🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:25:11 GMT, alchemy@interlog.com (Morton M.
Goldmacher) wrote:

>If Mark Prince is in any way liable for the words he publishes about
>Future Shop, it is not out of the law of defamation or libel.  The law
>of defamation permits persons to be compensated for injury to their
>reputation.  I have been unable to find a case in which a corporate
>plaintiff has been able to advance a defamation suit, and it is my
>belief at this time that relief is unavailable to the Future Shop
>under the law of libel.
>
>Althouth there may be other legal frameworks for action against Mr.
>Prince, (torts such as intentionaly interfering with a contractual
>relationship), defamation is inappropriate.

I too think Future Shop has been blowing a lot of hot air, and playing
the bluff game.  I have two questions however: what is the difference
between libel and slander? is one printed, the other spoken? And, what
exactly is a "tort" (excuse my ignorance! :)

Here is their last letter to me, dated, appropriately, Friday the
13th:

>September 13, 1996
>
>Dear Mr. Prince:
>
>We are in receipt of your e-mail messages of September 9th.
>
>In the second e-mail message you have asked us to tell you which stories we
>consider untrue and have offered to follow up with the original authors of
>those stories and if they are not able to back up their claims remove the
>said stories from the web site.  This proposal is completely unacceptable to
>the Future Shop. Once a false and defamatory story is posted the damage is
>done. It is your responsibility and the legal onus is on you to check the
>stories you are publishing and make sure that they are true before you post
>them on your web site. In addition your previous correspondence clearly
>evidences the fact that you are maliciously trying to damage the Future Shop
>and are obviously not an impartial person for the verification of the stories.
>
>Your revised disclaimer in which you note that "any of the stories at this
>web site that are proven false by Future Shop will be removed", is a feeble
>attempt to avoid defamation proceedings.  As pointed out above the onus is
>on you, as publisher, to ensure that all statements you publish are true
>before publishing them.
>
>With respect to your assertion that "fair criticism is a right in this
>country" we would like to point out that this defense is not available to
>you. Fair comment must be based on facts that are true which is not the case
>with your web site and in any case can be defeated where malice is involved.
>
>Your assertion that you are entitled in law to use someone else's registered
>trade mark by ackowledging it's owner is simply wrong. Specifically, your
>web site is clearly intended to depreciate the goodwill associated with our
>trade mark. We demand that you cease and desist use of our trade mark or any
>similar mark.
>
>We are proud of our company and our staff and won't stand by idly watching
>them being maligned. We believe that this isn't just about the Future Shop
>and a much bigger issue is involved.  The unfettered democracy of the net
>carries responsibility too. Otherwise everyone is vulnerable. We believe
>your actions are malicious, defamatory and illegal and should be stopped. We
>demand that you immediately delete your web site referring to the Future
>Shop and hereby put you on notice that we intend to exercise all remedies
>available to us to respond to your actions.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>Eric Ommundsen
>Public Relations Coordinator
>Future Shop

If anyone feels the need to express their opinions to Mr. Ommundsen
personally, his e-mail address is: fsfyi@direct.ca

Mark
______________________________________________________________
Mark Prince		mprince@jumppoint.com	     

Visit my web page at 	http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1301
or the FutileShop page	http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2702