Is this legal? Best Buy Customer Service incident

[Mill]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Of course it's legal. You could stand on a street corner with a sign that says "President Bush Gives Great Head," not a damn thing anybody could do about it. Viper GTS

That could be a violation of local obsenity laws.

Dammit! That's what I get for not reading the whole thread before posting.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Saw this a few weekends ago when I was doing some shopping...

A guy who apparently had had enough of Best Buy was wearing a placard in which he wrote "Best Buy Customer Service sucks!" with a magic marker. He was standing on the corner of a major intersection near a Best Buy. I thought it was funny because everybody was honking and he was cheering. Oddly enough he was gone 1 hour later.

How do you know he hadn't been standing there for hours already, and was just taking a break to use the bathroom or something?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

That makes the case harder, not impossible. Try standing around with a sign that says a public figure gives great head with any supporting evidence. Sullivan won't protect you in that case. Sullivan was passed to give the press greater leeway to question public officials, not to make stuff up. Libel laws still apply and the burden of proof falls on the defendent to prove that they had a good faith belief that what they were alleging is accurate. Sullivan does not provide you with a license to create fiction.

 

[BigSmooth]

 

[NeoPTLD]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Saw this a few weekends ago when I was doing some shopping...

A guy who apparently had had enough of Best Buy was wearing a placard in which he wrote "Best Buy Customer Service sucks!" with a magic marker. He was standing on the corner of a major intersection near a Best Buy. I thought it was funny because everybody was honking and he was cheering. Oddly enough he was gone 1 hour later.

If he's doing something that Best Buy disapprove of on their property, they have the right to ask him to leave the premise and press charge for trespass if he refuse.

However, if he's on public property, which do not include neighboring commercial property who's owner disapproves of his action(they most likely won't allow it as they don't want BB allowing people to do that to them) there is not a damn thing the law can do about expression of opinion.

He could be arrested, but you can be arrested for anything if the officer feels like it whether it is just or not. That will be decided in court of law. Could be arrested doesn't mean his action isn't permitted.

It's considered libelous when he makes a false factual statement such as "This Best Buy's manager is comes to work stoned everyday"

 

[silverpig]

President Bush is an idiot
(and I'm safe cause I know he can't read this sign)

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

That makes the case harder, not impossible. Try standing around with a sign that says a public figure gives great head with any supporting evidence. Sullivan won't protect you in that case. Sullivan was passed to give the press greater leeway to question public officials, not to make stuff up. Libel laws still apply and the burden of proof falls on the defendent to prove that they had a good faith belief that what they were alleging is accurate. Sullivan does not provide you with a license to create fiction.

However, like I said satire of public officials is given much more broad leeway. Plus, the burden is on the Plaintiff to show injury and proof that the defendant was knowingly giving false information. The defendant is there to rebut, and not to prove that the didn't. Burden of proof in the US Justice system always falls on the one doing the suing or prosecution. Libel/slander cases are few and far between, and rare for the the Plaintiff to win without proving severe injury and much malice. Even then there typically has to be some type of financial loss or severe destruction of public image. It is much easier for Joe Schmoe to sue and win for libel than it is a public figure of any sort. Public figures are typically entitled to less privacy and protection from speech, whereas a private citizen has much more.

 

[azazyel]

Just add "I think ...." and everything is fine.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Saw this a few weekends ago when I was doing some shopping...

A guy who apparently had had enough of Best Buy was wearing a placard in which he wrote "Best Buy Customer Service sucks!" with a magic marker. He was standing on the corner of a major intersection near a Best Buy. I thought it was funny because everybody was honking and he was cheering. Oddly enough he was gone 1 hour later.

If he's doing something that Best Buy disapprove of on their property, they have the right to ask him to leave the premise and press charge for trespass if he refuse.

However, if he's on public property, which do not include neighboring commercial property who's owner disapproves of his action(they most likely won't allow it as they don't want BB allowing people to do that to them) there is not a damn thing the law can do about expression of opinion.

He could be arrested, but you can be arrested for anything if the officer feels like it whether it is just or not. That will be decided in court of law. Could be arrested doesn't mean his action isn't permitted.

It's considered libelous when he makes a false factual statement such as "This Best Buy's manager is comes to work stoned everyday"

But isn't it common knowledge that Best Buy Customer Service sucks? Everybody was honking as an affirmation. I've been waiting in the customer service line before and there have been irate customers, one spoke to the same manager that interviewed me...His retort was to say it was BB corporate policy and if you didn't like it call them. He made no attempt to listen to their problem or assist and just gave them a card with the number on it. All they wanted to do was exchange a wireless keyboard for something else, they had the receipt...looked like a MS Bluetooth wireless keyboard and mouse. They were pretty irate and all, BB insisted on the 15% restocking as well as giving them a BB gift card rather than a refund so they had to spend it in the store. I thought to myself what an ass, no wonder I didn't get the job I was under the impression that you treated customers with a degree of civility and respect...

 

[Jzero]

Kinda reminds me of the guy in Falling Down who was denied a loan because he was "Not Economically Viable."

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

That makes the case harder, not impossible. Try standing around with a sign that says a public figure gives great head with any supporting evidence. Sullivan won't protect you in that case. Sullivan was passed to give the press greater leeway to question public officials, not to make stuff up. Libel laws still apply and the burden of proof falls on the defendent to prove that they had a good faith belief that what they were alleging is accurate. Sullivan does not provide you with a license to create fiction.

However, like I said satire of public officials is given much more broad leeway. Plus, the burden is on the Plaintiff to show injury and proof that the defendant was knowingly giving false information. The defendant is there to rebut, and not to prove that the didn't. Burden of proof in the US Justice system always falls on the one doing the suing or prosecution. Libel/slander cases are few and far between, and rare for the the Plaintiff to win without proving severe injury and much malice. Even then there typically has to be some type of financial loss or severe destruction of public image. It is much easier for Joe Schmoe to sue and win for libel than it is a public figure of any sort. Public figures are typically entitled to less privacy and protection from speech, whereas a private citizen has much more.

Satire is given broad leeway. That's how Doonesbury, The Onion, The Daily Show and political cartoons get away with what they do. Standing around with a sign that says "Person X gives great head" IS NOT SATIRE. Doonesbury calling Ah-nold "Der Gropenfuerher" to make fun of his Germanic ancestry and proclivity towards copping a feel is protected by Sullivan. Making a sign that reads "Arnold molests sheep" is not protected unless you can produce the sheep in question.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: ness1469

Originally posted by: Nitemare
It wouldn't be considered slander or libel?

or maybe creating a traffic hazard?

he was missing after an hour is the reason I'm asking

Hypothetically, yes. But they would have to prove that it was damaging in order to have grounds to press charges/file suit.

Hypothetically, NO! he is entitled to his opinon. he is making a statement and not causing any damage.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: ness1469

Originally posted by: Nitemare
It wouldn't be considered slander or libel?

or maybe creating a traffic hazard?

he was missing after an hour is the reason I'm asking

Hypothetically, yes. But they would have to prove that it was damaging in order to have grounds to press charges/file suit.

Hypothetically, NO! he is entitled to his opinon. he is making a statement and not causing any damage.

The opinion is protected, not the manner in which it's expressed. Saying that Best Buy sucks is protected, disrupting traffic while saying it is not. Creating a sign saying "Best Buy sucks" is protected, spraypainting that on a public building is not.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This is not a statement of fact and does not create a cause of action for defamation. The hypothetical "President Bush Gives Great Head" sign would likely not constitute defamation either (it is really more of an opinion than a statement of fact, and it's only defamatory to the extent one interprets it to refer to male partners), particularly since the President is a public figure. If a person specifically accused him of performing head on homeless men, or something, it might be actionable.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

That makes the case harder, not impossible. Try standing around with a sign that says a public figure gives great head with any supporting evidence. Sullivan won't protect you in that case. Sullivan was passed to give the press greater leeway to question public officials, not to make stuff up. Libel laws still apply and the burden of proof falls on the defendent to prove that they had a good faith belief that what they were alleging is accurate. Sullivan does not provide you with a license to create fiction.

However, like I said satire of public officials is given much more broad leeway. Plus, the burden is on the Plaintiff to show injury and proof that the defendant was knowingly giving false information. The defendant is there to rebut, and not to prove that the didn't. Burden of proof in the US Justice system always falls on the one doing the suing or prosecution. Libel/slander cases are few and far between, and rare for the the Plaintiff to win without proving severe injury and much malice. Even then there typically has to be some type of financial loss or severe destruction of public image. It is much easier for Joe Schmoe to sue and win for libel than it is a public figure of any sort. Public figures are typically entitled to less privacy and protection from speech, whereas a private citizen has much more.

Satire is given broad leeway. That's how Doonesbury, The Onion, The Daily Show and political cartoons get away with what they do. Standing around with a sign that says "Person X gives great head" IS NOT SATIRE. Doonesbury calling Ah-nold "Der Gropenfuerher" to make fun of his Germanic ancestry and proclivity towards copping a feel is protected by Sullivan. Making a sign that reads "Arnold molests sheep" is not protected unless you can produce the sheep in question.

I completely disagree with you. Your idea is that you have to have a well respected outlet to publish your satire or it is libelous. I don't think that is the case at all. Obviously that is someone's opinion that George W. gives great head. I think it would take a more specific charge to warrant a judgment of libel. Maybe a sign that said "George W. gave me excellent head on X date with 5 gay hookers." That might be a bit more libelous, but I still hold to my idea that the courts give very broad leeway to satire. A manager of a Best Buy store might have a case if something specific was said about him, but the corporate entity, or a public figure typically can't or won't do anything about it. They realize in exchange for their recognition that they give of much of their right to privacy. How do you think the Tabloids get away with libeling almost every actor or actress in Hollywood? Public figure and their right to privacy is significantly less. I believe some have brought suit against the tabloids, but they rarely win. Judges are really hesitant to limit speech, because they know they will probably be overruled on appeal.