Getting sued for slander online

[namtrak]

I finally got around to reading Neil's message at the start of each forum, you know the one it goes

"To all members of Woodwork Forums.

If you intend to denigrate a business or person on these forums please think long and hard before doing it. You might also like to check with your lawyer and your accountant to see if you have enough money to fight the law suit that may ensue. It would also be a good idea .............."

I understand the premise for this and if I was in Neil's position I would do the same thing. However as a consequence of the web stuff I do I had to look into getting Professional Indemnity insurance, now that can be an expensive little beast I can tell you. I also did a little research and found out there has actually only been 1 case of slander on the internet in Australia and this was between 2 professors at a Uni in WA. I think the amount settled was for $40,000 which never changed hands.

I guess it's a case of the perception and the reality being quite disparate.


Cheers

[bitingmidge]

I guess it's a case of the perception and the reality being quite disparate.

Give it time.

Just because it hasn't happened to date doesn't mean it won't.

Nor does it mean that slander is justifiable.

Try making untrue or unjustified or even partially true comments about me THAT WOULD HAVE A FINANCIAL IMPACT ON MY BUSINESS and see whether there are two cases in Australia!! (tongue in cheek of course, but you see what I mean)

There is a difference I think, between describing poor service or quality of goods, particularly in a forum where the manufacturer/service deliverer is able to explain it's actions, and denigrating that person/company in a way which will cause actionable damage.

"XYZ" hasn't answered 12 emails I have sent, may not be slanderous and is subtly different to "XYZ" doesn't respond to emails which could be.

Risk may be minimal, but morally slagging off isn't on anyway!

Cheers,

P (who loves sticking it up 'em if they deserve it!)

[Grunt]

P (who loves sticking it up 'em if they deserve it!)

I bet you say that to all the boys.

[silentC]

OK, well let's take a review published in a magazine for example. The author takes four spokeshaves and lists the pros and cons of each. At the end he sums up by saying "spokeshave X" is the best value for money. Now technically, that review would impact on the business operations of the other three spokeshave manufacturers. People reading the review would be drawn towards buying spokeshave X instead of any of the other three. So does that leave the author of the review open to legal action?

[Iain]

Can we take it a step further, I am in the market for a new car and take a Falcon and a Commodore for a test drive, I then buy the Commodore.
Even without comment this could be viewed as denigrading the Falcon.
As for authors on tool reviews I thought that this was to viewed as an opinion, not fact.
Incidentally I would not have a Holden or a Ford in my garage and I've just left myself wide open, and Hyundai can now sue me for not giving them the chance to allow me to appraise their product.

[Zed]

OK, well let's take a review published in a magazine for example. The author takes four spokeshaves and lists the pros and cons of each. At the end he sums up by saying "spokeshave X" is the best value for money. Now technically, that review would impact on the business operations of the other three spokeshave manufacturers. People reading the review would be drawn towards buying spokeshave X instead of any of the other three. So does that leave the author of the review open to legal action?

No

so long as your review is based on documented evidence and has fair and just outcomes they you're apples - why do you think the NRMA crash test and choice magazine get away with it ?

intangables such as "look & feel" need to be accounted for, as does "past performance on previous models"

it also depends on who you are - it you are johnny nobody and you say this plane is crap then who gives a rats? if you are Choice Mag's woodwork reviewer then it has a whole new connotation dunnit ?

besides if you give your spokeshave to someone to review against someone elses you have to be prepared to take the hit if yours is the "crappo" one... yours could be crappo because you had to make some financial considerations on cost to produce v's sales price v's market share v's anything else.... look at the hare and forbes v's shepparch v's felder v's etc... same role - diff price etc.

I recently bought a kunz metal spokeshave and im routed if I can stop the bugger from chattering - yet I got a muji for $20 and its a dream. go figure...

[Sturdee]

Namtrak,

There is a big difference between slander and libel. Not only in what it is but also in the degree of difficulty of proving it in court. And ofcourse the law on slander and libel is different in each state.

Whilst slander is difficult to prove and must have been made on their own websites libel is very easy and the person that would get sued is the publisher of the libel, namely Ubeaut.

To avoid Ubeaut having to pay up for a members libellous remarks, seeing that they don't pre read and approve before posting ( publishing) such remarks, they warn us that in terms of the agreement we all entered with them, we will be required to idemnify them for any losses. This would normally be by being made a party to the libel case.

Having once, in a previous life, being involved with sueing that well known newspaper ' The Melbourne Truth " for publishing libellous remarks whilst quoting a correspondent I can say that in Victoria it is not difficult.

Remember that in a libel case (in Victoria and that is where publishing on this board legally takes place) the truth is no defence as such. What you may say may be true but still libellous.

Therefore it is wise to heed this warning and be sure that when you post libellous remarks you have the wherewithal to defend yourself.

Peter.

[Grunt]

You are all smelly.

Now sue me.

[Iain]

Having once, in a previous life, being involved with sueing that well known newspaper ' The Melbourne Truth " for publishing libellous remarks whilst quoting a correspondent I can say that in Victoria it is not difficult.

Is that grubby little rag still in existence?
They used to pester me to advertise with them, my comments where that I spent years building a reputation and did not want to destroy it in one issue.

[namtrak]

I guess the point is that websites like crikey.com.au or whirlpool.net.au are a lot more open to litigious type activity given their propensity to bad mouth everybody, and yet even with that, there hasn't been a case in Australia of note.

Furthermore, Namtrak is a dirty rotten bearded scoundrel, he can't sand wood to save himself and the furniture he makes is positively dangerous.

Now, can I make a bit of dough off myself?

[silentC]

So, if I get on here and say supplier X is much worse to deal with than supplier Y, or supplier X seems to employ idiots with no idea about the products they sell, even though this is clearly my opinion, am I making a slanderous or libellous statement? Do I need a disclaimer that says "all opinions expressed by me are my opinion and not necessarily backed up by facts or evidence of any kind". Would this even make a difference? Where do you draw the line between providing an opinion or communicating experiences to other members when the opinion or experience is negative? Do we just shut up and only say nice things? What if I say "I reckon OzWinner is a crap bricklayer and he should stick to making antiques?" Two inflammatory remarks in one sentence, can he sue me? I want half if you do Al, but half of nothing is nothing

[Iain]

Furthermore, Namtrak is a dirty rotten bearded scoundrel, he can't sand wood to save himself and the furniture he makes is positively dangerous.

Problem here is that everyone may agree with you and leave you with no avenue to rort the system

[simon c]

To be slanderous or libelous, comments have to be false and either malicious or it could reasonably have been expected to cause harm (ie they either were intended to harm or a reasonable person would expect them to cause harm). The harm can be financial or reputational. It is not the same as denigrating somebody. Denigration is only libelous if it is false.

Sturdee, I understood that something that could reasonably be believed to be the truth is not libelous, but you appear to have some extra information/experience?

It is quite acceptable to say somebody's service is crap if it was crap and you can demonstrate that a reasonable person would interpret the level of service you received as crap service.

Certain aspects are implied, ie if you undertake a review and say that item a is better than item b then it is implied that it is your opinion, becuase that is what a review is. However, if you base that opinion on inaccurate or badly researched information, it could be libelous.

So, tell the truth but make sure that what you quote as the truth is something that a reasonable person would believe to be true (not just cos somebody else told you)

[craigb]

Geez, aren't lawyers into woodwork?

If they were, we would have the definitive answer by now.

Doesn't a review come under the heading of "fair comment" ?

[silentC]

What about "Don't buy Digitrex"? Is that OK?