Good luck with your research!

I’m doing some research for work and was wondering if you know of examples of companies that censor negative comments – only allowing positive ones.

Thanks for your help

I think you win the prize for “longest blog comment ever.” I’m just not sure what to write in this conversation any longer. It’s gotten a bit out of hand, and I think I’ll leave it at that. I am glad you put forth your thoughts. I just don’t have the time or energy to dig into your comment and respond to the substance right now.

Best,
Andrew

If I understand your statements correctly, if libel was committed against Primerica, then rather than provide a formal or legally formal recourse for Primerica to have the libelous comments removed by the publisher, Primerica should be forced to expend untold resources on pushing the listings to the bottom of Google on page 2. So, a lie with intent to damage, should remain published indefinitely in the name of having a “freely open forum”?

I made it very clear in my post that recourse should exist in a way that is fair to publishers and victims of libel alike. I did not suggest that victims of smear campaigns should be able to immediately drag publishers into court for libelous postings by third parties. In fact, I clarified my position by saying:

“I am in no way suggesting that publisher have liability for libelous postings when a posting is made. I am suggesting that publishers who continue to publish libelous material for some time after it has been shown to be malicious and untrue – they should hold some of the same liability as the poster.”

“Kudos” to Primerica for being a victom of libel and dealing with libelous posts the honorable way – by paying SEO/Blogging companies to push the negative links down so they are read less than they were on page 1. So, that’s a solution, yes, legal blackmail. The SEO and Blog publishers reap the profits of libel as they get the Primericas of the world to fork out big bucks to publishers to bury libelous material. This is certainly a boon for Blog publishers and SEO guys alike. In fact, several firms now offer “reputation repair” services. Here one example of such a firm that claims to manage blogs and performs SEO:

http://www.complaintremover.com/aboutus.htm

Talk about laughing to the bank if you are in the SEO/Blog business!

Like good ole’ Ed Magedson (of ripoffreport.com) says in his interview, everyone at some point in the future will have negative blogs about them. Some untrue, some true. You’ll be driving through your neighborhood at an excessive speed and your neighbor will post a negative blog about you. That type of posting is harmless, but many “cyberpaths” out there attempt to do far more to damage. Of course, most private parties and small companies don’t have the financial resources of a Primerica to fend off the libel by hiring the big guns of the SEO/Blog world.

It’s easy when WE are not the victims of libel who may have had our reputations or businesses damaged, or lost our job to an untrue posting, to be the champions of free speach and open forums. According to Ed, all of us will be victims sooner or later anyway. How will you feel about legal blackmail then? Well, as an SEO guy or blog publisher, you might be ok, but if you don’t have some form of formal recourse, or financial resources, then the liars win the day as the damage continues indefinitely to the glee of the liar and at the cost of the victim. Yes, a true victory for the promotor of a “freely open forum”.

To your comment:

“The truth is a defense, but I don’t have the time or resources to verify every comment posted here”

The truth is not a defense against damage if the smear campaign continues to do its damage. Private parties and small businesses do not, for the most part, have the branding of large firms like Primerica (apparently owned by Citibank). In fact, the truth, if it is ever told in an open forum that has published libelous material only helps to move the link to that blog higher in the Google rankings – thereby enhancing the damage to the victim.

And yes, the ultimate disclaimer – “I don’t have time to verify every post.” I can completely understand that point. I wouldn’t expect that, however, for over a hundred years publishers of printed material were liable for libelous articles and continue to be. Fortunately, even to this day, news is still printed and distributed despite the requirement of responsible publishing. What would life have been like without laws against libel? Well, after countless lives wrecked by libelous material, people would learn to distrust what they read on a different level. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why blogging is predicted by some to level off in popularity this year.

I agree with you Andrew that to suggest to a publisher to verify every post is wrong. I am suggesting that a dispute process should be strongly considered, and irresponsible publishers who ignore dispute processes should NOT be exempt from liability from third party postings. Numerous technical and editorial solutions could easily be put into place to promote responsible publishing. Even without them, should publishers shun responsibility or profit from legal blackmail – now known as “blogosmearing”?

My position is currently unpopular – certainly among publishers who don’t have the time to do the right thing. And why do the right thing when traffic is being generated at the expense of the faceless victims that we’ll never come into contact with? I take my position, not because I’m a victim, but because it’s wrong to stand by while you profit from unjust damage to another party. If you can convince me of how it is right to stand by and profit from libel, and the damage it causes, then I will stand corrected.

Sincerely,

Rob

I’m fascinated that my humble little post about blog comments has provoked 2 passionate comments from you.

Honestly, I don’t know where to begin. Maybe with the fact that you seem so against having open communication and are worried about being tarnished, but you don’t put your actual name anywhere in these comments. The single best way to handle negative information on the internet is to publish positive information. Rebut negative and false accusations. That’s exactly what I talk about above.

As far as Rip Off Report goes, I honestly had never even heard of that site, and I consider myself a fairly savvy internet user. The article you linked to trashed the site and had at least one nugget of quantifiably false information: it stated that Rip Off Report appears in the first three search results for “primerica.” In fact, if you Google “primerica” right now, you won’t see Rip Off Report until the bottom of page 2. That is, unless your Google is different from mine.

It looks like Primerica has taken active steps to restore and better its reputation (if it actually was sullied in the first place). Kudos to them!

As for publishers being liable for libel by commenters, I do not agree with your stance. I should be able to have a freely open forum and invite people to participate. If I was liable for any tiny libel committed by a commenter, I would be forced to close that forum. The truth is a defense, but I don’t have the time or resources to verify every comment posted here.

Just a few of my thoughts. I hope you continue reading Legal Andrew, and maybe you’ll see fit to identify yourself in the future.

Best regards,
Andrew

The fact is that many publishers are the profiteers of libelous smear campaigns. For example: Look at the case of Ed Magedson of http://www.ripoffreport.com. This self proclaimed consumer advocate extorts businesses to remove negative blogs that were likely posted by their competition.

Here is a fascinating article about those profiteers of libel:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com.....f-report/5

Many associates in my business community have suffered from negative blogs from competitors who are unethical and likely green with envy. It’s easy in this Blogosphere (blogosmear) to destroy reputations with a few keystrokes and a fake evaluation.

Free speach is great, and we should be able to make a case against publishers who refuse to remove libelous material as they profit from it. In the end, it is the ethical marketer and the consumer who lose. Ethical marketers don’t post libelous blogs – unethical marketers do. So, if consumers get their information from the unethical marketers and the profiteers for libel – do they really win?

I doubt it.