Psyguy,
Quite simple, there is a review on ISR that libels me (and several other members of staff). ISR does nothing regarding that (and any other libelous content in the reviews) but sends out warning emails for calling a fantasist, like yourself, a Walter Mitty.
Does that not sound strange to you? Double standards?
Psyguy: Open Letter #2
-
lifeisnotsobad
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:37 pm
I would tell them the truth and (based upon my experience) I have no doubt that the school would be very understanding and sympathetic. That is a somewhat different scenario to the advice you issue...
"You can take the position and keep looking and if your dream job or a better job comes up you can dump the Kuwait school, claiming they were trying to scam you on airfare or paperwork or something..."
I wonder if ISR issued you with a warning email for bringing our profession into disrepute?
"You can take the position and keep looking and if your dream job or a better job comes up you can dump the Kuwait school, claiming they were trying to scam you on airfare or paperwork or something..."
I wonder if ISR issued you with a warning email for bringing our profession into disrepute?
Ann
Well it's not a double standard since I'm not a fantasist. So your an admin with a bad review, but I'm not hearing it's untrue? It's not libel if the claims are true, and the presumption is that they are, why would a teacher slam you if you were such a great administrator?
-
StereoTyped
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:51 pm
Seriously? Is this necessary?
You know, when my students have problems with each other one of the first steps in the plan of action I suggest (unless the issue is dangerous or potentially very serious) is for the student/s being bothered or irritated by the other to exercise their right to ignore. If that doesn't work I suggest that the student/s being bothered stand up for themselves in a respectful way, by letting the other person know how they're feeling. I haven't seen either of these things happen here and if my students responded in some of the ways I've seen people respond here it would be unacceptable.
So, it's slightly disappointing to see the gang mentality on this forum, from a bunch of educators at that. Are we all going to agree with each other? No. Do we have to hold hands and sing 'kumbayah'? No. But it would be nice to see people disagreeing respectfully, at least. This entire thread directed at one ISR forum member is completely ridiculous.
And for the record, I appreciate PsyGuy on this forum. He tends to respond when others do not and I have found much of his information to be very helpful. If you aren't happy about his advice nobody is forcing you to be his best friend. But, as educators, can we not at least be respectful?
You know, when my students have problems with each other one of the first steps in the plan of action I suggest (unless the issue is dangerous or potentially very serious) is for the student/s being bothered or irritated by the other to exercise their right to ignore. If that doesn't work I suggest that the student/s being bothered stand up for themselves in a respectful way, by letting the other person know how they're feeling. I haven't seen either of these things happen here and if my students responded in some of the ways I've seen people respond here it would be unacceptable.
So, it's slightly disappointing to see the gang mentality on this forum, from a bunch of educators at that. Are we all going to agree with each other? No. Do we have to hold hands and sing 'kumbayah'? No. But it would be nice to see people disagreeing respectfully, at least. This entire thread directed at one ISR forum member is completely ridiculous.
And for the record, I appreciate PsyGuy on this forum. He tends to respond when others do not and I have found much of his information to be very helpful. If you aren't happy about his advice nobody is forcing you to be his best friend. But, as educators, can we not at least be respectful?
Last edited by StereoTyped on Wed May 02, 2012 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Ann
[quote="PsyGuy"] the presumption is that they are, [/quote]
No, "your" presumption is that they're true. "The" presumption, or at least "my" presumption, is that they may or may not be true.
I have great difficulty understanding how there can be a general presumption of the truth of anonymous web postings.
No, "your" presumption is that they're true. "The" presumption, or at least "my" presumption, is that they may or may not be true.
I have great difficulty understanding how there can be a general presumption of the truth of anonymous web postings.
-
wrldtrvlr123
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:59 am
- Location: Japan
Re: Ann
[quote="PsyGuy"]Well it's not a double standard since I'm not a fantasist. So your an admin with a bad review, but I'm not hearing it's untrue? It's not libel if the claims are true, and the presumption is that they are, why would a teacher slam you if you were such a great administrator?[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, he did say that the review libels him, which by definition means the claims are false (at least by his reckoning).
Also, I am sure that you can, in theory at least, believe that not everything written in an ISR review is completely accurate and factual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, he did say that the review libels him, which by definition means the claims are false (at least by his reckoning).
Also, I am sure that you can, in theory at least, believe that not everything written in an ISR review is completely accurate and factual.
Maybe
If the assumption is that the review is untrue he could presume its libel. Some people mistakenly believe that saying bad things about them is libel, and there are about a dozen defenses to libel. Libel is a legal definition, with specific criteria, not just "so and so said something that makes me look bad".
I dont take everything on the ISR reviews at face value. I also assume that people have better things to do then write negative reviews of schools and admins they are happy with.
Like many things in my experience the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle.
I dont take everything on the ISR reviews at face value. I also assume that people have better things to do then write negative reviews of schools and admins they are happy with.
Like many things in my experience the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle.
-
lifeisnotsobad
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:37 pm
@Stereo Typed
I do think that if the moderators played a more active and visible role in moderating then perhaps this would not happen. I completely agree with your comment about acting at all times respectfully. Hence, I think some of PsyGuy's advice shows a lack of respect for my profession and fellow professionals. I think PsyGuy's description of the Middle East as a 'craphole' shows a complete lack of respect for an entire region, and for any international members on this site who may in fact come from the Middle East.
However, if some of these comments were dealt with at source then there would be no need to respond to them.
I do think that if the moderators played a more active and visible role in moderating then perhaps this would not happen. I completely agree with your comment about acting at all times respectfully. Hence, I think some of PsyGuy's advice shows a lack of respect for my profession and fellow professionals. I think PsyGuy's description of the Middle East as a 'craphole' shows a complete lack of respect for an entire region, and for any international members on this site who may in fact come from the Middle East.
However, if some of these comments were dealt with at source then there would be no need to respond to them.
Libel goes back to 130AD but wasn't truly brought into English law until 17th century
Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures
Therefore, when the lady (yes, we know who wrote it) intentionally lied about several members of staff with the intention of discrediting both the school and the members of staff, she committed libel
She did not have [b]absolute privilege[/b], [b]qualified privilege[/b], the statements were [b]not[/b] made in good faith nor were they stated as opinion but [b]fact[/b]. I am also of good standing in my community so she cannot use the defence of incapable of further damages
Therefore, the posting is libelous.
I can only assume that there may well be several / many more reviews that are also libelous on the ISR.
We didn't bother pursuing a case as we felt that the review said more about the reviewer than the school but it was nice to get that feeling of schandenfruede when she was dismissed from her next school only to then ask me for a reference!!!
PS If I call you a Walter Mitty on this forum, it is not libel as a) I believe to be true and b) as this is an anonymous site you could not proof damages as no-one knows your "real" identity
Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures
Therefore, when the lady (yes, we know who wrote it) intentionally lied about several members of staff with the intention of discrediting both the school and the members of staff, she committed libel
She did not have [b]absolute privilege[/b], [b]qualified privilege[/b], the statements were [b]not[/b] made in good faith nor were they stated as opinion but [b]fact[/b]. I am also of good standing in my community so she cannot use the defence of incapable of further damages
Therefore, the posting is libelous.
I can only assume that there may well be several / many more reviews that are also libelous on the ISR.
We didn't bother pursuing a case as we felt that the review said more about the reviewer than the school but it was nice to get that feeling of schandenfruede when she was dismissed from her next school only to then ask me for a reference!!!
PS If I call you a Walter Mitty on this forum, it is not libel as a) I believe to be true and b) as this is an anonymous site you could not proof damages as no-one knows your "real" identity
Discussion
It really depends which jurisdiction we are using. ISR is HQd in the USA along with its servers.
She actually has several defenses.
1)They can argue truth, and the burden is for you to prove its false (or that they believes them to be true and acted in good faith).
2)They can argue its opinion, and that your claim as fact is only your perception.
3) They could argue that her "report" is actually a journalistic publication, under qualified privilege.
All that said the two best defenses in my opinion, are:
1) Non Injury. That you really didnt suffer any damages, that can be quantified.
2) Fair Comment in the Public Interest. The standard of validity in this case is much lower, they just have to be "reasonable" as opposed to "true", and mismanagement of a school by its administrators could well be argued as a "public interest".
Lastly, and no offense but "libel" and all defamation suits are findings AFTER of fact after judicial proceedings of a court having jurisdiction. If you dont prosecute your claim within the statute of limitations, and receive a finding that you were defamed, then claiming an individual libeled/slandered you is actually a false claim in itself, and exposes you to a defamation suite as well.
Lastly, believing something to be true does not equate to truth. The belief must be reasonable, and the court may very well require a standard of care that an anonymous forum amounts to a lack of credible foundation. That and im pretty sure i could present a passport showing that my name is in fact not Walter Mitty.
She actually has several defenses.
1)They can argue truth, and the burden is for you to prove its false (or that they believes them to be true and acted in good faith).
2)They can argue its opinion, and that your claim as fact is only your perception.
3) They could argue that her "report" is actually a journalistic publication, under qualified privilege.
All that said the two best defenses in my opinion, are:
1) Non Injury. That you really didnt suffer any damages, that can be quantified.
2) Fair Comment in the Public Interest. The standard of validity in this case is much lower, they just have to be "reasonable" as opposed to "true", and mismanagement of a school by its administrators could well be argued as a "public interest".
Lastly, and no offense but "libel" and all defamation suits are findings AFTER of fact after judicial proceedings of a court having jurisdiction. If you dont prosecute your claim within the statute of limitations, and receive a finding that you were defamed, then claiming an individual libeled/slandered you is actually a false claim in itself, and exposes you to a defamation suite as well.
Lastly, believing something to be true does not equate to truth. The belief must be reasonable, and the court may very well require a standard of care that an anonymous forum amounts to a lack of credible foundation. That and im pretty sure i could present a passport showing that my name is in fact not Walter Mitty.
Psyguy
I will see your cutting and pasting from Wikipedia and raise you my degree in international law.
Because ISR and its servers are based in USA does not mean that any action would have to raised in the USA. If the IP address of the person writing it is in, say, Egypt, I can raise the action in that country. Also, if you use your school system, then your school could also be liable. In much the same way as you should be aware that there are even cases where the shop that sold the newspaper that contained the defamation have also been prosecuted successfully
1) Yes, the could argue "truth" but not in this case, where an accusation is stated as fact is so easily proved to be wrong. Many witnesses and corroborative documentation
2) The legal distinction between "opinion" and fact is not recognised in many countries
3) You do not fully understand the defence of "qualified privilege" - one of the many problems of Wikipedia! It MAY be used but would not cover malicious intent (I can prove that very easily in this case I might add)
Your 2 defences are again misguided
1) Non Injury
I would only have to produce a witness who could truthfully state that, as a result of reading the statement, thought less of me. In law, a person is defamed if statements in a publication expose him to hatred or ridicule, cause him to be shunned, lower him in the estimation in the minds of "right-thinking" members of society or disparage him in his work.
If, for example, I was the Yorkshire Ripper and a newspaper reported that I did not pay my television licence. The fact that I am a convicted mass murderer would mean that I had not been libeled as the statement does not lower me in the minds of "right-thinking members of society". However, if I was the Director General of the BBC and you said I didn't pay my TV licence...
2) Fair Comment in the Public Interest
Again, you misunderstand this. 'Fair comment' is somewhat vague but is basically there to stop someone being sued for saying they don't like Marks & Spencer or McDonalds. You are allowed to say that. However what was written is not covered by this
By the way, there is no statue of limitations if the article still remains on the site and in many countries, there are no statues of limitation full stop. The only limiting factor would be if I am dead as you cannot libel the dead
What you need to realise, is that on the internet the rules are exactly the same. There are no special internet defences. The only advantage is that web sites tend to have a smaller number of users, (so less people see it hence it's less defamatory so it's rarely worth the bother of going to court) and allegations can be removed promptly on protest from a defamed ..
On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material.
I will see your cutting and pasting from Wikipedia and raise you my degree in international law.
Because ISR and its servers are based in USA does not mean that any action would have to raised in the USA. If the IP address of the person writing it is in, say, Egypt, I can raise the action in that country. Also, if you use your school system, then your school could also be liable. In much the same way as you should be aware that there are even cases where the shop that sold the newspaper that contained the defamation have also been prosecuted successfully
1) Yes, the could argue "truth" but not in this case, where an accusation is stated as fact is so easily proved to be wrong. Many witnesses and corroborative documentation
2) The legal distinction between "opinion" and fact is not recognised in many countries
3) You do not fully understand the defence of "qualified privilege" - one of the many problems of Wikipedia! It MAY be used but would not cover malicious intent (I can prove that very easily in this case I might add)
Your 2 defences are again misguided
1) Non Injury
I would only have to produce a witness who could truthfully state that, as a result of reading the statement, thought less of me. In law, a person is defamed if statements in a publication expose him to hatred or ridicule, cause him to be shunned, lower him in the estimation in the minds of "right-thinking" members of society or disparage him in his work.
If, for example, I was the Yorkshire Ripper and a newspaper reported that I did not pay my television licence. The fact that I am a convicted mass murderer would mean that I had not been libeled as the statement does not lower me in the minds of "right-thinking members of society". However, if I was the Director General of the BBC and you said I didn't pay my TV licence...
2) Fair Comment in the Public Interest
Again, you misunderstand this. 'Fair comment' is somewhat vague but is basically there to stop someone being sued for saying they don't like Marks & Spencer or McDonalds. You are allowed to say that. However what was written is not covered by this
By the way, there is no statue of limitations if the article still remains on the site and in many countries, there are no statues of limitation full stop. The only limiting factor would be if I am dead as you cannot libel the dead
What you need to realise, is that on the internet the rules are exactly the same. There are no special internet defences. The only advantage is that web sites tend to have a smaller number of users, (so less people see it hence it's less defamatory so it's rarely worth the bother of going to court) and allegations can be removed promptly on protest from a defamed ..
On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material.
Call
I see your raise and call.
You would most certainly absolutely have to commence action in the USA. You need to effect service of citation to your proposed defendant. The only means of identifying them is through the IP server logs, that ISR holds. Since the only "dots" you have are you, and ISR you would need to compel ISR to release those server records, by means of a subpoena (there are actually a couple of writs you could use), and to do that you would need file suit in the jurisdiction of, drum roll... the USA.
Every case starts with two attorneys who both "easily" think they are right, one of them is inevitably proven wrong. A jury may easily decide to disregard your evidence and accept the other parties. The burden is on you to prove its false where as they only have to show that they believed it to be true, and a single witness and affidavit could accomplish that.
The pragmatic definition of opinion and fact is decided routinely in many countries. You have a harder burden to show that the defendent "intended" the statement as fact, were as they only have to assert that its there opinion. How do you PROVE they were stating it as a fact.
What you conclude as being "easy" to prove as far as malice is not really a conclusion you can declaratively state. You just dont get to decide what a judge and jury are going to conclude.
No your - is overly simplistic. Thinking less of you are not damages. You would have to prove that any damage to your reputation resulted in quantifiable monetary losses. Civil courts seldom "punish" people they make the injured whole. From your previous posts it doesnt sound like youve incurred any damages or losses. even if you did suffer monetary losses you would have to mitigate your damages to the best of your ability. Sorry, but bruised egos, and hurt pride are not damages.
Fair comment IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST are better protected in american jurisprudence. Comments about school administrators where the "public is served" may be seen by a jury as important to public interest. I dont know what they would think, and neither do you.
Many countries DO have statute of limitations on defamation. In the majority of the US its 1 year.
Again wrong, in the USA you 'toll the bell" on SOL from the date of post, not from the date the plaintiff discovers it.
What you fail to understand in American jurisprudence, is that online, and the web are actually very different., then "print" media. Under 47 USC Section 230, a content provider (such as ISR) is immune from defamation under the safe harbor doctrine.
You would most certainly absolutely have to commence action in the USA. You need to effect service of citation to your proposed defendant. The only means of identifying them is through the IP server logs, that ISR holds. Since the only "dots" you have are you, and ISR you would need to compel ISR to release those server records, by means of a subpoena (there are actually a couple of writs you could use), and to do that you would need file suit in the jurisdiction of, drum roll... the USA.
Every case starts with two attorneys who both "easily" think they are right, one of them is inevitably proven wrong. A jury may easily decide to disregard your evidence and accept the other parties. The burden is on you to prove its false where as they only have to show that they believed it to be true, and a single witness and affidavit could accomplish that.
The pragmatic definition of opinion and fact is decided routinely in many countries. You have a harder burden to show that the defendent "intended" the statement as fact, were as they only have to assert that its there opinion. How do you PROVE they were stating it as a fact.
What you conclude as being "easy" to prove as far as malice is not really a conclusion you can declaratively state. You just dont get to decide what a judge and jury are going to conclude.
No your - is overly simplistic. Thinking less of you are not damages. You would have to prove that any damage to your reputation resulted in quantifiable monetary losses. Civil courts seldom "punish" people they make the injured whole. From your previous posts it doesnt sound like youve incurred any damages or losses. even if you did suffer monetary losses you would have to mitigate your damages to the best of your ability. Sorry, but bruised egos, and hurt pride are not damages.
Fair comment IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST are better protected in american jurisprudence. Comments about school administrators where the "public is served" may be seen by a jury as important to public interest. I dont know what they would think, and neither do you.
Many countries DO have statute of limitations on defamation. In the majority of the US its 1 year.
Again wrong, in the USA you 'toll the bell" on SOL from the date of post, not from the date the plaintiff discovers it.
What you fail to understand in American jurisprudence, is that online, and the web are actually very different., then "print" media. Under 47 USC Section 230, a content provider (such as ISR) is immune from defamation under the safe harbor doctrine.
More pearls of wisdom from the University of Wikipedia!!
What you fail to realise is that I would not be suing ISR (although I could do so through the US courts as 230 does not give carte blanche to your "freedom of speech" - read the full legislation) but the review writer
Although this is an anonymous site, I have proof of who wrote it! In writing by her!
Now it gets interesting, as there are people who are members of this site who are British, I would be fully entitled to take action in a British court (my choice of English or Scots law as there are members from both). The whole burden of proof is totally different
However, due to Obabama's clamp down recently, whether I would be able to collect any damages awarded in the UK in America might prove difficult
I look forward to your next Wikipedia dissertation
What you fail to realise is that I would not be suing ISR (although I could do so through the US courts as 230 does not give carte blanche to your "freedom of speech" - read the full legislation) but the review writer
Although this is an anonymous site, I have proof of who wrote it! In writing by her!
Now it gets interesting, as there are people who are members of this site who are British, I would be fully entitled to take action in a British court (my choice of English or Scots law as there are members from both). The whole burden of proof is totally different
However, due to Obabama's clamp down recently, whether I would be able to collect any damages awarded in the UK in America might prove difficult
I look forward to your next Wikipedia dissertation