Forum Archive Index - June 2000

[Nick Kearney <nk@xtra.co.nz>]

Frank & Oliver

All well and good and correct too.

But first hadn't we establish if the words are in fact defamatory before
looking at defences.

IMHO they aren't.

Come on Oliver.  Right thinking person etc...

Further to that.  Ben - check out the validity of the legal disclaimer.
Some aren't worth the paper they are printed on (or computer screen they
appear on).  Just because you have it doesn't mean it is valid.

Cheers and keep up the good work.

NK 


frank fernandez wrote:
> 
> Pending Ben getting the legal position on comments posted on Sharechat,
> I would like to comment, as a journalist by profession, on the law
> relating to defamation which all journalists have to be aware of.
> Defamation is defined as the publication of a statement which adversely
> affects the reputation of a person or a company.
> Defamation can be accidental and can be caused simply by innuendo. In
> fact, simply repeating defamatory statements made by others
> unfortunately means that the person repeating the statements can also be
> liable.
> If a defamatory statement is made that will affect a company or person
> financially, they may be able to sue even if the facts are true but
> presented in a way that leaves the wrong impression.
> Some of the legal defences to defamation include the following:
> 1. Truth - which is a complete defence to defamation i.e. if the
> published statement is true or not substantially different from the
> truth, the person making the statement will escape liability.
> 2.'Fair Comment' is also a defence if the statements complained of are
> an expression of honest opinion on a matter of public interest and based
> on accurate facts but
> (a)The opinion must be clearly stated as opinion
> (b)You must genuinely hold that opinion (extreme comment is not likely
> to be considered genuine in a court of law).
> A news medium can rely on a defence of honest opinion in relation to the
> opinion of others but there must be no reason to believe that the
> contributed opinion is not genuine.
> Putting aside the disclaimer on Sharechat with regard to the opinion of
> contributors being theirs and not those of the proprietors of the
> website, it will be extremely interesting to hear legal opinion on the
> matter.
> The legal issue here is one of whether the comments expressed on
> Sharechat, a 'chat' site, can be used successfully to sue the first and
> second parties in a defamation suit bearing in mind the possible
> defences listed above.
> Looking forward to that legal opinion Ben!
> 
> Frank Fernandez
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
> To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.