Radio and tv commentators can say just about anything about politicians they disagree with, kids write awful things about other students on face book pages, religious leaders can preach hate, etc. - All in the name of freedom of speech. Why should physicians be immune?

Wouldn't it be great if these rules applied to comments about the private lives of private citizens attacked by radio and tv personalities for expressing a personal view?

This is disconcerting; I am perfectly capable of filtering out whether an online review has much merit or not. Two parties have different perceptions of the same situation, and there is no single truth. I don't think the government can do that better than I can, and I don't want them to do so. Pretty soon I won't be able to criticize politicians either.

Disconcerting? Why should physicians be immune? Well, they're not immune, and shouldn't be. At the same time, no one should be immune from a defamation lawsuit, and so people need to be careful what they post. It's easy to spout off on the internet. But if someone posts untrue accusations - or even accusations that can't easily be documented or proven, well, it's risky. The more detailed the criticism, the riskier the post. And general statements ("he's an insensitive jerk") should be preceded by something like, "In my opinion, ..." Critics would be well advised to not post in the heat of emotion. Just wait, take a breath, and heed the Biblical warning "Be slow to speak." It was good advice two thousand years ago, and is still a good policy in any situation.

A physician provides a service, and how he/she provides that service is no different than that of a waitress, a law enforcement officer or an auto repairman. All persons providing a service should be held to the same standard, and at the end of the day common courtesy and respect will usually prevent situations like the one this doctor is fighting right now.

If you think this is bad, move into a condominium association. Any rights you think you have are just an illusion. It's really creepy these days once you start seeing whats really there...

rhankins, don't be disconcerted - you're free to criticize pols, as they are "public figures." In all fairness, I should add that criticizing a private citizen of means could be risky. If they have the money to hire a mouthpiece with a law license, well, win or lose, you can have your life disrupted pretty badly for awhile.

Sorry doc, but just because technology can spread a persons opinion far and wide doesn't make that opinion any less protected by the first amendment. Free speech is rough and tumble but the alternative would be chilling.

We see this in education, as well, where online websites host student evaluations of their college professors (it's interesting they don't do this for K-12). It can get pretty dicey at times. In general, though, I have to agree with the above comment that you can discern to a degree where people are coming from in their comments, the level of their perceptions and the degree of their fairness. They're often helpful, but sometimes not, shilling for the doc, teacher, movie theater or alternately out for vengeance. It's interesting that the doc in this case has got IP information on his man. It seems our privacy on the web is but an illusion when it comes to the government or people of influence with $$$.

Thanks to a doctor (who will remain nameless), my opinion of doctors has gone down even more today. We have the MN government bowing to a powerful lobby and legislating what information can (none) be released about a doctor and now apparently doctors can sue when people (customers) find different venues to be heard.