In that kind of case the harmed doctor (or other business) should sue. I used to be a litigator – suing is an expensive, annoying, pain in the rear, to be avoided at almost all cost. But the Medical Justice answer is too easy, giving the doctor all power over patients’ reviews for no cost – and depriving patients, I suspect often without their understanding, of their rights to post unedited comments. And, in the situation you posit, of malicious attacks by or supported by competitors, the possibilities of effective legal action are strong.

Reviews of my teaching are available electronically to our students (and my colleagues and my boss). Sometimes they are painful and sometimes (I think) the painful ones are unfair. That’s life. I have eaten at restaurants, and stayed at hotels, after seeing a really awful review – one terrible, often blatantly unbalanced, review amidst 20 good ones doesn’t influence me. We learn, we will all have to learn, to read reviews more critically.

So, as a substantive matter, I think the Medical Justice solution, though clever, is outrageous. It takes too much power from the patients (probably largely without their true knowledge) and gives too much power to the doctor. It is certainly cheaper and easier than litigation – too much cheaper and easier.

The other issue is more a legal process question. That part of the DMCA was intended, I believe, to help publishers, record companies, movie and television studios and others easily stop piracy of their products. There may be problems with that solution, but it is letting them block something they have a good legal (and arguably moral) claim to block. The Medical Justice approach uses sleight of hand to turn a patient’s review into the doctor’s intellectual property, without moral or, I think, ultimately, legal justification.

Unreasonable, outrageous, and malicious reviews are a problem and they are a nice example of differences in degree becoming differences in kind. An unhappy patient could always complain to family and friends; now he can complain to the whole world (or, at least, that tiny part of it that bothers to read his review). And that does change the problem. But the answer cannot be to give the person reviewed the power to block, without judicial intervention, all reviews that, for whatever reason, he doesn’t like. The problem may be real but this “solution” for it is beyond wrong – it is, I think, an outrage.

The review is published throughout the WORLD, not just pinned on the wall of a local laundromat.

Let’s be pragmatic and practical and not exclusively philosophical. How would you professor Greely address the situation of a student(s) whom you gave a “C” or a “B” to, or a jealous colleague, or anyone who may not like your skin color, gender, sexual orientation or marital status, or for what ever reason, clandestinely trashes, from multiple websites using alias names, your hard worked for, life time developed, honorably obtained reputation that is the only thing you have to sell yourself with? What excuse do you use to explain the negative reviews to your wife, your children, friends, colleagues? Will they COMPLETELY believe you without any lasting doubt when you tell them according to our Constitution everyone has the right to their opinion and to express it. And, “The price of free speech is sometimes annoying speech and sometimes just plain wrong speech.” You maybe cloistered in an ethical environment where such conduct is unheard of, but most of the country is not. Most individuals are not, most companies are not. An individual in your position, with the help of your colleagues should formulate a method or prepare a position paper on how to filter/prevent fraudulent reviews. I believe you wrote your article believing reviews are all written by normal/stable ethical individuals without any ill intent. If you believe this——–you are very, very wrong. They hurt, they damage, they destroy. You state, “I expect to see some negative, even outrageously negative, reviews.”. Fine, but would you go to a restaurant where a fraudulent competitor reviewer reviewed he saw roaches all over the floor? Medical Justice has a good method to address this situation and so does Congress via the DMCA Act.