How surprizing! 😁
But the courts are the playthings of the rich who can use the process to delay, harass and intimidate people.
Thin Line Between Critique and Courtrooms: A Dialogue on the Recent Audiophile Drama
Hey Audiogonians,
In the vast, vibrant universe of audio reviews, where the line between subjective opinion and objective analysis often blurs, a new saga unfolds. It involves a Youtuber, well-known within our community for their take on speaker designs – designs that, while innovative, haven't shied away from criticism. The plot thickens with another Youtuber's revelation: the speaker's designer and manufacturer has filed a lawsuit against a reviewer over their less-than-glowing feedback.
The core of the debate? Whether it's acceptable to push back against reviewers when their findings diverge from what manufacturers desire. It's not a new drama; history is littered with tales of reviewers facing legal threats for daring to express their truth. Yet, each story brings a fresh perspective on the delicate dance between free speech and brand reputation.
This particular episode raises several intriguing questions:
- Where do we draw the line between constructive criticism and damaging feedback?
- Is the courtroom really the arena for settling disputes over reviews, or should dialogue prevail?
- And crucially, what does this mean for the future of honest, independent audio reviews?
This isn't just about the nitty-gritty of legal battles, many of which remain cloaked in confidentiality and technical jargon. It's about the principle: the right to voice one's opinion in a space that thrives on diversity of thought.
So, fellow audiophiles, what's your take? Have you ever felt swayed by a review, only to discover a different truth upon listening? Have you faced the ire of those who didn't appreciate your candid feedback?
📢Let's make this a discussion to remember – not just for the controversy, but for the unity and respect we can foster, even in disagreement.
- ...
- 266 posts total
@dz13 I didn't know about the judges' hands on or hands off point, thanks for your insight! I guess in dictatorships the rich buy the judge and the system, in democracies they buy the lawyers who figure out how to play the system (like the guy going to court in NYC tomorrow) |
@hartf36 Not to be picky but neither of those points apply. Malice or its absence is only involved in a defamation case if there is a public official or a public figure suing a news media outlet. I doubt that Erik from Tekton fits either category and Erin certainly isn't a news media outlet. This standard came from a US Supreme Court case NY Times v. Sullivan in 1964. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/actual-malice/ The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." While there is some interplay with the 1st Amendment (See NY Times v. Sullivan) involving the right of the press and rights to comment on public officials and public figures, defamation is a common law tort which is law created by the courts to redress injuries between individuals. The extended 1st Amendment rights involved in the Sullivan case do not pertain to the private individual. |
| Post removed |
- 266 posts total