Blogging and legal battles
In the news there has been a recent article about a woman who sued, and won, $11.3 million after someone wrote on the internet calling her a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud." In another article written a short time before, was sued for libel and ordered to pay.
This creates a tricky situation. On one hand, I agree that bloggers and website owners should be protected, but on the other, I believe that there are still limits to this. I think it is perfectly acceptable to post degrading article, but only if they have a defendable reason to. For example, it should be perfectly fine to post all sorts of things that went wrong when you delt with a business, or had a faulty product. On the other hand, I never think that it is acceptable to post anything degrading if there is no evidence of anything to back it up. You can't outright lie in order to make them look bad.
This all comes to: if you tell the truth, you can know them down, but if you lie, you can go have a seat in the courtroom.
This creates a tricky situation. On one hand, I agree that bloggers and website owners should be protected, but on the other, I believe that there are still limits to this. I think it is perfectly acceptable to post degrading article, but only if they have a defendable reason to. For example, it should be perfectly fine to post all sorts of things that went wrong when you delt with a business, or had a faulty product. On the other hand, I never think that it is acceptable to post anything degrading if there is no evidence of anything to back it up. You can't outright lie in order to make them look bad.
This all comes to: if you tell the truth, you can know them down, but if you lie, you can go have a seat in the courtroom.
