Slander?

[ssanders]

Recently my partner and I developed a website called eBoycott.org where we post up websites that have either used SPAM to gain clients, conned people out of money, have hidden scripts in their site that implant viruses/programs in a persons computer without their permission, or sites that just provide very poor service or even no service after being paid.

However, I have been curious about the "slander" laws.

My stand on it is that if eBoycott.org is violating some sort of law, then how is the Better Business Bureau (BBB.org) staying alive?

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

[JuniperPark]

Funny you should mention this... I'm considering suing the f*** out of a company called "spamcop" that had twice made completely false allegations of spam, and slandered me with my ISP. I'm meeting with them this week -- they will either join me in the lawsuit or be named as defendants.

You made false statements that causes damage to a person or company, you PAY damages, legal costs, and perhpas much more.

[ssanders]

Then how does the BBB stay alive?

[Rocket2Uranus]

I am NOT a lawyer - you may want to pay for professional advice in a situation like this.

But I think the answer to your question lies in the way the BBB keeps track of customer complaints, keeping adequate records on file for each case, and not making any allegations itself.

[Nodnarb]

I think you folks are asking about libel, not slander.

Slander is spoken. Libel is written.

[hotdog_pk]

its a good service that you have provided and i believe there should be more websites that provide the same service because i HATE spam, however the website should provide information to prove the claims, such as allowing people to post their own complaint, it could be very harmful to a lot of legitimate businesses if you make a mistake.

[jberryhill]

"Slander is spoken. Libel is written."

Let's not be picky, whether written or spoken, these are both species of tort broadly called defamation.

Where you get into trouble is the care with which you post potentially damaging information about individuals or companies. If you are publishing information which is untrue, then you may very well be liable for damage done to them.

If I call the BBB and ask them, "Have you received any complaints about X", then they will tell me whether they have received any complaints about X. Whether they have or have not received any such complaints is a simple matter of fact. The BBB is not out there publishing a website saying that X is a scumbag, however.

[HOWARD]

Calling someone a "scumbag" is neither libelous nor slanderous, as it is a matter of opinion and not one of fact. Defamation can only be charged against you if you tell a factual untruth. If it is done maliciously, the defamed party can also recover punitive damages.

[JuniperPark]

... however the website should provide information to prove the claims, such as allowing people to post their own complaint, it could be very harmful to a lot of legitimate businesses if you make a mistake.

Agreed.

In the case of spamcop, the first time they reported me to the ISP their reason was that a domain name was "mentioned" in a spam about prescription drugs. I see the spam, and the domain name in question was a mis-spell of a domain name that I had in parking for over a year. The spam was not from me, was not about any business I was connected to, and did not mention any domain name I owned. Some "helpful" idiot at spamcop chose to file a complaint with my ISP anyway. I was willing to forgive that as a "mistake".

This time, almost the same situation, except he spam did correctly name a different domain name that I own, but this one is also in parking and had never been in use, and I still have never been involved in any prescription drug business.

Twice is not a mistake, it is malicious; Spamcop will now have to pay for the damage they have done and legal costs incurred in defending myself from clearly false allegations.

[jberryhill]

Spam fighting is a difficult and messy thing. Twice indeed can be a mistake, particularly if you pick up domain names that used to be owned by spammers and/or were used for spamvertised websites.

These people are not out to get you, and are usually suspicious of denials because, of course, every spammer denies being a spammer.

By maintaining a reasoned approach to point out mistakes, and the fact that you are not using recycled domain names for spam, you may even earn an "endorsement", such as this one noted in the SPEWS archive:

http://www.spews.org/html/S1385.html

"if Ultsearch is snagging domains that were revoked or spammers let expire, sounds good to SPEWS"

SPEWS is a notoriously trigger-happy IP address block listing service for blackholers. It wasn't easy, but they eventually "got it". Escalating things to the level of legal threats does not always inspire a cooperative atmosphere to solve problems.

[JuniperPark]

... Escalating things to the level of legal threats does not always inspire a cooperative atmosphere to solve problems.

I respectfully disagree. Holding people and businesses financially accountable for their damaging actions, after warnings have failed, is a most effective way to stop destructive behavior.

They didn't simply list the complain on their site, they actively contacted my ISP. That's not an "accident" under any definition.

I don't think it really matters, but I don't thing the names involved were previously used in spam because I had owned them almost a year. I really don't care either way; it's like saying "guns are bad, so we're going to start shooting people at random to prove our point". I'm not going to tolerate Spamcop's defamation any more, and I will NEVER support any anti-spam organization in the future as a result of this experience. These self-appointed 'cops' are far more destructive to the internet than any spam.

[Ovicide]

I've used SpamCop's real-time dns blocking with my mail server for at least two years. It's free, and has worked perfectly, as far as I know.

Along with SpamCop, I also use BlackHoles.us www.blackholes.us and get very little junk mail. I actually let a little junk mail though deliberately, so I can keep up with the latest advances in aphrodisiacs, genital enlargement, and online weight-loss.

[Domagon]

Recently my partner and I developed a website called eBoycott.org where we post up websites that have either used SPAM to gain clients, conned people out of money, have hidden scripts in their site that implant viruses/programs in a persons computer without their permission, or sites that just provide very poor service or even no service after being paid.

Be darn sure you have "bullet-proof" Hosting like the spammers do...for some spammers, etc may not like being listed on your website and may even attempt to wreck havoc on your site...

You may also want to use a domain name registration proxy service to hide your real identity - be prepared to be joe jobbed, defamed, etc...publically fighting spam isn't for the faint-hearted...someone has to do it, but often such a fight comes at a great personal sacrifice...I envy those who fight spam and other nonsense.

My stand on it is that if eBoycott.org is violating some sort of law, then how is the Better Business Bureau (BBB.org) staying alive?

There is a relatively high bar one must meet to prevail in libel case.

Document the spam/fraud/virus, etc reports well and libel will be the least of your concerns...your biggest concern should be, with the type of site you propose, is retribution by the sites/people you report on.

On an aside, from my understanding, the BBB only reports on businesses registered with them.

Ron

[Domagon]

Funny you should mention this... I'm considering suing the f*** out of a company called "spamcop" that had twice made completely false allegations of spam, and slandered me with my ISP. I'm meeting with them this week -- they will either join me in the lawsuit or be named as defendants.

You made false statements that causes damage to a person or company, you PAY damages, legal costs, and perhpas much more.

You have an attorney drawing up this legal action I hope...you mention the term "slander"...not a good sign...a more applicable term for what you described is "libel"...

Ron

[ssanders]

Wow, thanks for the replies you guys.

I think I will take eboycott down for now and turn it into a user-complain system with followups and more evidence. We do check up on all submissions, but we should provide the evidence with the actual post.

Thanks.

[cyphix]

I was just searching for something on google totally unrelated to this topic, but something popped up & I remembered this thread, you may want to take a look at this site.. www.webassured.com .. seems similar to the kind of site you would like to create ssanders.

[ssanders]

nah...that site is like... only sites that pay it get the "ok". Mine doesn't give special rules

[JMJ]

My IP's were constantly having to be removed from the likes of the self-proclaimed spam cops. These services cause the good people more harm than they do any good. Myself an my admin monitor new accounts for a period of time after signup if any irregular activity is being done they are immediately given the boot. But, we spend weeks repairing the damage made from just one of the spammers and usually don't get it all resolved because the spam cops take forever to remove these offenses and the people who add these lists to their blocking usually don't update but every few months if not only once. I have now moved to only referral accounts due to this.