Former HC blogger sued for defamation

[GumbyLearner]

Cyber poison-penner hunted down and sued
TONY WRIGHT
February 25, 2010

He told The Age he did not wish to reveal the details of his next detective steps, but the upshot was a defamation action against Mr Gladman alleging that, as a result of his postings, Datamotion and Mr Moir had been ''brought into hatred, contempt and ridicule and thereby suffered damage''.


http://www.theage.com.au/business/cyber-poisonpenner-hunted-down-and-sued-20100224-p3n7.html

LEGAL counsel Martin Bennett has a short message for those who allow themselves to attack reputations over the internet, imagining they are safe under the cloak of anonymity. ''You can be hunted down and found,'' he said yesterday.

Mr Bennett has done just that for a Perth client, winning $30,000 in damages and costs, an apology, and undertakings from a Colac man that he won't post any more defamatory comments.

Mr Bennett then took court action, forcing HotCopper to turn over its files. ''Unfortunately, the registered membership name appeared to be false,'' he said. ''It turned out to be attached to an escort service in Geelong.''

 

[sam76]

To all the Directors, Staff and companies I've ever bad mouthed, I apologise.

 

[explod]

Good one Gumby. Off topic, went to school with Tony Wright at a little town called Hawkesdale. Only about 30 odd kids in the whole school when I started there in 1952.

Professor, you are going to have to be tougher on me from now on.

 

[basilio]

This is a really interesting development. We don't know what was said about Mr Moir. It could have been really personally ugly (and totally defamatory) ; perhaps it questioned his capabilities and integrity as a businessman. Not sure.

But where does it leave us ? I think the opportunity to speak frankly about what we see in our business leaders is one of the real strengths of this forum. Lets be clear

Some business leaders are totally greedy, cunning, sociopaths.

Some business practices are "sharp" perhaps even deceptive or just legally or illegally dishonest. We know that when we see the washout from Storm and a number of other companies (I've even hesitant to name others I believe fit into this category).

Part of the process of protecting a deceptive companies practices is the use of libel laws to crack down on people who might blow open a deceptive practice or comment on what they have experienced or what they judge to be wrong. Hopefully the comments are true and open the opportunity for bringing some reality to the spin that permeates our commercial world.

If we can't tell it like it is WTF are we doing here ?

I hope this thread opens up some good debate and that we can continue to speak frankly.

 

[GumbyLearner]

This is a really interesting development. We don't know what was said about Mr Moir. It could have been really personally ugly (and totally defamatory) ; perhaps it questioned his capabilities and integrity as a businessman. Not sure.

But where does it leave us ? I think the opportunity to speak frankly about what we see in our business leaders is one of the real strengths of this forum. Lets be clear

Some business leaders are totally greedy, cunning, sociopaths.

Some business practices are "sharp" perhaps even deceptive or just legally or illegally dishonest. We know that when we see the washout from Storm and a number of other companies (I've even hesitant to name others I believe fit into this category).

Part of the process of protecting a deceptive companies practices is the use of libel laws to crack down on people who might blow open a deceptive practice or comment on what they have experienced or what they judge to be wrong. Hopefully the comments are true and open the opportunity for bringing some reality to the spin that permeates our commercial world.

If we can't tell it like it is WTF are we doing here ?

I hope this thread opens up some good debate and that we can continue to speak frankly.

I did a little bit of reseach this afternoon and came across a well compiled
article by Michael Saadat from ASIC. A bit dated at 2005 too.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2005_1/saadat/
(It was linked to the wiki entry below)


Abstract

This paper considers jurisdictional issues associated with the Internet, with a focus on defamation as it arises on the Internet. The leading Australian case of Gutnick provides a key basis for analysis, and reveals that the traditional rules of jurisdiction can, and do, provide a sound basis for Internet regulation.

It looks like the successful action Joe Gutnick took out against Dow Jones (Barrons Online) is the leading precedent on this.

Here's the wiki summary, but really only touches the surface

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_&_Co._Inc._v_Gutnick

It would great to have a thread discussion about this with basilio, sam76, explod and any other forum member interested.

Couldn't find anything published in any journals as yet about the Datamotion matter. If anyone can, could they please provide a link? It would be most helpful.

cheers
Gumby.
DYOR

 

[professor_frink]

Professor, you are going to have to be tougher on me from now on.

Done

 

[GumbyLearner]

Have a read of this aricle from www.ozsoapbox.com ASFer's.

How dare you question my methods if I spam you! WAJ

Chinese company sues UK blogger using Australian laws
Aug.27, 2009 in blogging

http://ozsoapbox.com/personal/blogging/chinese-company-sues-uk-blogger-using-australian-laws/

If you’ve used the internet for more then thirty seconds at any given time over the last few months then you’ve probably seen the giant boob ads for online game Evony. You know, the ones featuring euro-trash models with giant cleavage and the submissive tagline ‘my lord’.

Well, seems British blogger Bruce Everiss decided to have a closer look at the game and didn’t like what he found.

Turns out Evony is owned by chinese businessman Eric Lam, who runs a bunch of gold mining companies.

Not happy about being exposed, the chinese based Evony decided to threaten to sue over UK based Everiss’ comments. Oh and here’s the kicker, Evony is threatening to launch legal action using Australian law.

Chinese gold farming is a common gaming phrase and relates to ‘farms’ of workers (99.9% of the time based in China) who sit around playing games all day ‘farming’ special items and in-game currency which are then sold to other players for real world cash.

Due to players often being time restricted and lazy it’s a pretty lucrative business run at the expense of fairness and playability.

Usually the go is that these chinese farms latch onto an existing game and destroy the local game economy by flooding the market with ingame-currency and items. Evony however “cuts out the middle man” as Everiss puts it and charges players directly.

Mind you it’s not the first game to employ this model but coupled with a massive viral advertising campaign, comment spam and god knows what other marketing tacticts it’s easy to see why it’s raised the ire of gamers.

It seems Australia’s draconian online defamation laws are known worldwide and after a series of critical posts by Everiss on his blog, Evony are using NSW lawyers Warren McKeon Dickson and claiming defamation due to the fact Everiss’ blog can be viewed online in NSW.

 

[newbie trader]

Hey,

This is quite interesting...defamation can be considered for those who are not aware as 'imputations of [fact] which [tend] to injure the reputation of another by [exposing him/her to hatred, contempt, ridicule or avoidance], or which tend to [low him/her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society]'.

A judge will decide whether the words were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and then a jury will decide whether this is in fact defamatory. I think this is the only type of tortitious law where a jury is employed.

Two cases which are helpful in relation to business reputation (i think thats what the matter is over?) are:

Sungravure v ME Airlines (1975) 134 CLR 1
Radio 2 UE Sydney Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16

General Community Standards:

Reader's Digest v Lamb (1982) CLR 500
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine [1983] 2 NSWLR 682

In a defamation case the intention of the alleged defamer is irrelevant, the material must be published 'of and concerning' the plaintiff and you will normally have to prove that you constitute a certain 'class' of people who have been defamed or else indeterminate liability will come into play.

In relation to the publication itself theres a good case on internet postings:

Dow Jones & Co v Gutnick (2002) 77 AJLR 255 (HCA)

Sorry if I sound boring its probably because I am, I just wanted to contribute to this for anyone who is interested in reading further.

In my opinion you would have to look at what exactly was said otherwise it's just speculation, however, I do believe that free speech is very important. Interestingly enough over the past couple of months in particular I think we have seen a definate rise in the media's coverage of internet postings over popular social networking sites such as facebook (not so much in terms of defamation) and would not be suprised if we see an increase of actions being brought against other posters in relation to defamation.

Just my

N.T

 

[GumbyLearner]

Hey,

This is quite interesting...defamation can be considered for those who are not aware as 'imputations of [fact] which [tend] to injure the reputation of another by [exposing him/her to hatred, contempt, ridicule or avoidance], or which tend to [low him/her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society]'.

A judge will decide whether the words were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and then a jury will decide whether this is in fact defamatory. I think this is the only type of tortitious law where a jury is employed.

Two cases which are helpful in relation to business reputation (i think thats what the matter is over?) are:

Sungravure v ME Airlines (1975) 134 CLR 1
Radio 2 UE Sydney Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16

General Community Standards:

Reader's Digest v Lamb (1982) CLR 500
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine [1983] 2 NSWLR 682

In a defamation case the intention of the alleged defamer is irrelevant, the material must be published 'of and concerning' the plaintiff and you will normally have to prove that you constitute a certain 'class' of people who have been defamed or else indeterminate liability will come into play.

In relation to the publication itself theres a good case on internet postings:

Dow Jones & Co v Gutnick (2002) 77 AJLR 255 (HCA)

Sorry if I sound boring its probably because I am, I just wanted to contribute to this for anyone who is interested in reading further.

In my opinion you would have to look at what exactly was said otherwise it's just speculation, however, I do believe that free speech is very important. Interestingly enough over the past couple of months in particular I think we have seen a definate rise in the media's coverage of internet postings over popular social networking sites such as facebook (not so much in terms of defamation) and would not be suprised if we see an increase of actions being brought against other posters in relation to defamation.

Just my

N.T

Cheers for the links N.T. will try to look them up on austlii.

Do you think the UK blogger being sued for defamatory comments made on his blog about the gold farming/spam/gaming etc.. site could potentially counter-sue for misleading and deceptive conduct under the NSW Fair Trading Act or a similar piece of legislation in the UK?

 

[newbie trader]

Hey,

Yeah its a bit annoying about Australia's laws in relation to internet defamation but they are evolving however slowly. In relation to the English blogger, that is a very tenuous link to allow the case to be heard in Australia and should really sound alarm bells within the legal community. In relation to counter sueing truth in defamation is an absolute defence so if his comments are 'correct' and the Chinese company is indeed just trying to get rid of some 'bad press' then even in Australia i'm not sure how they could win in their action? There are specific laws on blogging I think and the easiest thing would be just to take it down even though i dont agree with what the company has done...but yeah I by no means have much knowledge on the various areas of law (ive only completed year 1 out of 5.5 of my law degree, 2nd year starts up on monday =]).

Would love to hear some more of your ideas/opinions.

N.T

 

[doctorj]

I might be speaking out of school here (Joe, feel free to delete if so), but ASF receives legal threats all the time. Complaints usually come from tossers, I mean companies, that are seeking to censor the experiences of former customers in order to manage their brand imagine online.

If anyone here's a Lawyer with experience in the field and is willing to donate some time or expertise in helping ASF manage these situations, it would be much appreciated.

We obviously want to protect the integrity of the community and allow people to post genuine experiences, both good and bad. If you can help and you too value the opportunity to learn from the experiences of others, please get in touch via PM.

Thanks in advance!

 

[basilio]

I might be speaking out of school here (Joe, feel free to delete if so), but ASF receives legal threats all the time. Complaints usually come from tossers, I mean companies, that are seeking to censor the experiences of former customers in order to manage their brand imagine online.

Nice work..

So it's clear that there is pressure on forums like ASF to pull in critical comments. It seems from the discussion to date that even true critical comments could be actionable - or at least you might have to defend them in a court. The fact is, simply the threat of legal action and the requirement to engage a solicitor would be a very big deterrence for most people. Which is why such actions are undertaken.

Best way out I suppose is to be broke and have nothing to lose.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Nice work..

So it's clear that there is pressure on forums like ASF to pull in critical comments. It seems from the discussion to date that even true critical comments could be actionable - or at least you might have to defend them in a court. The fact is, simply the threat of legal action and the requirement to engage a solicitor would be a very big deterrence for most people. Which is why such actions are undertaken.

Best way out I suppose is to be broke and have nothing to lose.

As long as you've got your facts straight basilio, you'll be fine mate. But I wouldn't be calling the bluff of straw man who had his facts straight. He might demand costs.

 

[newbie trader]

I think in today's society the owner of a site such as this one needs to know his or her rights so that they are not intimidated by 'bogus' threats of legal action but also so that owners understand what can and cannot be posted on their site.

N.T

 

[noirua]

It will be interesting in the future to see what may happen to an Australian web forum that is based offshore and the posting is by a person in a different domain.
I notice there are American websites that cover other countries. If the Aussie website is based in China and a person blogs from the USA, what then.
I've only mentioned the above because if litigation continues, then that may be the way some web forums will go.

 

[basilio]

The issue of truth, what one might see as the truth and how we express it become more complex the more you think about it. And a big part of the problem (in my eyes) is that many powerful elements of our society undertake systemic deception to make their profits and hold their power.

In the past it has often been difficult to speak out about such deceptions. What could you do ? A letter to the editor ? A soap box on the street corner? A bit of bitching in the pub?

Now we can instantly talk on the net - in theory communicate with millions of people and if if we hit the right nerve embarrass and hold organizations and/or principals to account.

And at the same time some malicious, thoughtless, misguided, dumb or very cunning people can also spray the net with their comments creating havoc.

Let's consider a particularly powerful example in Australia - Whirlpool.net.au. For forum members who haven't heard of whirlpool.net it was established, I think about 10 years ago, by an 18 year kid who was really pissed off with Telstras behaviour in changing the rules on the use of Big Pond. He challenged their actions and called them to account.

This was totally non-commercial so there wasn't an attempt to make a dollar. Over the years whirlpool has built itself into one of the largest net forums around using it's members skills and experiences to highlight the best and worst of internet, technology, mobile phones and so on. And as I understand it there have been the usual efforts of business to bully them, try to curry favour and to create a favorable presence to influence users.

In the financial world there is even more deception and far bigger risks of losing money through being taken for a ride. And because the stakes are far higher the risk of the main players taking action to "protect" themselves is equally large. For example

1) In the 80's (that is safely in the past...!) the major banks and insurance companies were making out like bandits with their promotion of savings plans and personal super plans. Those with long memories will recall just how high the fees were with these products and the ways that insurance consultants pressured thoughtful people into protecting their future. All just classic expensive sxxxx

2) More recently (and thankfully killed) Firepower was an elaborate sham based on magic petrol pills. But this charade was kept going because so many people were still making a dollar despite it's obvious stink.

3) For at least 60 years the tobacco industry undertook systematic deception of the population to protect their right to sell addictive and poisonous products. It's a bit of a history lesson but I suspect most younger members might not be aware of just how much power the tobacco lobby had and how ruthlessly they used it.

4) Currently the Home insulation debacle has continued far longer than it should have. The idea was probably right but it was clear from the very beginning that heaving a couple of billion dollars into the economy to encourage us to insulate our ceilings was the equivalent of throwing a truck of gutted fish into the sea and asking the sharks to take their turn. But it seems that the public service and government were just not willing to recognise how fatally flawed their systems were in trying to manage the certainty of rorting

Any thoughts on how we can encourage truth and the light and not be harassed by the dark side ? Or is it too hard to tell the difference these days ?

 

[Calliope]

The issue of truth, what one might see as the truth and how we express it become more complex the more you think about it. And a big part of the problem (in my eyes) is that many powerful elements of our society undertake systemic deception to make their profits and hold their power.

And at the same time some malicious, thoughtless, misguided, dumb or very cunning people can also spray the net with their comments creating havoc.

Any thoughts on how we can encourage truth and the light and not be harassed by the dark side ? Or is it too hard to tell the difference these days ?

Getting rid of Rudd would be a good start. He is guilty of all the above, and has made deception an art form.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

To all the Directors, Staff and companies I've ever bad mouthed, I apologise.

Not a good tactic sam.
It implies "guilt", "large pockets".

gg

 

[wayneL]

To all the Educators, Directors, Staff and companies I've ever bad mouthed, technically I have no assets...

... so sue me :fu:

 

[nulla nulla]

Does this mean every post made now, where we express disagreement with some-one elses post and make comments that could be intrepreted as carrying a slur on the good name (monicker, alias, secet identity) of some other poster, should carry a legal disclaimer?