Oil Firm wins right to identify online Accusers

spoofilyj

An Irish oil exploration company has secured court orders aimed at identifying people who allegedly posted defamatory material about it on internet message boards with a view to suing them following a “catastrophic” fall of some £132 million in its market value in recent weeks.

It is claimed “wholly untrue” defamatory postings between November 8th and 22nd, including postings claiming the firm’s drilling project in Nevada, US, was a “scam” by “liars”, materially contributed to its price fall and damaged the company’s reputation and ability to raise funds to exploit oil discoveries.

Proceedings

The market capitalisation of US Oil Gas plc (USOP) on November 5th was some £173 million, when the share price was £4.15, and is now £41.6 million with a share price of £1, the court heard.

Legal proceedings are intended against those who posted the material, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy was told.

“There appears to be a view you can say what you like on the internet but that day is gone,” said Rossa Fanning, for USOP.

In an affidavit, Brian McDonnell, chief executive of USOP, said he has been involved in the oil and gas sector for up to six years and USOP, incorporated in Ireland in 2009, was a well-run business formed to exploit the potential for substantial oil and gas finds in Nevada.

The material posted about USOP had had “a catastrophic effect” on his company’s share price and individually and cumulatively alleged serious wrongdoing against himself and his company’s employees, directors and officers, he said.

The gist of most of the statements was that he and USOP were engaged in a fraudulent attempt to induce investors to buy shares in a “sham” company, he said.

To suggest without any evidence and falsely he was a “fraudster” and “ponzi” scheme creator was defamatory per se, said Mr McDonnell .

Mr Fanning said the material complained of was posted on message boards on three websites: boards.ieoperated by Boards.IE Ltd, an Irish company; iii.co.uk, operated by London South East Ltd, a UK company; and lse.co.uk, operated by two related companies, Interactive Investor Trading Ltd and Interactive Investor plc.

Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1129/1224327258662.html

Looks like this could lead to infringments on what can be discussed on Boards going forward.

What do the good people of afterhours think?

I personally think that this could lead to a restriction of what we can discuss and how we discuss it.

Death and Taxes

spoofilyj wrote: »

An Irish oil exploration company has secured court orders aimed at identifying people who allegedly posted defamatory material about it on internet message boards with a view to suing them following a “catastrophic” fall of some £132 million in its market value in recent weeks.

I personally think that this could lead to a restriction of what we can discuss and how we discuss it.

Such restrictions already exist, under defamation laws, incitement to hatred laws, blasphemy laws etc. being on the net does not give you , nor should it, licence to slander, defame etc.

FatherLen

hypothetically, if i was to call them a shower of shitheads could i be sued?

spoofilyj

"Such restrictions already exist, under defamation laws, incitement to hatred laws, blasphemy laws etc. being on the net does not give you , nor should it, licence to slander, defame etc. "

Agreed, but what value could this oil company possibly recoup from going after users who may have lied about the company online.

I agree that if you're wronged you should be allowed to persue the person or persons who wronged you but what value could this company get from doing this?

Is this purely to regain their reputation and market value, surely they would be better off with a positive advertising campagne to dubunk any lies that may have been made against them?

LostCorkGuy

FatherLen wrote: »

hypothetically, if i was to call them a shower of shitheads could i be sued?

Not unless people place credibility on your statement and it's clear that they have suffered a loss in face to their peers because of this statement


Basically that the person doing the defaming must be reputable and people must listen to him and believe what he says !
Example If it's the local loon calling some guy a pedophile well it's more than likely that the nutter won't be able to be sued for slander as nobody believed him in the first place

However when the stuff is said online everyone is anonymous so the burden may be placed upon the website , thats why Boards are so sensitive about these things

FatherLen

FatherLen wrote: »

hypothetically, if i was to call them a shower of shitheads could i be sued?

You'd be making things worse for yourself by using an italic 'i', as you'd have broken the rules to break the rules. A life time in prison, for you!

AnReiteoir

LostCorkGuy wrote: »

Not unless people place credibility on your statement and it's clear that they have suffered a loss in face to their peers because of this statement

How can any one place credibility on the statements of an anonymous Internet post?

Akrasia

Does this mean the conspiracy theories forum will be shut down?

Smcgie

This is not new news, I hold shares in many public companies and I am glad to see an Irishman taking these people to court for their blatent attempt to manipulate the shareprice of public companies for their own gain.

In laymans terms, they short the stock of a public listed company, which is betting On the share price to fall - then do and say all they can to get the price lower and scare people into selling stock.

As per here - it works and I'm glad to see these guys could possibly be named & shamed.

LostCorkGuy

AnReiteoir wrote: »

How can any one place credibility on the statements of an anonymous Internet post?

I was in the middle of clarifying my post :P

That's the issue in a lot of new cases , is it the person who writes the defamation or is it the Website that hosts the defamation that is responsible ?

Theres a lot of cases going on at the moment and I'd say the big companies like twitter will win so the websites won't be fully responsible for hosting the questionable stuff

Red Pepper

Thinly veiled "Buy Buy Buy" recommendation for USOP!

floggg

spoofilyj wrote: »

"Such restrictions already exist, under defamation laws, incitement to hatred laws, blasphemy laws etc. being on the net does not give you , nor should it, licence to slander, defame etc. "

Agreed, but what value could this oil company possibly recoup from going after users who may have lied about the company online.

I agree that if you're wronged you should be allowed to persue the person or persons who wronged you but what value could this company get from doing this?

Is this purely to regain their reputation and market value, surely they would be better off with a positive advertising campagne to dubunk any lies that may have been made against them?

Firstly, monetary compensation. That's a pretty nice way to compensate you.

Secondly, a successful libel action goes a long way to showing that there was no basis for what was said. It may not cure all the harm done, but it sends a strong message, and is far more effective than an ad saying "honestly, we're not trying to scan you!"

Akrasia

There are two main issues here that I can think of right now.

1. There is an awful lot of mis-information on the internet, It would probably be a good thing if there were mechanism to stop people and websites posting blatantly made up rubbish about companies, products, and technologies

2. The fact that corporations could be given the power to sue anyone who posts anything about them on the internet, it could do enormous damage to the internet as a forum for free speech. People could perhaps no longer be able to post reviews of products on line, or discuss the crimes of international corporations (like for example, a certain soft drinks company that had a spell of union leader killing in a certain south american country)

Thee are many areas of discussion where there are unproven claims that are worthy of discussion, but would be on shaky legal ground that could become out of bounds for discussion.
Anglo irish Bank could have shut down any discussion about it's dodgy dealings prior to the sh1t hitting the fan.
All the discussion on the property bubble could have been shut down, claims that the media was too reliant on advertising revenue from the property industry could have been deemed defamatory etc etc etc

On balance, the internet is far far more useful as a forum for free speech and debate, and on balance, even if there is a little tiny bit of misinformation out there, it is more than offset by the availability of information for those who are more careful about what sources to believe.

Corporations should not be allowed to sue individuals who make claims about them on the internet. They should not be allowed to destroy the internet as a medium of free expression just to protect their own short term interests. There are There are other methods they can use to combat mis-information other than the blunt instrument of threatened lawsuits against any or all individuals who make or repeat claims on the internet.

Akrasia

Smcgie wrote: »

This is not new news, I hold shares in many public companies and I am glad to see an Irishman taking these people to court for their blatent attempt to manipulate the shareprice of public companies for their own gain.

In laymans terms, they short the stock of a public listed company, which is betting On the share price to fall - then do and say all they can to get the price lower and scare people into selling stock.

As per here - it works and I'm glad to see these guys could possibly be named & shamed.

I think the problem may be with the mechanism of short selling of stocks and shares which is open for abuse

Sponge Bob

FatherLen wrote: »

hypothetically, if i was to call them a shower of shitheads could i be sued?

It is no longer Hypothetical. So don't.

r3nu4l

Admin note: Folks. This relates to a court case involving boards.ie and as such this is not the appropriate place to discuss it.