KiwiBro
Gold Member
Of course TBN will act if requested/instructed to do so, or in a pre-emptive manner. They'll cave, like most of us would, regardless of whether any comment is actually libellous or not simply to avoid the economic consequences.
I don't pretend to know exactly how the law in USA works in this regard, but one of the most abhorrent failures of the law in NZ is how the consequences of defending a wrongful defamation action can be so manifestly unjust, favouring the plaintiff for no other reason than they have deeper pockets, even if they have almost no chance of winning the case. It happens all the time. I've been there, twice, and both times settled with no compensation payable and no apology needed. Why? Because I stood my ground, stood up for the right to hold an honest opinion and publish facts. I'll do so again and actually have a 'rainy-day' emergency fund I trickle $ in when can (which has not been lately I must admit) so I can afford to take a principled stand without it bankrupting me.
I only wish here and around the world, we could recover the full costs of defending ultimately losing actions various parties feel inclined to pursue. It would help, rather than hinder, full and factual exchanges of information. I for one, if I lived in the prospect's area and was interested in a Kubota, would like to know who was giving the alleged bad service, so they could be given a right of reply and upon that base a decision about whether or not to risk dealing with them or perhaps more diligence is due.
It really does bug me how easily lawful dissent and opinion can be smothered by legal action positively endorsed by a system that is plain broken. Broken because it does not serve society well to sell justice to the highest bidder or for the law to be used as a plaything or weapon of those with deep pockets. It also amazes me how little people seem to care about fostering a more equitable legal environment. Instead, they scatter around like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling the moment they are served with anything legal, rather than stand their ground when they know they have done nothing wrong.
I don't pretend to know exactly how the law in USA works in this regard, but one of the most abhorrent failures of the law in NZ is how the consequences of defending a wrongful defamation action can be so manifestly unjust, favouring the plaintiff for no other reason than they have deeper pockets, even if they have almost no chance of winning the case. It happens all the time. I've been there, twice, and both times settled with no compensation payable and no apology needed. Why? Because I stood my ground, stood up for the right to hold an honest opinion and publish facts. I'll do so again and actually have a 'rainy-day' emergency fund I trickle $ in when can (which has not been lately I must admit) so I can afford to take a principled stand without it bankrupting me.
I only wish here and around the world, we could recover the full costs of defending ultimately losing actions various parties feel inclined to pursue. It would help, rather than hinder, full and factual exchanges of information. I for one, if I lived in the prospect's area and was interested in a Kubota, would like to know who was giving the alleged bad service, so they could be given a right of reply and upon that base a decision about whether or not to risk dealing with them or perhaps more diligence is due.
It really does bug me how easily lawful dissent and opinion can be smothered by legal action positively endorsed by a system that is plain broken. Broken because it does not serve society well to sell justice to the highest bidder or for the law to be used as a plaything or weapon of those with deep pockets. It also amazes me how little people seem to care about fostering a more equitable legal environment. Instead, they scatter around like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling the moment they are served with anything legal, rather than stand their ground when they know they have done nothing wrong.