Either that or really launch it.

Freedom of speech sounds good in theory, but the Australian courts don't agree. Defermation of a business, individual or product is serious stuff.

We have dealt with things in the past, and this is the best compromise. You have to remember that the people behind the scenes aren't getting paid for this, it's not easy, and we are HUMAN. We have real jobs and real familys to think of first. This is our best solution. The group running this place at the moment are the best yet, and it's not a job that many people can take on and do well.

_________________

Defamation applies only to a business or professional, not to individuals. The person at risk is the member who says the wrong thing. There is no responsibility on your belalf for providing the media. My opinion is let the system roll, if people do the wrong thing it is at their own peril.

_________________
1970 Cooper S ex-Bathurst & ATCC
1964 Austin Cooper S ex-Group C race car
1967 Morris Cooper S ex-Group B
1962 Mini Speed sports sedan
1968-71 ex-Peter Manton Shell car

In our case, it's us...

_________________

I don't blame Poeee at all for trying to protect himself and the other moderators. After witnessing the saga at the zgeek forum (read all about it) The owner of that forum is still being chased by idiots that tried to sue him for $43 million.

Question?

If someone advertises something as a cooper S and it clearly isnt by any informed person. Then someone buys this car believing that this is a mini community and people possess knowledge they do not and view these people as experts, and so becaue it says it is a cooper s it must be. They then buy this car. Later they find out it is not a cooper S at all.

Isnt then this forum at fault and open to legal proceedings by allowing a false advertisement on a forum of people who are percieved as experts in the subject area. And thus the person purchasing the car trusting that because its a mini site it must be right?

So in my view whether you can comment or not on an item your open to legal battles. But i would rather fight one where the discussion of the genuiness is in question rather than someone buying something on false advertising because they regard the website as experts.

Brenton

_________________

Stating that some things on a car that is claimed to be genuine are wrong and why they are wrong isn't an issue if it is in fact the truth, and no one is going to say that its genuine when it is not. There is a fine line. Issues start when the credibility of the seller starts to be bashed.

There is difference between educating buyers and bashing a car/seller that is for sale.

_________________

I'm 99.9999999999999999999% certain that individuals - under ozzy law - can be sued for defamation, it's not common as it is very expensive in the first place and these are difficult to prove in a court. Businesses on the other hand have far more to protect and usually better funded, so these case are more prevailent.



Buyer beware.

Reading something from the internet is hardly buyer protection.

_________________

Yes imagine how much time that case would have sucked out of his life.
It seems the lawyers might have been relatively cheap.
Still it was time, money and grief.

Completely correct GT.

_________________
You're only supposed to blow the BLUDDY DOORS OFF!!

"The law of defamation protects individual reputation. The law assumes that all people are of good character until the opposite is proved.
People may believe that they have been 'defamed' if someone says or implies something negative about their character but whether this is defamatory depends on factors such as its context and to whom it was said. Each case depends on its facts. For example, it has been found to be defamatory to say in a particular context that a person is a homosexual, a communist or has scabbed on fellow unionists. Words and other matter (such as cartoons) can be defamatory by innuendo - that is, where the reader has to put two and two together to understand the defamatory meaning.
The test of what is or is not defamatory depends on the standards of the community as a whole and not just of some narrow section or group.
It does not matter if the person intended to refer to, or disparage a particular person. It is enough if:
the words reasonably lead persons acquainted with the complaining person to believe she or he is referred to
that the material discredits the person's character and reputation.
Law in relation to Defamation
The purpose of the law of defamation is to protect a person's reputation (generally by awarding damages), while at the same time protecting the right to freedom of speech."

I taking this as if a car or part is not what the seller is making it out to be we can say so, as long as we don't make comment on the sellers character. Is that what you guys think? Just putting it out there for comment.

PS. I have about 15 lawyers at my disposal. I put it to them at work on Monday.

_________________
The bitterness of poor quality (or Crappy Workmanship) remains LONG AFTER the Sweet Taste of Low Price is forgotten.

Must remember

Dont ever make defamation comments about TK

_________________

Absolutely, you misunderstood me. You cant defame an individual though unless it is a business or profession you are defaming. In other words I can say someone is doing a dodgy restoration and there is no defamation of Character. To name someone as say a "stupid bastard" for doing such a thing is "slander" which is an entirely different thing.
However if I said that about a professional restorer or business that is entirely different. To name someone as say a "stupid bastard" for doing such a thing may be appropriate but is "slander" which is an entirely different thing.

Does that make it clearer??

_________________
1970 Cooper S ex-Bathurst & ATCC
1964 Austin Cooper S ex-Group C race car
1967 Morris Cooper S ex-Group B
1962 Mini Speed sports sedan
1968-71 ex-Peter Manton Shell car

It does clarify your point, but you are still mistaken. You can defame an individual. Slander is just one means of committing defamation. Libel is the other major one. I can never remember which is which (perhaps TK's mates can help out here), but one is defamation by verbal means, the other is by print/other broadcast.

For example, if you advertised a car that had a set of funky wheels on it, but when I bought it you had swapped to some basic things and I called you a dirty, stinky, lying, cheating bastard to the whole world then you'd possibly have the basis for a case of defamation against me.

So it's just as well that I'm not actually calling you a dirty, stinky, lying, cheating bastard.

_________________
You're only supposed to blow the BLUDDY DOORS OFF!!

Legal definition of Slander,

defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

_________________
The bitterness of poor quality (or Crappy Workmanship) remains LONG AFTER the Sweet Taste of Low Price is forgotten.