Post by ghost on Jan 29, 2004 14:00:43 GMT -5
Online defamation in postings on a forum or e-mail messages, is no longer taken lightly. Law firms are dealing with more cases these days. This will have an effect on the online 'free speech' culture. CHUA HIAN HOU finds out more.
Disgruntled people who go to the Internet or the Web to defame others, intentionally or otherwise, better watch what they say online in web-based forums or in e-mail messages, on message boards, news groups, or even on a personal website.
Online postings and e-mail messages that are ruled defamatory by a court of law can cost the defamer - the person who made the defamatory remarks - in damages and legal fees.
Also, an individual who allegedly makes defamatory remarks via e-mail or an online forum, is not protected by his Internet service provider (ISP) or forum owner.
If a law firm obtains a court order, the ISP or forum owner is obliged to reveal the identity of the individual. (See story Can't hide behind an ISP or online forum.)
A check with three law firms with specialists in defamation and technology - Allen & Gledhill, Drew & Napier and Harry Elias Partnership - revealed that they have seen an increase in online defamation cases.
The firms combined, which saw fewer than five cases three years ago, are handling more than 20 cases this year. Most of them were settled out of court.
The rise in online defamation is only to be expected, said Ms Doris Chia, a partner with Harry Elias Partnership.
'As more people go online, the volume of online communications rise, and statistically, this means that the volume of defamatory material will also rise accordingly.'
Mr Ashok Kumar, a partner with Allen & Gledhill, attributes the rise in victims seeking legal redress to 'people being more aware today of the possible damage that online defamation could cause to their reputation, and thus being more willing to take legal action.'
One reason is that online defamation is usually more vicious than the offline variety. Mr Hri Kumar, a director with Drew & Napier, explained: 'The perceived anonymity of the Internet makes people less circumspect with their words, so many people just 'let go' when they are online.'
Legally, defamation refers to the publication of material that lowers the reputation of an identifiable person or organisation. Damages will be awarded if victims can prove that this defamation is indefensible (see box story on Defending against defamation).
Usually, when a person or organisation encounters online defamation, they will bring it to their law firm which then dispatches a lawyer to check if the offending article is indeed defamatory.
'Some clients may not be able to view the situation objectively when negative things are written about them. Also, we check if the defamatory material is defensible,' said Mr Hri Kumar.
If the online material is defamatory, the law firm's first act is to stop the defamatory material from spreading.
For example, it will send a letter of demand to, say, the forum moderator asking him to delete the offending postings.
At the same time, the law firm tries to identify the defamer from clues in the defamatory article, such as an e-mail or an Internet protocol (IP) address, while making sure that this is not an attempt to frame an innocent party.
Identifying the person who is posting the alleged defamatory materials is the primary problem, as it is easy to hide one's identity, such as by using a web-based e-mail address or routing the postings through a foreign server to hide the IP address.
This can make defamation action an expensive and complex affair, especially when foreign websites, protected by foreign privacy laws, are involved. This is when most defamation cases fall apart.
If local websites are involved, the law firms have a better chance as they can get court orders compelling the site to cooperate with them.
If the law firm makes a conclusive identification, it contacts the defamer demanding an apology, a promise not to commit defamation again, as well as damages and legal fees.
If the defamer refuses, the two parties can try to negotiate a settlement, failing which the case then goes to court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSTLY E-MAIL MESSAGES
Sending e-mail messages that were ruled by the court as defamatory has cost a system sales manager about $245,000 in damages and legal costs.
It was reported in The Straits Times on April 3 this year that Mr Ngow Kheong Shen, 34, sent 15 e-mail messages in June last year to his colleagues defaming a rival company and its staff members.
In his e-mail message, the sales manager with Cisco Security Technology alleged that sales staff and directors of TJ Systems had been called up for investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau for bribery, and that the company had been barred from future projects.
TJ Systems, received an anonymous copy of this e-mail message via the post and took legal action against Mr Ngow.
The case went to court in April this year. TJ Systems won the case.
The court awarded the company and staff a total of $125,000 in damages. Mr Ngow also paid legal costs which came up to about $120,000.
THE 'SOFT' TOUCH TO COOL DOWN HARSH REMARKS
Mobile phone manufacturer Sony Ericsson, for example, worked with the forum moderators of the Sony Ericsson Singapore users' group (www.secentral.net) to find out why some users were unhappy with the company.
'Some users had posted quite defamatory remarks about the quality of the company's products,' said Mr Tony Gan, a founder and moderator of the forum.
As a moderator, he will usually make sure that 'things do not get out of hand' on the forum, by either deleting or toning down some of the postings.
Sony Ericsson staff noticed the thread. Instead of getting mad, Mr Gan was pleasantly surprised that the Sony Ericsson staff members wanted to work with him to explain how to fix the problems raised in the postings and to explain why some design decisions were made.
This relationship worked well, and 'we have become a bridge for the company to its customers,' said Mr Gan.
computertimes.asia1.com.sg/issues/story/0,5104,1577,00.html
Disgruntled people who go to the Internet or the Web to defame others, intentionally or otherwise, better watch what they say online in web-based forums or in e-mail messages, on message boards, news groups, or even on a personal website.
Online postings and e-mail messages that are ruled defamatory by a court of law can cost the defamer - the person who made the defamatory remarks - in damages and legal fees.
Also, an individual who allegedly makes defamatory remarks via e-mail or an online forum, is not protected by his Internet service provider (ISP) or forum owner.
If a law firm obtains a court order, the ISP or forum owner is obliged to reveal the identity of the individual. (See story Can't hide behind an ISP or online forum.)
A check with three law firms with specialists in defamation and technology - Allen & Gledhill, Drew & Napier and Harry Elias Partnership - revealed that they have seen an increase in online defamation cases.
The firms combined, which saw fewer than five cases three years ago, are handling more than 20 cases this year. Most of them were settled out of court.
The rise in online defamation is only to be expected, said Ms Doris Chia, a partner with Harry Elias Partnership.
'As more people go online, the volume of online communications rise, and statistically, this means that the volume of defamatory material will also rise accordingly.'
Mr Ashok Kumar, a partner with Allen & Gledhill, attributes the rise in victims seeking legal redress to 'people being more aware today of the possible damage that online defamation could cause to their reputation, and thus being more willing to take legal action.'
One reason is that online defamation is usually more vicious than the offline variety. Mr Hri Kumar, a director with Drew & Napier, explained: 'The perceived anonymity of the Internet makes people less circumspect with their words, so many people just 'let go' when they are online.'
Legally, defamation refers to the publication of material that lowers the reputation of an identifiable person or organisation. Damages will be awarded if victims can prove that this defamation is indefensible (see box story on Defending against defamation).
Usually, when a person or organisation encounters online defamation, they will bring it to their law firm which then dispatches a lawyer to check if the offending article is indeed defamatory.
'Some clients may not be able to view the situation objectively when negative things are written about them. Also, we check if the defamatory material is defensible,' said Mr Hri Kumar.
If the online material is defamatory, the law firm's first act is to stop the defamatory material from spreading.
For example, it will send a letter of demand to, say, the forum moderator asking him to delete the offending postings.
At the same time, the law firm tries to identify the defamer from clues in the defamatory article, such as an e-mail or an Internet protocol (IP) address, while making sure that this is not an attempt to frame an innocent party.
Identifying the person who is posting the alleged defamatory materials is the primary problem, as it is easy to hide one's identity, such as by using a web-based e-mail address or routing the postings through a foreign server to hide the IP address.
This can make defamation action an expensive and complex affair, especially when foreign websites, protected by foreign privacy laws, are involved. This is when most defamation cases fall apart.
If local websites are involved, the law firms have a better chance as they can get court orders compelling the site to cooperate with them.
If the law firm makes a conclusive identification, it contacts the defamer demanding an apology, a promise not to commit defamation again, as well as damages and legal fees.
If the defamer refuses, the two parties can try to negotiate a settlement, failing which the case then goes to court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSTLY E-MAIL MESSAGES
Sending e-mail messages that were ruled by the court as defamatory has cost a system sales manager about $245,000 in damages and legal costs.
It was reported in The Straits Times on April 3 this year that Mr Ngow Kheong Shen, 34, sent 15 e-mail messages in June last year to his colleagues defaming a rival company and its staff members.
In his e-mail message, the sales manager with Cisco Security Technology alleged that sales staff and directors of TJ Systems had been called up for investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau for bribery, and that the company had been barred from future projects.
TJ Systems, received an anonymous copy of this e-mail message via the post and took legal action against Mr Ngow.
The case went to court in April this year. TJ Systems won the case.
The court awarded the company and staff a total of $125,000 in damages. Mr Ngow also paid legal costs which came up to about $120,000.
THE 'SOFT' TOUCH TO COOL DOWN HARSH REMARKS
Mobile phone manufacturer Sony Ericsson, for example, worked with the forum moderators of the Sony Ericsson Singapore users' group (www.secentral.net) to find out why some users were unhappy with the company.
'Some users had posted quite defamatory remarks about the quality of the company's products,' said Mr Tony Gan, a founder and moderator of the forum.
As a moderator, he will usually make sure that 'things do not get out of hand' on the forum, by either deleting or toning down some of the postings.
Sony Ericsson staff noticed the thread. Instead of getting mad, Mr Gan was pleasantly surprised that the Sony Ericsson staff members wanted to work with him to explain how to fix the problems raised in the postings and to explain why some design decisions were made.
This relationship worked well, and 'we have become a bridge for the company to its customers,' said Mr Gan.
computertimes.asia1.com.sg/issues/story/0,5104,1577,00.html