TriniTuner.com  |  Latest Event:  

Forums

Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

this is how we do it.......

Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods

K74T
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 16562
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:01 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby K74T » June 21st, 2018, 12:05 pm

and mainly zoom rader on TriniTuner

Advertisement
User avatar
zoom rader
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13479
Joined: April 22nd, 2003, 12:39 pm
Location: Grand Cayman

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby zoom rader » June 21st, 2018, 1:57 pm

K74T wrote:and mainly zoom rader on TriniTuner
I only point out the facts

K74T
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 16562
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:01 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby K74T » June 21st, 2018, 1:58 pm

Agreed, you being the main racist is a fact. Well said buddy.

bluefete
3ne2nr Toppa Toppa
Posts: 5695
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby bluefete » June 21st, 2018, 6:13 pm

zoom rader wrote:
Rovin'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 ...
It's Mainly PNM ppl that post the most racists remarks on FB


And UNC people dressed up as PNM.

redmanjp
Trying to catch PATCH AND VEGA
Posts: 6297
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 11:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby redmanjp » June 23rd, 2018, 12:07 am

What if Govt Ministers decide to do the same thing anytime they are criticized for non performance though?

User avatar
zoom rader
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13479
Joined: April 22nd, 2003, 12:39 pm
Location: Grand Cayman

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby zoom rader » June 23rd, 2018, 12:35 am

K74T wrote:Agreed, you being the main racist is a fact. Well said buddy.
A racist?
Pointing out how people live or behave is not racist.

Who wears pants on their knees and bartex showing out, ent it's koolee ppl?

Who is child fadda and mudda, koolee ppl?

Jail full ah who, koolee ppl?

Power neck ppl is koolee ppl?

Holding a black bottle all night long is koolee ppl?

User avatar
INHUMAN
Riding on 17's
Posts: 1495
Joined: April 29th, 2014, 12:51 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby INHUMAN » June 24th, 2018, 1:21 am

zoom rader wrote:
K74T wrote:Agreed, you being the main racist is a fact. Well said buddy.
A racist?
Pointing out how people live or behave is not racist.

Who wears pants on their knees and bartex showing out, ent it's koolee ppl?

Who is child fadda and mudda, koolee ppl?

Jail full ah who, koolee ppl?

Power neck ppl is koolee ppl?

Holding a black bottle all night long is koolee ppl?
Some ppl can't stand the sad truths of reality bai. Crime and weave sales are at an all time low as well.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
punchin NOS
Posts: 4049
Joined: May 15th, 2012, 4:24 pm
Location: Magrathea

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby Slartibartfast » June 26th, 2018, 2:01 pm

zoom rader wrote:Who wears pants on their knees and bartex showing out, ent it's koolee ppl?

Who is child fadda and mudda, koolee ppl?

Jail full ah who, koolee ppl?

Power neck ppl is koolee ppl?

Holding a black bottle all night long is koolee ppl?
Image

User avatar
hydroep
punchin NOS
Posts: 3466
Joined: February 4th, 2007, 9:16 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby hydroep » October 5th, 2018, 12:54 am

Another one...

Libel on Facebook: Ex-member to pay $.2m in damages to church
Leah Sorias 2 hrs ago

A former member of a Chaguanas church has been ordered by the High Court to pay $250,000 in damages after she made defamatory statements about the institution, calling it a “killer cult”, a “graveyard for babies” and that members were involved in witchcraft.

The matter was filed against Sapphire Carter by Prophetic Missions International, and was heard before High Court Master Martha Alexander.
Get caught up with news from the news leader

Prophetic Missions, founded by Dr Leslie Rogers in 1998, is headquartered in Chaguanas and has local, regional and international branches. According to ruling, Carter was a member of the church for five years and left sometime in 2015. She also performed household duties for Rogers.


https://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/local/libel-on-facebook-ex-member-to-pay-m-in-damages/article_878adc5c-c83e-11e8-88e8-b3a086c0f288.html

User avatar
The_Honourable
punchin NOS
Posts: 3615
Joined: June 14th, 2009, 3:45 pm
Location: Land of Stupidity and Corruption

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby The_Honourable » October 5th, 2018, 1:55 am

*receives $250,000*

NOW we can forgive her.

User avatar
MaxPower
18 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2305
Joined: October 31st, 2010, 2:37 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby MaxPower » October 5th, 2018, 4:59 am

Hahah

User avatar
maj. tom
punchin NOS
Posts: 4199
Joined: March 16th, 2012, 10:47 am
Location: Zoo Station

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby maj. tom » October 5th, 2018, 6:31 am

They moving like the bs church of Scientology. Can't stand up to any sort of criticism, and sue anyone who publicly disagrees with doctrine.

vaiostation
Chronic TriniTuner
Posts: 591
Joined: January 5th, 2017, 9:22 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby vaiostation » October 5th, 2018, 7:01 am

Boi, just this week some lady call meh and say I take she pictures of Instagram and post it up in a WhatsApp group, and saying that I say all kinda defamatory things about her...

Well for
1, I not on Instagram,
2, I not on part of any WhatsApp groups,
3, my number that she was quoting from the WhatsApp app group, don't even have a WhatsApp account.
4, just cause someone people sayin mean things about ya, you hadda go out ya way to call a stranger an tell them to stop...

rspann
Trying to catch PATCH AND VEGA
Posts: 6967
Joined: June 25th, 2010, 10:23 pm
Location: San Juan

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby rspann » October 5th, 2018, 7:12 am

I hope they say that money is the root of all evil, don't let money be everything, and turn the other cheek.

Btw, that is not the mad woman who post thing here about neighbours in Cashew Gardens who kidnap somebody?

User avatar
gastly369
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 7405
Joined: May 15th, 2009, 4:40 pm
Location: trinidad
Contact:

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby gastly369 » October 5th, 2018, 7:24 am

vaiostation wrote:Boi, just this week some lady call meh and say I take she pictures of Instagram and post it up in a WhatsApp group, and saying that I say all kinda defamatory things about her...

Well for
1, I not on Instagram,
2, I not on part of any WhatsApp groups,
3, my number that she was quoting from the WhatsApp app group, don't even have a WhatsApp account.
4, just cause someone people sayin mean things about ya, you hadda go out ya way to call a stranger an tell them to stop...
Most likely a thot looking for attention...the usual trini on insta....

Musical Doc
3NE 2NR for life
Posts: 167
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 7:59 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby Musical Doc » October 5th, 2018, 8:52 am

You should check an see if somebody else using the number for whatsapp even though it is your number. it is possible

User avatar
Dizzy28
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 9079
Joined: February 8th, 2010, 8:54 am
Location: People's Republic of Bananas

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby Dizzy28 » October 5th, 2018, 9:04 am

Can't even call a cult a cult anymore!!! What is Trinidad coming too??

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 21516
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: trying to make a cinco-moti sandwich

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby MG Man » October 5th, 2018, 9:11 am

this mean I cya call allyuh tuntun anymore?

User avatar
sMASH
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11430
Joined: January 11th, 2005, 4:30 am

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby sMASH » October 5th, 2018, 11:37 am

only the rich ones.

User avatar
hydroep
punchin NOS
Posts: 3466
Joined: February 4th, 2007, 9:16 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby hydroep » February 7th, 2019, 11:30 am

Online posters will be sued for defamatory posts
Carol Matroo

There are no special favours for social media posters who post photos, letters or any kind of defamatory matter as they will face the same disciplinary action as journalists and media houses.

Justice Kathy Ann Waterman-Latchoo said people tended to value their reputation the most and anyone posting anything defamatory or breaching any confidence on social media could land in hot water.

Waterman-Latchoo was one of several speakers at Tuesday’s symposium to discuss “Freedom, Facts and Fake News: Straddling Media Communications in the 21st Century” at the Radisson Trinidad, Port of Spain.

“You get no special dispensation, no favours, no exceptions when you defame someone on Facebook instead of in the newspaper, on the radio or television. Defamation is words which tend to lower someone in the estimation of right thinking members of society. Tweeting that a politician is corrupt, a teacher is a sexual predator or a woman is an unfit mother will get you in hot water the same temperature as if you publish the accusation in traditional media.”

Waterman-Latchoo said bloggers, Instagram gurus and Facebook activists of any category have to abide by the law just like journalists or any other citizen.

She said the person who posted the material was the publisher and if it was defamatory, he or she was liable to be sued as soon as the material was accessed and read. She said forwarding an email that made harmful allegations about someone made the person liable to be sued for defamation.

Newspapers which carried articles on their website as well as the actual paper which allowed readers to post defamatory comments will be held responsible.

“The one thing people tend to value the most is their reputation. It has always been a bad thing to bad mouth people. Before Twitter and Facebook it has always been a bad thing. The advent of social media is the bad things can go viral in seconds and spread internationally. People also tend to be much looser on social media and the same thing they might not write in a letter to the editor of a newspaper.”

Waterman-Latchooo said while freedom of speech was guaranteed by the Constitution, it did not give people the licence to make unfounded statements on others.

She said while there was no immunity for social media users there were some differences in courts for defamation suits involving social media.

“When bad things are published in a newspaper it is really easy to know who to sue-- the newspaper and the person who wrote it. But when bad things are published in social media can you easily identify who that is? Social media accounts must be jealously guarded same as a bank account. The holder of a social media account must be held accountable for what is published there. Proof of ownership of an account in the absence of any evidence as to the IT address of the user can be established.” She said calling something a liar, thief or corrupt was libel, and so to was using innuendo.

“Readers are smart, they can read the innuendo.”

Advertisements, effigies and paintings and calypsoes can also be libellous.

“I don’t know of any case of anybody successfully suing about a defamatory calypso. It is not because they had immunity, but perhaps because of our cultural tolerance. And you know if you take them to court they will sing about you again next year.”

Waterman-Latchoo said a person had the right to express him/herself, but there were certain boundaries. She said there are certain defences available, but it was a balancing act.

Justification of truth was one, but was not easy to support without facts. Privilege meant whatever was said in court and Parliament can be reported. Also, if a journalist made an error but could show that he had done due diligence, the law could offer some protection.

Unintentional defamation, innocent dissemination and consent, apology and limitation were also defences that could be used. She said besides defamation, people can be sued for contempt of court which included predicting the outcome of a case, commenting on an active case, publishing a confession and using photos when identification was an issue.

She said there was also breach of confidence where while the words were not defamatory, the material was obtained and published in a breach of confidence. This included publishing trade secrets, medical reports, financial information, spousal communication and revenge porn.


https://newsday.co.tt/2019/02/07/bloggers-will-be-sued-for-defamatory-posts/

User avatar
teems1
Shifting into 6th
Posts: 2169
Joined: March 15th, 2007, 4:44 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby teems1 » February 7th, 2019, 11:47 am

If someone gets your password and makes post on your account, you're still going to be on the hook?

I can see the main defense being I lost my phone, it has no screen lock and somebody used it to make those posts.

If you can't prove definitively that I made the post, how can I be liable?

User avatar
hydroep
punchin NOS
Posts: 3466
Joined: February 4th, 2007, 9:16 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby hydroep » February 7th, 2019, 11:59 am

^Well, in the case cited in the opening post of this thread the defendant claimed her account was hacked and the judge still buss she throat.

I suppose you would have to prove your account was hacked if using that as a defense, and if you were just negligent (e.g. not locking your machine before stepping away) that's on you — hence the " Social media accounts must be jealously guarded same as a bank account" statement.

User avatar
teems1
Shifting into 6th
Posts: 2169
Joined: March 15th, 2007, 4:44 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby teems1 » February 7th, 2019, 12:33 pm

hydroep wrote:^Well, in the case cited in the opening post of this thread the defendant claimed her account was hacked and the judge still buss she throat.

I suppose you would have to prove your account was hacked if using that as a defense, and if you were just negligent (e.g. not locking your machine before stepping away etc.) that's on you — hence the " Social media accounts must be jealously guarded same as a bank account" statement.


So the courts who are unwilling to take video evidence from CCTVs as they are unreliable, have no problem handing down a verdict when there is no definitive proof that someone made a libelous post on Facebook?

What most people call "being hacked" is that they left their browser logged in etc.

There are some legitimate hacks whereby some poorly coded site has their userbase email/unencrypted password stolen. The hacker then use the email and pw in FB, as it is quite common for people to reuse a password across multiple sites.

Moral of the story, if you want to call someone a kant on fb or even tuner, create a throwaway account for it.

redmanjp
Trying to catch PATCH AND VEGA
Posts: 6297
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 11:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby redmanjp » February 7th, 2019, 1:52 pm

teems1 wrote:
hydroep wrote:
Moral of the story, if you want to call someone a kant on fb or even tuner, create a throwaway account for it.


so Duane handing over real names/IPs of users in those cases?

and what if Govt Ministers decide to now sue anyone who criticizes them?

bluefete
3ne2nr Toppa Toppa
Posts: 5695
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby bluefete » February 7th, 2019, 2:46 pm

Nazi Germany here we come.

So a parliamentarian can get up in Parliament and defame me and I will have no recourse to the courts because his/her speech is privileged and protected.

But if I call the same parliamentarian a liar (based on evidence), I could make a jail. But if I say he/she is a "stranger to the truth", then I am okay.

All of us who value freedom of expression better watch out.

That judge sounds like a mouthpiece for the government.

hydroep wrote:
Online posters will be sued for defamatory posts
Carol Matroo

Defamation is words which tend to lower someone in the estimation of right thinking members of society. Tweeting that a politician is corrupt, a teacher is a sexual predator or a woman is an unfit mother will get you in hot water the same temperature as if you publish the accusation in traditional media.”

Newspapers which carried articles on their website as well as the actual paper which allowed readers to post defamatory comments will be held responsible.

She said calling something a liar, thief or corrupt was libel, and so to was using innuendo.

“Readers are smart, they can read the innuendo.”

Advertisements, effigies and paintings and calypsoes can also be libellous.

Waterman-Latchoo said a person had the right to express him/herself, but there were certain boundaries.

She said there was also breach of confidence where while the words were not defamatory, the material was obtained and published in a breach of confidence. This included publishing trade secrets, medical reports, financial information, spousal communication and revenge porn.

redmanjp
Trying to catch PATCH AND VEGA
Posts: 6297
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 11:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby redmanjp » February 7th, 2019, 2:50 pm

innuendo is libel? home come it doh have ah string of calypsonians getting sued?

User avatar
Dizzy28
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 9079
Joined: February 8th, 2010, 8:54 am
Location: People's Republic of Bananas

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby Dizzy28 » February 7th, 2019, 2:54 pm

Using "It is alleged" don't insure you against defamation anymore?

bluefete
3ne2nr Toppa Toppa
Posts: 5695
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby bluefete » February 7th, 2019, 3:00 pm

I was looking for Lambie's Funeral but could not find it.

Go straight to 3:05





redmanjp wrote:innuendo is libel? home come it doh have ah string of calypsonians getting sued?

User avatar
hydroep
punchin NOS
Posts: 3466
Joined: February 4th, 2007, 9:16 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby hydroep » March 17th, 2019, 7:17 am

Follow up to the case mentioned above:

Pastor awarded $430,000 in damages for FB post
Joel Julien
Sun Mar 17 2019


A pas­tor has been award­ed more than $430,000 by the High Court for the dam­ages he suf­fered as a re­sult of sev­er­al defam­a­to­ry Face­book posts by a for­mer mem­ber of the church.

In a 15-page or­der by High Court Mas­ter Martha Alexan­der, Sap­phire Carter has been or­dered to pay dam­ages to Dr Leslie Rogers, leader and founder of Prophet­ic Mis­sions In­ter­na­tion­al (PMI), while Sun­shine Pub­lish­ing Com­pa­ny, which print­ed a sto­ry aris­ing from Carter’s claims, was or­dered to pay the pas­tor $350,0000 in dam­ages.

Carter, who was al­so sued by PMI, was al­so or­dered to pay the church $250,000 in ag­gra­vat­ed and ex­em­plary dam­ages in a case which con­clud­ed last Oc­to­ber.

“It is bet­ter some­one takes a gun and shoots you, be­cause defama­tion of char­ac­ter is much worse than that,” Rogers said in an emo­tion­al in­ter­view af­ter the High Court rul­ing.

He took le­gal ac­tion against Carter af­ter she took to so­cial me­dia and com­pared him to re­li­gious cult leader Jim Jones who ini­ti­at­ed a mass sui­cide and mass mur­der in Guyana, in the 1970s.

PMI, based at Ram­saran Street, Ch­agua­nas, start­ed op­er­at­ing here in 1998 and ex­pand­ed lo­cal­ly, re­gion­al­ly and in­ter­na­tion­al­ly with branch­es in An­tigua, Ja­maica, Kenya, and Ghana. There were al­so plans to es­tab­lish min­istries in To­go, Rus­sia, and Cana­da and at its peak claimed to have around 1,000 mem­bers.

Carter had been a mem­ber for five years and even did house­hold du­ties for Rogers un­til she left PMI in 2015.

In De­cem­ber of that year, Carter be­gan post­ing state­ments on so­cial about Rogers and al­leg­ing flawed func­tion­ing of PMI as a re­li­gious or­gan­i­sa­tion. Her posts spanned sev­er­al years and were even­tu­al­ly re­peat­ed on tele­vi­sion and in a week­ly tabloid.

Ac­cord­ing to ev­i­dence in the law­suit, she la­belled PMI a “killer cult” and a “de­mon­ic pow­er” and claimed the church was in­volved in il­le­gal and un­eth­i­cal prac­tices. She de­scribed Rogers as a “false prophet” and “the beast” and made sev­er­al oth­er defam­a­to­ry state­ments about the pas­tor

The church took a hit from Carter’s claims. Mem­ber­ship fell to al­most half and staff mem­bers left the or­gan­i­sa­tion.

“This mass ex­o­dus, up­on the defama­tion, hand­i­capped the church’s abil­i­ty to pay its rent, and to con­tin­ue its mis­sions or so­cial as­sis­tance grants,” courts doc­u­ments stat­ed.

“In fact, the li­bel al­so af­fect­ed the church’s abil­i­ty to grow its mem­ber­ship, as its pub­lic im­age and ster­ling rep­u­ta­tion were no se­vere­ly in­jured. The sit­u­a­tion was made worse as the church was blocked in its bid to re­new its ra­dio pro­gramme, which af­fect­ed its growth and in­come. Mem­bers ex­pe­ri­enced un­told emo­tion­al pain, suf­fer­ing, and em­bar­rass­ment.”

Rogers said his fam­i­ly was hit hard. His wife Josanne was preg­nant, and the sit­u­a­tion took a toll on her. They al­so moved out of their fam­i­ly home.

“It could have de­stroyed my mar­riage, it could have dri­ven any one of us to com­mit sui­cide, or go astray. It could have tak­en a toll on our health,” he said.

“Defama­tion of char­ac­ter can ac­tu­al­ly cause some­body to run amok, we are talk­ing about fight­ing crime but one of the ways that crime per­sists is be­cause of anger, when you have anger and rage it is psy­cho­so­mat­ic, this could have caused some­body to take up a gun and shoot some­body.”

Rogers said pro­fes­sion­al rep­u­ta­tion was dam­aged. He had to can­cel sem­i­nars and de­cid­ed not to pur­sue pub­lic en­gage­ments.

PMI had a con­cert in An­tigua and no one at­tend­ed. In­stead, Rogers had to call a gen­er­al meet­ing to an­swer the al­le­ga­tions made by Carter.

How­ev­er, even in the face of a se­ries of posts by Carter ques­tion­ing his lead­er­ship, he did not step down from the or­gan­i­sa­tion.

“I didn’t con­sid­er step­ping down be­cause I knew I was to­tal­ly in­no­cent and was as­sured that every­one would know my char­ac­ter,” he said.

Rogers said prayer helped him through the sit­u­a­tion.

Alexan­der, who fo­cussed on the Face­book ef­fect in the or­der, said: “Those who abuse so­cial me­dia or use it for pet­ty re­venge­ful vendet­tas, must rec­og­nize that the scale of their pub­li­ca­tions on Face­book would be for glob­al pub­lic con­sump­tion.

“Face­book users could ill-af­ford to be mind­less and reck­less in their use of it or feign ig­no­rance of the in­jury they caused or ab­solve them­selves of the im­pact of such so­cial me­dia li­bel.

“(Carter’s) ir­re­spon­si­ble and high­ly of­fen­sive use of Face­book must be con­sid­ered in the con­text of the bor­der­less reach of that plat­form. Face­book has the po­ten­tial to cause un­fath­omable dam­age hence users must be re­spon­si­ble for the car­nage cre­at­ed by their defam­a­to­ry post­ings.

“They must use Face­book and oth­er so­cial me­dia sites re­spon­si­bly or pay for their ill-use of them. (Carter) went on Face­book to dis­cred­it and de­stroy the rep­u­ta­tion of the Church by her ru­inous post­ings, and when this proved in­suf­fi­cient, she went on tele­vi­sion to spread her poi­son. While this court ac­knowl­edged the lack of tan­gi­ble ev­i­dence of wide­spread dam­age to the Church’s rep­u­ta­tion, it ac­cept­ed that the li­bel­lous state­ments aimed to dis­cred­it the Church and, giv­en the na­ture of this or­ga­ni­za­tion, would have done some form of dam­age to its rep­u­ta­tion.”


http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/pastor-awarded-430000-in-damages-for-fb-post-6.2.802638.6a5e921224

K74T
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 16562
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:01 pm

Re: Precedent set: Locals sue and win over social media posts.

Postby K74T » March 17th, 2019, 9:44 am

Jesus say donate the $$ to charity

Advertisement

Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 323fsport, Dizzy28, Google Adsense [Bot], Musical Doc, shady23, Strugglerzinc and 38 guests

cron