Maryland Court Weighs Internet Anonymity 409
Cornwallis writes "In a First Amendment case with implications for everything from neighborhood e-mail lists to national newspapers, a Maryland businessman argued to the state's highest court yesterday that the host of an online forum should be forced to reveal the identities of people who posted allegedly defamatory comments. The businessman, Zebulon J. Brodie, contends that he was defamed by comments about his shop, a Dunkin' Donuts in Centreville, posted on NewsZap.com. The shop was described as one 'of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.' Talk about a Negative Nellie! At least the article didn't say the shop was the 'most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen.'"
Anonymity (Score:5, Funny)
Anonymity is the bane of a civilized society and should not be tolerated on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, anonymity is worthless in political speech if it can be bypassed by the force of government.
Hey, Zebulon J. Brodie!!! (Score:2)
Zebulon J. Brodie is one of the biggest douchebag assholes that I have ever read about on the Internet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You just got served by humor (Score:5, Informative)
The original poster was clearly making a joke by posting it anon. irony is thick and funny in that post.
oddly, this post is informative, but should be moderated as sadly informative.
Re:You just got served by humor (Score:4, Insightful)
"oddly, this post is informative, but should be moderated as sadly informative."
Want to play it that way?
This post is
30% Funny
10% Insightful
20% Overrated
and should be modded as such.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was about to mod you down, but then I realised your post was most likely sarcastic...
Re:You just got served by humor (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that it causes disruptions, but those disruptions are not always deteriorations. Any time there is oppression, there is a need for anonymity so that the oppressor's acts are brought to light (and hopefully remedied). Even in societies which consider themselves to be ethical there are oppressions both small and large.
-1, Fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you are at a party and a stranger calls you a jerk, is the host required to tell you who he was?"
I think that's the essential point -- gods, consider if Slashdot were forced to divulge identities (even if they knew 'em!) of everyone here who ever dissed Microsoft? I see no difference in the two situations.
BTW I love the Saki quote in your sig ... and it's SOOO true in places like slashdot. And on that note... like someone else pointed out, you missed the irony in the anonymous post. Don't be so "accurat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are at a party and a stranger calls you a jerk, is the host required to tell you who he was?
If you can get a subpoena, then yes... yes you can. If he just called you a jerk, well you probably won't be able to convince the judge to give you a subpoena, but if the remark rose to the standard of defamation, I don't see how you couldn't.
Anonymity in the US, aside from some very specific circumstances, has always been something of a "catch me if you can" situation. And, in my opinion, that's the way it should be. As long as when you need anonymity (and I mean really need anonymity, like from the govern
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your "party" analogy doesn't really hold up. It's unlikely that "calling you a jerk" could ever be prosecuted as defamation, even if you knew who the guy was. Defamation can come into play when the statement is public and is presented as factual...
Correcting for that... If a stranger at a party declares publicly that you are a jerk who beats his wife, and you find your way to pursue the matter in court, then parties with information that can identify the stranger may be compelled to reveal it, actually.
I
+1 Missed the point in a funny way (Score:5, Funny)
Utini sits at his desk, pina-colada in hand, surfing Slashdot. Occassionally taking a pull from his -- slightly too effeminate -- cigarette holder, containing a Gauloises cigarette. Its dark, heady odour fills the room, while thick smoke hangs in layers, waiting to be disturbed by a draught.
All is calm like this for several minutes, then suddenly, outraged by what he sees as a crime against free expression, Utini is forced to down his drink and cigarette upon the table. He must fight against those who would destroy the anonymity the Internet affords. He writes furiously and ceaselessly for several seconds, penning a Slashdot post he is sure will make the original poster repent from their stupidity, and save anyone swayed by the flawed argument.
He finishes writing, diligently presses the Review button, before submitting the post. He is certain this will do good, he may have even saved the Internet as we know it! This is a good day.
Almost immediately after pressing the Submit button, he hears a dull roar in the distance. It's beyond his log cabin, beyond the small garden with its piles of wood and lumberjack's tools. He strains his ears before going outside to look over the tops of the trees surrounding the mountain retreat.
The noise is increasing in volume, the source of it is getting closer. Utini squints as a shape begins to define itself, turning at first from a dot, to a blob, then taking shape as some sort of aeroplane. He has time to observe that the plane must be moving at phenomenal speed before it has practically overtaken him; with a mind-shattering screech, and noise of engines, Utini sees that, somehow, the plane is the post he replied to. Puzzled he reflects that it must have been a trick of the mind. The anonymity argument must have really bothered him. He thinks this until a piece of paper drifts down from the sky, landing at his feet.
Seeing the paper is folded, Utini opens it up, and not without some trepidation. Upon it is written a simple message, so simple it seems bizarre that the Anonymous Coward went to such lengths to get it to him. The paper said:
"Wow." thought Utini, "That's got to be the most roundabout way to tell someone they've misunderstood a joke."
Re:+1 Missed the point in a funny way (Score:5, Funny)
"Wow." thought Utini, "That's got to be the most roundabout way to tell someone they've misunderstood a joke."
Have no fear... AC has come up with an even more roundabout way [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Here comes the Eula (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the dunkin donuts' owner sign/agree to such a eula, though? He need only know that he WAS defamed, even if he doesn't acquire that knowledge through the website. He can have a third party retrieve the data for his court case.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No good. All he need do is be informed of the statement. Once the court case is in progress he can get the actual statement via discovery. There's no way in our legal system to protect the website, other than to establish precedent that they cannot be required to produce information in such cases, which is fairly likely to be the outcome here.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the Dunkin Donuts owner learned the identities of the people, what would it accomplish?
Last I checked defamation is protected by free speech. He would be laughed out of court.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked defamation is protected by free speech. He would be laughed out of court.
That is untrue. See Wikipedia's article on US defamation law [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But if he attached a qualifier "...that I've ever been too", meaning the claim might be truthful, and not defamation. IANAL but if a statement can be true, it isn't defamation. If I call Ted Bundy a murder it isn't defamation, if I call Ted Smith one (with no evidence) then it is, but if I say "In my opinion Ted Smith is a serial killer", then I'm in the clear.
Also can't dirty be a subjective term? If I say that something is dirty, it doesn't make it defamatory.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Defamation is definitely not protected speech. That's why there's a legal definition for it. Now, he would be laughed out of court because the speech in question is not defamation, but not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And in all honesty, I bet most people don't have a clue how franchising works, and I would certainly disagree with statements that start out "Most people are smart enough", because in my experience, most people aren't smart enough.
Re:Here comes the Eula (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it needs to be determined if he was defamed. Maybe the accusations are true. Maybe the standards of the person who posted are higher than his store's standards. Maybe he is mad because he is being called out on something that he does not want to admit. Or maybe he does have a case and his is a clean and proper store. That is the first thing that needs to be determined. After that, if there is a case at that point, then talk about revealing who it is.
I have worked in the food industry. I have seen what some places will let pass and it is disgusting. There are several restaurants in the local area that I tell people to avoid due to the sanitation and quality issues.
I don't know whether or not the owner has done this, but the proper response of the owner would have been to contact the person via the board (if possible) and discover what the experience of that person was. We call this customer relations/service. A law suit like this is likely to only harm the reputation of the store owner. It will cause people who visit the store to focus even more on the same issues the *anonymous* party is focusing on.
InnerWeb
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly agree with all of that (in terms of what he SHOULD do). I was really only considering what he CAN do. That he has made a bad choice is, I think, fairly obvious (although, one might argue that the increase in visits from maryland slashdotters checking on the filth levels may be yielding improvements in exposure for him, and at least one slashdotter has now reported the DD as 'spotless', so who knows).
Give me their names. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
Re:Give me their names. (Score:4, Interesting)
So if you want to say some shop is dirty, bad, etc - then you better offer up some proof. Otherwise you can get sued. This is nothing new - it has been going on for many years - why should the Internet be a place for people to spread malicious information without suffering the penalty? It shouldn't.
Re:Give me their names. (Score:5, Informative)
So if you want to say some shop is dirty, bad, etc - then you better offer up some proof. Otherwise you can get sued. This is nothing new - it has been going on for many years - why should the Internet be a place for people to spread malicious information without suffering the penalty? It shouldn't.
No, if you want to say some shop is dirty, you just say it. If someone wants to sue you for libel, the burden of proof is on them, not you. For libel cases, the burden of proof is usually very high. Generally, you need to make a false statement, you need to know it was a false statement, and you need to intend harm with your false statement, and the plaintiff has to prove all of this. A shop owner would have an almost impossibly difficult task proving that his shop wasn't dirty, the patron knew it wasn't dirty, and the patron intended to harm his business.
Re:Give me their names. (Score:5, Informative)
"This place is filthy" is an opinion. It is protected speech. "This place is disgusting" is also an opinion, and as such protected.
"This donut shop has been cited by the health department for health code violations fifteen times" when it in fact hasn't been IS a statement of "fact" and libel, and as such unprotected.
The hospital is FILTHY. Why else is it about the only place you can contract MSRA (flesh eating bacteria)?
There is no such thing as "clean". The donut shop owner doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
i personally disagree with the idea that you can have 'freedom of speech' combined with the threat of lawsuits for said speech. if that were the case, china isn't that different. while i don't think that one should be allowed to yell at people, for example, communication between consenting parties should be allowed regardless of its content.
in china, for example, you have (some) freedom to go onto a website and talk about tiananmen square. however, i hope you're ready to take "responsibility" four your spee
Re: (Score:3)
You disregarded a key point of what I said: If what you say hurts someone. You have freedom of speech, you can say you hated their service, you hated their donuts. YOu say they are dirty, then prove it. For those that say "its an opinion" - yea it is, one that can hurt someone. So they need to have reasonable proof that the place is dirty.
Of course it appears he disregarded a key point of what you said. That's because your point is not logical. You state that the "opinion" was "fact". That simply forgoes any proper logic. How is it that you have RTFA (yes, I am assuming you have) and yet claim that the individual made a statement such as "That Duncan Donuts is one of the dirtiest places in Maryland"? That, of course, is a statement of fact, possibly carrying the speaker's opinion.
The speaker said that it was one of "the most dirty and
Re:Give me their names. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?
This is where it gets sticky.
The store owner is claiming that they defamed him. The store owner (just like every other American) has legal protection from slander and libel. The only way to (legally) know for sure is to take the speakers to trial. It could be that they are not guilty of anything, or it could be that they are guilty of liable. But the only way to know for sure is to allow the shop owner to sue them.
But who can he sue? John Doe? Even if John Doe is convicted of liable in abstinencia (err what ever it is called when you are tried with out being present) who would they punish for it? Libel I believe is just a tort, a civil crime. So no one is going to be arrested, and it is unlikely that an over worked DA is going to do a whole lot for you.
Was it Jefferson who said, "Your right to swing your fist ends where the rights of my nose begin"?
Same basic deal, your right to free speech ends when your words impead other peoples rights.
Hate speech, inflammatory speech, screaming fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander... your speech is already limited.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" != You can make false statements that harm another person.
Or if you'd like to switch it up a bit, I can exercise my 1st amendment rights as many people around here seem to think of them to inform your family, coworkers, significant other, x-girl friends, and neighbors that you are actually an un-register sex offender that has aids.
I mean, it's the first amendment right? I can say what ever I want with absolutely no repercussions, right? /sarcasm
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Election funding should be public information, and where your political actions are obviously immoral, you should be prepared to be boycotted for your actions.
Frankly, a boycott of businesses that decide to spend their money on immorality is well warranted. Anti-rights businesses deserve to lose money. We don't need those people around, best if they lose everything and starve to death.
Elephant in the room attack! (Score:2)
"We don't like your comment about some random Dunkin Donuts. Please turn over your entire internet history so that anyone on the planet can sue you for defamation."
Re:Elephant in the room attack! (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, if the owner just cleaned it up, he could use that as GREAT marketing.
But, instead, he chose to sue, so now he looks like a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't know opinion was liable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Competitors aren't allowed to have opinions?
Personally I don't see how it would be possible to diminish the reputation of Dunkin Donuts further than it already is... but that's just me.
Good luck with that privacy thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we have lost that right for the most part. Or rather we have been giving it away at every turn.
No mention however (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheap lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the case, wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire a janitor, instead of a lawyer?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If that's the case, wouldn't it have been cheaper to hire a janitor, instead of a lawyer?
You can't pay a janitor with contingency fees.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ego gets so many people into trouble that way. Ego does not care about cost, only about feeling good (revenge?)
InnerWeb
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why fix the problem when you can stifle the criticism?
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
Technically it's the responsibility of the person who stated the comments to prove truth, not the other way around.
That said, I agree with the other posts here: if the comment was stated as the summary says it was, it's an opinion, not a statement of fact, and thus can't be considered defamation.
Re:No mention however (Score:5, Informative)
That's not how it works.
The business has to be able to prove that the comment caused financial damage, and sue for recovery of that damage. It is difficult to win that kind of case. Just ask anyone who tried to sue for negative feedback received on Ebay, claiming the negative hurt their business - so far no one's ever won.
Someone Post Pictures Now! (Score:4, Funny)
"The question of the state of cleanliness is a material fact in the issue. Someone please post ZoeTroped pictures of the restaurant so that we may see its condition. It's only defamation if it's false."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if presented as fact; which it was not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You would need to see all the food service places the commenter had seen, and rank them according to "dirty and unsanitary-looking"ness and then determine where the cutoff is for "one of the most".
The language is so vague it is meaningless...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even if it is pretty clean or pretty dirty, the original poster is safe since he stated it in relative terms to his personal experience of other establishments. Just because he normally eats at 4 star restaurants and wandered into a DD by mistake does not invalidate his opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
incorrect. It is never false. It can always be true since it is based upon one person's opinion and his experience of never having seen a dirtier place.
Therefore, it is always true and not defamatory.
Re: (Score:2)
You could always get a subpoena requiring his mom to reveal what his room in the basement looks like. Assuming she's still paying for his electricity, it's safe to say he's seen it.
the arguments continued... (Score:2)
the arguments continued... that Zebulon would bring down a fleet of Vogon constructor ships upon the first ammendment if he should not be pleased.
I posted that weak ass hitchhiker reference just because I was hoping to be one of the first people to say something diparaging without being anon... posting anon coward would be too obvious. perhaps the forums should use the coward moniker..seems to really put people in their place here!
Well that, and Zebulon really made me think of mork from orc... :)
Maybe... (Score:3, Informative)
he should be more worried about the actual conditions of his store. I'm not naive enough to think that people don't use the internet to cause trouble, but if the comment is echoed throughout the forum, he's most likely got a problem on his hands. He may not like someone coming out and saying that his store is filthy, but if the comment is true, then this falls under the realm of informing citizens.
Somehow, I doubt he wants the poster's name and address to send him coupons.
Legal Innoculation? (Score:2)
Why does some second tier fast food owner bring up one of the biggest precedent setting cases ever?
Can he be bringing up a weak version of a precedent setting case to angle for a pro-rights victory?
Re:Legal Innoculation? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm also wondering why, if the allegation is that untrue or that actionable, the franchise company doesn't come to his aid??
Seems to me if there was really a case here, Dunkin' Donuts Inc. would be first in line at the legal office.
what constitutes defamation in Maryland? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm actually ticked at my local health inspector because they don't make this easy for my city. It's easy to look up this sort of info at other places
http://www.txkusa.org/health/Food_Report.pdf [txkusa.org]
Here is the real slashdot test. What did this guy happen to score on his local health inspection and how easy is that for his usual customers to obtain and see his results?
I actually think the judge needs to throw this right out. This is an opinion about a food serving place and it isn't even that harsh. If he doesn't want to hear what his customers think of his place, then he doesn't need to listen to them. Maybe, just maybe he needs to clean up his shop and present a better public image for his customers?
I wouldn't be surprised if his competitors are eating him alive.
Re: (Score:2)
actually think the judge needs to throw this right out. This is an opinion about a food serving place and it isn't even that harsh. If he doesn't want to hear what his customers think of his place, then he doesn't need to listen to them. Maybe, just maybe he needs to clean up his shop and present a better public image for his customers?
It's so much easier to sue a single website for defamation (and hopefully make a few thousands in damages in the process) than to actually clean up your restaurant and serve halfway decent food (which costs effort and money). It's the law of the least effort, it works as well on people as it does on atoms and chemical reactions.
"the most...I have seen" (Score:2, Informative)
I don't understand how this could be a problem. He didn't falsely claim the store poisoned him or anything, he just simply stated out of the stores he's seen, it was one of the most dirty. That's just an opinion, and as far as I know we're still allowed to voice our opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The case is not about whether or not a person is allowed to state an opinion. The case is about whether or not somebody can use the power of the courts to find out who is "hiding" behind a nom de plume on the internet.
This is the
Citation needed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Opinions are not statements of fact, something that apparently escapes even the highest court in Maryland. Slander and libel are passing off false statements as fact. This is why in the newspaper you always hear about the alleged crime, or how the government may be involved in massive surveillance domestically, or that the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) could be real.
Hopefully the court will realize that one person making his/her own opinion known in a public forum (anonymously or otherwise) does not constitute a malicious attempt to degrade the reputation of another. If not, we may have to bump Florida from the 2008 dumbest judiciary system award.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The highest court hasn't ruled yet. And the question isn't about the merit of the libel claim anyway; it's about whether the plaintiff should have to demonstrate that merit before obtaining the identity of the defendant.
IMO, even if taken as an absolute factual statement (which it was not), the claim is not provable either way -- there's no way the plaintiff can show the restaurant was not dirty and "
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where does the judge get his/her authority here (Score:3, Interesting)
Increasingly (and scarily) jurisdiction is being extended through some pretty tenuous reasoning.
That whole Lori Drew case was a woman in Missouri being sued in Los Angeles -- because the servers are located there.
Sadly, the internet seems to have created cases where lawmakers still say "well, you're guilty here" -- which is kind of scary. Just think, there is a
Prove the allegation first (Score:2)
My opinion: the judge should require the plaintiff here to first prove that the statements were defamatory. You don't need to know who said them to do that, the statements stand on their own. Once the owner has a ruling that the statements were in fact defamatory, then demand the identity of the person who made them so they can be held to account for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not believe accusing a food service establishment of being unsanitary is not defamtory? What sort of places to you eat at, anyway?
Or are you trying to say that it is only defamatory if untrue?
Re:Prove the allegation first (Score:5, Informative)
In the USA, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, having and stating an opinion is not defamatory. At least not in and of itself. And nobody should be subject to massive legal bills just because someone else doesn't like their opinion.
Now, if the owner can show that the stated opinion is false (no reasonable person would have believed the place was unsanitary) and that the opinion was stated with the intention of harming his business, then he's got a case for defamation. But he hasn't even attempted that. All he's done is state his opinion of the posts
Nothing sacred about speech on the internet. (Score:2, Insightful)
It should be (Score:2)
Free speech and free press should, by default, be transcendent over property, reputation, religion, and even security. The laws and judicial opinions we have today are full of cruft from old moments of political expediency.
The "'Fire!' in a theater" argument is an example of a poor decision that is often used to justify continued eroding of free speech. People are born with all rights; as they grow older they allow them to be taken away. They justify it by their need to live in a pink and fluffy padded
Tortous interference? (Score:4, Informative)
That is usually what it is called when you are doing something that affects a business in a negative manner. Slander and libel are problematic because even though we are all "journalists" now, the publishing of an opinion probably doesn't carry that much weight.
The question is more likely can you have an unmoderated forum of nothing but negative comments about businesses without ever incurring legal liability? For most of the history of the world, the answer has been no, you can't. Today, with the Internet the operator of the forum may be hard to find, too hard for an assembly of people with torches and buckets of tar to locate and deliver punishment.
I'd think that the operator of the forum can either shield participants and take all the heat or serve up the participants and hope nobody actually sues them. In today's world, betting you will not be sued is a very risky bet.
scary judges (Score:2)
The scariest part is that these case is absurd on a number of levels, but at least one judge so far thinks this Zebulon J. Brodie whackjob actually had a valid point.
First off, the First Amendment protects freedom of expression. We're not all the way there yet, but most intelligent people (including many judges) agree that anonymity is essential to guarantee free speech without fear of reprisal. One exception of course is for libelous or defamatory statements but those do NOT include negative criticism fram
Sorry Maryland (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're a nation, nay, maybe world run mostly by bullies it seems these days. I don't know if this has always been the case, but it doesn't seem like something that will ever fade. Don't you ever feel like just giving up somedays? I respect you for your efforts, but...
No I never do.
Your question reminds me of this passage from "Casablanca"
RICK
Don't you sometimes wonder if it's worth all this? I mean what you're fighting for.
VICTOR
You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
Personal Opinion (Score:3, Informative)
Note to anonymous poster: Next time document your comment with a couple shots from your camera phone. Truth is an excellent defense in the USA against such charges. Also add the words, "In my opinion..."
In Britain, however, this would be an entirely different matter.
Maybe He Doesn't Eat Out (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL but from what I recollect this guy is going to have a hard time justifying his demand for the poster's information to a judge.
My understanding is that in order to prevail in a legal action of this kind you must demonstrate that you have a case, e.g., give good reason to believe that the person may have defamed you.
The problem with the quote mentioned in this article is that it's not defamation if it's true. So without knowing who the poster is how do they hope to establish that the poster has been to less clean food-service establishments?
Was litigation the smart play for Zebulon? (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the primary jobs of a good libel lawyer is to advise his client when NOT to sue.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Crab Nebula (Score:2)
Is Kerrigan Mahan available to do the voices?
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:5, Funny)
Man that guy is an asshole. And I've been to his DD it sucks. The kitchen is nasty, and the people behind the counter are all fat kids, and there's never any waffles!
Good thing I posted this on the internet where people have learned to take everything with a grain of salt and realize that I could be from ukraine and be posting this having never been to mary's land or where ever.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, your statements are written out. They are "in print". People have known for a hundred years or more that only things "in print" are true and not to pay attention to anything else.
Therefore, lots of folks believe only what is written on the Internet. I guess if you stated these things in a YouTube video it would have less credibility.
Further, most people will believe any negative comment about a business or product. And the state of businesses must be really awful because you see so few p
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife worked at a Dunkin Donuts once...for about two hours. The little old Chinese lady running it asked her to go get some donuts out of the back, and when she turned on the light of the storeroom, she saw roaches scurrying all over them. When she told the old woman about it, her attitude was "Phah, just knock them off."
She left and called the local health inspector. That shop closed the next day.
Sometimes criticism is GOOD.
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if he would have included the age if she'd been young.
Or the gender of she'd been a he. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or the size if she'd been tall.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really that hard to keep up with a thread for 30 seconds?
You must be new here. ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, after all, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly, I wonder if you would have included the ethnicity of the manager if she'd been white.
That being said, I'm glad your wife called the health inspector.
Interestingly, i wonder if you would have said anything if the poster HAD mentioned she was white. Or if you would have noticed. Or if this person had been a man. Or a marmot.
-Taylor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe
(while wearing my Star Wars t-shirt with Darth Maul on it, and sipping a mocha soy late as I recline in my blue chair that I bought at office despot on a cloudy June afternoon)
that all detail is relevant, you insensitive clod!
Re:Zebulon J. Brodie (Score:4, Insightful)
I call bullshit.
Nobody defamed a person, they mentioned their opinion about the condition of a business which this man apparently owns.
They owe him NOTHING.
Additionally, what he is likely to get from all of this is a little case of the "Streisand Effect," where now anyone who reads this story (which will get much wider coverage than the original posting) will now wondering the following:
1. Whether or not they want to chance eating at this establishment.
2. Assuming they decide they would, whether or not they want to support somebody who is fighting against anonymity online.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Zebulon" is just his alias.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank christ Maryland isn't the center of the known universe. Maryland can do whatever the hell it feels like, and all the citizens can cow down to its respective governments, but as for me, Mr xxxx yyyyy, I will revel in my internet anonymity.
That's easy for you to say. I have to go through Maryland on my way to the beach!
Re: (Score:2)
This is needs to get over it.
He appears to not understand that suing over this will only serve to legitimize the claims.
Not only that, being on the internet makes it no more damaging than a friend saying "That dunkin' donuts sucks, dude..."
And he just makes himself look like a total dick by doing this.
Not necessarily... (Score:2)
But you might expect a visit from Knights Who Say Ni for insulting the shrubbery of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Your daily beatings, waterboarding, and other assorted tortures will all be provided gratis as well!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And to whomever modded this Offtopic: Whoosh!