Thread: Getting sued for slander online

After reading all that my head is spinning.

I'll go back to the old way and apply rule 303.

Originally Posted by silentC

What about "Don't buy Digitrex"? Is that OK?

No. Apparently you should never buy Digitrex

Originally Posted by namtrak

I guess the point is that websites like crikey.com.au or whirlpool.net.au are a lot more open to litigious type activity given their propensity to bad mouth everybody, and yet even with that, there hasn't been a case in Australia of note.

Namtrak,

Crikey.com.au lost a case about 2 years ago when it libelled on its website a Sydney Radio shock jock. Cost to them about $ 150K. They had to sell their house over it.


Peter.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Namtrak,

Crikey.com.au lost a case about 2 years ago when it libelled on its website a Sydney Radio shock jock. Cost to them about $ 150K. They had to sell their house over it.


Peter.

Are you certain? They had a legal statement on their website about 2 months ago saying that they had never had any action taken against them

Originally Posted by Iain

Is that grubby little rag still in existence?

Don't know, but they were in 1978, when they libelled the company I was working for.

We settled the case and it cost them $ 50k . Worked out quite well for the publicity, although libellous, brought us much more business.


Peter.

There is no such thing as bad publicity...

Originally Posted by simon c

Sturdee, I understood that something that could reasonably be believed to be the truth is not libelous, but you appear to have some extra information/experience?

As I was told, by the QC acting for us at the time, a defence of truth in a libel case is not sufficient by itself. They have to prove that the libel was in the public interest.

One example is the case of Joh Bjelke Peterson against Bond media was defended on the grounds of truth. Result they lost and Bond paid over $ 400 k.

Often I read posts on this board that IMO are libellous ( the don't buy of Digitrex for example or the rants against Carbatec ) and I think that they are lucky that they don't get sued. Whilst proper critique is okay the devil is in the way it is said.

About the only thing these posters have going for them that because of the niche wood working machinery market a retailer would loose other clients because of the publicity. So I would stongly suggest that we all heed Neil's advice.


Peter.

Originally Posted by namtrak

Are you certain? They had a legal statement on their website about 2 months ago saying that they had never had any action taken against them

Yes I am certain.

I used to read their website and the action was by Steve Price and they reported the details on their website. However the action was against the publisher Stephen Mayne and his wife and their company which published Crikey.com.au.

That was also the reason that they closed their archives and started charging membership fees for access to it.


Peter.

Sturdee

I'm interested in what you are saying as my lay understanding of libel is that the very definition of the word is that the libelous comments are false. Maybe Bond defended on the grounds that they "believed" the comments to be true and therefore were not libelous, but they couldn't demonstrate them to be true?

I really don't believe the "don't buy digitex" post is libelous assuming everything is true and that the poster wasn't trying to be malicious.

This website looks like it delivers the goods:

http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/law/defame.html

Most importantly, very little that has been posted on this forum about businesses is libelous because:
However, the courts have insisted that, in order for an imputation to be defamatory, it should not extend merely to criticism of goods and services but must reflect on the plaintiff or her or his family thus leaving pure economic loss caused by wrongful statemnts about business to the tort of injurious falsehood and consumer legislation.

So our discussion about companies is not a discussion of libel or slander but a discussion of "injurious falsehood"

Points to note:
Truth is enough of a defence in Victoria
Comments posted on a Bulletin Board are slander (not libel) unless they are permanently archived (which is interesting in the crikey case taht Sturdee quotes). Bulletin boards come under teh same legislation as telehone conversations
Emails are libel as they come under the same legislation as letters

To found an action in injurious falsehood the plaintiff must establish that the statement was untrue, that she or he suffered actual financial loss, and that the defendant acted with malice. Malice is founded where the publisher knew that the statement was likely to injure the plaintiff and knew the statement to be false or was reckless as to its truth. There is some scope for use of this action in the context of cyberspace, particularly where a service provided by the plaintiff receives adverse publicity by news or e-mail.

http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/law/node22.html

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Yes I am certain.

I used to read their website and the action was by Steve Price and they reported the details on their website. However the action was against the .

Between this board and my daughters there is nowhere for me to go and just make up twaddle - seems like everyone wants me to keep me honest

Wrong again

However it is quite ethical to say

"I will never buy Digitrex" or
"I will never recommend anyone to buy Digitrex" or even
"I will never buy Digitrex and I wouldn't even accept the product if it was free!"

As these are merely statements of your own intentions and are not critical of Digitrex.

Simom, That website raises more questions than answers. I suppose that's why there are lawyers for the law as quoted seems a minefield.

Apparently something is libellous if it is archived. However it appears to be sufficient if it is archived on the libelled persons's own computer. In any case this board archives all the posts ( including deleted posts as has mentioned that they keep a log of them ) so it appears not to be injurous falsehoods but libel.

Again the defence of truth is also quite difficult to prove. I appear to be wrong and in Victoria the defence is okay but the other states require that it is in the public interest. That is where Bond failed in its case as it could not prove that to the satisfaction of the jury.

I agree with Echnidna that his way of posting is the way to do it and not the heading " Don't buy Digitrex " which is libellous as it is not borne out by facts and incites a boycott of all of that company products.


Peter.