Being sued for telling the truth

[Joe Blow]

Can you tell us which law firm is representing the plaintiff?

The plaintiffs are represented by Attwood Marshall Lawyers on the Gold Coast.

I'll be sending some support cash through (I consider it merely 7 years of unpaid membership fees) in a few days, I encourage others to support ASF as well.

Much appreciated Sinner. Every little bit helps! Thank you to all who have supported ASF and myself in this matter.

The reason I refused to back down in the face of legal threats is that I firmly believe people have a right to post facts and reasonable opinions about people and companies, especially those offering products or services for sale to the public. If I allowed every Tom, Dick or Harry Pty Ltd to bully me into removing posts they didn't like then the very purpose of ASF has been entirely defeated. I really didn't see that I had any choice other than to take a stand.

 

[SirRumpole]

I wonder if you could cross sue them for Barratry

Barratry (/ˈbærətri/ BA-rə-tree) is a legal term with several meanings. In common law, barratry is the offense committed by people who are “overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation” or who bring “repeated or persistent acts of litigation” for the purposes of profit or harassment.[1] It is a crime in some jurisdictions. If litigation is for the purpose of silencing critics, it is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Jurisdictions that otherwise have no barratry laws may have SLAPP laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)

 

[Tisme]

The two firms I use are Ken Philp of Bennet & Philp for commercial issues and Michael Boscher for criminal. Both are bulldogs and well repsected in legal circles.

 

[awg]

Hot Copper site owners have been sued for defamation, but also threatened many times with lawsuit

A quick Google indicates that at least one individual poster was sued.

A bit of digging around by the astute members of this forum would probably be able to find out what precedents were established in these cases?

Havent read the "original" thread, I know defamation, via forum is a grey area legally, and different states have different laws, doesnt QLD have more "draconian" laws than some other states?

 

[Modest]

Does it matter if the site is hosted on US servers?

 

[Joe Blow]

I wonder if you could cross sue them for Barratry

Unfortunately I don't think that's possible in this case.

Does it matter if the site is hosted on US servers?

No, it makes no difference with defamation in Australia. It has been found previously that it doesn't matter where the information is stored electronically, the only thing that matters is where it's downloaded and read.

 

[Modest]

This draconian law is pretty frightening Joe as I run a few popular boards in AU.

There's a case on Whirlpool also perhaps reach out to Simon Wright from the Whirlpool boards, I believe they won their defamation case but don't quote me on it.

 

[Joe Blow]

This draconian law is pretty frightening Joe as I run a few popular boards in AU.

There's a case on Whirlpool also perhaps reach out to Simon Wright from the Whirlpool boards, I believe they won their defamation case but don't quote me on it.

There is definitely a need for further defamation law reform in Australia.

I have communicated with Simon Wright previously via email and followed the case he was involved in with WCS Group. My understanding is that the case, which was one for misleading and deceptive conduct, was eventually discontinued by WCS Group.

 

[banco]

Hot Copper site owners have been sued for defamation, but also threatened many times with lawsuit

A quick Google indicates that at least one individual poster was sued.

A bit of digging around by the astute members of this forum would probably be able to find out what precedents were established in these cases?

Havent read the "original" thread, I know defamation, via forum is a grey area legally, and different states have different laws, doesnt QLD have more "draconian" laws than some other states?

The states harmonised defamation laws a few years ago. They are slightly less draconian then they used to be but still a disgrace.

 

[awg]

The states harmonised defamation laws a few years ago. They are slightly less draconian then they used to be but still a disgrace.

There are a number of legal websites that explain the QLD defamation laws, and it seems clear (to me) that; PUBLISHER cannot wash his hands and walk away. (although there are defences)

It seems certain that if YOU (as an anonymous forum user) make a post that is clearly defamatory,
you are legally liable. (I always believed this to be the case).

Not sure how the court goes about about calling them out, (but note the HC vs Cudeco case)...and others via google.

It is possible in some cases that the aggrieved party believes that an ex-insider is spreading untrue information and they wish to confirm the identity of the person, so they can pursue further action

Interestingly, a motor vehicle forum I am on had this problem over 10yrs ago.
In that case, the situation is that NOTHING can be deleted, even by admin!
The unmanned server exists in Norway, and suing the moderators is fruitless, as they can do nothing.
There rule is unacceptable "commercial" criticism will get you banned.
Suppliers also know that threats to sue will become known via other sources on the internet and would be bad for their business ( as entirely closing the website is the only option)

I note Whirlpool contains quite heavy-hitting direct critique of many, many commercial products, although I am not active there and do not know the moderation style.

Joe is an excellent moderator imo, with superb balance.

When i looked up the protagonist law firm website, a "chat" reply box opened within 10 seconds..Hi

I know Joe cannot comment or encourage further publication, but imo, publicity would not be what the applicant is seeking in this case, they also would not wish for individual persons to ask difficult questions

 

[Joe Blow]

I'd like to make another important point about the ability of people and companies to legally bully ASF.

The less active ASF is the more vulnerable it is, and the more active it is the stronger it is. ASF's ability to fight legal battles is largely determined by its ability to generate revenue and the support it receives from the community itself. The legal system is heavily biased towards those with more financial resources due to the high costs involved. It is a common tactic for those who are "moneyed up" to win a case simply by bleeding the other side dry financially as opposed to obtaining a judgement in their favour. When a defendant can no longer afford to continue defending a case, they lose, irrespective of the merits of the claim.

It's a sad indictment on the legal system that justice can be thwarted in this way, but unfortunately this is just the way things are. It is said that the aim of the legal system is to resolve disputes in a way that is "quick, cheap and just". Very often, in my experience, it is none of these things.

 

[DB008]

I note Whirlpool contains quite heavy-hitting direct critique of many, many commercial products, although I am not active there and do not know the moderation style.

Comparing Whirlpool to ASF is like comparing a kindergarten pupil to a university student.
ASF is miles in front.

Whirlpool is very, very, very strict (heavy) on censorship and is also leans towards the left (heavily).

To give you an idea - Whirlpool have a 'In the news' thread. When the Sydney 'Lindt Cafe' siege happened, religion and Islam was off-topic. Mere mention would get you banned. Can you believe it?

Almost every thread on ASF in regards to Religion/Islam/Jihad would be deleted or so censored it would make it pointless.

I applaud Joe for keeping ASF so open and letting people express their ideas/thoughts. 10/10

 

[wayneL]

Comparing Whirlpool to ASF is like comparing a kindergarten pupil to a university student.
ASF is miles in front.

Whirlpool is very, very, very strict (heavy) on censorship and is also leans towards the left (heavily).

To give you an idea - Whirlpool have a 'In the news' thread. When the Sydney 'Lindt Cafe' siege happened, religion and Islam was off-topic. Mere mention would get you banned. Can you believe it?

Almost every thread on ASF in regards to Religion/Islam/Jihad would be deleted or so censored it would make it pointless.

I applaud Joe for keeping ASF so open and letting people express their ideas/thoughts. 10/10

Amen!!!

I have been a member of this forum since very close to its inception and been a mod for several years. I still don't know Joe's political or social views.

This is testament to his commitment to free speech and even handedness. ASF is one of the last bastions of reasonable free speech we have.

 

[Smurf1976]

I don't have the details handy but it seems that the Australian Consumers Association (Choice magazine) is having similar issues with legal action against them for publishing factually correct information.

There's an editorial piece in this month's magazine to that effect. Someone's not happy but Choice are sure they've got the facts right about some shonky practices, promotional claims made by the business behind some hair loss treatment, and won't be retracting their comments despite the threats. Good to hear that they're standing up for their right to publish the truth.

As noted by Choice, if they receive legal threats then that's generally a good indication that they're onto something worthwhile.