Thread: Automotive Skills Kirrawee

Thanks for all the replies and PM's.
Now I am really worried. Hopefully they will deliver in the end.
Andrew

Originally Posted by BradC

Just a gentle reminder to keep in mind the name and shame rules.
AAAAAA - New Users Start Here! - Conditions of Access etc

Interesting. A statement of fact is not defamation and is a valid legal defence. I would think most comments by people on this website would be defendable under a number of the categories. But this is off topic and probably done to death elsewhere.

So if I were to state I sent a vehicle to have an engine replaced. The business did not replace said engine, but did a partial rebuild and I can prove this via emails, invoices and regulatory checks, that is a statement of fact (defence #2) and cant be claimed to be defamatory.



Defences

The first step when someone threatens you with defamation is to establish whether they can establish all three elements discussed above: the material has been communicated to a third person (other than the person claiming defamation), the person claiming defamation is identified in the communication and the communication defames him/her.
The next step is to consider whether you have a defence under the law of defamation. Defences include:

1. Honest opinion (also known as defence of fair comment)
2. Justification/Truth
3. Qualified privilege
4. Innocent dissemination
5. Public Interest
6. Triviality
7. Other defences

The rules may be frustrating Andrew but regardless of who is right or wrong, the site owner as the publisher would be wiped out financially if forced to defend in court.

Hence why it is OK to share your experience one to one via PM’s if people ask.

Google reviews are also a good place for honest feedback.

If things do go south and you are seeking advice on how to proceed, try sending a PM to member goldey.

goldey is the OP of this thread:

D4 3.0 SDV6 catastrophic failure

Originally Posted by BradC

And entirely the fault of a broken legal system where the publisher of a piece of information can be held liable for it. That and snowflake service providers who provide crap service, know they provide crap service and will sue anyone who says so.

So business as usual, positive posts welcome and any negative experiences by PM where they can't be found in a search engine. Mental isn't it?

A forum is a social media tool, just like Facebook, and they aren’t considered “publishers”. The US has “Section 230” to cover this. In Australia, as a forum owner, you are only liable if you do not remove content that someone brings to your attention as defamatory, which would be the interested party. One could argue whether a piece is fact or defamatory, but for obvious reasons, a forum owner has no interest being dragged into someone’s legal dispute at their cost, so it’s no wonder it’s simply easier just to not allow such content.

Either way, a forum is not a public service and we follow the rules or be asked to leave, just like any private establishment.

Originally Posted by DiscoJeffster

A forum is a social media tool, just like Facebook, and they aren’t considered “publishers”. The US has “Section 230” to cover this. In Australia, as a forum owner, you are only liable if you do not remove content that someone brings to your attention as defamatory, which would be the interested party. One could argue whether a piece is fact or defamatory, but for obvious reasons, a forum owner has no interest being dragged into someone’s legal dispute at their cost, so it’s no wonder it’s simply easier just to not allow such content.

Either way, a forum is not a public service and we follow the rules or be asked to leave, just like any private establishment.

I guess that makes me toolie...

I think these rules are good. Unlike the editor of a newpaper or major media outlet, the forum publisher is simply providing a 'forum' so is not doing their due diligence on the material being published on their site. Before these rules came in any nonghead with an axe to grind could ruin a buisness a guy has spend years building by spreading rumours about them. Keyoard warriors had terrific power. Fox news is a good example, spouting off lies to the braindeads who watch them, USD$750m later they are more likely to reduce their incessant lieing. Likewise, a forum moderator now has a greater responsibility to moderate their content more and block these ***** out, which makes life better for all, IMO. There are Private messaging options that can be used so it is not like there are no options to communicate.

Originally Posted by Screamingkiw

........ Before these rules came in any nonghead with an axe to grind could ruin a buisness a guy has spend years building by spreading rumours about them. Keyoard warriors had terrific power.......

I've heard bad publicity is what caused the D3 to become the D4.

Originally Posted by RANDLOVER

I've heard bad publicity is what caused the D3 to become the D4.

ROFL. No just the fact every vehicle receives updates to modernise and make people want to upgrade and buy, like every product ever marketed?????