Judge calls for criminal sanctions on webposters

Seachmall · 01-02-2012 12:04PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They pleaded justification. In other words, they didn't want to take it down.

Which they're entitled to do. When their defense failed a more reasonable ruling would be to force them to take down the comments. Not shut down the entire site.

Chips Lovell · 01-02-2012 12:12PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Which they're entitled to do. When their defense failed a more reasonable ruling would be to force them to take down the comments. Not shut down the entire site.

They were ordered to remove the comments too. But they denied they were operating the website. I think if they're washing their hands of what goes up there, the judge was reasonable in ordering it cease operations until the case is heard.

ballsymchugh · 01-02-2012 12:15PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

We should voice our opinions on rate_your_judge.com.

that judge fella was alright in beverly hills cop, but didn't do much after that. all in all, very meh.

Bad Panda · 01-02-2012 12:16PM

A reliable source informs me that the judge in this case sells poison milk to school kids.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-02-2012 12:29PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There is a coming of age on the internet where somebody publishes things that are not true will get punished.

If what you say isn't true then ...

Oh wait,

I see what you did there.

Seachmall · 01-02-2012 12:31PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

the judge was reasonable in ordering it cease operations until the case is heard.

I completely disagree.

The case is with regards to the comments posted. The comments are what should be addressed, instead the judge is taking it upon himself to decide the future of a perfectly legitimate website.

The precedent being set here would allow for any site that allows reviews to be judged based on a small minority of users who abuse their given permissions.

If the judge had ordered the comments to be removed and the site owners ignored that ruling then a case against the owners, and the site, would be justifiable. In this instance however the judge is jumping the gun.

meemeep · 01-02-2012 12:37PM

this bit is worrying also:

They must also provide the names and address of all those involved in the posting of defamatory material. Mr Tansey also obtained similar orders against Dotster, which did not enter a defence.

So someone didn't like the service he provided, said so anonymously, and now he gets their names and addresses and goes after them? Would any solicitor represent them (the alleged defamers) in this case?

Seachmall · 01-02-2012 12:40PM

meemeep wrote: »

Would any solicitor represent them (the alleged defamers) in this case?

If you're willing to defend child rapists but not defamers you've definitely some priority issues.

Oink · 01-02-2012 12:41PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They were ordered to remove the comments too. But they denied they were operating the website. I think if they're washing their hands of what goes up there, the judge was reasonable in ordering it cease operations until the case is heard.

Exactly. If they're not responsible for the website, surely they won't mind if it's taken down.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-02-2012 12:48PM

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Tbh, anything that makes people think twice before they post online is a good thing.

idiots and those with grudges will still post

the silent majority will become more silent

as was posted elsewhere the solution would have been to get people to register so that they could give their opinion

and yes I do know people who have suffered at the hands of ambulance chaser, but the judge ruled in court so I can't make allegations of perjury

CptSternn · 01-02-2012 12:57PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If you publish false allegations in a newspaper, you open yourself up to libel action. It follows that anyone who does so on the web risks the same.

We are not talking about false allegations, we are talking about an honest review of a business and or services.

Am I not entitled to my opinion of how well a solicitor did or did not perform for me after I retained their services?

Am I not legally allowed to tell anyone that they had no clue, did not do their job, and in the end I had to get another solicitor?

Same argument can be made for any business. This sets the precedent that businesses cannot be named nor can they be mentioned in reviews that are anything less than perfect, else we the consumer face harsh penalties under the judicial system if we actually tell other people when the services we pay for turn out to be not what we expected or far less than adequate.

How does this make any sense?

People wouldn't post bad reviews about solicitors, businesses, or any other groups if they didn't deserve them. You think people get their jollies just posting random stuff on ORM (review) websites?

This is nothing short of censorship, a draconian measure that allows businesses to keep their poor performance under wraps and penalises the consumer who chooses to do nothing more than make their voices heard publicly in a digital age.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-02-2012 01:01PM

over in the UK they've done the same
http://www.thelawyer.com/solicitors-from-hell-website-forced-offline/1010264.article

The_Minister · 01-02-2012 01:03PM

I take it that most of the people here never went on the website before it was shut down?

I went on it a few times a few years back, and do you know what I never saw?

A Solicitor with a positive rating.

Ever.

Think about that.

The site was run by people with a grudge, and used by people with grudges to put up frankly untrue things.

My favourite one was where a solicitor was called a gender-neutral name (think it was Pat????).
'He' got dogs abuse, absolutely slated like everyone, then someone pointed out that the solicitor in question was actually female

Seachmall · 01-02-2012 01:05PM

The_Minister wrote: »

A Solicitor with a positive rating.

Ever.

Think about that.

I'm trying to decide if that says more about solicitors or the site...

CptSternn · 01-02-2012 01:41PM

Ireland!

The land of all 5 star hotels and restaurants! Every business listed on TripAdvisor is also 5 stars!

Why? Because anything less is a lawsuit!

Capt'n Midnight · 01-02-2012 01:43PM

meemeep wrote: »

Would any solicitor represent them (the alleged defamers) in this case?

If there is money involved ?

I'm not saying all solicitors are unprincipled money-grabbers , but you have to remember that some may be , and there is a lot less work these days since the easy pickings of conveyancing when they could get a percentage of the value of the property for some routine paperwork

lividduck · 01-02-2012 01:44PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If you publish false allegations in a newspaper, you open yourself up to libel action. It follows that anyone who does so on the web risks the same.

You are missing the point, the Judge wants it made a CRIMINAL offence so that people can jailed.

CptSternn · 01-02-2012 01:53PM

Here is another example of how the current government doesn't get it -

If they let this stand, all online review websites IN Ireland will have perfect scores for ALL businesses due to the threat of legal action.

HOWEVER

Not so in America. So Americans won't visit sites TripAdvisor.ie as it will be worthless since they all have inflated ratings. This means Americans will still visit TripAdvisor.com, and there they can post their OWN ratings on places they visited while in Ireland.

You will have the Irish websites, which will become useless, and then the American ones which will allow you to rate places in Ireland that will become the norm.

This will shut down more businesses here in Ireland since they will have no use for an Irish branch of the business, and more people will be using American websites, since for all intents and purposes the Irish websites will become synonymous with censorship and lack of free speech.

Top that off with the just recently passed Irish SOPA and ACTA and you have set the stage for the exit of the high tech companies from Ireland.

Seachmall · 01-02-2012 01:59PM

CptSternn wrote: »

If they let this stand, all online review websites IN Ireland will have perfect scores for ALL businesses due to the threat of legal action.

A mate of mine works for a holiday booking/review site and was telling me a story of this hostel in Singapore (or somewhere around there) that kept harassing them because of the dire reviews he was getting. They told him they couldn't remove the reviews without removing his entry and since he got a lot of bookings through the site he had to let it stand.

Guess they'll be altering their review policy should this judge get his way.

Chips Lovell · 01-02-2012 02:02PM

Seachmall wrote: »

The precedent being set here would allow for any site that allows reviews to be judged based on a small minority of users who abuse their given permissions.

If the judge had ordered the comments to be removed and the site owners ignored that ruling then a case against the owners, and the site, would be justifiable. In this instance however the judge is jumping the gun.

That's incorrect. There are other circumstances, which make this case different from the scenario you outline. The defendants claimed they weren't operating the website. It's registered to a "John Smith, Red Square, Moscow". It's like the owners of TripAdvisor saying it's not their website. What do you expect the judge to do in this case?

CptSternn wrote: »

We are not talking about false allegations, we are talking about an honest review of a business and or services.

Am I not entitled to my opinion of how well a solicitor did or did not perform for me after I retained their services?

Am I not legally allowed to tell anyone that they had no clue, did not do their job, and in the end I had to get another solicitor?

Same argument can be made for any business. This sets the precedent that businesses cannot be named nor can they be mentioned in reviews that are anything less than perfect, else we the consumer face harsh penalties under the judicial system if we actually tell other people when the services we pay for turn out to be not what we expected or far less than adequate.

How does this make any sense?

People wouldn't post bad reviews about solicitors, businesses, or any other groups if they didn't deserve them. You think people get their jollies just posting random stuff on ORM (review) websites?

This is nothing short of censorship, a draconian measure that allows businesses to keep their poor performance under wraps and penalises the consumer who chooses to do nothing more than make their voices heard publicly in a digital age.

It doesn't set any such precedent. You're perfectly entitled to give an honest review of a business. You're not entitled to make false allegations. That's what is going to be decided in court, whether the allegations were false and libellous.

Chips Lovell · 01-02-2012 02:04PM

Seachmall wrote: »

A mate of mine works for a holiday booking/review site and was telling me a story of this hostel in Singapore (or somewhere around there) that kept harassing them because of the dire reviews he was getting. They told him they couldn't remove the reviews without removing his entry and since he got a lot of bookings through the site he had to let it stand.

Guess they'll be altering their review policy should this judge get his way.

You've completely misunderstood what's going on here in that case. Nobody's saying you can't leave a bad review.

Seachmall · 01-02-2012 02:14PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What do you expect the judge to do in this case?

Not request the website get shut down....?

How does their denial of ownership change the circumstances exactly?

If the judge is certain they are the owners then there's no issue. If they're not the owners then there's nothing the judge can do about the site.

Jev/N · 01-02-2012 02:15PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Stopping the publication of an article is not the same as shutting down the newspaper.

People have, more or less, always had the right to have comments about them removed from websites. This is a step too far.

It's not a step too far, in this instance at least

Most websites will take heed of requests to remove allegedly defamatory content.

This site on the other hand let users write whatever they wanted to about whichever solicitor they wanted, whether they have ever actually used them, or just didn't get on with them for the past 20 years.

Reports have suggested that owners of the site are far from upstanding citizens.

The only option in this case was to seek the closure of the site, as it was not moderated in the least.

omahaid wrote: »

I've always been amazed at how quick the judiciary can act when one of their own are involved.

Eh yeah, sure. This has been going on for years and only now has been halted. What's quick about that?

Chips Lovell · 01-02-2012 02:15PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Not request the website get shut down....?

How does their denial of ownership change the circumstances exactly?

Because they aren't taking responsibility for what goes up on it.

squod · 01-02-2012 02:16PM

The end of thunderdome.

Seachmall · 01-02-2012 02:19PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Because they aren't taking responsibility for what goes up on it.

Well if it can be shown that they are the owners of the site then whether they accept responsibility or not is irrelevant. The courts can order them to take down the comments.

But requesting they take down the site is A) impossible to enforce and

not relevant to a defamation case.

Jev/N · 01-02-2012 02:24PM

The amount of misinformation, views ignorant of reality etc. in this thread are unbelievable. Some of the posts are getting towards the rabble end of the scale with no real grounding in reality.

Chips Lovell · 01-02-2012 02:26PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Well if it can be shown that they are the owners of the site then whether they accept responsibility or not is irrelevant. The courts can order them to take down the comments.

But requesting they take down the site is A) impossible to enforce and not relevant to a defamation case.

It is relevant if the judge believes that the site will continue to be used to defame the plaintiff. The defendants are hardly being cooperative are they?

minidazzler · 01-02-2012 02:31PM

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Tbh, anything that makes people think twice before they post online is a good thing.

Bullshido. It's one thing if it's slanderous, but to not be able to speak freely is insane.

That judge has no understanding or respect for Free Expression, shutting down a website for a few bad comments. It's one thing to order them removed, to shut down a website is censorship.

Jev/N · 01-02-2012 02:33PM

minidazzler wrote: »

Bullshido. It's one thing if it's slanderous, but to not be able to speak freely is insane.

That judge has no understanding or respect for Free Expression, shutting down a website for a few bad comments. It's one thing to order them removed, to shut down a website is censorship.

Mini, I think he may have been sarcastic in that one :pac:

Judge calls for criminal sanctions on webposters

Comments