It would have been a great idea I imagine if, upon investigating, at least the facts could be published online so as to let other readers make up their own mind. "NO" the lawyers said, "unless you want to spend most of your time in the courts, defending defamation claims." As it turns out, a fact is of course not simply a fact but most of all it is so easy to stop such actions in New Zealand or at least make the publisher of these facts life's miserable by aggressively pursuing anyone that does publish.
A recent article by Rosemary McLeod in the Sunday Star Times appears to strengthen the advice of the lawyers. McLeod reports:
"What the public doesn't know is how often the threat of legal action silences the media. Libel trials are costly, outcomes uncertain and juries more likely to side with a single complainant than a big media company.
If a newspaper or broadcaster sticks to their guns, believing themselves to be right - and even if they are right - they can pay heavily for it. If they repeat their allegation that adds to the so-called damage they cause, which equates to money, so a lawyer's letter is a brilliant way of shutting them up indefinitely.
If you wonder why certain stories aren't told, that's why. There's a hidden network of manoeuvres operating behind the scenes constantly and pay-offs made to avoid the courts, and there's great potential there for a kind of blackmail of media if you put your mind to it.
Being paid to go away could be lucrative and enforcing silence on the matter at the same time would be doubly rewarding. I'd like to believe this doesn't happen, but I didn't come down in the last shower...
... It's not just people in the news who are affected by this country's suffocation of freedom of speech."
So, where does that leave me? Even if I decide to set things up differently, I will still be running a risk of seeing myself attending court attendance after court attendance, regardless of whether I can rightfully bring up a defense of a truthful or honest opinion. So what this comes down to is that people are basically made quiet by the laws of defamation especially where you may want to use your website to post warnings. For the time being that may mean referring people to websites like http://www.ripoffreport.com and http://www.complaintsboard.com, while I am back to the drawing board looking at more viable options.
It is not the fear of being sued necessarily but it is the time consuming nature of such activities that make it less attractive. Regardless of whether you are legally right or wrong, court dates tend to take longer than expected, require preparation and where things are really dragged out to actual court and jury hearings.... you may very well be in for a tombola where juries can be manipulated.
Give me some more time please so can work this out.Letting you post your complaints yourself is at this time and day no option for you and for me. Does this, maybe explain why the list of scams and associated businesses has vanished form the website of the Consumer Organisation here in NZ?
- Indefinite liability for online libel must end
- What Part of Rampant Consumerism do People Not Get?
- Revealed: New Zealand Police Spied on Greenpeace, Other Groups for Nearly 10 Years
- The Outing of a Blogger: Is it Legal to Reveal a Blogger?
- Why a Single Yelp User Could Bring Consumer Review Sites to Their Knees
- Media outlets argue for 'right to be wrong' at the Supreme Court
0 comments:
Post a Comment