I read an interesting newspaper article about Slapps and consumer participation (Venting Online, Consumers Can Find Themselves in Court). It describes the case of 21-year old student who was sued by a local company, because he wrote negative critics about them online, more exactly, he established Facebook group against this company. Company filed a defamation suit against him claiming the site was hurting business and seeking $750,000 in damages. He won in court and become local and Facebook star. But for me the wider context is important. How this can happen in the age of free speech especially on internet?
Slapp is strategic lawsuit against public partnerships or participation and is mostly used by companies or like author is writing:
"The label has traditionally referred to meritless defamation suits filed by businesses or government officials against citizens who speak out against them. The plaintiffs are not necessarily expecting to succeed — most do not — but rather to intimidate critics who are inclined to back down when faced with the prospect of a long, expensive court battle."
Many states in America has even anti-Slapp laws and these are very useful today because of the internet. As it seems internet is not so much free-speech place after all, especially Twitter and Facebook, where companies can find themselves with no problem. But it is somehow frightening that individuals or customers can not speak their mind and share their experiences. But on the other hand, some companies are making their own pages just to hear opinion from customers. There are even some anti-Slapp projects and lay firms (http://www.casp.net/), but still, how did come so far, that now companies can sue costumers for bad critics.
We believe that on the internet we have absolute freedom of speech, because we are anonymous and we think that nobody can track us. Well it is not that simple. Even if we reveal our identity for credibility or better weight of our opinion, it is a good chance when we criticize something that we will end up on court. Maybe this is very extreme, but I believe that cases like author is mentioning in article are a good proof have far can freedom of speech goes. Although it is interesting that on internet there is so much surveillance and control from the side of the commercial players and no from the institutions (well to much control in the case of terrorism and too little in the case of other crimes). But what do you think, should be internet more protected from being Slapped or should be freedom on both sides?
Slapp is strategic lawsuit against public partnerships or participation and is mostly used by companies or like author is writing:
"The label has traditionally referred to meritless defamation suits filed by businesses or government officials against citizens who speak out against them. The plaintiffs are not necessarily expecting to succeed — most do not — but rather to intimidate critics who are inclined to back down when faced with the prospect of a long, expensive court battle."
Many states in America has even anti-Slapp laws and these are very useful today because of the internet. As it seems internet is not so much free-speech place after all, especially Twitter and Facebook, where companies can find themselves with no problem. But it is somehow frightening that individuals or customers can not speak their mind and share their experiences. But on the other hand, some companies are making their own pages just to hear opinion from customers. There are even some anti-Slapp projects and lay firms (http://www.casp.net/), but still, how did come so far, that now companies can sue costumers for bad critics.
We believe that on the internet we have absolute freedom of speech, because we are anonymous and we think that nobody can track us. Well it is not that simple. Even if we reveal our identity for credibility or better weight of our opinion, it is a good chance when we criticize something that we will end up on court. Maybe this is very extreme, but I believe that cases like author is mentioning in article are a good proof have far can freedom of speech goes. Although it is interesting that on internet there is so much surveillance and control from the side of the commercial players and no from the institutions (well to much control in the case of terrorism and too little in the case of other crimes). But what do you think, should be internet more protected from being Slapped or should be freedom on both sides?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware that this things have a name (Slapp). This is something completely new to me and I am glad you posted it. I, too, am horrified by the attitude of this companies - instead of trying to learn something from the criticism and re-thinking about the mistakes they obviously did, if there is a group of angry consumers that joined the FB group, they sued the creator of the group.
ReplyDeleteThis is obviously a company, that knows nothing of PR and CRM,etc., and they certainly do not think of their business in the long run.
If I find the time, I will look deeper into this, since I too, would like to know what's the deal with freedom of speech and why would making an “anti-something” group on FB be a violation. I know that discrimination and such is prohibited and users an report it to the FB administration and I would understand if the creator of the group would get banned, but suing ...
Can you tell us more about this? I'd love to find out some additional information.
ReplyDeletePeculiar article, exactly what I wanted to find.
ReplyDelete