Putting Reviews of Charities Online
My question involves defamation in the state of: Arizona
I am considering making a website that reviews specific local 501(3)(c) charities, one of which I worked for previously.
I believe I understand the whole fact vs lie aspect of libel; with the exception of conversations.
I was either involved in, or witnessed conversations between members of the board and management where they openly discussed theft, dismissed reasonable employee safety concerns, and planned to mislead the public to raise funds.
1) If I have no actual proof (recordings, notes or statements) besides my witnessing or participating in the discussions - can i write about it as something i witnessed?. Or do I risk libel?
1a) If someone else posted on a local newspaper's comment section about something that they had had 'allegedly' stolen by the charity (and later returned under direction of local law enforcement), could that posting be used as evidence of prior wrongdoing? Or is it considered hearsay?
2) If someone else who worked there as well, has sent me emails with things they've witnessed - would those be considered 'facts' or opinion?
2a) For something like that, would I be better off having a comment section where others could post their 'opinions' or experiences?
2b) If someone who still works at that place or other prior workers want their information shared, can they do so anonymously within the reviews, or would it would the better option be again to use a comment section?
At one point, employee safety and purchasing radios was discussed. Initially, the chair of the board said she never feared for her safety in the administrative section of the facility (not the actual hands-on arguably dangerous section) so she didn't understand the employee concerns. After pushing the issue the Board agreed to buy the radios. A month later, I was told by the Chair, that she had been pricing them. Seven months now and despite continued requests from staff, there are no radios.
3) Would it be libel to say that "the Board is not concerned with employee safety?" (I do have emails asking for the radios, and just walking into the place you can see that there are no radios).
3a) Or would it be better to just point out in the review "that unlike some other facilities, this certain facility does not have radios." (and ignore the whole it's been brought up and ignored aspect)
The purpose behind wanting to review these [specific] charities is that they ask for funding for a noble pursuit and then (at least in the instances I've witnessed) use it to hide questionable and criminal actions; whereas other similar charities could use donations and support to a better degree. I truly wish and desire my former employer to do well; but the negligence and criminal behaviors were not stopped even when I brought it to their attention. My hope would be that donors and volunteers could pressure the board into doing the right thing when I couldn't.
And there is a slew of former employees that are looking for a place to voice their concerns and issue about negligence and abuse and such at this facility and I would highly suspect at other similar facilities. I have done some research before coming to this site, and I believe (perhaps wrongly) that if I made a forum where others could start threads to openly discuss these places that I would not be liable for comments that others made within these forums (even if it linked to my 'review site')
Thank you for your time in answering these questions.
Re: Putting Reviews of Charities Online
If you are worried that your posts about an ex-employer may get you sued, discretion is the better part of valor. If you feel you must post, consult a lawyer. We can give you information about what defamation is, but we can't green light your plan.
Re: Putting Reviews of Charities Online
Quote:
I was either involved in, or witnessed conversations between members of the board and management where they openly discussed theft, dismissed reasonable employee safety concerns, and planned to mislead the public to raise funds.
1) If I have no actual proof (recordings, notes or statements) besides my witnessing or participating in the discussions - can i write about it as something i witnessed?. Or do I risk libel?
you risk being sued, if it is the desire of the charity. Defending the suit itself can be prohibitively expensive for an average person even if you win.
to your situation above: it would be your word against the others present. How many on their side compared to the one on your side?
Re: Putting Reviews of Charities Online
And if you plan to insinuate individuals or entities in criminal activity, there had better be at LEAST an open investigation - because those types of accusations are the ones that will land you in court. Should that happen, and you've NOT at least notified law enforcement of potential criminal activity, the defendant's attorney will sweep the floor with you (the exact phrase will sound something like this: "so, Citizen X, you had all this knowledge about potential criminal activity afoot....and exactly what did you do about it?"
Re: Putting Reviews of Charities Online
jk, I was the only one on my side to witness the discussions about theft (against their three, one of whom has since quit the board out of disgust). But at one point after they committed their theft and I'd left for the day, the manager called all other employees into the office to say, "we stole this thing, and you all have to lie about it now" (obviously the manager could have said nothing, but for whatever reason she told another 6 employees about it demanding their silence). All of those people have since quit or been fired.
Re: Putting Reviews of Charities Online
what I am saying is: you don't have anything to support your statement. When it comes to libel, they would not have to prove your claim is wrong, only claim that you are lying. You then will be required to prove your claims is the truth. As it stands, you have no proof. You will lose.
Re: Putting Reviews of Charities Online
I didn't say anything about the criminal things they were doing at the time because besides threatening employees about their jobs (again nothing formally written, just said or inferred); there was also a great concern that anything made public would destroy the organization and lead to things that make a bow and wow noise to be put down (i think you could guess what type of charity i'm talking about, as well as to what the theft might have involved, but as i don't want a search to find this i won't say more.)
That all said; if I skip the criminal stuff, and just make a forum for others to post their complaints or concerns or issues; do i still risk a suit?
& if you could humor one more question . . .
If I was to still do the review site, and either verbally ask or emailed questions to those groups being reviewed, including rather pointed questions such as 'have you ever brought in (one of the things you deal with) that wasn't yours?', would allowing them to see and answer my questions ala an interview format; lessen my chances of a lawsuit?
thank you for your advice, time and knowledge.
Re: Putting Reviews of Charities Online
Quote:
do i still risk a suit?
You risk a suit doing just about anything in todays world. Whether they would initiate a suit is more the question. As stated previously, defending a suit can be just as devastating to a person without the financial means as losing one.
The fact is; it isn't if what you are doing is actually wrong or not. It is if the other party is willing to take an action that would force you to spend a considerable amount of money to respond to it.
That would be called a SLAPP suit in many states.
Quote:
A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition
In such a suit, there never really is any intent to win. Forcing the person to spend money to defend themselves is often enough to obtain the desired result.
Re: Putting Reviews of Charities Online
OK, I completely understand and accept that anyone can sue anyone and there are no guarantees for anything; I have a different question within this line.
If I were to either send an email or do face to face interviews telling the managers or owners of these facilities that I was doing a review of their facilities for my website; and if they answered my questions -
1) Would they have given up their ability to sue if I reprint questions and answers verbatim (from a recording of the interview - or the email responses)?
2) Do I need to get them to agree to the interview with a question similar to "are you willing to answer some questions for my website?"
2a) Or would simply responding to questions via email or verbally after my stating my intentions be enough?
3) If they refused to be interviewed, I'm assuming that I couldn't (or shouldn't) post the questions I had intended to ask - and just post that 'they refused an interview with me.'
4) If they agree to the interview, can they 'take back' the agreement after it has begun?
4a) Or would just everything after that 'take back' point be no longer consensual?
4b) but allowing the question that caused the 'take back'?
All other things mentioned in my reviews that weren't discussed, would be factual things - easily proven and for those of a temporary basis pictures would be taken; or opinion in comparison to other such properties.
I'm not disagreeing with any of your advice, and I'm a whole lot less interested in pursuing many of my previous ideas; but i still think the idea has merit; so I'm trying to see if there is a better way to approach it. So that's why I'm asking if their agreeing to be interviewed, knowing that it is for a website (publication) reviewing their business, would waive their ability to sue.
5) and finally as it hadn't been answered above, does section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protect me personally from being sued due to comments that others make in comment sections or forums about the facilities I review?
thanks again for your time.
Re: Putting Reviews of Charities Online
You can do anything you want.
If you do interviews and/or allow the non-profit to respond to allegations, you have a much better chance of winning a civil action. That is not to say you will spend every cent you have in court to win.
You can form a corporation and be personally protected against liability. Of course, you can't represent the corporation in court, so any appearance in court will require hiring an attorney. Or do it as an individual and put everything you have now or will have for the next twenty years or so at risk.
Many non-profit organizations have an attorney on their board of directors or otherwise are in a position to get free or discounted legal help. They can sue and eat up your time and money until you scream uncle.
Now, tell us. What is the upside of this website? How much money do you think it will make? See how many hours at about $250 hr. of legal work that will pay for. I have seen cases that never even involve a court appearance (in US District Court) run up $65,000 attorney bills just for paperwork back and forth.
Doing it for fun? Oh yea, you will have lots of fun!