** IMPORTANT : PLS READ!!! **

[Achilles Tang]

Guess what?

Today I got a phone call warning me to control you guys abt your comments.

Seems like a few LFS are quite unhappy abt the sharing that has been going on here... ie. bad experiences like being overcharged, sold defective or inadequate stuff, given bad advice, being treated rudely etc.

So the issue is how do they determine what is truth? How do we determine truth and hearsay or lies? How can you and I, as consumers, protect ourselves and others from experiencing what we went through? By keeping quiet?? How do we protect ourselves and our wallets?

We, as Asians, usually do not like to confront the LFS owners directly. So we speak amongst our friends and we warn people to avoid unpleasant encounters in future. Nothing wrong with that.

So feedback is a double-edged sword - the shops can choose to improve themselves after listening to feedback here or they can choose to be upset and make things difficult for everyone here.

Likewise, when a shop gets good reports & recommendations from our members here... do they say anything?

We are all entitled to free speech, you only need to worry if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was experienced, heard or said with your experiences in our LFS, if they so happen to want to bring you to court. That is... you are out to defame them by telling lies or mistruths.

Out of court, it's a matter of looking behind your shoulders. Hee hee!

If there is any legal counsel here in SRC, I would appreciate your input on matters of defamation and damages, especially with online postings. I know my rights as the owner of this forum and I have posted the terms and conditions for use and disclaimers necessary ie. everyone is responsible and liable for the content they posted.

The issue here... where does commercial censorship lies, who has the right to determine it, should we allow it, what are our legal rights are as individuals, what are our freedom of speech rights are and what would be the most prudent course of action.

Pls speak out! For SRC!

In the meantime, perhaps it would be prudent not to name names... use code or 'vague descriptions' if you must give negative feedback on LFS experiences.

AT

[Dinosaur]

I truthly believe that if what we are speaking the truth there is nothing to worry about, unless, of course if you deliberately, with an intention try to defame another person, resulting damages to his good name. Who would want to patronise such a KiaSu LFS where pple can only talk good about them and not on feedback that is negative side

Furthermore, bringing someone to court is never as easy as what some thinks. The prosecuting party needs to make a polce report, lodge a complaint at through subordinate court, engaged a lawyer, gather evidence, attending hearing ..... blarr ... blarr.. blarr, by then many months would have past. With the time and and money put in, what will the owner gets in return? Compensation? Nope! Nothing! but customer drifting away .........

*shake head*

[Dinosaur]

By the way ........... I despise pple who walk back door ..........Kanasai

[Anthony]

[Dinosaur]

AT,

sorry to informed, if I remember correctly, disclaimer clause will not toally free you from any liability. It depends on many factors and of course case law!

Not really proficient in this area. but will try to get some supporting legal document and share here so that we can post without losing sleep at night.

[TanGo]

Call CASE next time lor..

Dunn have to complain here.. We complain thru proper channel..

Or even write in to newspapers..

[Dinosaur]

Call CASE next time lor..

Dunn have to complain here.. We complain thru proper channel..

hehehehe....... we call it protocol

[Achilles Tang]

AT,

sorry to informed, if I remember correctly, disclaimer clause will not toally free you from any liability. It depends on many factors and of course case law!

Not really proficient in this area. but will try to get some supporting legal document and share here so that we can post without losing sleep at night.

I have actually dealt with this issue before as I also moderate other boards as well.

The issue was settled between the offended party and the individual poster.

I merely assisted in helping to locate the contact particulars.

Perhaps an analogy would be that if someone sends a defamatory SMS to his phonelist... M1 or SingTel doesn't get sued... but the relevant person only.

My priority would be to protect the interests of SRC members first and then my own backside. Hence, my warning.

[DragonGoby]

Not to add fuel to fire, but I reckon that the money spent in a lawsuit would be put to better use to buy books to improve on knowledge (note that I left out "their" This statement doesn't infer that I *did* intend to add that word in though. Man, we sure are watching our backs here! LOL. ) or to lower livestock costs.

But seriously, I see no danger in this. The Forum or even the Net is just another medium of exchanging experiences or news - it doesn't differ that much if we were to meet up somewhere (SRCTSMP - SRC Top Secret Meeting Place) and do the same thing. Dino's got a point - it's more or less a mixed market structure, where consumer sovereignty forms the invisible hand in shaping market demands. I see that almost all such supposedly-defamatory comments were made with reference to some sort of personal experience - it then not without grounds, or hearsay. If it's the truth, then why hide?

Still, it would be prudent to exercise some docility in our posts. Better yet, back your posts up using evidence - maybe bring a camcorder to record unsound advice, take photo shoots of defective goods etc. (Eh, joking ah!) Sorry, AT, for having you bear the first wave of attack. And as for those concerned (You-Know-Who) - I express my utmost disgust.

[woonming]

is there law impose on net ? on defamatory .

cos i think we are just talking in general about our interest and not on a particular person or organisation ...

[Achilles Tang]

is there law impose on net ? on defamatory .

cos i think we are just talking in general about our interest and not on a particular person or organisation ...

Erhm... yes... names of some LFS were mentioned... be in good or bad feedback.

[TanGo]

So next time we go that R##%B@W or that BuK$T T$M!H MFS blah blah blah can ar?

[Dinosaur]

okie okie .. here's something I found at home. Good for a general understanding of what constitute a defamation.

Section 499 of the Penal Code states: whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reasons to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Exception (1)

It is not a defamation to express anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.

Exception (2)

It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Exception (3)

It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Exception (4)

It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation is made in good faith for the protection of the interests o the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.

Exception (5)

It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that the caution is intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

So, the magic word is "in good faith", so long as what you are saying is in good faith, you'll be safe.

[Dinosaur]

I have actually dealt with this issue before as I also moderate other boards as well.

The issue was settled between the offended party and the individual poster.

I merely assisted in helping to locate the contact particulars.

Perhaps an analogy would be that if someone sends a defamatory SMS to his phonelist... M1 or SingTel doesn't get sued... but the relevant person only.

My priority would be to protect the interests of SRC members first and then my own backside. Hence, my warning.

There is case law in England (???) that owner get sue even though there is a disclaimer clause. It depends on many factors like ........ is the clause visable to others? Is the clause made known before or after the signing of the contract ( in this case, registering) etc ……. Really cannot recall liaoz …… <_<

[Tanzy]

Litigation between a LFS and reefer will definitely bring a lot of publicity to that LFS. Business will definitely improve after the case now that everybody knows that the LFS owner is a righteous and honest person concerned with only the truth.

[piero]

Case law are very subjective are they are determined by various judges based on their subjective opinion. Like Lord Denning, his rulings are considered very uncommon as compared to other judges in the UK.. So got to be careful on who u quote.

[piero]

Here is the current law on Defamation:

Penal Code 499

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.

It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.

It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company, or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.

An imputation in the form of an alternative, or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.

No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Illustrations

(a) A says, “ Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s watch”, intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.

( A is asked who stole B’s watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.

© A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.

Imputation of any truth which the public good requires to be made or published.

First Exception.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.

Public conduct of public servants.

Second Exception.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Conduct of any person touching any public question.

Third Exception.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Illustration

It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such a meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties in which the public is interested.

Publication of reports of proceedings of courts of justice, etc.

Fourth Exception.—It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice, or of Parliament, or of the result of any such proceedings.

Explanation.

A Magistrate or other officer holding an inquiry in open court preliminary to a trial in a court of justice, is a court within the meaning of the above section.

Merits of case decided in a court of justice; or conduct of witnesses and others concerned therein.

Fifth Exception.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a court of justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Illustrations

(a) A says, “I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest”. A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.

( But if A says, “I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial, because I know him to be a man without veracity”, A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness.

Merits of a public performance.

Sixth Exception.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.

Explanation.

A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.

Illustrations

(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.

( A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.

© An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public.

(d) A says of a book published by Z, “Z’s book is foolish, Z must be a weak man. Z’s book is indecent, Z must be a man of impure mind”. A is within this exception, if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z’s character only so far as it appears in Z’s book, and no further.

(e) But if A says, “I am not surprised that Z’s book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine”, A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s book.

Censure passed in good faith by a person having lawful authority over another.

Seventh Exception—It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law, or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

Illustration

A judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness or of an officer of the court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for his conduct as such cashier — are within this exception.

Accusation preferred in good faith to a duly authorised person.

Eight Exception.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of the accusation.

Illustration

If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z’s master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z’s father — A is within this exception.

Imputation made in good faith by a person for the protection of his interests.

Ninth Exception.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation is made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.

Illustrations

(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business, “Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty”. A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.

( A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith and for the public good, A is within the exception.

Caution intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or for the public good.

Tenth Exception—It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that the caution is intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

Explanation to Exceptions

In proving the existence of circumstances as a defence under the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th or 10th exception good faith shall be presumed unless the contrary appears.

[jason]

Can we share which is the LFS that make the call.

Warn all reefer about make on this LFS.

Why is this LFS so scare of us making comments on him. He should be PROUD of his own actions.

What you do is what you get. Treat customer well and you will also be well.

Well I think next time we(reefers) should take camera with us to prove that what we say, then they(LFS) are happy is it so we can have evidence against them and more people get to know....

To all reefers we should be united or be bullied

We reefers did also encourage others to support LFS that is good!!!

(Please note there are some still very good LFS except some)

[piero]

Thus it can be seen that if comments were done to cater to the public's interest and it is truthful, nothing can be done. Furthermore, the government would be revealing a new act similiar to those in North America whereby, consumers who are not satisfied with thier goods for whatever reason, can return their purchases within 30 days. On top of that, bad service and exploitation of customers or consumers would render the seller liable under the law....

[Fishfreak]

Furthermore, the government would be revealing a new act similiar to those in North America whereby, consumers who are not satisfied with thier goods for whatever reason, can return their purchases within 30 days. On top of that, bad service and exploitation of customers or consumers would render the seller liable under the law....

I look forward to this. I long to throw dead fish, faulty equipment, unsuitable equipment back at LFSs who failed to give me what I paid for.

I'm no legal expert, but I think if you are simply speaking the truth, then there is nothing to fear. Innocent until proven guilty - and the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the guilt!

[Achilles Tang]

I wonder if CASE has anything to say abt this.

Pet shops or any shops for that matter can be liable for criminal prosecution if they are blatantly cheating/shortchanging people. Again, how many people actually bring shops to court? The majority keeps quiet and spread the word around. Only if they don't deliver the goods, or sell defective goods, or do poor workmanship etc and a huge amt of $$ is involved, then they seek legal action.

So people get pushed around by the shops, and go complain to the newspapers, it becomes a nation wide thing... the shop's reputation takes a beating... they should have settled out of court in the first place!

And what happened to the maxim that the customer is always right? Service from the heart begets good response. The fact that is why many of us consumers give negative feedback is because there is SOMETHING wrong in the first place, unless we are totally unreasonable, kiasu and kiam kana.... and we pushed the LFS sales people into a corner with our demands... however, in reality... it's never the case.

They want me to 'regulate' your negative comments, do I owe them anything. Am I obligated to comply? Am I going to put each of you through a lie detector test?

[Phewbacca]

dudes,

i know nut bout the liability thing but we wont want this site to get on the wrong side of things.

perhaps, we can just make recommendations of good LFS stock and services. those not included are naturally "not recommended".

just my 2 cents. hope all's well that end's well

we're behind u all the way, archie

[lona]

hmm..I kinda agree with Phew..

It'll be just like selective amnesia..we choose to forget to mention the lousy LFS..anyone asking maybe just reply with the code 'I don't know anything about this shop'..when we obviously do..or something like that?

[Fishfreak]

Achilles Tang Posted on Mar 6 2003, 11:51 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They want me to 'regulate' your negative comments, do I owe them anything. Am I obligated to comply? Am I going to put each of you through a lie detector test?

Doesn't this sound like they do have something to hide???

[Achilles Tang]

Come on, there are 400 over members.... let's hear what the PEOPLE have to say about this!!