Remember, a press release is just a paid advertisement/paid for rumor.

GZ has issued tons of press releases, I urge you to go back and look them up and then try to verify them...

Just look at a few of their press releases regarding Mightybids, Bullguard, FranklinCovey, audited financials, zapexchange, 500 merchants, and so on.

The law sides typically on the side of the individual.  Public companies, public officials, CEO's are subject to the individuals first amendment rights to criticize.

Get familiar with SLAPP before you start backing companies rights to silence the consumer.

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html

Those that clammored in support of GZ's lawsuit, I don't know what America you were raised in...

Some fun quotes from here:
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0010003B3NMT&page=1

"Criticism, in and of itself -- it's 'actionable' under U.S. law," says Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. "There has to be a showing that the statement can be proven to be false, and that it harms the reputation of a company or individual."

.....

"The Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, says that ISPs can't be held responsible for what users write in online forums, or for what they send out through the provider's networks. Under Section 230(c) of the act, Congress noted that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." "

.....

"Some people who think they've been libeled online have filed lawsuits to force ISPs to wipe away the offending comments. Often called cyber-SLAPPs, for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," these suits are launched by individuals, corporations, or other organizations in an attempt not just to gain information about the alleged perpetrator, but to have the offensive material removed from a site. "

....

"However, that doesn't mean complaints or criticism shouldn't be taken seriously. If an anonymous claim about a company is true, Villafranco says the company should be responsible for correcting the issue. If it's false, a company often has to defend itself and provide supporting facts, but doing this doesn't necessarily lead to subpoenas and court dates.

"There has to be a real threat to your business before you consider filing a suit," he says. "

"There are reasons that there are such strong First Amendment protections on the Internet," he says. "People should be given wide latitude to express their opinions, even if others feel it's offensive or constitutes libel." "

Quote just for Dave...
""Any legislation prohibiting anonymous postings would almost certainly violate the First Amendment," he says. "And if Web site operators required posters to identify themselves, there would a chilling effect on speech." "