[Moorf]

*dusts off moderator hat*

*cough*

Just wanted to point out something to you all - for your own benefit really and for the benefit of our kind publisher (and with his permission) - regarding posts on moderated forums. We all thrive on hearing experiences and thoughts from others, and long may this continue, however the Internet isn't as free and easy as we'd all like to think. People and companies are increasingly reacting to information published on forums about them, often with legal implications.

For that reason could you all be careful how you present opinions and be sure to add "imho" (i)n (m)y (h)onest (o)pinion or words to that effect to posts where you have criticised a person or a company's product or service.

I have had personal experience of this having discovered that a.n.other company has been investigating ENZ for comments made about them, so it is being done on our turf (so to speak!).

So, keep posting and keep us informed of your experiences and opinions but remember, the laws of libel do apply online/in forums, BUT EXPRESSING AN OPINION IS NOT ILLEGAL! ;)

Thanks folks...

Moorf

[StevieD]

and one which you don't think about!!! Thanks Helen, I'll remember this in future when I having a go at Singy Airlines for my treatment this time, IMHO of course, but hey, they already aware of those opinions anyway!!

[victoria24]

like a cyber version of allegedly?
for belt and braces, you could put a disclaimer on the front page a bit like documentaries do saying that the views expressed are not those of the forum or its moderators etc?

[IanW99]

*dusts off moderator hat*

*cough*

Just wanted to point out something to you all - for your own benefit really and for the benefit of our kind publisher (and with his permission) - regarding posts on moderated forums. We all thrive on hearing experiences and thoughts from others, and long may this continue, however the Internet isn't as free and easy as we'd all like to think. People and companies are increasingly reacting to information published on forums about them, often with legal implications.

For that reason could you all be careful how you present opinions and be sure to add "imho" (i)n (m)y (h)onest (o)pinion or words to that effect to posts where you have criticised a person or a company's product or service.

I have had personal experience of this having discovered that a.n.other company has been investigating ENZ for comments made about them, so it is being done on our turf (so to speak!).

So, keep posting and keep us informed of your experiences and opinions but remember, the laws of libel do apply online/in forums, BUT EXPRESSING AN OPINION IS NOT ILLEGAL! ;)

Thanks folks...

Moorf

Just because I'm curios, libel is a false and malicious publication.

So are you saying that as long as the statements are facts that can be proven, then you are free to post them but you may then be liable to defend them.

Or, are you saying that the publisher is not willing to have to deal with any such issues at all, so none will be accepted regardless i.e. only opinions allowed.

Can you also clarify whether this covers the Lounge (not accessible by the general public) and PMs as well i.e. if someone asks for information and you send the information in a PM instead does the same rule apply?

Ian

[gil]

Very good questions Ian, thanks,

Gil

[Moorf]

No-one is asking you to stop putting forward your experiences and thoughts, review sites would be dead in the water if that were illegal, but statements of fact that could damage a company's reputation and that can't be proven to be truth/factual should be avoided.

For instance, you can say that you found the food on Whichever Airways to be absolutely disgusting and that you couldn't eat it - that's your opinion. However, saying Whichever Airways uses substandard ingredients sourced from dodgy suppliers.. that's quite another thing. :nice1.. with me? However, you could say " IMHO Whichever Airways uses substandard ingredients" ... see?

[Moorf]

Good questions Ian...

So are you saying that as long as the statements are facts that can be proven, then you are free to post them but you may then be liable to defend them.

Perhaps my post made before this one helps? If not, fire away...



Or, are you saying that the publisher is not willing to have to deal with any such issues at all, so none will be accepted regardless i.e. only opinions allowed.

Yes.. or do you think that the individual who facilitates the ENZ forum should be held liable for what people say on his forum?


Can you also clarify whether this covers the Lounge (not accessible by the general public) and PMs as well i.e. if someone asks for information and you send the information in a PM instead does the same rule apply?

As per my post above, posting or PM'ing your opinions isn't a problem. PM's are not seen by anyone other than the poster and recipient so, unless you have been reported by someone then no, no-one should be able to quote what are private messages or get hold of them.

The Lounge is not exempt as anyone can join the forum - business owners too. This has already been done - a company has been browsing ENZ and what has been posted on here has been quoted back at people who have complaints in progress etc.

The IMHO request applies to all parts of the forum.





Ian[/QUOTE]

[Rusty]

I can confirm that all the moving companies I have spoken with all read this and other forums to get feedback.

[Tia Maria]

Moorf wrote:

This has already been done - a company has been browsing ENZ and what has been posted on here has been quoted back at people who have complaints in progress etc.

Am I the only one curious about which company? ;)

Cheers

Tia

[Moorf]

I can confirm that all the moving companies I have spoken with all read this and other forums to get feedback.

Exactly, and it's not just removal companies....

As anyone who works in marketing knows, many companies employ clippers or clipping agencies to keep track of mentions in the press. This also happens online (and it's easier online when all a company has to do is Google their brand for a basic search).

Social networking/blogs/forums etc are all causing companies and individuals to look to manage their reputations online and trawling forums is one of them.

[Moorf]

Am I the only one curious about which company? ;)

Cheers

Tia

It's not just one, Tia.

And this shouldn't turn in to a witch hunt! :exit

It's just a shame they don't shout us all free flights and meals when we start a thread saying how wonderful a company or airline is!!! *sigh*

[Rusty]

Can I just say how much I love gold bars. They are simply my favourite :)
(send free bars now...)

[Tia Maria]

Moorf wrote:

It's just a shame they don't shout us all free flights and meals when we start a thread saying how wonderful a company or airline is!!! *sigh*

Yeah, if that was the case I'd have loads of free underfloor insulation! :laugh

Cheers

Tia

[IanW99]

Good questions Ian...
...
Perhaps my post made before this one helps? If not, fire away...
...
Yes.. or do you think that the individual who facilitates the ENZ forum should be held liable for what people say on his forum?
...


I actually thought that your previous post was in answer to mine :)

So, if I can just confirm, what you are saying is basically if what you are posting is only an opinion can you please ensure that this is clear in the post. :nice1

For the individual...

Not at all, I wasn't at any point suggesting that the 'publisher' should in any way be liable to what is being posted (not sure how this works legally though?), I just wanted to clarify that they would prefer to be kept out of this situation entirely so only opinions should ever be posted (the only way to be kept out of this situation) or, it is Ok as long as the posting is accurate?

TBH, I'm still a little confused :confused:

Ian

[thewoodies]

I dont think anyone would get any free house sales at the moment though!!!!:laugh:laugh:laugh

[urban78]

I can confirm that all the moving companies I have spoken with all read this and other forums to get feedback.

I can also confirm airlines do it as well :yes

[Moorf]

I just wanted to clarify that they would prefer to be kept out of this situation entirely so only opinions should ever be posted

Yes, that's right and, all in all I think that's what we do, and do well, on ENZ. :yes we just need to make sure you are all well versed in the use of IMHO...

So.. in a nutshell - say what you like as long as it's fact and you can prove it.

Happy to answer any other questions.. it helps me to get my head round it too. :)

[victoria24]

i can prove that my estate agents are useless... allegedly!

[james the mechanic]

Events and statments depicted in all posts maybe fictitious. Any similarity to any person or organization living or dead is merely coincidental.


From my very basic understanding of things legal…
The owners of this site are in essence I guess, claiming ‘common carrier’ as their defense to any liable claims made against them any third parties.
"Common carrier immunity" being a principle used mainly but not exclusively in the US, whereby websites be treated like telecommunications companies. For example, if someone makes a slanderous statement on the telephone, the slander victim cannot sue the phone network.
This in theory is all fine and dandy, until you start moderating the posts, at which point it could be argued (& would be) that content has, in doing so been ‘authenticated’. Posters/members could then attempt to utilize this as a defense to any litigation against them personally, as they were under the impression that their posts would be moderated where and when required.
The fact that any statement or allegation is true or able to be substantiated is irrelevant in these circumstances. If it is portrayed as fact, then there needs to be some kind of disclaimer.
In theory if someone took umbrage to what they perceived as a defamatory allegation (rightly or wrongly) within this forum and asked the owners/moderators to remove it, the owners would be within their rights to stick to their guns and refuse to remove the said defamatory allegation, even if they believed it to be true, an absolute defense in libel law, they could be faced with a very costly legal action however.
In my opinion it’s very dangerous to say things like...

So.. in a nutshell - say what you like as long as it's fact and you can prove it.
:)

Because proof is what is presented at trial in the form of evidence; I would have thought, that’s not a place you would want to go.:no

Best wishes:nice1
James

[Carol]

hmmm..... good points.

tbh I have never been comfortable with people being named personally when forum discussions are about case officers or NZQA folks.. or the like.
Something just does not sit right with me there....

Mind you - I also think sites such as "Rate my teacher' are an utter disgrace.
:exit


Would love to start a "rate my student" but imagine the flack you would get for that!!!! lol

[Moorf]

Thanks for your input James, and you're right, being a "moderated" forum we are slightly differently placed when it comes to being seen to be agreeing with comments made on the board, hence I specifically mentioned moderated forums in the original post. Also, because of this ENZ is able to edit/delete posts as he sees fit.

I think the gist of this thread is that everyone be responsible about what they post on this forum. :nice1

[icemaiden]

I completely agree, esp. with Carol's point. Now, Rate my student .... hmmm!:exit

[marcia]

Very interesting thread, especially as i have named companies in the past, both in a positive and negative manner. So are these people actually taking legal action against the forum Helen?

Perhaps we should all add something to the end of our signatures so we don't forget to post IMHO!

For example - 'these are my own own thoughts and opinions and should not be deemed the responsibilty of the ENZ forum!'

[red]

Just remembering posting my 'opinion' about a certain removal company:uhoh

Maybe that's why our container has been delayed another week:D

Good point though Moorf, will keep it in mind.

[dharder]

[B][I][SIZE="1"]From my very basic understanding of things legal…
The owners of this site are in essence I guess, claiming ‘common carrier’ as their defense to any liable claims made against them any third parties.
"Common carrier immunity" being a principle used mainly but not exclusively in the US, whereby websites be treated like telecommunications companies. For example, if someone makes a slanderous statement on the telephone, the slander victim cannot sue the phone network.

That is not actually the case in the UK, don't know about NZ. In the UK, you can indeed close a website for allegedly libelous comments made on forums it hosts.

Point in case is the mumsnet website in the UK, which was drawn into a legal exchange of words and threatened with being shut down by Gina Ford (or rather her lawyers), the author of the contented baby books. Even though the mumsnet owners did take out the most offensive posts, they ended up having to say that Gina Ford cannot be discussed. They posted a lot of legal letters there as well they received from Gina Ford, so if anyone is interested in the idea of free speech, the Internet and Gina Ford, it makes for fascinating reading.

But, to get back to the initial point, not the same law applies to the telephone carrier as to the website hosts in the UK, so it may not be the case here in NZ either.

Daniela

[james the mechanic]

That is not actually the case in the UK, don't know about NZ. In the UK, you can indeed close a website for allegedly libelous comments made on forums it hosts.
Daniela

As I said...


"Common carrier immunity" being a principle used mainly but not exclusively in the US, whereby websites be treated like telecommunications companies...
James

It’s the world wide web, I personally have no idea where this site is hosted, do you? Members from all over the globe post their ‘opinions’ about others from all over the globe. Common carrier is not applicable here regardless of where it is hosted as the forum is moderated, which opens up a whole new can of worms as I said.

I think you’ve missed my point completely Daniela or else you’re agreeing.:confused:

Best Wishes:nice1
James

The bottom line is…
When you post anything whether you can prove it or not, think! Is there even a slight chance that it could be construed as a defamatory allegation, rightly or wrongly?
If so, it needs some kind of disclaimer or it will require moderation.

[Moorf]

I'm sure most of us have named and shamed on this forum, but mostly this has been as a result of using that company's services and is, as such, a review of an experience we've had - that's fine assuming it's an honest account.

Marcia - there's no legal action out there, but there have been a few instances over the last half year or so of companies accessing this forum for whatever reasons. This has then become apparent to certain members in their subsequent dealings with that company. It's totally within any company's rights to lurk on the forum.

Thanks Daniela for your info on the mothers forum, I was going to list a few take-down's but it's easy to Google for them.

Thanks all,

Moorf

[Joolzr]

Hi Moorf

This is a really interesting discussion- I had no idea companies were quite so actively checking things out. I've only posted positive comments so far and am really hoping for some free flights/upgrades next time I travel :-)

IMHO something we need to think about is not just the letter of the law and whether you can prove something, but the repercussions of someone, poster or moderator, being contacted by companies regarding legal action. There are some companies who will write scary legal letters, basically as bullying tactics. Whether the poster is right or wrong, defending an action is costly and stressful.

Some of my dodgier university colleagues experienced this, and the potential cost was doubled as they were in a different country to the company (i.e twice the lawyers fees). The companies knew they were 'straw men' and had no cash so weren't doing it for the money. But it scared the life out of them for a few days....

I think it's a shame, our freedom of speach is something I think we all believe in and this is being eroded.

b.w

Joolz

[Nathan]

... it's a shame, our freedom of speach is something I think we all believe in and this is being eroded. ...

Not only that, but the value (assuming there is such a thing as 'value') of this forum (ahem,,, IMHO) is seriously reduced (from a point of reference which may not coincide with that of other readers) if only the happy (again, merely my opinion, and my reference point may vary with the reader's) side (potentially one of many) of things (assuming, again, that there are 'things' altho' I would have difficulty from a philosophical purist's perspective arguing that 'things' exist) is represented.

Cheers!!

[Moorf]

Why is it that you believe you can say what ever you like on this forum.. or indeed online?

Freedom of speech is one thing (and slander can be the way forward with that if someone so wished) but putting a person's website in jeopardy because of a thoughtless post is a totally different matter.

If you wish to be able to say whatever you like about a person or company/entity/thing that has a right of reply then fine, but please don't expect it to be tolerated on what is, to all intents and purposes, someone elses website/concern.

Sharing your experiences and your opinions IS valuable. What is not valuable are unsubstantiated statements of "fact" that could be taken up by someone and legal action be taken.

Moderated forums across the Internet are all in the same boat, this isn't an "ENZ wants to keep everything rosy" request... far from it... negative posts are a completely different kettle of fish and have never been censored on ENZ. We are not saying "we don't agree with what you've said so we are deleting/editing it"... we are saying "we're not comfortable with a statement you've made against a company/person etc and are removing it for our own protection, and yours".

Even websites that are formulated specifically to be negative towards a product/person/company have to be careful about how "facts" are presented to readers just as magazines and newspapers are, difference is we don't have an editor and members publish live...

I'm trying to wrack my brains for a scenario that might apply to what you feel is "censorship" - could you perhaps give me an example so that I can show you the difference?

[Leccy-Lee]

Everything depends how good your lawyer is :)

I owned and ran for eight years a very popular forum in UK for theme-park discussions, when a few members posted statements about a certain UK theme park. I soon got a few calls and a letter from a major major law firm stating that unless the site close etc forewith they would be pursuing me as the forum owner for libel against said theme park.
Thankfully my chief moderator on the forum worked for a certain major TV companies legal department. And wrote one single letter stating something along the lines of "the forum clearly states that views expressed are not those of the site or owners and are therefore not libel"...But all written in legal jargon. I was myself then sent a letter from above law firm, agreeing that as the site owner i was not under law responsible for views made by third parties, when our forum clearly had a disclaimer at the bottom stating views are not that of sites owners.

So although i agree with Helens original post and care should always be taken and common sense used. In my experience the possibility of "successfully" holding a forums owners responsible legally is very slim on legal ground. (assuming you've covered yourself in the small print of sites terms ;) )

And can i also add with care, IMHO Moorf does a wonderful job with the Moderators hat on.... ;) lol

[Moorf]

It's good to hear from a forum owner who has been through it, Lee - thanks for sharing. You're right, 99.9% of companies probably wouldn't bother suing or taking legal action but we'd rather not get the attention in the first place.

I also think that referring to something as being your personal experience, rather than a assumed or rumored tidbit, is far more powerful and helpful to other members in most cases.

[ellenmelon]

on an irish social forum i frequent, the mention of a certain large promotor is forbidden (as is talk of the venues they own, gig's they're promoting etc etc) because users of the site were making disparaging remarks after a huge festival that happens in ireland went a bit pear shaped. this promotor has taken a case against them and it's still waiting for a court date afaik.
yes, this company is the subject of much criticism (i have my own less than positive opinion of them) and rightly so in some cases but it shows that if a company is up for it, they will take action against online fora. there will be some wee clause or law or something that they can use to gag sites like this.

so,you know...it happens.

still of the "take a breath before you post" way of thinking..if you're seeing red maybe posting isnt the best idea :)

[Avalon]

As this is being discussed out in the open, but with no acknowledgment of what set it off – I am going to reply publicly and defend what I said.

Why is it that you believe you can say what ever you like on this forum.. or indeed online?

We have never been able to say what we like on this forum. There have always been rules we had to follow about, for example, the language we use. This has always been a privately run forum, and we all have to post within the rules that Douglas set. If we do not agree with those rules, we can choose not to post. It is up to all of us to decide as individuals whether we will happily post within the new rules.

Anything we post on the Internet is also up for grabs. Anyone wishing to see this in action should check out:
http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/kimkins/502606-why-fascination-kimmer.html
(comes with a health warning – can take up a serious amount of your life following the saga, essentially 8 years of forum posts are being used in a court case to prove fraud. ).

Anything you write on the Internet is up for grabs. You can’t hide it and you can’t delete it. The LCF saga above has involved copious use of screen shots, and Internet utilities to prove that deleted posts and WebPages were in fact in existence.

The post that sparked this off is still available in cache. If anyone really wanted to sue me for it – they can get at it. They can also get at posts in the PM system. (That was shown quite clearly on “another emigration forum”. Nothing you write on the Internet is private. It never has been. Your emails are not private. Your web browsing is not private. It has always been the case that you should not write untrue statements. For a start – it’s called lying before its called libel.

Freedom of speech is one thing (and slander can be the way forward with that if someone so wished) but putting a person's website in jeopardy because of a thoughtless post is a totally different matter.

AFAIK(with very limited legal knowledge), we have never had complete freedom of speech. I am not allowed and never have been allowed to say everything I may think, unless I’m prepared to defend it in court. Even then – im pretty sure there are limits on what I can say.

However, claiming that “thoughtless” posts may put this website in jeopardy is just plain scare mongering. A little perspective is needed here. The post was NOT thoughtless. It was not untrue and it in NO WAY put this forum in jeopardy. It didn’t even put me in Jeopardy. It was a post answering a flippin question – of which I have made hundreds. I put a lot of thought and effort into the finance posts I write. I don’t give a toss if a company takes umbrage that the research I have done results in a post that is not claiming they are gods gift to migrants! – but I do care deeply that anything I say can be taken as advice by the people on this forum. If they act on it – it HAS to be information that won’t harm them. To suggest that I would post other wise in anyway is beyond upsetting. (Its also not true – and thoughtless).

I want to make absolutely clear that the money posts I have made on this forum over the years are researched, thought out and checked. When someone has found a flaw or something they disagree with – it gets rechecked and verified. I will NOT post any old rubbish that I can think of, and to be honest I am (still) offended at the inference that the post I made was in any way “thoughtless”. (just in case you can’t tell)

If you wish to be able to say whatever you like about a person or company/entity/thing that has a right of reply then fine, but please don't expect it to be tolerated on what is, to all intents and purposes, someone elses website/concern.

Like Nathan, I’m having real trouble here in seeing what the point of the forum becomes. I’m actually gutted that all of a sudden we are being asked to claim our posts as opinion in order to cover the legal obligation of the forum owner. It is the forums owners’ responsibility to ensure that this forum complies with the law. Not “tolerating” what we post about companies we have issues with – is just beyond belief.

Also, any company has the right, surely, to create an account and reply to any concerns raised about them. Maybe they would earn some respect for doing so. I’m sure many people would have appreciated certain shipping companies fronting up and explaining a few things to us all.

Sharing your experiences and your opinions IS valuable. What is not valuable are unsubstantiated statements of "fact" that could be taken up by someone and legal action be taken.

Again, the post was NOT “unsubstantiated statements of "fact"”. The post in question covered an area where the facts have been widely substantiated in the media, and in the courts for over 18 months. There was nothing in the post which could cause a legal headache. A lot of thought did in fact go into answering it – as with all the posts I make on similar subjects. Obviously this was completely ignored – but I made damn sure, that I made no specific claims about the company. But for crying out loud – am I supposed to sit back and refuse to answer a members question – when doing so could lead them to make a potentially devastating financial mistake??????

Posts which are incorrect and un-factual, are indeed damaging – but it is utterly irrelevant whether the bias of the post is good bad or indifferent.

If ENZ is now to be about experiences and opinions, then (in MY opinion) it needs to be made crystal clear to prospective posters that they cannot ask questions to which they need factual answers.

If the forum is only to be for sharing opinions and experiences – then it invalidates almost all of the work I did in answering all the money questions – because a lot of the time I was not in fact discussing my personal experiences, but had to research whole new areas that I had never had cause to look at before.

Moderated forums across the Internet are all in the same boat, this isn't an "ENZ wants to keep everything rosy" request... far from it... negative posts are a completely different kettle of fish oand have never been censored on ENZ. We are not saying "we don't agree with what you've said so we are deleting/editing it"... we are saying "we're not comfortable with a statement you've made against a company/person etc and are removing it for our own protection, and yours".

No, it was “suggested” that I stick a few “imho’s” in my post to change it from an answer which was basically information (thought out and researched), into something that is an opinion. As it was not opinion (except the first line – which with all due respect was obviously an opinion), I did not see why I should have to do that to cover the site’s patootie. As I would not comply in a way that was suitable, given that I felt the request was patently ridiculous and offensive (I.e. I took the mick), the entire thread was deleted. Not just my post – the entire thread! Which given that the only advice allowed is watered down or misleadingly positive – is perhaps a good thing.

Even websites that are formulated specifically to be negative towards a product/person/company have to be careful about how "facts" are presented to readers just as magazines and newspapers are, difference is we don't have an editor and members publish live...

As it has always been.

Companies have ALWAYS kept an eye on the forums. We knew this three years ago when (insert UK Company) told us that they were aware of the problems with (insert the usual NZ suspect). This is nothing new.

Basically, as the forum becomes more popular (due to the posters – is anyone else getting the irony here??) we are now being told that what we write in answer to peoples questions has to be kept with in certain limits to avoid upsetting them, and drawing undue attention to the forum.

If anyone needs help or advice on money, budgets, finance or anything associated, then please feel free to PM with your email address and I will do my best to help, privately – so as not to cause any further grief to the site.

It is indeed sad that it has come to this. :(

[Moorf]

but with no acknowledgment of what set it off

Avalon - you know full well that you alone did not set this off. Your particular post was simply the one that meant the topic needed airing, and it has been.

You were asked, by the site owner, to please moderate your own post. You didn't and you decided to take umbrage and posted a sarcastic and begrudging reply that excerbated the matter. That post / thread was subsequently removed by the site owner because you did not do as the site owner kindly requested.

I'm sorry that you feel that way Av, (you know that) but sometimes we all have to just do as we're asked and, as this site isn't yours, or mine, we're all beholden to that.... was it really that bad that you were asked to insert IMHO or words to that effect into the post?? It changed it in no way except to ensure the reader knew the status of the information. So, instead of letting people read what you'd experienced for the sake of inserting four letters you won't bother? Is that really all this boils down to at the end of a very (long) day?

[Moorf]

BTW - When I talked about a thoughtless post I wasn't referring to the fact that the person posting was thoughtless in a disparaging way - I meant it as in "careless" or without thought for legalities, not without thought to forumites...

[swissmissdesigner]

Avalon: excellent thoughts !!

[Moorf]

No, it was “suggested” that I stick a few “imho’s” in my post to change it from an answer which was basically information (thought out and researched), into something that is an opinion

Again, you had absolutely NO problem with sticking in quite a few "this is just my opinion" references (in bold, no less) when you introduced your information and opinions on your excellent thread regarding money - a thread which has remained on the site for a long, long time, been promoted as a sticky and been voted on as very helpful and which hasn't been interfered with by ENZ...

http://www.emigratenz.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9357

[ENZ]

Moorf has known for some time that companies are reading what our members are saying about them.

Members have contacted me this year because their posts had been read by companies and they thought it in their own best-interests that I should remove the posts.

So, as Moorf says, please be careful about what you post. You could find yourself being chased.

The disagreement with Avalon prompted Moorf to air more openly a subject that we have been aware of for a few months.

What I’m saying below isn’t about the discussion with Avalon, but is general guidance for future posts. If it’s ignored, you can expect that your post will be moderated in some way.

General Guidance
It would appear to be the case that I have shared legal responsibilty for what you write about companies and people. I don't think this is entirely fair, but there you are. Given that I don’t personally have time to research the background of what you write, I’d request that you please be circumspect.

What do I mean by circumspect? If you are talking about a company or individual, as Ellon Melon said above, take a breath before you post ..if you're seeing red maybe posting isn’t the best idea.

A factual statement such as: “This company promised in writing that delivery would take six weeks and in fact it took six months” is good. It’s factual, you have written proof of its accuracy, and it shares your personal experience of a company’s performance. People are free to draw their own conclusions.

A statement such as “This company will probably rip you off” is on less solid ground.

A statement such as “This company and everyone associated with it are crooks, liars and thieves” is on even less solid ground.

Provided the first statement is indeed truthful, it is very easily defended. The statements then become harder and harder to defend, more and more likely to go to court, and easier and easier for someone to claim damages for.

We’ll close the topic for now but if anyone wants to PM me with any other thoughts on defamation laws as they apply to internet forums, please do. Thanks to everyone who has offered their thoughts and especially to Helen (Moorf) for starting the discussion.