Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 115 posts

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#21

Post by twblalock »

eeZi wrote: post #18
guelo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, all the giant European social media companies are doing fine. Oh wait, they don't exist. I wonder why.

US companies like Facebook are doing business in Europe and have users in Europe, so they're subject to EU law.

That could change. At some point, the cost of complying with EU regulation might be greater than the cost of shutting down the EU subsidiaries, and Facebook could do that, host all content in the US, and be subject to US law only.

Would the EU block Facebook as a response? I doubt that will be a popular move.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#22

Post by ap22213 »

vinhboy wrote: post #20

I don't know why most of the comments on here, so far, are so nonchalant about this. > Hassell sued Bird for libel and won a judgment for more than $550,000 in damages and costs, as well as an injunction ordering Bird to remove the ostensibly defamatory material from Yelp This is fucking nuts. How can someone be sued for $550K for writing a bad yelp review. Can someone please explain why the law allows for ridiculous…

I think this probably happens much more frequently than people may realize.

I once gave a doctor a bad Yelp review and was very careful to avoid stating anything that could be claimed as libel - I only stated very specific and accurate facts and my opinions of them. They still seemed to try to come after me for libel (but quickly gave up).

Interestingly, I had even used a throwaway email address and Yelp account. But, they still tracked me down. I'm guessing that maybe they had Yelp pull the server logs, but I don't really know.

My Yelp review was then hidden. And, the Doctor responded directly to my review, calling me out by name and essentially calling me a liar (I wasn't). I certainly didn't want to get messed up with a legal case, so I ignored it. However, it was a very startling experience.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#23

Post by JoshTriplett »

kjksf wrote: post #5
twblalock wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, this is far more significant than YouTube videos being taken down. If Yelp loses, this case could make it possible for pretty much any site that accepts user comments, including YouTube, social networks like Facebook, review sites, advertising sites like Craiglist, and even personal blogs with comment sections, to be held accountable for what users post. That could lead to a significant amount of prior rest…

Where did you get that from? The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing. Nowhere does it say that Yelp was "held accountable" for anything. It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict. The sky is not falling.

> The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing.

Yelp was not a party to the case.

> It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict.

Yelp was ordered to do something, but Yelp did not receive any opportunity for a trial.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#24

Post by eeZi »

twblalock wrote: post #21
eeZi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US companies like Facebook are doing business in Europe and have users in Europe, so they're subject to EU law.

That could change. At some point, the cost of complying with EU regulation might be greater than the cost of shutting down the EU subsidiaries, and Facebook could do that, host all content in the US, and be subject to US law only. Would the EU block Facebook as a response? I doubt that will be a popular move.

Neither of these are going to happen. Closing the EU subsidiary would be a PR disaster, especially after the recent lawsuit (Max Schrems vs. Facebook).

While the EU obviously wouldn't block access to Facebook, I doubt that the cost of complying with regulation would be larger than shutting down their subsidiary. Think ad revenue, declining user base due to bad PR, and I don't think this move would go over well with their investors.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#25

Post by jrockway »

vinhboy wrote: post #20

I don't know why most of the comments on here, so far, are so nonchalant about this. > Hassell sued Bird for libel and won a judgment for more than $550,000 in damages and costs, as well as an injunction ordering Bird to remove the ostensibly defamatory material from Yelp This is fucking nuts. How can someone be sued for $550K for writing a bad yelp review. Can someone please explain why the law allows for ridiculous…

It appears they won by default. The defendant never showed up to court, and may have never been served papers.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#26

Post by toomuchtodo »

twblalock wrote: post #21
eeZi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US companies like Facebook are doing business in Europe and have users in Europe, so they're subject to EU law.

That could change. At some point, the cost of complying with EU regulation might be greater than the cost of shutting down the EU subsidiaries, and Facebook could do that, host all content in the US, and be subject to US law only. Would the EU block Facebook as a response? I doubt that will be a popular move.

Hosting the content only in the US isn't a solution. When a corporation faces a state actor, there is rarely a way for the corporation to come out on top. Didn't Brazil recently require WhatsApp to cease service in the country for a short bit of time?

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#28

Post by GauntletWizard »

jrockway wrote: post #25
vinhboy wrote: post #20

I don't know why most of the comments on here, so far, are so nonchalant about this. > Hassell sued Bird for libel and won a judgment for more than $550,000 in damages and costs, as well as an injunction ordering Bird to remove the ostensibly defamatory material from Yelp This is fucking nuts. How can someone be sued for $550K for writing a bad yelp review. Can someone please explain why the law allows for ridiculous…

It appears they won by default. The defendant never showed up to court, and may have never been served papers.

Sure, they should be awarded damages and maybe fees. Is a Yelp review worth $550k in damages? Ever? Is the court system so broken to think that $550k is a reasonable amount of attorneys fees? For a case won by default?

This isn't an assault on liberty, rather, it's a silent knife in the kidney. This is the kind of ruling that allows liberty to die with a whimper, drowned in a sea of procedure and 'sure, but maybe if's, with no regard for long-term consequence (or any of the theory of, well, law.)

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#29

Post by pstrateman »

ap22213 wrote: post #22
vinhboy wrote: post #20

I don't know why most of the comments on here, so far, are so nonchalant about this. > Hassell sued Bird for libel and won a judgment for more than $550,000 in damages and costs, as well as an injunction ordering Bird to remove the ostensibly defamatory material from Yelp This is fucking nuts. How can someone be sued for $550K for writing a bad yelp review. Can someone please explain why the law allows for ridiculous…

I think this probably happens much more frequently than people may realize. I once gave a doctor a bad Yelp review and was very careful to avoid stating anything that could be claimed as libel - I only stated very specific and accurate facts and my opinions of them. They still seemed to try to come after me for libel (but quickly gave up). Interestingly, I had even used a throwaway email address and Yelp account. But…

> the Doctor responded directly to my review, calling me out by name and essentially calling me a liar (I wasn't)

That seems likely it would violate HIPAA in some way...

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#30

Post by hueving »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #26
twblalock wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could change. At some point, the cost of complying with EU regulation might be greater than the cost of shutting down the EU subsidiaries, and Facebook could do that, host all content in the US, and be subject to US law only. Would the EU block Facebook as a response? I doubt that will be a popular move.

Hosting the content only in the US isn't a solution. When a corporation faces a state actor, there is rarely a way for the corporation to come out on top. Didn't Brazil recently require WhatsApp to cease service in the country for a short bit of time?

>Didn't Brazil recently require WhatsApp to cease service in the country for a short bit of time?

No, a judge had whatsapp blocked in Brazil and it resulted in a backlash from citizens.

Post reply on HN