Archinect
anchor

Laws across USA

211
no_form

while normally i also advocate for keeping trolls under the bridges where they belong i want to hold the balkinator accountable.  

his silence seems to prove the point that he can't come up with an original opinion about a building.  

having called him out on that deficiency maybe he's moved on to working as a software PM making $100-150K as he claimed earlier.  

Dec 15, 15 2:42 pm  · 
 · 

no_form,

I think Ricky B just explained why he won't give an original opinion on a building ... he's afraid of a defamation lawsuit. I'm quoting him from the criticizing another architect's work thread (I'd post something over there to tie it to this discussion, but I'd rather not derail David's thread):

 

"Back some years ago, there had been legal theories that came from lawyers relating to this that kind of brought this up as doing so commercially as a business against another business can be grounds for lawsuits but the tricky part is, there has to be financial harm and if there is, it is tricky for any architect or any professional for that matter to critique the works of another living professional as distinctly personal and not business because there isn't a clean line between personal and business when the subject matter relates to our profession. 

So it is a business act to engage in any discourse relating to the profession because the discourse is a form of business advertising and PR of a professional in this kind of nature.

However, this is a slippery slope legal matter to be mindful of. Some of these arise out of lawsuits of commercial defamation and such which as a professional engaged in business should be watchful over ALL laws relating to conducts of a business. This is something that even employees in such roles should be mindful of. 

There is a tricky thin line between matters of freedom of speech, character defamation between businesses.

When an architect practices architecture, they are engaging in a commercial activity."

Dec 17, 15 6:43 pm  · 
 · 
no_form

good old rwbc, esq. putting on his attorney's hat and setting things straight for us dummy archinectors.  i'm surprised he hasn't sued half of archinect yet for defamation.  

Dec 17, 15 7:04 pm  · 
 · 

Archinect should impose a fine for quoting Balkins. 

Dec 17, 15 9:03 pm  · 
 · 

lol... yes. copyright infringement. LOL!

Back in the days there was some aura of legal things. This concern was more concern than the practical reality of law. The cost to sue someone for what reward isn't necessarily worth it.

So really, is it worth the effort. If money is no issue then maybe but I believe lawyers warnings or cautioning of critiquing other professionals can lead to these kinds of lawsuits and that ethics values were more for avoiding a lawsuit even when such a case is a stretch.

Dec 17, 15 9:37 pm  · 
 · 

Rick, you have even less knowledge of law than you do of architecture.

Dec 17, 15 9:49 pm  · 
 · 
no_form
Rick,

Hear ngnekqm baby ski nt wh jfnrkqiqueurcjswvv wisk jcnf kelvjdnalakrkrjc. Am I right?! Am I right?! Ps. Liebeskind sucks! He only did one good building his whole life. Should've stuck with art.

Are you going to serve me papers now bubba Balkins?!
Dec 17, 15 9:54 pm  · 
 · 

Miles,

Every architect that practices architecture for client's money is a business. Anything they say in connection or related to their business is business communication, advertising, marketing, PR activity, etc. and all of which is a commercial activity. Businesses have rules to follow. That means when criticizing, if its just badmouthing/libelous slander then it is illegal and subject to potential lawsuit. Freedom of speech has its limits because that is how courts interpret things in these days when society had given up their so called freedoms.

For most architects engaged in business, the architect as a person and as a business is legally ONE entity and when they engage their profession not as an employee but as an independent contractor, they ARE a business and their professional acts is a business act. Every word that comes from your mouth, fingers or any orifice, is one and the same. There is no legal separation. For you like all sole-proprietors, we are legally in business 24/7 and anytime we practice the occupation for money not as an employee, we are engaged in business and that's commercial. 

Now, having said that, if you go tell the client of your competitor that the architect they are contracting with is incompetent, criminally negligent and that architect's work is a total piece of shit (which is criticism but not necessarily academic level but that doesn't matter), and that client terminates contract with that architect.... that architect can sue you because if that client told the architect that you claim that the architect is incompetent, criminally negligent, etc. the architect can have grounds to sue you as such activity violates what is called tortious interference along with the other charges like libel, slander, etc. You can be held for all that.

That is what lawyers are warning about.

Other related torts can be charged depending on the specific details under the umbrella of economic tort aka business tort which includes trade libel.

Not all criticizing necessarily reaches that level.

Criticizing runs the gamut. In architecture school, critiques runs the gamut  from childish criticism to proper respectful critiques.

What I am trying to get at is there is a legal basis but I would NOT say it is something to necessarily worry a whole lot but be mindful. 

Dec 17, 15 11:47 pm  · 
 · 

no_form,

I'd leave it to Liebeskind's lawyers to serve you.

Dec 17, 15 11:48 pm  · 
 · 
DeTwan

Rick, you have even less knowledge of law than you do of architecture.

If I remember correctly you vouched for Richard...on the railroad tracks...wth jaffe???

Dec 17, 15 11:53 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: