Lawyers? Twice in a week?!

[Saydrah]

Eric, it's in the UK so I don't think you need to worry-- however if your father is in a nursing home, I believe you can order a report that shows whether or not it has been cited for deficiencies (over 80% have!) in 2007, and what those deficiencies were (19.1% were 'serious harm or danger' deficiencies). I'll look it up when I get a second here and give you a link.

Update: Eagle Man, which shall be Big Boss #2's CS name henceforth because he collects eagle stuff and has an office all decorated with it, agrees with me that I should publish the cease and desist letter publicly and humiliate him. However, we need to run it by the lawyer. Exact quote follows so that I may praise my gloriously ish boss:

Eagle Man: "Well, we'll just call the lawyer in the morning and tell her that's what we're going to do. And if she says we should just take the blog down, we'll tell her 'No,' and do it anyway."

So, once we get ahold of her, I should be able to show you guys exactly what this schmuck thought was going to intimidate ME!

[PepperElf]

and... maybe i'm mistaken but... isn't a blog considered freedom of speech?

Wether it's the US or the UK... I don't see where a company has any legal right in telling people what they're allowed to say about how the company treats people.

If it was a country where human rights didn't exist... I can see it.... but you're not in one of those countries.


So I say... Post the letter. PDF format too so everyone can see exactly how bad it looks.


(and oddly enough I'm reminded of the infamous letter that Rush Limbaugh got from people in the Senate & how he auctioned it off for a USMC charity, and made the letter available online for everyone to see ... hell if government employees aren't able to legally silence opinions - or reporting - they don't like... then I don't see where a single company is going to win either)

[Broomjockey]

and... maybe i'm mistaken but... isn't a blog considered freedom of speech?

Wether it's the US or the UK... I don't see where a company has any legal right in telling people what they're allowed to say about how the company treats people.

1) Freedom of speech solely addresses the government's ability to suppress and abridge speech, and the internet is considered "private ground"
2) The UK does not technically have free speech as a right. www.customerssuck.com/firstamendment.html

[Shards]

Sayd. You're in Denver, yes?

Well.. I can't promise I'll come visit this time, but if you get arrested again in about ten years I may be the cop who has to bring you in for it...

[crazylegs]

2) The UK does not technically have free speech as a right. www.customerssuck.com/firstamendment.html

It does, under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference 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.

[Broomjockey]

It does, under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998

*facepalm* Right. I think I meant as part of the constitution. I'm trying to remember a conversation about it from ages ago. Either way, it's similar to the American one in that it doesn't apply to private arenas in general, meaning companies can impose restrictions, yes?

[crazylegs]

Either way, it's similar to the American one in that it doesn't apply to private arenas in general, meaning companies can impose restrictions, yes?

Pretty much yes.

[Saydrah]

Sayd. You're in Denver, yes?

Well.. I can't promise I'll come visit this time, but if you get arrested again in about ten years I may be the cop who has to bring you in for it...

Yes, and boooooo to not visiting and booooooo for arresting me! Can I at least pinch your bum if you arrest me?

I <3 cop pants.

Update 2: Sent lawyer info, need to hear back from her one more time, but I think she left early cause it's Friday. I should be able to reveal all on Monday. Also, watching Eagle Man deal with the lawyer RULED. He's so awesome. He passed me a note during the call that read:

1. Remember her bias is to say "No, take it down."

2. And what we want is to leave it up and write more-- so make sure you are making points in favor of that.

3. Relax, you're doing GREAT!

[PepperElf]

well private areas... that depends.

If say I went off the wall and started posting something really nasty here at CS.com... because the site is privately owned, the mods & owners would have legal right to delete the post and even ban me.

However... if I was to go to my own blog and write a post about "company x sucks, this is how they treat their people"... then no, my rights would be intact. The most anyone could do would be to contact the webpage or blog provider and complain...which might not go anywhere as long as the TOS wasn't violated. And "I don't like her opinion about my company" doesn't fly as a TOS-violation for most of those blog sites.

Or if it was a website I hosted myself... then they'd have a harder time complaining....

In my opinion ... it's just a scare-tactic.
and good for you and the blog for not letting them bully you into silence.

If a company has to threaten you like that, just over posting facts about the company... then they sound pretty shady indeed ... and are in need of even more exposure.

[Broomjockey]

well private areas... that depends.

I'd say points have been made on both sides now, and it'd be a good time to move along before we slip into Fratching territory. *glares at all the debaters out there* you know who you are

[Pedersen]

*glares at all the debaters out there* you know who you are

<best_perry_mason_voice>I object! I'll have you know that I am completely undeserving of said glare!</best_perry_mason_voice>

[Eric the Grey]

Eric, it's in the UK so I don't think you need to worry-- however if your father is in a nursing home, I believe you can order a report that shows whether or not it has been cited for deficiencies (over 80% have!) in 2007, and what those deficiencies were (19.1% were 'serious harm or danger' deficiencies). I'll look it up when I get a second here and give you a link.

That's good to know, at least as far as I'm concerned. Actually, me and my sister did a lot of reading on the Medicare web sites which shows all these. The one he's at now seemed to be the second best one in our area, the best being full and not accepting anyone. There was one in our area that was marked for "special attention" due to all the problems they've found. We ruled that one out right away....

However, all this talk, I'm curious as to the C&D. What was the reasoning was behind it. Usually (at least, from what I've seen) C&D's are for copyright or trademark issues. It doesn't sound like there is any of that going on.

You probably can't say too much yet though. I guess I 'll have to wait until Monday and see if you show up on TechDirt.


Eric the Grey

[Shards]

well private areas... that depends.

If say I went off the wall and started posting something really nasty here at CS.com... because the site is privately owned, the mods & owners would have legal right to delete the post and even ban me.

However... if I was to go to my own blog and write a post about "company x sucks, this is how they treat their people"... then no, my rights would be intact. The most anyone could do would be to contact the webpage or blog provider and complain...which might not go anywhere as long as the TOS wasn't violated. And "I don't like her opinion about my company" doesn't fly as a TOS-violation for most of those blog sites.

Or if it was a website I hosted myself... then they'd have a harder time complaining....

In my opinion ... it's just a scare-tactic.
and good for you and the blog for not letting them bully you into silence.

If a company has to threaten you like that, just over posting facts about the company... then they sound pretty shady indeed ... and are in need of even more exposure.

Actually, as long as you're posting from American Soil, which Saydrah is, if the opinion you post is treated as fact, and is not given proper proof (They eat babies, but I have no way to prove it), and it has a potentially negative impact on the company's profits, your speech can be limited due to libel and slander laws, which ARE constitutional because they don't restrict your right to have or express ideas unless it has the express intent to unjustly infringe the rights of a corporation.

Yay future-cop!

[Broomjockey]

your speech can be limited due to libel and slander laws, which ARE constitutional because they don't restrict your right to have or express ideas unless it has the express intent to unjustly infringe the rights of a corporation.

I'd say points have been made on both sides now, and it'd be a good time to move along before we slip into Fratching territory. *glares at all the debaters out there* you know who you are

What did I just say! That's the one warning.

[Shards]

oop! Sorry, guys.

My bad.