Santé!

Before we get all up in arms over the idea of criticism, even blatantly false criticism if that indeed turns out to be the case, on the internet, let us consider a few things:
1. Forum – Does Korbel really expect us to believe that they have been materially defamed by postings on Craigslist? I know that I personally get most of my news between shopping for a used Atari and looking for a new pet Alligator, but most people don’t.
2. Materiality – How in the world could Korbel prove damages? Without a measurable impact, this suit is frivolous and a waste of court resources.
3. Jurisdiction – Gets trickier than you would think when the internet is concerned.
4. Precedent – Is this really something we want the courts to have to deal with, every penny-ante gripe that some corporate producer has with an internet post? I work in the courts and I think not.
5. Big Picture – This is a free speech issue. What if one of these issues, about Korbel or any other industry, turns out to be correct? Is this really the type of thing that we want to suppress? Exactly how easily should the websites we frequent give out our information? What is the threshold? I know that you want this to be merely about accountability for your actions, but there are other issues, such as privacy issues, at stake here.

Personally I think that the issue would have a lot more legal merit if there was any chance of Korbel being able to prove material damages in a court of law based solely on these Craigslist comments. As it stands, it seems dangerous and frivolous to me and if I were a judge I would demand a bit of how they were going to prove damages, because if that is an element of the claimed offense and they have no actual way to prove it, then the case is not well-enough plead to stand.
4.

Americans have long confused the differences between rights and responsibilities. Too often I hear people saying that they have a right to certain things (to drive a car, to get analog tv signals, to say whatever they want), yet don’t want the responsibility for what they do with those “rights”.
You have the right to be protected from government preventing your free speech. But you have a responsibility for the effects of what you say. And you do not have the right to say whatever you want in a commercial medium. It isn’t the government who is the issue, it is comcast (a non-government entity). So claiming first amendment does not apply!

Remember, say what you want. Just be ready to be held accountable for what you say.

Cheers

On another note, I still don’t understand how an article on trading down in wine can overlook South Africa. Just look at the wines from $7 to $50 from South Africa. This is where the values are today.

This is nonsense. Even if the judge agrees, gives Koebel the names and Korbel wins a judgement against the posters, everyone will still be able to say whatever he wants on the Internet–the difference will be that he may be held accountable.

The ACLU wrings its hands and cries about the “potential for abuse” should the judge agree with Korbel, but refuses to recognize that there’s potential for abuse on both sides. I’m for free speech, but not at all sure about the value of fostering anonymous accusations of wrongdoing, and I doubt that the concept of free speech necessarily gives blanket protection to anonymous accusers.

Suppose I spread anonymous lies about Dr. Vino. What defense does Dr. Vino have if he can’t take me to court, where my accusations can be proved or disproved? Mark Twain, I think, said “a lie goes halfway round the world before the truth can get its boots on,” so Dr. Vino’s denials will be a lone voice drowned in a sea of accusation online accusations. In time even his friends and family may come to doubt him or be afriad to stand up for him, lest they be tarred as well.

This could happen to anyone and indeed has in one way or another (as in divorce cases, where an enraged wife has been known to accuse her husband of molesting their children). If a victim’s employer were to take such lies seriously, he could fire the guy and use any number of semi-plausible excuses—we’re overstaffed, the economy’s tight–to disguise the reason and protect himself. The victime would never be able to prove damages–proves that he lost his job because of a smear campaign.

Shouldn’t Korbel or anyone else—long before business career and reputation are ruined-—be able to face their accusers? Isn’t that what courts are for?

There is, certainly, such a thing as the legitimate whistle-blower, one who speaks anonymously for fear of his job or safety, but it seems to me that a judge must consider whether there is evidence or the possibility of evidence to support the accusations. Have the punished employees been named in the postings, so that they can be deposed? Is there any evidence of planned deforestation and bribery? Any wrongdoing that bribes have covered up, or even might have covered up? Any real reason for protecting anonymity? And another thing: until the charges are made to legal authorities, they’re not whistle-blowing. They’re gossip and slander.

Finally, what if the charges are true? In that case, preventing a court case means the victims will get no relief and that criminal behavior will go unpunished.

Bill Marsano

360 W. 36th St. Suite 5s

New York, N.Y. 10018-6412

Tel/Fax 212 947 0307

billmarsano@rcn.com

Korbel sued the anonymous critics last year for defamation, saying their comments damaged the century-old business.