hmmm.... what about setting up another section on MT?
I would suggest setting up a "Dojo Experiences" section, where people can post stuff, good or bad. Let people rate their experiences on a scale of one to ten, and assign the dojo a number, such as "Joe Smith's Kenpo Karate" was rated 8/10 by visitors to this board.
have categories by style, and topics of dojo names.
that way, people can add a dojo with their reasoning behind it, and anyone could respond to add additional opinions, positive or negative.
stating your opinion about someone or something isn't libel or slander. so long as you precede your comments with "I think" or "I believe" you're probably okay, because those phrases flag a comment as an opinion. for the record: slander is spoken word defamation, libel is printed or broadcast defamation.
quote:
"Libel" involves the publishing of a falsehood that harms someone. Slander is the same doctrine applied to the spoken word. Collectively, they are referred to as "defamation". Both are a matter of state laws, which usually (not always) require that the falsehood be intentional.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires that, before a public official can recover damages for a defamatory statement, he must prove it was made with "actual malice", even if state laws otherwise allow recovery for negligent defamation. The Court has since expanded this to cover not only public officials but "public figures", including individuals who involve themselves in controversies.
endquote
the owner of a dojo could be considered as a public figure, because he, in essence, is marketing himself as an instructor. This is kind of a grey area, though, so my advice would be to just talk about the dojo in general and not target a specific person. see below...
quote:
helpful tips:
Avoid the impression of malice.
State the facts, and then state your opinion separately. This keeps things clear in your mind.
All wrong: "My neighbor John Smith is a stinking lush." This is wildly defamatory: an unproven, malicious ("stinking" and "lush" instead of "alcoholic") statement about a private individual.
Getting better: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. In my opinion he's an alcoholic." The proof is a bit hazy -- getting drunk once does not prove alcoholism -- but a governor is a public figure with less protection than John Smith, you have clearly separated fact from opinion, and there is no particular evidence of malice.
Pretty safe: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's an alcoholic." This is entirely fact, with no clear evidence of malice, about a public figure.
What defamation is not.
Generally, a statement made about an undefinable group of people or organizations cannot be defamation. Take, "Real estate agents are crooks." It's defamatory enough, but there is no identifiable victim.
"Most of the agents at Smith Real Estate Company are crooks" is getting dicier, but it is still hard to define the victim.
"Smith Real Estate Company is a crooked company." Wham! You have a victim: Smith Real Estate Company.
endquote
so basically, you can phrase things like this:
"(insert name of mcdojo) charges (insert exact amount) for classes.
they charge (insert exact amount) for belt tests.
on the average, students reach black belt in one year
in my opinion, (mcdojo) is a McDojo because of these reasons. Personally, I do not feel that this school offers a quality martial arts education"
that, you can get away with.
saying "(mcdojo) is a mcdojo because the instructor is a pothead and overcharges students to spend all the monthly fee money on dope, and he lets people walk in and buy blackbelts" is libelous, because you're being malicious, and you can't prove it.
