Thread: Getting sued for slander online

Originally Posted by silentC

There is no such thing as bad publicity...

Dunno about that.
Lindy And Michael Chamberlain did time because of the hysteria whipped up by the media. And it seems politics must have been involved.

OK,
Part of the reason Neil had to post his "disclaimer" is because a member of this forum who owned (owns) a particular brand of woodlathe objected to my personal opinions of the machine.
This particular object, oops I mean 'person'. then proceeded to inform the new owners of the company which sold the thing of my supposed libel. Now being a little bloke living in the bush I don't have a lot of legal muscle/ knowledge etc at my beck and call so a person from this company spent three months threatening me in a very confronting manner with the loss of my home and property. Also, this person also threatened Neil with all sorts of legal action because he allowed me to express my opinion of the machine!!!!

The lathe is no longer sold. Nothing to do with me but entirely I would think, because the buyers realised its' probable poor value for mioney in todays market. Maybe.

Re Crikey, I believe that Simon Marnne or whatever his name is, sold it a couple of weeks ago for $1,000,000.

Did it cover his expenses?

Who cares?

It was only journo's that used to get excited about it anyway. 99.99999% of the population had never heard of it.

Sold what?

Crikey.com

Sturdee

I agree that the libel/slander question about storing the data is vague and it tending towards libel is true.

But I still believe that comments about a comapny's service and products isn't either libel or slander but is in the realms of injurous harm because it is against the financial aspects of business and not the reputation of a person. The Bond case and the crikey case were both libel because they were against an individual. And as it is injerous harm, then it is up to the plaintiff to show falsehood, malice and actual financial loss.

Originally Posted by simon c

Sturdee

I agree that the libel/slander question about storing the data is vague and it tending towards libel is true.

But I still believe that comments about a comapny's service and products isn't either libel or slander but is in the realms of injurous harm because it is against the financial aspects of business and not the reputation of a person. The Bond case and the crikey case were both libel because they were against an individual. And as it is injerous harm, then it is up to the plaintiff to show falsehood, malice and actual financial loss.

In most civil actions that is the case, but in libel|slander the onus is on the perpetrator to prove they did not commit libel or slander

My earlier comments about seeing posts that IMO are libellous, or slander or cases of injurous harm, are not about posts that reports on a company's service and /or products when relevant to the interest of this board.

IMO an honest critique on service and/or product based on facts and done without malice towards the company is perfectly proper and appropriate to post on this board when the service and/or product is related to the nature of this board.

So whilsts a critical review of say a woodworking tool is appropriate a scathing restaurant review would not be. IMO neither would a review of a DVD recorder be appropriate, notwithstanding the admin's allowing it, on this board.

My main concern is the posts that have a recommendation, which encourages others to boycott them, without being based on facts but on the prejuce of the poster. Especially as some members post regularly in that way whenever say Bunnings or Carbatec is mentioned. A series of such posts across a number of threads over a period of time is definitely libel.

Maybe the poster's past experiences caused them to say it but their posts are no longer based on specific and current facts. Hence we would be wise in our choice of words in these cases and heed Neill's warning.


Peter.

Originally Posted by echnidna

In most civil actions that is the case, but in libel|slander the onus is on the perpetrator to prove they did not commit libel or slander

I agree entirely with this, but my point is that commenting on the products or services provided by a company is not slander/libel but is injerous harm.

If I can just add my 2.2c worth. I was just hunting through my daughter's law books (2nd year law student; yeah, she knows all the lawyer jokes, and a few more that certainly aren't fit to print here :eek: ) and found the following that may or may not shed some more light on this. Defamation (slander/libel) comes under torts law. One of her books states the general principles of a defamatory statement are:
1) A statement need not be verbal;
2) It must cause the plaintiff to be shunned among right-thinking persons;
3) The statement may be true or false;
4) The statement need not assign any immorality, wrongdoing or disparagement against the plaintiff in order to be defamatory;
5) The statement may be expressed directly or by innuendo;
6) The meaning of the statement is determined from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words and the context within which it is placed.

In a separate section it states:
Truth as a mitigating factor
In NT, SA, and WA truth is a defence; where not pleaded as a bar to the plaintiff's action, it may mitigate damages awarded. …
In jurisdictions where truth is no defence unless there is public benefit/interest, truth does not go to mitigate damages except where:
- the libel is that the plaintiff has a bad reputation
…

And:
The common law holds that a truthful statement negates an action for defamation but in those states that have legislation more is required. The defendant must also prove that the statement was made for the public benefit/interest.

From: Torts Law In Principle (just to cover any copyright thingy).

This text book is well over 1,000 pages and defamation takes up a very substantial chapter. She also has two others, one the same size and one a bit smaller, so you can see it's a very complicated area. Sorry if I've muddied the water.

Regards
Des (who has no idea whatsoever about the law)

Originally Posted by Sturdee

My main concern is the posts that have a recommendation, which encourages others to boycott them, without being based on facts but on the prejuce of the poster. Especially as some members post regularly in that way whenever say Bunnings or Carbatec is mentioned. A series of such posts across a number of threads over a period of time is definitely libel.

I agree entirely with the sentiment of this, but still don't believe it is libel. But it is defamatory under injerous harm legislation. For it to be libel, you have to be affecting the reputation of somebody, not just calling for people to to stop buying their products. If you are affecting them financially then it is injerous harm and the onous is on the plaintiff to prove falsehood, malice and harm.

I agree with your point about DVD players, it is questionable whether posting a recommendadtion about DVD players on a woodwork site is bordering on malice.

This woodwork forum is not confined solely to woodwork and matters that have nothing at all to do with woodwork are genuine forum topics so the issue of DVD players (perhaps being malicious) is in itself irrelevant.