Hardcore Treeplanters

[kenax]

Sorry, just looked it up and a legal dictionary included a statement:
"Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion."
So my misunderstanding. Thought I read it somewhere that making it private makes a difference. Maybe just blocking by google.

[Scooter]

But if you have a private forum viewable only to members then no one can apparently sue you.

This comment should also be parsed. Two corrections:

1. As you have noted, it is unlikely that they could successfully sue. Successfully is the key word that should be added. Of course, even with that word added, the context is still incorrect, but you've already noted that.
2. Regardless of the first statement and the last short discussion, anyone could still sue. However, if they hired a legal counsel, that counsel would undoubtedly advise against an action. But for the stubborn, the option is still there, however unlikely the chance of success.

Interesting topic/discussion/threadjack. Carry on.

[kenax]

Also found the following:

"While forum members, for example the poster and repliers, could be liable, how about ISPs and administrators of a forum who provide the platform only? The law now seems to require knowledge of the publication of the defamatory content. In Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd, an internet service provider was held liable for a defamatory posting stored in its server as it failed to respond to the plaintiff’s request to remove the posting within a reasonable period of time, which was 10 days in that case. It was also held in Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corp [2009] EMLR 27 that an internet search engine provider is not liable as a publisher of defamatory content cached by its automatic search engines as the element of knowledge was lacking, provided that steps would be taken to remove the defamatory content upon notification by the victim.

These two cases show that persons like ISPs and administrators of a forum are not liable for publication of defamatory content if they do not consciously publish the content and reasonable steps are taken in response to allegation of defamation. Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd [2009] 5 HKLRD 641 brings a good news to the ISPs and fora as ISPs (and essentially fora also as the defendant in this defamation case was the owner of the most popular internet forum in Hong Kong) were held to be not liable for all statements in their websites and they are “only publishers when they become aware of the defamatory content of any posting and choose not to remove it from their server.” It was further held that administrators of the forum were not required, as it is financially and practically impossible, to monitor every post in the forum and determine whether the post is defamatory."

That was on
https://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/h ... Defamation
where it said that individual posters are actually liable too, even if on a private forum, but I guess they have to be proven not to be telling the truth.

[bush]

^^what a wiener^^

[TheHamsterizer]

What a wiener indeed... If this dude didn't spend so much time and effort defending the stealing of content, he could write his own content.

[kenax]

I do write my own content, bonerhead. Everything on my treeplanting site is my own content, except the comments written by others about treeplanting companies. Those are visible only once logged into the registered account and are not indexible on google. They strictly serve to offer another platform, organised in a different way, to hopefully improve conditions for planters into the future.

[dreamofcream]

...

[PlantinTaders]

Well done cream. I'd say he is a fraud, and a douche at the very least.

All these websites look like they are circa 1998, and made by a mildly autistic grandmother with early onset alzheimer's. Also nice comeback 2 years after the fact kenax. Bonerhead. So fresh.

Does anyone remember that website that surfaced about a year ago with a page on facebook? I can't remember its name but it touted to connect planters and rookies to a generic list of companies likely ripped off replant for a fee. I bet this guy was behind that garbage as well.

[Scooter]

That site was indeed run by the same person.

[PlantinTaders]

Hilarious. How can someone trying to make a living with translation businesses make so many glaring spelling and grammatical errors, while copy/pasting the bulk of their content?