Discussion On Slander, Forums And Censorship

[**RB2530**]

I am not a legal expert but this is my take on the situation...

Defemation is when an individual or organisation experiences loss of income or reputation (really these two are related) due to groundless negative comments made by another individual or organisation in the public domain...

Where

i) Loss of income (damages) can be demonstrated. For the organisation concerned this would be a reduction in clientele and easy to demonstrate. This could included failure to meet business growth targets. (putting down the prime minister would not reduce his income so not much of a defamation case)

ii) The comments made were unfounded and of no basis. ie someone claimed they were ripped off when in fact they weren't

iii) SAU would be classed as public domain. No question about that. SAU is even worse because it is has very close relationship with potential clients of the businesses in question.

So if the organisations in question got wind of these negative comments within the forum, points i) and iii) are just about a given. Point ii) is where it gets tricky..because

It is always the case that these issues are complicated...If SAU were in a position to verify everybodys bad dealings with suppliers then they could allow slanderous (I think technically it is only slanderous if it is untrue) comment on the forums as long as there was proof behind the comments...BUT the reality is that this would cost a lot of money to do and 'I' certainly dont expect this to happen...

So although there are many shit suppliers out there and I hate seeing people getting ripped off, I also dont want to see SAU suffer undue expense in having to go to court and potentially being shut down...

Like it has already been said...Use PMs for this type of communication...By definition it is not in the public domain and therefore defamation is not an issue..

[GTR32X]

Why do you (admins/mods) allow threads such as HKS vs Garrett (example only) where people can voice their opinions and experiences.

But when it involves peoples experiences shopping for a product that involves people they get all weak.

we are allowed to say in our opinion that a product is crap, but not a product supplier. Whats the difference??

i.e. The ***** Motorsport thread

seems a little bit of a double standard. Id be more interested/worried in a large multi-national company sueing me than a con man that rips people off!!

Also if only the truth is stated and you have reliable witness accounts of what happened then whats the problem?

AGREE WITH PAUL!!!!! 100%

everyone should have the right to have there say

[scathing]

As for the whole concept of slander and the like. Go for it.

FYI, from a legal perspective slander is spoken and libel is written.

So if I post "workshop XYZ are a bunch of f*&king rip-off merchants and should be taken out and shot" then I'm not actually slandering anyone. Which means I'm not violating the forum's rules by doing so, as long as I don't record myself into a sound file and attach it to a post.

It sounds like a petty technicality, but you're forgetting that we are talking about legal issues and technicalities can make or break a suit. The rules say that SAU doesn't permit slander only, which means what I did above is not disallowed.

My attitude on the whole thing, like others, is a matter of consistency. Why can we slag a product but not a retailer? The forum takes a dim view on members insulting other members, but even that's less heavily moderated than attacking a business.

However, the Defamation Act boils down as follows:

The uniform Defamation Act does not include a definition but is based on the common law approach that defamation concerns injury to reputation by: exposing a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or lowering a person's estimation in the eyes of right minded observers; or making others shun or avoid a person.

Also:

The common law in Australia had distinguished between libel and slander. Libel (written defamation) is actionable even without proof that the plaintiff suffered financial loss, while to establish slander a plaintiff had to show that he or she suffered actual monetary damage.

Lastly:

Any person takes part in, or authorises, the publication of defamatory material is liable to be sued for defamation. Thus in the case of a newspaper, the editor, writer, publisher, printer and proprietor are all potentially liable.

Negative publicity in the written form could easily qualify under the "lowering estimation", even if they don't lose a single customer over it. As per the above, there's no "safe harbour" provisions for content providers under Australian law so SAU could be held liable for things its members say, regardless of any disclaimer.

SAU, I'm sure, supports Australian values (freedom of speech being one of them). But, at the same, time throwing its own finances into "fighting the good fight" and battling against organisations that sue at the drop of a hat is something else entirely and not a good way for the club to be spending its membership and merchandising income.

So, my feeling is that if businesses don't want anything bad said about them, then they shouldn't expect anything good said about them either.

[GoldZilla]

AGREE WITH PAUL!!!!! 100%

everyone should have the right to have there say

And if SAU were to be shut down so that the owner could have the money to defend himself against a libel/defamation case? Remember, it is just ONE person who owns the forums, and essentially we are all "guests" here.

If the forums were to be shut down, we would ALL suffer. A lot of work has gone on to get SAU to the level it is at today. There is a lot of quality information here, and a lot of friendships have been made through these forums too - I can vouch for that myself. I don't want to lose it, do you?

[Merli]

So if I post "workshop XYZ are a bunch of f*&king rip-off merchants and should be taken out and shot" then I'm not actually slandering anyone. Which means I'm not violating the forum's rules by doing so, as long as I don't record myself into a sound file and attach it to a post.

Thanks for the heads up, I haven't checked the forum rules for a while, and that is a great point.

Thanks again, the forum rules have now been updated, and the quote you used as an example above is now against forum rules, as it constitutes libel ("rip-off merchants").

Defamatory remarks made towards businesses or individuals will not be tolerated on this website - We understand that if you have had a bad experience with a business you want to warn other people of said experience. Unfortunately, the same publicly expressed opinion could be viewed as libelous and/or constitute an attempt to deter business from any individual or business. Australian law holds the site owner partly responsible for any defamatory remarks posted on said website, and that is unacceptable. Informing people via PM's is tolerated as it is not a public message. With this said, feel free to post any information about a business or individual that you have had good dealings with.

[ULOOOK]

You might not be happy with a particular workshop but everyone has had a different experience with someone or other.

You may not like Company A or B, but then you rave about how great Company "C" is. I have personally been to Company "C" and they were rude to me and basically pushed me back out the door, not sure if it's because I'm a girl or maybe they didnt think I was going through with the engine work. Whatever it is doesn't matter but its not fair to put someone's lively hood and or business at risk is unfair to say the least. Especially when its on a forum where they have proof and can take action.

At the end of the day you keep ranting and raving on the internet and it gets you NOWHERE! Tell your friends if you will, but dont risk this forum to tell people what they prob already know! I think that SAU is a great place for info, events, buying/selling and I hope never to loose it. We've already lost the community chat due to those few idiots that should have been banned anyhow

Not to mention how will anyone be able to approach anyone for future events for sponsorship, if companies are too worried about what "keyboard warriors" will post up the next week on SAU about them. I'd say most of them come on here and have a look.

[R338OY]

I think forum rules are quite relaxed. Don't be a tosser and you'll be fine. The 'no slander' or 'no libel' rule is fair and justified. If i owned the forum i would not want a stranger with a bad tuning experience causing me to be sued.

It's not asking much. The mods/admins aren't taping your mouth shut. Keep it to yourself or use PM to discuss matters.

We can debate the constitution, defamation legislation and with all the bias that makes SAU interesting- but the rules still stand. If you're itching to complain about this you're A) Wrong B) Severely narrow-minded.

[siddr20]

Very interesting.

I think this topic was done a long time ago? Same questions been asked etc..

Anyways howd this one pop up out of no where??

[Swiper the Fox]

Very interesting.

I think this topic was done a long time ago? Same questions been asked etc..

Anyways howd this one pop up out of no where??

because someone said that somebody was a kunt and i agreed

Edited April 14, 2008 by DiRTgarage

[siddr20]

hehehehh fair enough!!

Well i still think if you have substanial proof with written evidence that this workshop xyz has done this and that, then the rest of the community should hear about it and make up there down minds.

But it shouldnt say boycott them.

Should just say, well this is what happened to me so just be careful for others who go there..

But on the other hand, i understand why the rules are in place.

Yup im a fence sitter!!

Edited April 14, 2008 by siddr20

[FATAZZ]

So, my feeling is that if businesses don't want anything bad said about them, then they shouldn't expect anything good said about them either.

[-FIGJAM-]

I guess rules r rules. I think it sucks that if a company rips me off or somethin i can get on n tell fellow members to be careful but i understand why it is like it is.. The age we live in..

Just to clarify... if i make a thread saying this car dealer is dodgy, not naming names. In the thread dont mention names but say what happened and someone PMs me and asks who it was, me bein a good community member replies and says the name is blah blah... thats ok?

What if the person is the car dealer? can they sue us then or only me?

[Sl!m]

I guess rules r rules. I think it sucks that if a company rips me off or somethin i can get on n tell fellow members to be careful but i understand why it is like it is.. The age we live in..

Just to clarify... if i make a thread saying this car dealer is dodgy, not naming names. In the thread dont mention names but say what happened and someone PMs me and asks who it was, me bein a good community member replies and says the name is blah blah... thats ok?

What if the person is the car dealer? can they sue us then or only me?

If you dont understand how this works, you should probably read up on laws of slander and Libel.

[smasha]

Does it matter where the Forum is hosted.

AFAIK, SAU is hosted in the USA... wouldn't this have some sort of bearing as to what laws are applicable to it?

If it is indeed hosted in the USA, the following quote from the EFA could be extrapolated into meaning that the owner of the forum may not be held liable for any defamatory statements published "in the USA" under the "Freedom of Speech" act

Moreover, as defamation laws in other countries (as well as in Australia) enable a defamation action to be brought under their laws if material was published in their jurisdiction, persons who publish/distribute material on the Internet may find themselves facing defamation action under the laws of a country other than their country of residence.

It's a bit of a stretch I know, but I'm a bit of a legal Layman

[Abo Bob]

What matters is where it is seen. The only way you can use overseas arrangements is if the forum is owned by a company incorporated in one of these dodgy places and it's hosted there too.

[smasha]

on the other hand to the above point, in Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] where a US publication was sued by a Victorian through the Victorian Supreme Court, it was found that

Secondly, that the "publication" for the purposes of the law of defamation did not occur when the offending words were written, committed to digital form, "uploaded" or otherwise processed (in the United States). Potentiality to harm, reasonable expectations that this would be a consequence and even an intention to have that result were not enough. For defamation, it was necessary that the plaintiff's reputation should be damaged in fact. Relevantly to the impugned material and the tort as pleaded, this had happened at the time and place the matter complained of was received and comprehended by a person (other than the publisher and the plaintiff) in Victoria, ie when the material sued for appeared on the appellant's website and was "downloaded" (or when the hard copies of the magazine distributed in Victoria were acquired and read)[

meaning, in part, that it doesn't matter where the info is stored or uploaded to, if somebody is defamed and experiences a decline in reputation, they may sue.

The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights also provides that

"[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation". And that "[e]veryone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks"[131].

But then again, SAU isn't a "media outlet" per se, it is a discussion forum whereby any potential defendants may claim the defense of "Honest Opinion" against any defamation claims...

My head hurts

[smasha]

What matters is where it is seen. The only way you can use overseas arrangements is if the forum is owned by a company incorporated in one of these dodgy places and it's hosted there too.

ugh... u posted before I got to rebutt myself

[Abo Bob]

Consider yourself rebutted.

[smasha]

Consider yourself rebutted.

I OBJECT!!!

oh... hang on... no I don't... maybe I do... F**K me, law is so stupidly convoluted, complicated and open to interpretation...

[JI34GT]

A rating thing would be ok right?

Like rate particular workshop from 1-10, like a poll.

Then it wouldnt be slander, since its just a number rating. Just like news polls.

One vote per member and eventually it stacks up and the numbers speak for themselves.

So member can get a general idea of the particular company without the worry of being sued.

Im just throwing ideas. =]