dyc — Tue, 03 Aug 1999 01:42:00 +0000

All depends on what country you live in. The US is particularly bad for smaller people defending themselves; in Canada (where I live) and I believe the UK as well, it's standard practice to countersue for legal fees.

Jason Ellis — Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:48:00 +0000

To findwebspace and Digital Pimp:

There is one thing to remember in all this - it's not whether you win or lose the lawsuit, it's how much it costs to defend yourself. If someone came to you and said "remove that post or we'll sue you", and you can't afford that $10,000 to $50,000 it'll cost to defend yourself against a lawsuit (whether you win or lose, you still pay), then you'd likely remove that post, too.

Jason

Digital Pimp — Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:23:00 +0000

This discussion is ludicrus. Matt "a good man" with good intentions, should be shot for being so damn stupid. If someone is limiting your freedom to express free speech, and you do not stand up for yourself, you should be shot , hanged and mutilated. There is not a court, in this country that would consider one or more peoples opinions posted in a public forum to be slanderous. Any man who forfits his rights, and in turn forces others to forfit theirs, does not deserve to live. This is the becommings of another Hitler. Who shalt be the judge of any other man's opinions? Does this make you God? Maybe in your limited world. But remember, your unwillingness to stand up for your rights affects everyone, and adds to the apathy of this world as a whole.
yours truely,
Digital Pimp , (the devils advocate)

findwebspace — Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:46:00 +0000

Just my two cents worth. I was talking to my lawyer about this and he said that if you do not write the information, then you cannot be sued. CI can only go after the person who composed those comments.

You don't see many large websites with forums deleting threads. That would be censorship in a way.

Just my two cents,

Mike Palmer

ventrue21 — Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:42:00 +0000

I wish to make a claim here that Matt is a good man. I also can say that CI Host does threaten with a lawyer all the time. I myself being one of them, in fact Chris emailed me just a few days ago and told me not to tell anyone he acts this way. I only speak the truth and the truth here is Matt wishes to not clash heads with Chris at Cihost. Please do not take this as a crooked man:-)

I can also say that other forums also delete post without due cause but I will not name any names. I am just saying that Matt is not the only one to delete post:-)

----------
Winweb.pcisd.com, The first Non Web-based control panel

hostfinder — Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:12:00 +0000

Hi,

I started a hosting search engine myself because I had a few bad experience myself with hosting company's.

That's why I will never delete bad review's from any host.
I hope my site can help some people looking for a good host.

Marcel.
http://www.hostfinder.net

JP Stones — Tue, 13 Jul 1999 03:42:00 +0000

NB: I asked Matt to check this post out in case he did not come across it himself.

However I do think that this comment in bordering on ridiculous (sorry Matt):
<Perhaps you can't find any negative comments about companies that advertise with us because they are so good>
ALL companies, even the best make mistakes and this in turn upsets certain clients. This is unavoidable - and this is why I never pay to much heed to vicious host reviews.
Saying that all the reviews on your site are good because the hosts are so good is simply not true in my opinion, though I would welcome any contradictory comments
JP

----------
The Webmaster Promotion and Resource Center.
http://www.what-next.com

hostinvestigator — Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:51:00 +0000

First off CIHOST is not an advertiser with Host Investigator, hence you may ask why we removed the messages, the reason is that CIHOST considered them slanderous and ordered us to remove them, or face the possibility of legal action.

Perhaps you can't find any negative comments about companies that advertise with us because they are so good, we wouldn't advertise a company that did perform to expectations.

----------
Matt Freeman
http://www.hostinvestigator.com

CWebNetCo — Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:29:00 +0000

When I was surfing the internet and somehow I saw this site was similair design to old CI Host website that they used have while months ago. The URL is at:

http://www.earth4free.com/english/hosting.html

I was surprised CI Host didn't see about this, that is a bad move for them to take advtanges about it. Sorry if I bring this up but that is a copyright problem over there.

----------
Carolina Web Net
www.carolinaweb.net

elvii — Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:35:00 +0000

Advertising by CI Host: I guess not, then. They do advertise on many hosting websites, and that bookmarked URL seemed to point to you - I was confused. Sorry.

Still, the reason I posted this in the first place - deletion of posts - still stands. I honestly don't know whether deletion of posts, by advertisers or not, is a common occurence. I don't read that forum very regularly, I just know that the one post I have ever made there was deleted. My main point still stands: a hosting directory cannot claim to be impartial if it deletes negative comments at the request of the person the comments were directed to.

CJ said that those who make negative comments are often angry because they misused the servers or violated the terms & conditions. This is perfectly true. This is still not a reasons to disallow all negative comments. I've seen some companies donate web space to people in return for good word-of-mouth. Does this mean we should disallow all positive comments, as they've been coerced?

I believe that you've never been paid by CI Host, and understand that the threat of a lawsuit can be a scary thing. (On a side note, a suit claiming slander on your part when you have simply provided a forum for someone else to share a true (to the best of your knowledge) personal experience has absolutely no merit -- in many countries, I believe, you could sue them for vexatious litigation). When you're one person being threatened by a company with deep pockets, it's not fun. Giving in to the requests is understandable. However, I disagree with both giving in to the threats AND calling yourself a "Host Investigator" while not letting your users know that posts are deleted.

I was (justifiably) angry when I posted this, and after hearing the facts here I realize that this particular site isn't deliberately trying to swindle anyone. That doesn't change the fact that users are being misled. In my opinion, a useful and honest resource should either allow all comments (suing you for those comments is much like suing AT&T or BT for paedophilia on Usenet, i.e. not going to happen) or let its users know that its site does not contain any negative comments.