Playseum and religion?

[Anonymous]

To 14:49 - if the school says they canceled the trip (and thus financial harm to the Playseum) as a result of the DCUM post, then it doesn't matter what else is out there.

Legally, all the owner would have to show is that her business was harmed by a false rumor someone posted on the internet - the rumor being that she aggressively tried to push religion on her customers. Like if the school would say that people researched the website and complained because it looked like there was a religious bias, then she has no case. But if parents complained because of the false post on DCUM, that OP is up a creek.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 14:49 - if the school says they canceled the trip (and thus financial harm to the Playseum) as a result of the DCUM post, then it doesn't matter what else is out there.

Legally, all the owner would have to show is that her business was harmed by a false rumor someone posted on the internet - the rumor being that she aggressively tried to push religion on her customers. Like if the school would say that people researched the website and complained because it looked like there was a religious bias, then she has no case. But if parents complained because of the false post on DCUM, that OP is up a creek.

You say "all" as if it were simple. There are substantial practical hurdles: She would have to prove (1) a particular person posted the story, (2) the story was false, (3) *that particular story* -- and not the parents' general discomfort at the Christian references on the business's website, or their belief that school funds could be better spent -- was the motivating cause of the parents' objection, and (4) she lost business because of that (presumably one school trip's business at five bucks a head hardly covers the cost of consulting a competent lawyer). She would have to pay someone to prove that to a jury or judge.

Not one, but multiple, issues, and lots of assumptions. I would not guess that this would be an attractive case for most business lawyers, although it's always possible.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
But Jeff, doesn't she open the door to concerns about religion and the Playseum by posting all the stuff about God and how running the Playseum is part of her religious practice on the internet right on the website for the Playseum? The RIOT kids group she runs meets at the Playseum and it's an evangelical Christian group for teens. Do they only meet during hours the business isn't open to the public? I posted that I have been there several times and haven't heard anything untoward said to customers, but if that poster (who admittedly looks suspicous) claims that Gina had a conversation about Jesus with her, it's she said/she said, no?

I generally agree with everything you are saying. As I said in an earlier post, there are two issues: 1) whether the DCUM post was untruthful, and 2) whether that post cost the Playseum business. Given the circumstances of the post in question, I am leaning toward it being untruthful. However, as I said earlier, the second issue is still an open question. Would the school have cancelled its trip solely on the basis of what's on Playseum's website or was the reported proselytizing the difference maker? Reading over the various Playseum thread's, it appears that the website itself raises significant concern among many DCUM posters. In fact, the post discussing the conversation about Jesus probably wouldn't be believable were it not for Playseum's own website. I also would question the decision-making abilities of school administrators who would put such significance on a single anonymous post (assuming that's what they did, which is not confirmed).

But, regardless of the second issue, my concern is with the first. I cannot ignore the possibility of DCUM's anonymous posting privileges being abused to defame a business.

[Anonymous]

You say "all" as if it were simple. There are substantial practical hurdles: She would have to prove (1) a particular person posted the story, (2) the story was false, (3) *that particular story* -- and not the parents' general discomfort at the Christian references on the business's website, or their belief that school funds could be better spent -- was the motivating cause of the parents' objection, and (4) she lost business because of that (presumably one school trip's business at five bucks a head hardly covers the cost of consulting a competent lawyer). She would have to pay someone to prove that to a jury or judge.

Not one, but multiple, issues, and lots of assumptions. I would not guess that this would be an attractive case for most business lawyers, although it's always possible.

1. Is easy - Jeff can get it to at least the owner of the account.
2. The poster said it happened on a day the Playseum wasn't even open, so that is a pretty obvious lie.
3. The school would have to be willing to say in a court of law that they cancelled the trip because parents were worried about the venue BASED ON THAT RUMOR. Not based on their website. Based on that rumor as seen on DCUM.
4. If she can prove #3 she has already proved that she has realized financial harm. And she can sue the rumor monger for all associated fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You say "all" as if it were simple. There are substantial practical hurdles: She would have to prove (1) a particular person posted the story, (2) the story was false, (3) *that particular story* -- and not the parents' general discomfort at the Christian references on the business's website, or their belief that school funds could be better spent -- was the motivating cause of the parents' objection, and (4) she lost business because of that (presumably one school trip's business at five bucks a head hardly covers the cost of consulting a competent lawyer). She would have to pay someone to prove that to a jury or judge.

Not one, but multiple, issues, and lots of assumptions. I would not guess that this would be an attractive case for most business lawyers, although it's always possible.

1. Is easy - Jeff can get it to at least the owner of the account. Not as easy as you think. Jeff can provide the IP address, the poster could have been posting from a Wi-Fi hot spot or from some internet cafe.
2. The poster said it happened on a day the Playseum wasn't even open, so that is a pretty obvious lie. Assuming he or she is identified, they could always say that they made a mistake with the date.
3. The school would have to be willing to say in a court of law that they cancelled the trip because parents were worried about the venue BASED ON THAT RUMOR. Not based on their website. Based on that rumor as seen on DCUM. and based on this she would be entitled to recover what, $200 bucks.
4. If she can prove #3 she has already proved that she has realized financial harm. And she can sue the rumor monger for all associated fees.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But Jeff, doesn't she open the door to concerns about religion and the Playseum by posting all the stuff about God and how running the Playseum is part of her religious practice on the internet right on the website for the Playseum? The RIOT kids group she runs meets at the Playseum and it's an evangelical Christian group for teens. Do they only meet during hours the business isn't open to the public? I posted that I have been there several times and haven't heard anything untoward said to customers, but if that poster (who admittedly looks suspicous) claims that Gina had a conversation about Jesus with her, it's she said/she said, no?

I generally agree with everything you are saying. As I said in an earlier post, there are two issues: 1) whether the DCUM post was untruthful, and 2) whether that post cost the Playseum business. Given the circumstances of the post in question, I am leaning toward it being untruthful. However, as I said earlier, the second issue is still an open question. Would the school have cancelled its trip solely on the basis of what's on Playseum's website or was the reported proselytizing the difference maker? Reading over the various Playseum thread's, it appears that the website itself raises significant concern among many DCUM posters. In fact, the post discussing the conversation about Jesus probably wouldn't be believable were it not for Playseum's own website. I also would question the decision-making abilities of school administrators who would put such significance on a single anonymous post (assuming that's what they did, which is not confirmed).

But, regardless of the second issue, my concern is with the first. I cannot ignore the possibility of DCUM's anonymous posting privileges being abused to defame a business.

I'm the poster you were responding to, totally good points. But the Great Zucchini doesn't try to get a Post story written when a poster had an issue, he had defenders, and he defended himself in what was a very detailed, warm and sweet way, that made me like him more than ever. The Playseum case is so hard since it's literally held out as a mix of business and religion so she kind of can't have it both ways and claim it is totally secular. Tricky stuff.

[Anonymous]

new poster here and someone who has not seen the original playseum posts. This is interesting to me. There is a coffee shop on capitol hill that is owned by a church. All earnings go toward the church. While this is not a church / state issue, it is a sensitivity issue. I personally would not spend money there, because I know that my money is being used to proselytize a religion that i don't feel comfortable with. (specifically, i believe this organization tries to convert jews to christianity). Even though I myself am a christian, I don't like this or want to support it.

So, if a business owner posts on her own public website the fact that she is Christian, donating to Christian causes, and holds meetings of the Christian persuasion at her place of business, I'd think a responsible school district would most certainly need to cancel a field trip to that place. As a parent, I would be upset to know that my kids were being taken to a place that the school officials hadn't researched carefully enough to know that there is an obvious conflict. If there is grey area, the school district has to err on the side of caution and parents deserve the right to know what their field trip money is being spent on as well as what potential influences their kids will be exposed to in a school-sponsored environment.

[Anonymous]

1. Is easy - Jeff can get it to at least the owner of the account. Not as easy as you think. Jeff can provide the IP address, the poster could have been posting from a Wi-Fi hot spot or from some internet cafe. True, but you don't know if you don't look.
2. The poster said it happened on a day the Playseum wasn't even open, so that is a pretty obvious lie. Assuming he or she is identified, they could always say that they made a mistake with the date. I think this would be fodder for a case, but wouldn't kill it.
3. The school would have to be willing to say in a court of law that they cancelled the trip because parents were worried about the venue BASED ON THAT RUMOR. Not based on their website. Based on that rumor as seen on DCUM. and based on this she would be entitled to recover what, $200 bucks. I don't think the owner of the site would bother suing over $200. She'd have to be able to demonstrate significant hardship and be able to get people to say that the reason they didn't go is because of what they heard on DCUM.
4. If she can prove #3 she has already proved that she has realized financial harm. And she can sue the rumor monger for all associated fees

I'm not saying she SHOULD sue. I"m saying this is what libel cases are made out of. That is what it is - someone starts a rumor that is untrue. If someone can demonstrate financial harm based on that, they have a case. It is up to the owner to decide if she wants to pursue it based on a cost-benefit analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
I'm not saying she SHOULD sue. I"m saying this is what libel cases are made out of. That is what it is - someone starts a rumor that is untrue. If someone can demonstrate financial harm based on that, they have a case. It is up to the owner to decide if she wants to pursue it based on a cost-benefit analysis.

I'm wondering how a defendant could prove that a DCUM post directly caused a lack of business. If my 2nd grader was going on a class trip, I'd check the website to see where they were going. And, if, on that website it said:

We Value
LIFE-Every child is God's gift to this earth.

FAMILY-The most vital part of our community. We treasure the opportunity to offer you a place to create family moments and memories while using our proceeds to help a family far away.

GOD-Giver of breathe and we endeavor to honor Him in all of our affairs.

I'd be a little concerned by all the GOD references. I wouldn't want my public school child going to such a venue as a class trip. I would definitely complain.

How can a defendant prove that it was the rumor that caused the school to cancel a trip? Versus just a few parents who didn't like what they say on the website and protested.

(just wondering, since I'm not an attorney)

[Anonymous]

Easy. Call the person from the school responsible for the fieldtrip. Ask her why she canceled. If she says "parents called up and complained about our taking our kids to the location because they heard x,y, and z on DCUM. Based on those complaints, we canceled the trip."

If she says that on the witness stand, there you go.

[Anonymous]

19:56 poster again. Ha! Obviously I'm not an attorney. I think I meant plaintiff (not defendant)?

But, if a parent read the thread on DCUM and went on the website just to see what the business was all about, would that still count?

Meaning, it's not the rumor on DCUM that made the parent uncomfortable, it's the business' website itself.

[Anonymous]

It would have to be directly linked to the rumor. Not the website. If they canceled because parents were worried about religious affiliation in general, then there isn't much the owner could do. But if the parents are saying "I heard she's a religious nut who is really aggressive and is going to tell my kids they are going to hell and I don't want them put in that situation" then that is obviously based on the rumor and not on the website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How dangerous for the OP of that thread, Jeff. Seriously. Because if the reporter's story about the school canceling its trip because of that allegation is true, the owner of Playseum can demonstrate she was financially harmed by the OP's false allegations. That would actually be grounds for a lible lawsuit. Have you ever had to turn over IP addresses for an investigation like this?

I have never had to turn over IP addresses for an investigation like this. I have cooperated with the FBI in one instance to provide IP addresses. That case was significantly different than this and I did so without coercion (hence, didn't "have" to). Given the circumstances of this situation, I would provide the address if asked.

But Jeff, doesn't she open the door to concerns about religion and the Playseum by posting all the stuff about God and how running the Playseum is part of her religious practice on the internet right on the website for the Playseum? The RIOT kids group she runs meets at the Playseum and it's an evangelical Christian group for teens. Do they only meet during hours the business isn't open to the public? I posted that I have been there several times and haven't heard anything untoward said to customers, but if that poster (who admittedly looks suspicous) claims that Gina had a conversation about Jesus with her, it's she said/she said, no? I think even if DCUM didn't exist, statements on her website like

GOD-Giver of breathe and we endeavor to honor Him in all of our affairs. (including the Playseum since it's on the website)

would or SHOULD give a PUBLIC school pause. There was a whole thread recently about Starbucks and how people disagreed with their percieved politics, so didn't spend % there. I think it's totally legitimate for parents in a public school to question why the field trip was a good idea, preaching or no, it's still public $ going to an evangelical Christian business. My family is not Christian and has spent $ there but I can understand why others might not choose to do so. I could be wrong but I think that there is also a direct connection between Gina and that school and if so, the parents and administration would again be aware of her religious leanings by means other than DCUM. You can have your own position on IP addresses, but this case is quite different than the other instance. Gina really needs to take some responsibility for putting her religion out there on the website of what she wants to portray as a secular business to get public school funds. Can't have it both ways. And the learnng about $ connection and the Playseum is tenuous at best.

My thoughts exactly.

[Anonymous]

20:07, don't practice in that area, could she sue for more than the income that would have been generated by the field trip plus fees? this seems like one of those cases that the aclu could become involved in. wouldn't truth, the poster's understanding of the convo, be a possible defense? as a side note, if jeff starts turning over ip addresses in a noncriminal case, what will be the impact on dcum?

i think her main problem is that the space appeals to a fairly narrow age range and the weather has gotten warm. a lot of the paper mache stuff and toys have not held up to commercial use and it looks more shabby. a lot of people don't like mixing religion and a kids play place which also limits her client base. i'm guessing that there is a connection to that elementary school, it's just not the kind of place that k classes would be taken on a field trip. seems like the kind of business that does well in the cold months and is lean in spring/summer, just like gymboree or silver stars. i think an article in the post or a lawsuit would be bad publicity for her, it would just highlight the religiouslity more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20:07, don't practice in that area, could she sue for more than the income that would have been generated by the field trip plus fees? this seems like one of those cases that the aclu could become involved in. wouldn't truth, the poster's understanding of the convo, be a possible defense? as a side note, if jeff starts turning over ip addresses in a noncriminal case, what will be the impact on dcum?

I'm the 19:56 non-attorney wondering how all this works.

I was wondering this. If someone posts on DCUM, isn't there somewhat an expectation of anonymity?

And, on the flip side - couldn't their be some value to a business by being mentioned on DCUM? It's like free publicity. People say any publicity is good, even if it's bad publicity. It puts the name of the business out there in people's minds. So, wouldn't the free advertising offset any loss of business?