School’s back in full swing, so what better time to sharpen issue-spotting skills? Here’s a hypothetical for you:

A woman hires a company, one specializing in affordable floor refinishing with green chemicals, to refinish the floors in her living room and dining room for $695. The customer is unhappy with the result and with the corrective actions the floor refinisher took. She complains on a local website, before posting the following on Yelp:

this guy mat the owner is a scam do not use him you will regret doing business with this company I’m going to court he is a scam customers please beware he will destroy your floors he is nothing by a liar he robs customers, and promises you everything if you want s— then go with him if you like nice work find another he is A SCAM LIAR BULL—-ER

This unsatisfied Sally went on Yelp again to complain, urging those thinking of hiring the contractor to contact her for more details.

So pop quiz, hotshot: does the floor refinisher have a cause of action?

Welp, the title of the article likely gave away the answer, but according to Staten Island Civil Court Judge Philip Straniere the answer is yes, that Yelp post does rise to the level of libelous speech. And it is going to cost our unsatisfied Sally, AKA Emily Fanelli. The Daily News reports on the judge’s ruling:

“Terms such as ‘scam,’ ‘con artist’ and ‘robs’ imply actions approaching criminal wrongdoing rather than someone who failed to live up to the terms of a contract,” Straniere wrote. “They were personal in their invective and were designed to impugn his integrity and business practices with the intent to damage his business reputation,” the judge said, ordering Fanelli to pay Gardiner [Matt Gardiner, the floor refinisher] $1000.

Though there may be some part of you that rejoices when people are held responsible for the horrible things they say on the internet, not everyone is confident the judge’s ruling doesn’t violate Fanelli’s First Amendment rights:

Norman Siegel, a noted civil rights attorney not involved in the case, said the ruling “could chill people from expressing their negative opinions.” “Opinions are protected speech,” Siegel said, and Fanelli’s comments — while extreme — are opinion. “Context is important,” he said. “She was just spouting off and giving her opinion about his services.” “If she called him a convicted felon, that would be different,” he said.

For her part, Fanelli has vowed to appeal:

“I’m not letting him get away with it,” she said. “I’m a fighter. I’ll fight you tooth and nail.”

Sounds like a motivated appellant indeed.

S.I. woman must pay $1G fine for bashing business on Yelp [New York Daily News]