TSFX Advertising

[taiga]

I sense a lock quickly.

Nevertheless, there are no grounds for defamation, critical reception of a company's services is completely legal. Tsfx provides positive reviews of its services, and it is only fair that students who have paid good money for the lectures are able to provide the other side of their experience.

Oh and if you don't work for tsfx, or are lying about your claims of talking to Head Office, it would be very much advisable that you withdraw all your statements before things get more serious. On the flipside, if you DO work for tsfx, I am very sure that as a representative of the institution, referring to potential customers as "idiots" will not go down well.

[enwiabe]

FYI it is confirmed that Cava is an employee of TSFX.

[Russ]

The fact that TSFX would (allegedly) seriously consider legal action against a bunch of high school kids for posting their own honest opinions of TSFX's work (which by the way is a defence to the tort of defamation) makes it hard to believe they have the moral fibre to do something like that.

/offtopic legal consultation

To what extent is "honest opinion" a defence? I was always taught/told etc. that defamation was saying something that could not be proven that would cause people to act to the detriment of whoever you're defaming. What's the line between a negative opinion and defamation?

And whilst I have you here, slander/libel/defamation...what's the difference?

[werdna]

FYI it is confirmed that Cava is an employee of TSFX.

As expected... thanks for clarifying enwiabe.

[taiga]

The fact that TSFX would (allegedly) seriously consider legal action against a bunch of high school kids for posting their own honest opinions of TSFX's work (which by the way is a defence to the tort of defamation) makes it hard to believe they have the moral fibre to do something like that.

/offtopic legal consultation

To what extent is "honest opinion" a defence? I was always taught/told etc. that defamation was saying something that could not be proven that would cause people to act to the detriment of whoever you're defaming. What's the line between a negative opinion and defamation?

And whilst I have you here, slander/libel/defamation...what's the difference?

Slander and Libel are forms of defamation.

Libel is written generally, Slander is something like word of mouth.

^
Heavily condensed

[burbs]

Actually, slander and libel are no longer in Australian law.
For defamation, it must be proved that:

o   The statement is defamatory.
o   The statement refers to the plaintiff.
o   The statement has been published by the defendant.

Defences include:

o   Justification / contextual truth  – a defamatory  statement is substantially true / when a number of defamatory statements are made within the same context and the plaintiff objects to one statement but not all.
o   Absolute privilege – Can be proved the material was published in relations to proceedings of parliament/courts etc.
o   Publication of public documents – for use of public interest or education purposes.
o   Fair report of proceedings of public concern – can be argued to be no more than this if it is the govt. (open to public scrutiny), tribunals etc.
o   Qualified privilege – when it is believed the recipient of the information has a moral/legal interest in receiving it, has been done without malice or spite and reasonable in the circumstances.
o   Honest opinion – expression of opinion rather than as a fact (food critic).
o   Innocent dissemination – protects those who unknowingly distribute the information such as printing companies, bookseller etc.
o   Triviality – unlikely to be harmed.

Fair report, qualified and publication of public may be a bit mixed up, but I'm pretty sure this is correct.
Source: 1/2 Legal

[ninwa]

/offtopic legal consultation

To what extent is "honest opinion" a defence? I was always taught/told etc. that defamation was saying something that could not be proven that would cause people to act to the detriment of whoever you're defaming. What's the line between a negative opinion and defamation?

And whilst I have you here, slander/libel/defamation...what's the difference?

Beats me, Monash doesn't teach defamation in its torts course for some reason...
Therefore, to........... HALSBURY'S! (the law student's equivalent of Wikipedia except we're actually allowed to quote it in essays \o/)

[145-2005] Honest Opinion
The statutory defence of honest opinion requires that the defendant prove the following elements:

    * (1) the matter was an expression of opinion of the defendant rather than a statement of fact;1 and
    * (2) the opinion related to a matter of public interest;2 and
    * (3) the opinion is based on proper material.3

The defence also applies to opinions expressed by the defendant's employees4 or expressions of opinion by other person or ‘commentator’5 which the defendant repeats. A defence of honest opinion is defeated where the plaintiff can show that the defendant did not honestly believe the opinion which they, their employee or the commentator expressed.6

[The numbers refer to various parts of s.31 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic)]

There's also a massive entry on the defence of honest opinion under common law but I can't be bothered copy/pasting it all, here's the intro bit:

[145-1950] Elements of defence
At common law it is a defence to a defamatory publication when:

    * (1) the publication is a comment as opposed to a statement of fact;1 and
    * (2) the comment is based on facts truly stated, or sufficiently identified;2
    * (3) the comment relates to a matter of public interest;3 and
    * (4) the comment is fair in the sense that it is the honest expression of the commentator’s real view.

[werdna]

Let's get over all the legalities of the statements, and admit that TSFX has no chance in hell of getting any form of damages. 

[stonecold]

Let's get over all the legalities of the statements, and admit that TSFX has no chance in hell of getting any form of damages. 

I am quivering from fear as we speak!!!

[ninwa]

Let's get over all the legalities of the statements, and admit that TSFX has no chance in hell of getting any form of damages. 

Probably not, but they could lawyer us into removing this thread like Mental Blank did >_>

[stonecold]

Let's get over all the legalities of the statements, and admit that TSFX has no chance in hell of getting any form of damages. 

Probably not, but they could lawyer us into removing this thread like Mental Blank did >_>

Uuggh, they are going to do this now. 

Can't even post an honest opinion anymore.

[pi]

Let's get over all the legalities of the statements, and admit that TSFX has no chance in hell of getting any form of damages.  

Probably not, but they could lawyer us into removing this thread like Mental Blank did >_>

That company... (enough said -to be cautious). And isn't it Ment_l Bl_nk? (as advertised on posters in our school -they didn't last too long though!). And I agree with Cambridge on this one...

[werdna]

stonecold, I honestly wouldn't worry about it! 

I'm only a legal studies student, but if I can see that there is nothing wrong with the expression of one's honest opinion, then I'm sure a top-notch solicitor would be able to see this too.

The most a solicitor would be able to do is to enforce an injunction - to put a stop to all these seemingly defamatory statements. However, the underlying morals of such a decision would go against justice... an injunction would be telling the community that they aren't allowed to express their own honest and truthful opinions on a matter of public interest!

So.. we don't have anything to worry about guys! If TSFX were a good company, they would appreciate and acknowledge as many critical reviews as they could.. and built upon their company from these critiques. It's how business should be run... actually listening to the concerns of the consumer, instead of blocking out their issues and paving the way for prospective consumers to see that it is a reputable company.. but then to realise that this is not the case. It's a bloody cycle of wrongfulness! 

[Russ]

Cheers ninwa. I still think blanket statements aren't sufficiently factual and can border on defamation but meh, not worth thinking about.
Lawyers

[ninwa]

stonecold, I honestly wouldn't worry about it! 

I'm only a legal studies student, but if I can see that there is nothing wrong with the expression of one's honest opinion, then I'm sure a top-notch solicitor would be able to see this too.

The most a solicitor would be able to do is to enforce an injunction - to put a stop to all these seemingly defamatory statements. However, the underlying morals of such a decision would go against justice... an injunction would be telling the community that they aren't allowed to express their own honest and truthful opinions on a matter of public interest!

So.. we don't have anything to worry about guys! If TSFX were a good company, they would appreciate and acknowledge as many critical reviews as they could.. and built upon their company from these critiques. It's how business should be run... actually listening to the concerns of the consumer, instead of blocking out their issues and paving the way for prospective consumers to see that it is a reputable company.. but then to realise that this is not the case. It's a bloody cycle of wrongfulness! 

Did you not see the Mental Blank defamation thread? -_-