Why AULRO does not do name and shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Discofender

Perfect example: The*Streisand effect*is an*unintended consequence*of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information.

---

Didn't Oscar beat Barbara to the punch? [bigwhistle]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo3400

What happened to all the forums that had balls and said what they thought?

---

Hi
several got closed down because they couldn't pay the legal bills.

I've been threatened several times and managed to work out a way around it thanks the legal eagles that drive range rovers that helped me and the system out.

if you have the readies to stump up the insurance premiums each year, you'll be able to shoot your mouth off and show your balls till the cows come home.

sadly i don't have the readies, nor would the money that comes in from the subscriptions etc, pay those premiums.

the end result is there are rules that must be followed, to allow the system to survive and help in the multitude of others ways that it does.

enjoy your day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saitch

Gumption? Guts? Greed? Government? Grubby lawyers? Graft? Generation? :confused: .............................or Barney?

https://youtu.be/41HVmjHh4pk't=8

---

https://youtu.be/2KCOd6Yt7dE'si=JdDRWgMTVcbkhMsD

Odd, is Australian law different? Are YOU as site owner held responsible for the words of others? That does not fly down here. You can be contacted and may be asked to remove something or take other action but they are not your words and that's the end of it. If you do not comply with, you can get in trouble of course.

It's a bit of a shame since I never got to find out what happened to betta batteries because everyone keeps his/her mouth shut due to legal restraints and the same "could" happen here, though the story is well and truly out I guess.

Finally, makes me wonder what is considered naming and shaming. I recently had a product that worked quite well just not up to it's advertised specs and I certainly made that knows so that another can do with that information as he/she wishes. Would that be considered naming and shaming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prelude

Odd, is Australian law different? Are YOU as site owner held responsible for the words of others? That does not fly down here. You can be contacted and may be asked to remove something or take other action but they are not your words and that's the end of it. If you do not comply with, you can get in trouble of course.

It's a bit of a shame since I never got to find out what happened to betta batteries because everyone keeps his/her mouth shut due to legal restraints and the same "could" happen here, though the story is well and truly out I guess.

Finally, makes me wonder what is considered naming and shaming. I recently had a product that worked quite well just not up to it's advertised specs and I certainly made that knows so that another can do with that information as he/she wishes. Would that be considered naming and shaming?

---

Perhaps stating that you are doing a 'Review' of a product would be acceptable?

Depends how it is worded, like so many things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prelude

Odd, is Australian law different? Are YOU as site owner held responsible for the words of others?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saitch

Perhaps stating that you are doing a 'Review' of a product would be acceptable?

---

giving an honest opinion doesn't preclude the fact that those with an agenda can initiate nefarious legal actions that cost you time and money to negate.

Here is an interesting watch!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NHTNCK2KUU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drivesafe

Here is an interesting watch!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NHTNCK2KUU

---

According to Lois Rossman that vid earned Will a privacy strike, whatever that is, at the 3 second mark! Sensitive, much?