A warning for all bloggers and forum owners

[Reaper]

Forum owners should take note of the following Will the Whirlpool case wash? | APC Magazine and Image and Data Manager. Even when there is no case to answer, these things can be *extremely* expensive to fight. I suspect it is only a matter of time before somebody goes for something big.

Reaper

[matty88]

Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Darren wants members to donate money?

[AttaBoy]

Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Darren wants members to donate money?

Definitely not!!!!! Thats something else.

[burnz]

i wouldent worry too much about it!
costomer service is better than no service
time for the lawyer's to chase abulances again.

[14secvp]

did you read those articles they way i read it you should delete this thread now before jc's is next on the list to be sued

[J_D]

But we have freedom of speech.........NOT.

[Reaper]

did you read those articles they way i read it you should delete this thread now before jc's is next on the list to be sued

???? I don't follow. Why would JC be sued over this thread? I am more referring to people complaining that they have been ripped off or otherwise hard done by (insert name here).

Reaper

[STEALTHY™]

Defamation Laws only go so far.

For instance, I'll tell my story. I was ripped off by Profix (Pooraka for those playing at home). I took them to court, i won, and i can now inform other people not to take their business there. (Check the laws, i already did with a lawyer who frequents forums)

Obviously the threads would have been deleted by whirlpool, but is it just a case of the company are dodgy and got found out, or someone is out to get them. I would bet Darrens left testicle on it that they were found to be dodgy, and want to continue.

[Darren]

I have been watching that post with a great deal of interest for obvious reasons.

Perhaps I'm a little different, we've had 2 requests previously to remove content from the site which I did without question, I am not out in the land of living to make enemies nor do I wish to stir up trouble along the way.

[burnz]

all the blog sites s.m.h. tt aca fox
i cant imagine those big media companys will let this happens!
associated press may throw it's hat in the ring awell

[minux]

What a bloody joke. Why arent these companies suing reviewers in magazines etc? Same thing. People are just out to try and make a quick buck from other people these days. ****ing pathetic.

[J_D]

What a bloody joke. Why arent these companies suing reviewers in magazines etc?

Because magazines have the money to fight back. Justice is only for the rich.

[bezz]

will be very difficult for 2clix to win that. For defamation they need to prove that the comments made by the members were completely untrue (a bit hard when they talk from personal experience), and that the owner of a forum is responsible for a 3rd party's opinions...

edit: hah! should have read the whole article

[greenfoam]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz I vote one for the Whirlpool guy hes got my 15$ if he needs it

[Reaper]

will be very difficult for 2clix to win that. For defamation they need to prove that the comments made by the members were completely untrue (a bit hard when they talk from personal experience), and that the owner of a forum is responsible for a 3rd party's opinions...

edit: hah! should have read the whole article

I'm not sure actually. The point of my original post is that even if Wirlpool was 100% in the right, it could still be a very expensive proposition to defend it.

Now - just a couple of points. 2clix don't have to prove that the comments were completely (or even partially untrue). For a defamation action to succeed, the person complaining of the defamation (the plaintiff) has to prove three things:

1. that the communication has been published to a third person
2. that the communication identifies (or is about) the plaintiff; and
3. that the communication is defamatory. (ie causes an ordinary and reasonable person in the community to have a lower opinion of the plaintiff).

The defendant (Wirlpool) does have a few defences:

1. Honest opinion (previously known as fair comment)
2. Justification/Truth
3. Qualified privilege
4. Other defences

The most applicable will usually be 2 (Truth) but they must be able to prove this in court and herein lies the problem for forums.

"Your sources have to have first hand knowledge of the relevant circumstances. The rules against ‘hearsay’ evidence will prevent you putting forward witnesses who ‘heard something from somebody else’."

thus - the forum owner will need to either have first hand knowledge of the situation or get some anonymous contributor to come to court and be a witness (which will also risk them to further action from the plaintiff). In short - it isn't going to happen.

More information can be found here: : The Law of Defamation- For Material Published After 1 January 2006

Reaper

[minux]

Reaper, i think more to the point, that it shouldn't even be classed as defamation. Defamation laws are very bland and be twisted to suit. If people got technical you could be sued for telling your mate that a product is crap just because he thought so.

Its just pathetic, that an unnamed software company can produce crap software, then try and sue the customer for telling people why the software was not up to its standard as was sold.

[hingo1983]

Its just pathetic, that an unnamed software company can produce crap software, then try and sue the customer for telling people why the software was not up to its standard as was sold.

Agreed. I hope the company is put out on its ass. If they don't like what is posted on a forum, then they should improve their service.

[Reaper]

Reaper, i think more to the point, that it shouldn't even be classed as defamation. Defamation laws are very bland and be twisted to suit. If people got technical you could be sued for telling your mate that a product is crap just because he thought so.

Its just pathetic, that an unnamed software company can produce crap software, then try and sue the customer for telling people why the software was not up to its standard as was sold.

No argument what so ever that the law is rubbish at times. However, my original point was not to debate weather that law was good/bad/whatever, rather to bring to people's attention what actually goes on. Btw, there is a defense of "honest opinion" which has several conditions that must be satisfied.

It doesn't alter my point and for better or worse - this is the system we live in. Even if it is found to be baseless the publisher (aka site owner etc) could be up for a lot of $$$ (even when they are awarded costs). Why go down that track if you can avoid it?

Reaper