Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 28
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: September 23, 2007 - 3:17 pm
Posted By: AndyBeard 351 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.shaunanderson.co.uk)
Category: Water Cooler
From what a little birdie tells me, the site is the kind Matt likes to make a bad example of.
Submitted to the Water Cooler because Shaun can't at this time provide any links to the site in question for legal reasons.
16 Comments
Comments
Thanks Andy. Any opinions or thoughts greatly appreciated. :)
Um... I'm getting "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria." And no blog post.
Thanks Rhea - Not sure what that is about it is definitely there.
Can't find the article but I've seen dozens of reports on shady SEO companies, no mentioning names, and haven't heard anything related to defamation.
The article in question is actually on my hobo site. Don't want to quite link directly to it but if you check http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/seo-blog/ scroll down until you see "beware".
I think I had a small WP error on my own personal site Andy has kindly linked to where I comment on this article. Fixed this now if anyone wants a nosey.
Wait till you see the research (pending legal advice of course)!
It is unfortunate that larger companies can try and force people to bow down to them. So I am glad someone is willing to stand up and fight for their right of free speech. Um I won’t comment any further as I wouldn’t want to be sued for Defamation and Libel like yourself! :S
I'm not a libel attorney (nor a lawyer at all) but I've taken a few courses on the subject...
Here in the US, when a company claims that you've libeled them they must, in fact, prove that you are not correct. In a manner of saying: THEY are guilty until they can prove themselves otherwise. So, your statement is not libelous until they can prove your statements aren't true.
So, most people/businesses wouldn't put themselves through a court battle in order to try to prove themselves not-guilty of what you accuse them of. It makes for horrendous press for them during the process.
What clients can they attract while they are in the middle of a court case trying to prove they aren't frauds?
The law may be different in the UK, but here in the US journalists and media (actually, everyone) are protected by at a shield whereby they are only guilty of libel only if they knowingly published information that they knew to be incorrect or that they knowingly published information that they didn't believe to be true.
That's a great right as a human being that we have here - to be able to say what we believe to be true and say it publicly without fear of criminal judgement. The downside to doing so, as you've learned, is that the opposition has the right to sue you or at least send their lawyers to threaten you in hopes that you'll hush up.
Whenever I talk to people about such things like thus I love to use the example of the book that came out maybe 10 years ago called "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot" by Al Franken. The reason Limbaugh never sued Franken for libel is because he would have had to prove that he isn't a big, fat idiot.
Putting the validity of that claim aside, it makes no sense for Limbaugh to spend any time in a public courtroom trying to prove such statements to be false. The publicity that'd result from that would be far worse for him than the fact that the book was in existence.
I'd suggest that it makes no sense for the company threatening you to take this to court, so ultimately and legally you are probably safe. But, with that said, that doesn't mean that you won't be free from a huge amount of time and money being wasted trying to defend yourself in the meantime.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney - I recommend legal counsel. I'm just stating the facts as I understand them (much like yourself.)
The law is different with less protection but then companies are/were not noted for going round sueing people it tends to cost money ;) I reread Shawn article about 3 times I had a good idea who the company was so I asked a friend to read and identify the company, they may just be thick but until "I" started pointing out words they were no where close.
Therefore the only way I think the company can prove they were the ones identified is to admit and demonstrate they used the tactics outlined in the article which would of course meaning that it couldn't be deformation of character.
I know you can't talk about it to much but was it a letter from their solicitor threatening to sue? or a court summons? the first could well just be posturing the second well you might want to give the court a ring just to check.
Shawn get yourself a lawyer and do nothing to provoke if they actually take it to court as long as you turn up ;) they have to prove it was they who were being talked about. You might also wish to fire off or get a friend to fire off or a solicitor any "non court evidence" to a local paper just a thought.
Shaun I'm sorry Andy made me do it, but I realised I spelt your name wrong above ;) its all Andys fault I'm just a blatant sheep!
Aha! Thanks Tim!!! Now I can hold Andy to book over the continual mispelling of my name! :)
Thanks guys for all your (non-legal) opinions.
I take it you don't think I should complete the test then to pollute the serp? At the moment, it's not complete, so I havent actually done what I am threatening to do. ;)
And yes it's a letter from the solicitor posturing / threatening. Although they have turned around and are suing another company who do no more than CITE my article.
I have a shed load of evidence to back up my opinion, too.
yes I am guilty - I wrote the description and then thought to myself... "did I use the right version of Shaun"?
So I went and checked, and made a correction... to one of the occurrences.
I am guilty your honour, sue me ;) But can you now prove I was talking about you and not the other Shaun? Well maybe, but only because of the link.
Andy, Consider yourself sued. I'll need the cash :)
First, I have to say I wish you had published that from a machine hosted in the US! Yes, people can win defamation suits here (and do.)
I'm not a lawyer, but I read law blogs. :)
My understanding is, in the US the burden of proof rest very, very firmly on the plaintiff in a defamation case -- more so that practically anywhere. Plus, we have a host of additional protections all of which spring from the fact that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are guaranteed in the US Constitution.
Second: Even in England, I would imagine that the plaintiff will first need to prove you were discussing *them*. Because you didn't name them, proving that would require admitting that you described what they actually do! Or did you include details that make it obvious it was them? (As in, say, not mentioning "OJ Simpson" in an article, but instead saying " An African-American former pro-football player who a decade ago was prosecuted for the murder of his blonde ex-wife and her friend Ron." )
Anyway, I'm assuming that if you didn't mention the name of the company, you also didn't give these sorts of "hints" as to who they were. So, in that case, they can only prove you talked about *them* by admitting that what you say is true!
Third: You will need a good attorney. They will advise you to avoid posting to much.
Fourth: if this entity does sue, you can be sure *American* bloggers will cover the story. Is he going to sue Americans? Hah!
The Federal Election Commitee considers bloggers "the press". (See http://www.volokh.com/posts/1185298058.shtml . Other interesting rulings, given that many US servers are in California: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164065245.shtml )
The American press has very strong protections in defamation suits.
I'm pretty sure the question of whether blogs are or are not "the press" is still an open question in the US but still, the FEC does have lots of lawyers. So, for a plaintiff to prevail in a suit might require him to pursue the case to the US Supreme court. (And the blogger would probably find attorneys willing to help their case on a pro-bono basis!)
Anyway, if this *unnamed* entity pursues his case, he will likely destroy his reputation! (And in the end, he would probably lose any suit against an American doing nothing more than reporting the story and expressing an opinion!)
Oh dear I'm sorry us Brits we are so backwards, I mean we've only had a full national civil legal system since 1215 we just didn't realise we had been doing it all wrong how silly of us.
Apart from the amazing arrogance shown, you can be sued far more easily in the US then the UK.
In the UK it is unlikely to get anywhere near a court the plaintiff will need to find a lawyer stupid enough to take the case on, and since most lawyers in the UK in this field work on no win no fee basis they only take on cases they think they will win. they would need to file papers with the court with enough evidence that the clerk of the court thinks its worth taking to a judge and at the end of that they are offered the chance to withdraw.
I know national pride is a big thing but if he had written that on a US machine and it was a US company with that sort of mentality they would still sue, the US legal system is patchwork of laws just like any country this story would still have been here we still would have all said the same thing because scarily enough when John wrote the magna carta and indeed before in the charter of liberties both of which are the basis for your constitution the burden on the plaintiff is to prove guilt of the defendant. I think you will find its the same in most of the democratic world and not just the providence of America.
I'm sure if it ever gets to court Shaun will get support from all quaters of the SEO world.
Yeah I agree with Lucia unless you specifically named a company then surely you are not Liable. I am not sure if I am just think but the company in question was not THAT obvious in fact it probably could of been a few companies as there are plenty of SEO companies that have been accused of using questionable practices. Also if an individual was not involved within the SEO community I can not see how anyone would know the company in question.
Also as Tnash says it would cost a lot of money for a plaintiff to Sue another person/company unless they took it on as No Win No Fee, and even then how much would they gain financially? If I was Sued personally I have about 4k to my name if i was Sued for much more id probably have to go bankrupt, it doesn't seem that logical to go ahead with a full law suit unless there is the potential for good financial gains.
@Lucia - How very ummm American of you :D