legal eagle with a sound knowledge in defamation and internet?

[incisor]

is there a legal eagle with a sound knowledge in defamation and internet on the system ?

i need an opinion ;)

[Eevo]

i need an opinion ;)

i got plenty of opinions.

[Blknight.aus]

To quote the advise from the legalo on base.

"If you're going to enjoy it, its probably illegal or at least likely to be a PR hassle."

"If you enjoyed it you;re probably going to be sitting on the wrong side of my desk"

[WhiteD3]

:eek:







Know nothing about defamation but I do know a bit about contract law...........T&Cs, threats and intimidation mean nothing unless you end up in court; and that boils down to who dares, who cares and who has the money to take the matter forward.

[Ralph1Malph]

Inc,
If you are after paid legal advice regarding defamation, I can give you a contact number for both a Solicitor and/or Barrister, both in Bris.
As some on this forum know, my father has only just resolved (and won) a nasty defamation court case and his legal team were the difference.

If you want unpaid legal advice re defamation, I can certainly tell you all that we learned based on the above law suit! I can't guarantee that it would help though!

I can tell you that even though he won, he is c. $125k poorer, his heart condition worsened to the point he can no longer work, and my inheritance is lighter for it!:mad:.

As WhiteD3 says, the 'other party' won't care or engage until the court writ is issued!

Cheers
Ralph

[incisor]

yep i hear you..

[isuzurover]

A certain member who I believe you did some welding for a while back could probably give you some good advice. PM me if that is too cryptic.

[Graeme]

Is leaving the thread intact worth any hassle? Deleting the mentioned thread means that if another thread is started then the people complaining have to go through the process again.

[inside]

Other sites have had the same issues GIC Trailers - 4x4 Earth (http://www.4x4earth.com.au/forum/camping-trailers/21267-gic-trailers.html)

[weeds]

Other sites have had the same issues GIC Trailers - 4x4 Earth (http://www.4x4earth.com.au/forum/camping-trailers/21267-gic-trailers.html)

Myswag has received the letter as well.....

[d@rk51d3]

Just add *** to the swear filter......;)


edit - hope I didn't just get myself an infraction.

[justinc]

Myswag has received the letter as well.....

Speaks volumes....


Again, idiots.


JC

[weeds]

They are all a little spooked http://www.myswag.org/index.php'topic=31568.msg496070#msg496070

[shining]

The courts can be the refuge of shoddy operators who would rather let solicitors speak for them rather than their products. If its true and its in the public interest then its not defamatory.

[Disco Muppet]

The courts can be the refuge of shoddy operators who would rather let solicitors speak for them rather than their products. If its true and its in the public interest then its not defamatory.

It's probably better to err on the side of caution though, court cases are something we'd all like to avoid.

[isuzurover]

How many people are employed by the company in question?


The first thing to remember is that companies with more than 10 employees can no longer sue for defamation (unless they are not-for-profit). Collins says there are a couple of alternatives – section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, which prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct, and the old common law tort of injurious falsehood. But he warns that both are difficult to prove.

Another option for companies with more than 10 employees is to argue that the defamatory comments were really about the business owner, rather than the company, because the rule only applies to the company itself, not the people who run it.

“But really, it’s pretty much a free-for-all against bigger companies,” Collins says.


It would be good to set the search up so that anyone searching for a certain company went straight to the legal letter.

[shining]

I agree and if we filter negative comments should we not, on balance, also filter out positive comments?

[Ralph1Malph]

Factsheet -Defamation (http://www.qpilch.org.au/resources/factsheets/Defamation.htm)

As we found out, it is a very complex area of law.
However, there are many defences, the two that got my father across the line (he was the plaintiff) were:
Honest opinion: section 31 of the 2005 Act

and

Qualified privilege: section 30 of the 2005 Act

I can't stress enough that I now know that this is not a subject for bush lawyers!


Ralph

[Didge]

I'll PM you the name of a barrister on the site :)

[Hastykiwi]

Seems a little short sighted. This will get around and no matter the result, and there would be inevitable consequences for the brand???

[Slunnie]

Very interesting letter their lawyers sent. They're not the only company that trys to intimidate and muzzle conversation about their products. Personally, I never ever use companies that do or have done this and I wont invite people on trips who are the same. On the other hand, companies that try to resolve the problems that are discussed..... I have the utmost respect for, and there are quite a few.

[Didge]

which thread are we talking about?

[incisor]

which thread are we talking about?

i have parked it till i know more re legal standibg

[Didge]

Sounds like a sensible move :D

[THE BOOGER]

Bet the solicitors have been waiting for this case to finalise.:(


Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/damages-payout-for-google-defamation/story-e6frg996-1226515123103)

Now they can cashin:o

The last couple of paragraphs will scare forums like this and others

[jocky]

my girlfriend is a lawyer. if you want to pm me with a brief i can get her have a look.

[Ferret]

They are all a little spooked *** Trailers (http://www.myswag.org/index.php'topic=31568.msg496070#msg496070)

Product Reviews (http://www.productreview.com.au/c/camper-trailers.html'sort=rating_count&sort_type=desc) has buyers comments on camper trailers including those by the company mentioned in that letter. An overwhelming number of the comments relating to their products are 'interesting'. I wonder when Product Reviews will get their letter.

[modman]

Do EMG have a share in this mob like some of the other 4wd action advertisers??
Dc

[incisor]

have parked the thread and setup the filter

i don't have time or money to fight this sort of rubbish so good comment and bad are all filtered for the moment.

been warning people for ages that they need to be extremely careful with what they say as there is no shortage of people who will do what ever they see fit, to get hold of others money.

bless em....

[Pedro_The_Swift]

If they paid the money they spent on lawyers to employ a decent fabricator----

[Disco Muppet]

Well if they're trying to stem bad press, to my way of thinking it's backfired pretty nicely.
There's a review on the last page of Product Review that has a few interesting comments...

[Ean Austral]

Well if they're trying to stem bad press, to my way of thinking it's backfired pretty nicely.
There's a review on the last page of Product Review that has a few interesting comments...


I wonder if the 9 people who put terrible in product review will get a lawyers letter.

Cheers Ean

[Bushie]

I haven't read the thread, so don't have any background.

However my take is no matter how much you may or may not agree with the content, unless you are able/prepared to defend in court it's probably better to remove/delete and suppress.

You don't have to be wrong, to have to defend yourself in court. Once action is taken (and yes it may be bluff) there are going to be substantial costs.

For me the potential for something like this to take both Dave (and hence this site) down is not worth the risk (for Dave).

Not really related but, I have a friend who lost all his property in a fire, fire investigation identified the cause, the (offending) company basically bankrupted him with delays, stalling etc before it even got to be heard, to the point he had to withdraw or go under.

Remember we don't have a justice system in this country we have a legal system, whomever can stump up the most freight will most likely succeed.
Not fair but reality.



Martyn

[Eevo]

I will not put up with legal threats and bullying.

I will boycot *** campers and tell everyone I know to avoid *** campers.

I will also be letting *** campers know that I won't be buying from them in the future.

I recommend that everyone here do the same.

If *** campers want to try and bully us around, watch out, we will vote with our feet.


Inc, I recommend you get in contact with the other forum owners.

[Mick_Marsh]

I wonder if the 9 people who put terrible in product review will get a lawyers letter.

Cheers Ean
I think if it is based on your own personal experience, defamation does not apply. A product review is based on personal experience. That is what a fellow who has fought a few of these told me. He has also said "You win some and you lose some."

A little off topic but I thought I'd mention:
The fellow I bought my Chinese made camper top from was very peeved with the industry to the point he was taking legal action against some of his competitors for false or misleading advertising. He said it was a nasty business and he was considering getting out of it.
I think what has happened here has confirmed what he said to me.

[incisor]

Inc, I recommend you get in contact with the other forum owners.

am not big on being bullied either...

i am working at it on several fronts but until i hear otherwise i will be behaving as outlined.

i simply don't have the time or the money to tackle it head on at this juncture.

[p38arover]

And people wonder why the Moderators work to a "no name and shame" rule on this forum.

This is exactly why.

[Disco Muppet]

I wonder how many more of these letters will be sent out, until someone with appropriate understanding/funds decides to send one back and hauls them over the coals in court.
I'm with Eevo, viva la resistance.
Good luck with it.

[sam_d]

All this will do is cause something like the Streisand Effect Streisand effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

People (like for example me) didn't care about any particular camper trailer company before but now, thanks to their own actions, I have read a lot about these guys and their products. So, if anyone ever asks me about camper trailers I'll be able to tell them who not to go to. Yesterday, I wouldn't have known at all.

I'm sure I am not the only person on this forum who now has this information (and knows about the bullying tactics, the reviews from elsewhere etc) who will use that knowledge in future. And, as has been mentioned, AULRO is not the only internet forum that this company have targeted.

I think that in going after the sites hosting bad reviews rather than improving their product and customer service, they are building up a lot of ill will and have done more damage to themselves than any negative review could.

[Jamo]

Bullied or not, sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

Civil action can cost a shed load of money and, in most cases, even if you win you don't get your costs back. Courts these days like to do a thing called apportionment and will usually seek to find at least a degree of fault on each side.

It's the initial 'feeling' when you receive letters like these that causes the most grief.

I think you're taking the right course of action now Dave. Hold off, go behind closed doors and check out what can be done. If it's going to cost too much time and/or money, then step over it and move on.

Time and money wasted on an action like this could be better spent in the sunshine in a Landy with the family!

[Yorkie]

this company could have done it so much better if they had followed others such as

trackabout campers in brisbane - active on myswag, previous owner rebuilt someones uninsured camper that was damaged by the toowoomba floods, did not charge a cent. have fixed up issues quickly and min fuss for others.

arb - again active on a few forums, have read people having locker issues sorted, compressors fixed out of warranty.

these above type of companies are the ones we should be buying off and not the pathetic ones using lawyers to cover the tracks of their own failures. :mad:

i am inclined to send a letter of support for aulro / myswag to these people.

[solmanic]

I think I have said this before, but it is worth repeating.

When making statements about products or services it pays to keep it personal. No one can come at you for defamation if you say something like "I don't like my XYZ camper trailer". But once you say something like "XYZ camper trailers suck balls" you are open to a suit. It's the difference between a personal opinion based on specific details and facts vs making a broad generalisation. If the specific camper trailer you bought was dodgy, you cannot be attacked for expressing this. If, however, you make a statement that implies that ALL of that company's camper trailers are dodgy, then you are guilty of defamation because you have no way of knowing or proving that assertion. Unfortunately a lot of people on forums such as this write posts based on personal experience but they use language or come across as authoritative generalisations beyond the specific instance.

Having said that, well done to the camper trailer company in question for creating a perfect **** storm of negative publicity. Their marketing people should probably be shot.

[TerryO]

A number of years ago a certain gentleman who took overrunning an Australian national motorcycle racing championship from me rang me one day early on and threatened to sue me because there were a number of comments on by website by competitors whinging that they could not get any info on how the new promoter was going to run the series or entry forms etc etc.

His threat was he would shut down my website and take my house off of me. I made it clear that I looked rather unkindly on this threat and next time I saw him I would show my displeasure by readjusting a number of parts of his anatomy.

Anyway I put up a story and made public his threats and the backlash against him was quite amazing. One of the interesting things that came out was a number of people came forward and said that he had threatened to sue them as well over the years. So instead of silencing me he ended up making himself look really bad on a far larger scale in the public eye.

Within 24 hours he rang apologised and asked me to take down the story of his threat. I refused and left it up and to say he got of to a rocky start on his new business venture would be an understatement.

Something to consider is maybe publishing their threatening letter on the forum. They can't complain about that I don't believe.

[Eevo]

i simply don't have the time or the money to tackle it head on at this juncture.
i understand that, but other forum owners might.

[isuzurover]

I notice so far that 4x4action seem to be immune from the legal threats....? (Or at least the posts are still up). Maybe all owners of said items should post their issues overe there...

Also productreview.com.au

[solmanic]

I notice so far that 4x4action seem to be immune from the legal threats....? (Or at least the posts are still up). Maybe all owners of said items should post their issues overe there...

Also productreview.com.au

Maybe they are lawyered-up and have swatted the threats back across the net.

I don't kow whether this mob have actually gone to court against anyone before, but if their scatter-gun approach is anything to go by, maybe not. We had a client a few years ago who was taken to court by another party. Our lawyers discovered the other party had another five court actions against other people occurring at the same time. He was eventually judged to be a "vexatious litigant" and was barred from bringing any further actions against anyone without permission from a magistrate.

[incisor]

I notice so far that 4x4action seem to be immune from the legal threats....? (Or at least the posts are still up). Maybe all owners of said items should post their issues overe there...

Also productreview.com.au

they can probably afford the insurance premium :p

[Ean Austral]

The part I struggle with the most is , how paranoid are these people about the product they produce... They seem to spend time to trawl thru plenty of site's similar to this one looking for negative comments..

From the little I have read about their product and customer service,they would be better spending that time to focus on improving the product they are producing..

Doesn't help Inc with the situation he has been put in, but I would have thought that simple business management would be to address the product faults and customer issues, not silence the unhappy buyers from commenting, and threatening any site that lets them post comments.

Inc, its not worth wasting your time and effort, stick with the action you have taken and move on to enjoy the forum you have created, and the good people on it.

Cheers Ean

[Chucaro]

Up to now 1475 people view this thread and the score is 100% with a good opinion about the forum and the admin :D
I guess that we can make this thread as sticky thread so the alleged company can have a "positive" advertising here for free :D
In a few days there will be more than 2000 viewers :cool:

[Nick S]

Just sent them an email to let them know what I thought about their approach, doubt I'll get a response. Thought they might like to know how people respond

[manic]

My personal message to any genuinely intolerable camper tr:nazilock:iler companies that use intimidation and threats to silence their customers:

**** right off!

[DiscoMick]

When I worked for a newspaper for a long time we used to get several letters a week like this. Our standard procedure was to refer them to our lawyers and make no response.
Our lawyers would write them a letter basically saying, "Don't be silly" and that was usually the end of it.
Any lawyer can knock out a threatening letter in an hour, but its a big step to go from that to actually dragging someone into court. Judges do not look kindly on vexatious litigants, as James Ashby found out when the judge blasted him for his vexatious action against Peter Slipper.
As others have said, if a person accurately and fairly describes a problem with a product, then that should be protected as 'fair comment' under consumer and other law.
Defamation only comes into it if it can be proved that the person commenting had gone beyond fair comment and had deliberately set out to damage the reputation of the person.
So, keep your comments factual (e.g. "This broke and the company's response was...") and it should be OK.
Unfortunately, Australia does NOT have a Bill of Rights like the Americans, so we don't have guaranteed free speech and all the case law has been built up by interpreting legal principles, so it can always turn pear-shaped.
One thing's for sure, its almost always better to settle any matter before getting into court.

[Fatso]

There are a lot of described as ( used only once ) of the cheaper brands of camper trailers for sale on the net etc , wonder why that is :question: .

[Ralph1Malph]

Civil action can cost a shed load of money and, in most cases, even if you win you don't get your costs back. Courts these days like to do a thing called apportionment and will usually seek to find at least a degree of fault on each side.



Yep!
The presiding judge in my fathers case confirmed as much! Assuming the losing party has capacity to pay, the 'norm' is around 75/25. This is apparently based on the supposed fact that 25% of the costs are not directly spent on prosecuting/defending. When we queried it, we were told that things like follow on or update calls, printing, travel, assistants, coffee etc are not direct costs.:mad:

Ralph

[EchiDna]

write a short letter engaging the lawyers for a response, seek clarification, explain your actions and require a response to confirm they received your letter... repeat each time they reply.... after 5-6 letters costing the complainant roughly $250 a pop, they might get the message ;-)

[87County]

There are a lot of described as ( used only once ) of the cheaper brands of camper trailers for sale on the net etc , wonder why that is :question: .

Cheaper to rent a camping area unit or a motel unit if travelling?

[dullbird]

I think its interesting that they have targeted 3 very large forums, all of which I think would be their target audience!!!

would be interesting to know whether they realise the impact they may have caused on their own business.

I wouldn't be surprised if this could potentially send them in to bankruptcy.

I wonder whether they are going to have a stall at the up and coming camping shows :angel:

[Didge]

Very smart acronym Manic - haha. Was going to say the same as DiscoMick but in a far less eloquent manner. Stating the facts is not defamation. I wonder if they are associated with the popular 4wd mag that is also heavily promoting an accessory company that uses a large cat name followed by two numbers who are also the recipients of many similar comments/ complaints.

[Disco Muppet]

I think its interesting that they have targeted 3 very large forums, all of which I think would be their target audience!!!

would be interesting to know whether they realise the impact they may have caused on their own business.

I wouldn't be surprised if this could potentially send them in to bankruptcy.

I wonder whether they are going to have a stall at the up and coming camping shows :angel:

That's the thing, I wouldn't have had a clue about any of this if they'd done nothing.
But now, as Chucaro points out, it's a hot topic, everyone knows which company is involved and has no doubt done a bit of digging into why the situation has occurred, and now lots of people have no doubt formed an opinion of said company.
I wonder if they'll be at the LR expo.....

[Tombie]

If I remember correctly, there was a law firm sending threats to people and ISPs once about torrents of protected IP.

They would threaten the user with a law suit and demand a payment to prevent further action.

They hadn't even been engaged by the IP holder!

[Didge]

vultures!

[clubagreenie]

Well I could potentially be in the market for one of these, now there's two options. They were a consideration, given that the product would be given a thorough going over and by the sound of it, if I was allowed to do this at the showroom it would never get past scrutiny.

One option is to forgo them completely, the other is there might be some bargains that a couple of weekends work would bring up to scratch.

Either way, if I was their marketing/PR dept I'd have ulcers and a heart condition by now. Interestingly enough someone, who purports to be a showroom worker has responded in the product review forum and for a mere salesman defends the product with vigour that would indicate they possibly have a higher interest in the product. Time will tell, the market is only getting better informed by the publicity they have created by trying to quell and they've only made a rod for their own back.

[Didge]

I was just thinking that now is a good time for all the regular visitors who are non subscribers to put their hands in their pockets and subscribe to this forum :)

[Disco Muppet]

I was just thinking that now is a good time for all the regular visitors who are non subscribers to put their hands in their pockets and subscribe to this forum :)

If a broke uni student like me can afford it, anybody can :p
When you consider the support network you get access to, it's peanuts.

[Didge]

Absolutely, DM and that's why I support the site but hey, I look at my subscriber status and its only showing standard! WTF? I'm paying for silver. Must chase up with Inc when all this blows over.
I reckon just the friendships you acquire coming here is worth the fee, let alone all the expert technical advice you get. For example I once enquired as to why my fan belt was squealing and got about a dozen different reasons within half an hour. It'd cost a fortune to get this from a mechanic.
So come on guys, support Dave and join up!!!!! Put the word out there!!

ps DM - I like your motto. I was gonna use Errol Flynn's (ask your mum or dad - he's an old dead actor) quote " My greatest problem lies in reconciling my net income with my gross habits" or the one about "I tried to start an anarchist community, but nobody would obey the rules" :D

[Disco Muppet]

ps DM - I like your motto. I was gonna use Errol Flynn's (ask your mum or dad - he's an old dead actor) quote " My greatest problem lies in reconciling my net income with my gross habits" or the one about "I tried to start an anarchist community, but nobody would obey the rules" :D

My sig-line is scrawled on a piece of aircraft in the film Apocalypse Now, one of my personal favourites :D
Oh, and you mean the Errol that was the inspiration behind this fine piece of music? ;)

Australian Crawl - Errol (1981) - YouTube

:D

[Nick S]

Well got a phone call back from the trailer company about 2 hours after sending their sales Dept an email telling them what I thought about legally threatening websites like ours. They said that they had to do this to protect themselves from inaccurate claims made by members from various sites who he asserted were actually their competitors masquerading as forum members.

I pointed out that they now have made thousands of people who have seen the threatening letter think that they are trying to hide behind the lawyers rather than be seen as trying to resolve the problems or even putting their side of the story forward. Must give the guy credit for listening to my suggestions and I think I got through to him in part as he said he would discuss our conversation with his director.

[Didge]

That's the one- he was Tasmanian, went to Hollywood, was a real ladies man, apparently well endowed but was a boozer and got into trouble for playing around with a really young girl (well underage) so he obviously had a bad side.
Now that song takes me back to my early twenties :( Thanks for posting it
I think the young guy singing suicided some years after making this clip; very sad.
They were a good group Australian Crawl - singing about the aussie way of life (if you live on the coast)

opps a bit off topic - sorry folks

[Didge]

Very interesting Nick, good work :)

[clubagreenie]

James Reyne is well and truly still alive and kicking.

[Didge]

Not James Reyne, but the other young guy (Guy McDonough 1955 - 1984) - the lead singer in Errol.
sorry - off topic again.

[incisor]

Well got a phone call back from the trailer company about 2 hours after sending their sales Dept an email telling them what I thought about legally threatening websites like ours. They said that they had to do this to protect themselves from inaccurate claims made by members from various sites who he asserted were actually their competitors masquerading as forum members.

I pointed out that they now have made thousands of people who have seen the threatening letter think that they are trying to hide behind the lawyers rather than be seen as trying to resolve the problems or even putting their side of the story forward. Must give the guy credit for listening to my suggestions and I think I got through to him in part as he said he would discuss our conversation with his director.

the facts simply don't match their assertions

i found 3 or maybe 4 contentious posts on the thread they specifically mentioned and they were pretty tame compared to what is on other sites and made by people with high post counts on this site and who's opinion i would usually take notice of.

so there goes the troll factor.

we are pretty active on ensuring people don't just hop on here and name and shame. much more so than most it would have to be said.

my money is on google search and list the thread and forum that had a negative comment.

problem and major concern for me is they have no real idea how this all works.

sure they made me remove the thread they mentioned but it lives for ever more in google cache and can be viewed at will when you search...

so are we forum owners to be held responsible for google pirating / cacheing our content? there goes google business model of selling access to information they don't own...

talk about a pandoras box.

do those making these vexatious claims that we allow their competitors to make spurious claims about their product or their legal team have any idea how this technology works?

i have to say i don't like where we are heading if this sort of thing is allowed to continue.

very very very worrying ....

[Nick S]

Have to agree with you that they don't understand how the system works. His/their apparent logic goes something like this: 1. Critical post appears on forum, 2. don't do anything about the post, 3. threaten the forum with legal consequnces for allowing the post to appear, 4. problem solved.

I tried to get him to understand that among the thousands of people who have seen this playing out there must be some that were considering buying a camper trailer and that if I was one of them I would definately have nothing to do with their products.

He felt that that was the price they would pay to protect themselves. I suggested that there must be a better way to resolve this than to attack the forum but I doubt they really understand or want to take another approach

[Didge]

Have you seen this page? and they advertise with that mag

View topic - What are GIC Campers like? | Australian 4WD Action (http://www.4wdaction.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=132&t=101644&start=165)

Wonder if they received a letter? Roothy would be most upset :)

[incisor]

page 16 is the best

one of the workers having a little to say...

i tried to join yesterday and i haven't been accepted as yet...

[Didge]

Hilarious!

[roverrescue]

I think that many in the upper echaleons of companies/beauracracies lack the intuitive understanding of the "power of fora" that us mob see plain as day.

A few years ago, the Cook Shire Council announced via media release that "Cape York Roads will not open due to DERM not approving gravel pits to repair the roads"This was announced in March or April. Within hours it was all over the 4wd fora.

-The council made the media release to force the hand of DERM (which eventually worked).
-They had no intent on keeping roads closed.
-The trouble was people planning trips read the news - and it was early enough in the year to change plans.

So instead of doing the Cape, many many 4wd tourers would have said, "well its too risky, lets go ??? instead this year and do the Cape another time" Tourist season that year was no busier than the off season!!!!

I think it is similar to this case Blah,Blah,Bleh Campers have underestimated the power of people talking amongst themselves... lots of people... lots and lots of people, including their future customers. The company apathy reported by NickS only confirms that they have no real concept of what they have actually achieved!

ps: I mostly added this long winded and largely irrelevant anecdote to keep the post rolling ;)

S

[THE BOOGER]

The show room guy,s attitude seems to change a bit in his last post but he may have 1 point have a look at how many 1 post members are complaining seems they join, post about *** then disappear:o

[incisor]

The show room guy,s attitude seems to change a bit in his last post but he may have 1 point have a look at how many 1 post members are complaining seems they join, post about *** then disappear:o

yeah

and that isnt allowed to happen here, yet i get nasty letters :p

[spudboy]

Well, from someone who has absolutely no interest in camper trailers, I've learnt a lot in the last couple of days following this thread!

Talk about a dumb idea, to threaten AULRO with legal action to try and suppress a thread that very few people might have read, and now everyone knows about it :(

Hope that nothing come of it from your point of view Inc. Not a nice feeling at all to be threatened with legal action.

[Mick_Marsh]

Talk about a dumb idea, to threaten AULRO with legal action to try and suppress a thread that very few people might have read, and now everyone knows about it :(
Very good point.

[DiscoMick]

The question about how responsible a website owner is for content that appears is a good one. I'm not a lawyer, so can't comment on the legalities.
Seems to be a bit similar to the issue of if the website is responsible if it hosts a pirated movie for download. There's been lots of legal action about that.
I assume the website owner may not be held responsible if something dodgy appears without the owner's knowledge, but once its drawn to the owner's attention, the level of responsibility would increase, particularly if the owner refused to take it down.
For example, there is legislation proposed about sites which host pornography which, as I understand it, makes the website owner responsible if something illegal appears and is drawn to the website's attention.
Facebook and Twitter have been copping flak for allowing abusive posts, particularly those slagging off women, and have promised to take them down.
Of course, in this camper trailer case, it would have to be proven that the negative posts went beyond fair comment and were actually defamatory. Proving that could cost the plaintiff a lot of time and money. Would they really be prepared to spend that much?
The flip side of this is that there undoubtedly are cases where rivals go on websites to bag the opposition, so its understandable they would get annoyed by it.
So, I guess people have to remember that the normal laws apply on the internet, statements have to be factual, and sometimes being factual isn't a complete defence, because we don't have a right to free speech in this country, which means that factual statements can also be defamatory if they're found to be a malicious attempt to lower the reputation of another.
Gawd life is complicated. I need to go camping...:(

[Ausfree]

Well, from someone who has absolutely no interest in camper trailers, I've learnt a lot in the last couple of days following this thread!

Talk about a dumb idea, to threaten AULRO with legal action to try and suppress a thread that very few people might have read, and now everyone knows about it :(

Hope that nothing come of it from your point of view Inc. Not a nice feeling at all to be threatened with legal action.
Have to agree with the above comments, I too have no interest in camper trailors, but I have read this Thread right through with great interest. I now very much appreciate the fine line that Incisor walks and can understand his tight control on "naming and shaming". It really is a shame that the company that is the subject of this Thread has reacted (overreacted??) this way.:(

[JamesB71]

I agree with Aus here. If I was in the market for a trailer I would rather avoid litigous suppliers just because of what it says about their practices. Companies that do good work and earn their reputation dont worry about sueing people for talking about their products.

They could have the best trailers in the world and I wouldnt want to deal with someone who would jump on this "If all else fails sue sue sue" malise that is strickening our society. Where I come from a handshake is better than a contract and being honest and helpful will always earn you more respect that threatening to sue.

[Judo]

Every time I see a case like this, I can't help but think the instigator has a very poor understanding of the Internet in general. It also reminds me of Gerry Harvey. Always a very comical drama! It's like they think the "Internet" is a black box and there is a single key to open it. Blerg. I admit not everyone will understand the Internet either, but if that's the situation, FIND SOMEONE WHO DOES AND LISTEN TO THEM. (Note - I do not mean legal advice! Phone a friend!). So disappointing when a lack of understanding is the root of the problem and the solution is legal action. What happened to having a conversation first? They seem to have assumed that no one would listen to them, so have not bothered with the niceties. Again - it shows a complete lack of understanding I think.

Anyway, if it was me I would do the same thing Dave. Share your situation, remove the content and move on. It's tough not to consider future developments, but the best idea is to take it one step at a time. These things will come up every so often, but few (hopefully none) will have any real substance. In a few weeks this will hopefully be nothing but history.

[flagg]

Well it seems they share the view:



"Thank you for the honest feedback, it’s a poor organisation that can’t cop criticism on the chin and try to prevent problems being repeated. Since you took the trouble to post, I have replied to each issue (see next post)as best I can."



This was posted by someone saying they work at the trailer company in a forum that has threads about these trailers.. And from what I gather the forum is run by a company that the trailer company advertises with...

[Bardizzo]

Well it seems they share the view:



"Thank you for the honest feedback, it’s a poor organisation that can’t cop criticism on the chin and try to prevent problems being repeated. Since you took the trouble to post, I have replied to each issue (see next post)as best I can."



This was posted by someone saying they work at the trailer company in a forum that has threads about these trailers.. And from what I gather the forum is run by a company that the trailer company advertises with...

Did you read to the end of the thread, he changed his tune!!

[Chucaro]

I just read few reviews about the trailers and I wonder if the posters there or the admin of THE SITE (http://www.http://www.productreview.com.au) are going to receive a letter as well.

[Outback 1]

im sure when it all comes to an end they will spring up elsewhere with a new brand name ,as the saying goes bad news travels fast good news takes a while !

[Judo]

Well it seems they share the view:



"Thank you for the honest feedback, it’s a poor organisation that can’t cop criticism on the chin and try to prevent problems being repeated. Since you took the trouble to post, I have replied to each issue (see next post)as best I can."



This was posted by someone saying they work at the trailer company in a forum that has threads about these trailers.. And from what I gather the forum is run by a company that the trailer company advertises with...
Just read the thread... Credit due - the guy is certainly trying. But in my opinion he is out of his league! That thread sure is rough, but taken with a grain of salt, the comments (unfortunately) appear mostly honest and objective. Tough gig for the manufacturer to deal with now, but I don't think their customers are to blame... hmmm...

[p38arover]

I just read few reviews about the trailers and I wonder if the posters there or the admin of THE SITE (http://www.productreview.com.au) are going to receive a letter as well.

Fixed Arthur's link (I'm no longer a Mod so I can't fix his actual post). I can't put the full link in as the AULRO swear filter edits it. :D

[Duke4]

Factsheet -Defamation (http://www.qpilch.org.au/resources/factsheets/Defamation.htm)

As we found out, it is a very complex area of law.
However, there are many defences, the two that got my father across the line (he was the plaintiff) were:
Honest opinion: section 31 of the 2005 Act

and

Qualified privilege: section 30 of the 2005 Act

I can't stress enough that I now know that this is not a subject for bush lawyers!


Ralph

From the above link and our company lawyers defamation can only be against an individual not a company, so unless individuals have been named from that company there is no defamation, you cannot defame a company.
This is my undersatanding but I am not a lawyer, we are on the opposite side of the fence an individual is bad mouthing our company online and our legal advice is once he starts namining names them we can act on defamation action.

[JohnF]

The letter is also on my facebook page, and I thank the person who posted it. I think we should all boycott any company that sues a forum over people expressing their opinion.

My brother recently purchased a VW 4X4 as he had probems with the 4x4s from two very big Jap companies, and he will now tell all his friends not to buy them Jap ones because of their problems.

[isuzurover]

From the above link and our company lawyers defamation can only be against an individual not a company, so unless individuals have been named from that company there is no defamation, you cannot defame a company.
This is my undersatanding but I am not a lawyer, we are on the opposite side of the fence an individual is bad mouthing our company online and our legal advice is once he starts namining names them we can act on defamation action.

Not quite correct. NFP companies and those with <10 employees (also not affiliated with another company) can sue for defamation.

However the company in question has 3 sales and distribution offices, plus manufacturing, plus it owns a boat sales/manufacturing company, so I would be surprised if they did not employ 10 or more people in all their subsidiaries Australia wide...

[ADMIRAL]

The letter is also on my facebook page, and I thank the person who posted it. I think we should all boycott any company that sues a forum over people expressing their opinion.

My brother recently purchased a VW 4X4 as he had probems with the 4x4s from two very big Jap companies, and he will now tell all his friends not to buy them Jap ones because of their problems.

Might be prudent to wait a while, a see how the new one turns out. Saves on the egg wiping from the face.

[Davo]

Thanks to sam d for pointing this out earlier in this thread:

Streisand effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've got a feeling that the company in question may have made a particularly bad mistake, given what has happened in similar situations. I liked this example, from the above link:

"In April 2013, representative(s) of Suburban Express, a bus company that provides transportation for students of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) to Chicago suburbs, allegedly posted favorable comments about their company on a forum on Reddit dedicated to UIUC by using several sockpuppet accounts, and insulted members of the forum who criticized them. This led the forum moderator to delete the offensive comments and post a note on the forum frontpage warning readers about Suburban Express, including their litigious behavior which involved suing 125 customers this year for alleged violations of their terms of service. Suburban Express's legal representation then threatened to sue the forum moderator, demanding in a letter that "libelous postings" be removed. Suburban Express retracted its threat to sue the moderator and also withdrew the 125 lawsuits it had filed against its customers after receiving widespread negative reactions[30][31][32] in the media and on the internet. This incident has been called an example of the Streisand Effect by some, including Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing,[30] Sean Gallagher of Ars Technica,[31] and Ken White of Popehat.[32"

Inc., I expect that just sitting back and watching while the off-road and camping community discuss the matter will be interesting . . .

[Aussie]

I'm so glad i found this thread, My camping and fishing buddy is in the market for a camping trailer, ( I tow the boat and he will tow the trailer) we've been hitting ebay hard and are planning a trip to the camping show this year to look at trailers, we'll be staying away from this brand.

[Sandgroper]

I was looking at buying a camper trailer later this year and would love to know which company we are referring to here, if someone could PM me their name so I know to stay clear I'd much appreciate it.

Cheers, Dave.

[ramblingboy42]

You are allowed to tell anyone anywhere exactly what you have experienced with anybodys product anywhere in the world. What you cannot legally do is then proceed to use derogatory or defamatory comments about the company, its owner or its ability to produce its goods. That is only fair. By openly illustrating bad workmanship etc for all to see and make an uninformed decision against a company or business is unfair. If every forum member here follows that simple procedure nothing can ever arise to the point it has arisen in this instance.

[Sandgroper]

Thanks to a forum member I now know the company involved here, thank you.

[Davo]

Thanks to a forum member I now know the company involved here, thank you.

Do a search and you'll learn a lot about what they've been up to over the last few years. I think they've gotten themselves into a big mud puddle now with only their eyebrows poking out.

[Sandgroper]

Do a search and you'll learn a lot about what they've been up to over the last few years. I think they've gotten themselves into a big mud puddle now with only their eyebrows poking out.

I spent half an hour this morning googling them and I will definitely NOT be buying anything from this company! Crikey, what a shocker this mob are!

[Davo]

I've found a few outfits like this by researching through the Internet. What none of them seem to realise is that we all leave some sort of a trail through the web. So this latest attempt of theirs will still pop up years from now. FAIL!

[incisor]

please don't name and shame on this system, especially if you are not even a subscriber!

i am not interested in the consequences.

this thread is all about what happens to me when people name and shame.

it takes too much time and effort to sort.

and if it continues to be a problem there will be repercussions for those that persist.

consider this a last warning to all

use notgoodenough.org or one of the other sites that allow that sort of behaviour.

it is not going to happen here

thank you.

[Judo]

please don't name and shame on this system, especially if you are not even a subscriber!

i am not interested in the consequences.

this thread is all about what happens to me when people name and shame.

it takes too much time and effort to sort.

and if it continues to be a problem there will be repercussions for those that persist.

consider this a last warning to all

use notgoodenough.org or one of the other sites that allow that sort of behaviour.

it is not going to happen here

thank you.

Fair enough.

Not sure if you want to say, but has anyone with the relevant qualifications from the forums offered you some advice?

[THE BOOGER]

Fair enough.

Not sure if you want to say, but has anyone with the relevant qualifications from the forums offered you some advice?

Was going to ask the same thing given the title of the thread :)

[incisor]

i have spoken to a couple and there is one more i want to speak to

so far the concensus has been similar

i'll wait to till i talk to the gentleman i am yet to speak to before i have much more to say.

that said, at this stage, i have no intention to allow name and shames even if it is deemed legal to do so under certain circumstances.

it still takes time and a considered opinion to manage that type of content.

fair enough if someone with the appropriate legal qualifications and expertise wants too step up and moderate such an area i would be willing to alter my view but i am sorry, i see no advantage to the system and its users by allowing them here as it stands.

there are a heap of other places focused and geared for that sort of traffic as has become obvious during this discussion.

[worane]

message deleted.

[Ausfree]

A question!!!!!

When a defamatory post (name and shame) is made on a Forum such as this one, would the person who made that defamatory post be libel or does the full weight of litigation fall on the owner (Incisor) of the Forum. :confused:

I would imagine if a person makes a defamatory statement, he/she should be the ones to answer for it, not a third party.

Just curious, and I'm sure there is an answer!!!!

[Landy Smurf]

^Would they actually be able to find the person who did it though, as it is easy to make up false I.D.

[Disco Muppet]

I think you'd find Inc. would be liable as the site owner.
The site itself is the medium that hosts the negative comments so the owner of the site is responsible for the information that appears on it.

[Mick_Marsh]

A question!!!!!

When a defamatory post (name and shame) is made on a Forum such as this one, would the person who made that defamatory post be libel or does the full weight of litigation fall on the owner (Incisor) of the Forum. :confused:

I would imagine if a person makes a defamatory statement, he/she should be the ones to answer for it, not a third party.

Just curious, and I'm sure there is an answer!!!!
I think they'll go after the easiest target, the forum owner.
I think they'll look at it this way, "shut down the forum, problem solved".

[p38arover]

^Would they actually be able to find the person who did it though, as it is easy to make up false I.D.

Your IP address is visible to the Mods and Admin. Their lawyers could ask for that info.

[Ausfree]

Yeah, G'Day Mick, congratulations on being made a Mod on this site by the way.:D I just find it odd that a Forum owner could be sued because some individual makes stupid remarks on his/her Forum.

The laws in this country must be very tight on this sort of thing, but it seems on UK sites everything is much more relaxed, I would have thought the laws in both countries regarding this sort of thing would be similiar. But I am not a lawyer.:D

[clubagreenie]

Yeah but depending on what I'm doing I could be home, or anywhere else in the world. Hell give me 10 min and I'll post from their office.

[Eevo]

this forum sucks.

there you go, a defamatory comment. the person hosting the above comment is now responsible for my comment.

inc better shut this forum down before i sue!

[incisor]

A question!!!!!

When a defamatory post (name and shame) is made on a Forum such as this one, would the person who made that defamatory post be libel or does the full weight of litigation fall on the owner (Incisor) of the Forum. :confused:

I would imagine if a person makes a defamatory statement, he/she should be the ones to answer for it, not a third party.

Just curious, and I'm sure there is an answer!!!!

i'm the one that got the letter :p

[incisor]

Your IP address is visible to the Mods and Admin. Their lawyers could ask for that info.

would need a court order for me to hand that sort of info out

[incisor]

it's all academic in reality as i am not interested in hosting that sort of content...

if it shows up it will be deleted when spotted or reported.

i see banner adverts for some of their rivals when in this thread.... bugger!

[incisor]

this forum sucks.

there you go, a defamatory comment. the person hosting the above comment is now responsible for my comment.

inc better shut this forum down before i sue!

that is not defamitory, it is just plain rude!


:D:D:D:D

[p38arover]

would need a court order for me to hand that sort of info out

When I was involved in litigation in Telstra (over 10 years ago), the other party's lawyers asked for a lot of our files in the discovery phase of the proceedings. I think (can't be sure) that now needs a court order.

[Didge]

I think you'd find Inc. would be liable as the site owner.
The site itself is the medium that hosts the negative comments so the owner of the site is responsible for the information that appears on it.

Mmmmhh - why isn't Facebook liable for all the defamatory (and I mean really defamatory about individuals) posts on their sites? They ignore requests for removal and nothing happens.

[bee utey]

Mmmmhh - why isn't Facebook liable for all the defamatory (and I mean really defamatory about individuals) posts on their sites? They ignore requests for removal and nothing happens.

When your site is worth hundreds of millions ordinary rules no longer apply. That money buys a LOT of legal stonewalling. The law protects property not people.

[Didge]

Ooh yeah, its not a justice system we have but a legal one meant for moneymaking my some :)

[frantic]

I'm thinking of approaching this in another way. ;) How about a thread or section called "Subject's of silence. here you could have each companies name and the letter from their legal that forced you to delete all discussion. Maybe a few links to other sites still talking that issue.

[Debacle]

Or you could just let it go maybe, accept no naming and shaming on the forum and move on.

[Disco Muppet]

Or you could just let it go maybe, accept no naming and shaming on the forum and move on.

Probably the best course of action.
Although if there were to be a section of such material, make it available to subscribers only so it doesn't appear in search engines?

[incisor]

Or you could just let it go maybe, accept no naming and shaming on the forum and move on.

what an excellent idea!

;)

[Chucaro]

what an excellent idea!

;)

IMHO, I would even go further and stop(lock) this thread before a member made a comment with out having reading the wishes of Inc early on.
We are not going to change how the law is working so lets put this issue behind.
We all have expressed our views and the parties involved know were we stand :)

[clubagreenie]

Perhaps if we build a giant badger...

[incisor]

Perhaps if we build a giant badger...
http://wtswwcdn.8a1bc20d.cdn.memsites.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/giant-badger.jpg

[Judo]

Mmmmhh - why isn't Facebook liable for all the defamatory (and I mean really defamatory about individuals) posts on their sites? They ignore requests for removal and nothing happens.
I think you'll find companies like Facebook and Google DO get taken to court for this all the time. The difference is they have a legal budget in the hundreds of millions, so small time legal threats don't make it past the front door as the cost to fight such a large firm is very expensive. If you make threats towards a small firm they can't afford to fight, so are forced to take the route of least resistance - regardless of whether it's the "right" route.

[London Boy]

is there a legal eagle with a sound knowledge in defamation and internet on the system ?

i need an opinion ;)
An opinion on what? The law in this area is still developing, so there is still a lot of uncertainty on what does or does not give rise to liability. As stated elsewhere, the threat of legal action is usually enough to shut people up who don't have the up-front money to spend on a case.

Has someone said something that is untrue, or at least not provably true?

[Davo]

If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the law here depends on precendents, where a decision in court affects later decisions and so on. (I do realise I'm practising bush lawyerism at its best here.) So someone would need to take this sort of situation to court, win, and establish that people can say certain things on these fora and be within their rights. I'd happily fund that if I could!

But on this site it's always been a case of not naming companies. If something comes up and anyone wanted to know the details then they can just send a PM and ask. This is nice and private and doesn't broadcast anything, and at the same time a dodgey outfit isn't protected by everyone having to be quiet. This forum would be far less relevant if people weren't allowed to discuss their problems, even in private. This has worked very well here and I'd be happy for things not to change.

I think that how they posted the lawyer's letter over at myswag was a good way to say so much with so little. (And did anyone else notice the sloppy writing in that letter? Erck.)

[incisor]

first thing i did was post the letter here in the admin news area then on facebook when i got time, they cant stop you doing that.

i posted this thread so they would be well aware i was getting advice

i have seen or heard nothing that would suggest i operate different to how we have been, as yet.

i doubt i will be convinced that the no name and shame rule on here be changed.

the overheads maintaining it otherwise are just to large.

[Davo]

That's what I'm saying: this forum ain't broke and don't need fixin'. It would be chaos otherwise. I used to be on the Roversnorth forum when it was like that and quit because of it. They wouldn't moderate or anything so it got to be ridiculous. (I think that eventually they very slowly realised that having it could help their business, and then did something about it.)

I'll be watching for these situations from now on because I find it very interesting that a company could be silly enough to cause themselves this huge amount of bad publicity. I also wonder if they really would spend enormous amounts of money stomping on websites that could easily spring up again under another name when it's all over. It looks like some interesting times in this regard.

I also thought that the case referred to in that letter had little to do with this, and I'd take a lot of convincing otherwise if I was on a jury.

[rick130]

A question!!!!!

When a defamatory post (name and shame) is made on a Forum such as this one, would the person who made that defamatory post be libel or does the full weight of litigation fall on the owner (Incisor) of the Forum. :confused:

I would imagine if a person makes a defamatory statement, he/she should be the ones to answer for it, not a third party.

Just curious, and I'm sure there is an answer!!!!

It'll be the forum owner (as Inc has said in the past) as they would be deemed the 'publisher' or whatever other legal term the barristers would use.

It's no different to me installing a part on a customer's machine, under product liability law I'm deemed the 'manufacturer' even though all I've done is repair.

[Ausfree]

Certainly is a nasty legal jungle out there. I guess after reading right through this Thread, the only action to be taken by the Forum owner to protect himself from litigation, is being taken. that is, to educate new members on the rules regarding "naming and shaming" and infracting those who ignore the rules.;) and banning repeat offenders.;)

I was just pondering the situation on how if some individual makes a silly statement that causes threats of law suits to be flying around, how they could just shrug and walk away and the owner of the Forum cops it.:confused:

Anyrate, time to move on and as K Rudd once said " I've got to zip". that's it from me on this topic!!!:D:D

[clubagreenie]

Heading off to register Name and Shame (http://www.nameandshame.com) in someone elses' name.

Edit: Too late. Coming to you in Jan 2014.

[London Boy]

The courts can be the refuge of shoddy operators who would rather let solicitors speak for them rather than their products. If its true and its in the public interest then its not defamatory.
Public interest is irrelevant if it is true. Truth is an absolute defence to a defamation suit.

[London Boy]

Bullied or not, sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

Civil action can cost a shed load of money and, in most cases, even if you win you don't get your costs back. Courts these days like to do a thing called apportionment and will usually seek to find at least a degree of fault on each side.
That's for negligence suits, certainly, but defamation is different. Regardless, the reality is that you will not get back your entire costs even if you win, unless the court finds that the other side acted unreasonably.

[Homestar]

Truth is an absolute defence to a defamation suit.

Unfortunately it is not always seen like that in the courts or this situation would be much easier to deal with.

Even if that was a cut and dried defence, how do you prove what was said originally was 'the truth' and not an exagerated story hyped up to prove a point?

[isuzurover]

Unfortunately it is not always seen like that in the courts or this situation would be much easier to deal with.

Even if that was a cut and dried defence, how do you prove what was said originally was 'the truth' and not an exagerated story hyped up to prove a point?

I think LB is a solicitor of barrister... are you?

University of New South Wales - Legal and Compliance Office - Fact Sheet Defamation (http://www.legal.unsw.edu.au/factsheets/defamation.html)


Defenses to Defamation

There are seven main defenses to defamation claims.

1. Truth

If you can show what you wrote is true, then the plaintiff's cause of action will fail. If the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complaints are substantially true, the defamation action is defensible.

If you posted on a forum that your camper trailer had xyz defects and you had documentary proof e.g. photos, then I doubt the other party's counsel would have any room to argue.

[Homestar]

Happy to be corrected - thanks, but I was only putting up what I was discussing with others about this.

You actually clarified what I wanted to point out - that is PROVING your point. A few photos of broken welds may not suffice, maybe a full structural analysis by a qualified engineer would be asked for and required to prove what had caused the failure - the workmanship of building it or how it was used/loaded. That's the first thing I would ask for if I was on that side of the fence, and as you pointed out - I'm not a Solicitor... :)

Way too hard if you don't have very deep pockets and plenty of time. Far easier and cheaper to do what Inc has done.

[London Boy]

That's the one- he was Tasmanian, went to Hollywood, was a real ladies man, apparently well endowed but was a boozer and got into trouble for playing around with a really young girl (well underage) so he obviously had a bad side.
He was accused by two young girls, was charged in with statutory rape, went to trial and was cleared.

[Didge]

Yeah, I was only going from an old memory but I understand he was a bit of a rogue, a likeable one, but still one who attracted trouble.

[London Boy]

From the above link and our company lawyers defamation can only be against an individual not a company, so unless individuals have been named from that company there is no defamation, you cannot defame a company.
A company with fewer then 10 employees (FTE's) can sue for defamation under NSW law.

[Davo]

Happy to be corrected - thanks, but I was only putting up what I was discussing with others about this.

You actually clarified what I wanted to point out - that is PROVING your point. A few photos of broken welds may not suffice, maybe a full structural analysis by a qualified engineer would be asked for and required to prove what had caused the failure - the workmanship of building it or how it was used/loaded. That's the first thing I would ask for if I was on that side of the fence, and as you pointed out - I'm not a Solicitor... :)

Way too hard if you don't have very deep pockets and plenty of time. Far easier and cheaper to do what Inc has done.

If I ever got around to starting my own Land-Rover site then I would probably do just that when I had problems. A clear explanation of what happened and lots of photos and whatever else. How risky it would be, I don't know, and there are plenty of shoddy outfits out there who will threaten you just so they can carry on as is. But unfortunately you can't expect Inc. to keep track of that here and fend off opportunistic legal snouts. That's why the law should be clearer on this point so that anyone could simply say what's wrong and be free to do so.

Dammit! Where's Dick Smith when you need him? :p

[London Boy]

A question!!!!!

When a defamatory post (name and shame) is made on a Forum such as this one, would the person who made that defamatory post be libel or does the full weight of litigation fall on the owner (Incisor) of the Forum. :confused:

I would imagine if a person makes a defamatory statement, he/she should be the ones to answer for it, not a third party.

Just curious, and I'm sure there is an answer!!!!
The original poster is liable if he or she can be identified.

The owner of the forum is prima facie liable for re-publishing the material, though may claim the defence of innocent dissemination (or the statutory defence to similar effect under Commonwealth law).

[Eevo]

The original poster is liable if he or she can be identified.


one of the downsides to subscribing

[London Boy]

first thing i did was post the letter here in the admin news area then on facebook when i got time, they cant stop you doing that.
The Google case is more or less irrelevant and it seems reasonable to assume that it was mentioned, in essence, as a threat.

The plaintiffs are a natural person and a company. The company probably cannot sue, since from what I understand it is too big. The person can sue, though whether it is worth his while is another matter.

One thing I personally would do is reply and ask them for more detail. They have mentioned a thread and said, more or less, that it contains defamatory statements. I would ask them for further particulars, to identify the statements they consider defamatory, on the reasonable ground that you cannot remove a statement that has not been identified.

They might well say the whole thread is defamatory, in which case I would then go back and ask what, exactly, is defamatory about it. In essence, I would be asking for the same things that a court would expect to see if later a case were to be brought.

I might then reply and ask whether their client would prefer the offending material be removed or, knowing that it was cached (e.g. on Google) and so could not be completely deleted, their client would prefer to publish a correction to any statements made.

I would also, in practice, redirect the thread to a new locked thread doing no more than to quote/display the letter and say that you will entertain no further mention of the company or its products, except in completely neutral terms and accompanied by a link to that new thread. If you see what I mean.

Allow any posters to draw their own conclusions about the company, its product quality and its business methods.

[London Boy]

It's no different to me installing a part on a customer's machine, under product liability law I'm deemed the 'manufacturer' even though all I've done is repair.
Only if you cannot identify the manufacturer or importer, surely?

[London Boy]

I think LB is a solicitor of barrister... are you?
No. I got my law degree but didn't go into practice. I get a better living (define that how you like) doing consultancy work.

[Judo]

one of the downsides to subscribing
:lol2: Yep, so is robbing a bank and yelling out your name and address from the getaway car. ;)

[Judo]

I would also, in practice, redirect the thread to a new locked thread doing no more than to quote/display the letter and say that you will entertain no further mention of the company or its products, except in completely neutral terms and accompanied by a link to that new thread. If you see what I mean.

Allow any posters to draw their own conclusions about the company, its product quality and its business methods.

Inc, can you use the swear filter to instead replace a word with *** replace a word with a URL? ;)

[Davo]

The Google case is more or less irrelevant and it seems reasonable to assume that it was mentioned, in essence, as a threat.

The plaintiffs are a natural person and a company. The company probably cannot sue, since from what I understand it is too big. The person can sue, though whether it is worth his while is another matter.

One thing I personally would do is reply and ask them for more detail. They have mentioned a thread and said, more or less, that it contains defamatory statements. I would ask them for further particulars, to identify the statements they consider defamatory, on the reasonable ground that you cannot remove a statement that has not been identified.

They might well say the whole thread is defamatory, in which case I would then go back and ask what, exactly, is defamatory about it. In essence, I would be asking for the same things that a court would expect to see if later a case were to be brought.

I might then reply and ask whether their client would prefer the offending material be removed or, knowing that it was cached (e.g. on Google) and so could not be completely deleted, their client would prefer to publish a correction to any statements made.

I would also, in practice, redirect the thread to a new locked thread doing no more than to quote/display the letter and say that you will entertain no further mention of the company or its products, except in completely neutral terms and accompanied by a link to that new thread. If you see what I mean.

Allow any posters to draw their own conclusions about the company, its product quality and its business methods.

That's pretty much what I do when someone gets up on their hind legs about whatever it may be, or if I'm after them to correct something. That way you're keeping to the facts, which can really throw some people when what they want is to threaten and dramatise. We had neighbour troubles and by keeping records and keeping my complaint strictly about their, er, "undesirable behaviour", when we went to mediation her arguments didn't even make it out of the hangar. Too bad the mediator was the human equivalent of a damp sock.

Obviously the Google case was mentioned in such a threatening manner because of the amount of money involved, though I never found out how much whatsisname actually got and legal fees and so on. Given enough money, my reply would have been something in writing such as, "Bring it on, beeyatch," but I can quite understand why Inc. has taken a nobler path. :D

[incisor]

just received the hard copy of the letter in the mail..

onward and upward...

[Yorkie]

One thing I personally would do is reply and ask them for more detail. They have mentioned a thread and said, more or less, that it contains defamatory statements. I would ask them for further particulars, to identify the statements they consider defamatory, on the reasonable ground that you cannot remove a statement that has not been identified.

They might well say the whole thread is defamatory, in which case I would then go back and ask what, exactly, is defamatory about it. In essence, I would be asking for the same things that a court would expect to see if later a case were to be brought.

I might then reply and ask whether their client would prefer the offending material be removed or, knowing that it was cached (e.g. on Google) and so could not be completely deleted, their client would prefer to publish a correction to any statements made.


i like this idea, just reply with one question letters, each time acknowledging the last. the lawyers will be charging $xxx per letter and those that shall not be named will get fed up of giving answers and paying the lawyers.
also maybe ask for confirmation they have sent Express Media Group a letter due to the content on their forum which is still available.
such fun! :angel:

[Chucaro]

i like this idea, just reply with one question letters, each time acknowledging the last. the lawyers will be charging $xxx per letter and those that shall not be named will get fed up of giving answers and paying the lawyers.
also maybe ask for confirmation they have sent Express Media Group a letter due to the content on their forum which is still available.
such fun! :angel:

:D love it

[incisor]

welp all my advice seems to be in

a very well qualified and respected barrister is having a peruse just to make sure everything is as it should be and then what needs to happen will happen.

thanks to all

more when there is more news.