Thread: And you wonder why we don't allow "name and shame" posts

I didn't read it all, but shouldn't it be the posters being sued, not the messenger?

Maybe the messenger has no money. But the facilitator, Google, does.

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

I didn't read it all, but shouldn't it be the posters being sued, not the messenger?

The same happened with the Whirlpool forum the forum was sued, not the posters.

See Whirlpool (website) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel the legal actions against GOOGLE is taken as they (google) will not remove the defamatory allegations. Name and shame is ok if a right of redress is provided in my entirely non legal opinion. $2.6 million and link removal might be settled at costs and link removal unless it is about money not the issue?

If I allege or feel god is: 1- Great or 2- God is a figment created to create political servitude is not defamation. God could strike me down correct me with his own post or a chuckle. 'I do not allege the above'

Posts that are objectionable are moderated by helpful people like you thank you p38arover. "A name and shame" on this forum about a interesting hotel in the great state of WA was happily reviewed by the council, state government, face book and my credit card provider.

I strongly suspect forums moderated by reasonable people are very unlikely to be targeted by legal actions. I used the word 'unlikely' as unreasonable people and sadly some of the legal profession do sometimes target wealthy Business or individuals with what 'some' people may feel is frivolous claims. mask details with "A name and shame" but allow free speech.

Thanks again

Originally Posted by weakestlink

mask details with "A name and shame" but allow free speech.

I think you'll find we don't have the right of free speech in Australia.

Originally Posted by p38arover

I think you'll find we don't have the right of free speech in Australia.

and nor should we

I think you will find that google is being sued for the search result links being returned by the google search engine, not the actual content.

Google is not responsible for the content, but they are potentially responsible for search results, particularly if they have been informed they are defamatory. See: The new Act and online content providers | ALRC

Ballsy move trying for 2.2m in damages, but at those numbers I am sure Google will dig in to their very deep legal pockets...

Originally Posted by p38arover

I think you'll find we don't have the right of free speech in Australia.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
credit: Voltaire or Evelyn Beatrice Hall aka S.G. Tallentyre

I say what I think a lot and admit free speech gets me into a lot of trouble