Mediaboss Marketing

A West Ashley psychiatrist was so offended by a poor online review that he has sued the anonymous critic and demanded that Google unmask the user's identity.

What did the review say? Nothing.

It simply gave Dr. Mark Beale one out of five stars a judgment that Beale said has caused him "extreme and constant distress."

Beale insisted that it could not have come from an actual patient, making it false and libelous. His lawsuit noted that he was highly regarded on other websites. He had enjoyed 4 stars on the popular WebMD.com.

"Its a mystery," Beale said in a brief interview. "The one-star review is out of sync with the feedback I get from my patients. ... So we decided to look into it."

His defamation claim is shaping up as a battle over First Amendment rights in an age of internet anonymity. The suit against "John Doe" was filed in March in Charleston County court, but it ratcheted up this month as Google objected to Beale's attempts to expose what he dubbed a spoofer.

Beale wants Doe to pay damages and Google to take down the rating and reveal the user. But Google doesn't want to. At least, not yet.

Beale's attorney, Steven Abrams of Mount Pleasant, said he has handled several similar cases, and companies like Google, AT&T, Comcast and Verizon typically hand over identifying information of anonymous users.

Why Google fought this case, I have no earthly idea, Abrams said. Theres not really a lot of case law (in South Carolina) ... on these types of cases because they dont usually result in a fight.

Online reviews have prompted such courtroom action in other states, including in California, where a Yelp user was sued over a one-star rating of a law firm. Supported by other websites such as Google and major newspapers, Yelp has asked the state's Supreme Court to overturn an order to take it down.

Beale said he has practiced at Charleston Psychiatric Associates on St. Andrews Boulevard for 16 years, building a good reputation among locals.

But in October, a user with the suspected pseudonym"Richard Hill"clicked the first star under an entry for Beales office on Google Maps. It was Bealesfirst rating on Google.

Beale said he hasn't lost any patients since the rating was posted, but he hasn't gained any either.

His lawsuit, though, came with some adverse side effects. Since word of it became public, reviewers have given him more one-star ratings, including at least 11 suchassessmentson Google by Friday. Someone on HealthGrades.com criticized the psychiatrist's complaint of "extreme and constant distress."

"Dr. Beale is supposed to be an expert in emotions and reactions," wrote the poster, proclaiming to hail from Southern California. "I'd say that I would not have any confidence in his ability to help anyone else with their emotions and reactions in life."

The original Google reviewer likely hails from Newport News, Va., the suit stated. Beale noted in an affidavit that the rating came within days of a disagreement with a family member over the care of his aging mother, a retired judge in Newport News.

He enlisted Charleston media and internet publisher Andy Brack, who puts out the Statehouse Report and Charleston Currents. In an affidavit, Brack opined on Beales behalf that one star is akin to saying, I hate it, as opposed to the I love it of five stars.

Any reasonable person looking at the one-star rating, Brack wrote, would likely think of him and the business in a negative manner and might make a decision to not use his medical service.

Google, though, has objected to a subpoena from Abrams that seeks the user's identifying data.

Hayley Berlin, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer hired by the company, told Stevens in a letter that laws in the companys home state of California require that courts carefully weigh a persons First Amendment right to speak anonymously with the concerns of those targeted by such speech.

Google does not require users to provide their real names ... to leave a business review, Berlin wrote. Thus, the conclusion that the review must be 'implicitly false' because (Beale) has never treated a patient by the name of Richard Hill is fundamentally flawed."

But Abrams said commercial speech related to someone's livelihood isn't afforded the same constitutional protections as political opinion that might draw government officials' retribution.

"There's potential that someone's competitor can hide under the cloak of anonymity to do damage," he said, "without any sort of negative consequence for their hate speech."

Reach Andrew Knapp at 843-937-5414. Follow him on Twitter @offlede.

See more here:
Libel lawsuit over West Ashley psychiatrist's 1-star Google rating sparks First Amendment fight, more 1-star reviews - Charleston Post Courier

News & Observer

Does the campus free speech bill protect First Amendment rights or restrict them? News & Observer Call for the UNC-system Board of Governors to develop a policy preventing schools from shield[ing] individuals from speech protected by the First Amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even ...

Excerpt from:
Does the campus free speech bill protect First Amendment rights or restrict them? - News & Observer

We've been covering a recent First Amendment lawsuit targeting President Donald Trumpa novel legal argumentin which Twitter users claim their constitutional rights were violated because the commander-in-chief blocked them from his personal @realDonaldTrump Twitter handle.

To be sure, it's a digital-age-basedconstitutional theory about social media rights in a day and age when politicians, from the president on down, are using their private accounts to discuss public affairs.

Now there's some legal precedent on the matter. It comes from a federal judge in Virginia who said that a local politician had violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent because the politician briefly banned the constituent from the politician'spersonal Facebook account.

"The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards," US District Judge James Cacheris wrote Tuesday in a suit brought by a constituent against Phyllis Randall, the chairwoman of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors in Virginia.

The judge didn't issue any punishment against Randall, as the Facebook ban for constituent Brian Davison only lasted about 12 hours. That said, the judge noted Randall committed "a cardinal sin under the First Amendment" by barring the constituent who posted about county corruption. What's more, the judge pointed out from the first sentence of the ruling that "this case raises important questions about the constitutional limitations applicable to social media accounts maintained by elected officials."

Randall's Facebook page, the judge ruled, "operates as a forum for speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution."

This suit, at its most basic level, is nearly identical to the one lodged against Trump two weeks ago. Like the Virginia suit, the lawsuit against Trump names the chief executive's private account, which Trump uses on an almost daily basis as his political mouthpiece to the world.

"The @realDonaldTrump [Twitter] account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another," according to the lawsuit (PDF) filed in New York federal court.

The Trump suit was brought by a handful of Twitter users Trump blocked after they posted critical comments. The lawsuit, to which Trump has yet to respond in court, seeks a ruling that the president's actions were unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, Judge Cacheris noted that Randall still had the right to moderate Facebook comments and that it's not always unconstitutional to block commenters.

"Finally, government officials have at least a reasonably strong interest in moderating discussion on their Facebook pages in an expeditious manner. By permitting a commenter to repeatedly post inappropriate content pending a review process, a government official could easily fail to preserve their online forum for its intended purpose," the judge wrote.

What's more, the judge said that allowing online speakers to hijack or filibuster online conversations would "impinge on the First Amendment rights" of other forum participants.

"Given the prevalence of online 'trolls,' this is no mere hypothetical risk," the judge said.

Judge Cacherishad recently tossed a similar lawsuit from Davison, a software consultant. In that suit, Davisonclaimed his First Amendment rights were breached because a prosecutor had removed hiscomments from the prosecutor's official Facebook page. The judge noted that the deletion of the comments was acceptable because they were "clearly off-topic" comments.

See the rest here:
Politicians' social media pages can be 1st Amendment forums, judge says - Ars Technica

A Hanover County supervisors lawyer accused Style Weekly of publishing fake news while an attorney for the Richmond newspaper called on jurors to defend the First Amendment at the start of a defamation trial that began Friday.

County Supervisor Sean Davis sued the publication after Style Weekly published articles in 2015 by Peter Galuszka suggesting Davis improperly used his position on the Board of Supervisors to influence Hanover schools.

Davis complaint arose from a Dec. 8 article titled Are Politics Threatening an Open Educational Environment in Hanover?

The article suggests Davis interfered with classroom instruction at Hanover High School and had teachers suspended or disciplined if they present ideas or images that Davis considers too liberal.

The article cited a letter submitted to Attorney General Mark Herring from a parent that asked state police to investigate Davis for intimidation of teachers and staff.

The letter, according to the article, pointed to an instance involving a popular English teacher whom Davis took issue with because of what he said in class and because of a wall of photographs, and drawings kept in a student newspaper activities office.

The article, citing the letter, goes on to state that the English teacher was given a three-day suspension that was dropped after the teacher hired a lawyer.

Davis lawsuit also cites another passage from the article in which a Hanover High School parent expressed worry that school officials wont confront Davis.

Davis attorney Steven Biss, told jurors the articles in question contain false accusations of Davis based on unreliable sources and were a reckless disregard for the truth. Biss characterized the articles as a false narrative, fake news.

There are so many false statements, Biss told jurors.Mr. Davis does not become involved in School Board matters.

Attorney Conrad Shumadine, representing Galuszka and Style Weekly publisher Lori Collier Waran, told jurors the articles served the public interest and emphasized the importance of free speech.

The people of Hanover County needed to know, Shumadine said,.

Shumadine said Galuszka thought the issues of alleged censorship in Hanover were serious and that his sources were credible and appropriately vetted. Galuszka tried to speak to school officials but the school division would not comment.

Shumadine said Galuszkas questions for Davis were a chance to have his perspective represented, but that Davis did not answer specific questions. Later, after the first article was published, a lawyer for Davis called Style Weekly.

The newspaper offered to have the story corrected if anything was false, have a letter to the editor published or have Davis do an interview with Galuszka, Shumadine said.

Their response was to file a lawsuit, Shumadine said.

Public officials typically must prove a publication printed false material and in doing so acted with actual malice, which would mean knowingly publishing false information or acting with reckless disregard for the facts.

Biss said the questions Galuszka emailed Davis were loaded. Biss said Galuszka based his reporting off unreliable sources and Style Weekly published the articles because it felt they were salacious and would sell well.

The motive was money, Biss said.

Shumadine said the issue of censorship in Hanover started a year prior to the articles publication when Davis allegedly tried to ban the documentary Thomas L. Friedman Reporting: Searching for the Roots of 9/11 from Hanover schools. The documentary delves into Muslim perspectives of the Sept. 11 attacks and the rise of terrorist groups.

Biss said accusations that Davis had teachers suspended and materials banned in Hanover schools were false. When Davis heard from hundreds of people concerned about the showing in 2014 of the documentary to Hanover High School students, the supervisor brought up those concerns to Hanovers joint education committee, Biss said.

Davis expressed concerns about the documentary at a Board of Supervisors meeting in 2014, calling a showing of the video disrespectful and un-American.

He had concerns about the 9/11 video because hes a Marine, Biss said of Davis.

Shumadine told jurors that Davis did intervene to have Hanover teachers disciplined, and that a student organization eventually formed to protest against what it felt like was unfair handling of teachers and curriculum.

Shumadine cited a letter from Davis sent to County Attorney Sterling Rives communicating that Davis expected the concerns of Hanover residents about an education matter be investigated.

Rives was the first and only witness to be called to the stand by Biss on Friday. Biss line of questioning focused on how Davis handling of complaints about education matters was appropriate and followed standard procedures.

Attorney Brett Spain, on cross-examination, asked Rives about whether Davis calling for the investigation into the concerns of Hanover residents about a teacher was extraordinary. Rives couldnt think of any other supervisor who had made such a request.

Before the opening arguments, a jury was narrowed down from more than 70 people. The judge in the trial, which is scheduled to last six days, is Michael Levy from Stafford County.

The Style Weekly lawsuit isnt the only one Davis is involved with. In January, Davis sued his former employer, the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association, along with the lobbying groups president and CEO Donald Hall over allegations of fraud and defamation. A jury trial for the complaint is scheduled for April in Richmond Circuit Court.

Read the rest here:
Fake news or First Amendment? Defamation trial begins in case of ... - Richmond.com

Dear Editor:

Re LETTER: Ill take separation of church and state, by Eileen D. Minogue, July 20, 2017: I recently read an article by Roman Catholic Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, which I found most enlightening, including the following paragraphs:

The First Amendment, which places freedom of religion as number one, protects the churches from intrusion by the government, not the government from religion.

[Alexis de] Tocqueville asked himself how a country so vast, so diverse, so open to everybody, so bold, under a constitution so daring and unprecedented could ever survive. His answer? Because the American people are religious!

Id like to hope our country has not strayed so far that its people no longer profess what early Americans professed in their Pledge of Allegiance one nation, under God.

Advertisement

Those who object have the freedom to eliminate what they feel objectionable, but not impose their views on the majority.

Joan Saehloff

Port Ewen, N.Y.

Editors note: The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress in 1942. The words under God were added to the pledge in 1954.

Original post:
LETTER: First Amendment is a one-way protection for religion - The Daily Freeman