About the blog

This blog mainly created for My Cyber law’s assignment, to discuss cyber law cases which happen in Malaysia based on personal opinions, comments and critiques. Those contents, comments and materials posted are for assignment purposes only without profit research, and do not consist any intentionally and bad faith to hurt any parties who may involve, suffer or sensitive to the cases. For those author who is involve in the articles posted, if you found any copyright issue, infringement, please contact me and I shall remove them. Any comments reported as violation, owner of the blog has the right to remove them. Please ignore the date published as the date is just use for softing purposes.

Page 6

Summary of Defamation

Many Internet users have given a certain degree of anonymity and therefore they can write what they like without having worry about the consequences. This is strictly not ture, because the defamation act hold aurthor responsible in whatever his comment or statements whether in email, blog, forum or any materials form. As long as the statement is published to a third party.

Defamation act say a person is guilty if that person damaging the reputation of another by means of false and injurious communication that expose victim to contempt, ridicule or social hatred.

Defamation can be found if the statement below are found not true
  1. Negative criticisms or attacks on a person's pofessional character or standing;
  2. Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
  3. Allegations that a person is inflected with a sexually transmitted disease;
  4. Allegations that the person has committed a crime or moral turpitude;
Defamation is an weapon where it could cause the victim suffer in many way, suffer in physically and mentality when social hatred, suffer in losing his business as defamtion can  deter third party from associating or dealing with the victim.

Online defamatory can be spread wider as everyone is possibility to reach that statement.

Online Defamatory Case: Trevor Cullen vs Bill White

Dr Trevor Cullen, an Austrialian academic sued Bill White, a resisdent of the US for defamatory statement in over 60 "hate sites" hosted outside Australia. A statement defame Cullen was a pedophilia and a fraud.

As a result, the court ask the respondent to pay the damages. The court also stated that the act of defamation has become wide-spread as million of people can access to the websites even the respondent is in US while the complainant is in Aus.

Email Defamatory Case: Ross and Barrick Gold vs Pat Holley

The defendent Pat Holley sent emails over the internet to over 30 people, sending the statement that disparaged the Plaintiff in her profession. The defamation imputed dishornesty and reprehensible conduct on the part of the Plaintiff in her activities as an archeologist and scolar.

The court said that use an email is clearly powerful than sending out of multiple of hardcopy letters defaming the plaintiff.

Bulletin Board Defamatory Case: Rindoz vs Hardwick

The Defendant was the administrator of the DIALx science anthropology computer bulletin board. The Plaintiff was an academic and anthropologist. He was denied tenure at the University. Hardwick posted a statement on the BB, implying that Rindos had engaged in sexual activity with a minor and that his academic reputation was based "on his ability to berate and bully all and sundry" rather than appropriate research.
The Court noted that the bulletin board was globally accessible by over 23,000 people. Hardwick failed to justify his comments.
Newgroup Defamatory Case: Brown, O'Brien vs Domainz

Domainz provided a newsgroup as a discussion forum for members. Email posted to that list was also publicly accessible via their website.  An ISP director by the name of Alan Brown, posted vehement messages criticising Domainz chief executive O'Brien, including calls for investigation by the serious fraud squad.
Brown continued to post the defamatory statements even after O'Brien's lawyers requested an apology. Brown relied on the defences of truth and qualified privilege. He argued that the forum was set up to promote healthy discussion and that he had not been motivated by malice.
However, the court found that O’Brien had established the elements of defamation and Brown was ordered to pay O'Brien damages.
Social Networking groups Defamatory Case: Murray vs Friends Reunited

Retired UK teacher Jim Murray was successful in a defamation action over defamatory comments posted on the Friends Reunited site by former pupil Jonathan Spencer. Friends Reunited deleted the comments after Murray was alerted by friends but refused to apologise for the remarks.
Comments on Forum Defamatory Case: Robertson vs Newsquest

Former NATO secretary general Lord Robertson sued Newsquest, publisher of the Glasgow Sunday Herald, in 2003 over a message posted on its readers' forum website. The message featured a false allegation that Robertson was responsible for the 1996 Dunblane homicides. The litigation was settled when he accepted an offer of £25,000 damages, legal expenses and an apology. Publishers were advised to more closely monitor their online fora.



Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)