Some New Zealand companies don't like user feedback
Worse still, it's a company dealing in the online world. I can't even mention their name here otherwise I might get sued too.
This is the problem with defamation laws in New Zealand... Even if you are posting about something with accurate facts you still risk getting sued.
Unbelievable. These people should go read the Cluetrain Manifesto, even if ten years too late.
Other related posts:
New Zealand cell site location maps
Broadband in New Zealand according to OECD
Did Twitter really take in consideration these DMCA notices?
Comment by ahmad, on 18-Mar-2010 15:12
Oops, sorry just re-read the bit where you said you can't name this one.
Comment by Rob, on 18-Mar-2010 15:18
"Someone" could always come up with an anonymous posting which names and shames... ;-)
Comment by kiwitrc, on 18-Mar-2010 15:30
Maybe you could do using letters of the alphabet and dollar symbols for example?
Comment by Bill Bennett, on 18-Mar-2010 16:44
Defamation is a tricky law, often used by corporations to bully people. However, there are some clear guidelines.
If a statment is:
a) True
b) In the public interest, and
c) Not published with malice
It is near impossible for someone to sue you for defamation.
If you can tick off these three boxes, the case will usually be thrown out.
The problem for most individuals and small publishers - Geekzone would be an example - is the cost of getting a lawyer to write a letter to the company telling it where to shove its bullying threat is likely to be too expensive.
Comment by brenda, on 18-Mar-2010 16:49
or use rot13
Comment by timestyles, on 18-Mar-2010 17:16
Posts like this are pretty much useless, sorry, it's just tease. Post it to awesometalk.org if you want, it's pretty anonymous.
Comment by savag3, on 18-Mar-2010 17:25
I don't think there is anything wrong with the current law of defamation. There are defences of truth and honest opinion. What do you think makes publishing accurate comment on companies almost impossible?
Comment by Jason Pollock, on 18-Mar-2010 17:47
Defamation law in most commonwealth countries is pretty broken.
When you take the defense of truth, you have to _prove_ that it is true. If you can't prove it is true, then you're guilty of defamation.
Comment by NonprayingMantis, on 18-Mar-2010 20:40
I'm not sure I buy the argument about defamation.
Newspapers print made up BS all the time, yet are rarely sued for defamation.
When was the last time someone in NZ was suvvessfully sued for defamation simply for stating an opinion? I can't think of a time (and just take a look at all the vitriolic facebook pages full of crap against so many NZ companies - Telecom, Voda, Cadbury etc etc). None of those people are getting sued.
Comment by billbennett, on 19-Mar-2010 06:52
@NonprayingMantis
"Newspapers print made up BS all the time"
Can you provide an example?
Comment by NonprayingMantis, on 19-Mar-2010 10:56
@ Bilbennet
you seriously need an example?
Just buy a copy of "The Truth".
Comment by buzzy, on 19-Mar-2010 14:42
Bill Bennet said...
"It is near impossible for someone to sue you for defamation.
If you can tick off these three boxes, the case will usually be thrown out."
These two sentences are contradictory. It's almost always possible to sue for defamantion. Whether the action is successful or not is neither here not there; the ability to initiate the action ("to sue") is almost always present.
As others have said, the cost of defending such an action is offputting for many small organisations.
Comment by PaulBrislen, on 19-Mar-2010 14:48
As a former journo who used to get sued (well, threats to sue - different thing) from time to time I can tell you it's no fun.
It goes like this:
Journo writes story.
Editor prints story.
Angry man reads story. Gets angrier.
Angry man calls lawyer.
Lawyer writes letter demanding apology/retraction/head on a platter.
Editor calls media lawyer.
Media lawyer says "no worries, I'll reply that'll be $5,000".
Editor pays. Shouts at reporter to be more careful.
Reporter doesn't write anything for weeks out of fear.
Now, in that scenario it's important to have "media lawyer" type on stand by. I'm guessing GZ doesn't have such a lawyer because they cost a bucketful.
Media companies are threatened with lawsuits on a daily basis. I had one editor who used to say if you're not threatened with a lawsuit you're not trying hard enough. Either way, it's nerve wracking.
As far as defamation goes, no company in NZ has ever won a defamation case - it's very hard to prove defamation against a company. Having said that, it's a costly business to go to court and there's always a first time.
I've been on the receiving end of some nasties in my time. I fondly remember one chap who was part of a pyramid scheme and after we exposed him as such got very shirty about it. "I'm just a poor unfortunate who's been ripped off by those evil pyramid types" he whined. "You'll give me a big cheque or there will be trouble". Fortunately my editor had the email he'd originally sent us telling us what a bigwig he was in the organisation and eventually he settled for a subscription to the publication. No, seriously.
Another colleague did get sued for describing someone as a thief when in fact he was a burglar. Apparently these are very specialised crimes and a thief will rob you personally, while a burglar waits for you to go out and robs your house. He got a cheque for $5000 because it was cheaper than getting the lawyers involved.
Paul
Comment by pogostickconz, on 21-Mar-2010 22:17
Hi Mauricio ... the timing of your post is conincidental - I'm a Chch-based blogger who got threatened with being sued just last Friday - here's a link to the post (obviously I've removed the actual company's name, it's just not worth the trouble) - http://www.pogostick.co.nz/the-blog-post-that-got-me-sued.html
The owner of the company rang me (which was a surprise in itself - I get very few visitors to my blog and am pretty low in the SERPs, obviously he had a google alert setup for his company name) and right off the bat was aggressive and swearing he'd been in contact with lawyer and the other company and was going to sue me for everything, even though everything I'd stated was factual and I believe in the public's interest.
While I could argue the case there was no real benefit for me keeping the post public (aside from the principle of it all) so I hid it.
In my mind this is a real poor show in this day and age of the public finally having a voice, especially from a web company. Man up and accept some negative feedback!
Comment by MikeyPI, on 22-Mar-2010 09:37
I'm sure that Auckland guy won his defamation suit against the guy who put ads in the paper didnt he?
Comment by insane, on 28-Mar-2010 22:57
Well I'm sure FairGo and Target must get these letters all the time from companies who feel they have been hard done by, they both of those name and shame programs are still around.
I have a pretty good idea what Mauricio's blog is about and I'm sure many of you do too if you look for the censored/removed threads which occasionally shame companies who shaft their customers.
While I have no monetary stake in GZ its still annoys me that the same company in question is still using this as a platform to gain business.
Add a comment
Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted.
E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.
Comment by ahmad, on 18-Mar-2010 15:11
Any specific examples Mauricio?