Protecting Free Speech: Why Yelp Is Marking Businesses That Sue Their Customers • Hacker News Board

Re: Protecting Free Speech: Why Yelp Is Marking Businesses That Sue Their Customers

#91

Post by cloudjacker » Fri, Jul 29, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #34

cloudjacker wrote: post #17

> but there will always be a small handful of businesses who mistakenly think it’s a good idea to threaten consumers who exercise their free speech right Wh... what? the free speech right only covers repercussions initiated by the government. Businesses are not the government so consumers have no free speech right or expectation here.

> the free speech right only covers repercussions initiated by the government. Businesses are not the government so consumers have no free speech right or expectation here. That's a provincial US view, constricting it to what the constitution says, etc. In any case, it's inadequate for the era that we live in. There's more to free speech and freedom of expression than avoiding "repercussions initiated by the governme…

The judiciary is capable of awarding civil sanctions and damages to a private person - natural or artificial - even if those damages are on a claim on the basis of speech.

To create your version of reality, it would require a radical interpretation from the Supreme Court, or new and separate laws passed from Congress and every state and territory to limit the powers of the judicial branch.

As it stands there is no framework in this country to uphold your version of free speech. If you feel it is inadequate for the era that we live in, then sure, keep advocating for it. This has no bearing on the correctness of Yelp's pseudo-legal interpretation in their sounding board. They are equally within their right to censor their own forum, with their disproportional influence, but their rationale does not make it accurate.

Re: Protecting Free Speech: Why Yelp Is Marking Businesses That Sue Their Customers

#92

Post by cloudjacker » Fri, Jul 29, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

ngoede wrote: post #47

cloudjacker wrote: post #17

> but there will always be a small handful of businesses who mistakenly think it’s a good idea to threaten consumers who exercise their free speech right Wh... what? the free speech right only covers repercussions initiated by the government. Businesses are not the government so consumers have no free speech right or expectation here.

Lawsuits are absolutely governed by the constitution. You are using the force of the government to bring about your will. So the first amendment absolutely factors into how a speech related lawsuit plays out. -Not a lawyer. Not legal advice-

The judiciary is capable of awarding civil sanctions and damages to a private person - natural or artificial - even if those damages are on a claim on the basis of speech. To create your version of reality, it would require a radical interpretation from the Supreme Court, or a new and separate laws passed from Congress and every state and territory to limit the powers of the judicial branch. As it stands there is no framework in this country to uphold your version of free speech. If you feel it is inadequate for the era that we live in, then sure, keep advocating for it. This has no bearing on the correctness of Yelp's pseudo-legal interpretation in their sounding board. They are equally within their right to censor their own forum, with their disproportional influence, but their rationale does not make it accurate.

Re: Protecting Free Speech: Why Yelp Is Marking Businesses That Sue Their Customers

#93

Post by slapp672 » Fri, Jul 29, 2016, 8:09 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #89

slapp672 wrote: post #76

As a SLAPP victim, Yelp's decision to punch-down against a pet-sitting business is a slap in my face. A few years back I was sued by a chain of business for $2 Million. These were private-equity financed businesses which serially sue customers, as I later verified using public records search. I complained to Yelp, to no avail. I went to a lawyer who told me that they have a lot of cash in the bank and that I don't wa…

Why is Yelp's project to help protect consumers from predatory companies a slap in your face? Is it because they didn't jump to it and lay down the massive cash it would have taken to defend you? Do they somehow owe you? Do they dance to your tune? An allegory: As a fire victim, the town's decision to form a firefighter team is a slap in my face. A few years back my house caught fire. The mayor wouldn't organize to p…

I'm upset because they didn't stand up for the little guy against the big guy and then they decide to fight a little guy and claim they are protecting free speech.

I'm not saying they owe me. I'm saying they have a professed legitimate business interest in protecting free speech. They are claiming to be champions on free speech but they are only going after a pet sitting business and other small fry.

I'll update your allegory. Your house slowly burned down over a period of several months and the fire dept did nothing. Later the mayor busted two kids for lighting off bottle rockets, and declared the town to be leading the fight against fire.

Re: Protecting Free Speech: Why Yelp Is Marking Businesses That Sue Their Customers

#94

Post by kstenerud » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 12:21 AM UTC

slapp672 wrote: post #93

kstenerud wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Yelp's project to help protect consumers from predatory companies a slap in your face? Is it because they didn't jump to it and lay down the massive cash it would have taken to defend you? Do they somehow owe you? Do they dance to your tune? An allegory: As a fire victim, the town's decision to form a firefighter team is a slap in my face. A few years back my house caught fire. The mayor wouldn't organize to p…

I'm upset because they didn't stand up for the little guy against the big guy and then they decide to fight a little guy and claim they are protecting free speech. I'm not saying they owe me. I'm saying they have a professed legitimate business interest in protecting free speech. They are claiming to be champions on free speech but they are only going after a pet sitting business and other small fry. I'll update your…

"They are claiming to be champions on free speech but they are only going after a pet sitting business and other small fry."

I'd do exactly the same thing in their position. Start small. Learn the (legal) ropes. Build up victories, a war chest, and generals. THEN go after the big boys. Starting at the top is just plain irresponsible.

Re: Protecting Free Speech: Why Yelp Is Marking Businesses That Sue Their Customers

#95

Post by JustUhThought » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 3:00 PM UTC

JustUhThought wrote: post #64

Doing the right thing in one instance of one aspect of "free speech" is not "protecting free speech". Protecting free speech is about a framework of process, transparency, inclusion, and democracy. Yelp is not a transparent, inclusive democracy with processes in place to ensure we can each express ourselves freely. It is a business, driven by business decisions, run by business people, for its customer, in the intere…

Voted your comment up, but wanted to add,

The "strangeness" indeed. But making up our mind as a society seems like it would be an unhealthy development.

I believe one reason the U.S. has been so resilient is the combination of schizophrenic like policy and action (caused by three branches of federal government, federal and state split, and 50 separate states) and the pressure/safety-valve mechanism that is our election system.

Add corporations, NGOs, etc into the mix and it all becomes even more schizophrenic. Though, corporations add psychopathic to the mix more than any other of the flavors, given their incessant drive to produce profit for their shareholders.

I think the problem-issue has less to do with strangenes, more to do with honesty. I don't believe we'd allow a person to treat other people and, to the point, make the kind of claims we're talking about, without calling bullsh-t on them. Corporations would make horrible citizens. But they are "persons". So if these persons are not citizens, what are they???