A review left on Google’s platform accusing the law firm Oved & Oved LLP of censorship has left a panel of New York judges puzzled during recent oral arguments. The contentious review claims the firm’s attorneys are “rude” and that the firm practices “high amounts of censorship.” The ambiguity of the term “censorship” used in this context raised questions among the panel, making a defamation ruling less likely.
David Friedman, a judge at the New York Supreme Court’s First Appellate Department, remarked on the vagueness of the term “censorship” in the review, stating, “You don’t know what it means here.” This perspective underscores the uncertain nature of the review’s wording and its interpretation under legal scrutiny. The lower court previously ruled that such statements are non-harmful opinions, further complicating any defamation claims.
The law firm’s attorney acknowledged that labeling the firm’s attorneys as “rude” falls within the realm of protected opinion under existing legal precedents. The ongoing proceedings illustrate the judicial challenges in determining the fine line between opinion and defamatory statements in the digital age, particularly when subjective terms like “censorship” are used without clear context or definition.