Libel

[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

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.

[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