Why do I keep reading posts where someone has something good or bad to say about a vendor or dealer, but refuses to name them?? If what you are saying is, in fact, true, or is an expression of opinion, they can't sue you, you know! The purpose of these posts is to seek and obtain useful information. How useful is it to say, "My dealer sucks. I wouldn't recommend them to my worst enemy. But, I won't say who the dealer is"???? Or, "Hey, I just had the greatest experience with a vendor. Guess which one!!" Give the WHO, what and why, if you want your post to have any value.

 

Someone did not have their coffee this morning.

 

WHO didn't have their coffee this morning?!?!?!? Name them!!!!!! :impatient

 

Actually, SOMEONE did. Too much, in fact.

 

It's a fine line. The law considers forums to be a form of publishing. So what someone says about a dealer or vendor must be very carefully thought out, so NAM isn't involved in a liable action. And yes, NAM could be sued. Whether successfully used is another question, but who needs the aggrivation?

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequenses.

 

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE JUST GIVE ME MY CAR GOSHDARNIT. I MEAN HOW LONG SHOULD SOMEONe have to to wait for a new MINI (delayed reaction valium):impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient :impatient

 

I think Ex-Pat and LynnEl are sharing the same coffee pot this morning.

 

I tend to agree, and I don't drink coffee.

As I understand it, if one lays out the facts of what happened. Or, expresses one's opinion as an opinion, that is not libelous. For example: "I ordered a HyperWidget from FlyByNightAutoParts.com and they sent me a WimpyWidget while charging me a hyper price. I called them but they told me to stuff it. Man, I am pissed."

On the other hand, if one expresses an opinion as though it were fact, that could be a problem. Saying that, "FlyByNightAutoParts.com" sucks and they are all a bunch of thieves." might require you to prove that they suck and that they are indeed thieves.

 

ROFL!!! Atta way to go!! WOOT! Now THAT is a whine!

ROFL!

 

Actually, your second example is still opinion and non-actionable. Saying something like, "they promised it would fit the R56" when, in fact, they said, "we do not believe it will fit the R56" is a factual matter, which could cause trouble. As a practical matter, unless they are PU, they aren't going to (threaten to)make a legal issue over it, anyway.

 

Not really a fine line at all, and the law is well settled. Opinion is opinion. If you are going to state a "fact" make sure it's a fact.

 

But it's not the "poster" than can be taken to court. It's NAM as the publisher of the post.

Posting something, and saying it's fact, does not necessarily make it so in the eyes of the courts. That's why newspapers adhere to verification from multiple sources. It's also why tabloids get sued left and right.

 

That is my point, which is why you cannot be successfully sued (or the publisher) for opinion. Plus, the suing party has to show malicious intent and damage. In any case, it is pointless to post about a lousy experience from a vendor or dealer and not say who they are. So, if you aren't willing to say, what's the poiunt of the post?

 

There is a case still pending where a vendor went after a forum and it's members. http://www.petsforum.com/PSW/Default.html

Article in Salon about same..from 2002 http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feat...nts/index.html