This is \u201cwatered-down legalese that means nothing,\u201d said Andy Sellars, a fellow at Harvard Law School\u2019s Cyberlaw Clinic, calling it a free speech issue. Defamation \u2014 which comprises a false statement of fact, made knowingly, that can be proven to cause harm \u2014 is already a civil wrong, thus rendering the clause in Grill 225\u2019s policy unnecessary and \u201cprofoundly stupid,\u201d he said.\u201cIf I said the service was terrible \u2014 \u2018terrible\u2019 is an opinion, you can\u2019t sue someone for that,\u201d he said, noting that a quick scan of Grill 225\u2019s Yelp reviews show them to be quite opinion-laden. \u201cVery few reviews would actually be defamation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Source: Could a negative Yelp review lead to a lawsuit? – The Boston Globe<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is \u201cwatered-down legalese that means nothing,\u201d said Andy Sellars, a fellow at Harvard Law School\u2019s Cyberlaw Clinic, calling it a free speech issue. Defamation \u2014 which comprises a false statement of fact, made knowingly, that can be proven to … Continue reading