Autonomy

Dubai broker faces jail after private name-and-shame email goes viral...

http://www.emirates247.com/crime/loc...07-29-1.469121

Millhouse

MataHari? Identical profile.

NorthernLad

Looks like the article has been removed.

Autonomy

curious - it has been removed... it was there and in their daily email....

norsk

Can still be found here..

http://www.dxbwebsite.com/dubai-brok...il-goes-viral/

I've got to say this is the most stupid thing I have ever heard of though. Slander okay, but this goes way beyond that. Only in Dubai I guess...

jackthehat

Error 404 on the Original Link!

norsk

Yes. Hence I posted a different link which works (in the message you replied to nonetheless).

Bahtatboy

I wouldn't be so sure. If the comments which she refers to on the internet are themselves untrue and result in damage to the company's reputation or standing in the community, then they are libellous. By repeating those statements and distributing them, she too is commiting libel. It is no defence that the comments are already out there: she is publishing them to a new audience (and that is her stated intention), and thus likely to cause further damage to the company.

The obvious defence is that the statements are true. I would guess that the onus will be on her to prove that they are.

norsk

I do agree with you, but the difference is that here everything is black and white (only when it suits them of course) whereas in the real world common sense is also taken into account. I suspect in the real world the company would have to prove her intent was to go viral, and not simply to inform her co-workers. Also i think the court would consider how damaging the comments were before accepting a lawsuit. Of course I'm not a solicitor so i could be completely wrong....

If you could be sued then how do anyone dare post on a website like tripadvisor....

Beakersful

A UK forum was closed down voluntarily recently after some offensive messages that went beyond mere 'reviews' for an internet forum/word of mouth driven new technology business. Initially the company requested that all word of their business be omitted, which was reasonable, as the owner stated that those not having used the product were making reviews, personal attacks were being made and troll accounts had been created elsewhere for attacks (including violent seeming threats) and the links posted in the forum. Until that point the company had been happy to see good or bad reviews posted on the forums.

With the reported case in this instance, the second business that pulled out, if being reasonable, ought to have approached for content change/update (any news online is free advertising for them after all) and be backing up the 'offender' with a witness statement. The very act of parting company with the named main business should give feeling the case is murky. These points are leading towards my thinking this is an urban myth-like story doing the rounds.

Bahtatboy

"intent...to go viral" is not the issue: if the information she is spreading is false and is likely to damage the company's reputation, then that alone is sufficient. Why should she be protected if she's only telling her colleagues? Her intention is to influence her colleagues' perception of the company, and if that influence is founded on false accusations, then she is committing libel.

Under English law, the statements are presumed to be false, and it would be up to her to prove they are true. And it wouldn't be necessary for the company to actually prove that it had suffered loss, but only that its reputation had been harmed.

As to sites like Tripadvisor, opinions (expressed as such) are generally not libellous, unless made maliciously.

norsk

Fair enough, but you are assuming that what she said was indeed false. If it was then I completely agree that she needs to be punished.

The fact that the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty is turned on its head for cases like this surprises me, but then again I'm not a solicitor nor in the habit of getting sued.

Companies have zero scruples or morals (only individuals do), so why would a company care about ruining someone's life if it could stop some bad PR. Doesn't leave it open to abuse at all does it..

I know what you are saying about Tripadvisor and you are right that it usually isn't libellous of course, but due to how the law works (guilty until proven innocent) this could be taken advantage of by the reviewed party..

The Dean

What about warnings that some of us have posted (with names 'censored') on here about certain financial advisers?

Meow

That company regularly sends out cease and desist letters. I know; I've had one.

I ignored it as they part of the company in question in based in the UAE, the website my comments were on is hosted in the UK and the law firm was US based. Their litigiousness is the reason why their name becomes this: *******

Bahtatboy

The same rules would apply regarding the distinction between opinion and fact. However, some of the language used might suggest malice, as would slagging off your competitors.

As to anonymity, I'm guessing here. But I would imagine if "the reasonable man" would know who you were talking about, then the veil of anonymity falls away. As to your anonymity, I would imagine that the courts have the power to find out who any one of us is, but only if BritishExpats.com is run by a company falling within the court's jurisdiction.