Browse Forums Topics & Posts 1 Sep 14, 2007 10:54 am I guess some members must have been curious why names of indispute home builders have been masked out either by the thread owners or the website moderators.
Here is the reason. Read an interesting article in the SMH: Firm sues forum to silence critics http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/firm-sues-forum-to-silence-critics/2007/09/12/1189276778252.html In a move that could set a nasty precedent for Australian website operators and their users, a software firm is suing a community website over comments published on its message board. The firm, 2Clix, is suing the owner of the popular broadband community site Whirlpool, Simon Wright, for "injurious falsehood", asking for $150,000 in damages and an injunction requiring Whirlpool to remove forum threads highly critical of 2Clix's accounting software. Dale Clapperton, chairman of the online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said 2Clix was using the law to silence its critics. He said if Wright lost "it might mean the end of criticising companies' products and services online", as "any company will be able to demand that people's criticisms of them be deleted off websites, and if they don't comply they'll sue". ... In a statement of claim filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland, 2Clix said the comments, published in two threads between between late last year and July this year, led it to sustain "a severe downturn in monthly sales". It specifically referenced more than 30 comments by Whirlpool users, many strongly advising people to avoid the software at all costs and complaining that advertised features were not actually available in the product. One of the comments cited by 2Clix read: "The software became such a problem that we threw it out recently ... We stuck with it for over two years but in the end the many hundreds of lost hours of work and high stress levels was not worth it." 2Clix claimed the statements were both false and malicious, and said it contacted Whirlpool about the matter this year but Whirlpool refused to take the forum threads down. Wright did not respond to requests for comment, while a 2Clix spokesman this morning declined to comment. But Stickley, a senior law lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology said it would be very difficult for 2Clix to successfully sue Wright for injurious falsehood over comments made by Whirlpool users. It would have to prove the statements were false, that they were made in malice, that 2Clix actually suffered damage in the form of monetary loss and, critically, that Wright had intended to cause 2Clix monetary loss by allowing the material to remain on the website. "I don't think you could actually prove that for a web operator, that they personally intended the damage because of their malicious intention, especially when it's posted by a third party that they've got no relationship to," Stickley said. But Whirlpool isn't taking any chances, asking its users in a statement published on the website to "refrain from doing anything that might expose Simon to contempt of court such as making statements that prejudge the outcome of the case". The statement said Whirlpool, which has more than 180,000 registered users, believed the case was without merit and that it would "defend the matter vigorously, despite being a community website with little resources". Whirlpool users have already begun donating money to the site to help Wright cover any legal costs. Some claim to have donated more than $1000 through Paypal.[url][/url] Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 2Sep 14, 2007 11:10 am The good news out of this is that when Simon wins (and I believe he will) we will be able to speak freely without the need to insert **** everywhere! I have reverted to username - mattwalker Carlisle Homes - Grande 43 My building experience is here: http://www.ourgrandeplan.blogspot.com Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 3Sep 14, 2007 11:12 am OK, understood. But it is not only the negatives that are being blanked out.
I am a happy H*e*n*l*e*y customer and would like to promote the service that i have been given. I am unable to, as even my signature has been blanked out? If Henley have not objected to having their name blanked out, which we have already heard on another thread, then why does it need to be done? Shouldn't we be able to praise a job well done, and as well as constructivly critisize and generally inform our peers utilising this public forum? Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 4Sep 14, 2007 11:16 am **phoenix**
Therein ****** the problem... This is not a public forum ... This is a PRIVATE forum that we are allowed to use! I have reverted to username - mattwalker Carlisle Homes - Grande 43 My building experience is here: http://www.ourgrandeplan.blogspot.com Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 5Sep 14, 2007 11:26 am Audio Visual Dreams **phoenix** Therein ****** the problem... This is not a public forum ... This is a PRIVATE forum that we are allowed to use! I think both Homeone and Whirlpool are called Community forum. Privately owned but for general public usage. Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 6Sep 14, 2007 11:33 am Although this may be a private forum, the public still has access to it. Including the builders themselves.
So if i have an issue with H*e*n*l*e*y, i'm sorry but i won't be venting it here on this forum.....I will be calling the Co.'s director that contacted me via PM this week to discuss and resolve any concerns that i might have. (Which i don't). I appreciate that someone from the company has the dedication to contact me (one of 000's of Customers/year) to address my concerns. There are different ways to resolve issues, personally i prefer to tackle them constuctively, HEAD ON to achieve a win-win outcome. But that's me..... Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 7Sep 14, 2007 11:40 am I'll put in my 2c here.....
I privately 'part-own' & operate a forum. There are 3 of us with 1/3 shares in it. It is at no cost to any of our members, we wear the running costs ourselves without any sponsorship. Last year we had a member post copyrighted images on our forum. These weren't the actual images that were copyrighted, he had modified them with photoshop to reflect some of his design ideas. We were contacted by the large company that owned the rights to those images, and told in no uncertain terms that we were to remove them or face legal action. We took the easy way out, and removed them. They backed off quickly. I had a good think about it in the days after, and sent an email back, questioning the legitimacy of their claim, considering the forum member had spent numerous hours on his project, and hardly a pixel of the original image remained. Their response was that they own the rights to the original image, and no matter how much it is manipulated, it's still theirs. The 3 of us owners discussed the scenario that as site owners, we really can't be held responsible for what our individual members post, but we were informed by a legal expert that as owners, we have a duty to remove illegal, defamatory (unproven) or otherwise offensive material within a 'reasonable time frame' irrespective of whether or not it is an individual member, or a site owner that posts it. I can uderstand very clearly the reasons for **** the name out. People can get caught up in the heat of it, post a whole spiel, and it may get blown out of proportion & end up as a defamation case. Yes, the member posting it can be found & dealt with, but tf the site owner(s) don't react to prevent or limit this occurrence, there is a risk that they can be held responsible. Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 8Sep 14, 2007 11:52 am I am sure that everyone should be aware of Homeones requirements for postings of this nature but this would be an opportune time for them to detail the do's & do not's.
To my mind there has been a lot of instances where posters have left themselves [ & possibly homeone ] open to litigation by their comments, especially in the 'building a new home' section. Veiled postings such as M***ic*n or H*nl**y etc will not stand up when the push comes to shove. I can understand the frustration by home owners who believe that they are being short shifted, but is the forum really the place to vent their grievances. Peter Clarkson - AusDesign Australia www.ausdesign.com.au This information is intended to provide general information only. It does not purport to be a comprehensive advice. Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 9Sep 14, 2007 12:34 pm ausdesign I am sure that everyone should be aware of Homeones requirements for postings of this nature but this would be an opportune time for them to detail the do's & do not's. To my mind there has been a lot of instances where posters have left themselves [ & possibly homeone ] open to litigation by their comments, especially in the 'building a new home' section. Veiled postings such as M***ic*n or H*nl**y etc will not stand up when the push comes to shove. I can understand the frustration by home owners who believe that they are being short shifted, but is the forum really the place to vent their grievances. The forum IS the place to warn others of problems you have encountered. We rely on our fellow building customers to tell us of the potential pitfalls. There is just too much at stake when building a home not to allow us to share good and bad information about builders. It's interesting to note that whirlpool is being sued for its forum content, but then the Sydney Morning Herald quotes the forum and therefore gets the negative comments out to a wider audience and in a much more official manner. This suggests to me that the Sydney Morning Herald understands that it is OK for forum users to warn others of problems they have encountered. As the SMH article states: “But Stickley, a senior law lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology said it would be very difficult for 2Clix [the suing company] to successfully sue Wright [the forum owner] for injurious falsehood over comments made by Whirlpool users. It would have to prove the statements were false, that they were made in malice, that 2Clix actually suffered damage in the form of monetary loss and, critically, that Wright had intended to cause 2Clix monetary loss by allowing the material to remain on the website. " My understanding is as long as your comments are: 1) Statements of fact 2) Not malicious Then everything is OK. I am personally responsible for any comments I make on this or any other forum. I say this for the record. I will gladly defend my right to make comments, which are based on fact and are not malicious. Forums are great ways for individuals to protect each other from poor companies. Companies, rather than trying to silence forums should address the real problem. Companies should be thanking any feedback good or bad since a responsive company wants feedback so it can fine tune its business for the benefit of its customers and shareholders. Poor companies don’t want to improve their customer satisfaction and therefore will sue. I think that any company that sues someone for a statement of fact that is not malicious will be out of business within a year. Demolition August 2009, Construction Started September 2009, Completed December 2010 Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 10Sep 14, 2007 12:48 pm Don't forget the quick test I use to exclude unsuitable builders.
Type their name into the forum. If it comes back as ******, it is not open to scrutiny so it's off my list. Plain and simple. Only companies that allow comments remain on my list. My rule is simple: 1) If the building company has only good comments, then it's worth investigating as a candidate supplier. 2) If the building company has both good and bad comments, then it's worth investigating as a candidate supplier. 3) If the building company has only bad comments, then it's not considered as a candidate builder. 4) If the building company comes back with ******* on a forum it is assumed to only have bad comments and therefore it's not considered as a candidate builder. I would suggest that others use the same rules when searching for candidate builders. (Note, I used the word suggest, rather than recommend - wording is very important if you want to stay on the right side of the law ) Demolition August 2009, Construction Started September 2009, Completed December 2010 Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 11Sep 14, 2007 1:15 pm It seems strange that we can't spell out builder names. It helps to boot confidence or raise awareness to other members who might consider/re-consider their decision to have their house built with certain builders. To my mind, it's extremely helpful.
If we just state the facts i.e. the building supervisor repeatedly failed to return your calls, jobs run behind schedule, workmanship quality, etc. without adding in emotions or defamatory/malicious comments then what wrong with that? Of course, for your own interests and benefits to resolve dispute with your builders, you have no other options but to fully document issues/problems and take them up with the company. If they failed to resolve you would make a formal complaint to the relevant agency i.e. NSW Office of Fair Trading or similar agencies in your state. Casa - I'm with you. Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 12Sep 19, 2007 3:51 pm news updated, common sense prevails
Lawsuit over forum comments withdrawn Asher Moses September 19, 2007 - 11:30AM ... Ironically, the negative word of mouth and worldwide media coverage criticising 2Clix for trying to silence its critics seems to have damaged the firm's reputation far more than the forum threads that were the subject of the lawsuit. 2Clix sent a letter to Whirlpool last Thursday saying it had withdrawn all proceedings in the matter that was to have been heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. In the letter, obtained by smh.com.au, 2Clix accused its competitors of criticising its software on the Whirlpool forums while pretending to be customers. It did not name those competitors. Sweeney confirmed the letter had been received by Whirlpool, but it was still trying to reach 2Clix's legal representatives for formal confirmation. "Our goal when this actioned [sic] commenced was to simply have our genuine clients identified so we could contact them to help them and have the competitors false comments removed," 2Clix's letter read. 2Clix said it sued Whirlpool as a last resort after Whirlpool for seven months refused to help 2Clix identify and remove false comments. "Our intent was neither to damage Whirlpool or its freedom of speech, only to help our genuine clients and stop our competitors making untrue accusations," it said. When the suit was filed, legal experts said 2Clix had little chance of winning because it would have to prove the forum statements were false, that they were made in malice, that 2Clix actually suffered damage in the form of monetary loss and, critically, that Wright had intended to cause 2Clix monetary loss by allowing the material to remain on the website. Amanda Stickley, a senior law lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology, said: "I don't think you could actually prove that for a web operator, that they personally intended the damage because of their malicious intention, especially when it's posted by a third party that they've got no relationship to." The original statement of claim filed by 2Clix referred to more than 30 comments by Whirlpool users, many strongly advising people to avoid the software at all costs and complaining that advertised features were not available in the product. http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/lawsuit-over-forum-comments-withdrawn/2007/09/19/1189881557140.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 13Sep 22, 2007 11:39 pm Does this mean a little more freedom of speech in here Mods??? I have reverted to username - mattwalker Carlisle Homes - Grande 43 My building experience is here: http://www.ourgrandeplan.blogspot.com Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 14Jul 22, 2008 3:22 pm FYI, found this news today about this 2Clix company.
I think it's quite crazy for a company to design/sell an account software which doesn't allow you to access old data if users didn't renew their license! No wonder it would ended in liquidation... http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24056368-15317,00.html Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 15Jul 22, 2008 5:19 pm I think this proves the notion that we are actually allowed to state facts here.... Re: Why name of builders was masked out? 16Jul 22, 2008 8:16 pm ahuang FYI, found this news today about this 2Clix company. I think it's quite crazy for a company to design/sell an account software which doesn't allow you to access old data if users didn't renew their license! No wonder it would ended in liquidation... http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24056368-15317,00.html makes very interesting reading, Thanks for posting Best Price Wardrobes Sliding door robes | Walk in robes Deco panel | Mirror | Melamine 26 to 28 Cottage lane Hackham M: 0402 927 376 http://www.bestpricewardrobes.com.au Trade welcome 6 7972 That sucks! Hope it all works out. Good to move away from steel anyway for all your reasons, but it's also thermally poor. 16 13734 Hi All, I just wanted to close this topic out with an update. So we ended up agreeing to a number with the insurance company, and after an extensive amount of hand… 8 15422 |