Why, thank you! The feeling is mutual. (And I hope that you enjoy London. I’m very jealous.)
I don’t really see the hearsay rule as a problem here. First, as you suspect, and as Campion has confirmed, a hearsay exception (admission of party opponent) may apply. But the hearsay analysis may not even get that far.
Let’s assume we’re talking about a defamation claim based upon statements in the OP’s website. Defamation necessarily requires that the statement upon which the claim is based be false. (In some states, the falsity of the claim is an element of the case of action. In others, it’s not, but truth is a defense.)
Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement, offered into evidence to prove the truth of of the matter asserted. In a defamation case, the plaintiff offers evidence about the defamatory statement, not to prove the truth of the statement, but simply that the statement was made. In fact, the plaintiff must necessarily maintain that the statement was not true. So the evidence that the statement was made (by the defendant, on his website) is not hearsay.
Alternatively, you could use the verbal act doctrine. (I forget whether a verbal act is considered not be hearsay or is a hearsay exception. The former, I think. I’m too tired to look it up or explain further, and only lawyers or law students would care, anyway.)
Dang… I don’t know what the hamsters did to my previous post, but I was trying to avoid anyone from flaming over unions. Maybe I chose a politically bad example, but it’s what we have now.
As for trademarks, there’s no issue. The site owners could get sued, but there’s plenty of precedent in that very jurisdiction for the use of “sucks” websites (get started looking at the Taubman case, for example).
The purpose of the wording I mentioned, though, isn’t to avoid civil liability or prevent lawsuits. It’s supposed to the the analogue of a “shrink wrap license.” Shrink wrap licenses are legal and most aspects of them have been held up in court. So what, then, would make such a “shrink wrap” license work? Would the website in question have to lock out the general public, and allow only members? Part of the membership, then, if agreeing to terms and conditions? For example, the union in question has bylaws and a constitution that state you can be put out of the union if you discuss decertification of the union. In order to keep the job that you had before the union infilitrated, you must agree to their rules. Fine. Two can play at that. If you want to use a private computer system, you’ve got to agree to the rules of the owner of the private computer system.
So, the non-legal but constructive criticism is that the statement I mentioned has no protection for “on your turf your rules, on my turf my rules.” What does work, then?