A New Way to Say You Suck

Via Dan McQuade at Philadelphia Will Do, comes the story of a man after my own heart (I guess I missed the story in the Inquirer between all the ads). McQuade explains the story:

When I was in high school, I used to drive by this couple almost every day that would stand out front of a store with sandwichboards on, urging people not to shop there. "Refund my $500, Andalusia Television," the one sign said (something like that, at least). "Don't shop at Andalusia TV," read the other. I can only assume that, unless Andalusia TV refunded their $500, the old couple is still there, still asking for $500, still urging people not to get their TVs repaired -- if people still do, indeed, get their televisions repaired -- at Andalusia TV.

Point is, people go a little over-the-top when they think somebody cheated them out of money. Such is the case with Jim Broomell, who hates Cherry Hill Dodge so much he's affixed magnetic signs on his truck saying "Cherry Hill Dodge Sucks." He even has a website dedicated to hating Cherry Hill Dodge, available at the easy-to-remember URL cherryhilltriplexscrewedmesuedmeandlost.com.

And, indeed, Cherry Hill Dodge -- aka Cherry Hill Triplex -- did sue Jim Broomell for putting those signs on the side of his truck, and did indeed lose after the lawsuit was thrown out on a technicality.

This is definitely something I've thought about doing several times, when I've felt that I've been taken advantage of by a company -- especially when they disclaim any responsibility for their mistake. It's not so much the original error, but the attitude problem that too often follows a complaint. Makes you wanna holler -- and then get revenge. Sounds like this guy did both! It's nice to know that there's someone will do it for all of us wimps who grouse about it, but then do nothing.

The story as told in the Inquirer gives it a slightly different slant. In its piece, The Internet as battleground of free speech, the paper focuses on the boundaries of free expression with this type of "speech:"

Still, the case raises this question: When does an expression of consumer dissatisfaction cross the line, particularly on the Internet, where the venues for venting are limitless?

Harold Pohlman, the director of the Law and Public Service Program at Dickinson College, said speech - even hate speech - is protected "until you get into intimidation."

"I would be shocked if a simple assertion of 'I want to hurt your business' would be dispositive... especially if the signs asserted a simple expression of opinion," he said.

Sheldon H. Nahmod, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, agreed that negative opinions of businesses are free speech, but said lawsuits "are going to happen more and more because of the Internet."

"This is not a new issue," he said. As to "what makes it different... look at the kind of communication involved."

I'm certainly not a 1st Amendment lawyer, but I'd be very surprised if this type of expression were not permitted. Seems to me saying that a business "sucks" is the essence of opinion, which is (or has been, up to now) protected speech. As the Judge in the case put it:

Although Snyder threw the case out, he did address the dealership's request for an injunction to stop Broomell from using his e-mail addresses.

"The Constitution protects this type of language," he said. "The fact that speech could result in economic harm isn't enough to override the burden."

Of course, that's not to say that a big company won't try to take action against an individual to intimidate or bully the individual, in hopes of making the person back down, as happened here.

Gee, rather than just moving our accounts, maybe I should create a site for that local Bank that screwed up the deposits for our business account & then tried to say it wasn't their fault . . .

Tags: News, Philly