Posting stuff which may result in a legal action against EuroGA (and promoting businesses which have threatened to sue EuroGA)

Did the company’s MD threaten legal action to you because of something that you posted on EuroGA or did he threaten legal action to you because of something that somebody else posted?

I suppose it’s the former and censoring the forum even more because of that isn’t really the best approach in my view.

Both, AFAICT. It makes no difference, because it affects everybody who posts.

I did offer you the opportunity to pay the salary of a non-posting mod, some time ago

The Paypal button didn’t work.

Although moderation is not required. The often mentioned PuF works without, unless in rare cases like spambots and obvious infractions on the rights of others. However, the theory of there being “covert” moderation as part of a larger conspiracy plot is something I cannot easily prove wrong…

I guess what Peter wants to say is that although he may be right (as Alexis says), defending that assumption in a court costs too much money.
Recht haben und Recht bekommen sind zwei verschiedene Dinge, as it goes in German.

And I have to admit, literally no thread in PuF ever remains on the topic. That just doesn’t happen. I wonder why :)

Alexis

It seems you are avoiding the point, or maybe pretending not to understand. I think the quote below sums it up. You chose to comment on one part of that post but not the bit I show here.

dublinpilot wrote:

2. It’s wrong to allow positive postings about a company, if that company will insist that negative comments must be removed.
In such a case, a reader of the forum will only see positive comments and might unfairly form an incorrect impression of the company, rather than a balanced impression.
This makes sense to me and seems to be the best for the reader of the forums.

Before I chip in – firstly I do agree with Peter (and David) that it is simply not worth the hassle… That being said – at the moment (until May 25 – 2018 when GDRP comes into place) the UK laws give individuals (not companies who have very little legal means on “opinion pieces” on fora) the following rights …

The Data Protection Act (funny enough all of this stuff falls under this act) gives rights to individuals in respect of the personal data that organisations hold about them. The Act says that:

• a right of access to a copy of the information comprised in their personal data;
• a right to object to processing that is likely to cause or is causing damage or distress;
• a right to prevent processing for direct marketing;
• a right to object to decisions being taken by automated means;
  • a right in certain circumstances to have inaccurate personal data rectified, blocked, erased or destroyed; and*
  • a right to claim compensation for damages caused by a breach of the Act*

The last 2 being the relevant ones. GDRP will change regulation for all states – which will protect the individual a lot further than it currently does…

Peter wrote:

One can sue for economic / reputational damage anywhere.

Of cause you can sue for anything, but will you win? That depends on how the law is written and interpreted. I stand by my claim that it would be exceedingly unlikely that a company would be awarded economic damages in a Swedish court because a customer had made public that they made a hack job. One reason is that in a Swedish court, you would have to prove economic loss related to the specific actions of the person you sue. And even if you could you would lose if the court found that publicizing the information was in the public interest — which they likely would in a customer case.

folks, this is site run by Peter and if he has reason to edit/delete/not to post, we simply need to accept. If I was in his shoes, I would do the same. It´s nice to win at the court but the overhead on that….