Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Whirlpool forum founder being sued.

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Geoff3DMN, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. Don't know but it's someone elses problem anyway.

  2. No way, it's just the lawyers making some money.

    0 vote(s)
  3. Other forums might have similar problems down the track.

    0 vote(s)
  4. Lets get the torches and pitch forks and storm their offices!

    0 vote(s)
  1. Simon Wright the founder of the (very) large Whirlpool broadband discussion site is being sued for alleged "injurious falsehood". A similar action was taken some time ago against Agg from OCAU.

    This could well have implications for other forums... like Netrider.

    It bears watching to see what the outcome is as it possibly could end up causing precedent potentially damaging to other discussion forums.

    See -:













    Being a regular user of Whirlpool (Jabiru658 over there), I've thrown $25 into the donation pool (not saying people here should do that, just thought it might be of interest to posters here).
  2. I'm pretty sure people still have a right to freedom of speech, recounting their experience, voicing their opinion, etc

    The only way they'll get anything is if 2Clix prove that any of the comments there are 1) false, and 2) Whirlpool knew they were false but did nothing.

    If 2clix asked them to delete the thread because its bad publicity, then thats not good enough IMO.

    There appear to be many posts removed by moderators and that seems to be Whirlpool holding their end up.

    i'm optimistic that Whirlpool will come out Ok, but a bit poorer for having to defend themselves against a stupid lawsuit :? :roll:
  3. You see free speech is a cool concept, but here in Australia we have no such right.
    People always work under that assumption, but it is the americans that have that right. We have no bill of rights, so in fact from a leagle standpoint we live at teh pleasure of her magisty.
    Now all that aside, this is not a case that they want to see a court room, because as you have pointed out, there is going to be a hard time for them to prove 10 that the thread is dishonest, 2) that Whirlpool was aware that the thread was dishonest 3) that identifying the honesty of a public forum was in fact there responsibility. they are not the authors of the comments.
    But, Can whirlpool afford to go to court on it?
  4. I too am optimistic that whirlpool will come out alive, I just don't think 2Clix has a case. Their claim is based on the fact that the statements were false and damaging, and I have no idea how they intend to prove that statements like 'I'd advise you to thoroughly check the financial background of the company before buying' are 'false' because they are opinions!

    What a load of crap.

    Apart from the fact that I doubt they'll be able to prove any factual inaccuracy in the threads in court, the bigger question is why is Simon being held responsible for the comments and opinions of others?

    I'd hope for the sake of a free speech precedent that the charges are dismissed on the basis that Simon should not be held responsible for the statements made by others on a public forum.

    Which makes me wonder whether netrider has some sort of disclaimer saying that the views expressed on this forum are the views of the contributors and are not necessarily representative of the owner/mods? I'm not a lawyer though, so I don't know whether this sort of disclaimer would hold up anyway.
  5. This is probably the aim of the plaintiff: so that it, and others, can effectively gag websites from displaying peoples' views and opinions on goods and services that companies provide.

    Thing is, what I don't understand is, if I've read the threads and posts, including the posts in the writ that Wright posted, is how there is a basis of a claim on comments like, "do your research before buying from this company". To me, that's sound consumer advice.

    There are others, such as specific statements about the product's shortcomings. Now, I understand that you can say stuff like this as it's in the public interest, for starters, and it could be a genuine consumer complaint.

    Yeah, this is probably more about shutting people up than any claim for perceived damages that were maliciously caused.
  6. One thing that can happen if it ends up in court is that 2Clix might win the battle but lose the war by getting lots of adverse publicity.
  7. Interesting... probably one of those 'won't win but will get what we want in the meantime: website shutdown/content removed etc' lawsuits.

    I haven't used 2Clix, but I used Arrow at my old job - it was great. Simple program, documents easy to update and modify: so long as you destroyed original, amended hard-copies you could make all the changes you wanted before they were finally actioned.

    My current employer goes live with SAP BusinessOne this year... we've had a look at it, and while I can appreciate it is a very high-powered bit of software, I believe it's overly complicated and will prove to be a massive pain-in-the-arse to use... I'm sure the 'settling period' will be a torturous malay of dead build codes and obsolete items people have accidentally created, stuffed up and ignored.

    *sigh* can't wait :roll:

    Oh but also: these business activity systems can be pretty complicated - if they aren't setup properly or with some of the right features; they'll be an absolute dog, regardless of the brand and the backup support.
  8. It looks as though 2Clix (here in after referred to as "the Company") may have shot themselves in the foot here. Or about to anyway as this case gains publicity.

    After reading some of the posts on Whirlpool on this topic it seems that "the Company" were on the right track when they themselves posted responses to the many grievances that were being aired far and wide. Much better, and this is MY opinion, to swallow your pride, apologise profusely, and do whatever is possible to solve the problems that have arisen - rather than get caught up in a public forum slanging match over who was right and who was wrong.

    OK, let's put it this way - I am an ex-customer of "the Company" and I want to discuss my problems on a public forum, eg Whirlpool. Instead of posting my problems, I organise a teleconference where anyone can join in to share my discussion. The topics of the forums are discussed verbatim. Who shall "the Company" sue now? Telstra for providing the telephone lines?

    The publicity that this case attracts can only further damage the reputation of "the Company" and the forums where people can freely express their own opinion will continue to exist - if not in this fair land, then in other lands where the freedom of speech is protected by constitution.

    These comments are the opinion of this poster and not necessarily those of the moderators/owners of this site.
  9. But at present its not shutdown, as i can still see the threads...

    From what is written under the "Anyone used 2Clix?" thread, it isn't anymore than an opinion match, but as australia has defamation laws this may be where 2Clix is trying to base their argument... cos a few people have advised others not to buy, they are getting upset because or word-of-mouth... its just a wider audience depending on who googles....

    How many times would we have been sued by PS or Sumoto if that kinda crap took place everywhere...
  10. Exactly... and how much less useful would Netrider be if people couldn't give an honest opinion about a supplier.
  11. To be honest I don't particularly like whingepool but if people can't express their thoughts online / offline then one must question the society / dictatorship we now live in. All power to the corporation!
  12. Falcon is right here. In Aus. there are no freedom of speech rights.
    However we have pretty sound liable laws.

    The facts are that anyone can sue you for deformation. But at the heart of the case, the material being challanged must be shown not to be true. If it is true, then there is no liable.

    Secondly the injured party must show loss of business or earnings as a direct concequence to the particular actions.

    Thirdly, unless material posted is in breech of any privacy laws, then including the above, they have no grounds for damages.

    All in all I think that the company just wishes to bash the forum site through the courts in squashing them by financial and litegous machinery.

    This is common practice for US companies.
  13. :shock: :shock:
    thats inhumane!!
    being deformed is no reason for litigation :eek:
    ....feeling that you have been defamed however ;)
  14. And if it is untrue then it's liable to be libel. :grin:
  15. Remember 2Clix has the dollars & legal team. They wouldnt persue action
    unless they received advice the other side has a case to answer for don't
    you think? :?
  16. Better think up a diclaimer and put it in the homepage then.
  17. No ones too sure of how many dollars they have though MG considering they retrenched 10 staff members earlier in the week.
  18. I'm not sure how likely they are to win either... less than favourites I'd say.

    But it's still a bad precedent, and WP is a very large forum with lots of potential support to raise $.

    A smaller forum vs a larger company might well (even assuming a very similar situation) end up differently.

    Often it's not who has the best case, it's who can afford the best legal team for the longest
  19. True, but i know at least 1 lawyer/legal aide who's in our ranks, and i'm sure theres more :grin:
  20.  Top