Locking a Thread

[Puros Y Vino]

Nino and El Prez are two guys whos opinion of JS matters to me. I much rather he come off as annoying on tape to some, and be a kind humble person in reality, then look like a kind humble person on camera, but in reality be an ahole. I have never met JS but from what Nino and El Prez have said, i'll continue to see give him the benefit of the doubt.

Jose Aguayo

Well that's just it isn't it? The real person separate from their on screen persona. I'm sure he is different IRL and probably a good guy. Maybe he is pulling a "Glenn Beck" with his videos? Playing a role vs being himself. I just went back and watched his Partagas vs HdM smokeoff video. It is a bit over the top and to me that looks like he's playing to the camera to keep it interesting. Attention spans aren't getting longer folks, so behaving oddly on camera is probably one way to keep eyeballs glued...or repulsed.

[riazp]

I was out for a cigar with some mates yesterday and one of the guys managed to get into the private screening of his film at the lcdh in montreal, and talked with james quite a bit. He said that he was a nice down to earth guy, not at all like he is in his videos back in the day. He spoke exellent french and was a joy to chat with. This coming from a guy who before meeting him had the opinion of several here, myself included, that he was you know what...no point repeating statements already made. Basically, great guy overall, well knowledged, and a pleasure to chat with.

[Van55]

Here in the USA, defamation law is interesting. If one is a "public figure" one needs to prove that a false, defamatory publication was made "with actual malice" in order to recover for libel or slander. This is a higher burden than for ordinary folks who can pretty much recover if the statement made was false and defamatory.

I don't know if the standards of US defamation law are applied in other countries. But the rationale seems to be that if you are in the public eye, you are fairer game for criticism -- even false and defamatory criticism -- than if you are an ordinary citizen.

It's clear to me that, under US law, Suckling would be considered a "public figure." He has published articles; he has his own wine and cigar websites; he has appeared in video blogs at cA; he holds himself out as an expert on wines and cigars. Most anyone who is a cigar fanatic knows who Suckling is. Do you guys think it should be a rule that Suckling can be a verbal pinata, as El Prez has termed it, but the ordinary member here who makes a video review cannot?

[El Presidente]

Here in the USA, defamation law is interesting. If one is a "public figure" one needs to prove that a false, defamatory publication was made "with actual malice" in order to recover for libel or slander. This is a higher burden than for ordinary folks who can pretty much recover if the statement made was false and defamatory.

I don't know if the standards of US defamation law are applied in other countries. But the rationale seems to be that if you are in the public eye, you are fairer game for criticism -- even false and defamatory criticism -- than if you are an ordinary citizen.

It's clear to me that, under US law, Suckling would be considered a "public figure." He has published articles; he has his own wine and cigar websites; he has appeared in video blogs at cA; he holds himself out as an expert on wines and cigars. Most anyone who is a cigar fanatic knows who Suckling is. Do you guys think it should be a rule that Suckling can be a verbal pinata, as El Prez has termed it, but the ordinary member here who makes a video review cannot?

Van

Internet defamation laws are far stricter in Oz than the USA. We have plenty of Aussie lawyer members who can chime in with the detail however as a rough rule, Defamation is the publication of a false statement that makes others think less of you or your business or professional reputation

[compitaveggie]

Do you guys think it should be a rule that Suckling can be a verbal pinata, as El Prez has termed it, but the ordinary member here who makes a video review cannot?

I like to believe that here at FOH we are friendlier and more respectful than the general population. We may not be like that outside of FOH but I have always felt that we are here. There is friendly banter here, but not personal attacks meant to hurt or offend.

I don't see why we should let any fellow cigar smoker be the subject of abuse. Even though I don't know him, there are members that do know him and have met him and it becomes personal for them. My opinion in this situation, it is to best keep it classy and be the bigger person and just let it go.

I do feel people should be able to express their dislike for him, but they should keep it respectful and to the standards that FOH is held to.

I don't think this is a matter of the law, but more so about the FOH standards.

Jose

[Van55]

Van

Internet defamation laws are far stricter in Oz than the USA. We have plenty of Aussie lawyer members who can chime in with the detail however as a rough rule, Defamation is the publication of a false statement that makes others think less of you or your business or professional reputation

Understood.

But here are two questions for you or the Aussie lawyer members:

1. Is the owner of the internet website legally responsible for what members have posted (in the USA, the owner is generally not liable for members' statements) and

2. Is the same standard applied regardless of whether the subject of the defamatory statement is a public figure or an ordinary Joe?

(I am not lobbying for any particular answer or "rule". I am just interested in whatever the answer may be.)

[Van55]

Oh. I should have told Rob thanks for reopening the Suckling DVD thread. I appreciate it and I think it was the right thing to do.

[Scdalak]

Have I mentioned I would rather make out with Smithy than read, listen, or discuss anything that is Suckling????

[El Presidente]

Understood.

But here are two questions for you or the Aussie lawyer members:

1. Is the owner of the internet website legally responsible for what members have posted (in the USA, the owner is generally not liable for members' statements) and

2. Is the same standard applied regardless of whether the subject of the defamatory statement is a public figure or an ordinary Joe?

(I am not lobbying for any particular answer or "rule". I am just interested in whatever the answer may be.)

Yes to both Van however since 2006 "Truth" is a defence. Prior to that it was "Truth and Public Interest"

Should an author publish an article that is deemed defamatory, then action is normally taken against the author and the publisher (magazine etal). Over the decade there has been a greater alignment here between online and offline laws as they apply to defamation. Not just here but Europe as well I believe.

It is not all cut and dried however. The type of website, tone, intent, truth, country etc etc all come into play.

[riazp]

Here is my question, are Rob and Smithy considered Public figures now that they are not just youtube sensations, but advert and marketing kingpins now?!

[El Presidente]

Here is my question, are Rob and Smithy considered Public figures now that they are not just youtube sensations, but advert and marketing kingpins now?!

We have moved from "Tossers" to "Wankers"

[Rehman]

We have moved from "Tossers" to "Wankers"

Perhaps now would be a good time to ask: What's the difference?

[Rushman]

For what's it worth, I watched about two hours of JS videos, vlogs and read several blogs. His on screen style might not be my taste or yours but he seems to know his stuff. Say what you want about WS and CA (on second thought don't say anything that's rhetorical) but you don't get to the position he had with those two pubs without knowing your stuff. I am definitely from the "'more opinions, more debate, more thoughts make an informed populous" camp so I will watch his movie and keep following his posts regardless if I like his on screen persona. Moreover I am ever so thankful for our ability to discuss and debate this amongst a great group of peeps.