Libel

[Robert Taylor]

I think there is an important message that no-one should engage in directly naming dealers in a derisory way, in print, on this forum.
A libellous, venomous post appeared last night that was quickly lanced by the moderators. Had the person who wrote it been a prosecution lawyer in Hitlers Germany, Stalins USSR or Mugabes Zimbabwe he would have had a wonderful career. And therefore the unfortunate historical term he chose for his nom de plume would have been most appropriate. Somewhat incleverly, the very post again placed the dealers name at the forefront.
What is clear is that often people will beleive what they want to beleive, to serve their own ends, comfort zone or ( perhaps ) historical prejudice.
I will continue to answer suspension related questions and offer sometimes interesting subject matter inclusive of my noted fault of being totally candid. It is totally appropriate to highlight some of the shonky stuff that IS going on, but to correctly refrain from libellously and directly pointing the finger to a name or business.

[tri boy]

Nothing wrong with being candid and honest in a field that you know intimately.
If people struggle with honesty, maybe they need to subscribe to "Mills and Boon", and lose themselves in a world of fluffiness and fantasy.:yes:
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I personally enjoy your threads. Engineering and Physics are two classic examples of training, where there laws stand up to any attempt to blur or smudge there defined parameters.

"Ya cana change thee laws o physics captain" (Terrible attempt of Star Treks "Scotty" impersonation).
Please continue with your informative "gold" Robert.:Punk:

[Fatjim]

Robert, without the offending post (or snippets) its really hard to put your words into context.

I for one if treated poorly by a supplier, with no effort to put it right on their part have no problem in telling anybody and everybody. However, I am the customer, and as long as I stick to the facts then its not libel.

As a side note, also I personally dislike it when a shop lets me down, and when sorting out the problem try tomake me feel like they are doing me a favour and I should be thoroughly grateful that they only pissed my off slightly.

[Robert Taylor]

Robert, without the offending post (or snippets) its really hard to put your words into context.

I for one if treated poorly by a supplier, with no effort to put it right on their part have no problem in telling anybody and everybody. However, I am the customer, and as long as I stick to the facts then its not libel.

As a side note, also I personally dislike it when a shop lets me down, and when sorting out the problem try tomake me feel like they are doing me a favour and I should be thoroughly grateful that they only pissed my off slightly.

Suffice to say the post was neither pretty nor clever, and I suspect the author has made a nasty little habit of it. And yes I hear what you say,whats the answer to this all too common problem?

[Macktheknife]

,whats the answer to this all too common problem?

Using names that make it obvious to whom one refers but without naming them per se? As in (first example comes to mind) A well known brand of camping lantern or mustard (for colemans), has been consistently good with their service.

I must say however, that if we can praise online using specific names of shops and people, why should we be less candid for criticisms?

[ynot slow]

Was reading and had posted in that thread and the thread starter basically said that R.Taylor said a certain shop in the area was implicated in suspension ripoffs/safety at risk,not once did Robert say which business it was,the thread starter did.Sounded like a know all who new f.all.Idid think that the thread was sailing close to the wind for libel claims.

[jafar]

I must say however, that if we can praise online using specific names of shops and people, why should we be less candid for criticisms?

Because your unlikely to be sued for saying nice things, even if it is about mustard :innocent:

[merv]

Whoever Holocaust is/was he got a dose of Zyklon B from the mods.

[Storm]

I think the general point is that you can tell of your personal experience and how you felt, but getting all nasty and name calling/ spouting off with out the facts is a no go. That said, there have been some absolutly shocking case which no one could argue with, but like everything on the net, dont say it if you wouldnt say it to the person(s) involved, or the judge in the libel trial

[Hitcher]

Although the truth is an absolute defence against defamation (libel, slander), members should be extremely scrupulous as to their intention and tone when posting negative comments. A useful "test" is that you should not post here what you have not/would not say directly to any business with which you may have a disagreement or dispute.

While many members post under the guise of web handles, this site's owner does not enjoy the same levels of anonymity. Any legal challenge that a defamed person or organisation/business chooses to take will not just be against the poster, it will also be taken against the publisher i.e. the site's owner.

It is for these reasons that Moderators act swiftly to remove any posted material that may potentially place this site at risk of prosecution.

The same comments apply to posted material that contravenes Court suppression orders.

[98tls]

I will continue to answer suspension related questions and offer sometimes interesting subject matter inclusive of my noted fault of being totally candid. It is totally appropriate to highlight some of the shonky stuff that IS going on, but to correctly refrain from libellously and directly pointing the finger to a name or business. Carry on as you are mate,as a supposed motorcycle forum its real nice to read interesting threads devoted to the pursuit of better motorcycling as opposed to some of the crap posted by some of the playstation generation.

[Sollyboy]

It illegal or wrong to post true information showing a dealership or brand in a bad way , or if you state your opinion is it illegal ?
Ive been reading the dog and lemon guide and they rip into some car makers with impunity ,why have they not been sued or silenced?

[Hitcher]

It illegal or wrong to post true information showing a dealership or brand in a bad way , or if you state your opinion is it illegal ?
Ive been reading the dog and lemon guide and they rip into some car makers with impunity ,why have they not been sued or silenced?

Read my earlier post. The truth is an absolute defence. Just be careful how you express it.

[geoffm]

It illegal or wrong to post true information showing a dealership or brand in a bad way , or if you state your opinion is it illegal ?
Ive been reading the dog and lemon guide and they rip into some car makers with impunity ,why have they not been sued or silenced?

The truth is a defense BUT you had better have rock solid, documented proof, beyond unsubstantiated claims. A dimly remembered conversation with no witnesses will not count.
The other side of it is the cost of defense, which would see KB disappear very quickly. The legal costs of defending a claim are $10s of thousands of dollars - $100k would probably be a starter, and it doesn't really matter if you are right, or win, you will still be out of pocket, and the lawyers will have all your money. This tactic is a common one for big companies or the government against individuals or small companies - the deepest pockets win. There is no justice in the law.
Geoff

[Joni]

Hmm, Im sorry Hitcher, Im not 100% in agreement with you regarding the site being responsible... it might pay for members to keep this post in mind from site stuff, I have highlighted the part that is applicable.


Members please keep in mind:

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Kiwi Biker forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Kiwi Biker forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Kiwi Biker forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.
:sunny:

It would be helpfull to read the following:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=883130#post883130

However guys, think before you post... why open up legal stuff when it's not needed.

[Winston001]

That's fine Joni for controlling members but is no protection for a post read by a guest or third party.

One of the issues in defamation is publication. The more people who are exposed to the defamatory comments, the larger the claim. Thus TV stations and newspapers get sued even though they only report other people's statements. No disclaimer can save them from the consequences of publication.

So not posting defamatory words in the first place is the safest course for the site and members.

[peasea]

Because your unlikely to be sued for saying nice things, even if it is about mustard :innocent:


That Mustard's a dirtbag and I'm not afraid to say it! You can quote me on that, I'm never playing Cluedo again. He's a murdering son-of-a......

[peasea]

Hmm, Im sorry Hitcher, Im not 100% in agreement with you regarding the site being responsible... it might pay for members to keep this post in mind from site stuff, I have highlighted the part that is applicable.



However guys, think before you post... why open up legal stuff when it's not needed.

I've been embroiled in legalities regarding things in print and I have to say the 'law' takes it very seriously. Some time ago a certain individual used my pics and threw his name on them. I used a reputable Queen Street law firm to investigate the matter and their question was, and I quote; "How much do you want to sue him for?" I simply requested what the pics were worth but the point is; whether it's libel, copyright or 'intellectual property' the law is what it is and to point the finger in print is heavy stuff and you'd better have some hard facts to back up your claims.

Even then I'd be wary before leaping onto the keyboard.

Unless it's about a traffic offence notice, of course, but then it's a 'war' situation and the first causalty of war is truth, so anything goes.

[Joni]

Very interesting Peasea...
So who would you have been taking legal action in that case? KB? Or the person posting it? If the situation was on KB? Im not saying presuming it was... Im asking hypothetically?

[peasea]

Very interesting Peasea...
So who would you have been taking legal action in that case? KB? Or the person posting it? If the situation was on KB? Im not saying presuming it was... Im asking hypothetically?

The individual. The magazine concerned was most apologetic and an innocent party, that was plain to see. I don't think KB has anything to worry about with anything posted, it's a personal focus.

[slowpoke]

I read the post in question last night and pretty much gave it the attention it deserved: bugger all. With a post count of "1" vs Roberts open and generous contribution to KB this was only ever going to be taken one way: a cheap shot from a gutless tosser.
In response Robert was his usual calm, reasoning self...which is more than could be said for most of us under similar circumstances. Yes folks, I think we have the next pope in our midst...

[Mekk]

I am 100% for freedom of speech, but with that comes responsibility. I think criticism is very important in a lot of things.

I disagree with any notion of banning or censoring opinion of companies on here, so long as it's clearly distinguished from being fact. If there's facts, then as long as they're correct and not from just one perspective then I think that should be allowed.

It would personally take a lot for me to get angry enough to name and shame a company, but if there was something that happened that got me to that stage, I'd want the community to be wary of it at least.

But that's my opinion and if the site feels as though they need to censor things like that, so be it.

[Joni]

The individual. The magazine concerned was most apologetic and an innocent party, that was plain to see. I don't think KB has anything to worry about with anything posted, it's a personal focus.I thought so 100% as well... thanks for that. :yes:

[Hitcher]

The individual. The magazine concerned was most apologetic and an innocent party, that was plain to see. I don't think KB has anything to worry about with anything posted, it's a personal focus.

The magazine was also potentially liable but the injured party chose not to pursue them. Good news for the magazine in this case. And this example also relates to intellectual property/copyright. Defamation cases are different in that the culpability lies with both the message and the medium, i.e. the publisher should have known better.

[Coldrider]

An apology to the injured party has to be made in the medium it was broadcast.
I'm not sure that a libel case is a path the forum would want to be involved with, for the sake of a selfish someone to vent their views publicly.
The forum can never win out of such a situation.
For instance in the future an application is made for charitable funding or a trust is formed.
A forum today, who knows the future.

I