Klondike, that's a very good link to refer Evanger's to.
(I think we all remember Natura taking this stance. And, while Natura pounded their chests consumers kept testing their products. The lab test results have ended up as an exhibit in the Florida Lawsuit and Natura is a named defendant. Currently, show & tell is underway (discovery) with the parties having to turn over documentation and provide information as it pertains to the issues and Answers are due to be filed in the near future. This can be viewed at:
http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/florida/flsdce/1:2007cv21221/295436/ )
Here's some for info on consumer commentary:
http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel-slander/defenses-to-libel-and-slander.htmlTruth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander. A statement does not need to be literally true in order for this defense to be effective. Courts require that the statement is substantially true in order for the defense to apply. This means that even if the defendant states some facts that are false, if the "gist" or "sting" of the communication is substantially true, then the defendant can rely on the defense.
---------------------------------------
http://www.chillingeffects.org/index.cgiChilling Effects Clearinghouse
A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.
Do you know your online rights? Have you received a letter asking you to remove information from a Web site or to stop engaging in an activity? Are you concerned about liability for information that someone else posted to your online forum? If so, this site is for you.
-------------------------
http://69.63.136.213/documents/ACFE6B9.pdfLegal Perils and Legal Rights of Internet Speakers
Outline prepared by Paul Alan Levy regarding Internet Free Speech. Contains legal citations, links to relevant web sites, and other resources.
------------------------
seeking to punish .. for participation in public forums based upon the content of her speech; such action constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of her rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 42 U.S.C. 1983 prohibits the violation of constitutional rights, Freedom of Speech and Expressive Association under color of state law.-------------------------
In Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation v Andrew S Faber, (C.D.Ca. 1998) 29 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1167, the Court stated, Here, however, Faber is using Bally's mark
in the context of a consumer commentary to say that Bally engages in business practices which Faber finds distasteful or unsatisfactory. This is speech protected by the First Amendment. ... As such, Faber can use Bally's mark to identify the source of the goods or services of which he is complaining. This use is necessary to maintain broad opportunities for expression...."
----------------------
Because plaintiff's site did not incite or produce imminent lawless action, the Court held that defendant was not entitled to the injunction sought. "Plaintiff's verbal pyrotechnics have surely been offensive but
...(o)ffensive speech -- even if it 'stirs people to anger' -- is ordinarily protected."
