defamatory comments (again...)

[panda[cRx]]

refer to this thread:

http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63013

ok so yfin can make negative comments about this product.... yet we can't make negative comments about any businesses due to defamation fears?

sorry but it really doesn't make any sense to me. if we have any negative experiences with a auto related business we're always told to remove the name and "pm for details"

same shit different smell. can we either stop being so anal or just have some consistancy?

[chunky]

i didnt think they would just pull you out of teh mod loop like that panda
how does it feel man?

[[ricer]]

i kinda like it in a way...
rather they just get to the point rather then PMing them asking which product or place it was blah blah blah

if someone goes to a dealer and they pulled a shifty, just tell everyone the dealer name and location so we can beware rather then just losing trust in all honda dealers...

[Rice_4_life]

isn't there going to be some kind of legal issues with those kind of things?

[yourfather]

interesting point. considering we can't say, ABC mechanic was shit, but we can say, dont buy abc product because it stuffed up.

[ACTI0NMAN-1]

from what i read it sounds like its his opinion. and that he's not stating it as a fact.

i was under the impression that you can say what you like as long as its your opinion and not stated as fact.

eg.
abc mechanic is shit -defamation

i believe abc mechanic is shit -opinion

[Mr_will]

panda you need to read it carefully.

i can see where you're coming from, but at the end of the day yfin is a lawyer, and youre not (neither am i, yet, but hey)

its perfectly fine (and legal) to say, for example, that "i was not happy with the service this dealer provided because when my car was returned it was dirty"

however it is not fine to say "abc dealer is a complete pile of shit, all their staff are a bunch of filthy mexicans, and they did the worst job on my service that i have ever seen"

as long as you're factual, and not making huge generalisations then things are ok.

based on yfins thread, it looks to me like he is remaining very factual about it, and basing his conclusion on the facts

[ACTI0NMAN-1]

hehe filthy mexicans

[Mr_will]

lol just in case, i have nothing against mexico or mexicans nor was i making any assumptions about their character or cleanliness, it was purely for illustrative purposes.

[Rice_4_life]

^ lol

[panda[cRx]]

i fully understand what you and yfin are saying. what i am saying however is we have not had consistency on this issue.

we have had plenty of posts where a member has posted a purely factual thread discussing their displeasure in service they have received from *insert business here* and it has been removed/deleted.

yfin may not be happy with with his bar, yet he's gone as far as labeling it 'junk' (which would come into the 'filthy mexican' side of things?)

[Mr_will]

;1105896']i fully understand what you and yfin are saying. what i am saying however is we have not had consistency on this issue.

we have had plenty of posts where a member has posted a purely factual thread discussing their displeasure in service they have received from *insert business here* and it has been removed/deleted.

yfin may not be happy with with his bar, yet he's gone as far as labeling it 'junk' (which would come into the 'filthy mexican' side of things?)

you make a solid point.

the law says,

It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that:

(a) the matter carried, in addition to the defamatory imputations of which the plaintiff complains, one or more other imputations (contextual imputations) that are substantially true, and

(b) the defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation of the plaintiff because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations.

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)

but your point about consistency is valid, in my opinion

[yfin]

Displeasure with services are problematic Panda - always have been. There is a judgement call that needs to be made for services (eg a workshop fixes your car). There is a personal labour element involved which means an individual person at that business is more likely to be upset that one has damaged their reputation by being "named and shamed". That doesn't mean an unfavourable comment about a service is always defamation but we err on the side of caution and discourage negative comment.

A fair and truthful review or an opinion of a product (eg if someone wants to review a new product etc) is somewhat different. The review is about the product itself and not some unjustified statement about the person who made it. It is less likely there will be defamation issues in such cases (but still possible).

If Ozhonda didn't allow fair review of product we would have to remove posts where people complain about reliability problems with Hondas, products generally or issues with vehicles under warranty, etc.

I believe my post reporting my experience with the Cusco product was factual and my opinion of it fair. I was not making comment about the Cusco business generally. It would be somewhat different if I said they were "shonks, liars, crooks or ripped me off". Circumstances change cases - that is why I told you there are no hard and fast rules about defamation.

And ultimately posters are responsible for their own posts. Ozhonda can not moderate all posts by members hence you might see moderation of some posts but not others.

Can you point towards any post where there has been moderation for a comment about a product? You refer to problems with people making negative comment about "businesses" but not reviews of products.

[Alpine]

Are you really a lawyer?

[yfin]

Are you really a lawyer?

I don't see how my personal life is relevant to a question about site rules.

[JasonGilholme]

So at the end of the day are we allowed to make similiar posts as yfin has done about the workmanship of businesses?

Cause really its one thing to havea quality product but its another thing to have a quality installer.

[Mr_will]

seems right to me.

and also, the use of the word 'junk' is important - which as pointed out means 'damaged and unable to be used', which is a factual description of the item.

if he'd said it was a piece of crap, or badly designed or something similar, thatd be a different set of circumstances

[JasonGilholme]

So as long as we choose the correct words and keep it civilised it should be ok.

[Mr_will]

i prepare to stand corrected on this, but it needs to be both civilised + factual

same as i said a few posts above, recalling facts eg "product broke under these circumstances", or "dealer forgot to replace my sump bolt"

rather than "product is shit, doesnt do what it is supposed to, its useless etc etc", or "that dealer is the shoddiest one ive ever seen, gave crap service and did a poor job"

[bennjamin]

in regards to the above - there has been quite a few issues and pokes @ a well known australian swaybar manufacturer on here - not without reason.
There are no legal implications about it , its simply customers upset at a current design and the good thing is a representative of that company is on here doing his best to address any issues / questions.

You will not find the same thing happening for this small issue.

[Mr_will]

i dont know that i'd agree about there being no legal implications

if you make sweeping statements about the quality of a product or its suitability for the applications of others, that COULD give rise to a defamation action.

this is a public forum, and as far as the law is concerned its the same as the information being conveyed in the print media, or on tv.

[bennjamin]

i dont know that i'd agree about there being no legal implications

if you make sweeping statements about the quality of a product or its suitability for the applications of others, that COULD give rise to a defamation action.

this is a public forum, and as far as the law is concerned its the same as the information being conveyed in the print media, or on tv.

My point about the above , was the company in question is openly online to discuss with us and sofar has not asked for any posts to be removed etc.
But you do have a point of openly "dissin" a product.
IT should of been slightly worded differently to cover all bases.

IE "...this lower arm bar" rather than "...this cusco lower arm bar" etc.

[yfin]

Ok here is some more info.

In reality if someone makes a defamatory statement the individual is likely to be sued personally as they are responsible for the post. Ozhonda simply wants to avoid a situation where it is potentially drawn into such proceedings - so we might moderate something we are aware of, and only if it looks obviously dangerous on the face of it. The reason for doing so is to protect the member. This is not legal advice… but you can be sued for defamation if you post content that a reasonable person would believe lowers the reputation of the person referred to. For example:

Highly Dangerous - highly problematic

Mr X / X Business are criminals, thieves, dodgy, ripped me off, lied to me.
Mr X sleeps with goats, has no clues how to fix a Honda, is a drug dealer, is a homosexual, etc. Unless the individual has clear facts that they can prove in court to justify the comment as true - the individual making the comment would probably have to pay compensation, make a public apology, etc. It can be a very expensive exercise for the individual concerned.

We encourage people not to make these sorts of posts for their own protection and moderators may pick up on the comment and remove the names from the post. But as people are aware it is impossible for Ozhonda to review all messages given the real time nature and sheer volume of messages

Mildly dangerous- Less problematic

Less problematic posts are where the person limits the comment to the factual description of what happened. "I went to X dealership for a service, I got home and found my wheel nuts were completely loose. I have raised this with them, they offered me a free service but I still will not go back there after this experience".

Even in the example given above - we tend to prefer you don't name the individual or business. Why? Well generally people tend to go too far and can't help themselves from making derogatory comments about integrity or competence. They will say things like the individual or workshop are "dodgy", "have no clues", "liars" etc. So it jumps into the highly dangerous category by a poor choice of wording.

So workmanship, labour, installs, by a shop or individual can raise issues of competence or integrity so don't be surprised if it is edited or names removed. Obviously, if someone complained about it we would delete the post as soon as possible for the member's protection. In the majority of cases it can be difficult for moderators to tell if a post is entirely factual or not. So it can be tricky...

Low risk

Comments about a product are somewhat different as people usually limit themselves to the issue with the product factually and their experience with the product. An opinion in such circumstances is usually fine, even saying "I recommend you don't buy this product". Problems can occur, however, if the person crosses the line into the highly dangerous category and says things like, "X business lied to me about what this product can do". It really depends, however, on the circumstances and what is said so tread carefully.

Conclusion

Overall, Ozhonda maintains that it is not responsible for comments made by members. If people think they are potentially posting something defamatory - they should seek their own legal advice and not ask moderators whether it is defamatory or not.

What I have posted here is a very rough guide and is not comprehensive. As you can see it is not a simple issue so it is tough for moderators to enforce rigid rules. I think it is unfair to say moderators are not being consistent in the circumstances - especially when we are acting in the interests of members.

[yourfather]

maybe there should be a comprehensive guide and rule

[yfin]

maybe there should be a comprehensive guide and rule

No one will read anything more detailed than what I have posted already. It is hard enough to get people to read the terms and conditions - let alone a comprehensive guide on one minor aspect of the terms and conditions.

It is also too difficult to have black and white rules about this. I certainly can't see a rule working where people cant negatively comment by way of opinion on a product and name the product. If that rule were to apply it would be ridiculous as everytime someone comments on a serious issue with their Honda model it would be in breach of the rules for "fear of defamation". We need to be realistic here people.

If members know the comments that are "dangerous" above that is a step in the right direction IMO.

[Alpine]

I don't see how my personal life is relevant to a question about site rules.

Touchy touchy! ;)

I was just curious to know if you are a lawyer as a profession, that's all, coz it's always interesting to see people from all walks of life drive Hondas!

No big deal. A simple yes or no would have sufficed, not a snap at me.

[yfin]

Touchy touchy! ;)

I was just curious to know if you are a lawyer as a profession, that's all, coz it's always interesting to see people from all walks of life drive Hondas!

No big deal. A simple yes or no would have sufficed, not a snap at me.

Will send you a PM. I see it as important to avoid entering discussion about what I do in my personal life on a public forum... People who don't even know me have already drawn ridiculous conclusions - so why feed them more info to throw back at me when I moderate their posts or give them an infraction for doing the wrong thing? Below is a perfect example of assumptions and generalisations being made based on occupation. This comment was directed at me. There are plenty of lawyers out there who earn less money than taxi drivers. My hesitation in responding to you is a reflection of the maturity of some of our members rather than a swipe at you.


Everyone wants to be a lawyer cuz they think they'll make heaps of cash. In reality, I bet they work lots of hours, have no conscience and for the right price will do pretty much anything, defend any kinda argument.

all they care about is the $$$.. I have a bit more soul than that.

[Alpine]

I understand. Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasons why. And rest assured I am far older and more mature than alot of much younger readers here. A Honda cruise I went on a year or two ago certainly proved that, to the point where it was my first and last cruise which such strangers from a forum.

[bennjamin]

Alpine , while you might seem more mature ETC let me assure you , "age" has nothing to do with maturity relevant to past situations on this website ( amongst others).

Anyway ,
what are peoples thoughts on adding to the rules ? It seems the basic rules here need to be spelt out in plain terms
as common sense usually isnt enough.

[Mr_will]

perhaps it would be worth spelling them out, however the main issue is whether the claims by the poster are factual - in the case of 'mr x rapes dogs', its fairly clear cut, but what about "mr x's workshop broke this", or "this didnt do its job" - it would be hard for the mods to ascertain whether claims are truthful or not.

maybe something more basic like, comment only upon EXACTLY what happened, without drawing further inferences, making recommendations to other members, or commenting on the character of people, or suitability of parts for other peoples applications.

[panda[cRx]]

if it was clear from the start there wouldnt have been so many deleted/edited threads. it'd prolly be a good idea to have a sticky or something, not that many people tread them :rolleyes:

[albii]

Ok here is some more info.

[SIZE=2]Mr X sleeps with goats, has no clues how to fix a Honda, is a drug dealer, is a homosexual, etc.

mmm...baaa.

Honestly though, alot of businesses have been dafamed in the past through no fault of their own.
there is a process that can be taken by the consumer to recover costs of a faulty product and i feel that contacting the company first and finding a solution is probably the best way to go.
defamation gets you nowhere.

Yfin has chosen his words carefully for his comments not to be deemed defamatory, and alot of you other people might take his previous comments on legality issues and use them in your favour in the future.
free advice.

[kid_dynamite]

If you get too specific on the rules, there's a risk that if if someone posts something outside the guidelines and gets it deleted/removed they complain based on semantics. I think leaving it fairly broad is the way to go.
My 2c.

[Tobster]

Based on what I've been taught (postgrad) about defamation, you could probably sum up some rules fairly simply:

1. Relate the truthful facts:

I had X experience with X product or organisation.

2. Express your views as an opinion:

In my opinion, X product should be avoided because...

The problem, from what I can see, is when some members run off at the mouth (keyboard) with unnecessary abuse.

[JasonGilholme]

Based on what I've been taught (postgrad) about defamation, you could probably sum up some rules fairly simply:

1. Relate the truthful facts:

I had X experience with X product or organisation.

2. Express your views as an opinion:

In my opinion, X product should be avoided because...

The problem, from what I can see, is when some members run off at the mouth (keyboard) with unnecessary abuse.

This seems straight forward to me. lets remember that it is a public forum where people should be allowed to post their opinions. With the above sort of info it should be possible for people to do so without fear of getting posts/threads deleted.

Theres no point having a reviews for products that just say its "good" when in fact it didn't live up to its expectations/requirements.

[yfin]

;1107305']if it was clear from the start there wouldnt have been so many deleted/edited threads. it'd prolly be a good idea to have a sticky or something, not that many people tread them :rolleyes:

It is not clear and it never will be. That is why you need to let moderators exercise their discretion on the issue and not winge about it for no good reason. There doesn't need to be any change to the terms and conditions or stickies. Members just need to have some faith in the moderators acting in their best interests.

[yfin]

The problem, from what I can see, is when some members run off at the mouth (keyboard) with unnecessary abuse.

True. The very nature of these types of forums is people tend to say things they wouldn't if you were speaking with them face to face.

Anyway, we have come to the position where I think everyone agrees that the terms and conditions are still appropriate and moderators will, from time to time (keeping in mind the volume and real time nature of posts), exercise a judgement call whether to edit a post. We still prefer people exercise discretion when commenting negatively about an individual or business - hence why we suggest not including the name in the Ozhonda terms and conditions.

The terms and conditions do not say one cannot state an opinion or conduct a review of a product (very different to negative comment about a person or business). Just be sensible about it and justify your opinion of the product and there is unlikey to be any issue.

[yourfather]

so if we write it in a logical and sensible way, we are able to name the dealer or mechanic etc?

[yfin]

so if we write it in a logical and sensible way, we are able to name the dealer or mechanic etc?

Please read all the posts in this thread and the terms and conditions. If you still don't know the answer then come back and say so.

[Tobster]

Where are the terms and conditions? I mean besides when you first register? I can't find them anywhere.
Perhaps these made to be made more prominent on the site -- especially if they ever change.

[yfin]

Where are the terms and conditions? I mean besides when you first register? I can't find them anywhere.
Perhaps these made to be made more prominent on the site -- especially if they ever change.

At the bottom of the front page there is a link.

Here it is:

http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/legal.php

The terms and conditions are not changed often. Certainly the last time they were changed we did a roll out with an email to every member advising of the changes.

[yourfather]

Please read all the posts in this thread and the terms and conditions. If you still don't know the answer then come back and say so.

Dude, stop being patronising.

I've been following the whole thread. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. And saved you about 200 keystrokes.

[yfin]

Dude, stop being patronising.

I've been following the whole thread. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. And saved you about 200 keystrokes.

Directly above your post was this and the answer to your question:


We still prefer people exercise discretion when commenting negatively about an individual or business - hence why we suggest not including the name in the Ozhonda terms and conditions.


Telling someone to read the thread is fair when the answer is right in front of them! You are the most vocal person in this "complaint" so at least do me and the rest of the moderators the courtesy to read the thread and the terms and conditions. Thanks.

[yourfather]

I wanted a one word answer to my question, rather than the three paragraph drivel you posted up

[yfin]

I wanted a one word answer to my question, rather than the three paragraph drivel you posted up

lol - I wonder if you are this pleasant in real life or whether flaming people on the internet is therapuetic for you. You certainly have a history of flaming people on this site... I simply asked you to read the thread but you want spoon fed responses.

Does anyone have anything constructive to add? This thread should probably be left to rest in peace.

[BlitZ]

im 100% behind yfin...

there is no damn difference in reviewing products or services..

FARk if that was the case, all the restrtaunt review websites would be shut down.