Can what you say online have real world consequences?

[Pea-n-Me]

It appears so...

Photographer wins $1.08M settlement against clients who defamed her online and ruined her business.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/07/31/photographer-wins-1m-defamation-lawsuit-against-dishonest-couple/

Thoughts?

 

[tcufrog]

I've taught a class in Internet etiquette to 4th graders. The three things I emphasize first are:

1. Once you've posted something online you've lost control of it forever.

2. Your online actions can have far reaching and unexpected consequences.

3. Nothing you post online is truly secret or private.

These facts are why why I don't post pictures of the kids and very little about them too.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

My online posting rule of thumb is not to post anything I don't want my boss, co-workers, family, children, in-laws, friends and/or neighbors to read. I'm constantly surprised how much oversharing there is online.

 

[sam_gordon]

Why shouldn't it? If I say "Pea-n-Me is a child molester" (I'm not saying that), and you lose your job because of it, I should be held liable (unless the claim is true).

 

[soccerdad72]

Defamation is defamation, regardless of whether it's online or in any other form, IMO.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I've taught a class in Internet etiquette to 4th graders. The three things I emphasize first are:

1. Once you've posted something online you've lost control of it forever.

2. Your online actions can have far reaching and unexpected consequences.

3. Nothing you post online is truly secret or private.

My kids had this too. For parents as well as kids, and taught not just by teachers, but by state police.

I imagine most schools offer something like this.

Many people (generally) seem to forget it pretty quickly, though.

 

[OhMari]

How much more proof do you need, but I am sure, laws are going to be written soon dealing with online opinions.

My biggest concern, is photographers that post newborn babies pictures online and they are naked. Sure their private parts are not shown, but their chests are. In today's world, it shouldn't be allowed. There are 2 sisters that are photographers in my hometown and they post these pictures on Facebook. I report them to Facebook every time I see one.

 

[wilkeliza]

If what you post online isn't true than you should indeed be held liable for the defamation.

This wasn't just an online thing where they wrote an unhappy review. They ran to the Dallas news circuit and lied about what happened. The photographer was able to prove that where she would normally have almost 100 bookings for the wedding season the year the news stories ran she only had 2. So there is proof that what they said harmed her business directly. The worst part of it all is that she was working with them and finally gave into their wishes but it wasn't fast enough for their liking. I have to wonder if what their contract said because mine does say that we have to pay X and won't get the photos before Y date etc.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Defamation is defamation, regardless of whether it's online or in any other form, IMO.

I agree.

Why shouldn't it? If I say "Pea-n-Me is a child molester" (I'm not saying that), and you lose your job because of it, I should be held liable (unless the claim is true).

It should, and you should.

I think it becomes more difficult, though, when it's online - for a few reasons. First, legislation and case law are still catching up given the explosive evolution of internet use over the past twenty years. And second, it's much more difficult to track online identities. Not impossible, but takes a lot more resources. Perhaps more is overlooked because of that.

Thinking of businesses like restaurants that have been negatively affected by someone with a vendetta giving negative reviews.

 

[DLgal]

My biggest concern, is photographers that post newborn babies pictures online and they are naked. Sure their private parts are not shown, but their chests are. In today's world, it shouldn't be allowed. There are 2 sisters that are photographers in my hometown and they post these pictures on Facebook. I report them to Facebook every time I see one.

What, exactly, is the problem here? What is wrong with showing babies chests? This is commonplace even in commercials and advertisements.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

If what you post online isn't true than you should indeed be held liable for the defamation.

This wasn't just an online thing where they wrote an unhappy review. They ran to the Dallas news circuit and lied about what happened. The photographer was able to prove that where she would normally have almost 100 bookings for the wedding season the year the news stories ran she only had 2. So there is proof that what they said harmed her business directly. The worst part of it all is that she was working with them and finally gave into their wishes but it wasn't fast enough for their liking. I have to wonder if what their contract said because mine does say that we have to pay X and won't get the photos before Y date etc.

Yes, and because the wife was a blogger, apparently her "business" took off (while the photographer's went down the toilet).

 

[sam_gordon]

How much more proof do you need, but I am sure, laws are going to be written soon dealing with online opinions.

Posting opinions is one thing and should be allowed. Knowingly posting false facts that cause someone to suffer is something different and illegal.

My biggest concern, is photographers that post newborn babies pictures online and they are naked. Sure their private parts are not shown, but their chests are. In today's world, it shouldn't be allowed. There are 2 sisters that are photographers in my hometown and they post these pictures on Facebook. I report them to Facebook every time I see one.

Wait, what?

 

[wilkeliza]

I agree.


It should, and you should.

I think it becomes more difficult, though, when it's online - for a few reasons. First, legislation and case law are still catching up given the explosive evolution of internet use over the past twenty years. And second, it's much more difficult to track online identities. Not impossible, but takes a lot more resources. Perhaps more is overlooked because of that.

Thinking of businesses like restaurants that have been negatively affected by someone with a vendetta giving negative reviews.

Restaurants are a little different. You can say you had a bad meal and wouldn't suggest the place to anyone else or that the staff was bad/rude. What you can't say is that the owner is a coke addict and child molester and can't be trusted etc. It also depends on how you approach it. Put one review online fine but constantly posting and reply to good reviews saying that they must work for the company (a common tactic) or saying other terrible things and the defamation line is crossed. Thankfully most online review systems let the owners flag bad reviews and give their side. They don't take all of them down but if an owner has proof that the person wasn't even in the establishment or what they said is wrong then they can get it removed.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/07/yelp-reviewers-beware-you-can-get-sued/

http://thelawdictionary.org/article/when-to-sue-for-defamation-slander-and-libel/

 

[Luv Bunnies]

Besides monitoring what you say, you also need to be aware of what is being said about you online. A prospective employer could see something negative that you had nothing to do with.

My older DS was on a forum (under a user name) and had a disagreement with another member. Nothing horrible was said by either party. It was basically a difference of opinion. The other guy somehow figured out who my DS was, looked at his Facebook profile and saw that he has a younger brother. He created an account on that forum in younger DS's name, said I'm that guy's brother and he's an idiot and I hate him. Younger DS happened to Google himself, which he does regularly, and saw that an account had been created in his name and was being used to blast older DS. He went directly to the forum moderator, explained what was going on, and asked that the account be removed immediately. Older DS also messaged the guy and said, "Hey, my brother had nothing to do with this. Would you please take that account down?" They guy complied and older DS said "they're cool with each other now." Both of my boys are adults so I let them work this out, but I did advise older DS to remove his profile from that particular forum and stop using it.

The moral of the story is to periodically search on your name to ensure that nothing is being said about you, and that you're not being impersonated online.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

What, exactly, is the problem here? What is wrong with showing babies chests? This is commonplace even in commercials and advertisements.

Wait, what?

Good questions.

 

[wenrob]

How much more proof do you need, but I am sure, laws are going to be written soon dealing with online opinions.

My biggest concern, is photographers that post newborn babies pictures online and they are naked. Sure their private parts are not shown, but their chests are. In today's world, it shouldn't be allowed. There are 2 sisters that are photographers in my hometown and they post these pictures on Facebook. I report them to Facebook every time I see one.

Oh for goodness sake. Those photos are taken upon request of the parent and the photographer is given permission via contract to share those photos. Any parent that doesn't want them shared can check the box saying they want them private. There's nothing nefarious about such photos, they're about pure innocence. Please don't make them out to be anything else. Nakey photos of babies have been done professionally for decades.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I always advise people to keep things factual in all reviews. Do say things like We paid him $3,000 up front and he never showed up for the job and it is now 6 months later. Don't say things like he's a con artist or she's a scam artist. People aren't stupid. They can figure out who is a scam artist for themselves from the facts. They don't need to be told that.

If the couple had posted, we don't like the extra $125 up charge for a cover and we don't get our pictures until we pay it and given one star they'd have been absolutely within their rights to do so. But to maliciously go after the photographer like they did and claim their pictures were being held hostage and she's a scam artist as is alleged in the media I read crossed the line.

 

[OhMari]

What, exactly, is the problem here? What is wrong with showing babies chests? This is commonplace even in commercials and advertisements.

It is just not the chest, the whole baby is naked. Sorry, I feel it is wrong. I saw an interview once with Brooke Shields and her mom had her in a commercial when she was a baby naked and she said it was wrong.

 

[OhMari]

Oh for goodness sake. Those photos are taken upon request of the parent and the photographer is given permission via contract to share those photos. Any parent that doesn't want them shared can check the box saying they want them private. There's nothing nefarious about such photos, they're about pure innocence. Please don't make them out to be anything else. Nakey photos of babies have been done professionally for decades.

Your opinion. I am not hear to argue. Just wish more parents would opt for this.