Are personal opinions in a review safe from legal action?
a
to go on a public product review web site. If I bitch about the price
compared to other shops, and quality of the item etc, would I be safe
from legal action by the manufacturer?
I would assume I would be safe, based on that food critic whose action
by a restaurant was recently thrown out in court?
Sylvia Else
You're safe if you stick to facts. If would be a bad idea to start using
subjective terms like "daylight robbery" or "rip-off".
Sylvia.
a
I will stick to facts (to be 100% safe), but I asked about personal opinion
because of this story:
The food critic won the defamation case against him because the supreme
court judge found his review to be "comment". If I say the item I bought
is cheap and nasty and not worth the X bucks, wouldn't that qualify as
personal "comment" too?
Sylvia Else
You'd be OK with the "not worth" part I'd say, because that's clearly a
matter of opinion. Claiming that it's "cheap and nasty" is a bit iffy
because it has the character of an objective claim. Compare a claim that
food tastes bad (a matter of opinion) with a claim that it had decayed
(an objective statement).
The manufacturer can't take action for defamation against you if they're
a corporation employing ten or more people. That seems likely to be the
case. But the shop may be a sole trader or small business, so you need
to be a bit more careful when making statements about it.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
"a"
> I want to do a review of an item I bought and am dissatisfied with,
> to go on a public product review web site. If I bitch about the price
> compared to other shops, and quality of the item etc, would I be safe
> from legal action by the manufacturer?
** Stop kidding yourself that YOUR opinions matter to anyone.
IMBECILE
.... Phil
Sylvia Else
Whatever your views about the value of the OP's opinions, if he goes
around making claims that are damaging to a business, and that business
is not statute-barred from starting defamation actions, the the OP
clearly runs the risk that one will be started.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
If he has any money. If there is a publisher of the review, that publisher
is more likely to be a candidate.
Phil Allison
"Sylvia Else = Dumbest Bitch on Earth "
> Phil Allison wrote:
>> "a"
>>
>>> I want to do a review of an item I bought and am dissatisfied with,
>>> to go on a public product review web site. If I bitch about the price
>>> compared to other shops, and quality of the item etc, would I be safe
>>> from legal action by the manufacturer?
>>
>>
>> ** Stop kidding yourself that YOUR opinions matter to anyone.
>>
>> IMBECILE
>>
>
> Whatever your views about the value of the OP's opinions, if he goes
> around making claims that are damaging to a business, and that business is
> not statute-barred from starting defamation actions, the the OP clearly
> runs the risk that one will be started.
** BOLLOCKS.
The web site would be the target of any possible legal protest.
Then they may only need to delete the offending post.
FUCK OFF TROLL !!
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Stupider than Anyone Else Alive "
> The manufacturer can't take action for defamation against you if they're a
> corporation employing ten or more people.
** The OP asked about ANY kind of legal action.
A tort of " Injurious Falsehood " is still allowable in Australia and has
been used by corporations against on-line bloggers since the 2005
defamation law changes.
It is definitely NOT open slather to defame the products of a corporation,
not matter what size that corporation.
..... Phil
Sylvia Else
Well, he asked whether he was safe. Injurious falsehood is a rather
different tort, and not the kind of thing that would arise in a
complaint about a product on a website, unless the OP goes in for
outright lies.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
>
>>
>> A tort of " Injurious Falsehood " is still allowable in Australia and
>> has been used by corporations against on-line bloggers since the 2005
>> defamation law changes.
>>
>> It is definitely NOT open slather to defame the products of a
>> corporation, not matter what size that corporation.
>>
>
> different tort, and not the kind of thing that would arise in a complaint
> about a product on a website,
** More fucking absurd SYLVIASHIT
PISS OFF YOU DAMN STUPID TROLL !!
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Stupider than Anyone Else Alive "
> The manufacturer can't take action for defamation against you if they're a
> corporation employing ten or more people.
** The OP asked about ANY kind of legal action.
A tort of " Injurious Falsehood " is still allowable in Australia and has
been used by corporations against on-line bloggers since the 2005
defamation law changes.
It is definitely NOT open slather to defame the products of a corporation,
not matter what size that corporation.
You FUCKING IMBECILE !!!
..... Phil
a
Likewise, stop kidding yourself that your perpetual rude responses are
shocking enough for anyone to get baited with. It's really old hat now.
And yes, I know you're going to reply with another expletive, so go ahead.
Sylvia Else
Ah, well, you can't be sure. Sometimes he just changes the subject line.
Though of course he frequently does both.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
"a" = another trolling ass.
Heeee haaww.
a
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:7peisn...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "a" = another trolling ass.
>
>
> Heeee haaww.
Predictable as ever, as I proved. <Shrugs shoulders>.
Phil Allison
a
>
> ""a" = another trolling ass.
>
>
> Heeee haaww.
Um, you already posted this once already. Getting forgetful in your old age?
Marts
> Well, he asked whether he was safe. Injurious falsehood is a rather
> different tort
Yeah, it's more of a lemon flavor, isn't it?
Marts
> Whatever your views about the value of the OP's opinions, if he goes
> around making claims that are damaging to a business, and that business
> is not statute-barred from starting defamation actions, the the OP
> clearly runs the risk that one will be started.
If a computer reviewer says that the Acme optical digitiser performs below spec,
that its output performance is poor and is really not recommended as a purchase,
what then? Doesn't this mean that anyone who reads the review and decides to buy
a competitor's product will be "injurous" or "damaging"?
Or if a car journo shitcans a model car, saying that it is of low build quality,
has poor handling and suffers from poor fuel economy?
Basically, if truth is a defence and the reviewer(s) can demonstrate the
veracity of their claims, then should there be a case to answer, still?
In any case, if you read the online forums such as Whirlpool and even Usenet,
they're full of threads shitcanning companies. Telstra and Bigpond in particular
are always copping a hiding for poor performance, customer service and in
particular, "ripoff" prices.
--
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Marts
> You're safe if you stick to facts. If would be a bad idea to start using
> subjective terms like "daylight robbery" or "rip-off".
Didn't a law come in a few years ago that prevents businesses or corporations
from suing individuals for defammation?
Sylvia Else
> Sylvia Else wrote...
>
>> Whatever your views about the value of the OP's opinions, if he goes
>> around making claims that are damaging to a business, and that business
>> is not statute-barred from starting defamation actions, the the OP
>> clearly runs the risk that one will be started.
>
> If a computer reviewer says that the Acme optical digitiser performs below spec,
> that its output performance is poor and is really not recommended as a purchase,
> what then? Doesn't this mean that anyone who reads the review and decides to buy
> a competitor's product will be "injurous" or "damaging"?
>
> Or if a car journo shitcans a model car, saying that it is of low build quality,
> has poor handling and suffers from poor fuel economy?
>
> Basically, if truth is a defence and the reviewer(s) can demonstrate the
> veracity of their claims, then should there be a case to answer, still?
If that's the case, then the plaintiff will lose. But that doesn't stop
them from commencing the proceedings.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
"Marts s a Fucking TROLLING IDIOT "
** Pay attention, it has been mentioned already
- CUNT BRAIN.
Shame you have NO metal capacity for doing so.
..... Phil
a
> If a computer reviewer says that the Acme optical digitiser performs below spec,
> that its output performance is poor and is really not recommended as a purchase,
> what then? Doesn't this mean that anyone who reads the review and decides to buy
> a competitor's product will be "injurous" or "damaging"?
That's what I mean. In my review, I stated that their product is severely overpriced
compared to other shops, and I have receipts from both shops to prove it, and thus
avoid the expensive shop as they're money-hungry bastards (basically).