviously the first things corporations will do is claim that their legal costs are next to nothing, because all of their lawyers are on retainer, and thus 'free'
Good job at finding the loophole, Mr. Suit, that simply means that the assumed legal cost will be the monthly salary of each lawyer who touches the case, times the number of years that the case. Alternate compensation would also need to be considered, including stock options, company cars and houses, so forth and so on.
Under current market and legal conditions, often it is such that citizens have little to no recourse when corporations violate laws in a way harmful to said citizens.
And yet, the same corporations that are effectively immune to citizen retaliation can effortlessly bankrupt numerous citizens via legal entanglements.
Corporations should not be able to force citizens into disfavorable settlements that entail large fines and the sacrifice of the citizens rights and future liability by threatening a never-ending legal battle that will cost the citizen large amounts of money even to enlist a single lawyer for the duration of their defense.
Corporations may exist solely to turn a profit for the shareholders, but they are allowed to exist solely to benefit the economy and thus the country. Suing private citizens rarely has any kind of benefit beyond establishing corporate dominance over the citizen, which is certainly bad for the country, as the country is, in fact, said citizen.
Of course, I am in no way qualified for legal or economic analysis, so obviously all of this will no doubt cause an economic recession as the rights of the pitiful corporations are simply trampled upon by an uncaring, unfeeling mass of citizens, who the corporations have no means of stopping. Which would be rather similar to the current situation, except with the trampling being the other way around.
Activa stole my patented business model! (Score:3, Funny)
2. ???
3. Watch profits tumble!
They'll pay for this, or my name isn't Darl McBride!
Re:Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
The second is something that affects a lot of people who didn't cause the problem in the first place and can continue affecting people in that area for years.
Whoever moded you insightful needs to have their head checked.
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.
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.
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm a landlord and I don't like a tenant, I shouldn't be forced to accept them. It is my property.
Yes, some racist white guy may say no to a black family. What stops another landlord from saying no problem? Competition opens doors shut by others.
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:3, Insightful)
A restaurant who refuses to serve midgets is a Bad Idea. I won't eat there. But to me, the OWNER of the PROPERTY is free to use his property that way.
Racism and discrimination by government is terrible. As a biracial person, I hate government discrimination but I will protect the private individual's right to congregate with whomever they want.
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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Freedom can only be complete (Score:3, Insightful)
I want my private properties to be private. I want to invite who I want to, and avoid who I want to.
It is not your property.
You want to tell me what I can do with my property. You want to force me to congregate with either everyone or no one. I have to rights in my property according to you. I have to be your slave, invest my time and money so you can create your better world, your utopia for all.
I don't care about that. It is my property. My private property.
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?)
Re:Thinking of setting up a website? (Score:5, Insightful)
While truth is an absolute defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can virtually stop any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when a multi-billion dollar insurance company is the one that is paying to defend you against the suit.
hmmm.... lets fix this one
Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to research an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy. Among other things, these policies may protect you from accusations of libel and slander.
While proof is a defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can possibly prevent any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when you have adequate protection.
ahh much better. Only thing worse than financial disaster is financial disaster after you realize your poorly researched insurance policies really don't help you in your case
Be sure of what you are buying.
No insurance for defense from criminal acts (Score:3, Insightful)
Will this also work for copyright infringement, I.E. P2P, BITTORRENT, ECT? If so, this might be a good investment for us all.
Speaking from near-total ignorance, I'm guessing no. Slander/libel is a tort, while copyright infringement is a criminal case. I've never heard of insurance that would defend you against prosecution for criminal acts. In fact, I'd argue that such insurance wo
Re:Makes me mad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple really (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of many reasons why treating corporations as "people" under the law (a.k.a. corporate person-hood) is a stupendously bad idea. Anti-SLAPP laws seem to do some things to mitigate this but Canada doesn't seem to have this kind of thing and even in places that have it the corporations are sometimes allowed to use the same laws against individuals when they libel them. Corporations aren't people. They are large, abstract, organizations driven solely by profit motive in which group mentality (much like the mentality that takes over in riots) is used to override the morals of the individual employees. Pair this with the sheer disparity of resources (both intellectual and fiscal) of a corporation versus the average person and you have a situation where the two parties are almost guaranteed to enter any legal battle with the corporation at a massive advantage.
I can't speak for Canada, but I was always taught that the U.S. was supposed to be all about the rights of the individual. Of course, it was our supreme court that started this ball rolling by declaring corporate person-hood in the first place (Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886)...
-GameMaster