ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

Today I have just received a protest from a legal counsel for some of the posts on a company. I personally think it is 'somewhat' defamatory, and deleted the posts and banned the members for a week.

If we'll ever receive the protest again from a legal counsel, I hope that I can seek legal counsel from forumers before I take action.

Anyone willing to help ? Thanks.

(22-02-2012, 03:01 PM)cyclone Wrote: [ -> ]Today I have just received a protest from a legal counsel for some of the posts on a company. I personally think it is 'somewhat' defamatory, and deleted the posts and banned the members for a week.

If we'll ever receive the protest again from a legal counsel, I hope that I can seek legal counsel from forumers before I take action.

Anyone willing to help ? Thanks.

Is it possible to post the legal letter so that it can serve as a marker in all future postings by forummers to ensure that they be careful in their postings.

Hi all,
Just to add on to what Cyclone has said.

Unfortunately, none of us Moderators and Admin have any legal training or expertise, therefore we took the safest course of action with complying with the requests as detailed in the legal counsel's letter of protest.

My personal worry now is that forummers practice self-censorship to the point where the forum loses its spirit of open sharing thoughts and ideas with regards to investing and the forum ends up as being nothing more than a collection of articles from the web. And please remember that as Admin and Moderators of the forum, we will be the ones liable for any thoughts, opinions shared on the site, hence we seek everyone's cooperation to help make the forum a sustainable one.

We intend to keep the forum as it has been- a place for sharing of thoughts and ideas regarding Investing; and free and open to all as long as forummers abide by the Terms of Agreement presented when signing up. As such, the most viable option would be to have any member who has legal knowledge and expertise to help us out should the need arise.

Please also suggest how we could have handled this better. That will be most welcome.

---

(22-02-2012, 03:19 PM)Jacmar Wrote: [ -> ]Is it possible to post the legal letter so that it can serve as a marker in all future postings by forummers to ensure that they be careful in their postings.

The letter was marked 'Confidential and Without Prejudice', as such I think we'll not be able to post it here. If we do manage to get someone with legal expertise to advise otherwise, we'll gladly share it.

while i am not legally trained, legal matters on the paper always attracted my attention

In Singapore, the onus is on the defendent and not the plaintiff to prove that the comment is not defamatory unlike in other countries. Defamatory is judged based on the impact and damage caused. This is the definition of defamation:

"if it tends to (i) lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or (ii) cause the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided; or (iii) expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt or ridicule. "

The best defence against defamation will be for the defence to prove that the statement in question is factual. This is how SPH fends off NKF and counter-sue them instead. it does not matter if it hurts a person's reputation so long as it is indeed true.

Exception will be unless the comment is made with malice, which is with the intention to cause damage or controversy. Or in another case, if the statement was made recklessly without regard to whether it is true or not.

"The gravity of the statement, the standing of the plaintiff, the extent of the publication and the effect of the publication on the plaintiff are factors to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the quantum of the damages. The court also takes into account the intended deterrent effect against the defendant."

If the defamation suit succeeded, damage can be mitigated by offering an apology and an undertaking not to republish it.

As for moderator, so long as they prove that they were not negligent in the issue

Anyway, if the person is vested in that particular company, it makes no sense to make defamatory comment on it unless you want the share price to go lower so as to accumulate.

For the future, maybe the administrator want to restrict viewing right of companies to members only while keeping the other segment open to public view. In this case, damage can be mimimized by the fact of limited damage since we only have 700+ members and only a few are vested.

still better to consult a lawyer on this matter

Mmmm.... not a lawyer.

how about we move/establish valuebuddies website overseas? we are just a forum, an open one no doubt, so we actually value different ideas and such....

Let's look at it objectively.

Even if you have legal counsel, would you have the time and money to fight any case? Listed companies / their Senior Mgmt have the time and money at their disposal vs You (likely having to juggle a full time job as you need the income to pay bills and your bosses may not be so understanding to grant you leave of absence to appear in court).

So, unless you have the time and money, the decision is very simple.

My only useless advice (based on own experience receiving a lawyer letter for a so-called violation in our blog) is to check to ensure it's not a prank. The name of the law firm sounded funny but after we checked, it's actually quite a large one from US. The lawyer signing off the letter of demand (with proper letterhead) was also listed in their directory. After discussing with my co-bloggers, we decided to comply as we had more to lose than the counter party.

IMO, I doubt that this forum will degenerate into one of posting news links. In fact, this experience should encourage all to substantiate whatever they'd posted with hard facts and figures, rather than 1 or 2-liners that does end up sounding defamatory (I happened to have posted in some of the threads of the "banned one".)

cyclone Wrote:Today I have just received a protest from a legal counsel for some of the posts on a company. I personally think it is 'somewhat' defamatory, and deleted the posts and banned the members for a week.

When you delete the posts, we will not know what triggered the letter. I suggest that another way to deal with it is to lock the offending thread (after a final post to explain why).

KopiKat Wrote:this experience should encourage all to substantiate whatever they'd posted with hard facts and figures

If this change in behaviour happens, I would welcome it very much as it would greatly improve the quality of debate. But I am not holding my breath...

You can post the contents of the letter. Confidential means nothing, while without prejudice simply means without prejudice to their position. Look at it this way, if a random member of the street posted a letter to you marked "confidential and without prejudice", would you have had qualms about putting it up for discussion? The fact that it is sent by a legal firm doesnt change the nature of the letter.

Deletion of posts is probably the request made in teh letter, failure to comply of which would lead to further legal action. So locking the post while allowing it to be viewed is not really an option if you fear legal action - it can also increase the quantumn of damages awarded in an actual court case. (length of time in which the defamtory material was disseminated, breadth of reach etc are all relevant factors)

Just delete the posts and move on. Moreover legal suits is the game of the rich.
Sometimes it is unwise to tell the truth.
So stop telling the truth.

i'm clueless. what's the defamatory post about?