Negative reviews on Yelp, Angie’s List allowed to stand - wardsleve2000

The Superior Court of Virginia has vacated a preliminary injunction against reviews posted by a woman on Yelp and Angie's List, in an effect that is beingness described by civil rights groups as a victory for freedom of online speech.

In a go over prayer against the injunction filed by civil rights groups on behalf of Jane Perez, information technology was expressed that the Fairfax County Circuit Court had erred by issuing a overture injunction without determination that her "speech was false, that errors were negligent, or that the enjoined words alone cause irreparable injury."

Perez had an allegedly bad experience with Dietz Evolution, which she hired to repair her townhouse, and posted connected Yelp and Angie's List accounts of her experience including the allegement that her jewelry went absent when "Dietz was the only unmatchable with a key" to the house, according to a filing before the Supreme Woo.

Christopher Dietz, proprietor of the solid, sued Perez in October for defamation, stating that He had done totally the work that was required, and should atomic number 4 paid, and denied having stolen Perez's jewelry, according to the filing. Dietz also asked the court for an injunction connected Perez's online statements critical of his work.

The judge ordered Perez to transfer parts of a unfavorable review she made about Dietz. She also was locked from repetition those claims in other reviews, accordant to a statement Midweek by Public Citizen, which, together with the American Civil Liberties Union, appealed the conclusion by the Fairfax County judge.

Public Citizen said it argued that the contractor could convey damages if, later a full tribulation, a panel agrees that Perez made false claims about him that meet the accepted for libel. Because such a process has not occurred, forcing Perez to hit her comments amounted to censoring, it added.

The Supreme Court of Virginia consistent that the injunction is vacated as the Circuit Court order did not dictate the time during which the injunction would be effective, according to a written document on the Public Citizen website. The Margaret Court also saved that the preliminary injunction was not justified, and that the respondents have an adequate remedy at jurisprudence.

"The determination confirms the importance of non closing down ventilation on the Internet just because soul doesn't like what's being talked about," Paul Alan Levy en masse, an attorney for Public Citizen, aforesaid in a statement.

Dietz's attorney, Milt Johns, aforesaid via email that the "case wish retain forth for programing of a jury trial connected damages."

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and miscellaneous applied science break intelligence from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's netmail address is john_ribeiro@idg.com