Careful please

There has been a recent case where a forum has been sued because of negative comments made on an online discussion forum.

This obviously has implications in Somersoft.

Today I deleted a post which had a mild negative reference to a company which is well known in this forum. I deleted the post. Well, "soft deleted" it. Which means I deleted it in such a way that mods can still view it, and give an opinion on the content. It is being discussed.

Unfortunately, this does mean that opinions shown in public on this forum, on any business, seminar, publication, or whatever, on this forum, will only show the positive side, and will probably not be able to show any negative side.

"Caveat Emptor"

Which means, "Buyer Beware"




(For the record- I'm not happy about not being able to record a negative opinion about a product, service, or firm. I almost posted a negative opinion about a different company today before I realised the implication- a company which probably has a lot more money than me, if push comes to shove).

The forum has not been sued.
The forum is being sued, which is a big difference
The action has not gone to court.

If comments are made that are beneficial to the public then an action will not be successful.
People use a lot of bluff with intimidating letters to get their way but that doesn't mean they are right.

This sort of action is a great way to stifle free speech and have people cringe in fear when they may well be protected by the law.Many of these corporations like to stand on people and get Away WITH murder.

I don't know what the content of the post was but I would think very carefully about removing a post without fully knowing the legal issues ...........Removing the post out of fear, seems to me that a moderator doesn't have enough knowledge to be a mod. Removing a post for legitimate legal reasons is ok. I don't know what happened in this situation.
If a forum cant discus the positive and negative sides of a product or organisation then its not a forum.
Food for thought

Redsquash

The mods here are well aware of the law as it stands.

I saw the post in question (I replied to it actually, and emphasised that it was little more than unsubstantiated gossip - heresay) - if I had still been a moderator I would have canned it on the spot, without hesitation.

M

ps. You don't own the forum (nor do I, of course) so it's quite easy and convenient for you to complain about controls on the freedom of speech when it isn't your money or reputation that is at risk because some anon nick sprouts off their mouth. Food for thought, perhaps?

I have grave concerns about the rising amount of litigation in Australia as a result of people exercising their freedom of speech. Seems like we are going the way of the USA when it comes to excessive and at times vexatious claims and litigation.

Having said that, is it the way a poster expresses their opinion that might make a difference Geoff?

For example, if one posted "I wouldn't use brand X because it cracked", that would be more acceptable, than posting "I wouldn't use brand X because it crack, and I urge you not to too"?

Or does this make no difference at all?

I can understand this approach if it is merely gossip.
However if a person has a negative experience with a company and simply posts about their experience, surely that does not have implications?
Pretty worrying if it does.

I don't use Whirlpool but my son does and it sounds an excellent resource.

2Clix will have a fight on it's hands. Money is rolling in and a couple of quality lawyers have volunteered their time.

The main risk to SS though is from disgruntled private investors who have followed advice freely given, and never at risk of moderation. If enough of these people suffer investment losses (possible with any investment) they could launch a class action. Advice given here is heavily biased and always without disclaimers.

You could argue that such advice would, by definition, be biased but I doubt that argument would impress a judge in the absence of disclaimers and in light of the way dissent is usually treated (roughly!). I no longer attempt to act as Devil's Advocate as I once did. I have been silenced. As Thommo I was regularly abused for taking a dissenting view on subjects and I abandoned the nic (permanently) and the forum (temporarily).

Sunfish said:

The main risk to SS though is from disgruntled private investors who have followed advice freely given, and never at risk of moderation. If enough of these people suffer investment losses (possible with any investment) they could launch a class action. Advice given here is heavily biased and always without disclaimers.

Click to expand...

While the administrators and moderators will do their best to keep objectionable material off this forum, it is impossible for them to review every message before they are posted. Hence all messages express the view of the author and neither the owners of the site (Somerset Financial Services Pty Ltd t/a Somersoft), the developers of the forum software (Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd), the forum administrators, nor the forum moderators will be held responsible for the content, accuracy or reliability of any message, and make no warranties, express or implied, as to the content of messages or any other materials in the Forum.

See - Somersoft Property Investor Forum - Terms of Use

M

Hi Thommo,

It is my understanding that because the 'advice' given on the forum is given by non-professionals it would be difficult at best for someone to sue another poster because they followed advice. Could be wrong though - maybe one of the legal eagles could make it clear.

I know as a paraplanner that I have to be extremely careful about what I say; if I say something that could be construed as advice and someone acts on that and the venture they undertake fails, I and the company I work for could be sued.

Also, I really wish you'd come back - this forum desperately needs people like you, we have enough Yes Men.

Mark

Mark Laszczuk said:

It is my understanding that because the 'advice' given on the forum is given
I know as a paraplanner that I have to be extremely careful about what I say; if I say something that could be construed as advice and someone acts on that and the venture they undertake fails, I and the company I work for could be sued.

Click to expand...

Mark you could always get lucky and get a n the spot settlement:
willair ..

willair said:

Mark you could always get lucky and get a n the spot settlement:
willair ..

Click to expand...

Hahaha, maybe! Not gonna risk it though!

Mark

hi all
this is a very interesting area that will be pushed from many angles
I find it very difficult to work out how you can guard against it
as the net crosses boarders
the rules in australia are very different from say the us or europe
so they do have very far reaching possible problems.
I have read on alot of forums
and if the same was sent in a fax or for that matter in a paper that the person would end up very quickly in court and have mentioned here on a couple of occasions.
forum by design ford the post some sort of secrecy but at the end of the day the person posting does need to take resposability for there actions
and if that action does cause damage then they should have to be accountable and this is very difficult for a forum.
its a very tight balancing act and not one that I would like to balance.
there is no such thing as freedom of speech
there freedom to speak but that freedom is restricted to the rules of the country that you are speaking in
and theres a very big difference
with the internet,alot of countries (as in the states) litigation is an industry.

negative or positive comment is not the problem for me the problem as is the case with all forums that the person making the comment is not held accountable
buts that the design of a forum so in reality this case is not a problem won or lost
but it is a problem for alot of forum not just this one.
I am a member of a lot of forums and this is very mild mannered compared to alot of others and because of the design people get kicked off and are back on within 5 mins under a different name.
this just food for thought

So if negative comments about companies are to be censored, why not the same about politicians or political parties. Every now and again, there is a tirade of false, misleading, and extremely damaging comment about conservative politicians on SS.

Australian and US conservative politicians are regularly painted as the real terrorists.

And then much abuse and distortion of religion occurs on the forum.

The whole thing is a croc. I would think any self respecting Judge would throw it out the door as soon as look at it. Particularly as the case is against the forum owner for refusing to remove user posted content. The correct legal process I would have thought would be to sue the individual(s) and based on a favorable outcome then approach WP to remove the posts with evidence that they were defamatory in nature.

You can no more sensor forums posts than you can a hallway conversation and it scares me a little to think that moderators would even begin to consider censoring posts based on a remote chance of litigation before even being contacted and asked to remove any given post!.. That is playing into the hands of the people that insight this type of litigation in the first place.

The company in question here has done themselves a huge disservice. They could've used the opportunity to publically help their clients and be seen as proactive and helpful thus potentially increasing their stance and sales. Instead they've shown their true colours far and wide (this story is on every forum I read)... Good luck to them I say. Pretty sure no one that has heard about this will be buying their products.

Cheers,

Arkay.

WinstonWolfe said:

So if negative comments about companies are to be censored, why not the same about politicians or political parties. Every now and again, there is a tirade of false, misleading, and extremely damaging comment about conservative politicians on SS.

Click to expand...

Negative comments about a company can damage their reputation. If that happens, they have a legal right to sue.

There have been negative remarks about many politicians, of any persuasion. Just that conservative politicians have power in a few countries. A negative remark about a politician will not cause them damage. And- if they sued any neagitive remark made against them, they would run out of money very quickly, and not win any cases.

And then much abuse and distortion of religion occurs on the forum.

Click to expand...

"Distortion" is in the eye of the beholder.

If God could sue, we could be in big trouble

how about the other way around ??

redwing said:

how about the other way around ??

Click to expand...

Hehe.

I'd forgotten about that one.

WinstonWolfe said:

So if negative comments about companies are to be censored, why not the same about politicians or political parties. Every now and again, there is a tirade of false, misleading, and extremely damaging comment about conservative politicians on SS.

Australian and US conservative politicians are regularly painted as the real terrorists.

Click to expand...

Hi Winston,

As one of the people who make these so called "false, misleading, and extremely damaging comments" I am more than happy to provide you with all the evidence you would like. Anything I say about these people can easily be backed up with facts - and I often do so.

If you'd like to point me to a statement I've made where I haven't at that particular time backed it up, I'd be more than happy for you to point it out to me and I will then back it up with real evidence for you.

But then you'll probably just write it off as 'left wing, liberal fiction'....

I'm not some 'Johnny Come Lately Jump On The Bandwagon' moron who spews rhetoric cause it sounds cool. I've been reading books by the likes of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Greg Palast and websites like Indymedia for years. They make their statements and back them up with actual evidence, which is why I respect them and their works so highly. I invite you to come over to my place and borrow any one of the books I have in my extensive library.

If I want to read about the evils of our 'enemies', all I need to do is pick up a newspaper or turn on the news. If I want to get the other side of the story - with again, evidence to back it up, I have to go actively searching for it. As much as you would like to deny it, it simply is not easily available unless people want to find it.

If you want to write it off as "false, misleading, and extremely damaging comments" that's fine - that's your choice, but don't accuse me and others of siding with your so-called 'enemies' because I don't blindly follow your 'you're either with us or you're against us' beliefs.

Mark

geoffw said:

Negative comments about a company can damage their reputation. If that happens, they have a legal right to sue.

If the leader of the oppostion called the prime minister a terrorist outside parliament, that would be extremely defamatory and the PM could sue.

There have been negative remarks about many politicians, of any persuasion. Just that conservative politicians have power in a few countries. A negative remark about a politician will not cause them damage.

That isn't so. Govts fall based on what is fed to the electorate via the media, and the spin put on that feed.

And- if they sued any neagitive remark made against them, they would run out of money very quickly, and not win any cases.

Because of the volume of criticism?
The same could be said for criticism of Westpoint and Fincorp.
At the end of the day, people should have a right to publicly express their real experiences with a company behaving unethically or criminally.


"Distortion" is in the eye of the beholder.

If God could sue, we could be in big trouble


Funny how the same degree of PC sensitivity by progressives, isn't used towards Christian religion as towards Islam and Judaism.

Click to expand...

.........................

To express an opinion is not defamation. Politicians have pretty thick skin so for the PM to sue everyone who said he was a terrorist, or whatever would be ridiculous especially since he would be using tax payer dollars to do so which would not be popular with the electorate.

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html this is an interesting explanation of defamation and it's defences.

There is a consumer forum called notgoodenough.org.au who are threatened with legal action all the time but have never actually been sued. To sue someone can cost upwards of $250,000 with no guarantee of winning, so not many people/companies will take that action without very good cause and it will usually be to prevent people from telling the truth about a company or it's products (see Gunns) rather than because it has been defamed.

Perhaps it is up to us to express our opinions in ways which could not be seen as being defamatory rather than not expressing them at all.

Hi Winston,

I'd like to direct you to this website, which has a number of definitions of terrorism: http://www.globalterrorism101.com/UTDefinition.html

Here are some of the defintions:

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Any one of these definitions shows that the illegal invasion of Iraq was a terrorist act. You might say 'Oh, but it's justified because Saddam was an evil man, blah blah'.

Let me say this to you: if you justify such an invasion, then you justify any invasion by any government anywhere in the world - including our own. Regardless of what we all thought of Saddam (and let's not forget that it was the U.S. that created Saddam) this does not under any circumstances justify the illegal invasion and subsequent terrorist activities that ensued.

If you say it's okay to invade a country, destroy it's entire infrastructure, steal it's resources, install a puppet government and ruin the lives of millions of people, then you say that it's okay to do it anywhere. You don't have the luxury of picking and choosing which bits are okay and which aren't.

Mark