J. L. Kirk Associates: Not a Better Business
by tdaxp ~ April 12th, 2007
Katherine Coble is, by all accounts, amazing. She’s a liberterian fan of Kurt Vonnegut and a LOST aficionado. She’s also being bulled by J. L. Kirk Associates for, among other things, say:
That the amount [she was] asked to pay “neatly” coincided with [her] tax refund “which is a matter of public record.”
(Apparently, “neatly” will join “paddy o’doggun” as a word one just cannot say anymore.)
JL Kirk Associates
The threatened lawsuit (warning: pdf) has attracted widespread attention, including thoughts by Curtis Gale Weeks. The kirking also ties into an article written by Dr. Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee College of Law. And the Jim River Report has featured the story on its front page (all day!).
More substantively, J.L. Kirk & Associates‘ actions, as documented by the Better Business Bureau, have been brought to light:
This company has a pattern [more than 2 complaints involving the same allegations usually within 12 months that are significant in relation to the company's size and volume of business] of complaint. Complaints allege the company offers career advancement services including marketing/resume writing, training for improved interview & negotiation skills, job leads/interviews and on-going support once a career has been obtained. Consumers state once they complete the marketing/resume writing and training for improved interview and negotiation skills, the company fails to follow up and provide assistance with job leads, interviews are not scheduled and careers are not obtained. All complainants request a refund to resolve the issues.
Is there a moral here? Yes. Don’t kirk yourself. Don’t SLAPP.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
It would appear that, of 20 complaints in the last 36, all were resolved but two. 5 were resolved to the consumer's satisfaction; 1 was resolved through mediation by the BBB; and of the other complaints, the consumer either lost interest and never responded to the BBB and attempts by JLK or else ***the BBB determined that JLK made reasonable attempts*** to resolve the issue but those attempts were not accepted by the consumer.
The BBB is essentially a 4GW apparatus, through which threats of character/reputation sabotage can be made by consumers in an effort to get what they want out of companies. It's similar to the threat letters issued by lawyers for clients: get 'em to give in rather than having to go to court. Anyone can submit a complaint to the BBB, for any reason whatsoever, and I suppose a more focused 4GW/5GW style of attack would be (1) get a core group to enter into some contract with a company or visit that company over a 2-year period, (2) have them file spurious complaints shortly after their interaction with the company, with exaggerations, and refuse any sort of offered resolution, (3) visit the company yourself, then write a blog post attacking it, (4) hope the company actually tries to defend itself from the public smear campaign, thus “Kirking” itself. Not that this is what happened in this case; but for future consideration of 4GW/5GW maneuvers.
Mob justice may be 4GWish, which is what the particular segment of the self-righteous Blogosphere swarming the controversy is trying to protect: i.e., the 4GWish environment within which they can move with impunity and attack whomever they like. The freedom most sought is not free speech but freedom from responsibility. Myself, I would rather they sought the freedom to be responsible; “freedom from responsibility” is another way of putting “freedom to be enslaved” and would destroy America if carried to its furthest point.
If you are going to give carte blanche to the anonymous (to us) BBB complainers, you might as well give carte blanche to those listed on the testimonial page of JLK's website; and, to every blogger who writes a sentence; and every journalist who tries 4GW smear campaigns under the umbrella of “journalism”, etc., and hope for a joyous future under mob rule rather than the rule of law.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“The freedom most sought is not free speech but freedom from responsibility”
Why is it not free speech?
To me, this quote sounds like something Jessee Jackson might say: “Hurtful speech is not free speech.”
Of course it is. That's exactly the sort of speech that is protected.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“Hurtful speech is not free speech.”
Dan, I'm afraid you're confusing the objective and subjective, the hurting of feelings and sensibilities with the economic and material “hurting” that can come from speech acts. Or, do you want to throw out libel, slander, and perjury from the judicial lexicon — say, e.g., a woman (or a man, for that matter) could accuse lacrosse players of rape, and it's her right of free speech to do so?
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
So how does your standard allow any negative reviews or opinions at all to be published, if such negative impression may harm someone's business or trade?
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I will answer your question if you'll answer mine.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Tough, but fair.
“do you want to throw out libel, slander, and perjury from the judicial lexicon — say, e.g., a woman (or a man, for that matter) could accuse lacrosse players of rape, and it's her right of free speech to do so?”
This is two questions.
One is whether it should be legal for someone to knowingly & maliciously spread untruths. Of course not.
But that category is small because of a similar question: whether it should be legal to accuse someone of bad deeds? The answer of course is yes. For instance, when my accusations of Sally Henderson [1] and Elisabet Sunde [2] as sexual predators is protected speech.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/09/30/sexual-predator-faces-prison.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/03/04/elisabet-sunde-slut-bitch-criminal-contact-information.html
April 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“So how does your standard allow any negative reviews or opinions at all to be published, if such negative impression may harm someone's business or trade?”
Dan, the difference lies in whether the accusations about a person or business or product can or cannot be proven or disproved, whether said accusations are verifiable, etc. For instance, I recently wrote in a support forum “I hate IE! (pre-7.0; haven't checked out 7.0)” (a paraphrase) and I've often criticized Internet Explorer for not being standards-compliant
1) My “hate” is not something that can be proven or disproved by evidence, is not verifiable, because my declaration of hate is a self-made analysis of my feelings, and complex feelings cannot be checked by someone outside my body/mind.
2) The fact that IE pre-7.0 is not fully standards-compliant is something that can be proven or disproved. The standards referenced can be pulled up on a browser, IE's performance in handling rendering of web pages can be analyzed, etc. (Not to mention, on their page for IE 7.0, Microsoft announces that they have paid close attention to the requests from users that IE be made more standards-compliant!)
Similarly, reviewing a movie or a restaurant will often involve matters of taste (things which cannot be proven nor disproved) as well as objective and verifiable statements. Legally, you are able to include in your review both kinds of statement; however — importantly — your target, the subject of the review, also has a right to contest it, regardless of whether the review is entirely subjective or makes statements that can in fact be verified or disproved. In the case of contesting a review that is nothing more than subjective reporting, the company will lose the case; but this does not mean that company does not have the right to take the reviewer to court. In the case of contesting verifiable statements, the company may or may not win the case.
The blog storm only hit the fan when JLK asserted its right to sue Coble — a right that the Blogosphere, it would seem, would take away from JLK and every other corporation. I.e., unless pre-approved by bloggers, any company's attempt to defend itself will be met with a swarm of lies, distortions, and plain meanness, perhaps with some truth thrown in for good measure, which may have more negative consequences than merely losing a court case or letting one person's review — nevermind its factuality or style of review, because these don't matter much in such situations — stand.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
So would you prefer a standard, similar to Canada or Britain, where a reviewer would have to be able to prove any negative allegations he makes? Or would you prefer that the object of the negative review would have to demonstrate that the claim is false?
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
I've been pondering the difference between the two approaches; but I'm not ready to answer that, mostly because I don't like the dichotomous thinking! I am working toward a better formulation, in my own thinking, concerning the two approaches. Mostly, I do not think that the laws should be written on the basis of who must do what, but on what is done and how it is done regardless of whether one is the defender or the plaintiff.
Actually, if I were to advocate a change, I'd make attaining legal representation much easier, cheaper, etc., without diminishing the standards for passing the bar — I.e., the threat of a lawsuit would not bear so much “fear factor” vis-a-vis financial burden, the relativity of attorney proficiency, etc. I'm not exactly sure how this might play out, however.
I also have in mind, btw, the fact that some smaller businesses are at a similar disadvantage against Internet Group Mind as individuals are against businesses of any particular size beyond the most tiny. I.e., mega-corporations may bind together in an effort to stop illegal downloading of media, for example, or even against a similar blogstorm concerning libel — if they chose — and may sue hundreds or thousands of individuals much more easily than a small business can defend itself against an internet group attack. Imagine being the proud owner of a new business with only a handful of employees whose ex-wife's friend of a friend initiated a smear campaign surreptitiously via the internet against your business.
The thing about Coble's post is that it's attacking a local business which requires a fairly local consumer base, on a website that is prominent in that locality (apparently…given how easily Coble's supporters got a one-sided television spot that never bothered to contact JLK or allow a public rebuttal…) Her one post may have had more effect against JLK than a single post might have against a Microsoft or Google or Ford Motor Company that operates globally.