'shocking garage' thread closure

[Dangerous2]

Just so i can abide by the rules better in future.

was was the 'shocking garage' thread in News politics and economics closed?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

all we did was mention that some companies had been named in a news report.

I don't think this constitutes 'naming and shaming' because all we did was report that their names had been mentioned elsewhere.

had i written 'i paid these people [URL] to fix my car and they were crap' I would understand.

but it seems to me that 'these people listed these companies' is a factual statement that does not expose pistonheads to any legal threats whatsoever.

[GlenMH]

There is a duplicate thread running in General Gassing that is dealing with this - and will be seen by far more people.

There are discussions ongoing about the effect of "super injunctions" and potential problems for the forum about "rebroadcasting" information. IMO this falls foul of those rules.

[anonymous-user]

Glen

Without wishing to stir the hornets nest so to speak, I will quote my Dad 'I'm not angry I'm just disappointed'

Seriously though, I understand yours and Garlick, Stuart, Will etc hands may be tied with what rules come from 'on high'

But I feel the moderation of this thread, coupled with the decision recently to give a front page news article to a convicted, repeat offending fraudster, are huge misjudgements in terms of knowing your audience and the general PH ethos

[Dangerous2]

fair enough on the 'duplicate' thread (though the one closed is the earlier thread).

but why can people not post the links? I explained my rationale for not considering this naming and shaming above. It seems a shame as, as far as I can tell, the more people that know about these cowboys the better. And nobody is shaming them, just naming them. (as i explained above).

I could write here that I read a report in The Times that www.marksandspencer.com will sell you defective underwear, could i not?

I don't see the difference between that and reporting what sky said in this case...

[tinman0]

Crap moderation on PH. Who'd have thought? It's never happened before....

Seriously, which wally is in charge today? The names of these companies are all over the web today, the names released by Trading Standards by the looks of it.

Yet we're not allowed to mention it here. Seriously. Get a grip.

If there is a naming and shaming policy then why were we allowed to mention BP and the Gulf Spill? I don't remember anyone protecting TVR from naming and shaming when PH slagged them off. How about Rover? How about when a wing mirror falls off an some random manufacturer gets mentioned. Hell, better check the Computer section because people name and shame various ISPs for crap service.

Ah no, they are fair game. But Heathrow Engines? Seriously, have they phoned up the PH Mods and threatened to rape them? That's apparently their M.O. these days.

Ooo, better not say that....

[Tunku]

tinman0 said:

Crap moderation on PH. Who'd have thought? It's never happened before....

Seriously, which wally is in charge today? The names of these companies are all over the web today, the names released by Trading Standards by the looks of it.

Yet we're not allowed to mention it here. Seriously. Get a grip.

If there is a naming and shaming policy then why were we allowed to mention BP and the Gulf Spill? I don't remember anyone protecting TVR from naming and shaming when PH slagged them off. How about Rover? How about when a wing mirror falls off an some random manufacturer gets mentioned. Hell, better check the Computer section because people name and shame various ISPs for crap service.

Ah no, they are fair game. But Heathrow Engines? Seriously, have they phoned up the PH Mods and threatened to rape them? That's apparently their M.O. these days.

Ooo, better not say that....

Quite. Most disappointed at the lack of balls shown, not that any are actually required.
This mention of super injunctions is quite simply laughable. As I've said, most disappointed.

[carmonk]

As far as I'm aware the only comeback from quoting blocks of text (i.e. an entire article) would be from Sky, who own the copyright. I don't believe it's possible to be sued for repeating the contents of a news story. In fact, it obviously isn't.

As an aside, I do sometimes wonder how review sites such as reviewcentre and dooyoo manage to function.

[Zod]

carmonk said:

As far as I'm aware the only comeback from quoting blocks of text (i.e. an entire article) would be from Sky, who own the copyright. I don't believe it's possible to be sued for repeating the contents of a news story. In fact, it obviously isn't.

Actually, it is entirely possible to be sued for repeating something defamatory. That said, in this case, teh defences of fair comment, public interest and truth would appear to be available.

[carmonk]

Zod said:

carmonk said:

As far as I'm aware the only comeback from quoting blocks of text (i.e. an entire article) would be from Sky, who own the copyright. I don't believe it's possible to be sued for repeating the contents of a news story. In fact, it obviously isn't.

Actually, it is entirely possible to be sued for repeating something defamatory. That said, in this case, teh defences of fair comment, public interest and truth would appear to be available.

Only as a direct accusation. If I say "Sky reported that XYZ" it is not possible for me to be sued for that.

[Zod]

carmonk said:

Only as a direct accusation. If I say "Sky reported that XYZ" it is not possible for me to be sued for that.

it is, I'm afraid.

[carmonk]

Zod said:

carmonk said:

Only as a direct accusation. If I say "Sky reported that XYZ" it is not possible for me to be sued for that.

it is, I'm afraid.

How so? Only if there were an injunction against broadcasting the information, surely? Otherwise any published inaccuracy could result in thousands of orgnisations and individuals being sued alongside the original publisher. Indeed, in even reporting an inaccuracy you'd be putting yourself at risk.

[Zod]

No injunction required. Breaching an injunction is contempt of court anyway, not defamation.

Repetition of a defamatory statement whether or not attributed to another party can be defamatory. That's why when one newspaper gets threatened for publishing something, the rest shy away from it and don't print that another newspaper printed something defamatory.

[carmonk]

Zod said:

No injunction required. Breaching an injunction is contempt of court anyway, not defamation.

Repetition of a defamatory statement whether or not attributed to another party can be defamatory. That's why when one newspaper gets threatened for publishing something, the rest shy away from it and don't print that another newspaper printed something defamatory.

To be honest I'm not sure what you mean. If someone, or an organisation, is sued for libel or slander we always get to hear what has been said, or written. If it were the case that reported speech or extract from an article held the same penalty as the initial transgression then surely nobody would be able to repeat anything they heard on the news or read in the papers in case it was later proven to be untrue or the subject of litigation. Can you point to a case that can help me understand what you're meaning here?

[Zod]

Once an action proceeds in court, the statment is repeated because it is hte cause of action. The defendants will then produce evidence about the claimant to attempt to jutify the statement alleged to be defamatory. This is why a defamation lawyer will advise his client to be sure that he is clean before proceeding to sue.
Court proceedings are generally public.

Before the allegedly defamed person takes action, repetition of the allegedly defamatory statement can itself be defamatory. If the Sun publishes a story that a politician who promotes a Mr Clean image of himself has been involved in a drug-fuelled orgy with Gadhaffi and Robert Mugabe and the Mirror the next day publishes a story that, according to the Sun, the politician has been involved in a drug-fuelled bisexual with Gadhaffi and Robert Mugabe, the Mirror will be sued alongside the Sun.

[carmonk]

Zod said:

Once an action proceeds in court, the statment is repeated because it is hte cause of action. The defendants will then produce evidence about the claimant to attempt to jutify the statement alleged to be defamatory. This is why a defamation lawyer will advise his client to be sure that he is clean before proceeding to sue.
Court proceedings are generally public.

Before the allegedly defamed person takes action, repetition of the allegedly defamatory statement can itself be defamatory. If the Sun publishes a story that a politician who promotes a Mr Clean image of himself has been involved in a drug-fuelled orgy with Gadhaffi and Robert Mugabe and the Mirror the next day publishes a story that, according to the Sun, the politician has been involved in a drug-fuelled bisexual with Gadhaffi and Robert Mugabe, the Mirror will be sued alongside the Sun.

Right, I see. Still, am I right in assuming that's simply because the Mirror would be publishing the same story and attributing a different source to it (i.e. "The Sun" instead of whoever the original source was)? So if I posted on my blog that I read yesterday that The Daily Monkey published a story saying that Mugabe buggered a goat in a submarine belonging to Richard Branson, or I mentioned it to a mate down the pub, I'm presuming that reasonably I would not be sued (assuming the story did say that). Otherwise it brings us back to the point that no news article can ever be quoted or reported without running the risk of being sued in the event it proves to be false.

[Zod]

That's why newspapers employ in-house defamation lawyers - to make judgments day-to-day on potentially sensitive stories.