[Threat Received] Remove article or we will proceed with legal actions

At the end of the day, your from different countries. The complexities of them trying to take you to court would not be worth it unless it was seriously, seriously damaging there business. By the sounds of it they are bluffing you to try to get you to remove it.

Even if they got you to caught, I don't think it would get very far. The internet has freedom of speech and in your disclaimer it says it may not be true what is posted. It is not as if you are claming that it is certainly fact.

 

Vanalli, if I state this to you:

"You hate vanilla."

But...I have no proof you hate vanilla.

Is that statement above defamatory?

You can claim yes, while I claim no. Who shall ultimately decide that?

On the side, folks, one (in)famous example is TheRipOffReport. Lots of people
want that site shut down to the point of having sued them.....with very little
success.

I somewhat agree with browntwn a disclaimer isn't some 100% guarantee it'll
shield you from liability. Used "properly" along with a variety of factors (some
of which can be gleaned as clues from TheRipOffReport's sagas), all of those
things can protect you.

Note: I said can, which various dictionaries define as denoting possibility. But
of course, anything's quite possible.

OTOH, I also agree with Shrapnel the complexities of this issue (especially the
two parties being on opposite sides of the globe) might not make the venture
worthwhile unless the other side is truly RAW (Ready, Able, Willing) for it. Are
you?

Oh, and if you're U.S.-based, look up the Communications Decency Act.

 

Yes, that's the exact law that's protecting my website. I am not from the US though.

Due to the complexity of the case I don't know whether the story written is fact or fiction, nor do I have the time or resources to find out. If I were to investigate every report I get I would probably need a million man army and I'm not a charity to finance these projects.

Basically the story is about an investor who got screwed for A LOT of cash buying their property, then they flipped everything around and the investor lost the cash AND property.

I gave the company what I see as a pretty fair chance. I said that they can comment below the story and defend their name. I have no intention to remove that content, because if the story is true it would be beneficial to A LOT of potential investors, so we're talking some serious cash here that goes into millions and if I can do something to prevent all that money go into some scammers hands I will.

Anyway, even if the story was true and I had to remove the article, someone could just post it anonymously on multiple 3rd party websites such as squidoo, blogspot, hubpages, etc. There's no competition for that keyword (I rank just below their brands name and the title is nasty so it turns away their customers for sure) and it would rank easy.

On a second note, they claim they've made profits for their clients in billions (not millions). So this is everything but a joke.

P.S. My website is similar to the ripoffreport.

 

If my business or livelihood is based on the fact that I love vanilla, then yes, the statement could be seen as defamatory. If by writing the statement you damage my business or reputation and can offer no proof of it, then it would up to a court of law and not you or I.

The integrity of the OP's site is compromised. He has admitted that he has no idea if the claims are true and he has no intention to find out. He is effectively telling the world that the the content on his website could be a pack of lies, so if anyone else wants to damage the reputation of a business or individual, the OP is the person to go to.

People seem to forget that publishers of websites and blogs are subject to the same laws of defamation as newspapers and magazines. It is not for you to give the accused a "right to reply". They have clearly stated that the facts are wrong.

Some of you seem to think that freedom of speech entitles us to say and write what we please without any consequences.

 

You're actually admitting to damaging their business without knowing the facts. There's really no excuse for this.

"Anyway, even if the story was true and I had to remove the article, someone could just post it anonymously on multiple 3rd party websites such as squidoo, blogspot, hubpages, etc. There's no competition for that keyword (I rank just below their brands name and the title is nasty so it turns away their customers for sure) and it would rank easy. "

 

I'm not admitting to hurting their business, how could I even if I don't know the facts? If anything I am leaning more to that the story published is indeed true. I gave them a chance to comment but they didn't do so, most likely because they don't have proof for their claims.

That's where the problem lies. He DOES NOT write it and thus can't be held responsible. He's only a mediator.

I think you're missing the point here. A magazine publishes their own stories, so do most of the blogs. I however DO NOT. It's not my story. Think of it like a magazine that's publishing a quotation of a person. Can the magazine be held responsible for this persons words? But it's not even like that because its online and pretty much anyone can edit/add the stories, unlike in a magazine where publishers write their own stories.

P.S. The wikipedia has quite a good article on the communications decency act. I think you're not familiar with it, so do read it. Here's a small excerpt: Section 230 of the Act has been interpreted to say that operators of Internet services are not to be construed as publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services).

 

Unfortunately CDA might not protect you as it's U.S.-specific. See if there's a
possibly similar law in your jurisdiction.

OTOH, anyone can pretty much sue for anything. They just need to find some
possibly oscure law and argue before a judge how it applies in their case.

That's one way to look at it. I can always view it as one of those sites to look
and see if there's a grain of truth to it, while another can see it as clues for a
case to build against the party being written against.

If anything, it goes to show various people have various ways of interpreting
various things. It depends who agrees with you, but there are certainly those
who don't.

Well, then, who's right and/or wrong? What to do about those who's wrong?

Now, this isn't to mean it's inexcusable for someone to create a site solely to
create malicious, defamatory lies against another. I don't condone that either,
but I don't know how to prove the intent behind that unless I force it in some
court of law.

Also unfortunately, this is the internet. Where just anyone can write anything
against anybody, and possibly not be held liable, depending on circumstances.

One way I deal with this, though, is what my mom used to tell me: if someone
told you something you know isn't true, then why be angry over it? Let others
believe whatever they want and just ignore them, but be ready to deal with
those who want to force themselves on you.

 

We see this more and more in the P2P industry, and as a rule of thumb, it is best policy (liability wise) to proudly exclaim that YOU DO NOT POLICE content contributed by others, and that the content itself is the legal responsibility of those authors. To go on to explain the content itself (as you did), acknowledges knowledge of infringing content and could be a nail in your legal arguments coffin. Don't Know, Don't take responsibilty seems to be working for torrent sites. The problem comes in when you police or approve content in any way. How was this work posted through your system, automatically, or with your approval?

 

There's nothing like that in our country, at least not to my awareness. But I am pretty confident that nothing like that exists because our country has less habitants than some large cities. This means that we don't have many smaller laws and/or legal issues defined.

Maybe it should also be noted, that on my website I don't have any physical contact addresses. I operate anonymously and the only way to reach me is via email. The domain is also registered anonymously/privately.

 

I could say i was infact the first man on the moon. You write i was not in a blog and by me telling you i infact was. Proves to you that what i am saying is true?

No, posting things which you know certainly are lies, where there is proof is ofcourse wrong. However, posting something from a source which contains no information that can be proven to be inaccurate at this point is certainly within freedom of speech.

By saying people can go on his site to damage a business' reputation. Providing they are damaging it with stories which are true, what is the problem? You almost sound like the world should be like in the book 1984 where no one can speak out.

I just don't see the problem until the company give him proof that the claims made in his articale are false, until they do. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

You're missing the point entirely. We're talking about defamation. I think you need to look up exactly what defamation is. You also haven't read the thread. The webmaster doesn't know if the claims are true.

 

If your in another country I'm not sure their case holds any water at all. You don't live in the other country therefore you do not have to abide by their laws unless your country has an international treaty with the other respective country.

 

While this isn't necessarily authoritative, the link below should give an idea or
so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defamation_laws_by_jurisdiction

So...whose definition exactly should be followed, especially if both parties are
in opposite sides of the globe? One could look up the word in a dictionary, but
it's no substitute for a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Whereever that is...

And there you go. I won't be surprised if various international law experts say
the same thing.

 

Ermm... you were going on about freedom of speech like i quoted, not defamation. I think you should re-read what you put.

"Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice."

Ermm so unless they can prove he has done it with intent to damage the company and knowing it is false. Which he does not, nothing can be done. Only the person who actually wrote the article could be.

 

After reading this I'm fairly sure this would fall under freedom of speech and shouldn't pose any problems. It's an experience by a guest, someone I'm assuming who used their services. They can't claim defamation. It's like me saying Home Depot sucks cause they don't have the type of nail I'm looking for, I recommend Lowes. Home Depot can't turn around and go "hey your defaming us". Freedom of speech protects opinions; and a review on a monetary service based on experience definitely falls under that. I would advise them to reread the US Bill of Rights. You may not live in the United States, but they still have to provide you rights that they're bound to follow. At least this is what I feel after reading this thread.

Disclaimer....I LOVE Home Depot...and Lowes.....and all types of Nails......these stores are great (dont sue me )

 

Indeed. I can be wrong, but isn't it generally the burden of the one who made
the claim to demonstrate it somehow?

 

Yes that is my whole point, he did not write the article. It is up to the person who wrote it to prove it. Which he did not.

 

I dont think the real-estate company has a case here, mainly because, if people can come along to his site, and post freely, then he is a service provider, and service providers cannot be held responsible for what the users do.

ie. If your posting hate on the internet, it is you (as a user) no your ISP (as a provider) who is responsible.

On top of that, he probably has a TOS which states he (as a service provider) is not responsible/liable for anything the users post. Also, if they're not in the same country, it can be hard to sue.

 

Thanks boys (and girls) for all your input. It has made my decision easier. I'm gonna hold my ground, hopefully it won't shake too much

 

Good luck and let us know how it goes!