Venture Era - a defending point of view.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Posts in a forum by a virtual nick is not a publication. Simple as that.
Posting in a blog is a sort of publication. Simple as well.
And in the case of chain e-mails, yahoo or hotmail does not guarantees the accuracies of the emails as well; they do not need to take responsibilities for whatever their users sent out. It's a duh. The same case for forums as well.
you can't look at it in an english perspective... you must look at it as a legal perspective... Chapter 75 Defemation act section 3 clearly states any form of communication is publication by an author... and an author doesn't only mean some who writes... it is the person who communicate...
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
you can't look at it in an english perspective... you must look at it as a legal perspective... Chapter 75 Defemation act section 3 clearly states any form of communication is publication by an author... and an author doesn't only mean some who writes... it is the person who communicate...
Do I need to reiterate to you it has been defined in the legal context earlier?
-
And so now, a casual forumer has become an author?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Do I need to reiterate to you it has been defined in the legal context earlier?
If you're refering to limitation of liability, they are not liable for the initial defemation made... but by refusing to do anything is abetting...
Penal code section 108 states "A person abets an offence who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor."
Terms and condition vs Penal code and defemation act...
-
And one more thing hor:
Application of Act to broadcasting.
13. —(1) The provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to reports or matters broadcast by means of telecommunication as part of any programme or service provided by means of a broadcasting station within Singapore, and in relation to any broadcasting by means of telecommunication of any such report or matter, as they apply in relation to reports and matters published in a newspaper and to publication in a newspaper.
(2) Section 10 (2) shall have effect in relation to such broadcasting as if for the words “to insert in such newspaper” there were substituted the words “to publish in the same manner” and section 12 (2) shall have effect in relation to any such broadcasting, as if for the words “in the newspaper in which” there were substituted the words “in the manner in which”.
(3) In this section, “broadcasting station” means any telecommunication station which is authorised by law, or in respect of which a licence is granted under any written law authorising the station, to provide broadcasting services for general reception.
Repeat after me:
Posting a few posts in sgforums alone is not broadcasting. -
Originally posted by eagle:
And so now, a casual forumer has become an author?
Yes... words don't appear out of thin air... someone must write, speak or communicate it... you are the author of your publication on sgf in this case...
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
If you're refering to limitation of liability, they are not liable for the initial defemation made... but by refusing to do anything is abetting...
Penal code section 108 states "A person abets an offence who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor."
Terms and condition vs Penal code and defemation act...
Are you now talking about the responsibilities of the person who made the post?
Or about the responsibilities of the forum for a forumer who made the post?
There's a difference you know?????
-
Get back to you later...
Now trying to understand Defemation Act United Kingdom 1996 Chapter 31 since sgf in under UK law...
But your point prove one thing... STOMP does fall under broadcasting station...
-
This is giving me a headache coz it involves United Kingdom statutes which I'm not fimiliar with...
Defemation act chapter 31
something from the act:
(2) For this purpose “author”, “editor” and “publisher” have the following meanings, which are further explained in subsection (3)—
“author” means the originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not intend that his statement be published at all;“editor” means a person having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it; and“publisher” means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business.but basicly, we have established that (1) in Singapore's case that the author is responsible for his words even if he hides behind a nick name... its just a matter of finding him
(2) as long as the forum is regestered in Singapore, it is a broadcasting station...
(3) sgforums... requires knowledge in United Kingdom Defemation act...
-
So back to the question which you keep avoiding.
Is sgforums responsible a not for such a post?
It's extremely easy to cover one's tracks, start an account and accuse, defame you, in sgforums. So if you want to take legal action, are you going to sue sgforums?
Note: I'm giving you the case where the IP cannot be traced. I would also like to see pacer going all the way to UK to take legal action there to get the IP address, then come back to Singapore and take legal action to get the owner of the IP address from the local service provider.
And hor...
as long as the forum is registered in Singapore, it is a broadcasting station...
1) The forum is already not registered in Singapore. Just because it is named sgforums doesn't mean it is registered here.
2) It is not a broadcasting station. There's no licence, not is it authorised by law to broadcast anything. A forum is a place for chit chats, not for broadcasting.
I'm really finding it hard to keep bringing you back to the point because you kept going off tangent. I shall reiterate my point:
Pacer's efforts will most likely come to naught.I don't see any reason why you like to keep going off tangent.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
So back to the question which you keep avoiding.
Is sgforums responsible a not for such a post?
It's extremely easy to cover one's tracks, start an account and accuse, defame you, in sgforums. So if you want to take legal action, are you going to sue sgforums?
Note: I'm giving you the case where the IP cannot be traced. I would also like to see pacer going all the way to UK to take legal action there to get the IP address, then come back to Singapore and take legal action to get the owner of the IP address from the local service provider.
And hor...
1) The forum is already not registered in Singapore. Just because it is named sgforums doesn't mean it is registered here.
2) It is not a broadcasting station. There's no licence, not is it authorised by law to broadcast anything. A forum is a place for chit chats, not for broadcasting.
I'm really finding it hard to keep bringing you back to the point because you kept going off tangent. I shall reiterate my point:
Pacer's efforts will most likely come to naught.I don't see any reason why you like to keep going off tangent.
I don't know yet because it involves United Kingdom statutes which I am not fimiliar with which I've already mentioned above...
But with that saying, I bet you too don't know whether sgforums could be held responsible... unless you know UK's statutes...
My previous statements were based by Singapore's statutes, so its nulled about sgforums but remains for singapore based forums...
So conclusion, I can't say for now whether sforums can be held responsible, but unless you can state whether sgforums can't be held responsible either (since its based in UK, UK laws applies), the arguement is on hold for now...
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
I don't know yet because it involves United Kingdom statutes which I am not fimiliar with which I've already mentioned above...
But with that saying, I bet you too don't know whether sgforums could be held responsible... unless you know UK's statutes...
My previous statements were based by Singapore's statutes, so its nulled about sgforums but remains for singapore based forums...
So conclusion, I can't say for now whether sforums can be held responsible, but unless you can state whether sgforums can't be held responsible either (since its based in UK, UK laws applies), the arguement is on hold for now...
I'm saying for sure and with conviction that sgforums cannot be held responsible.
It's you who is still unclear.
-
ai yo... the mohamedF is so damn lame
people post racism comments on blogs.. sg govt got sue blogspot.com meh? no. they go straight to the user.. -
damn it lah
if want to sue go get a lawyer and stop showing off all the law things. you are just trying to scare people and you failed.
-
i am saying with conviction that neither sgforums nor user will be sued
there is no strong case for defamation, 'plaintiff' is unable to prove loss, and with certainty 'plaintiff' is unable to afford legal representation
it is unprofessional to throw up legal terms just to coerce people who do not agree with you
-
Originally posted by elementalangel:
ai yo... the mohamedF is so damn lame
people post racism comments on blogs.. sg govt got sue blogspot.com meh? no. they go straight to the user..yea... but blogspot was told to remove those comments right... so the arguement here is what are the owner's liability for knowingly allow defamation to be made on their publication...
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
yea... but blogspot was told to remove those comments right... so the arguement here is what are the owner's liability for knowingly allow defamation to be made on their publication...
ok ba... den u go and sue sgforums... force sgforums to delete all the TRUE however negative comments about VE?
-
told to remove because they have the power to remove, that's simple enough
this does not prove owner's liability
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
i am saying with conviction that neither sgforums nor user will be sued
there is no strong case for defamation, 'plaintiff' is unable to prove loss, and with certainty 'plaintiff' is unable to afford legal representation
it is unprofessional to throw up legal terms just to coerce people who do not agree with you
Again the arguement here is what are the owner's responsibility for knowingly allow defamation to continue in their publication...
It not a matter of how big or small the case is... its not about going to court or not... its about does the law allow the owner to knowingly let defamation to continue on their publication and hold no responsibility...
this little debate with me and eagle is to find knowledge and the truth, not to sue anybody...
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
Again the arguement here is what are the owner's responsibility for knowingly allow defamation to continue in their publication...
It not a matter of how big or small the case is... its not about going to court or not... its about does the law allow the owner to knowingly let defamation to continue on their publication and hold no responsibility...
rmb the bitch incident? this is the kind of image VE has
-
nvm, easy to settle
Paging for RETARDED_MORON
He's a lawyer in training
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
Again the arguement here is what are the owner's responsibility for knowingly allow defamation to continue in their publication...
It not a matter of how big or small the case is... its not about going to court or not... its about does the law allow the owner to knowingly let defamation to continue on their publication and hold no responsibility...
this is easy enough
owner is not in a position to discern the truth from false news
what if you are falsifying statements against the user, and removal of these posts result in the said user suing sgforums for pyschological trauma, attack on his character etc
who pay? you pay? you will hold this responsibility?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
nvm, easy to settle
Paging for RETARDED_MORON
He's a lawyer in training
actually its easy without going thru lawyers
anyone familiar with tort laws will know the hassle of proving a defamation, proving an actual loss arising from defamation
not forgetting the legal fees
at the end of the day, its for certain that we all will talk cock sing song here and nothing wil be done
it will put MLM industry as a lawsuit trigger happy profession
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
this is easy enough
owner is not in a position to discern the truth from false news
what if you are falsifying statements against the user, and removal of these posts result in the said user suing sgforums for pyschological trauma, attack on his character etc
who pay? you pay? you will hold this responsibility?
The key point in the arguement is if the Owner knows as a fact that the claim is false and chose to allow the post to exist...
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
The key point in the arguement is if the Owner knows as a fact that the claim is false and chose to allow the post to exist...
thats not a key point
how will owner discern which party is telling the truth?