
President Signs Law Protecting Your Right to Review - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/president-signs-law-protecting-right-review
======
ap22213
It should be noted that libel laws are still in effect. That means that
companies can and will pressure authors to remove reviews through extortion -
i.e. threat of a libel suit. Even if the threat is baseless, most people will
remove reviews just to avoid a legal headache.

Believe me, I was threatened more than once, but I was way too busy to deal
with a lawsuit. But, it still pisses me off.

As an aside, it's kind of f'd up that a company can even sue for libel. These
were original common laws - i.e. person vs. person. Now, companies are
'people'. I am not a lawyer, so I don't understand the nuance. (which, btw, is
also messed up: it's barely possible for non-specialists to understand the
laws to which they're held accountable.) Rant Over.

~~~
icantdrive55
I wish the state legislature would put a limit on the number of unsuccessful
libel lawsuits a lawyer could file.

They file because they have the money to file, and some very bruised egos. I
can't remember one they won.

In my state of California, a Plastic Surgeon managed to rack up over 70 bad
Yelp reviews. She then tried to sue 12 of her former patients.

The judge threw the lawsuits/lawsuit out. Poof!

~~~
colejohnson66
A limit on the number of lawsuits you can file is a limitation of your
Constitutional right

~~~
exclusiv
While I agree, there should be repercussions. It's borderline harassment
though to fire up frivolous cases.

------
mrfusion
It's weird how some issues become partisan and others don't. I wonder what
made both parties support this? Why can't that happen more often?

~~~
hackuser
A major change was that the Congressional GOP opposed everything Obama tried
to do until the last year, a scorched earth tactic to damage Obama regardless
of the costs to the country and world. Then, in an effort to appear a little
less obstructionist in an election year, they passed some bills.

But even then they set new norms for obstructionism; for example, they refused
to vote on a Supreme Court nomination, something unprecedented in U.S.
history, and refused to do anything about the sequester, again an
unprecedented act. I'm pretty sure they refused to provide aid to Flint for
their water crisis and or to provide funding for the Zika virus.

If it costs them nothing politically - and what were the consequences of their
obstructionism mentioned above? - they will do it. The Democrats, who do
little to confront and extract costs from the GOP, are effectively complicit
IMHO.

EDIT: Some edits

~~~
CapitalistCartr
Refusing to vote on a Supreme Court nomination is not only not unprecedented
in U.S. history, its not even rare. A couple of W's nominations didn't go
anywhere.

[http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nomin...](http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm)

~~~
chris11
Let's go back to the 1880's. From your list nine supreme court justice
nominations did not have votes. That may come across as a lot. But seven made
it on to the supreme court with another nomination (John Roberts, Jr., Abe
Fortas, John Harlan, Pierce Butler, William Hornblower, and Stanley Matthews).
That leaves three: Merrick Garland, Harriet Miers, Homer Thornberry. Homer
Thornberry withdrew his nomination. He was nominated to replace Abe Fortas
when Fortas was nominated for Chief Justice. Abe Fortas was embroiled by a few
scandals so withdrew his nomination which killed Thornberry's nomination.
Harriet Miers was nominated by Bush but there was bipartisan opposition to her
nomination and her nomination was withdrawn less than a month later. But even
then senators had planned on holding nomination hearings. That leaves Merrick
Garland. I'd say that one person since 1880 not having a chance for a vote or
hearing is unprecedented.

------
scottlamb
Does this law negate DeWitt Clauses?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt)

------
mrfusion
A vendor can still sue you (for libel I guess?). They just can't put prevent
bad reviews with a contract?

~~~
chc
Suing reviewers for libel seems like a losing proposition. Schemes like this
rely on the remedy for bad reviews being cheap and easy. Libel suits are
neither.

~~~
slededit
Sure suing is expensive, but threatening to sue is quite easy.

------
codecamper
How about business's right to protect against fake reviews? Maybe thats
already in the law?

~~~
colejohnson66
Doesn't that just fall under libel?

------
kyriakos
anyone knows if there is an EU-wide law protecting reviewers ?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Well, both the ECHR and CFREU protect freedom of expression, though I don't
know if they are much use here, since it's not the government censoring you.

Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:

> 1\. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall
> include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and
> ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

> 2\. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

([https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights...](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#Article_11_.E2.80.93_Freedom_of_expression_and_information))

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

> 1\. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall
> include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and
> ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
> This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of
> broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

> 2\. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and
> responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions,
> restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
> democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
> integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
> protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or
> rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in
> confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
> judiciary.

([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights))

