Bart Lazar Quoted in Chicago Tribune

An article ("A whole lotta dissing going down on Web") in the March 12, 2006 issue of The Chicago Tribune notes that "blog sites provide anonymous posters the opportunity to cybersmear their targets, and there's little you can do about it." As the Internet has grown, so have Web sites that allow ordinary people to post all sorts of reviews and opinions about customers, bosses, businesses and so on. But a byproduct of this sort of democracy is the cybersmear, a critique run amok. It's a nasty opinion posted on the Internet that can sully the reputation of a business or individual, sometimes through outright fibs. By posting names provided by anonymous sources, Internet sites can take what is mostly a positive thing--venting and even ranting--and turn it into something malicious, say some Internet observers. Even if lies slip through the cracks of a review or rant site, the site's operator has a strong legal shield: the Communications Decency Act. It says that providers of an "interactive computer service" shall not be treated as publishers of information; therefore, they aren't held liable for objectionable material posted by their users. Thus, if a blogger personally publishes something defamatory on their Web site, they can be held liable. But if that information is posted on a message board or online forum, they can't.

The Decency Act is a defense being used by Rip-off Report, a consumer advocacy site sued for libel by Park Ridge management consulting firm George S. May International. In September 2004, May International sued Rip-off Report and Magedson in U.S. District Court in Chicago claiming the site posted several false accusations, including that the company and its executives engaged in fraud, larceny and possession of controlled substances and child pornography.

Bart Lazar, an attorney representing May, said the company believes the postings originated from a competing consulting firm. U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle issued a temporary restraining order forcing Rip-off Report to take down some of the May posts, saying they included "false or deceptively misleading" statements. Not satisfied with Rip-off Report's response, May asked Norgle to find the site in contempt of court for violating the restraining order. Norgle agreed. May International also is asking for monetary damages, claiming that it lost business due to the postings.