Technology & Social Media Online Legal Rights - helpful points to be aware of online and when on PM

Discussion in 'Living Room' started by 733, 21st Dec, 2016.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
Tags:
  1. 733

    733 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    567
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Hi fellow Property Chatters

    I have been reflecting about my online posts (have they been helpful, how can I enhance contributions etc) and my private messages (which can we accessed retrospectively) - always love our debates online and taking on board new learnings from others.

    At the same time, I have also thought it timely to remind myself of some of the legal online rights to be aware of ...

    Reference Links
    5 things to know about social media defamation

    Slater and Gordon offer some helpful hints...

    1. In general terms, defamation occurs when a person intentionally spreads information about another person, group of people, or small company that damages their reputation, or can make others think less of them.
    2. Defamation is actionable regardless of the medium. A person can be defamed, for example, in print, through photos and on the internet.
    3. Defamation cases involving the internet and social media are relatively new, but the same principles apply.
    4. A person who did not create the defamatory material, but only shares it (for instance, by “retweeting” a tweet), can also be held found liable guilty of defamation.
    5. There are several defences to defamation, including that the statement was true, or that it was an expression of an honest opinion. Consequently, you may be liable for defamation if you spread information which constitutes a hurtful and untrue statement of fact about another person.
    It's also a reminder to the online community that defamation laws extend online; and it’s no surprise that we’re probably going to see more.

    Reference Links for natural justice:
    Natural justice or procedural fairness

    NATURAL JUSTICE

    What are the rules of natural justice?
    English legal system doctrine that protects against arbitrary exercise of power by ensuring fair play. Natural justice is based on two fundamental rules: (1) Audi alteram partem (Latin for, hear the other side): no accused, or a person directly affected by a decision, shall be condemned unless given full chance to prepare and submit his or her case and rebuttal to the opposing party's arguments;

    Read more: What is natural justice? definition and meaning
     
    Last edited: 21st Dec, 2016
    733, 21st Dec, 2016
    #1
    Art Vandelay likes this.
  2. MyPropertyPro

    MyPropertyPro REBAA Buyer's Agents Sutherland Shire & Surrounds Business Member

    Joined:
    1st Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    1,893
    Location:
    Australia
    Agree with all of this but the main thing to remember and what is often misunderstood, is that defamation encompasses slander and libel. This means that if the potentially damaging information supplied is completely correct, the accused has no case with respect to defamation. It would only apply if the reputation was damaged from false accusations.

    For example, in @Xenia's thread about fraud and embezzlement, missing rent is missing rent - by stating that the landlord hasn't been paid any rent since June (for which the PM has no answer) is not defamation, whether it affects the PM's reputation or not - this statement is factually correct.

    Speculating on the reason for the missing rent may be. If there is evidence for the reason, which is stated, proven to be correct and then subsequently damages the PM's reputation, the accused would still have a very hard time winning a defamation case.
     
    Last edited: 21st Dec, 2016
    MyPropertyPro, 21st Dec, 2016
    #2
  3. 733

    733 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    567
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Xenia's post is fine - no names mentioned - there was a case recently where people started to send private messages defaming a person in a friend's workplace (government department) without the person being involved or given the opportunity to reply (not talking about Property Chat in this instance)
     
    733, 21st Dec, 2016
    #3
  4. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,412
    Location:
    Sydney
    While this article about Natural Justice is specifically referring to court proceedings and the right to defend yourself - I think one of the benefits of social media (BTW forums are not exactly social media - I think they are something different, but I digress) - unlike newspapers or television where it's all one directional "broadcast" and unless you own your own newspaper or television station, you have no effective right of reply - at least in social media you can make your side of the story heard.

    So while it is easier for members of the general public to become "publishers" using the internet - it is also easier for the principals of natural justice to be more easily applied using the same technology giving the subject of discussion a right of reply.

    Indeed, I have always followed the principal on the forum sites I run that the subject of discussions by our members have the right of reply - refer to rule #11 regarding defamation Forum Rules | PropertyChat

    I've seen plenty of cases over the years in disagreements between two parties where one feels hard done by is actually a lot more complicated when you hear both sides of the story - there is often plenty of culpability to go around. I recall quite a few cases on Somersoft exactly like that.

    Of course it's not always that way - but sometimes it's just misunderstanding, misinformation or just plain ignorance which causes people to feel that they've been wronged by a service provider.

    Sometimes all it takes is for people to actually start having a constructive dialogue and things can be resolved - but when things aren't going right and there's a huge amount of stress and pressure, it's not always easy for people to communicate effectively - and that can lead to misunderstandings, animosity and frustration.

    It's always really difficult if someone is just being dishonest - but in my experience, most of the time it's just not that simple (not that dealing with dishonesty is simple either!).

    At the end of the day - communication is one of the most important tools we have for dispute resolution.
     
    Simon Hampel, 21st Dec, 2016
    #4
    733 and 158 like this.
  5. 733

    733 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    567
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Good read - my old man is a Barrister and reminds me constantly of people's responsibilities particularly online posting given the successful cases recently from cyberbullying and online defamation cases
     
    733, 21st Dec, 2016
    #5
  6. 733

    733 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    567
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Love the conversation - thanks for sharing your experiences! Very much enjoying reading these posts and reflecting on our online behaviours (positives and challenges as you have pointed out)...
     
    733, 21st Dec, 2016
    #6
  7. 733

    733 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    567
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I am keen to hear from some Legal Eagles on the forum - what is your position on the statement "the accused would still have a very hard time winning a defamation case"?
     
    733, 21st Dec, 2016
    #7
  8. hobo

    hobo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    682
    Location:
    FNQ
    I understand that no business likes to see their flaws exposed for all to see, but negative reviews can be very useful to other potential clients. Not only to hear of the issues to be aware of, but also to see how the business responds - and often it's possible for the business to turn an initial negative (something that went wrong) into a positive by how they (the business) react.

    Some businesses go on the attack - they don't want anyone to talk about the issue, or tell anyone, and they try to either stifle discussion or shut it down completely. It leaves others wondering, "What else is wrong??".

    But when a business acknowledges an error or failing, and genuinely tries to fix it (both the initial issue, and the process that allowed it to occur in the first place).. well, that's where you get a true measure of their customer service and integrity, IMHO.
     
    hobo, 21st Dec, 2016
    #8
    Lil Skater, Nemo30, Ed Barton and 2 others like this.
  9. MyPropertyPro

    MyPropertyPro REBAA Buyer's Agents Sutherland Shire & Surrounds Business Member

    Joined:
    1st Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    1,893
    Location:
    Australia
    That's just how it works. It's how 'A Current Affair' and 'Today Tonight' and all those other shows go after certain businesses publicly, saying all sorts of things on prime time TV and destroying reputations along the way without worrying about defamation. It's because they're obviously very confident (assuming their legal team is!) that what they're doing isn't defamation - slanderous or libelous. If what they're saying is factual, there is no case.

    These defamation cases always revolve around the truth and justification of the comments being made with respect to their damaging nature, not whether the comments were just damaging. The definition of defamation itself is:

    defamation
    Publication of false and derogatory statements about another person, without any justification recognised by law (my italics and underline).

    Of course, the plaintiff can still sue if they choose and it would be up to the defendant to lay proof as to their published comments as defamation is assumed. If the defendant can provide justification and contextual truth, it would essentially render the plaintiff's case pointless and simply cost everyone time and money.
     
    Last edited: 21st Dec, 2016
    MyPropertyPro, 21st Dec, 2016
    #9
  10. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,412
    Location:
    Sydney
    On more than one occasion, I've had to explain the concept of the "Steisand Effect" to people who have threatened legal action over some comments that were made when they wanted to keep something quiet.

    If you're trying to stop discussion about something, the fastest way to achieve exactly the opposite is to threaten to sue people who are discussing it - thus making it something very much newsworthy and bringing it to everyone's attention.

    There's a good Wikipedia article about the concept - Streisand effect - Wikipedia

    In summary - Barbra Streisand tried to use legal process to suppress photographs taken of her residence in California thus causing the matter to be publicised far more widely than it already had been and having exactly the opposite effect than what was being sought - to censor something.

    So, if a service provider is being accused of doing the wrong thing because they have genuinely disgruntled customers and those customers are sharing their frustration and dissatisfaction with other people - and said service provider feels they are losing reputation because of bad reviews being posted about them - the exact wrong thing to do is to threaten to sue everyone involved because that instantly makes it something everyone wants to know about. What was so serious that they felt the need to sue everyone over? Is there any basis for the complaints being made by their customers? Did they really do the wrong thing? As soon as the lawyers get involved, it becomes news.

    The correct way for service providers to address this is to communicate. To get in front of it - to be open and frank about any shortcomings or missteps they may have had - to explain things from their side and to try and make things right or at least come to a mutually acceptable resolution.

    There have been a number of cases on the forum where someone was dissatisfied about the service they received and expressed it on the forums, and the service provider engaged with the conversation and came across as professional and everyone could see they were trying to do the right thing. No loss of reputation occurred, indeed it can actually have a very positive effect on reputation - potential clients can see that they will be treated with respect and disputes handled professionally.

    There are likewise plenty of occasions where someone has tried to have a discussion forcibly shut down which has the complete opposite effect by highlighting the issue when it would have been better off to quietly come to an mutual agreement with the affected parties and just let the matter die - instead focusing on rebuilding a positive reputation by doing it better than everyone else, rather than further damaging your own reputation as someone who resorts to legal threats to try and silence dissent.

    Of course, I'm not talking about people posting with malicious intent - that's a different scenario, but being disgruntled and dissatisfied doesn't necessarily mean being malicious (as in malevolent - attacking someone for deeply personal reasons as opposed to expressing frustration or dissatisfaction).

    At the end of the day, people have a right to tell their story, to share their experiences and to express their opinion. Engaging in conversation is always a better option than trying to stifle it.
     
    Simon Hampel, 21st Dec, 2016
    #10
    Lil Skater, Sackie, Westminster and 5 others like this.
  11. 733

    733 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    567
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Yes very interesting discussion.
    I have learnt of people winning cases with malicious intent and suppressing all factual information about a situation from cases dad shared with me...having worked in the public service with the Office of Adult Guardian we also dealt successfully with cases of perpetrators defaming vulnerable adults with impaired capacity.

    I am always conscious of not making assumptions when writing posts particularly where some discussions become sensitive or occasionally disrespectful.

    The principle of two sides to every situation is critical and at OAG we could not post comments about cases where individuals made false statements about Guardians to uphold our clients confidentiality about a case.

    In business if I have issues I would refer a case to the right bodies to enable natural justice principles to be upheld rather than discuss one side of a matter publicly. I would be comfortable to discuss the outcome of a hearing publicly as the principles if natural justice would be upheld.

    In business you are absolutely right about respectful communication and working to resolve issues through open conversations...and wanting this reciprocated.

    This is a great discussion...loving the diverse viewpoints
     
    733, 21st Dec, 2016
    #11
  12. 733

    733 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    567
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Do you have a legal background? Asking in the spirit of respect
     
    733, 21st Dec, 2016
    #12
  13. MyPropertyPro

    MyPropertyPro REBAA Buyer's Agents Sutherland Shire & Surrounds Business Member

    Joined:
    1st Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    1,893
    Location:
    Australia
    I have not practiced law, but somewhat, yes.
     
    MyPropertyPro, 21st Dec, 2016
    #13
  14. 733

    733 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    567
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Excellent background to have
     
    733, 21st Dec, 2016
    #14