Bad Review? Sue the Critic. Whistler Did | Hacker News Reader

Bad Review? Sue the Critic. Whistler Did

nytimes.com

54 pointsprismatic13 comments

This is common tactics in some parts of the world, for example Japan (I know for sure) and China (not so sure). In Japan you can sue for defamation and win a case even if the other party's speech is entirely true. This is why most Japanese Youtubers and other forms of media often refer to companies as "Company A" "Company B" so on and so forth.

I’m curious to know how this hasn’t cratered product quality in Japan, since I’d think that preventing even deserved reputation damage would reward behavior normally only balanced by that reputation damage, like pulling a product quality bait and switch. Is there another uncensored system? Is there a quality difference between exports and own consumption?

I too am curious, since various products from Japan have good reps for quality.

Japanese commercial ice makers, are one example. Generally considered some of the best.

You don’t see the bad products because those don’t get exported. The ones that are considered some of the best are outside Japan where the companies cannot sue for negative reviews.

ahhh.. make sense..

Thanks!

Would Mr. Bean[0] have been sued?

> Even though Mr. Whistler was perfectly aware that his mother was a hideous old bat who looked like she had a cactus lodged up her backside he stuck wither her and even took the time to paint this amazing picture of her.

I’d like to see that trial.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb3QOPVC26k

I doubt there's anything actionable there.

I take that to be enabled by the English rules on libel. As far as I know, Americans are limited to striking people off party lists (Quinn v. Buckley), veiled threats of fisticuffs (Mailer v. Simon) and letters of complaint--what Paul Fussell referred to as the ABM, the Author's Big Mistake.

As mentioned in the article, there was a big one in the US (it went to the Supreme Court!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Moldea

I mean the Wikipedia article says that the superior court changed their mind and declared it to not be libel (and the Supreme Court said "Yeah they can do that."), so the precedent is still that it's pretty hard to (successfully) sue someone for libel.

In the US, it's mostly limited to knowingly publishing errors of fact with the bar even being higher if the subject is a public figure. But, yes, as I understand it, libel is quite difficult to get a judgement against in the US.

THE GENTLE ART

MAKING ENEMIES

AS PLEASINGLY EXEMPLIFIED IN MANY INSTANCES, WHEREIN THE SERIOUS ONES OF THIS EARTH, CAREFULLY EXASPERATED, HAVE BEEN PRETTILY SPURRED ON TO UNSEEMLINESS AND INDISCRETION, WHILE OVERCOME BY AN UNDUE SENSE OF RIGHT

Obligatory

https://archive.ph/rHrK9

Reply on news.ycombinator.com