Being sued for a members post

I think this is being handled correctly now, but I just can't help but post here. This is what forums is all about! If someone has a bad experience others should really know about it. If everyone else in the world had a good experience from them, then others will post saying their experience was great and it doesn't matter.
At one point all businesses that scammed people probably started off doing all rights with no wrongs, it is peoples right to post their opinions on forums and that is why you have one and that is why people post on it.
As soon as you go and delete anything about them or whatever, you have taken that away and possibly will lose forum members who thought they could discuss such matters.
Only libel, slander, and posting of personal or confidential material should be deleted and really those are the only things anyone can really sue over as far as someone posting negitaviley about your services.

Think about our BST section, many people gets lots of business in there. Someone doesn't come through on a deal and they can't post to others to let them know? get outta here!

 

Registered letters do carry some amount of clout as they provide dated proof of your actions.

No, it's not necessary!

But, yes, it does mean more than taking no action at all. Many times a lawyer will tell you that is the first step before they will take the next step.

I'm not saying anyone has a leg to stand on with this threat, but I am saying that registered letters should be acknowledged as a sign of the sender starting things out with a serious tone.

Don't be naive.

 

Yes, exactly. In many cases you can be sued without ever received any letter. Sometimes you can even be served via email alone - although I do not like that rule.

I would take a regular letter as seriously as one sent via registered mail, as would any lawyer.

 

Nice, but he wasn't saying that he did NOT get a registered letter. He said he gets a registered letter AND fax + regular letter.

Yep, it's wise to take all your mail seriously when it's on a topic of breaking the law

 

Yep, that's what I meant. Legal Letters.

 

i wonder how many complaints amazon got?

 

yea...i just dont think that they have a leg to stand on because someone didnt like a product or service..if anything,it makes them look bad for suggesting a lawsuit..have you posted a thread to inform your members about thios on the forum?would be interesting what regular members would say

 

I'm not sure what country you're in but you're not liable if you're in the US. There is a law here in the States that basically says website owners aren't liable for what users post. The only thing you are REQUIRED by law to do is turn over information about the poster IF (AND ONLY IF!) you receive a court order, from a judge, to turn it over.

You CAN NOT get served legal papers by email, thats ridiculous ... what if my spam filter caught it? In order to be sued you have to be notified that you are being sued, who you're being sued by, and why they are suing you and when and where to report for court. Thats what makes it legal.

 

another example would be paypalsucks.com

 

Hi Everyone,

so i spoke to my attorney who just does internet stuff (he is usually on the other end, trying to get defamation off sites) and he says not only do they not have a case, but even if they tried to prove damages, they have already admitted in email AND on their website (yes, the broadcasted all this on their website with my emails and the emails of the clients complaining about them...how professional is that!)

he doubts they will take any action as they have no $$ and he even said that even if the approached an attorney if that attorney knew anything about internet laws would have to tell them that i am covered under the communications decency act of 1996.

that being said, he is drafting a form letter for me to send to all the annoying vendors that get their panties in a bunch over bad reviews.

 

Yes, you can. I have defended clients who were served via email.

I too used to think it was not proper, but now I know better. It was a domain trademark infringement case brought in US Federal Court and the plaintiff sought a TRO against my client having only served him via email.

Your pronouncement to the contrary is simply wrong.

 

Why would you worry about getting sued? They rely on your web site to make money. Seams like the power is in your hands. Just ban their account that will teach them.

 

I agree just stop sending them business and ban them from your forum for annoying you with nonsense threats.

I also doubt that he can sue you for that anyways. Let him waste his time if you choose. Just ask yourself can you sue DP if someone said that your forum sucks?

 

In case folks still question what browntwn said:

http://blog.internetcases.com/category/service-of-process/

 

In the case I dealt with the Court authorized service via email because of the fear that the owner of infringing domains will simply keep transferring the name to new parties or persons outside the courts jurisdiction. After the service via email the plaintiff obtained a TRO to keep the registrar from transferring the name. The whole thing was overkill because the correct contact information, name/address/telephone had been used and had the company simply contacted my client he would have turned the name over to them (yes, he was infringing on their TM, and was in the US). By the time he was aware there was any problem it was already a Federal Case, literally. It took six months to a year plus a "token" settlement just to end it.

The upshot is that if a communication to you has merit, do not discount it because it was sent via email, or regular mail, or otherwise. People have a false notion that they can simply ignore things that are not sent registered mail.

Certainly a letter sent via email should be taken as seriously as one sent via regular mail. To be honest, I was surprised that service of process via email was allowed, but times change and courts are willing to adapt. My client never saw the emailed service. His first notice of the lawsuit was when GoDaddy froze the name, later he received a written copy of the TRO in the mail.

 

Don't worry, you won't have to bother council with this:

According to Title 47 of Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I, of § 230 (Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material) It is the policy of the United States that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html

Courts across the country have upheld Section 230 immunity and its policy of regulatory forbearance in a variety of factual contexts.