HARRIET EDUCATIONAL GROUP THREATENS SGFORUMS WITH DEFAMATION
-
u're nt credible enuf.
so pls identify urself.
-
Originally posted by Grace_tan:
If the original posts contain truth, then no need to worry. The original posters have the defence of justification, i.e. speaking the truth. Defences
Whenever you publish anything which might be considered to be defamatory you should consider whether you can establish one of the defences below. Keep the evidence on which you have based your decision for a minimum of 18 months including all drafts of the article, statements, tape recordings and notebooks. A claimant must commence a defamation action within one year of publication of the defamatory statement(s) which runs afresh on each repetition of the publication.
1. Justification
Justification means simply the truth - the defamatory statement is true or substantially true. Justification is both the best and worst defence. It is best because if it succeeds it is an absolute defence regardless of the reason for publication.
It is irrelevant whether or not publication of the material was a breach of privacy or confidence or that it was offensive to the claimant. It is the worst defence because the defamatory statement is presumed to be untrue and the onus is on the defendant to prove the contrary.
2. Fair comment
The defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest is designed to preserve the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression. In a democratic society everyone is entitled to express genuinely held opinions on matters of public interest however strong or prejudiced those views may be.
The defendant must overcome four hurdles to establish this defence:
* the statement must be comment (ie opinion) and not a statement of fact;
* the comment must have a sufficient factual basis (that is the comment must be based on facts which are themselves true);
* the comment must be one that a "fair minded" man could honestly hold;
* the subject matter of the comment must be a matter of public interest.
3. Privilege
Privilege is category of defence where the law recognises that it is better that individuals are free to speak their mind (and others to report what they say) without fear of being sued for defamation even if they get it wrong and the claimant's reputation is damaged. Privilege may be absolute or qualified.
* Absolute privilege
Absolute privilege is a complete defence and cannot be defeated even if the claimant proves that the defendant published the words maliciously (unlike qualified privilege). Statements made in judicial or quasi judicial proceedings and statements made in parliamentary proceedings are absolutely privileged.
* Qualified privilege
Qualified privilege will be a defence where the public interest in allowing publication outweighs the claimant's interest in protecting his reputation, unless the claimant proves malice on the part of the defendant. Statements or publications protected by qualified privilege can broadly be divided into two categories:
o statements made by a person who has a duty, to make the statement or an interest in making the statement to a recipient or recipients having a duty or interest in receiving it; and
o fair and accurate reports of certain proceedings, documents and statements.
* Secondary responsibility
The term 'publisher' includes distributors and printers. Although section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 protects those who have only secondary responsibility they must demonstrate that they have taken sufficient care to rely on the defence, ie that:
o he is not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, or
o he is only involved in providing a system or service by means of which the statement is retrieved, copied, distributed or made available in electronic form. This is the defence that an internet service provider (or a chat room or message board provider) will seek to rely on if he 'innocently' publishes defamatory material. However it is essential for the provider to show that he has taken reasonable care and takes prompt action, if necessary;
o he took reasonable care in relation to its publication and
o he did not know and had no reason to believe that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of the defamatory statement.
oops.teeheehee.
4got to quote.
-
how's the defamation going?
-
hey, check out the photo and bio of the WongPartnership lawyer who wrote that atas letter:
http://www.wongpartnership.com.sg/PnCCVs/manphingchang.htm
Only the bio identified the lawyer as a "her". The name doesn't give a clue, and frankly, neither does the picture.
-
Originally posted by Ninth.color:
hey, check out the photo and bio of the WongPartnership lawyer who wrote that atas letter:
http://www.wongpartnership.com.sg/PnCCVs/manphingchang.htm
Only the bio identified the lawyer as a "her". The name doesn't give a clue, and frankly, neither does the picture.
relax man.. direct ur anger at the bloody school, the lawyer did nothing wrong.. it's just business.. -
Why people create new nicks in sgforums just to post weird crap?
-
huh it all seems kinda ridiculous...
-
So, still no outcome?
-
Y dont they also sue Asia One, SPH etc leh? they also publish article wor
-
oh... then there would not be any lawsuit since that the magnitude of the forum is smaller than the media and the media have more money to compensate.
-
I am not too sure on SG laws but i dont see how you can be held responsible an internet forum cannot control who posts what and the disclaimer should cover you when people agree to being responsible when signing up for membership.
Sounds like the harriet people are... better not say actually...but they just lost more credibility by attacking a forum who has no say over who posts what and cannot read and check ever single post on its boards...
totall madness is what i find it to be. Thats like trying to arrst the owner of a public toilet because some member of the public was using bad language when he was using your toilet! You cant be held responsible for what your users say. idiots obviously they dont understand internet law.
-
dumb dumb is here again
-
Get sued already?
-
I think they will contact the user not the forum
-
Harriet continues to threaten SgForums, see: http://www.sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/372077
-
So how now ? Wong Partnership really sia soi if they end up cant do anything about it.
So, to save thier face, be prepared ... they going to come up with something.. to try n squeeze ur balls. Dun worry.. Sgf can have thier own army of lawyers!
Anyways, for defamation dont they have to satisfy criterias to lodge a suit ? lol
-
I wonder if they done it to asia one and straits time.
-
a laywer threat by an educator?
whay happens to all that teaching?
-
returned to their teachers...
-
Seems like sgclub has no problems
http://www.sgclub.com/singapore/careful_harriet_educational_89739.html
Hmmm... I wonder why....
-
Who want to fight with public? Remember T.T. Durai how he dig his own grave. Harriet did its foul deed that they deserved public critic. Public, crowd, audience has its nature some may be aggressive, some a little over-saying. But, Harriet, I believe, will not be unwise to act irrationally. It is like a soccer match and the audience, who got the applaud and who got the shout!
-
Well, it may cause some to die... but what is a dozen players against thousands?
-
Originally posted by Enrich.lynn:
Who want to fight with public? Remember T.T. Durai how he dig his own grave. Harriet did its foul deed that they deserved public critic. Public, crowd, audience has its nature some may be aggressive, some a little over-saying. But, Harriet, I believe, will not be unwise to act irrationally. It is like a soccer match and the audience, who got the applaud and who got the shout!
PR has a way of coming back to the organisation~...
Let's see~...