Originally Posted by
R650R
Ahhh I did get qualifaction relevant several times in various writing and editing studies. You're WRONG.
NZ defamation law (and copyright) is very different to just about the entire rest of the western world for some reason.
If you make a public statement that say Brand X is unreliable or contaminated because oif yada yada yada.... then Brand X can sue you for losses even if it is true. Eg its well accepted that many engine treatment profducts are perhaps less effective than they claim, if you made a public statement about Brand XYZ being a waste of money then they could sue you for lost sales if they plummet.
Its rarely utilised as its bad publicity upon bad but a reason why many of our politicians make very true claims under parliamentary privelidge but will never repeat the same words outside of parliament when the media does it for them.....
Lol, okay then. The level of proof required is commensurate with the claim. So, how is that VW can't sue everyone for talking about Dieselgate? ... ...
How does the consumer website get away with their testing and recommendation programme? ... ....
How can product marketing do product comparisons? ...
How can road tester's rank cars and motorcycles? ... .....
The offended party can bring an action for defamation, but how often are they successful when it's true?
It’s diametrically opposed to the sanitised existence of the Lemmings around me in the Dilbert Cartoon hell I live in; it’s life at full volume, perfect colour with high resolution and 10,000 watts of amplification.
Bookmarks