TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
$$ FOR FB POSTS
JADA LOUTOO
Social media users beware. You may have to pay if your posts are found to be defamatory. The warning came from Justice Frank Seepersad who yesterday ordered a woman who posted defamatory statements on Facebook, to compensate an entire family. She was sued after a series of post appeared on her page in 2016.
In a ruling in the High Court, Seepersad said the words posted by Janelle Burke were “reckless and scandalous.”
He ordered her to pay compensation and the family’s legal bill, which are to be assessed by a Master of the High Court.
With no legislation to govern the use of social media locally, Seepersad’s ruling has created the precedent for other similar cases where slanderous statements are posted on social media accounts as he has developed a three-step test to specifically address the use of social media and its real-world implications.
YOU WILL PAY FOR YOUR MOUTH
IT WASN’T ME, WON’T WORK
Social media accounts must be jealously guarded just like a bank account, Seepersad advised, adding that Burke, in the case, ran with what he (Seepersad) referred to as a “Shaggy defence” of, “It wasn’t me.” Burke claimed she saw messages posted on her Facebook page which she did not post.
She said it could have been put there by anyone who had access to her account. In the lawsuit, the family claimed Burke published libellous statements on Facebook that resulted in them suffering “shame and embarrassment” as the posts may have been seen by thousands.
In her posts, Burke accused the family of engaging in incest. Her posts alleged that the father in the family was a rapist who participated in sexual activities with his stepson and daughter, while a seven-year-old was involved in prostitution at school.
The posts also claimed the mother in the family had sex with other men and women.
The family’s telephone numbers and their photographs were also shared along with the posts.
The family denied any of the other activities ever took place. The family reported the incident to the police and they also filed a private harassment complaint. Burke was represented by Adrian Thompson while attorney Glen Bhagwansingh represented the family.
Perfect examplewagonon20's wrote:And your ass is the first one to get served a summons yuh dotish mudda count!!
wagonon20's wrote:And your ass is the first one to get served a summons yuh dotish mudda count!!
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Some lawyers just found a new revenue stream!
rspann wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Some lawyers just found a new revenue stream!
If pseudonyms and screen names are used , could someone be taken to court? When someone says something about abcd let's say, who is abcd , could someone identify him ? How can he say he is being defamed if that is not his name?
I know when the police come by Duane , he giving up IP addresses real fast though.
Dizzy28 wrote:Those were some epic allegations though......incest, child prostitution etc. Serves them ppl right for posting such things.
How he dead?BANzai Rastafarai wrote:rspann wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Some lawyers just found a new revenue stream!
If pseudonyms and screen names are used , could someone be taken to court? When someone says something about abcd let's say, who is abcd , could someone identify him ? How can he say he is being defamed if that is not his name?
I know when the police come by Duane , he giving up IP addresses real fast though.
*remembers when Valpark was locked down by a badman (now deceased) at a doubles lime becuz tuners ill-spoke of his wife...went around asking "who is Advil"? ..Pseudonym owner (Advil) is then shoved to the ground with a gun to his face.
And that is just "bad man" way...you really think the law cant place a Pseudonym on you and make it stick?
smh.
I heard this story already.BANzai Rastafarai wrote:rspann wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Some lawyers just found a new revenue stream!
If pseudonyms and screen names are used , could someone be taken to court? When someone says something about abcd let's say, who is abcd , could someone identify him ? How can he say he is being defamed if that is not his name?
I know when the police come by Duane , he giving up IP addresses real fast though.
*remembers when Valpark was locked down by a badman (now deceased) at a doubles lime becuz tuners ill-spoke of his wife...went around asking "who is Advil"? ..Pseudonym owner (Advil) is then shoved to the ground with a gun to his face.
And that is just "bad man" way...you really think the law cant place a Pseudonym on you and make it stick?
smh.
$75K FINE FOR FB BAD TALK
Woman in court for malicious social media claims
A WOMAN who accused a female prison officer on social media of abandoning her children at the side of the road has been ordered to pay $75,000 in compensation for defamation. Ama Charles has also been ordered to pay the prison officer's legal costs of $19,652.
In a ruling on social media defamation, Justice Margaret Mohammed said the allegations in the Facebook post by Charles “were of a very serious nature since (they) called into question the fitness of the claimant as a parent in a society where the acts of parents with their children are under immense scrutiny, both by private citizens and state agencies.”
In an introductory passage in her ruling, Mohammed quoted from The Threat Posed to Reputation by the Emergence of Social Web Technologies by Sarosh Khan, which reads: “Social web technologies have profoundly changed the way in which the average individual interacts with the web, no longer merely taking from the wealth of content online but now actively contributing to it to a potentially large audience.
“This power, however, comes with inherent concerns in particular attacks on reputation in light of the way in which individuals perceive and do not appreciate the power of these technologies.” The prison officer took Charles to court for posting certain statements on Facebook on January 24, 2016.
Charles admitted publishing the words on her Facebook page, but denied that she caused the post to be shared on the Prison Service's Facebook page. The prison officer contended that on the day the posts appeared, she left her children with their father and Charles, his friend, before going to work, thinking her children would be safe with their father.
Some time later, she received messages and phone calls from the children’s father, who chastised her for leaving them. She also received several messages from co-workers and a supervisor at the Women’s Prison in Golden Grove, that a woman had made several calls and left several messages at the prison asking her to collect her children.
The prison officer also claimed she received several abusive messages alleging that she left her children unattended in the road, without clothes, and that they were hungry. She also claimed Charles published the defamatory message on her Facebook page and tagged crime programme Beyond the Tape, a local television station and Crime Watch host Ian Alleyne. The post was also posted on the Prison Service's Facebook page.
She said she was hurt and embarrassed by the allegations. She was represented by attorney Kalena Maharajh and Whitney St Clair. Gem Emmanuel and Elena Da Silva represented Charles.
This is not the first time that the court has imposed a fine for malicious use of social media. On Monday February 5, Janelle Burke was ordered to pay compensation to an entire family for defamatory statements on Facebook.
A woman who was the subject of the posts, sued Burke and the case was heard before Justice Frank Seepersad. The posts appeared on Facebook in 2016. Seepersad said the words posted were “reckless and scandalous" as he ordered Burke to pay compensation and the family’s legal bill.
In their lawsuit, the family claimed Burke published a number of libellous statement on Facebook that resulted in them suffering “shame and embarrassment” since those statements were false and may have been seen by thousands.
In her posts, Burke accused the family of engaging in incest. Her posts further alleged that the father of the family was a rapist who was engaging in sexual activities with his stepson and daughter, while the seven-year-old was involved in prostitution at school.
The posts also went on to claim the mother of the family had sex with other men and women. The family’s telephone numbers and their photographs were also shared along with the posts. The posts even resulted in officers of the Child Protection Unit (CPU) interviewing the family at home at a police station.
pugboy wrote:I guess Phillip alexander cant use the account hacked excuse anymore lol
The_Honourable wrote:pugboy wrote:I guess Phillip alexander cant use the account hacked excuse anymore lol
ent? He and Marcia Braveboy
le mods won't be pleased with having their ego trip taken away as they are cunumunus outside their computer rooms.zoom rader wrote:About time should also apply to tuner keyboard gangsters
Sounds like randolphinshanblack start wrote:Nice work. Seeing real plenty of these bitter, with no evidence to back up their claims post on social media....and then suddenly no replies from the poster...
It's Mainly PNM ppl that post the most racists remarks on FBRovin's Audio wrote:ent it supposed to have an authority concerning social media posts or nobody does report stuff to them ?
d kinda dutty remarks & racism i does see on fb especially when it comes to politics is disturbing ...
