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

71–80 of 115 posts

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

#71

Post by ap22213 »

pstrateman wrote: post #29
ap22213 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's a great point! I wish I would have thought of it at the time.

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

#72

Post by leereeves »

makomk wrote: post #67
tomohawk wrote: post #56

Since sites like facebook seem to be taking more of an active role in censoring/curating comments and content, it seems like this exemption would no longer apply to them at some point.

As the law currently stands, no. You can take an active role in curating comments and still be protected. You can even build a business model around charging people to remove defamatory information about them from your site, and Section 230 not only protects you from liability, it protects your business model by preventing the courts from forcing you to remove that content . A number of companies such as RipoffReport…

I don't understand the reasoning there. (Nor did the appeals court, it seems.)

Being immune from liability for what users post is not the same being able to ignore a court order.

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

#73

Post by manarth »

calgoo wrote: post #48
Sanddancer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Court dates are scheduled months in advance usually. If there's an emergency, then one usually files a motion for a continuance.

Or Im living 6 months outside the country. From what I know, there is no need to let the government know where I am. Is it now my fault that the legal system cant find me? Is this because civil court dont have a police force that investigates and arrests you?

In some jurisdictions, a court can dismiss a default judgement, if you show that was a good reason for missing the hearing. That still takes you back to square one though, with an outstanding court case (and missing the next hearing would look pretty negative).

If you manage to stay under the radar, you may eventually escape liability by exceeding the time-limits under a Statute of Limitations, but it's usually a risky and lengthy endeavor.

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

#74

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

Xylakant wrote: post #49
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.

That's not how things work. Under german law, if you provide a service that is targeted at german customers you're bound by german (hence EU) rules for that transaction, no matter where your company is located [1]. Enforcement may still be a problem, but since Facebook obviously needs to display ads that are locally relevant they need to have business interactions with EU company and it would be possible to make that…

I don't see how that would work. Presumably german companies could advertise with, say, the New York Times. So why wouldn't they be able to advertise with a Facebook based entirely outside the EU?

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

#75

Post by morgante »

pif wrote: post #69
makomk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the law currently stands, no. You can take an active role in curating comments and still be protected. You can even build a business model around charging people to remove defamatory information about them from your site, and Section 230 not only protects you from liability, it protects your business model by preventing the courts from forcing you to remove that content . A number of companies such as RipoffReport…

> it protects your business model by preventing the courts from forcing you to remove that content. Well, than Section 230 is simply wrong. It's important not to hold Yelp responsible for what a user wrote on his forum, but I fail to see how it can be damaging for a site to delete some unlawful-ruled content (which it didn't create), apart from the immoral case you named.

The problem with that is that's putting Yelp into the position of censoring content.

If the court thinks that a review is defamatory, they should just order the reviewer to take it down. No need to involve Yelp at all.

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

#76

Post by morgante »

keithpeter wrote: post #57

One wonders if Ava Bird is actually OK. Do people often drop off the grid like that and fail to respond to court papers &c? UK: I suspect the legal situation is a bit more complex here (it usually is), so perhaps the title should be 'most important law in the US'?

> Do people often drop off the grid like that and fail to respond to court papers &c?

Yes, all the time.

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

#77

Post by OliverJones »

Working for a nonprofit, I once was ripped off by a service provider. I posted a Yelp review describing the facts of the case and saying "would-be customers, be careful." This service provider retaliated by posting false and malicious statements about my character. Lucky we had a pro-bono lawyer, or this would have cost me thousands. As it is, it did cost the nonprofit thousands (in the ripoff). We wasted time too.

(Hint: it's really hard to collect after you get a favorable judgement in small claims court. Small claims court is a waste of time unless you're making a claim against a deep-pocketed multinational corporation.)

This experience taught me that Yelp is useless for anything except five-star reviews. The personal risk of using Yelp to tell the truth about bad service is simply too high.

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

#80

Post by lsaferite »

morgante wrote: post #75
pif wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it protects your business model by preventing the courts from forcing you to remove that content. Well, than Section 230 is simply wrong. It's important not to hold Yelp responsible for what a user wrote on his forum, but I fail to see how it can be damaging for a site to delete some unlawful-ruled content (which it didn't create), apart from the immoral case you named.

The problem with that is that's putting Yelp into the position of censoring content. If the court thinks that a review is defamatory, they should just order the reviewer to take it down. No need to involve Yelp at all.

You say that like Yelp doesn't already self-censor to suit it's business needs.
Post reply on HN