| Belisarius999 | 12 Sep 2007 3:24 a.m. PST |
Everyone here seems quite reasonable but I thought you may be interested in seeing what can happen if someone heaps crud on someone else's products.
link
Be careful what you post. |
| Ironwolf | 12 Sep 2007 3:32 a.m. PST |
>But Stickley said it would be very difficult for 2Clix to >successfully sue Wright for injurious falsehood over >comments made by Whirlpool users. Read on into the article for the above. Also if they won such a case. the webpage that posted the article explaining details on why the company sued the forum would themselves be posting the material that got the original forum sued….. hahahahaa… |
| Scurvy | 12 Sep 2007 3:51 a.m. PST |
I doubt 2clix will get far in court. The Aussie Judiciary still has a bit of " off you snivelling and grow a brain." when it comes to stupid law suites. |
| hurcheon | 12 Sep 2007 4:58 a.m. PST |
Also from what I've read about this elsewhere the defendant may be able to point at truth as being a defence |
| Jacko27 | 12 Sep 2007 5:29 a.m. PST |
There is no reason why the laws on defamation shouldnt extend to web sites.There will be juridictional issues depending upon the country of web hosting and the country of origin of the poster and complainant
I guess on public forums the material point is who exactly is doing the publishing of the material.
Most web site moderators/owners would take a more cautious approach than Whirlpool I think when asked to remove alledged libelous material-my gut feel is that refusal is likely to change the identity of the publisher from the original poster to the web moderator. |
| nycjadie | 12 Sep 2007 5:45 a.m. PST |
The majority of jurisdictions I know would not hold for the software company. |
| Rhoderic III and counting | 12 Sep 2007 5:45 a.m. PST |
"injurious falsehood"? Now they're just making words up. |
Germy Bugger  | 12 Sep 2007 5:57 a.m. PST |
So let me get this straight by the action taken to sue the web forum owners. The company claiming to have suffered financially, have now informed the entire world that people think their software is crap via a news story? I say sack the PR guys and invest in more programmers :) |
 John the OFM  | 12 Sep 2007 6:30 a.m. PST |
I say sack the PR guys and invest in more programmers :) In all likelihood, the company owner
a) has no PR people
or
b) ignored their advice
and
c) ignored his lawyers who told him he doesn't have a case, and told them to sue anyway. |
| nycjadie | 12 Sep 2007 10:45 a.m. PST |
or d) is so ed that he sued the only person who had any money. |
| mad mac | 13 Sep 2007 4:42 a.m. PST |
Hey With the amount of GW bashing that goes on, if they become aware of this it could form a secondary form of business
;-) Surely before this can succeed the company would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claims made in the forum are false; i.e. in the specific cases posted. If this was in any way successful would there be no more product reviews? |
| Jacko27 | 13 Sep 2007 5:35 a.m. PST |
Its usually up to the libeller to prove that the claims are true I believe-not the other way round |
| Condottiere | 13 Sep 2007 8:59 a.m. PST |
I very much doubt that it would succeed here in the US. Its usually up to the libeller to prove that the claims are true I believe-not the other way round Not exactly. The person libeled has to prove that the statements were false at the time they were published (among other elements). The alleged libeler could then come forward with evidence that the statements were true as a defense to the claim. |
| Belisarius999 | 29 Sep 2007 8:57 p.m. PST |
If you are right in what you say write on a forum it can still give you an unpleasant time and it may still cost you for legal fees. So I still think it is best to be careful what you say. |
| Belisarius999 | 23 Oct 2007 10:14 p.m. PST |
This does not seem to go away. This is a recent UK incident where Bloggers are being prosecuted. link |
