Libel and you

[Filterlab]

No. Do you?

No, but one of our clients works with them on their counterclaims, a rather wealthy and successful client.

[Alan Sircom]

Marco,

My statements yesterday were to try and prevent what was becoming a situation whereby one person libels another. That patently failed and I had to take more drastic measures, as best I could. I still hold by those measures.

However, I still maintain that you can't have it both ways. If you want a magazine to not simply write positive reviews of everything, accept that some reviewers will not agree with you. I know of no product that is a universal good and what will sound good in one system will fail to sound good in another. This is not indicative of corruption, it's indicative of all systems and all people not being exactly alike. But that isn't the point.

Exposing corruption is a fine idea. But, please bear in mind that in doing so, the more potentially damaging the claim made, the more it has to be backed up with hard evidence. And anecdote does not count as evidence. By continuing to engage in a discussion that makes such actionable and unsubstantiated claims, my risk was corporate exposure to litigation... guilt by association, if you like. I have no desire to have that happen.

Let's put it this way. Had I printed the statement you made online yesterday in a magazine, Haymarket would eventually be richer to the tune of a six or seven figure sum, unless I had a large body of evidence to support my claims.

This is not a question of hurt feelings or protectionism. If you saw someone about to take a pair of wirecutters to a connected power lead, wouldn't you warn them?

[Alan Sircom]

I'm not talking about libel law, it doesn't apply in this case. I read through the thread in question, and the comments are written as opinions and personal thoughts. For an organisation to bring legal action against a forum thread would be laughed out of a lawyers office long before we were all sued. As individuals we would have huge defence from a freedom of speech standpoint, as opinions can be aired on a public forum.

Find me a libellous comment on the thread, one that would make Haymarket actually decide to take very costly and time consuming legal action.

The statement was toned down. And yes, they are costly and time consuming. Whether a company makes the next step depends on how tightly they want to police their reputation.

Put it this way, had it been my my position so impugned, there would have been a C&D letter issued now.

[Filterlab]

The statement was toned down. And yes, they are costly and time consuming. Whether a company makes the next step depends on how tightly they want to police their reputation.

Put it this way, had it been my my position so impugned, there would have been a C&D letter issued now.

I guess it would depend on how sensitive an individual or organisation are to comments made about their work.

[DevillEars]

I guess it would depend on how sensitive an individual or organisation are to comments made about their work.

Hi Filterlab,

Sensitivity is not really the issue here.

Where an individual or company is dependent on their reputation to make a living/survive, any spoken or written words that damage that reputation have the potential to impact their income/livelihood.

So, susceptibility to loss of income from reputation damage is more the issue than sensitivity.

Audio magazine contributors/reviewers fulfil the role of 'consultants' to the audio-buying population and their reputation and credibility is what keeps them in work. Damage their reputation/credibility and their 'employability' could just be impacted. Now, put yourself in their shoes and if someone impugned your reputation, how would you react?

Similarly, audio magazines' circulation/advertising sales are linked to their reputations in the eyes of the public. Damage their reputations and their sales (and income) would be jeopardised.

Allowing instances of reputation damage to go unanswered/unaddressed could be interpreted as tacit acceptance and really screw them - so they are virtually forced to take some action as 'damage control'.

Welcome to the world of freedom of expression!

Dave

[Themis]

How can you go to court if you say publicly that a journalist is incompetent ?
Can journalistic competency be proved in some way ?

[DevillEars]

How can you go to court if you say publicly that a journalist is incompetent ?
Can journalistic competency be proved in some way ?

Hi Dimitri,

Trust you to raise the ultimate oxymoron as an example....

Dave

[Themis]

[Alan Sircom]

How can you go to court if you say publicly that a journalist is incompetent ?
Can journalistic competency be proved in some way ?

Competency isn't the issue, making allegations of corruption without substantive evidence... that's the issue.

If there's proof - allege away! But if the proof is anecdotal... oops!

[Alan Sircom]

...and that's it. Piece said. Job done.