DCS Sending Legal Notice To Reviewer (Golden Sound) Over an Old Review of Their Bartok DAC

jastralfu

The First Amendment has no bearing here as this issue is between two private parties.

The First Amendment is very much at issue here, and can certainly be invoked in cases of libel or slander. That is, what I publish is protected by the First Amendment notwithstanding your private (non-governmental) objections. Of course, the First Amendment is not an absolute shield against a claim of libel, but it’s a big hurdle to overcome.

audio_phool

Cleeds you are not talking about anyone outside US, what’s your solution there?

I understand you’re concerned with what could transpire in Hong Kong but that isn’t really a concern of mine. I’m ok with leaving that for you to resolve.

jastralfu

This amendment applies only to government restrictions on speech, specifically Congress shall make no law infringing it.

There is much, much more to the First Amendment than that. It actually has five major pillars.

Step a)

Don’t buy dCS junk.

Step b)

Might as well put that doughboy Goldensound (low IQ) on ignore too.

audio_phool

dCS MD David Steven has responded on the dCS forum. Here is the link.
https://dcs.community/t/a-response-to-recent-claims-regarding-dcs/6722

Thanks for sharing, @audio_phool. As a matter of public relations, this looks like one of "shared blame" and that the goldensound and headphone.com people are milking it for all of the drama and excitement that they can. After all, it's good for clicks.

@cleeds 

There is much, much more to the First Amendment than that. It actually has five major pillars.

 True, my comment was worded poorly, but the point is that it only applies to government restrictions not private parties.  And in this case we’re specifically talking about speech not religion, the press, assembly or redress of grievances.

jastralfu

... the point is that it only applies to government restrictions not private parties ...

That is simply not true. The government cannot make any law that impinges on freedom of speech. For example, it can’t pass a law that says you can’t criticize Audiogon. That would be restricting your First Amendment rights.

(Strictly speaking, the government could pass a law saying you can’t criticize Audiogon. But such a law would be unconstitutional and would not withstand scrutiny in the courts.)

And in this case we’re specifically talking about speech not religion, the press, assembly or redress of grievances.

A YouTuber opining on the Internet is, functionally, the press. He’s protected under the First Amendment. But even if it were your post - a random, one-time post - you’d still be protected.

Of course this doesn't apply outside the US. As Americans, the First Amendment is a precious gift.