I suspect that the forum in question caved in at the threat of legal action before understanding in full the consequences of trying to defend their case, which is very sad.
FYI, to challenge and win a plee for damages on the basis of any written (libel) or spoken (slander) form of defamation, the plaintiff must first prove that it was intentionally made as statements of fact and not simply opinion. In most legal systems, especially those based around old English or common law, any statement expressed as an opinion is virtually impossible to prosecute as defammatory. So in my opinion Sonic is a ...... .... ........ .. ....... ..... .......
That said, the right of free speech is NOT a defense in cases of defamation Andy...sorry.
This all covers the individuals that made the remarks in question. The harder but bigger issue is that of the media, in this case the Planet Ovlov forum. Here a defense of Innocent Dissemination is difficult to use, as they would have knowledge that the statements had been made and could therefore have had reasonable cause to assume any statements made as facts were therefore defamatory. However, the fact they they removed the information once the complaint was made should go a little way to help their cause...although that is of course no defense, neither is claiming negligence in not scanning and removing the information immediately that it was posted.
Their best defense would probably be to prove that the statements made were opinion and therefore not defamatory. A funnier defense would be to claim that the statements made were true as it is then up to the plaintiff to prove that in fact the statements were false rather than the defendants needing to prove the statements trye
However my favourite defense would be to claim that the plaintiff was incapable of further defamation...i.e. the garage in question had already entirely lost its reputation and therefore was at rock bottom and could not be hurt further for additional statements whether opinion or fact After all, it was a Volvo specialist 
which in itself (in my opinion 
) is surely a crime 
Cheers n
Si
FYI, to challenge and win a plee for damages on the basis of any written (libel) or spoken (slander) form of defamation, the plaintiff must first prove that it was intentionally made as statements of fact and not simply opinion. In most legal systems, especially those based around old English or common law, any statement expressed as an opinion is virtually impossible to prosecute as defammatory. So in my opinion Sonic is a ...... .... ........ .. ....... ..... .......
That said, the right of free speech is NOT a defense in cases of defamation Andy...sorry.
This all covers the individuals that made the remarks in question. The harder but bigger issue is that of the media, in this case the Planet Ovlov forum. Here a defense of Innocent Dissemination is difficult to use, as they would have knowledge that the statements had been made and could therefore have had reasonable cause to assume any statements made as facts were therefore defamatory. However, the fact they they removed the information once the complaint was made should go a little way to help their cause...although that is of course no defense, neither is claiming negligence in not scanning and removing the information immediately that it was posted.
Their best defense would probably be to prove that the statements made were opinion and therefore not defamatory. A funnier defense would be to claim that the statements made were true as it is then up to the plaintiff to prove that in fact the statements were false rather than the defendants needing to prove the statements trye
However my favourite defense would be to claim that the plaintiff was incapable of further defamation...i.e. the garage in question had already entirely lost its reputation and therefore was at rock bottom and could not be hurt further for additional statements whether opinion or fact
After all, it was a Volvo specialist which in itself (in my opinion ) is surely a crime Cheers n
Si
(except a towball)
)
Comment