Can I legally make a website about boycotting a certain company?
Located in the US. Can I make a website which is specifically aimed at boycotting a certain company?
There is no lawsuit between myself and the company.
There would be no defamation on the website and no editorials or subjective content. There might be links to editorials hosted on other websites. This website content would simply be information about alternatives.
However, I would want the name of the website, including the domain name itself, to have the name of the company this is in reference to. For example, boycott-company.com
united-states website
New contributor
add a comment |
Located in the US. Can I make a website which is specifically aimed at boycotting a certain company?
There is no lawsuit between myself and the company.
There would be no defamation on the website and no editorials or subjective content. There might be links to editorials hosted on other websites. This website content would simply be information about alternatives.
However, I would want the name of the website, including the domain name itself, to have the name of the company this is in reference to. For example, boycott-company.com
united-states website
New contributor
14
I think you can even buy a.sucks
domain
– Mario Trucco
12 hours ago
2
@MarioTrucco just to hopefully increase the odds of it actually happening: get.sucks
– ESR
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Located in the US. Can I make a website which is specifically aimed at boycotting a certain company?
There is no lawsuit between myself and the company.
There would be no defamation on the website and no editorials or subjective content. There might be links to editorials hosted on other websites. This website content would simply be information about alternatives.
However, I would want the name of the website, including the domain name itself, to have the name of the company this is in reference to. For example, boycott-company.com
united-states website
New contributor
Located in the US. Can I make a website which is specifically aimed at boycotting a certain company?
There is no lawsuit between myself and the company.
There would be no defamation on the website and no editorials or subjective content. There might be links to editorials hosted on other websites. This website content would simply be information about alternatives.
However, I would want the name of the website, including the domain name itself, to have the name of the company this is in reference to. For example, boycott-company.com
united-states website
united-states website
New contributor
New contributor
edited 5 hours ago
grooveplex
1052
1052
New contributor
asked 22 hours ago
FrownFrown
23828
23828
New contributor
New contributor
14
I think you can even buy a.sucks
domain
– Mario Trucco
12 hours ago
2
@MarioTrucco just to hopefully increase the odds of it actually happening: get.sucks
– ESR
6 hours ago
add a comment |
14
I think you can even buy a.sucks
domain
– Mario Trucco
12 hours ago
2
@MarioTrucco just to hopefully increase the odds of it actually happening: get.sucks
– ESR
6 hours ago
14
14
I think you can even buy a
.sucks
domain– Mario Trucco
12 hours ago
I think you can even buy a
.sucks
domain– Mario Trucco
12 hours ago
2
2
@MarioTrucco just to hopefully increase the odds of it actually happening: get.sucks
– ESR
6 hours ago
@MarioTrucco just to hopefully increase the odds of it actually happening: get.sucks
– ESR
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue.
The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against a person who neither made nor implied a false statement of fact.
Use of the name of the company, along with "boycott" as in "BoycottXYXCorp.com" would not infringe any trademark XYZ might have. It is clearly Nominative use, as no one could reasonably believe that such a site was run by, sponsored, or endorsed by XYZ. Again, XYZ could always sue, even if they are highly likely to lose quickly.
20
Depending on the state, if the company filed a claim it knew it would lose for the purpose of wasting the defendent's resources, the defendant could retaliate with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit to recover damages and attorney's fees.
– IllusiveBrian
18 hours ago
7
It might be useful to include the now-established practice of XYZsucks.com.
– chrylis
15 hours ago
6
@IllusiveBrian that is true, but you only recover the resources AFTERWARDS iirc. So it may still be tough going for a bit.
– Aethenosity
15 hours ago
8
wait - you need to spend time and money on something like this in the US? I would have though that if its obvious the lawsuit of the company has no ground, you wouldnt have to fear losing money - at least in germany, the one who loses the lawsuit has to pay for the costs, as far as i know
– Flying Thunder
15 hours ago
12
@FlyingThunder Yes, it's a common strategy in N-America to intimidate people who are perceived as a hindrance to the company. Power is with the wealthy, including legal power.
– gerrit
14 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Using their name in a domain name to criticize them is reasonably well protected. However, the rest of it is a minefield.
You cannot lie, or link to lies.
Which means you better be very good at distinguishing the provable truth from your mind's definition of the truth. "Alternative facts" are not enough; you will need to be able to back up any claim in a court-of-law.
Courts have ruled that when a website owner links to other pages which are defamatory, the website owner is being defamatory by doing so.
Even if you are a scrupulous Fair Witness, you also run the risk of the company coming after you claiming you lied, simply as a "Strategic lawsuit against public participation".
Be in California or other SLAPP state
Fortunately, certain jurisdictions have laws discouraging harassment-to-silence-you lawsuits. In California, you can quickly get such a case dismissed, and even get legal fees back in some cases. You'll want to make sure to set up your corporate entity so that the person they would be suing is a citizen of such a state, and if you're not a citizen of such a state, you'll need to take extreme measures to assure they don't do an end-run around the corporate structure and sue you personally. How to do this is beyond the scope of this answer.
Make the most out of Section 230
230 lays out a principle of law which has held the test of time: that a service provider shouldn't be held liable for the actions of its users or there will be a chilling effect which would make any social media impossible. If Joe defames Jodi on Facebook, we can't have Jodi suing Facebook, or there won't be any Facebooks.
So you want to understand how Section 230 works (and how it does not work; pay close attention to BadBusinessiBureau's experiences)... and architect your site around it. For instance, it applies to user-generated content, so architect your site so it is mainly a clearinghouse for complaints from other people. Then, when someone says something horrible and the company threatens you, you can shrug and say "Gosh, we (the proprietor of the website) had no idea that was there". If you promptly delete it, it would be difficult for the company to persuade a judge that you should be liable for the content. Don't push this too far, see case law for what works and what does not.
This adds a layer of obfuscation to what the company must do to obtain a productive lawsuit out of you.
3
@Acccumulation No. You got confused by the DMCA procedures. Actively having staff patrolling the site for content and preemptively removing things before anyone says anything, yes, that is the thing you are talking about that will get you into trouble and void your Safe Harbor protection. If the company's notice is the first time you heard about it, and you remove it that is Safe Harbor working normally. Refusing to remove it after legal notice = vouching for the content. I worked for a huge company and my job was protecting them. I know this part inside and out.
– Harper
6 hours ago
1
Your last section is completely wrong. The DMCA has nothing to do with a "sucks site." The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is, unsurprisingly, about copyright. Its takedown procedures (the so-called "safe harbors" referred to in this post) specifically deal with content accused of copyright violation, and nothing else. For the subject at hand, the relevant law to look at is CDA 230, a much better law which provides the type of protection from intermediary liability a site like this would want, without a mandatory extrajudicial takedown system to give the bad guys leverage against you.
– Mason Wheeler
4 hours ago
1
@MasonWheeler read the first sentence in that section, where I directly say that. You are correct that the statute doesn't say that. However lawyers often tear the principle of Fair Harbor out of the DMCA and argue it should apply to situations which are analogous in terms of ISP responsibility, but which are not strictly copyright. This has worked, probably because it is fair. But this is a matter of case law, not statute; if I am only allowed to base answers on statute, then I am wrong.
– Harper
2 hours ago
1
"This has worked, probably because it is fair." Where? When? In all the cases I'm aware of where lawyers have made attempts like that, they've been laughed out of court for their "novel legal theories" (this is legalese for "crackpot") and reminded that CDA 230 is the controlling precedent here. 230 is the general rule; the DMCA is a very, very specialized exception that applies only to copyright, and a very bad exception at that. It's a lot of things, but "fair" is not one of them.
– Mason Wheeler
2 hours ago
1
"Section 230 has been controversial because several courts have interpreted it as providing complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their system"is what I'm referring to. I'll clarify.
– Harper
2 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Frown is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37408%2fcan-i-legally-make-a-website-about-boycotting-a-certain-company%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue.
The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against a person who neither made nor implied a false statement of fact.
Use of the name of the company, along with "boycott" as in "BoycottXYXCorp.com" would not infringe any trademark XYZ might have. It is clearly Nominative use, as no one could reasonably believe that such a site was run by, sponsored, or endorsed by XYZ. Again, XYZ could always sue, even if they are highly likely to lose quickly.
20
Depending on the state, if the company filed a claim it knew it would lose for the purpose of wasting the defendent's resources, the defendant could retaliate with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit to recover damages and attorney's fees.
– IllusiveBrian
18 hours ago
7
It might be useful to include the now-established practice of XYZsucks.com.
– chrylis
15 hours ago
6
@IllusiveBrian that is true, but you only recover the resources AFTERWARDS iirc. So it may still be tough going for a bit.
– Aethenosity
15 hours ago
8
wait - you need to spend time and money on something like this in the US? I would have though that if its obvious the lawsuit of the company has no ground, you wouldnt have to fear losing money - at least in germany, the one who loses the lawsuit has to pay for the costs, as far as i know
– Flying Thunder
15 hours ago
12
@FlyingThunder Yes, it's a common strategy in N-America to intimidate people who are perceived as a hindrance to the company. Power is with the wealthy, including legal power.
– gerrit
14 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue.
The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against a person who neither made nor implied a false statement of fact.
Use of the name of the company, along with "boycott" as in "BoycottXYXCorp.com" would not infringe any trademark XYZ might have. It is clearly Nominative use, as no one could reasonably believe that such a site was run by, sponsored, or endorsed by XYZ. Again, XYZ could always sue, even if they are highly likely to lose quickly.
20
Depending on the state, if the company filed a claim it knew it would lose for the purpose of wasting the defendent's resources, the defendant could retaliate with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit to recover damages and attorney's fees.
– IllusiveBrian
18 hours ago
7
It might be useful to include the now-established practice of XYZsucks.com.
– chrylis
15 hours ago
6
@IllusiveBrian that is true, but you only recover the resources AFTERWARDS iirc. So it may still be tough going for a bit.
– Aethenosity
15 hours ago
8
wait - you need to spend time and money on something like this in the US? I would have though that if its obvious the lawsuit of the company has no ground, you wouldnt have to fear losing money - at least in germany, the one who loses the lawsuit has to pay for the costs, as far as i know
– Flying Thunder
15 hours ago
12
@FlyingThunder Yes, it's a common strategy in N-America to intimidate people who are perceived as a hindrance to the company. Power is with the wealthy, including legal power.
– gerrit
14 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue.
The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against a person who neither made nor implied a false statement of fact.
Use of the name of the company, along with "boycott" as in "BoycottXYXCorp.com" would not infringe any trademark XYZ might have. It is clearly Nominative use, as no one could reasonably believe that such a site was run by, sponsored, or endorsed by XYZ. Again, XYZ could always sue, even if they are highly likely to lose quickly.
Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue.
The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against a person who neither made nor implied a false statement of fact.
Use of the name of the company, along with "boycott" as in "BoycottXYXCorp.com" would not infringe any trademark XYZ might have. It is clearly Nominative use, as no one could reasonably believe that such a site was run by, sponsored, or endorsed by XYZ. Again, XYZ could always sue, even if they are highly likely to lose quickly.
edited 21 hours ago
answered 22 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
10k1941
10k1941
20
Depending on the state, if the company filed a claim it knew it would lose for the purpose of wasting the defendent's resources, the defendant could retaliate with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit to recover damages and attorney's fees.
– IllusiveBrian
18 hours ago
7
It might be useful to include the now-established practice of XYZsucks.com.
– chrylis
15 hours ago
6
@IllusiveBrian that is true, but you only recover the resources AFTERWARDS iirc. So it may still be tough going for a bit.
– Aethenosity
15 hours ago
8
wait - you need to spend time and money on something like this in the US? I would have though that if its obvious the lawsuit of the company has no ground, you wouldnt have to fear losing money - at least in germany, the one who loses the lawsuit has to pay for the costs, as far as i know
– Flying Thunder
15 hours ago
12
@FlyingThunder Yes, it's a common strategy in N-America to intimidate people who are perceived as a hindrance to the company. Power is with the wealthy, including legal power.
– gerrit
14 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
20
Depending on the state, if the company filed a claim it knew it would lose for the purpose of wasting the defendent's resources, the defendant could retaliate with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit to recover damages and attorney's fees.
– IllusiveBrian
18 hours ago
7
It might be useful to include the now-established practice of XYZsucks.com.
– chrylis
15 hours ago
6
@IllusiveBrian that is true, but you only recover the resources AFTERWARDS iirc. So it may still be tough going for a bit.
– Aethenosity
15 hours ago
8
wait - you need to spend time and money on something like this in the US? I would have though that if its obvious the lawsuit of the company has no ground, you wouldnt have to fear losing money - at least in germany, the one who loses the lawsuit has to pay for the costs, as far as i know
– Flying Thunder
15 hours ago
12
@FlyingThunder Yes, it's a common strategy in N-America to intimidate people who are perceived as a hindrance to the company. Power is with the wealthy, including legal power.
– gerrit
14 hours ago
20
20
Depending on the state, if the company filed a claim it knew it would lose for the purpose of wasting the defendent's resources, the defendant could retaliate with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit to recover damages and attorney's fees.
– IllusiveBrian
18 hours ago
Depending on the state, if the company filed a claim it knew it would lose for the purpose of wasting the defendent's resources, the defendant could retaliate with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit to recover damages and attorney's fees.
– IllusiveBrian
18 hours ago
7
7
It might be useful to include the now-established practice of XYZsucks.com.
– chrylis
15 hours ago
It might be useful to include the now-established practice of XYZsucks.com.
– chrylis
15 hours ago
6
6
@IllusiveBrian that is true, but you only recover the resources AFTERWARDS iirc. So it may still be tough going for a bit.
– Aethenosity
15 hours ago
@IllusiveBrian that is true, but you only recover the resources AFTERWARDS iirc. So it may still be tough going for a bit.
– Aethenosity
15 hours ago
8
8
wait - you need to spend time and money on something like this in the US? I would have though that if its obvious the lawsuit of the company has no ground, you wouldnt have to fear losing money - at least in germany, the one who loses the lawsuit has to pay for the costs, as far as i know
– Flying Thunder
15 hours ago
wait - you need to spend time and money on something like this in the US? I would have though that if its obvious the lawsuit of the company has no ground, you wouldnt have to fear losing money - at least in germany, the one who loses the lawsuit has to pay for the costs, as far as i know
– Flying Thunder
15 hours ago
12
12
@FlyingThunder Yes, it's a common strategy in N-America to intimidate people who are perceived as a hindrance to the company. Power is with the wealthy, including legal power.
– gerrit
14 hours ago
@FlyingThunder Yes, it's a common strategy in N-America to intimidate people who are perceived as a hindrance to the company. Power is with the wealthy, including legal power.
– gerrit
14 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Using their name in a domain name to criticize them is reasonably well protected. However, the rest of it is a minefield.
You cannot lie, or link to lies.
Which means you better be very good at distinguishing the provable truth from your mind's definition of the truth. "Alternative facts" are not enough; you will need to be able to back up any claim in a court-of-law.
Courts have ruled that when a website owner links to other pages which are defamatory, the website owner is being defamatory by doing so.
Even if you are a scrupulous Fair Witness, you also run the risk of the company coming after you claiming you lied, simply as a "Strategic lawsuit against public participation".
Be in California or other SLAPP state
Fortunately, certain jurisdictions have laws discouraging harassment-to-silence-you lawsuits. In California, you can quickly get such a case dismissed, and even get legal fees back in some cases. You'll want to make sure to set up your corporate entity so that the person they would be suing is a citizen of such a state, and if you're not a citizen of such a state, you'll need to take extreme measures to assure they don't do an end-run around the corporate structure and sue you personally. How to do this is beyond the scope of this answer.
Make the most out of Section 230
230 lays out a principle of law which has held the test of time: that a service provider shouldn't be held liable for the actions of its users or there will be a chilling effect which would make any social media impossible. If Joe defames Jodi on Facebook, we can't have Jodi suing Facebook, or there won't be any Facebooks.
So you want to understand how Section 230 works (and how it does not work; pay close attention to BadBusinessiBureau's experiences)... and architect your site around it. For instance, it applies to user-generated content, so architect your site so it is mainly a clearinghouse for complaints from other people. Then, when someone says something horrible and the company threatens you, you can shrug and say "Gosh, we (the proprietor of the website) had no idea that was there". If you promptly delete it, it would be difficult for the company to persuade a judge that you should be liable for the content. Don't push this too far, see case law for what works and what does not.
This adds a layer of obfuscation to what the company must do to obtain a productive lawsuit out of you.
3
@Acccumulation No. You got confused by the DMCA procedures. Actively having staff patrolling the site for content and preemptively removing things before anyone says anything, yes, that is the thing you are talking about that will get you into trouble and void your Safe Harbor protection. If the company's notice is the first time you heard about it, and you remove it that is Safe Harbor working normally. Refusing to remove it after legal notice = vouching for the content. I worked for a huge company and my job was protecting them. I know this part inside and out.
– Harper
6 hours ago
1
Your last section is completely wrong. The DMCA has nothing to do with a "sucks site." The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is, unsurprisingly, about copyright. Its takedown procedures (the so-called "safe harbors" referred to in this post) specifically deal with content accused of copyright violation, and nothing else. For the subject at hand, the relevant law to look at is CDA 230, a much better law which provides the type of protection from intermediary liability a site like this would want, without a mandatory extrajudicial takedown system to give the bad guys leverage against you.
– Mason Wheeler
4 hours ago
1
@MasonWheeler read the first sentence in that section, where I directly say that. You are correct that the statute doesn't say that. However lawyers often tear the principle of Fair Harbor out of the DMCA and argue it should apply to situations which are analogous in terms of ISP responsibility, but which are not strictly copyright. This has worked, probably because it is fair. But this is a matter of case law, not statute; if I am only allowed to base answers on statute, then I am wrong.
– Harper
2 hours ago
1
"This has worked, probably because it is fair." Where? When? In all the cases I'm aware of where lawyers have made attempts like that, they've been laughed out of court for their "novel legal theories" (this is legalese for "crackpot") and reminded that CDA 230 is the controlling precedent here. 230 is the general rule; the DMCA is a very, very specialized exception that applies only to copyright, and a very bad exception at that. It's a lot of things, but "fair" is not one of them.
– Mason Wheeler
2 hours ago
1
"Section 230 has been controversial because several courts have interpreted it as providing complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their system"is what I'm referring to. I'll clarify.
– Harper
2 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Using their name in a domain name to criticize them is reasonably well protected. However, the rest of it is a minefield.
You cannot lie, or link to lies.
Which means you better be very good at distinguishing the provable truth from your mind's definition of the truth. "Alternative facts" are not enough; you will need to be able to back up any claim in a court-of-law.
Courts have ruled that when a website owner links to other pages which are defamatory, the website owner is being defamatory by doing so.
Even if you are a scrupulous Fair Witness, you also run the risk of the company coming after you claiming you lied, simply as a "Strategic lawsuit against public participation".
Be in California or other SLAPP state
Fortunately, certain jurisdictions have laws discouraging harassment-to-silence-you lawsuits. In California, you can quickly get such a case dismissed, and even get legal fees back in some cases. You'll want to make sure to set up your corporate entity so that the person they would be suing is a citizen of such a state, and if you're not a citizen of such a state, you'll need to take extreme measures to assure they don't do an end-run around the corporate structure and sue you personally. How to do this is beyond the scope of this answer.
Make the most out of Section 230
230 lays out a principle of law which has held the test of time: that a service provider shouldn't be held liable for the actions of its users or there will be a chilling effect which would make any social media impossible. If Joe defames Jodi on Facebook, we can't have Jodi suing Facebook, or there won't be any Facebooks.
So you want to understand how Section 230 works (and how it does not work; pay close attention to BadBusinessiBureau's experiences)... and architect your site around it. For instance, it applies to user-generated content, so architect your site so it is mainly a clearinghouse for complaints from other people. Then, when someone says something horrible and the company threatens you, you can shrug and say "Gosh, we (the proprietor of the website) had no idea that was there". If you promptly delete it, it would be difficult for the company to persuade a judge that you should be liable for the content. Don't push this too far, see case law for what works and what does not.
This adds a layer of obfuscation to what the company must do to obtain a productive lawsuit out of you.
3
@Acccumulation No. You got confused by the DMCA procedures. Actively having staff patrolling the site for content and preemptively removing things before anyone says anything, yes, that is the thing you are talking about that will get you into trouble and void your Safe Harbor protection. If the company's notice is the first time you heard about it, and you remove it that is Safe Harbor working normally. Refusing to remove it after legal notice = vouching for the content. I worked for a huge company and my job was protecting them. I know this part inside and out.
– Harper
6 hours ago
1
Your last section is completely wrong. The DMCA has nothing to do with a "sucks site." The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is, unsurprisingly, about copyright. Its takedown procedures (the so-called "safe harbors" referred to in this post) specifically deal with content accused of copyright violation, and nothing else. For the subject at hand, the relevant law to look at is CDA 230, a much better law which provides the type of protection from intermediary liability a site like this would want, without a mandatory extrajudicial takedown system to give the bad guys leverage against you.
– Mason Wheeler
4 hours ago
1
@MasonWheeler read the first sentence in that section, where I directly say that. You are correct that the statute doesn't say that. However lawyers often tear the principle of Fair Harbor out of the DMCA and argue it should apply to situations which are analogous in terms of ISP responsibility, but which are not strictly copyright. This has worked, probably because it is fair. But this is a matter of case law, not statute; if I am only allowed to base answers on statute, then I am wrong.
– Harper
2 hours ago
1
"This has worked, probably because it is fair." Where? When? In all the cases I'm aware of where lawyers have made attempts like that, they've been laughed out of court for their "novel legal theories" (this is legalese for "crackpot") and reminded that CDA 230 is the controlling precedent here. 230 is the general rule; the DMCA is a very, very specialized exception that applies only to copyright, and a very bad exception at that. It's a lot of things, but "fair" is not one of them.
– Mason Wheeler
2 hours ago
1
"Section 230 has been controversial because several courts have interpreted it as providing complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their system"is what I'm referring to. I'll clarify.
– Harper
2 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Using their name in a domain name to criticize them is reasonably well protected. However, the rest of it is a minefield.
You cannot lie, or link to lies.
Which means you better be very good at distinguishing the provable truth from your mind's definition of the truth. "Alternative facts" are not enough; you will need to be able to back up any claim in a court-of-law.
Courts have ruled that when a website owner links to other pages which are defamatory, the website owner is being defamatory by doing so.
Even if you are a scrupulous Fair Witness, you also run the risk of the company coming after you claiming you lied, simply as a "Strategic lawsuit against public participation".
Be in California or other SLAPP state
Fortunately, certain jurisdictions have laws discouraging harassment-to-silence-you lawsuits. In California, you can quickly get such a case dismissed, and even get legal fees back in some cases. You'll want to make sure to set up your corporate entity so that the person they would be suing is a citizen of such a state, and if you're not a citizen of such a state, you'll need to take extreme measures to assure they don't do an end-run around the corporate structure and sue you personally. How to do this is beyond the scope of this answer.
Make the most out of Section 230
230 lays out a principle of law which has held the test of time: that a service provider shouldn't be held liable for the actions of its users or there will be a chilling effect which would make any social media impossible. If Joe defames Jodi on Facebook, we can't have Jodi suing Facebook, or there won't be any Facebooks.
So you want to understand how Section 230 works (and how it does not work; pay close attention to BadBusinessiBureau's experiences)... and architect your site around it. For instance, it applies to user-generated content, so architect your site so it is mainly a clearinghouse for complaints from other people. Then, when someone says something horrible and the company threatens you, you can shrug and say "Gosh, we (the proprietor of the website) had no idea that was there". If you promptly delete it, it would be difficult for the company to persuade a judge that you should be liable for the content. Don't push this too far, see case law for what works and what does not.
This adds a layer of obfuscation to what the company must do to obtain a productive lawsuit out of you.
Using their name in a domain name to criticize them is reasonably well protected. However, the rest of it is a minefield.
You cannot lie, or link to lies.
Which means you better be very good at distinguishing the provable truth from your mind's definition of the truth. "Alternative facts" are not enough; you will need to be able to back up any claim in a court-of-law.
Courts have ruled that when a website owner links to other pages which are defamatory, the website owner is being defamatory by doing so.
Even if you are a scrupulous Fair Witness, you also run the risk of the company coming after you claiming you lied, simply as a "Strategic lawsuit against public participation".
Be in California or other SLAPP state
Fortunately, certain jurisdictions have laws discouraging harassment-to-silence-you lawsuits. In California, you can quickly get such a case dismissed, and even get legal fees back in some cases. You'll want to make sure to set up your corporate entity so that the person they would be suing is a citizen of such a state, and if you're not a citizen of such a state, you'll need to take extreme measures to assure they don't do an end-run around the corporate structure and sue you personally. How to do this is beyond the scope of this answer.
Make the most out of Section 230
230 lays out a principle of law which has held the test of time: that a service provider shouldn't be held liable for the actions of its users or there will be a chilling effect which would make any social media impossible. If Joe defames Jodi on Facebook, we can't have Jodi suing Facebook, or there won't be any Facebooks.
So you want to understand how Section 230 works (and how it does not work; pay close attention to BadBusinessiBureau's experiences)... and architect your site around it. For instance, it applies to user-generated content, so architect your site so it is mainly a clearinghouse for complaints from other people. Then, when someone says something horrible and the company threatens you, you can shrug and say "Gosh, we (the proprietor of the website) had no idea that was there". If you promptly delete it, it would be difficult for the company to persuade a judge that you should be liable for the content. Don't push this too far, see case law for what works and what does not.
This adds a layer of obfuscation to what the company must do to obtain a productive lawsuit out of you.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
HarperHarper
2,4271213
2,4271213
3
@Acccumulation No. You got confused by the DMCA procedures. Actively having staff patrolling the site for content and preemptively removing things before anyone says anything, yes, that is the thing you are talking about that will get you into trouble and void your Safe Harbor protection. If the company's notice is the first time you heard about it, and you remove it that is Safe Harbor working normally. Refusing to remove it after legal notice = vouching for the content. I worked for a huge company and my job was protecting them. I know this part inside and out.
– Harper
6 hours ago
1
Your last section is completely wrong. The DMCA has nothing to do with a "sucks site." The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is, unsurprisingly, about copyright. Its takedown procedures (the so-called "safe harbors" referred to in this post) specifically deal with content accused of copyright violation, and nothing else. For the subject at hand, the relevant law to look at is CDA 230, a much better law which provides the type of protection from intermediary liability a site like this would want, without a mandatory extrajudicial takedown system to give the bad guys leverage against you.
– Mason Wheeler
4 hours ago
1
@MasonWheeler read the first sentence in that section, where I directly say that. You are correct that the statute doesn't say that. However lawyers often tear the principle of Fair Harbor out of the DMCA and argue it should apply to situations which are analogous in terms of ISP responsibility, but which are not strictly copyright. This has worked, probably because it is fair. But this is a matter of case law, not statute; if I am only allowed to base answers on statute, then I am wrong.
– Harper
2 hours ago
1
"This has worked, probably because it is fair." Where? When? In all the cases I'm aware of where lawyers have made attempts like that, they've been laughed out of court for their "novel legal theories" (this is legalese for "crackpot") and reminded that CDA 230 is the controlling precedent here. 230 is the general rule; the DMCA is a very, very specialized exception that applies only to copyright, and a very bad exception at that. It's a lot of things, but "fair" is not one of them.
– Mason Wheeler
2 hours ago
1
"Section 230 has been controversial because several courts have interpreted it as providing complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their system"is what I'm referring to. I'll clarify.
– Harper
2 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
3
@Acccumulation No. You got confused by the DMCA procedures. Actively having staff patrolling the site for content and preemptively removing things before anyone says anything, yes, that is the thing you are talking about that will get you into trouble and void your Safe Harbor protection. If the company's notice is the first time you heard about it, and you remove it that is Safe Harbor working normally. Refusing to remove it after legal notice = vouching for the content. I worked for a huge company and my job was protecting them. I know this part inside and out.
– Harper
6 hours ago
1
Your last section is completely wrong. The DMCA has nothing to do with a "sucks site." The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is, unsurprisingly, about copyright. Its takedown procedures (the so-called "safe harbors" referred to in this post) specifically deal with content accused of copyright violation, and nothing else. For the subject at hand, the relevant law to look at is CDA 230, a much better law which provides the type of protection from intermediary liability a site like this would want, without a mandatory extrajudicial takedown system to give the bad guys leverage against you.
– Mason Wheeler
4 hours ago
1
@MasonWheeler read the first sentence in that section, where I directly say that. You are correct that the statute doesn't say that. However lawyers often tear the principle of Fair Harbor out of the DMCA and argue it should apply to situations which are analogous in terms of ISP responsibility, but which are not strictly copyright. This has worked, probably because it is fair. But this is a matter of case law, not statute; if I am only allowed to base answers on statute, then I am wrong.
– Harper
2 hours ago
1
"This has worked, probably because it is fair." Where? When? In all the cases I'm aware of where lawyers have made attempts like that, they've been laughed out of court for their "novel legal theories" (this is legalese for "crackpot") and reminded that CDA 230 is the controlling precedent here. 230 is the general rule; the DMCA is a very, very specialized exception that applies only to copyright, and a very bad exception at that. It's a lot of things, but "fair" is not one of them.
– Mason Wheeler
2 hours ago
1
"Section 230 has been controversial because several courts have interpreted it as providing complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their system"is what I'm referring to. I'll clarify.
– Harper
2 hours ago
3
3
@Acccumulation No. You got confused by the DMCA procedures. Actively having staff patrolling the site for content and preemptively removing things before anyone says anything, yes, that is the thing you are talking about that will get you into trouble and void your Safe Harbor protection. If the company's notice is the first time you heard about it, and you remove it that is Safe Harbor working normally. Refusing to remove it after legal notice = vouching for the content. I worked for a huge company and my job was protecting them. I know this part inside and out.
– Harper
6 hours ago
@Acccumulation No. You got confused by the DMCA procedures. Actively having staff patrolling the site for content and preemptively removing things before anyone says anything, yes, that is the thing you are talking about that will get you into trouble and void your Safe Harbor protection. If the company's notice is the first time you heard about it, and you remove it that is Safe Harbor working normally. Refusing to remove it after legal notice = vouching for the content. I worked for a huge company and my job was protecting them. I know this part inside and out.
– Harper
6 hours ago
1
1
Your last section is completely wrong. The DMCA has nothing to do with a "sucks site." The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is, unsurprisingly, about copyright. Its takedown procedures (the so-called "safe harbors" referred to in this post) specifically deal with content accused of copyright violation, and nothing else. For the subject at hand, the relevant law to look at is CDA 230, a much better law which provides the type of protection from intermediary liability a site like this would want, without a mandatory extrajudicial takedown system to give the bad guys leverage against you.
– Mason Wheeler
4 hours ago
Your last section is completely wrong. The DMCA has nothing to do with a "sucks site." The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is, unsurprisingly, about copyright. Its takedown procedures (the so-called "safe harbors" referred to in this post) specifically deal with content accused of copyright violation, and nothing else. For the subject at hand, the relevant law to look at is CDA 230, a much better law which provides the type of protection from intermediary liability a site like this would want, without a mandatory extrajudicial takedown system to give the bad guys leverage against you.
– Mason Wheeler
4 hours ago
1
1
@MasonWheeler read the first sentence in that section, where I directly say that. You are correct that the statute doesn't say that. However lawyers often tear the principle of Fair Harbor out of the DMCA and argue it should apply to situations which are analogous in terms of ISP responsibility, but which are not strictly copyright. This has worked, probably because it is fair. But this is a matter of case law, not statute; if I am only allowed to base answers on statute, then I am wrong.
– Harper
2 hours ago
@MasonWheeler read the first sentence in that section, where I directly say that. You are correct that the statute doesn't say that. However lawyers often tear the principle of Fair Harbor out of the DMCA and argue it should apply to situations which are analogous in terms of ISP responsibility, but which are not strictly copyright. This has worked, probably because it is fair. But this is a matter of case law, not statute; if I am only allowed to base answers on statute, then I am wrong.
– Harper
2 hours ago
1
1
"This has worked, probably because it is fair." Where? When? In all the cases I'm aware of where lawyers have made attempts like that, they've been laughed out of court for their "novel legal theories" (this is legalese for "crackpot") and reminded that CDA 230 is the controlling precedent here. 230 is the general rule; the DMCA is a very, very specialized exception that applies only to copyright, and a very bad exception at that. It's a lot of things, but "fair" is not one of them.
– Mason Wheeler
2 hours ago
"This has worked, probably because it is fair." Where? When? In all the cases I'm aware of where lawyers have made attempts like that, they've been laughed out of court for their "novel legal theories" (this is legalese for "crackpot") and reminded that CDA 230 is the controlling precedent here. 230 is the general rule; the DMCA is a very, very specialized exception that applies only to copyright, and a very bad exception at that. It's a lot of things, but "fair" is not one of them.
– Mason Wheeler
2 hours ago
1
1
"Section 230 has been controversial because several courts have interpreted it as providing complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their system"is what I'm referring to. I'll clarify.
– Harper
2 hours ago
"Section 230 has been controversial because several courts have interpreted it as providing complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their system"is what I'm referring to. I'll clarify.
– Harper
2 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Frown is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Frown is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Frown is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Frown is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37408%2fcan-i-legally-make-a-website-about-boycotting-a-certain-company%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
14
I think you can even buy a
.sucks
domain– Mario Trucco
12 hours ago
2
@MarioTrucco just to hopefully increase the odds of it actually happening: get.sucks
– ESR
6 hours ago