Well
I watch all sorts of stuff and this one was interesting, and just today I thought I'd follow up.
In a nut shell for those not in the know. This was shaping up to be a vital case in Australian law.
2Clix Australia Pty Ltd who make software were suing Simon Wright the owner of whirlpoolnet forum for
negative comments about their software made by members.
The forum owner was asked to remove the negative comments but refused. So the
QUEENSLAND based company (2clix) sued the owner for damages.
There was lots of people watching this as it had the potential to silence free speech, sensor sites etc. Imagine that, but cut a long story short the case was dropped.
The company 2clix went bust, no doubt all the media hype of the legal case doing more harm than a couple of lousy posts on a forum that not a lot of people would have known about.
I had a chuckle though, being in Queensland I laughed coz up here having an opinion or your own say soon gets people on their back feet.
So 2clix has gone bust and the administrator sold out to a rival software maker.
Lawsuit over forum comments withdrawn - web - Technology - smh.com.au http://whirlpool.net.au/img/article/2clix/soc.pdf
And from
Forum operator sued for injurious falsehood - Defending Scoundrels Quote:
EFA issued the following press release tonight:
EFA condemns Whirlpool lawsuit
Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today condemned a lawsuit filed against the operator of whirlpool.net.au, one of Australia's largest online discussion forums.
Some messages posted in the Whirlpool forums have criticised the products and services offered by software company 2Clix Australia Pty Ltd (2Clix). The lawsuit alleges that the operator of Whirlpool has maliciously published those comments, with the intention of damaging 2Clix's business. 2Clix claims that these comments have caused a "severe downturn in monthly sales" of approximately $150,000 per month.
"This action is an attack on freedom of speech and the ability of consumers to engage in legitimate online criticism," said EFA Chairperson Dale Clapperton. "One of the great benefits of the Internet is that it allows consumers to become better informed, by searching for information about products or services. If negative comments about poor quality goods or services can't be published for fear of a lawsuit, consumers will be unable to properly inform themselves."
The lawsuit by 2Clix is for the common-law tort of "injurious falsehood", which is distinct from the more common and better-known tort of defamation. "2Clix have sued for 'injurious falsehood' to sidestep recent national changes to defamation laws, which removed the right of most companies to sue for defamation. Those changes were designed to ensure that individuals could engage in robust debate and criticism of companies, without the threat of a lawsuit hanging over their head," continued Clapperton.
"This case has echoes of the notorious 'McLibel' action in the United Kingdom, and the lawsuit by David Jones against the Australia Institute over allegations of 'corporate pedophilia'. Corporations are increasingly using the courts to silence and intimidate people who criticise the corporation."
The Statement of Claim filed by 2Clix includes the allegation that Whirlpool "did not require proper verification of identity" before it allowed people to become registered users.
"Forum operators are not required by law to verify the identity of their users, nor is there any reasonable way for them to do so," Clapperton continued. "Plaintiffs have, in the past, argued that forum operators were 'reckless' for not verifying the identity of their users. Forum operators are not the identity police, and the fact that they do not verify users' identity does not make them liable for what their users say or do."
EFA is concerned that an adverse decision in this case could impose significant burdens and legal liability on the operators of Internet forums and discussion sites. Such a result could cause many such sites to close down.
EFA understands that Whirlpool engages in moderation of obviously inappropriate content, a practice which EFA endorses. However, forum operators are not equipped, and should not be required, to verify the truth or falsity of criticism posted by third parties. The ultimate responsibility for content posted by third parties lies with the person who posted it.
|
Over all a win for forum owners I'd say.
And the UK case referred to above was about McDonalds burger corp suing some activists for handing out leaflets about their crap burgers and conditions. Long story but the McDonalds lost in the end.
McLibel: UK Activists Win Court Case Against McDonald's Quote:
|
I don't think that multinational corporations, in fact, can change, because they're only interested in one thing, which is making profits for their shareholders. And really, things are going to change. It will be because people, wherever they live, wherever they work, get organized and stand up for their rights and speak out, and really try to create a different kind of society, based on people's needs rather than, you know, the power of multinationals and governments.
|
So speak up about stuff, fear not, and although there's a distinct entrenched big brother in many orgs let them know they're a dying breed. Dont be intimidated or suppressed.