A new spinner arrives...

This from a new spinner, even the revelation 'I work in law' to make things more impressive. Reminds me of dcameron who 'saw' a non-existant private collection of photos in what must have presumably been the Crown Law Office where she 'worked.'

*****

Sorry i work in law, and JK is really trying on the defamation suites to shut people up, i honestly doubt he win. But in the meantime he has everyone running for cover, including at one stage TM.

Edited by gypsyemporium at 11:37 am, Wed 1 Sep

Quotegypsyemporium (8 ) 11:34 am, Wed 1 Sep #23695

Sorry, the court has upheld that somebody that (in this case) reposts a quotation made by another person does not cause defamation but rather the originial "quoted" poster is the one who maybe creating a situation of defamation.

Therefore reposts, links, etc to other articles etc can not be held liable under defamation laws

Quotegypsyemporium (8 ) 11:48 am, Wed 1 Sep #23707

ro42 wrote:

which case? Because it has also been upheld that quoting people like this, posting links etc constitutes republication


constitutes republication but not defamation.

Quotegypsyemporium (8 ) 11:54 am, Wed 1 Sep #23714

*****

Despite what this spinner says, the law is clear:

In the internet context, defamation cases may be pursued against: 1)the individuals creating the defamatory material on a website or in an e-mail(the primary publishers) and 2)the ISP...

Goes on...In general, the laibility of the secondary publisher is limited to situations where the distributor has knowledge of the false content of the material distributed.

Elsewhere: Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statement is just as responsibe for their defamatory content as the original speaker.

More...Justice Hedigan found that information is released (by the server) and received (by the user) almost instaneously and the attempt to seperate them for the law's purpose is a fallacy.

Still more...Judge Ross commenting on the issue of internet publication in nz..there can be no question that publication on the Internet counts as publication for defamation purposes.


Noting this from above 'the liability of the secondary publisher is limited to situations where the distributor has knowledge of the false content of the material distributed.' This is where the hate-sites fall over and where Trade Me become liable. For the hate-siters in particular they are aware (by virtue of their membership) that they don't have properly sourced information (from what I can tell, don't even have a trial ms for example) they do have heaps of lies and misinformation however, and no one could cite such a source as reasonable and reliable - particularly because they're being sued and being exposed daily for their misinformation.

TM on the other hand have the problem as a republisher set out above. But that problem deepens because they have wittingly allowed hate-siters to publish on their boards and that increases their difficulty into trying to say 'we are not publishers or republishers and not responsible for the content as under our T&C.' Those terms and conditions become worthless if the publisher ignore defamatory comment, if not because they're 'blissfully' unaware, or believe they're covered by the t&C in fact for any other reason, in TM's case, because they've been warned about it. The cybermedia or any media cannot continue in breach of law because they believe they've have a self-imposed indemnity of sorts, because only the law can decide the validity of an indemnity. Ultimately the test is on the comment and the justification of a plaintiff to say they've been defamed. In Joe Karam's case he's clearly been defamed, conceptually and directly. So has David Bain, the Jury, witnesses and others.

But I expect we will still see TM enjoin posters. And I will not be surprised to see Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss do the same - not for the reason that it exonerates them, but rather that it broadens the culpability across the various enjoined parties.

So thank gypsy, but I won't be buying any used car off you or asking you to do any property conveyancing.