New Law Would Ban Customers From Being Penalized For Negative Reviews

I am amazed that we even need laws like this in this country.

For the last couple of years, we’ve been telling you about ridiculous, so-called “non-disparagement” clauses that threaten customers with financial penalties for writing (or threatening to write, or even encouraging someone else to write) something negative online about a company. California has already outlawed these clauses, which tend to fail when challenged in court, but an attempt to enact legislation at the federal level has so far fallen short. But that’s not stopping some members of Congress from trying to ban this form of consumer bullying.

Click to expand...

I'm not amazed or surprised we need laws like this, instead I'm saddened. It is really sad that businesses feel like they can get away with treating their customers so poorly.

Modern capitalism - The rube we call a customer can go fuck themselves.

Because I'm sure rival business don't post bad things about their competitors or how some people make it their mission in life to trash a place online because they were 2 minutes slow delivering their food (in their own minds).

Imo, people need to be accountable if they're throwing trash out there. If its a legit gripe, then they should have no worries.

For the legit cases, then those people should be protected, but not sure legislation is the best way to do it. Both businesses and consumers should have methods of protection.

It's interesting that PUBLISHING something on the internet creates a certain level of legal responsibility for anyone doing it but those same people don't fall under the protection of those very same laws.

For whatever reason many seem to think that freedom of speech protects specks from consequences. The 1st Amendment only applies to government actors and there's no Constitutional protections even against government retribution relating to speech let alone private parties.

When it comes to private parties sides are free to say what they want outside of libel, hate speech and a few other restrictions and to support or retaliate said speech with legal boundaries. The way it has always worked folks, nothing new. What is new is how much more powerful speech has become due to the Internet.

^True that.... however, non disparagement clauses are basically trying to stamp out freedom of speech.

You can say, you don't have to follow the order of the guy who has an AK pointing at you. But any action outside of what is allowed would not end well.

rostabosta said:

Because I'm sure rival business don't post bad things about their competitors or how some people make it their mission in life to trash a place online because they were 2 minutes slow delivering their food (in their own minds).

Imo, people need to be accountable if they're throwing trash out there. If its a legit gripe, then they should have no worries.

For the legit cases, then those people should be protected, but not sure legislation is the best way to do it. Both businesses and consumers should have methods of protection.

Click to expand...

Rival businesses don't sign the contract with the no disparagement clauses. There is no legitimate use for these things and they clearly infringe on protected speech.

It's kind of like the recording cops thing. Time and time again the courts say it is protected, legit, and throw legislation to the contrary in the shitter. However that doesn't stop the cops, and someone needs to codify it in a way to end that shit.

These things keep losing in court time and time again, and some anti-SLAPP like legislation to tell idiots to cut it out. I'm pretty sure 1000x court costs for companies that lose would do it.

heatlesssun said:

For whatever reason many seem to think that freedom of speech protects specks from consequences. The 1st Amendment only applies to government actors and there's no Constitutional protections even against government retribution relating to speech let alone private parties.

When it comes to private parties sides are free to say what they want outside of libel, hate speech and a few other restrictions and to support or retaliate said speech with legal boundaries. The way it has always worked folks, nothing new. What is new is how much more powerful speech has become due to the Internet.

Click to expand...

Oh no, you can't have it both ways. So why is it ok for the government to step in when "hate speech" is said by someone in a private setting?
As soon as one of these cases goes to court the government HAS to rule. Thus the government by ruling in favor of the businesses punishing people for negative reviews IS limiting free speech.