Blogger Sued For His Negative Blog Post Review
Now I have heard of everything. A blogger, who happens to be a biologist and an associate professor with the University of Minnesota, is being sued for his negative review of two versions of a book. Titled, LifeCode: The Theory of Biological Self Organization, the book was written by a Stuart Pivar.
I can’t find much information about Mr. Pivar online, but according to a pair of book reviews on Amazon he doesn’t hold a doctorate in science, although Pivar claims to have a science background (again, as noted by information supplied by Amazon).
According to an article written by Mark Frauenfelder and posted to Boing Boing (a site he co-founded), Dr. Paul Z. Myers (who also calls himself a godless liberal) is being sued because he posted these reviews to his blog.
My thinking is that this suit will be seen for the nuisance that it is and tossed before it goes to trial. Still, Dr. Myers and the Seed Media Group (the science company hosting his blog) will have to retain the services of an attorney to make this case go away. Attorney fees are never cheap, therefore making it go away will take some time and money.
My gut reaction when I read about the suit was this: if I were to write a negative review about a product, service, or person, would someone want to drag me into court too? I would hope not, but based on this lawsuit we do know that it can happen.
Matt | General Entries, Tech News
I don’t think anyone would ever sue me, because I don’t have deep enough pockets.
But this story reminds me of how often I am amazed at the way some “writers” respond to edits. At one time, I was listed as a freelance editor on the Web site of one of the “self-publishing” (vanity) publishers. I thought it might help writers who chose to publish this way to have their work edited.
However, I never got any business from it, because every writer who contacted me through that site thought their words were perfect already. I always give a free sample edit to be sure the writer likes what I do and to give me an idea of how much work will be involved. None of these writers liked my edits, though I have seldom have disagreements with my clients who are serious about producing quality work.
Not the same thing as someone suing for a bad review, but another example of how some people can’t take criticism and blame the critic.
Whenever anyone contacts me for editing work, I always tell them I’m going to be brutal, and if they aren’t prepared for that, I’m not the editor for them. I’m not really brutal, but I do give honest feedback.
I haven’t read the review, so I don’t know if it was brutal or simply constructively critical. In either case, though, the writer has no cause to sue just because he didn’t like what the reviewer said.
Isn’t it amazing, Lillie? Somebody wants to use your services, but then they object to any constructive criticism that you may have. I know that whenever I submit something that is open to editorial scrutiny, I am subjecting myself to their expertise.
The reviews by the associate professor were candid and blunt. Apparently, Mr. Pivar made some claims that had no scientific basis and weren’t put through peer review.
I think this case will be tossed quickly, but it does show bloggers that they aren’t exempt from legal action.
I would think that a review would fall under the category of opinion and therefore be protected under free speech.
I suppose that if the review contained false information about the author it could be consider libelous, but otherwise I don’t see any merit in this case.
Laura, I agree. The review wasn’t libelous, just truthful and probably hurtful.
I see the case drying up fast, but it is interesting to learn about.
Come back tomorrow and you can read my negative review of Helium!