| Număr de pagini: < [1 2] | Are negative Blue Board postings defamatory? Inițiatorul discuției: Jessica Noyes
|
|---|
Joakim Braun 
Suedia
Local time: 01:48
din germană în suedeză
+ ...
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
It merely states FACTS, that can be proven with unquestionable evidence.
Stating provable facts may be considered defamation. It depends on the jurisdiction.
In my country, Sweden, you can get convicted of defamation for statements that are likely to hurt someone's reputation. Whether the statements are true or not is immaterial. Yes, really.
| | | |
Joakim Braun wrote:
In my country, Sweden, you can get convicted of defamation for statements that are likely to hurt someone's reputation. Whether the statements are true or not is immaterial. Yes, really.
I would be interested in seeing a few examples of this. When I look up "defamation" and "Sweden" in Google - and I did indeed find there is also a law against "insult" or "denigration" - I still find that truth is an applicable defense.
The definition of "insult" would seem to indicate a different kind of offense ("A person who vilifies another by an insulting epithet or accusation or by other infamous conduct towards him, shall be sentenced, if the act is not punishable under Section 1 or 2 [defamation], for insulting behaviour to a fine" - doesn't seem applicable here), are you perhaps referring to those types of cases?
| | | | Joakim Braun
Suedia
Local time: 01:48
din germană în suedeză
+ ...
I'm referring to "förtal".
Yes, truth would be a very strong defense in almost all cases. But if there is no public interest and the intent is to put someone in a bad light, calling a criminal a criminal may well be förtal/defamation.
Here's a case where a convicted sex criminal successfully sued for "förtal" a magazine that had (factually correctly) outed him in print:
... See more I'm referring to "förtal".
Yes, truth would be a very strong defense in almost all cases. But if there is no public interest and the intent is to put someone in a bad light, calling a criminal a criminal may well be förtal/defamation.
Here's a case where a convicted sex criminal successfully sued for "förtal" a magazine that had (factually correctly) outed him in print:
http://www.flashback.se/flashbacks/justice/
http://timbro.se/smedjan/artiklar/offentlighet-pa-latsas
See also the discussion here: http://lawline.se/answers/12966 and https://lagen.nu/dom/rh/2002:39
The truth will not necessarily set you free in Sweden.
(I think it extremely unlikely that a Swedish court would convict a Blueboard poster for a truthful posting. Also "förtal" only applies to physical persons, as I understand it. But the possibility is there, and who knows what the situation is in other jurisdictions?)
[Bearbeitet am 2015-05-31 08:13 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tom in London
Regatul Unit
Local time: 00:48
Membru (2008)
din italiană în engleză
| For what it's worth... | May 31, 2015 |
Remember: the BB works both ways. The outsourcer is allowed to respond to any comments made by translators. So the outsourcer, too, should be careful not to say anything defamatory about the translator.
I think there's a fairly clear line that divides "legitimate criticism" from what might be called "groundless and unjustified calumny". It's all a question of wording, and translators are supposed to be clever at wording things appropriately !
| | |
|
|
|
| NOT defamatory | May 31, 2015 |
The BB rating expresses your willingness to work with them again. There is absolutely nothing defamatory in that. To avoid any doubt, I would consider sth like: "I find their payment practices unacceptable, etc." or "They paid late and after numerous reminders". These are your perceptions and facts, not defamation.
Leaving the entry blank would defeat the purpose of informing others of their payment practices.
... and last, but not least, NEVER sign such NDOs, which are... See more The BB rating expresses your willingness to work with them again. There is absolutely nothing defamatory in that. To avoid any doubt, I would consider sth like: "I find their payment practices unacceptable, etc." or "They paid late and after numerous reminders". These are your perceptions and facts, not defamation.
Leaving the entry blank would defeat the purpose of informing others of their payment practices.
... and last, but not least, NEVER sign such NDOs, which are not really NDOs and have nothing to do with non-disclosure. A contract is a mutual agreement. You had no say on this one.
In any case, this kind of NDA formulation should have been a warning sign.
Your posting will be appreciated. This is what the BB is for.
Sandra ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Anything you write about another person may be potentially defamatory, | May 31, 2015 |
This is why people avoid it in the US due to the fact that lawsuit are here bread and butter. It is more appropriate to sue the company of course, the one which owes you money, but it is harder and more expensive to do, especially if the customer is in another country. If you win the case, they have to pay the legal fees, late fees and interest as well—sometimes you may find a lawyer who may initially work for free, and then bill them for all the work, or rather include all the fees in the mon... See more This is why people avoid it in the US due to the fact that lawsuit are here bread and butter. It is more appropriate to sue the company of course, the one which owes you money, but it is harder and more expensive to do, especially if the customer is in another country. If you win the case, they have to pay the legal fees, late fees and interest as well—sometimes you may find a lawyer who may initially work for free, and then bill them for all the work, or rather include all the fees in the monetary claim.
Blue Board entries are very mild, so I would not worry about any defamation claims—no defamatory remarks, even if true, would be shown to the public—the entries are scrupulously vetted.
i called one company total scammers, a borderline criminal entity, and it was not allowed, even though that was true. i am glad it was not allowed—it might have been too strong, although they really got on my nerves. They really seriously offended me more than anything else. i can even donate all the money I win through the lawsuit I am starting.
[Edited at 2015-05-31 10:41 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Not an opinion/statement/judgement - Cannot be deemed defamatory | May 31, 2015 |
The LWA score you give in a Blueboard entry "is short for a service provider's self-expressed "likelihood of working again" with a given outsourcer. It is a number from 1 (very unlikely to work again) to 5 (very likely to work again)."
Since you are only expressing your likelihood of working again for the same outsourcer, with no further opinion, statement, judgement whatsoever, you are in no breach of your NDA, in my humble opinion.
| | | | | According to Brazilian law... | May 31, 2015 |
Joakim Braun wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
It merely states FACTS, that can be proven with unquestionable evidence.
Stating provable facts may be considered defamation. It depends on the jurisdiction. In my country, Sweden, you can get convicted of defamation for statements that are likely to hurt someone's reputation. Whether the statements are true or not is immaterial. Yes, really.
This page includes a pretty concise explanation - in Portuguese, of course - on the Brazilian law on the matter.
Basically, it forbids anyone to "expose" a debtor's condition publicly as means to cause them embarrassment and consequently force them to pay.
Therefore in Brazil using a bad score on the BB as "blackmail" to force a defaulting client to pay is illegal. However IMHO stating that "it's unlikely that I would work again for X, because they paid me Y months after the date we agreed" is merely an expression of my stance.
I mean, could a cigarette manufacturer sue anyone who said "I wouldn't smoke cigarettes because last year NNN people died of lung cancer"? Those people are dead and buried, the death certificate states the cause of death, there is no way of denying the FACT.
| | |
|
|
|
| We now can't see the forest for the trees | May 31, 2015 |
The purpose of the BB is to make translators able to make informed decisions about working with agencies so as to try to avoid financial losses due to no or late payment or other malpractices.
If we become afraid of reporting such practices because we fear legal action, then it will undermine the BB and leave it as nothing more than an empty shell of 5's, because only when leaving positive feedback will translators have no fear.
The most significant consequence of this ... See more The purpose of the BB is to make translators able to make informed decisions about working with agencies so as to try to avoid financial losses due to no or late payment or other malpractices.
If we become afraid of reporting such practices because we fear legal action, then it will undermine the BB and leave it as nothing more than an empty shell of 5's, because only when leaving positive feedback will translators have no fear.
The most significant consequence of this will be that instead of some marginal, one-in-a-million risk of legal action, the risk of losing money on agency malpractice will rise significantly.
There is no such thing as no risk. If we eliminate risk on one front, it only returns fortified on another.
If you are worried about legal costs, you have the option of having proper liability and legal expenses insurances. That is a quantifiable and modest expense.
But it isn't risk-free for an agency to start dragging translators through the courts for simply exposing malpractice objectively, as such behaviour may again be reported in the BB, draining such agencies of quality translators, and that could undermine their profitability. Hence, by taking legal action, they may shoot themselves in the foot, apart from the risk of losing and having to pay compensation to the translator for abusive legal action and wasting endless, unpaid working hours handling the case. My take is that a BB comment would have to be extremely violent and provocative before it becomes worth taking legal action, but such a comment would never pass Proz's vetting.
I suggest we just relax and make sure only objective and verifiable comments go in the BB, and that we sign no 'gagging' clauses (signing a no-defamation clause is not 'gagging'). If in an emotional state, then it's better to wait until calm has regained the terrain before writing BB comments. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. | May 31, 2015 |
Joakim Braun, you're wrong.
You can not be held liable for "förtal" in Sweden if what you're saying is true, and you have a defendable reason for saying it.
For example, if I'm living in Sweden and have proof that my new neighbor is a child abuser, and then tell my other neighbor who has small children running around about it, that's not "förtal". If I own a newspaper and tell the public because I want to sell more papers, then that's something completely different - and it's als... See more Joakim Braun, you're wrong.
You can not be held liable for "förtal" in Sweden if what you're saying is true, and you have a defendable reason for saying it.
For example, if I'm living in Sweden and have proof that my new neighbor is a child abuser, and then tell my other neighbor who has small children running around about it, that's not "förtal". If I own a newspaper and tell the public because I want to sell more papers, then that's something completely different - and it's also no longer "förtal", but "tryckfrihetsbrott", if I'm not mistaken.
("Var han skyldig att uttala sig eller var det eljest med hänsyn till omständigheterna försvarligt att lämna uppgift i saken, och visar han att uppgiften var sann eller att han hade skälig grund för den, skall ej dömas till ansvar.")
Posting something to the BB that is negative, CAN NOT BE DEFAMATORY, so long as you have proof that it's true. Even in Sweden. Proof of truth, and a defendable reason to inform others of the facts.
brg, you're wrong as well. A statement doesn't need to be proven in court to be true, and will not be considered a lie until a court proceeding happens. That would be lunacy - kind of like your logic. A statement which isn't proven true is a lie, and thus defamatory, and thus in violation of some law? Come on.
The only thing which would be wrong here, is NOT providing information on fly-by-night agencies which might then prey on our colleagues in turn.
- S ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Entries are strictly limited to likelihood of working again | Jun 1, 2015 |
Hello all,
Thanks for contributing to this discussion.
To clarify, the content of LWA entries is strictly limited to one's own personal likelihood of working again with a particular outsourcer, and cannot include generalizations or explicitly discourage others from working with them. The conditions for making these entrie... See more Hello all,
Thanks for contributing to this discussion.
To clarify, the content of LWA entries is strictly limited to one's own personal likelihood of working again with a particular outsourcer, and cannot include generalizations or explicitly discourage others from working with them. The conditions for making these entries are clearly outlined in this FAQ: http://www.proz.com/faq/2995#2995 . Using the Blue Board to defame an individual or business is also not permitted.
As Christine Andersen points out, no attempt should be made to influence one's use of the Blue Board: http://www.proz.com/siterules/blue_board_bb_blueboard/8#8 . Reports of this should be made via the site's support center, along with any relevant correspondence or information.
I hope this helps to clarify, but please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Maria ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jessica Noyes
Statele Unite
Local time: 19:48
Utilizator
din spaniolă în engleză
+ ...
INIŢIATORUL SUBIECTULUI
Thank you to everyone who provided me with some insight into this one. There are so many ways of looking at the question! (It turns out I have signed a similar clause with one of my favorite and most reliable clients. They are very security-aware and may simply not want it generally known who their translators are.)
| | | | | Număr de pagini: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Are negative Blue Board postings defamatory? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
