We had some difficulties with suppliers and services.... The upshot was that the
lists were temporarily shut down and several policies concerning posts were
implemented....These details can be found at jag-lovers.org.....I'm attaching
part of the thread involved. Bottom line: Jag-lovers was shut down as a result
of a negative post involving services & suppliers.....PERIOD
[xj] Lawsuit for libel? LONG!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To: xj@jag-lovers.org
* Subject: [xj] Lawsuit for libel? LONG!!!!
* From: John Littler <john.littler@ibm.net>
* Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 16:52:37 +1000
* Organization: None
* Sender: owner-xj@jag-lovers.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sort of post makes me kinda mad, so while I'm going to try and be
civil please excuse me if I'm not.
Firstly it's bloody easy for armchair lawyers to sit around and
pontificate when it's not your f-ing money you're talking about.
Let's make perfectly clear who's money we are talking about :
First and foremost Lawrence Buja, as president of this organisation he
is the first point the lawyers will be sending letters of demand to,
secondarily the list admins and Gunnar as the guy who supplies the net
interface. Don't forget jag-lovers isn't incorporated so the liability
falls directly on whoever a court can ascertain as being responsible.
Secondly the location of the server is irrelevant under US law - where a
US citizen has a complaint and can show suit against another US citizen
the server being in Norway is not going to stop aforementioned Arsehole
suing Lawrence.
Thirdly even a frivolous lawsuit costs money to defend.
Fourthly the archives are being *temporarily* shut down so we can close
a few of the openings that would allow a frivolous lawsuit to get to
court, instead of being laughed at by the counsel requested to commence
action.
John
XK list admin
S3 XJ web admin
> Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 20:44:17 -0400 (EDT)
> From: spectre@startrekmail.com
> Subject: [xj] Lawsuit for libel? LONG!!!!
>
> First of all, that's full of it - last time I checked, the Jag-Lovers server
is not located
> in the US, and it's damned difficult to sue someone offshore.
>
> Second:
>
> Libel refers to the printed defamation of someone. In its most general
> sense, any publication that is injurious to the reputation of another. For
> a thorough discussion, see N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.
>
> Slander is the speaking of base and defamatory words tending to prejudice
> another in his reputation, community, etc. It must be false and
> defamatory.
>
> These definitions were taken in part from Black's Dictionary, 6th Ed.
>
> Obviously, these definitions are over simplified. This area of law
> is very complex with many intricacies which depend on the relevant facts.
>
>
> In the United States, truth is an absolute defense in all cases of
> defamation (libel or slander). When the offended is a public figure, it
> is not even necessary to prove truth, merely that one took reasonable
> care to get at the truth.
>
> In other countries, this (especially the latter) is not necessarily so.
>
> The main thing is that you can say or print anything you want so long as you
present your
> opinions of someone or something AS opinions and do not state them as fact.
You can indeed
> present the facts of their behavior as it occurred.
>
> More info on the same point:
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong!! This could lead folks into deep trouble. You can't
> safely "publish" to the world on the internet the kind of thing you'd say
> at a party.
>
> I'm not a lawyer either, but I have developed a tort law course and been
> an editor/reporter who had to know exactly how libel laws work. And I'll
> quote directly from some legal sources....
>
> The original posting by "cbucking" about a buysell poster's ethics could
> easily trigger a libel suit. Just take his words, add a pitbull lawyer,
> and stir. And whether winner or loser, "cbucking" would face crippling
> legal fees and suffer months of emotional misery.
>
> Here's a few libel basics you should know before posting anything:
>
> 1. Being sincere is not a defense. It's not a defense if you negligently
> cause a car accident, and it's not a defense if you negligently say or
> write somethat wrongly injures someone. "The plaintif [the person suing
> the defendant] must prove either intent or negligence concerning
> publication." [Source: "Tort Law", Legal Services Society of BC.] Note
> the word "either." Intent is not needed. Negligence is enough.
>
> What if you innocently repost a defamatory artice? "A defendent can
> be held liable even though he or she had no knowledge that the information
> was false or that it implicated the plaintif. In this respect, neither
> intent nor negligence need be proved...." [Source: "Tort Law", Legal
> Services Society of BC.]
>
> So check your facts before writing or repeating an opinion which could
> cause "wrongful damage". And read on...
>
> 2 There are four defenses against a defamation tort. The defense of FAIR
> COMMENT applies to "an honest opinion about a matter of public importance"
> which "must be based on facts and be made without malice." [Source: "The
> Law In Canada"] This defense is commonly used by the mass media when
> reporting political events, but it doesn't stop them from being sued
> (sometimes successfully.) Posting a "buyer beware" note to this
> newsgroup might qualify as being of this magnitude of public importance,
> but do you really want to pay for a test case?
>
> 3. A related defense is QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, but that's very limited --
> it applies only to "a statement without malice as part of public or
> private duties." An example would be letters of reference, complaints to
> the police, etc. [Sources: "The Law In Canada" and "Tort Law"]
>
> 4. The only two other defenses against libel are JUSTIFICATION -- the
> statements are all true *and* you can prove it (if you can't prove it,
> you're S.O.L.) and ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE -- statements made in legislatures,
> court cases, or between lawyer and client.
>
> 5. The last writer quoted below talks about the UK's "nasty" libel laws.
> That's us too. Defamation law is largely Common Law -- previous judicial
> decisions, as opposed to written Statute Law -- so its basic principles
> are heavily based on landmark UK cases. [Source: "Tort Law", Legal
> Services Society of BC.] Don't be confused by articles about US libel
> laws which are less stringent than Canada's.
>
> 6. Slander differs slightly from libel. Both are DEFAMATION -- wrongful
> damage to a person's reputation. SLANDER is spoken (conversation, etc.)
> whereas LIBEL is "published" (printed, broadcast, film, etc; yes, the
> internet.) A slander case requires proof of financial injury; a libel
> case does not. That's about the only difference in BC nowadays.
>
> 7. The best defense is to already be so poor and have your opinions held
> in such low esteem that it's not worth suing you for either damages or
> retractions. If this doesn't describe you now, don't make it become true
> courtesy of a careless posting that feeds a hungry libel lawyer. ;)
>
> - -------------------------------
> Beam to http://www.StarTrek.com
> Now featuring the Star Trek Store and
> the official site for Star Trek: Insurrection.
> - ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 20:46:56 -0400 (EDT)
> From: spectre@startrekmail.com
> Subject: [xj] Libel - myy last post on the topic, sorry
>
> And, again;
>
> I got the followig information regarding "libel" (slander is just a
> verbal form of libel) from a lawyer (biker) friend of mine. He knows the
> law a hell of a lot better then I do, and most likely most others in
> this newsgroup.
>
>
> Preacher [The original author of this post -- HF]
>
>
> He says:
>
> Subject: libel
>
> 1. Truth is an absolute, 100% defense. If you can back up what you
> say, you win.
>
> 2. Sometimes it costs bunches of money to prove what you say is
> true
>
> 3. Opinions, labeled as such, are generally not libelous. (there are
> exceptions)
>
> 4. Sometimes it costs bunches of money to prove what you are saying
> is merely opinion.
>
> 5. Libel suits are generally quite rare. The company that feels
> offended
> may want to make a point and sue for libel, but more often than not,
> they don't want to take the risk of a loss and be KNOWN for having
> a shitty product. (who really looked stupider...larry flint or Jerry
> Falwell)
>
> 6. Its harder than you think to prove damages in a libel case and most
> companies, despite the urging of their lawyers, don't want to throw
> good money down the drain on legal fees if they aren't going to get
> anything
> back in return. (we lawyers however, will ALWAYS encourage suing...
> how else are we gonna afford expensive motorcycles) Even if they win,
> since
> malice is required in most libel cases, and since malice is an
> intentional
> act, most insurance policies won't defend you or pay your damages. The
> big boys know that and realize that in most cases, its not worth the bad
> press and the risk to go after some schmuck with no real money.
>
> 7. Sometimes it costs bunches of money to defend a case even if the
> other
> is just throwing money down the drain.
>
> The real moral of the story is...say whatever you want, just don't tell
> 'em
> your name.
>
Brad Sahr wrote:
> Arthur,
>
> Could you explain further what happened on the Jaguar list? Since you left
> out the details, your post leaves me with the impression that you are simply
> trying to squash the sharing of bad experiences with parts suppliers (i.e. -
> If you share bad experiences with suppliers, they might shut this list
> down!).
>
> I hope that this is not what you intended. We have a great group of people
> here and I too believe we should protect it.
>
> If people share bad experiences with suppliers in a 'factual' manner, I
> doubt that the list could be shut down. In the past, I feel that people have
> been fair in their evaluation of suppliers. Why would this case be any
> different?
>
> Brad
> '64 Series IV automatic
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Blackwell <aeb1@americanisp.net>
> To: Carl McLelland <carlmcle@saturnnet.com>
> Cc: Alpine list <alpines@autox.team.net>; Patrick <pLaske@bigfoot.com>
> Date: Saturday, June 17, 2000 8:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Parts Suppliers
>
> >I hate to rain on the parade, but we went through some lawsuits and
> difficult
> >times on the Jaguar List because of this very subject....I know, word of
> mouth
> >is good, provided it is positive, OTOH bad publicity leads to lawsuits and
> >shutting down of lists......sigh.....
> >
> >Carl McLelland wrote:
> >
> >> Patrick,
> >>
> >> WORD OF MOUTH IS THE BEST ADVERTISING THAT MONEY CAN'T BUY!
> >>
> Note that there already is a post starting up this exact situation. I wish I
> COULD comment negatively on some suppliers I have used in the past....
--
Art Blackwell
Denver, CO
" Even in the future nothing works " Dark Helmet " Spaceballs "
|