Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
posted by n1 on Thursday May 15 2014, @07:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the say-only-good-things dept.

From Ars Technica:

Imagine you just purchased a shiny new wireless router from Amazon, only to discover that the product doesn't work as you anticipated. To vent frustration and perhaps help others avoid the same mistake, you leave a negative product review-but some of your claims ultimately turn out to be incorrect or misleading. Now the company's attorneys want to sue you for your "illegal campaign to damage, discredit, defame, and libel" it. Are you going down in flames? Or can you say what you want on the Internet? As with many areas of law, the answers are nuanced and complicated. Our primer, however, will help you avoid the obvious pitfalls.

The article contains advice from defamation lawyer Lee Berlik and free speech attorney Paul Alan Levy.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15 2014, @09:02AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15 2014, @09:02AM (#43662)

    Just shut up and buy the thing already, you consumer!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Funny=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by kaszz on Thursday May 15 2014, @10:48AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Thursday May 15 2014, @10:48AM (#43680) Journal

    "We tested our whiz pill on 100 patients in 10 trials. And all participants died except in one trial. Those 10 patients still lived to write about it in an excellent review. That said the pill was great. So we filed a great 100% satisfied review to FDC and our lobbyist made a future career offer to encourage the examiner as an invisible bribe. Now our 10% survivors continue to write excellent reviews. Our statistician nagged something about systematic bias so we fired him and now only have a smiling staff and dead patients all around." :D