Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   That whole anonymity thing on the Internet? Yeah, about that   (gawker.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Courthouse News Service  
•       •       •

13019 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2014 at 9:48 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



165 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-01-10 10:38:18 AM  
They can protect their reputation the same way every other shiatty business on Yelp does it: by paying Yelp a fee to delete the less ideal comments.

But it sounds like it would leave this particular business's Yelp page blank. Sucks to be them.
 
2014-01-10 10:40:07 AM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com

Before you take action, you ought to think your cunning plan the whole way through.
 
2014-01-10 10:41:27 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: lilplatinum: HindiDiscoMonster: no, I don't care what wiki says... it's not the be all end all of wisdom, nor do I care what some esoteric fuddy duddy says is correct

How about a legal dictionary?   http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statement+of+facts

Sorry, just because you disagree with how something sounds in your gut does not mean that someone using a commonly accepted, for centuries, legal term in the proper way doesn't imply that they should "quit while they are ahead"

I consider legalese something akin to Klingon or Vulcan... made up languages...

what he said is akin to saying "its a false truth" or "it's a black white" or "it's an on off"
it's one or the other... make up your damn mind.


Take a law class at your local community college.
 
2014-01-10 10:43:20 AM  
I agree with this 100%. Sincerely, Rex Kramer Danger Seeker
 
2014-01-10 10:44:06 AM  

vharshyde: Statement: A thing you say. 
Statement of Fact: A thing you say with the intent that it be assumed to be factual.
False Statement: A thing you say that isn't true.
False statement of Fact: A thing you say that you intended to be assumed as fact but is not true. 

Does that help hammer it out for you? This is pretty basic, I feel. 

In the meantime, this is a discovery case. Yelp releases the data of the comments(IP addresses, etc), which, let's face it, most idiots on the web aren't smart enough to use a proxy, or are dumb enough to use one of the listed proxies on and among any of the various troll sites around the web that just happen to be FBI sting spots(Yeah, how many idiots have you seen in the so-called "Anonymous" groups that do something huge and get arrested AFTER saying they were behind seven shiatty internet memes). Which means that the business owner can get a hold of their personal data via their ISP and go after the person. Which makes this pretty easy.

From there, the case is a simple open/shut. Did the customer in question actually have business with the owner? A simple credit card statement can prove that. No? Then yes, this lawsuit is valid. Yes? Then the case gets thrown out. And if it's one user that Was a customer, but is falsely inflating the business's reputation in a bad light by posting several reviews? Well, there's a case for that too.


How much will this cost? Thousands? Who will start up a company or companies specifically targeting this situation? How much more money will this country send into the shiatter?

This country is a joke.
 
2014-01-10 10:45:23 AM  

StainedGlassRuby: Unoriginal_Username: So, the owner is going on the assumption that because he reply's to comments by his customers, and that these specific ones were posted by anonymous users that they were not written by actual customers. So now he want's to sue for defamation.
What happens when he finds out that yes, they were customers who were pissed off and just didn't feel like creating an account on yelp? Do they get to counter sue?

He would know if he had screwed customers around like that, and it would be his folly to bring all that to light, if he is a crooked business owner.  Now if he's just a bully who knows what he'd do.  But to go to such lengths - It would not protect his reputation to identify customers he really did screw over.

And if customers are yelping that, and not even lodging complaints with the business then they're pretty dumb.  He deserves to be given a chance to make it right if people are that upset.


Stalkers will simply love this.
 
2014-01-10 10:46:35 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Prank Call of Cthulhu: You can have my real-life identity when you pry it from cold dead fingers.

No one in their right mind would want mine


Well, you sure type in a sexy manner. I'd like to know who you are so that you can know how I truly feel. Trust me.
 
2014-01-10 10:48:28 AM  
If you speak nothing but what you perceive as truth, then you should have no problem defending it, for in your mind, it is truth, and what is easier to defend than that? Unless you are proven wrong. Sucks when you're certain you're right and later discover that you were wrong, but it happens.

Translation: I will continue to say whatever the fark I please :D
 
2014-01-10 10:49:01 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Millennium: It's basically inevitable that we leave trails behind us that, with enough detective work, can be traced back to us. Anonymity on the Internet is, and always has been, more of a gentleman's agreement than anything else: don't abuse it, and we won't pry. It isn't hard to argue that the definitions of "abuse" still need refinement, though, and that leads us to today.

Still, it seems to me that for cases like this, a kind of third-party "verification broker" would be wise. In this case, the broker would receive the reviewer identities from Yelp and the customer records from Hadeed, and (at first) answer a simple yes or no to whether or not the reviewer actually appears on Hadeed's customer rolls. The actual identity of the reviewer would be revealed only if the review itself turned out to be fraudulent -i.e. in the case of hard evidence of actual wrongdoing- so that the identities of legitimate-but-negative reviewers are still protected.

I'll tell everyone who I am on the net:

Herman Munster
1313 Mockingbird Lane
Mockingbird Heights, OH 43616 (I always pick a random state and zipcode)
xxx-555-1212 (I also pick the appropriate area code for the zipcode I use)

Sometimes I use John Smith, or something that should be equally frustrating tracking down considering there should be a metric farkton of John Smiths in the US... etc.

I always go for the most frustrating to track down names due to commonality.


Hey, that's my name and address, too!

My email is noe­ma­i­l­[nospam-﹫-backwards]ft­w*co­m.

What's yours?
 
2014-01-10 10:49:03 AM  

Begoggle: JoieD'Zen: Unoriginal_Username: So, the owner is going on the assumption that because he reply's to comments by his customers, and that these specific ones were posted by anonymous users that they were not written by actual customers. So now he want's to sue for defamation.
What happens when he finds out that yes, they were customers who were pissed off and just didn't feel like creating an account on yelp? Do they get to counter sue?

In this case I agree with his ruling. Cyber defamation and bullying are out of control right now and people should be held accountable for the damage they cause.

Horse crap.
There is no such thing as "cyber bullying".
Want to not be "bullied" anymore?  Click a button, problem solved.
I wish "bullying" was that easy to deal with when I was a kid, rolling around in the mud.

/I hope you don't feel bullied by my response


I feel bullied and I am a millionaire. Do you have enough money for competent legal representation?

/yeah another witch hunt
//internet is dying
 
2014-01-10 10:50:09 AM  

edmo: It's simply really:

[img.fark.net image 350x339]


How the fark does that make money?
 
2014-01-10 10:50:47 AM  

CtrlAltDestroy: Craigslist laptop for cash
Tails
Unsecured public WiFi
Paid for VPN
Tor
Never use/give real info

Anonymity.


Why even bother having laws, eh?
 
2014-01-10 10:51:15 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: FTA: "false statements of fact"

hmmmm... I think maybe the judge should have stopped while he was ahead...


i think you might want to stop while you're... eh, you've already farked it up.
 
2014-01-10 10:52:50 AM  

rikkitikkitavi: HindiDiscoMonster: FTA: "false statements of fact"

hmmmm... I think maybe the judge should have stopped while he was ahead...

i think you might want to stop while you're... eh, you've already farked it up.


Yeah, I think beside all American being required to pay for medical care they should be forced to take any law class and public speaking class at a college of their choice, of course.

Would solve many problems I suggest.
 
2014-01-10 10:52:56 AM  
I'm in school for information security, and things like this seem to keep coming up in different courses.  I think the compromise that needs to be done is the whole "verified anonymous" route.  Take the case in TFA for instance, a third party should be allowed to compare the identities of yelp reviewers with the company's customer database, flag those that weren't customers, then proceed from there.
Using Fark as an example, if we all had to submit our actual identities to the site, but to each other we remain anonymous unless some breach warrants disclosure.
Basically, even though you can be sitting at home, being online shouldn't be much different than being out in public.  When it comes to free speech, I understand the precedents of SCOTUS cases that protect groups like the NAACP from having to publicize all of their members, but that's not the same as protecting the identities of petition signers for things like ballot referendums.

I do believe the saying is "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it" not "Let everyone else defend it while you run and hide"  nor "Allow whatever derp to spew forth from your mouth that you wish with no accountability."
What would have become of the Protestant Reformation had Martin Luther coward behind a pseudonym, rather than standing up for his own words?
 
2014-01-10 11:00:34 AM  

Semantic Warrior: I'm in school for information security, and things like this seem to keep coming up in different courses.  I think the compromise that needs to be done is the whole "verified anonymous" route.  Take the case in TFA for instance, a third party should be allowed to compare the identities of yelp reviewers with the company's customer database, flag those that weren't customers, then proceed from there.
Using Fark as an example, if we all had to submit our actual identities to the site, but to each other we remain anonymous unless some breach warrants disclosure.
Basically, even though you can be sitting at home, being online shouldn't be much different than being out in public.  When it comes to free speech, I understand the precedents of SCOTUS cases that protect groups like the NAACP from having to publicize all of their members, but that's not the same as protecting the identities of petition signers for things like ballot referendums.

I do believe the saying is "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it" not "Let everyone else defend it while you run and hide"  nor "Allow whatever derp to spew forth from your mouth that you wish with no accountability."
What would have become of the Protestant Reformation had Martin Luther coward behind a pseudonym, rather than standing up for his own words?



The Federalist Papers were anonymous.
 
2014-01-10 11:09:06 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: Jim from Saint Paul: OH NO!

NOW SOMEONE WILL FIGURE OUT MY NAME AND WHAT CITY I LIVE IN!

*runs away*

You'd better watch yourself, I'm known as a Cyber Detective, so I was able to sniff it out rather quickly - but more malicious types have access to similar tools and might come looking to stir up some trouble!

/runs you over with a Cyber Patrol Vehicle


 *gets in, flies away*

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-10 11:09:21 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Random Anonymous Blackmail: Yelp can suck a fart from my ass.

Posed a review of a local Mexican joint (nothing over the top, pretty straight forward review) and they pulled it.

wait just a damned minute... you mean I haven't been getting all the services they offer?


Coffee, Keyboard...you know the drill

:)
 
2014-01-10 11:10:51 AM  
An IP address is not a person and there is no way to prove if someone else uses said address.

And some people online have good reasons not to give their real  name and photos, namely stalkers.  Judges don't know what goes on in everyone's life and they're just as short-sighted, or prescient as anyone.

In fact, do you know what you call a lawyer who couldn't pass the bar?

Your Honor.
 
2014-01-10 11:11:34 AM  

Semantic Warrior: I'm in school for information security, and things like this seem to keep coming up in different courses.  I think the compromise that needs to be done is the whole "verified anonymous" route.  Take the case in TFA for instance, a third party should be allowed to compare the identities of yelp reviewers with the company's customer database, flag those that weren't customers, then proceed from there.
Using Fark as an example, if we all had to submit our actual identities to the site, but to each other we remain anonymous unless some breach warrants disclosure.
Basically, even though you can be sitting at home, being online shouldn't be much different than being out in public.  When it comes to free speech, I understand the precedents of SCOTUS cases that protect groups like the NAACP from having to publicize all of their members, but that's not the same as protecting the identities of petition signers for things like ballot referendums.

I do believe the saying is "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it" not "Let everyone else defend it while you run and hide"  nor "Allow whatever derp to spew forth from your mouth that you wish with no accountability."
What would have become of the Protestant Reformation had Martin Luther coward behind a pseudonym, rather than standing up for his own words?


Ah yes, another law change for outdated business model. I will resurrect my buggy whip business by law.
 
2014-01-10 11:19:18 AM  

walktoanarcade: An IP address is not a person and there is no way to prove if someone else uses said address.


They could admit it. You're just being unimaginative.
 
2014-01-10 11:22:30 AM  

Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: An IP address is not a person and there is no way to prove if someone else uses said address.

They could admit it. You're just being unimaginative.


That's a laugh for a couple reasons. This thread is now supremely ironic.
 
2014-01-10 11:24:05 AM  
I don't have a problem with this.  the speech was in no way censored, there is no constitutional right to make defamatory statements, and anonymity is not a first amendment protection.

/ however, to keep the knee jerk crazy people happy, I would suggest to keep the information in camera (secret) until the judge makes a ruling on whether an initial showing can be made that a defamatory remark occurred
 
2014-01-10 11:25:45 AM  

walktoanarcade: Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: An IP address is not a person and there is no way to prove if someone else uses said address.

They could admit it. You're just being unimaginative.

That's a laugh for a couple reasons. This thread is now supremely ironic.


pitchforkdiaries.com
What a supreme may look like.
 
2014-01-10 11:31:04 AM  
You mean the Internet  ISN'T an anarchist playground? I am SHOCKED!
 
2014-01-10 11:31:15 AM  
I had a customer who became upset with one of my senior employees (they were both dating the same woman - had nothing to do with my business, really weird story).  The customer's brother then went on a spree, trying to defame my business on the internet to avenge his brother's, I dunno, shame/jealousy?

We finally managed to figure out who was doing it, and a threat of a lawsuit was enough to get him to take the posts down, but some damage at least had been done - we most certainly lost some business over it.

It can't remain legal to anonymously defame someone, a person, a business, doesn't matter.  Untruthful speech intended to cause harm to another is not constitutionally protected, and the person being defamed in a public forum must have the right to face their accuser and let the truth win out.

If you aren't prepared to defend the things you say about someone else on the Internet, don't say them.  We're not born with the inalienable right to dishonestly fark over other people anonymously just because we dislike them.
 
2014-01-10 11:35:44 AM  

Semantic Warrior: I'm in school for information security, and things like this seem to keep coming up in different courses.  I think the compromise that needs to be done is the whole "verified anonymous" route.  Take the case in TFA for instance, a third party should be allowed to compare the identities of yelp reviewers with the company's customer database, flag those that weren't customers, then proceed from there.


For that to be reliable, you would need to ensure that everyone whose opinion is valid is in the customer database, and trust that the company would never remove anyone they're having a disagreement with.

But companies are always trustworthy and honest, right?
 
2014-01-10 11:36:02 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: I had a customer who became upset with one of my senior employees (they were both dating the same woman - had nothing to do with my business, really weird story).  The customer's brother then went on a spree, trying to defame my business on the internet to avenge his brother's, I dunno, shame/jealousy?

We finally managed to figure out who was doing it, and a threat of a lawsuit was enough to get him to take the posts down, but some damage at least had been done - we most certainly lost some business over it.

It can't remain legal to anonymously defame someone, a person, a business, doesn't matter.  Untruthful speech intended to cause harm to another is not constitutionally protected, and the person being defamed in a public forum must have the right to face their accuser and let the truth win out.

If you aren't prepared to defend the things you say about someone else on the Internet, don't say them.  We're not born with the inalienable right to dishonestly fark over other people anonymously just because we dislike them.


In addition to this I'd like to say that if you can't be an adult and own your sh*t you shouldn't be posting it.
 
2014-01-10 11:39:01 AM  

JoieD'Zen: Occam's Nailfile: I had a customer who became upset with one of my senior employees (they were both dating the same woman - had nothing to do with my business, really weird story).  The customer's brother then went on a spree, trying to defame my business on the internet to avenge his brother's, I dunno, shame/jealousy?

We finally managed to figure out who was doing it, and a threat of a lawsuit was enough to get him to take the posts down, but some damage at least had been done - we most certainly lost some business over it.

It can't remain legal to anonymously defame someone, a person, a business, doesn't matter.  Untruthful speech intended to cause harm to another is not constitutionally protected, and the person being defamed in a public forum must have the right to face their accuser and let the truth win out.

If you aren't prepared to defend the things you say about someone else on the Internet, don't say them.  We're not born with the inalienable right to dishonestly fark over other people anonymously just because we dislike them.

In addition to this I'd like to say that if you can't be an adult and own your sh*t you shouldn't be posting it.


Except that in many areas of the world owning your shiat is tantamount to "finding out new and creative uses for a car battery in a dirty basement".
 
2014-01-10 11:42:32 AM  
What about fake reviews that are positive and lies?
 
2014-01-10 11:45:43 AM  

walktoanarcade: An IP address is not a person and there is no way to prove if someone else uses said address.

And some people online have good reasons not to give their real  name and photos, namely stalkers.  Judges don't know what goes on in everyone's life and they're just as short-sighted, or prescient as anyone.

In fact, do you know what you call a lawyer who couldn't pass the bar?

Your Honor.


Why would Yelp bother keeping IP addresses anyway?  Perhaps for a few days to use against people who repeatedly abuse their site, but it seems kind of pointless to keep IP addresses for any length of time.
 
2014-01-10 11:45:51 AM  
Someone tell Lena Dunham that, please.

That sh*t ain't attractive at all ...
 
2014-01-10 11:47:41 AM  
There are many reasons why anonymity has been protected as free speech.

Without the protection of anonymity, whistle blowers will be less inclined to report on the topics that matter, leaving the rest of us in the dark.

Beside, if we allow judges to destroy the anonymity online, former angry ex-husbands, or psycho ex-girlfriends will have a much easier way to keep tabs on their victims. Or the boss whose life isn't complete until he lords over every aspect of your life.

Then I'm sure none of you will mind if your posts and opinions on [fill in offensive opinion here] enables a random unbalanced person with the means to "talk things over in person"  with you and make a special home visit at 3:58 AM. Right?
 
2014-01-10 11:48:36 AM  
I should feel safe behind my 7 proxies, but I don't, so I live off the grid - no phone, no address, no one and nothing can find me. I've erased all connections to the past, but as hard as I try I can't erase my dreams, my nightmares, my Yelp reviews.
 
2014-01-10 11:49:07 AM  

gfid: walktoanarcade: An IP address is not a person and there is no way to prove if someone else uses said address.

And some people online have good reasons not to give their real  name and photos, namely stalkers.  Judges don't know what goes on in everyone's life and they're just as short-sighted, or prescient as anyone.

In fact, do you know what you call a lawyer who couldn't pass the bar?

Your Honor.

Why would Yelp bother keeping IP addresses anyway?  Perhaps for a few days to use against people who repeatedly abuse their site, but it seems kind of pointless to keep IP addresses for any length of time.


It seems the point is for prosecutions. Isn't that obvious?
 
2014-01-10 11:49:41 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: vharshyde: Statement: A thing you say.
Statement of Fact: A thing you say with the intent that it be assumed to be factual.
False Statement: A thing you say that isn't true.
False statement of Fact: A thing you say that you intended to be assumed as fact but is not true.
Does that help hammer it out for you? This is pretty basic, I feel.


So, the judge is saying he is psychic... ok, that clears things up.


You should have quit while you were only a little behind.
 
2014-01-10 11:52:12 AM  
What could an IP address prove?  Was it actually assigned to me at time xxx on date xxx?  What if someone was spoofing my IP address?  What if someone had hacked into my WiFi using an NSA back door?  Why should we believe in the IP address records from an ISP? Do they have a certified, absolute guarantee that whatever times & dates in their records are correct?  What if the variables they used when logging a time & date stamp were corrupted by some rogue task in their server?  How does Yelp even prove that they're posting reviews from people?  Shouldn't we subpoena all records of everything ever done by Yelp in order to determine if they've created fake reviews for the businesses that refused to pay their protection fees?
 
2014-01-10 11:53:37 AM  

Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: An IP address is not a person and there is no way to prove if someone else uses said address.

They could admit it. You're just being unimaginative.

That's a laugh for a couple reasons. This thread is now supremely ironic.

[pitchforkdiaries.com image 600x400]
What a supreme may look like.


*blindfolded* I'm thinkin' of somethin' orange. Something ORANGE....


You give up? It's an ORANGE!
.....DUNda DUNda DUNda DUNda DUN DA NA NAAA!!!!
 
2014-01-10 11:54:58 AM  

Starshines: HindiDiscoMonster: vharshyde: Statement: A thing you say.
Statement of Fact: A thing you say with the intent that it be assumed to be factual.
False Statement: A thing you say that isn't true.
False statement of Fact: A thing you say that you intended to be assumed as fact but is not true.
Does that help hammer it out for you? This is pretty basic, I feel.


So, the judge is saying he is psychic... ok, that clears things up.

You should have quit while you were only a little behind.


The reason you say a false statement is because you intended it to be assumed as fact yet it's not true.

The distinction makes no sense in a common sense way. I am sure legally there is some kind of distinction. Just not seeing it.
 
2014-01-10 11:56:44 AM  

durbnpoisn: I never assume that anything is anonymous on the internet.  However, I do feel a little more secure around Fark if only for 2 things.  There are so many users here, I rarely get noticed.  I don't think I know a single user here in real life.


Sine you have no friends in real life, that makes the intarwub pretty anonymous for you,no?
 
2014-01-10 12:00:27 PM  
I have no problem with this, if they really are customers then they have nothing to worry about. Online reviews are getting to the point of being worthless anyway, taking away a persons anonymity would be a big step toward straightening them out. If you're not willing to stand behind what you say then in my opinion you have no business saying it.
 
2014-01-10 12:00:41 PM  
It's almost like people get upset about false comments on the intertubes that could harm their business.


It's funny how most people don't seem to think their bullshiat anonymous statements are a problem, but if anybody suggests anything even slightly inaccurate about them online, they get all high school outraged about it, with lengthy, poorly spelled diatribes about how the other person got it so very wrong.
 
2014-01-10 12:01:57 PM  
There's a Farker called HoopyFrood who knows who I am IRL because we used to work in the same office. But aside from him, I'm pretty sure that no one here knows or cares about my actual identity. And that's perfectly fine with me. Why wouldn't it be?

(Spoiler alert: I'm not really all that fabulous.)
 
2014-01-10 12:05:55 PM  
Normal people should not lose the many protections anonymous postings offer because abnormal people abuse technology to be the same stalking creeps they always were and forever shall remain.

Of course I believe no one should leave a false review, but I don' think it's right for people to jaywalk when there's a perfectly good crosswalk, so my solution is to shackle everyone.

You can still move, albeit slowly,  but it's safer for you and in case a cop needs to chat, you won't go far.
 
2014-01-10 12:06:26 PM  
It's not anonymity, it's lack of immediate repercussions.  The internet would be a lot different if you could punch someone through a monitor.
 
2014-01-10 12:15:22 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Starshines: HindiDiscoMonster: vharshyde: Statement: A thing you say.
Statement of Fact: A thing you say with the intent that it be assumed to be factual.
False Statement: A thing you say that isn't true.
False statement of Fact: A thing you say that you intended to be assumed as fact but is not true.
Does that help hammer it out for you? This is pretty basic, I feel.


So, the judge is saying he is psychic... ok, that clears things up.

You should have quit while you were only a little behind.

The reason you say a false statement is because you intended it to be assumed as fact yet it's not true.

The distinction makes no sense in a common sense way. I am sure legally there is some kind of distinction. Just not seeing it.


Blame the English. Or French if in Louisiana.
 
zeg
2014-01-10 12:16:30 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Starshines: HindiDiscoMonster: vharshyde: Statement: A thing you say.
Statement of Fact: A thing you say with the intent that it be assumed to be factual.
False Statement: A thing you say that isn't true.
False statement of Fact: A thing you say that you intended to be assumed as fact but is not true.
Does that help hammer it out for you? This is pretty basic, I feel.


So, the judge is saying he is psychic... ok, that clears things up.

You should have quit while you were only a little behind.

The reason you say a false statement is because you intended it to be assumed as fact yet it's not true.

The distinction makes no sense in a common sense way. I am sure legally there is some kind of distinction. Just not seeing it.


The distinction is that a statement of opinion is different from a statement of fact. This is true not just legally but also generally.

Just because the word "fact" (which, as a lone noun, does imply truth) appears in "statement of fact" does not mean that the latter is the same as the former. It's just a modifier that briefly and succinctly describes the form of the statement. It's not always necessary to distinguish what type of statement one is talking about, but does actually have trouble understanding what "statement of fact" implies?

It so happens that a "statement of fact" is a technical legal term as well. The reason for this is obvious: legal proceedings hinge on disputed truths, and much of the process is to determine which claims are true and false. So you naturally get things like "findings of fact" and "statements of fact." Since it's impossible to know the "actual fact," "legal facts" wind up being rather different things that hopefully are mostly the same as the actual ones.

It's really not a very complicated idea, and unless I'm missing something, is vastly preferable to constructing a separate vocabulary. Hell, even in the real world people understand that "facts" are fairly often false, whether due to deception, misunderstanding, or ignorance.
 
2014-01-10 12:20:20 PM  

Unoriginal_Username: So, the owner is going on the assumption that because he reply's to comments by his customers, and that these specific ones were posted by anonymous users that they were not written by actual customers. So now he want's to sue for defamation.
What happens when he finds out that yes, they were customers who were pissed off and just didn't feel like creating an account on yelp? Do they get to counter sue?


Have you ever tried commenting on Yelp?  They require a user ID, even if it's Heywood Jablome.  You cannot post entirely anonymously.
 
2014-01-10 12:21:18 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Also no absolute right to anonymity?  Be careful what you ask for because that means the government can force the identities of donors to super PACs to be identified.


You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
2014-01-10 12:22:11 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: StainedGlassRuby: Unoriginal_Username: So, the owner is going on the assumption that because he reply's to comments by his customers, and that these specific ones were posted by anonymous users that they were not written by actual customers. So now he want's to sue for defamation.
What happens when he finds out that yes, they were customers who were pissed off and just didn't feel like creating an account on yelp? Do they get to counter sue?

He would know if he had screwed customers around like that, and it would be his folly to bring all that to light, if he is a crooked business owner.  Now if he's just a bully who knows what he'd do.  But to go to such lengths - It would not protect his reputation to identify customers he really did screw over.

And if customers are yelping that, and not even lodging complaints with the business then they're pretty dumb.  He deserves to be given a chance to make it right if people are that upset.

Stalkers will simply love this.



I just meant unsatisfied customers should file complaint with business owner before just yelping about it.    If they're going straight to yelp to complain, then how are they going to get any resolution?      I didn't mean to imply that they deserved to have their personal info revealed.
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report