Car Forum Webmaster sued over Freedom Of Speech OT

[Don Coatney]

Be careful when bashing vendors. Follow this link for details.

http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/calling-all-hotrodders-forums-147955.html

[1948Skip]

The best way to handle this is a no buy campaign against the Streetbeasts organizations

Skip

[Norm's Coupe]

I went to that link but didn't bother to click on all the other links to read everything.

That said, no one is tramping on the "freedom of speech". Free speech goes both ways for each party concerned. If one party feels they have been slandered, by law they are "free" to sue the person or persons who they feel slandered them. Remember a company is treated the same as an individual in the courts, so a company has the right to sue someone if they feel that person hurt their reputation, regardless if that statement was true or false. That's up to the courts to decide, not us. We don't have all the information. We are only hearing what one person says, and maybe that is a little tainted too.

Since we don't know all the details of what happened between the two parties involved, I suggest we stay out of it. Otherwise, you could find yourself also being sued for the same reason.

Now, if it turns out the statement the individual made was true about the company involved, that individual can turn around and sue the company that brought the suit for all cost involved in defending his self. Then he can do what he should have done to begin with. Sue them for damages caused by whatever he bought from them. If he had done that to begin with, he wouldn't be sued for slander now.

In short, this ain't our fight, it's between the two parties involved.

[James_Douglas]

Norm,

In theory you are correct. In practice you are wrong. In addition to this forum I belong to a Jaguar forum. In that forum it is forbidden to mention any vendor in the context of anything negative. NO free speech. People resort to telling people to call them or send private emails. Of course then there is not history to search for in the threads about a bad vendor or product experience.

What this does is stifle comments and prevent bad products and bad people from taking advantage of the inexperienced or innocent in our car community.

Sure the writer can fight a lawsuit, IF THEY HAVE THE MONEY. That is the entire point of a slap suit. It is not about justice it is about power. If the person suing has the power of money they will bury the person who does not have the money.

On this veterans day we salute all those who fought against the powerfully harming the weak. Such lawsuits are done by people whom in another time and place, if given the power, would cloth themselves in brown shirts.

James

[Norm's Coupe]

James,

Companies don't always pick on people who can't afford to defend their self in slander cases. Case in point Oprah vs a large meat company some years back. I guess she had made a public comment about the meat company that was not good. They in turn slapped a lawsuit against her for slander. Don't remember who won that suit and really don't care. But........Oprah being one of the richest people in the world probably had more money than the company that sued her.

When something is posted on the internet by someone, it's the same as saying it on TV, because anyone with a computer can read it.

Plus, like I mentioned. Just because something didn't work for me is no reason for me to slam the company publicly. What I can do is say that particular item did not work for me, and why. However, I can't call the company names or say all their products are no good because that could be construed as slander. How do we know the individual involved didn't use the product wrong? We weren't there and are only hearing what the individual wants us to hear. Of course, by the same token, we are only hearing what the company said or did too. At this point, we really don't know who is right or wrong, especially if it's only one individual who started this whole thing.

Free speech is like driving a car. We are free to say what we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. However, if it hurts someone they can and do have the right to sue. It's like driving your car down the street. We are free to drive down any street we want to. However, if we don't have a license, are speeding or run over someone, we can either get a ticket or be sued by the person you ran over.

So, there is no theory involved in what I said, it's the way the laws are written. To protect everyone (and that includes companies). And that is why we fought the wars and lost lives over the years, to protect those laws and way of life.

[Captain Neon]

I was threatened with a lawsuit by a crooked repair shop when I truthfully exposed their shoddy worksmanship, exorbitant prices, and threats. It is a very common and despicable technique to threaten legal action on some one just because he informs the public that said individual or business engages in unethical behaviour. The community I lived in previously had a lot of tourism passing through as well as a big influx of new residents. The repair shop manager went so far as to state that I had no right to criticise him and it was perfectly acceptable for him to gouge me because I was new to the community.

After talking with a few other people, I came to the conclusion that the good businesses in town didn't need to advertise and often had more work than they could handle. Longevity does not constitute good work and honesty. A previous good reputation does not equate to current honest business practices, esp. since he had just recently begun managing the shop. How many times do we see businesses that make a point of advertising "Under New Management!"?

Any ways, I concur that too many businesses use threats of legal action to gag people. One may end up winning the lawsuit, but the costs may be more than an individual can bear in the interim. Winning a lawsuit does not always mean that you will be compensated. A business or individual that files for bankruptcy may never repay a judgment, maybe only just a small portion, or after many many years. A corporation that ceases to exist can no more be sued than the dead. Committing suicide (closing a business) does not entitle one to the assets of one's heir (or previous proprietor) if a judgment has not been satisfied.

[Don Coatney]

In short' date=' this ain't our fight, it's between the two parties involved.[/quote']

Norm;

When I made this posting I never once said this is our fight. I never once said anyone should have an opinion or take sides in this battle. All I said was be careful of what you put in print and display for all the world to see. I would not like to see this forum vanish because someone here slandered a vendor on a public domain and law suits requiring the spending of un-neccesary funds were the result. Dont read more into this message than face value.

[Tim Frank]

Norm;

When I made this posting I never once said this is our fight. I never once said anyone should have an opinion or take sides in this battle. All I said was be careful of what you put in print and display for all the world to see. I would not like to see this forum vanish because someone here slandered a vendor on a public domain and law suits requiring the spending of un-neccesary funds were the result. Dont read more into this message than face value.

I'd like to point out that Don is dead wrong.....but I can't....I actually think he is raising a great point.

I also belong to a boating forum which has a very similar physical look to this forum, but little else in common.

There are a surprising number of threads that get bogged down in mudslinging and vendor bashing and I often wonder what would happen if one of the named companies got angry.

I have even noticed the occasional post in here that perhaps crosses the line between being "fair comment" and being a bit of a rant from someone with an axe to grind.

All Don is suggesting is that we all exercise due diligence....and that is just good sense.

[48mirage]

Oprah won.

[Roadkingcoupe]

Oprah won.

Oprah won and we got Dr. Phil

Story goes that they worked together on the lawsuit. I believe that Dr. Phil was brought in to coach/groom Oprah for the court room.

She won......................and we got stuck with the homespun Dr. Phil TV show!

"It was through Courtroom Sciences that Dr. Phil met Oprah Winfrey. In 1996, she was being sued by cattlemen who claimed she defamed the beef industry on one of her shows, and Oprah hired Dr. Phil to assist during the trial. After helping her win the case in 1998, Dr. Phil became a regular expert on Oprah, dealing with life strategies and relationships. With his catchphrase, "Get real," the plain-spoken Texan served up common sense advice rather than self-help jargon. His tough demeanor made him a psychologist that even men felt comfortable listening to."

[old woolie]

It really all comes down to what our mothers taught us. If you can't say anything good about someone,don't say anything at all.

[Normspeed]

I know Don is making a general point here, not taking sides, and his advice is good.

As far as the legal scuffle, glancing over the "evidence" presented in some of the links, I'd say some of it is pretty questionable. When you stoop to using newspaper articles for proof that you are right and the other guy is wrong, you are quoting from one of the most biased and inaccurate sources in the country. I believe the legal term is something like "triple hearsay evidence" which carries about as much legal weight as drawings of flying saucers.

Also, using comments posted by others on other automotive internet forums is not exactly iron clad legal evidence of anything. And the accused also seems to be taking some giant leaps in his imagination by guessing that those who wrote in support of Street Beasts are some kind of covert agents for the company.

His accusations are also kinda shaky. Aesthetically incorrect body design? I would think anyone considering building a street rod from a kit would either like the look or not like it. But claiming this as a flaw? Come on. And I'm not very impressed by the expose' that "kit cars aren't really that easy to build". Holy Cow! Welcome to the real world of automotive hobbies.

From the little I've heard about Street Beasts, It's pretty well known that some parts are not historically correct. Bottom line is, do you like the look enough to buy and build one? If not, the answer is simple. Don't buy one.

My $0.02.

[Tim Frank]

I know Don is making a general point here, not taking sides, and his advice is good.

As far as the legal scuffle, glancing over the "evidence" presented in some of the links, I'd say some of it is pretty questionable. When you stoop to using newspaper articles for proof that you are right and the other guy is wrong, you are quoting from one of the most biased and inaccurate sources in the country. I believe the legal term is something like "triple hearsay evidence" which carries about as much legal weight as drawings of flying saucers.

My $0.02.

Careful Norm, you might have the Washington Post after your hide....

[Normspeed]

Oops, I guess I should print a retraction.

[Mr. Belvedere]

Hmmm....several vendors have been repeatedly bashed on this site and I am grateful for the low down on scoundrils that pray on newbies to the hobby and there is always a fresh supply of those else they would not be in business long. I do not know how in an open forum like this the administrater can be held liable for thoughts and opinions of others. This site is a tremendous asset for information on products and services for old cars. I would hate to see it lost from fear of legal recrimminations