Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Sending
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
USF Law School - IIP Justice Project
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Protest, Parody and Criticism Sites > Notices > SurveyWho? Printer-friendly version

SurveyWho?

February 26, 2008

 

Sender Information:
SurveyU
Sent by: [Private]
[Private]
New York, New York, USA

Recipient Information:
[Private]
[Private]
New York, NY, 10009, USA


Sent via: Email
Re: Inaccurate article at http://jdel.tumblr.com/post/27338177

[Private],

We are SurveyU, authors of the survey reproduced in your post of February
26th at http://jdel.tumblr.com/post/27338177. We are the sole author of the
survey and received no payment or other consideration from any organization,
including the one identified in your post, to create and distribute the
survey. It is our intention to publicly release our analysis of the
results.

We therefore request that you immediately amend the post to indicate those
facts.

Without regard to your incorrect inferences as to whether this constitutes
an attempt to architect attack strategies or create 'push polling', the
survey uses a number of constructs commonly used by psychologists to measure
attitudes toward race and gender (attached), and does not evidence any
pre-determined bias or desired result. We used these constructs to attempt
to measure whether race and gender are underlying motivators behind the
voting intent of college students.

In a separate section of the survey a series of statements made by Barack
Obama or Hillary Clinton were randomly assigned to one of the candidates or
the other. This research technique is used to uncover any underlying bias
that students have toward each candidate by seeing how the electability /
appeal ratings differ when the same statement is attributed to each of the
candidates.

Since you posted the article without any attempts to verify the accuracy of
your information, we've gone out of our way to explain the survey
methodology and intent to you, however, it appears that your motives are not
to understand the research, but instead to draw attention to yourself.

SurveyU is proud of its use of scientific methods of gauging college
students sentiment for the purpose of contributing to public discourse. We
have produced a number of surveys for this purpose, all of which can be
downloaded from http://www.surveyu.com/press_room.php

You are on notice that you have made false implications as to our
motivations and our intent. We request that you either remove the post or
reprint this letter in its entirety in the body of the post.

[Private]
Co-Founder SurveyU
--
[Private]
SurveyU - The Voice of the American Student

 
FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]


Question: What is defamation?

Answer: An attack by speech on the good reputation of a person or business entity. Speech that involves a public figure--such as a corporation--is only defamatory if it is false and said with actual malice. It also must be factual rather than an expression of an opinion. In the United States, because of our strong free speech protections, it is almost impossible to prove defamation of a public figure.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is the legal definition of defamation?

Answer: The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are: (1) A publication to one other than the person defamed; (2) of a false statement of fact; (3) which is understood as being of and concerning the plaintiff; and (4) which is understood in such a way as to tend to harm the reputation of plaintiff.


[back to notice text]


Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation?

Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence.


Topic maintained by USF Law School - IIP Justice Project

Topic Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - www.chillingeffects.org
disclaimer / privacy / about us & contacts