freediver
Gold Member
Offline
www.ozpolitic.com
Posts: 48816
At my desk.
|
I try to make the rules somewhat reflective of the law when it comes to slander, libel etc. There is a general principle that people who put themselves in the public eye need to expect more and broader criticism than those who do not. Politicians are at the top of the list. You can get away with just about anything in criticising them, partly because the law supports it, and partly because they just don't bother suing people. They are too clever to waste their money, and it is bad politically. Accusing them of pedophilia etc is probably stretching it, and we have a rule here that you cannot do this unless the accusation is in the mainstream media.
Likewise you can normally get away with broad accusations against religious leaders and celebrities. Probably not to the same extent as politicians, as the Rebel Wilson case demonstrates.
This site often tops google search results for a variety of topics, so we are not flying under the radar any more.
You have to be especially careful with businesses and product reviews, as these people have a motivation to sue. You need to be honest, fair, reasonable and motivated by the public interest rather than spite. For the most part they are reluctant to sue, even for an unfair and untrue criticism, because it brings them bad press, especially if they are a business people tend to dislike for political reasons (eg Maccas).
The rules on this are very grey and largely determined by what a judge considers reasonable or normal. Case law (eg Rebel Wilson, and the consumer opinion website example Mozz gave) are probably the best thing to go by.
Please report via PM anything you think puts me at risk of getting sued.
|
Forum
Pages: 1 
