CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Man sued for making insults on an online forum.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Man sued for making insults on an online forum.

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Well isn't this the very tip of a rather terrifying and game-changing iceberg when it comes to posting ones thoughts online...

Cyber poison-penner hunted down and sued

Quote:
LEGAL counsel Martin Bennett has a short message for those who allow themselves to attack reputations over the internet, imagining they are safe under the cloak of anonymity. ''You can be hunted down and found,'' he said yesterday.

Mr Bennett has done just that for a Perth client, winning $30,000 in damages and costs, an apology, and undertakings from a Colac man that he won't post any more defamatory comments.

The hunt for the man's true identity proved the stuff of private detective novels updated into the age of blogs.

It is, Mr Bennett said, one of a very few such actions in Australia against the author of anonymous postings on an internet forum. He predicts it is the tip of a legal iceberg.

''There has been an increasing proliferation of internet chat sites where people feel free to hide their identities and make defamatory comments about companies and their executives and directors,'' he said in a statement released after the case in the Supreme Court of Western Australia was resolved.

The action against Graeme Gladman began after highly uncomplimentary comments appeared last November under pseudonyms on the HotCopper website, a stockmarket forum.

The postings related to technology security company Datamotion Asia Pacific Ltd and its Perth-based chairman and managing director, Ronald Moir. One posting appeared under the pseudonym of ''witch''.

Datamotion and Mr Moir hired Mr Bennett to launch defamation proceedings. But first Mr Bennett had to track down ''witch''. He asked HotCopper to reveal the identity of the person registered under that pseudonym, plus two others under different pseudonyms, but HotCopper refused.

Mr Bennett then took court action, forcing HotCopper to turn over its files. ''Unfortunately, the registered membership name appeared to be false,'' he said. ''It turned out to be attached to an escort service in Geelong.''

But Mr Bennett was not prepared to concede the trail was cold. He told The Age he did not wish to reveal the details of his next detective steps, but the upshot was a defamation action against Mr Gladman alleging that, as a result of his postings, Datamotion and Mr Moir had been ''brought into hatred, contempt and ridicule and thereby suffered damage''.

It was resolved last week, with Mr Gladman agreeing to pay damages totalling $20,000, taxed legal costs of $10,000, and to provide apologies and undertakings not to publish further defamatory postings.

Mr Bennett has launched two more cases. Both are pending before the WA Supreme Court.
Wow, this isn't just being dumb enough to post your negative thoughts about your boss or co-workers on facebook, this is making negative comments about a relatively public person on an online forum under the sort of alias many here use, then being hunted down by that persons representatives, being sued for a significant amount - and losing the case.

Surely this is a helluva can of worms.
post #2 of 39
Good. I wish the guy had been sued harder.
post #3 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Good. I wish the guy had been sued harder.
You got some drool there...
post #4 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Good. I wish the guy had been sued harder.
The story lacks a lot of detail;

Quote:
Gladman was eventually found, with Datamotion and Moir alleging that because of his comments, both parties had been "brought into hatred, contempt and ridicule and thereby suffered damage''.
But if that's the criteria then you better buy legal insurance right now.
post #5 of 39
What exactly did the guy say?
post #6 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Good. I wish the guy had been sued harder.
Hahaha Devin you could be set for life if this takes off here! Hell, you could probably buy MGM.
post #7 of 39
This precedent could prove to be a double edged sword as well.
post #8 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
What exactly did the guy say?
"It's just a stock."
post #9 of 39
Quote:
Mr Bennett then took court action, forcing HotCopper to turn over its files. ''Unfortunately, the registered membership name appeared to be false,'' he said. ''It turned out to be attached to an escort service in Geelong.''
Now that's funny.
post #10 of 39
A lot of posters on this board would be very broke if this sets a precedence.
post #11 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
Surely this is a helluva can of worms.
Sure is, but it was only a matter of time. The thing about the internet is that the ethical and legal lines are very blurry when it comes to whether it's a public or private space (or whether it should be considered "space" or simply dynamic text, for that matter), and how the relative virtues of privacy and transparency collide.

Wonder if they treated it as libel (usually reserved for published works) or slander (speech)? I believe both have requirements that what was said or written be false, not just malicious (with slightly differing standards for public figures). It's been a while since I studied this stuff in journalism classes, though; maybe one of our legally astute chewers can illuminate.
post #12 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
I believe both have requirements that what was said or written be false, not just malicious (with slightly differing standards for public figures).
You are absolutely correct, sir. Conversely, a statement's veracity is a defense to accusations of both libel and slander. Here are the basic elements of such a defamantion claim for anyone who's interested:
Quote:
A prima facie case for defamation requires the plaintiff to plead the following: (1) the defamatory character of the communication, (2) publication of the communication to a third party, (3) the communication refers to the plaintiff, (4) the third party's understanding of the communication's defamatory character, and (5) injury.
post #13 of 39
I also support the victory in this legal case. It's about time that we all realize that the things people say and do online can be damaging, and that the internet isn't just some imaginary realm that has no bearing on the real world.
post #14 of 39
If an online forum can be considered a public venue, would prolific posters and moderators be considered 'public figures,' and thus open for ridicule and satire?
post #15 of 39
fuck man I'm in trouble
post #16 of 39
There's already some precedence for accountability of your actions on the internet. Paging Chris Hansen.
post #17 of 39
Doesn't the law require proof that the stuff you say actually has a chance to damage someone? Someone falsely claiming that company A's products are defective in an 'industry' forum has a chance of lowering their sales. His words can negatively affect them. Someone on CHUD saying that Bay is the worst human alive will not have such an effect.
post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Doesn't the law require proof that the stuff you say actually has a chance to damage someone? Someone falsely claiming that company A's products are defective in an 'industry' forum has a chance of lowering their sales. His words can negatively affect them. Someone on CHUD saying that Bay is the worst human alive will not have such an effect.
Somebody could claim that such comments could prevent somebody from seeing the movie. Or rumors that the production on a movie is going bad, again you could argue that it could damage the movie's reputation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill
I also support the victory in this legal case. It's about time that we all realize that the things people say and do online can be damaging, and that the internet isn't just some imaginary realm that has no bearing on the real world.
So since you support the decision, can you tell us what did the internet poster actually write that merited a $30K fine?
post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Someone on CHUD saying that Bay is the worst human alive will not have such an effect.
Plus, it has to be proven malicious and false.
post #20 of 39
And offered as fact.

Opinions and parody don't fall into defamation.

So saying something like "Jake is a rapist" is defamatory, but saying "Jake reminds me of a rapist," isn't.
post #21 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcassady View Post
So saying something like "Jake is a rapist" is defamatory, but saying "Jake reminds me of a rapist," isn't.
I've been looking for a good signature line. Now I've found it.
post #22 of 39
;_______;

i just wanted to cuddle
post #23 of 39
"________ reminds me of a rapist" is now my go-to online insult. It's ironclad.
post #24 of 39
I like to think that Kevin Smith is behind this court case.
post #25 of 39
Either Kevin... or Uwe.
post #26 of 39
Sleestak Vaginaface could not be reached for comment.
post #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcassady View Post
So saying something like "Jake is a rapist" is defamatory
What if it's a metaphor?
post #28 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
You are absolutely correct, sir. Conversely, a statement's veracity is a defense to accusations of both libel and slander. Here are the basic elements of such a defamantion claim for anyone who's interested:
This is accurate, but with libel (printed slander), injury to reputation is presumed and the injured party doesn't have to prove it. Also, as DaveB says, the burden of proof gets a little higher when it involves a public figure and/or public issue.

This doesn't seem all that shocking to me, or sweeping. Defamation and libel actions have been around for a long time; I can see there being confusion as to whether online posting should be treated like oral or published speech, but come on, it really has to be one or the other.
post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
So since you support the decision, can you tell us what did the internet poster actually write that merited a $30K fine?
No, sir, I am putting my faith in the Australian legal system, here. What, you just assume every case down under is tried in a kangaroo court? Their judges are all just a bunch of yahoos without the ability to measure the merits of a case brought before them?

I get that we don't have many details on this right now. I made an assumption. You make yours.
post #30 of 39
Well, This is always going to be a case by case situation like most things of this nature. Deflamation etc. I think, if you're calling somone a talentless jackass, its one thing, accusing them of crimes thats another, as rumours like that can affect job and home lives if out in the 'real' world. Im sure the basic line is, you can call somone a cunt, but you can't call them a pedophile.
post #31 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill
No, sir, I am putting my faith in the Australian legal system, here. What, you just assume every case down under is tried in a kangaroo court? Their judges are all just a bunch of yahoos without the ability to measure the merits of a case brought before them?
Couldn't find a way to wedge in a koala, Crocodile Dundee or Steve Irwin reference?
post #32 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Couldn't find a way to wedge in a koala, Crocodile Dundee or Steve Irwin reference?
How about this: that $30K fine is so hefty, they must have a mad maximum penalty for cases like this.
post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
No, sir, I am putting my faith in the Australian legal system, here. What, you just assume every case down under is tried in a kangaroo court? Their judges are all just a bunch of yahoos without the ability to measure the merits of a case brought before them?

I get that we don't have many details on this right now. I made an assumption. You make yours.
I find it bizarre that you support a decision without even having the most basic details available to you, as if courts don't make mistakes, or as if they often didn't internet related cases completely wrong (ex: Italy).
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I find it bizarre that you support a decision without even having the most basic details available to you, as if courts don't make mistakes, or as if they often didn't internet related cases completely wrong (ex: Italy).
I find it bizarre that you choose to argue with me when Devin said the guy should have been sued even harder. Maybe you're afraid to get into an argument with him.

As for the details of the case, I would be open to altering my opinion based on new information. I am giving the Australian justice system the benefit of the doubt for now. Maybe I'm not as cynical as you are.
post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
I find it bizarre that you choose to argue with me when Devin said the guy should have been sued even harder. Maybe you're afraid to get into an argument with him.
LOL, that's your argument? I actually replied to his first comment, you were the one to say something similar along those line so I'm just asking you and even him, what is it about the case that would make you say such a thing?

I think that's a fair question.

Quote:
As for the details of the case, I would be open to altering my opinion based on new information. I am giving the Australian justice system the benefit of the doubt for now. Maybe I'm not as cynical as you are.
You don't have to be cynical, but goodness gracious did you read the article at all? It says (what I posted to Devin);

Quote:
Gladman was eventually found, with Datamotion and Moir alleging that because of his comments, both parties had been "brought into hatred, contempt and ridicule and thereby suffered damage''.
Based on such little information, what is there to celebrate here? I'm sure there's gotta be some more formal and reasonable justifications, but they're not in the article at all. Quite the opposite.
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
LOL, that's your argument?
I'm not really arguing with you at all, Capitan. First I just answered your question. Now I'm just explaining my position to you. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, though.

I agree that the article provides a limited amount of information. In critique, the article lacks power for not being able to spell out the nature of the defamatory remarks. Also, incidentally, the reporter first claims that "The hunt for the man's true identity proved the stuff of private detective novels updated into the age of blogs." He then fails to explore that thought, following it up only by noting that the lawyer "did not wish to reveal the details of his next detective steps." That's bad writing, but not to the point at hand.

But I guess you're right, Capitan. I don't necessarily support the legal decision of this case in particular so much as I support the right to legal recourse for damages incurred by online slander. I think those damages need to be sufficiently proven, of course.

One clue the article gives to the possible fairness of the outcome is the statement that the case resolved with "Mr Gladman agreeing to pay damages totalling $20,000, taxed legal costs of $10,000, and to provide apologies and undertakings not to publish further defamatory postings" (italics mine). I'm not that familiar with Aussie courts but perhaps it was settled out of court and the accused party has admitted culpability.

Also, I apologize, but I could not find this quote in context:

Gladman was eventually found, with Datamotion and Moir alleging that because of his comments, both parties had been "brought into hatred, contempt and ridicule and thereby suffered damage''.

It doesn't appear to be in the original article and I don't see that you provided a link to its source, so I'm not sure how it's relevant. Also, the article you linked to later from the Wall Street Journal looks interesting, and I don't doubt an injustice may have been done, but I do not have a subscription to the WSJ, and I am not willing to pay to read the article for the sake of this discussion.

Also, I hope I haven't unduly offended you with my opinion or insulted you too much with my responses, considering the nature of this discussion. I'm not completely blameless when it comes to hypocrisy, but I don't want to damage anyone.
post #37 of 39
No problem, and not offended at all.

Quote is in a few variants of the linked report, like this one;
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal...efamation.html
post #38 of 39
By the way, I would just like to say, I like everyone reading this thread, and think you are are all great human beings, and if I have ever hurt anyone feeling unintentionally, I apologize with all my heart and bag forgiveness now.
post #39 of 39
Sneakers is turning more and more into a comedy as the years go by...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Man sued for making insults on an online forum.