In Australia it does. Australian makes North Korea look like a Sunday Picnic.
You can't fart in Australia unless you fill out paperwork in quintuplicate.
Tony Bev said
04:50 PM Oct 4, 2021
I know nothing of facebook, each time I look, it appears (to me) to be uninteresting topics
Perhaps I have yet to come across, a topic I am interested in?
I doubt if forums, (which are moderated to stop any personal attacks), will be closing down
To take for example this forum
I believe that there is a lot of information (help), given out by a lot of friendly people
I have met some of the people, who contribute to this forum, and (in my opinion), they are all OK
dabbler said
05:17 PM Oct 4, 2021
People in Australia have been sacked for things they posted on the internet and the sacking upheld in court. People in Australia have been found liable for things they posted on the internet and subsequent appeals have been squashed. Service providers in Australia (ISPs, employers) have been found liable for user activities and actions while using the internet. As long ago as 1998, to protect my employer, I co-wrote my first Terms of Service Agreement in conjunction with company legal professionals because the IT industry has been aware that the internet is just another media platform and Australian laws still apply. Rule 1: never post anything on the Internet that you wouldn't say in public to an audience. This ruling is just more of the same and it isn't the death of forums or social media.
Bicyclecamper said
10:01 PM Oct 4, 2021
Well, with luck' the law will get rid of vicious trolls, have been on the receiving end of some, that I now no longer inhabit those platforms.
Are We Lost said
11:34 PM Oct 4, 2021
My understanding it is not so much the concern for individuals, but for who owns the platform where something is posted.
If I say on here that Mary Bloggs is a thief, or is guilty of some evil deed, I am at risk of being sued. But so is the forum owner by providing the platform for me to make such public comments. I think it's worse for news media because just about any article can draw out emotive comments.
As if we didn't have enough censorship at present, without this making it worse.
Craig1 said
08:58 AM Oct 5, 2021
Beauty, f b..k is down
Possum3 said
10:53 AM Oct 5, 2021
Craig1 wrote:
Beauty, f b..k is down
Global outage - now fixed
Mike Harding said
10:55 AM Oct 5, 2021
I think (from info deep in the archives of my brain, which may be wrong) there have been Australian legal decisions establishing that providing list/forum owners do not act in bad faith and they take down defamatory posts as soon as they become aware of them or are requested to do so they are, essentially, safe.
iirc the owner of the Lemon Caravans FB group refused to take down posts for which she was found guilty of deformation.
However there is a big debate going on in Europe or the USA, can't remember which, as to whether companies such as Facebook are publishers or simply a carriage service similar to the postal service. Governments are getting their knickers in a twist that some people are being upset by nasty people posting things on-line, I say "Toughen up princess" and don't read it if you don't like it. It's not compulsory to have a stupid Facebook or twitter account.
dabbler said
03:35 PM Oct 5, 2021
That's my understanding too Mike, it's how a platform/service owner acts that counts. Most forums are moderated by humans with this in mind.
Aus-Kiwi said
08:53 PM Oct 8, 2021
I moderate on a car forum. We can change what people say. Often ever so slightly to take the abuse, legal side out . Usually the F bomb . To keep things flowing they say they had issues with a company . Not directly saying they are a lemon company !! With Google its easy to check negative comments . Just Google company issues .
Buzz Lightbulb said
11:19 AM Oct 9, 2021
I really wish that the Australian Government created some decent legislation that treated the internet postings similar to face-to-face legislation. For example, if you trolled someone in the street you can be fined for defamation or even assault so why shouldn't it be the same with social media? Surely some things said on the internet would never be repeated face-to-face so I think that one should be responsible for that bad behaviour.
The problem is that this law puts the onus on the platform managers. If they become aware of poor behaviour then they should remove the content but they shouldn't be responsible for that behaviour if they are not made aware of it.
What really should happen is that people respect others on the social media and behave in a decent way. When we first started using emails we were advised 'don't say anything that you wouldn't say to your granny'. I think that's sound advice even though I have personally sometimes didn't follow it.
Wanda said
02:27 PM Oct 9, 2021
Mike Harding wrote:
I think (from info deep in the archives of my brain, which may be wrong) there have been Australian legal decisions establishing that providing list/forum owners do not act in bad faith and they take down defamatory posts as soon as they become aware of them or are requested to do so they are, essentially, safe.
iirc the owner of the Lemon Caravans FB group refused to take down posts for which she was found guilty of deformation.
However there is a big debate going on in Europe or the USA, can't remember which, as to whether companies such as Facebook are publishers or simply a carriage service similar to the postal service. Governments are getting their knickers in a twist that some people are being upset by nasty people posting things on-line, I say "Toughen up princess" and don't read it if you don't like it. It's not compulsory to have a stupid Facebook or twitter account.
I think you will find the Lemon Caravans founder, appealed the decision, won her case with damages or costs being awarded to her
Mike Harding said
03:04 PM Oct 9, 2021
Wanda wrote:
I think you will find the Lemon Caravans founder, appealed the decision, won her case with damages or costs being awarded to her
Most interesting. Thanks for that, I did not know.
Perhaps my favourite MP, Barnaby, is getting upset about (un)social media currently which may quicken the pace of change:
I think (from info deep in the archives of my brain, which may be wrong) there have been Australian legal decisions establishing that providing list/forum owners do not act in bad faith and they take down defamatory posts as soon as they become aware of them or are requested to do so they are, essentially, safe.
But lawyers for Mr Voller told the High Court that, under the law, communication of a defamatory comment did not have to be done intentionally.
"Any degree of participation in that process of communication, however minor, makes the participant a publisher," the lawyers' submissions said.
One of the difficulties for the media groups at the time was that Facebook did not allow them to turn off the comments function.
That has now changed.
Mr Voller had not suggested any of the media outlets failed to remove the comments once they became aware of them.
Buzz Lightbulb said
06:28 PM Nov 15, 2021
Mike Harding wrote:
.... as to whether companies such as Facebook are publishers or simply a carriage service similar to the postal service. Governments are getting their knickers in a twist that some people are being upset by nasty people posting things on-line, I say "Toughen up princess" and don't read it if you don't like it. It's not compulsory to have a stupid Facebook or twitter account.
I think that the court ruling indicates that, in the case of this forum, Cindy, as the webmaster/moderator, can be found responsible for the abuse that it's members inflict on others.
We are not in the armed forces so there's no need for this forum's members to 'toughen up princess'. That may have been acceptable in the past but nowadays one can expect to NOT be abused.
My concerns go out to Cindy if she gets sued because some people can't control themselves and Cindy doesn't pick up the abuse in time. We've already seen one member recently leave. The next may complain and Cindy's in trouble of no fault of her own.
Santa said
08:04 AM Nov 16, 2021
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the members of this forum are among the most irascible people I have encountered online.
Easily angered and quick to take offense, age related I suspect, grumpy old buggers.
Rob Driver said
09:39 AM Nov 16, 2021
From personal observation the current ruling and restrictions on FB and the like began originally with a quest by authorities to eliminate bullying amongst teenagers.
As that exercise grew then so the expectations of no slandering, has spread to all platforms of social media. Probably not a bad thing.
At times it can be extremely difficult to identify a participant on any forum. Hiding an IP number is easy with technology that is readily available so the only avenue is to *force* forum owners and administrators to do the policing.
Some forums are much more strict than others when it comes to policing content as well as ensuring that forum members or participants are actually who they are.
The more strict is the forum with membership, generally reflects the quality of posts that are permitted on that forum.
*Does this ruling spell the end for forums*?
Yes. In some cases when there is a lack of a moderator actually vetting or at the least, perusing current posts
Yes. If anyone is permitted to join and contribute and those same identities then do the wrong thing.
Yes. In the case of a member having to report anothers post as being offensive before any action is taken.
No. Not if the forum owners make every effort to prevent slander both on a personal and a business level, being posted for all to see.
In my opinion, there needs to be an amnesty period for forum owners and managers so that it prevents mischief makers and others seeking financial gain by trawling back in time into old posts. To go back and read an moderate old posts could be a mammoth task on some forums for the owners.
Magnarc said
09:36 AM Nov 17, 2021
Wawt wrote,
In Australia it does. Australian makes North Korea look like a Sunday Picnic.
When does your plane leave for Pyongyang? I'll come and wave goodbye.
PeterInSa said
10:20 AM Nov 17, 2021
Re (My concerns go out to Cindy if she gets sued because some people can't control themselves and Cindy doesn't pick up the abuse in time)
If Cindy is sued, I will put in some $'s for her legal expenses.
Santa said
11:54 AM Nov 17, 2021
Seriously if ever there was a Henny Penny thread this is it, regardless of what some may conjure up in their over active imaginations, the sky is not falling.
And for those wondering what I'm talking about, the story of Henny Penny, even illustrated for them that have trouble with the written word.
Henny-Penny: The Sky is Falling!
Henny-Penny is a story young children should learn early: trying to incite panic can result in opportunists like Foxy-woxy doing real harm. The iconic story was published in English Fairy Tales, retold by Flora Annie Steel (1922), illustrated by Arthur Rackham.
One day Henny-penny was picking up corn in the rickyard whenwhack!an acorn hit her upon the head. "Goodness gracious me!" said Henny-penny, "the sky's a-going to fall; I must go and tell the King."
So she went along, and she went along, and she went along, till she met ****y-locky. "Where are you going, Henny-penny?" says ****y-locky. "Oh! I'm going to tell the King the sky's a-falling," says Henny-penny. "May I come with you?" says ****y-locky. "Certainly," says Henny-penny. So Henny-penny and ****y-locky went to tell the King the sky was falling.
They went along, and they went along, and they went along, till they met Ducky-daddles. "Where are you going to, Henny-penny and ****y-locky?" says Ducky-daddles. "Oh! we're going to tell the King the sky's a-falling," said Henny-penny and ****y-locky. "May I come with you?" says Ducky-daddles. "Certainly," said Henny-penny and ****y-locky. So Henny-penny, ****y-locky, and Ducky-daddles went to tell the King the sky was a-falling.
So they went along, and they went along, and they went along, till they met Goosey-poosey. "Where are you going to, Henny-penny, ****y-locky, and Ducky-daddles?" said Goosey-poosey. "Oh! we're going to tell the King the sky's a-falling," said Henny-penny and ****y-locky and Ducky-daddles. "May I come with you?" said Goosey-poosey. "Certainly," said Henny-penny, ****y-locky, and Ducky-daddles. So Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, and Goosey-poosey went to tell the King the sky was a-falling.
So they went along, and they went along, and they went along, till they met Turkey-lurkey. "Where are you going, Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, and Goosey-poosey?" says Turkey-lurkey. "Oh! we're going to tell the King the sky's a-falling," said Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, and Goosey-poosey. "May I come with you, Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, and Goosey-poosey?" said Turkey-lurkey. "Oh, certainly, Turkey-lurkey," said Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, and Goosey-poosey. So Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey all went to tell the King the sky was a-falling.
So they went along, and they went along, and they went along, till they met Foxy-woxy, and Foxy-woxy said to Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey, "Where are you going, Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey?" And Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey said to Foxy-woxy, "We're going to tell the King the sky's a-falling." "Oh! but this is not the way to the King, Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey," says Foxy-woxy; "I know the proper way; shall I show it you?" "Oh, certainly, Foxy-woxy," said Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey. So Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, Turkey-lurkey, and Foxy-woxy all went to tell the King the sky was a-falling. So they went along, and they went along, and they went along, till they came to a narrow and dark hole. Now this was the door of Foxy-woxy's burrow. But Foxy-woxy said to Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddies, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey, "This is the short cut to the King's palace: you'll soon get there if you follow me. I will go first and you come after, Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey." "Why, of course, certainly, without doubt, why not?" said Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey.
So Foxy-woxy went into his burrow, and he didn't go very far but turned round to wait for Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey. Now Turkey-lurkey was the first to go through the dark hole into the burrow. He hadn't got far when
"Hrumph!"
Foxy-woxy snapped off Turkey-lurkey's head and threw his body over his left shoulder. Then Goosey-poosey went in, and
"Hrumph!"
Off went her head and Goosey-poosey was thrown beside Turkey-lurkey. Then Ducky-daddles waddled down, and
"Hrumph!"
Foxy-woxy had snapped off Ducky-daddles' head and Ducky-daddles was thrown alongside Turkey-lurkey and Goosey-poosey. Then ****y-locky strutted down into the burrow, and he hadn't gone far when
"Hrumph!"
But ****y-locky will always crow whether you want him to do so or not, and so he had just time for one "****-a-doo-dle d" before he went to join Turkey-lurkey, Goosey-poosey, and Ducky-daddles over Foxy-woxy's shoulders.
Now when Henny-penny, who had just got into the dark burrow, heard ****y-locky crow, she said to herself:
"My goodness! it must be dawn. Time for me to lay my egg."
So she turned round and bustled off to her nest; so she escaped, but she never told the King the sky was falling!
Mike Harding said
12:11 PM Nov 17, 2021
Well said Santa.
If I send a postcard to you defaming Buzz Lightbulb I really don't think he'll have much luck suing Australia Post.
And how about if I pin a notice to the community notice board, as above, in Bunnings, can they be sued?
What about the paperboy delivering a copy of the Herald Sun which, it later transpires, carries a defamatory article, can we sue him?
And given that forum owners are not lawyers then cannot be expected to recognise defamation reliably so does every forum need to employ a lawyer?
Edit: Accidentally pressed the "Send" button.
-- Edited by Mike Harding on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 12:17:36 PM
Rob Driver said
05:05 PM Nov 17, 2021
While the Fairy Tale and other comments in the posts immediately above are humorous and tend to make lite of the topic, those that are interested in the facts might like to read the contents of this link.
In theory, any individual or entity who considers damage to their reputation has or is likely to occur, as a result of material published, may sue the publisher/s of the material.
In practice, the laws are inaccessible to ordinary individuals who are defamed due to the exhorbitant legal costs involved in bringing a defamation action"
And there you have it in a nutshell, talk of legal action by members of a forum like this are pie in the sky.
-- Edited by Santa on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 05:17:29 PM
Rob Driver said
05:47 PM Nov 17, 2021
And never spoil a good story by copying and pasting all relevant details.
From the link in my post above:
I think this indicates some very relevant information relative to this topic
Who is able to be sued and liable?
Defamation action may be brought, not only against the original publisher (writer/speaker), but also against anyone who takes part in the publication or re-publication of the material. Furthermore, re-publication by someone other than the original writer may result in an action against the original writer as well as the re-publisher.
Santa said
06:31 PM Nov 17, 2021
The fact remains.
"In practice, the laws are inaccessible to ordinary individuals who are defamed due to the exhorbitant legal costs involved in bringing a defamation action"
Rob Driver said
06:59 PM Nov 17, 2021
Well I am sure that our members on here will read the link and form their own opinions.
Henny Penny helped no one understand the legal liabilities or the risks involved.
Santa said
07:04 PM Nov 17, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Well I am sure that our members on here will read the link and form their own opinions.
Henny Penny helped no one understand the legal liabilities or the risks involved.
Ah ha, a last word man!
Henny Penny won't post further to this thread, I've had my two bobs worth, I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
Facebook pages fall quiet as administrators fear legal action over defamatory comments:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-10-04/facebook-pages-are-falling-quiet-as-defamation-fears-take-hold/100501800
In Australia it does. Australian makes North Korea look like a Sunday Picnic.
You can't fart in Australia unless you fill out paperwork in quintuplicate.
Perhaps I have yet to come across, a topic I am interested in?
I doubt if forums, (which are moderated to stop any personal attacks), will be closing down
To take for example this forum
I believe that there is a lot of information (help), given out by a lot of friendly people
I have met some of the people, who contribute to this forum, and (in my opinion), they are all OK
My understanding it is not so much the concern for individuals, but for who owns the platform where something is posted.
If I say on here that Mary Bloggs is a thief, or is guilty of some evil deed, I am at risk of being sued. But so is the forum owner by providing the platform for me to make such public comments. I think it's worse for news media because just about any article can draw out emotive comments.
As if we didn't have enough censorship at present, without this making it worse.
Global outage - now fixed
I think (from info deep in the archives of my brain, which may be wrong) there have been Australian legal decisions establishing that providing list/forum owners do not act in bad faith and they take down defamatory posts as soon as they become aware of them or are requested to do so they are, essentially, safe.
iirc the owner of the Lemon Caravans FB group refused to take down posts for which she was found guilty of deformation.
However there is a big debate going on in Europe or the USA, can't remember which, as to whether companies such as Facebook are publishers or simply a carriage service similar to the postal service. Governments are getting their knickers in a twist that some people are being upset by nasty people posting things on-line, I say "Toughen up princess" and don't read it if you don't like it. It's not compulsory to have a stupid Facebook or twitter account.
I really wish that the Australian Government created some decent legislation that treated the internet postings similar to face-to-face legislation. For example, if you trolled someone in the street you can be fined for defamation or even assault so why shouldn't it be the same with social media? Surely some things said on the internet would never be repeated face-to-face so I think that one should be responsible for that bad behaviour.
The problem is that this law puts the onus on the platform managers. If they become aware of poor behaviour then they should remove the content but they shouldn't be responsible for that behaviour if they are not made aware of it.
What really should happen is that people respect others on the social media and behave in a decent way. When we first started using emails we were advised 'don't say anything that you wouldn't say to your granny'. I think that's sound advice even though I have personally sometimes didn't follow it.
I think you will find the Lemon Caravans founder, appealed the decision, won her case with damages or costs being awarded to her
Most interesting. Thanks for that, I did not know.
Perhaps my favourite MP, Barnaby, is getting upset about (un)social media currently which may quicken the pace of change:
Opinion piece by Barnaby Joyce
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-08/high-court-rules-on-media-responsibility-over-facebook-comments/100442626
But lawyers for Mr Voller told the High Court that, under the law, communication of a defamatory comment did not have to be done intentionally.
"Any degree of participation in that process of communication, however minor, makes the participant a publisher," the lawyers' submissions said.
One of the difficulties for the media groups at the time was that Facebook did not allow them to turn off the comments function.
That has now changed.
Mr Voller had not suggested any of the media outlets failed to remove the comments once they became aware of them.
I think that the court ruling indicates that, in the case of this forum, Cindy, as the webmaster/moderator, can be found responsible for the abuse that it's members inflict on others.
We are not in the armed forces so there's no need for this forum's members to 'toughen up princess'. That may have been acceptable in the past but nowadays one can expect to NOT be abused.
My concerns go out to Cindy if she gets sued because some people can't control themselves and Cindy doesn't pick up the abuse in time. We've already seen one member recently leave. The next may complain and Cindy's in trouble of no fault of her own.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the members of this forum are among the most irascible people I have encountered online.
Easily angered and quick to take offense, age related I suspect, grumpy old buggers.
As that exercise grew then so the expectations of no slandering, has spread to all platforms of social media. Probably not a bad thing.
At times it can be extremely difficult to identify a participant on any forum. Hiding an IP number is easy with technology that is readily available so the only avenue is to *force* forum owners and administrators to do the policing.
Some forums are much more strict than others when it comes to policing content as well as ensuring that forum members or participants are actually who they are.
The more strict is the forum with membership, generally reflects the quality of posts that are permitted on that forum.
*Does this ruling spell the end for forums*?
Yes. In some cases when there is a lack of a moderator actually vetting or at the least, perusing current posts
Yes. If anyone is permitted to join and contribute and those same identities then do the wrong thing.
Yes. In the case of a member having to report anothers post as being offensive before any action is taken.
No. Not if the forum owners make every effort to prevent slander both on a personal and a business level, being posted for all to see.
In my opinion, there needs to be an amnesty period for forum owners and managers so that it prevents mischief makers and others seeking financial gain by trawling back in time into old posts. To go back and read an moderate old posts could be a mammoth task on some forums for the owners.
Wawt wrote,
In Australia it does. Australian makes North Korea look like a Sunday Picnic.
When does your plane leave for Pyongyang? I'll come and wave goodbye.
If Cindy is sued, I will put in some $'s for her legal expenses.
Seriously if ever there was a Henny Penny thread this is it, regardless of what some may conjure up in their over active imaginations, the sky is not falling.
And for those wondering what I'm talking about, the story of Henny Penny, even illustrated for them that have trouble with the written word.
Henny-Penny: The Sky is Falling!
One day Henny-penny was picking up corn in the rickyard whenwhack!an acorn hit her upon the head. "Goodness gracious me!" said Henny-penny, "the sky's a-going to fall; I must go and tell the King."
So she went along, and she went along, and she went along, till she met ****y-locky. "Where are you going, Henny-penny?" says ****y-locky. "Oh! I'm going to tell the King the sky's a-falling," says Henny-penny. "May I come with you?" says ****y-locky. "Certainly," says Henny-penny. So Henny-penny and ****y-locky went to tell the King the sky was falling.
They went along, and they went along, and they went along, till they met Ducky-daddles. "Where are you going to, Henny-penny and ****y-locky?" says Ducky-daddles. "Oh! we're going to tell the King the sky's a-falling," said Henny-penny and ****y-locky. "May I come with you?" says Ducky-daddles. "Certainly," said Henny-penny and ****y-locky. So Henny-penny, ****y-locky, and Ducky-daddles went to tell the King the sky was a-falling.
So they went along, and they went along, and they went along, till they met Goosey-poosey. "Where are you going to, Henny-penny, ****y-locky, and Ducky-daddles?" said Goosey-poosey. "Oh! we're going to tell the King the sky's a-falling," said Henny-penny and ****y-locky and Ducky-daddles. "May I come with you?" said Goosey-poosey. "Certainly," said Henny-penny, ****y-locky, and Ducky-daddles. So Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, and Goosey-poosey went to tell the King the sky was a-falling.
So they went along, and they went along, and they went along, till they met Turkey-lurkey. "Where are you going, Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, and Goosey-poosey?" says Turkey-lurkey. "Oh! we're going to tell the King the sky's a-falling," said Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, and Goosey-poosey. "May I come with you, Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, and Goosey-poosey?" said Turkey-lurkey. "Oh, certainly, Turkey-lurkey," said Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, and Goosey-poosey. So Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey all went to tell the King the sky was a-falling.
So Foxy-woxy went into his burrow, and he didn't go very far but turned round to wait for Henny-penny, ****y-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey. Now Turkey-lurkey was the first to go through the dark hole into the burrow. He hadn't got far when
"Hrumph!"
Foxy-woxy snapped off Turkey-lurkey's head and threw his body over his left shoulder. Then Goosey-poosey went in, and
"Hrumph!"
"Hrumph!"
Foxy-woxy had snapped off Ducky-daddles' head and Ducky-daddles was thrown alongside Turkey-lurkey and Goosey-poosey. Then ****y-locky strutted down into the burrow, and he hadn't gone far when
"Hrumph!"
But ****y-locky will always crow whether you want him to do so or not, and so he had just time for one "****-a-doo-dle d" before he went to join Turkey-lurkey, Goosey-poosey, and Ducky-daddles over Foxy-woxy's shoulders.
Now when Henny-penny, who had just got into the dark burrow, heard ****y-locky crow, she said to herself:
"My goodness! it must be dawn. Time for me to lay my egg."
So she turned round and bustled off to her nest; so she escaped, but she never told the King the sky was falling!
Well said Santa.
If I send a postcard to you defaming Buzz Lightbulb I really don't think he'll have much luck suing Australia Post.
And how about if I pin a notice to the community notice board, as above, in Bunnings, can they be sued?
What about the paperboy delivering a copy of the Herald Sun which, it later transpires, carries a defamatory article, can we sue him?
And given that forum owners are not lawyers then cannot be expected to recognise defamation reliably so does every forum need to employ a lawyer?
Edit: Accidentally pressed the "Send" button.
-- Edited by Mike Harding on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 12:17:36 PM
www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html
"Who can sue?
In theory, any individual or entity who considers damage to their reputation has or is likely to occur, as a result of material published, may sue the publisher/s of the material.
In practice, the laws are inaccessible to ordinary individuals who are defamed due to the exhorbitant legal costs involved in bringing a defamation action"
And there you have it in a nutshell, talk of legal action by members of a forum like this are pie in the sky.
-- Edited by Santa on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 05:17:29 PM
And never spoil a good story by copying and pasting all relevant details.
From the link in my post above:
I think this indicates some very relevant information relative to this topic
Who is able to be sued and liable?
Defamation action may be brought, not only against the original publisher (writer/speaker), but also against anyone who takes part in the publication or re-publication of the material. Furthermore, re-publication by someone other than the original writer may result in an action against the original writer as well as the re-publisher.
The fact remains.
"In practice, the laws are inaccessible to ordinary individuals who are defamed due to the exhorbitant legal costs involved in bringing a defamation action"
Henny Penny helped no one understand the legal liabilities or the risks involved.
Ah ha, a last word man!
Henny Penny won't post further to this thread, I've had my two bobs worth, I say what I mean and I mean what I say.