TM won't like that connection, they could totally do with out it. But by entertaining the hate-sites, indeed seen to be facilitating them could be an important issue in the claim against them. I expect at some point soon a corporate swordsman will go through their ranks. The cost of the case to date will already be registering unfavourably on the accounts, the reading of which echos most strongly in a corporation. The question of how it reached such a point and of what design was the reconciliation of the financial 'benefit' to the company should see the corporate swordsman removing the dead and diseased wood, people be relocated, moved sideways or sent on their way.
I know there has been an opinion abroad that TM are using the 'opportunity' as a legal prototype for the liability on the internet worldwide. I have difficulty accepting that, but then again it couldn't be discounted though I could never see that it was some plan, but rather an advantage sought in a test case and applicable to their operations overseas as well. If that has been part of it, then a number of problems have shown such a decision to have been misguided because internationally, and more particularly in NZ recently, has been the recognition that the publisher and writer remain responsible for defamation and the move is toward standardising or recognising print media and cyberspace publishing as being the same.
Trademe have had the advice and altered their policy accordingly, allowing those making the defamatory statements to their own devices. Trademe only removes posts that are complained about now. They are happy to pass on the contact details, ip addresses etc for anyone making defamatory statements, if a legal request is made and offer their support to apprehend the offending individuals.
ReplyDeleteTrademe have their butts covered, and are happy to assist in exposing everyone elses.
To Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteTradeMe don't remove all the posts complained about, however. They make an editorial decision about them. I don't think their butts are as well-covered as they hope.
I agree that their butts aren't covered. The ultimate failure of their position is that the defamed need to complain after publication. I don't think that will hold water, why should an onus be placed on a defamed person to complain and recieve 'help' from the publisher.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, TM's system will continue to fail until they have 'live-time' moderation or delayed publication. I can't see the Courts will ever agree to a publisher's proposition that they publish first (allowing the damage at the outset) It's cart before horse mentality. The law is moving to blend print media and cyber media into the same traditional roles, there's no reason to give cyber media some sort of immunity on the basis that they'll do something later - put it right. No way, that's not fair.