1988: Amway and Ashley Wilkes (continued)
As with Amway's attempt to shut down Mr. Lowndes' web site, Amway is appointing itself arbiter of truth, justice, and what somebody else's (GeoCities and the University of Minnesota) rules allow. Amway seems to expect other organizations to accept Amway's allegations of defamation and libel at face value simply because they are a large corporation with an attorney to speak for them. Amway, while attempting to silence a critic, is proclaiming itself as an upholder of free speech.
Long ago I learned that you find out what someone believes by watching their actions, not by listening to their talk. Amway talks a good talk about freedom of speech. Unfortunately, their actions tell a different story.
One of the specific pages that Amway points out of the UMN is a page located at http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m307/wilke001/LowndesPage2.html. This page, while residing on the server, is not generally accessible to the public. None of Mr. Wilkes' public pages provide links, and there is no index which would provide this URL. One wonders, how did Amway access it?
Later in its letter, Amway states:
Mr. Wilkes is also using University facilities to publish harassing material for others unconnected to the University. . .
The page Amway refers to above is a page of links to other sites. They are simply equating criticism, and the publishing of public information such as court records, with harassment. Now, let's understand something here. Mr. Wilkes is a private individual, an employee of a state university, with a family to support. The links in question here are mostly links to sites that are created and maintained as spare-time efforts by private individuals. Most of them have lost considerable money, time and effort, and paid an emotional toll, because of their former Amway involvements. Amway itself is a large corporation claiming annual sales of $7 billion, with a large in-house legal staff and a prestigious Washington, D.C. firm acting for it in this matter. And they are accusing Mr. Wilkes and the linked site owners of harassment! It boggles the imagination.
Another portion of the Amway letter complains that:
At http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m307/wilke001/LOCfmldhyde.html Mr. Wilkes disparages Amways L.O.C. (Liquid Organic Cleaner) product, which has been a mainstay of the Companys [sic] extensive line of environmentally-friendly consumer products for nearly 40 years, by falsely asserting that it contains toxic levels of formaldehyde.
This comment is typical of Amway’s truth-twisting antics. An individual who has been engaged in a lawsuit against Amway and certain of its distributors explained in a recent conversation that Amway had taken things out of context, and purposely misstated in their rebuttal in this case. They tried to use precedant cases which had been overturned and were therefore no longer relevant, hoping that neither the court nor the opposing lawyers would find the errors. Since an attorney is supposed to present research without malice, a lawyer whose research is flawed can find himself at risk of disbarment. Amway is apparently asking its attorneys to take that risk.
What Mr. Wilkes’ web page actually says is quite different. According to Wilkes:
Amway knows this is a lie. A third grader could read my section on LOC and know that I do not state that L.O.C. contains formaldehyde. I simply ask if it still does since the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville Florida tested the product for the presence of formaldehyde and found it to, indeed, contain it. Those who are sensitive to even trace amounts of formaldehyde should know whether or not it is present in the products they use. I am sensitive to formaldehyde and so much so that I cannot have carpet in my house. So, my efforts to raise public awareness and possibly save some people from harm are twisted, nullified and invalidated with this misrepresentation (actually, downright lie) by the Amway Corporation.
UMN's attorney did respond to Amway, informing them that Mr. Wilkes is in compliance with University policies. His site is still on the internet.
If Amway truly believes that these web sites are defamatory or libellous, why are they not pursuing appropriate legal action through the court system? If Amway believes they are being damaged by these sites, why not seek legal relief? In neither case did Amway contact the site owners directly; in neither case have any legal actions been taken. As of this writing, in late May, 1998, no suits have been filed. No site owners with whom I am in contact has ever been informed by Amway of any specific document in their web pages which violates any Amway-owned copyright.
The obvious conclusion is that Amway wants these sites shut down, they know they have no legal grounds for complaint, so will use any means at their disposal to accomplish this goal. I would expect that Amway will continue its attempts to harass and intimidate the owners of critical sites. You can be sure that, if my hosting service Tripod and I receive a letter from Amway accusing this site of defamation and libel, that letter will be posted in its entirety within hours of receipt.
