O/T California High Court: Yelp Can't Be Ordered To Take Down Posts

[Leon]

I don't usually get into this kind of legal mumbo jumbo but this precedent would have not been a good one for our forum had it gone the other way. I have often spoken of protections Net54baseball has in being held liable for what is said by our forum members other than me. Section 230 - Federal Communications and Decency Act defines the publisher of information as the person saying it, not the venue. So if a member says something they are liable for it and not the forum owner, unless the forum owner is involved in that particular communication and says something they are liable for. Fortunately as the internet, and our forum, has matured the Cease and Desist orders to me for what members on the forum say have ceased. When I first took over I was getting Cease and Desist orders monthly . I have to admit I had fun with them (all except the one I was liable for, it wasn't as fun). If anyone makes this into a politics thread it won't go well for you. Fair warning.

http://start.att.net/news/read/artic...tegory/finance
.

[btcarfagno]

Archive was such a troublemaker back in the day...

[Rich Klein]

I have always said both publicly and to Leon when we've had lunch (we're about due for one of those) -- that one of Net 54's greatest strength is that if you get involved in a controversial thread or start up one, you are named. In America, there is a concept about being able to face your accuser and as such Leon's position makes this a strong board

Rich

[Bpm0014]

It's a great policy and an extremely well-run board.

[pokerplyr80]

I can certainly understand why a forum owner would be pleased with that ruling. But there are a lot of millennial d bags out there who write fake or exaggerated reviews to hurt the reputation of a business. Some of these people will even threaten a business with a negative review to get their way. Just look at that guy in the canceled transaction thread. People like him are why I personally believe in certain situations a business owner should have a way to get a review not based in fact removed.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I can certainly understand why a forum owner would be pleased with that ruling. But there are a lot of millennial d bags out there who write fake or exaggerated reviews to hurt the reputation of a business. Some of these people will even threaten a business with a negative review to get their way. Just look at that guy in the canceled transaction thread. People like him are why I personally believe in certain situations a business owner should have a way to get a review not based in fact removed.

Well, other than not thinking the d-baggery is confined to one age group, I completely agree with this.

I have no problem with the bar being set high for post removal, I *DO* think it should be an option.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I can certainly understand why a forum owner would be pleased with that ruling. But there are a lot of millennial d bags out there who write fake or exaggerated reviews to hurt the reputation of a business. Some of these people will even threaten a business with a negative review to get their way. Just look at that guy in the canceled transaction thread. People like him are why I personally believe in certain situations a business owner should have a way to get a review not based in fact removed.

And just how do you propose to define those situations? IMO you start down a slippery slope and who knows where it ends. Not to make this political but I would hate to see courts in the position to censor ordinary libelous posts, short of some national security concern.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I can certainly understand why a forum owner would be pleased with that ruling. But there are a lot of millennial d bags out there who write fake or exaggerated reviews to hurt the reputation of a business. Some of these people will even threaten a business with a negative review to get their way. Just look at that guy in the canceled transaction thread. People like him are why I personally believe in certain situations a business owner should have a way to get a review not based in fact removed.

I agree, as a small business owner you deal with more of these types of situations than you should. Health care providers are even further hindered, if a review is made they are prevented from responding to said remarks due to HIPAA laws so they have absolutely no recourse against a exaggerated or false review. Then there are those that will stoop to the level of extortion, demanding that you give them discounts or even free service or they will give a false negative review. It is the world we live in.