Defamation

[terak]

This word comes up a lot on this forum. I get confused by it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

If I go to a restaurant and have a bad meal which actually makes me ill & this is the only place I have eaten in the last 36 hours, how do I warn others that there might be a problem. I used to be in catering & I know that caterers can have a bad day, might not always be their fault, but if I go to a place twice & am bad twice I personally think that the public deserve to be at least warned that there could be a problem.

If you are telling the truth, where is the defamation ??

[Soutpeel]

Well first off its your version of the truth and the company restaurant has not been given the right to respond and if your version of the truth turns out to be incorrect the restaurant concerned could experience financial losses due to what you have written or said

In the thai context it seems you can be sued for defamation even if you are telling the truth

[willyumiii]

Would "defaced" be a better term in Thailand??

[seajae]

From what I have seen in Thailand it is not a matter of telling the truth, it is a matter of face. It appears that if you tell the truth and a thai loses face, money or business they can then take you to court for what you have done/caused to them, the truth has nothing what so ever to do with it even if they did poison you with their food.

[Mario2008]

Thai law is concerned with people losing face unnecesarrily. That result in that two criteria must be met in order for something to be not considered defamation:

1. What you told must be the truth.

2. What you told must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face.

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is.

[terak]

Thai law is concerned with people losing face unnecesarrily. That result in that two criteria must be met in order for something to be not considered defamation:

1. What you told must be the truth.

2. What you told must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face.

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is.

Therefore 2 bad meals from the same establishment must be "must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face" or not ?

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is - on a different note I find that comment strange as there are many mistruths posted on here

[wym]

My understanding is in Thailand the truth issue is not relevant, nor public interest concerns, just whether or not you damage their reputation.

Foreign investors hired an auditor to do due diligence, her negative report - to her employer/client only - was judged defamatory.

And not just civil damages, can result in jail time.

Used by TPTB to stifle

[Soutpeel]

Thai law is concerned with people losing face unnecesarrily. That result in that two criteria must be met in order for something to be not considered defamation:

1. What you told must be the truth.

2. What you told must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face.

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is.

Therefore 2 bad meals from the same establishment must be "must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face" or not ?

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is - on a different note I find that comment strange as there are many mistruths posted on here

Having 2 bad meals is an opinion not a fact anyway

[terak]

Thai law is concerned with people losing face unnecesarrily. That result in that two criteria must be met in order for something to be not considered defamation:

1. What you told must be the truth.

2. What you told must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face.

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is.

Therefore 2 bad meals from the same establishment must be "must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face" or not ?

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is - on a different note I find that comment strange as there are many mistruths posted on here

Having 2 bad meals is an opinion not a fact anyway

Having 2 meals that make you ill is fact not an opinion

[Beetlejuice]

It is possible to complain in the public domain that a company has given bad service or accuse them of over charging and so on. But if a company believes that these complaints are unjustified and their good reputation has been brought into dispute or question, than they could take legal action against those who make such accusations against them, which means those who publish discreditable posts regarding companies and even individuals had better be sure of their facts and have evidence to support their accusations.

This may also apply to companies that host such posts naming and shaming prior to the actual facts being confirmed in a court of law or just on hearsay, otherwise, yes, these matters can be deemed as defamation, which is not a bad thing, as it protects companies and individuals from malicious rumours, gossip and others, including competitors trying to discredit them.

The defamation laws are installed and imposed for our protection and have nothing to do with losing face.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Beetlejuice

[Soutpeel]

Thai law is concerned with people losing face unnecesarrily. That result in that two criteria must be met in order for something to be not considered defamation:

1. What you told must be the truth.

2. What you told must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face.

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is.

Therefore 2 bad meals from the same establishment must be "must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face" or not ?

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is - on a different note I find that comment strange as there are many mistruths posted on here

Having 2 bad meals is an opinion not a fact anyway

Having 2 meals that make you ill is fact not an opinion

So you have a doctors letter stating this ?...I am purposely be facetious to illustrate a point

Unless you have scientific evidence conclusively connecting your illness to the restaurant all you have is an opinion that eating at the restaurant on two occasions caused your illness

[terak]

So you have a doctors letter stating this ?...I am purposely be facetious to illustrate a point

Unless you have scientific evidence conclusively connecting your illness to the restaurant all you have is an opinion that eating at the restaurant on two occasions caused your illness

I accept what you say, but I am only talking hypothetically. I was bad last week from 1 meal and it was the only thing I had eaten for about 36 hours apart from bottled water so there was no room for mistake. It was this happening that made me start thinking about the defamation issues.

So if I had had 2 bad meals, before I could report/tell/print anything I would need certified proof that I knew the cause ?

[likewise]

a friend of mine was the victim of a robbery/kidnapping a few years back. He filed a complaint......the suspect also filed a complaint against him......for libel......anyway, suspect got convicted to 15 years and 9 months, the libel case against him got thrown out of court. These people will try anything

[Soutpeel]

So you have a doctors letter stating this ?...I am purposely be facetious to illustrate a point

Unless you have scientific evidence conclusively connecting your illness to the restaurant all you have is an opinion that eating at the restaurant on two occasions caused your illness

I accept what you say, but I am only talking hypothetically. I was bad last week from 1 meal and it was the only thing I had eaten for about 36 hours apart from bottled water so there was no room for mistake. It was this happening that made me start thinking about the defamation issues.

So if I had had 2 bad meals, before I could report/tell/print anything I would need certified proof that I knew the cause ?

So how do you know it wasn't the water ?

The point I am getting at this is the reason there are defamation rules and laws is to stop people making unproven accusations against people and businesses.

In your hypothetical example, you have accused a restaurant of causing your illness, stated it publicly in writing but you have yet to provide any evidence or facts which support your claim that the restaurant caused your illness, if the restaurant now looses business over your accusations, they would be within their rights to sue you for deformation

[Swiss1960]

So you have a doctors letter stating this ?...I am purposely be facetious to illustrate a point

Unless you have scientific evidence conclusively connecting your illness to the restaurant all you have is an opinion that eating at the restaurant on two occasions caused your illness

I accept what you say, but I am only talking hypothetically. I was bad last week from 1 meal and it was the only thing I had eaten for about 36 hours apart from bottled water so there was no room for mistake. It was this happening that made me start thinking about the defamation issues.

So if I had had 2 bad meals, before I could report/tell/print anything I would need certified proof that I knew the cause ?

Maybe the reason for getting sick is exactly that you don't eat regularly and your stomach did throw up because it was too much after too long time with no food... mayb the reason for getting sick was some bacteria that you did catch up somewhere completely different... maybe the reason for getting sick was that your stomach could not deal with some of the ingredients from the food you had, like some curry ingredients that your stomach does not like... maybe lot of other reasons...

And if you want to "prove" that it was the restaurant... you would have to have your vomit examined... you would need to have health & food inspectors sent to the restaurant to check them out... find other people who also got sick in the same time in the same restaurant... that is what in Europe would be needed for proof that it's the restaurants fault... and also here, you would get a defamation suit against you, if you don't have any proof, which you clearly don't

[terak]

So you have a doctors letter stating this ?...I am purposely be facetious to illustrate a point

Unless you have scientific evidence conclusively connecting your illness to the restaurant all you have is an opinion that eating at the restaurant on two occasions caused your illness

I accept what you say, but I am only talking hypothetically. I was bad last week from 1 meal and it was the only thing I had eaten for about 36 hours apart from bottled water so there was no room for mistake. It was this happening that made me start thinking about the defamation issues.

So if I had had 2 bad meals, before I could report/tell/print anything I would need certified proof that I knew the cause ?

So how do you know it wasn't the water ?

The point I am getting at this is the reason there are defamation rules and laws is to stop people making unproven accusations against people and businesses.

In your hypothetical example, you have accused a restaurant of causing your illness, stated it publicly in writing but you have yet to provide any evidence or facts which support your claim that the restaurant caused your illness, if the restaurant now looses business over your accusations, they would be within their rights to sue you for deformation

Big bottle - other people drinking

[terak]

So you have a doctors letter stating this ?...I am purposely be facetious to illustrate a point

Unless you have scientific evidence conclusively connecting your illness to the restaurant all you have is an opinion that eating at the restaurant on two occasions caused your illness

I accept what you say, but I am only talking hypothetically. I was bad last week from 1 meal and it was the only thing I had eaten for about 36 hours apart from bottled water so there was no room for mistake. It was this happening that made me start thinking about the defamation issues.

So if I had had 2 bad meals, before I could report/tell/print anything I would need certified proof that I knew the cause ?

Maybe the reason for getting sick is exactly that you don't eat regularly and your stomach did throw up because it was too much after too long time with no food... mayb the reason for getting sick was some bacteria that you did catch up somewhere completely different... maybe the reason for getting sick was that your stomach could not deal with some of the ingredients from the food you had, like some curry ingredients that your stomach does not like... maybe lot of other reasons...

And if you want to "prove" that it was the restaurant... you would have to have your vomit examined... you would need to have health & food inspectors sent to the restaurant to check them out... find other people who also got sick in the same time in the same restaurant... that is what in Europe would be needed for proof that it's the restaurants fault... and also here, you would get a defamation suit against you, if you don't have any proof, which you clearly don't

We are talking hypothetically, calm down

[Soutpeel]

So you have a doctors letter stating this ?...I am purposely be facetious to illustrate a point

Unless you have scientific evidence conclusively connecting your illness to the restaurant all you have is an opinion that eating at the restaurant on two occasions caused your illness

I accept what you say, but I am only talking hypothetically. I was bad last week from 1 meal and it was the only thing I had eaten for about 36 hours apart from bottled water so there was no room for mistake. It was this happening that made me start thinking about the defamation issues.

So if I had had 2 bad meals, before I could report/tell/print anything I would need certified proof that I knew the cause ?

So how do you know it wasn't the water ?

The point I am getting at this is the reason there are defamation rules and laws is to stop people making unproven accusations against people and businesses.

In your hypothetical example, you have accused a restaurant of causing your illness, stated it publicly in writing but you have yet to provide any evidence or facts which support your claim that the restaurant caused your illness, if the restaurant now looses business over your accusations, they would be within their rights to sue you for deformation

Big bottle - other people drinking

Therefore we could reasonably conclude that one of the other people drinking the same water could have passed something onto you which made you sick

[terak]

Therefore we could reasonably conclude that one of the other people drinking the same water could have passed something onto you which made you sick

Poured into glasses your honour, no ice before someone blames that

[thailiketoo]

Google, "Libel tourism."

Libel tourism is a term, first coined by Geoffrey Robertson, to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defences for those accused of making derogatory statements.

[JesseFrank]

Thai law is concerned with people losing face unnecesarrily. That result in that two criteria must be met in order for something to be not considered defamation:

1. What you told must be the truth.

2. What you told must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face.

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is.

Therefore 2 bad meals from the same establishment must be "must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face" or not ?

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is - on a different note I find that comment strange as there are many mistruths posted on here

Having 2 bad meals is an opinion not a fact anyway

My understanding is that even if it is proven in court that the company/restaurant served you a bad meal, so at that point it is a fact, you are not allowed to make it public.

[terak]

Google, "Libel tourism."

Libel tourism is a term, first coined by Geoffrey Robertson, to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defences for those accused of making derogatory statements.

There is a career in this ??? - would suit a few on TVF. Present company obviously excepted

Edited March 13, 2014 by terak

[Thai at Heart]

Thai law is concerned with people losing face unnecesarrily. That result in that two criteria must be met in order for something to be not considered defamation:

1. What you told must be the truth.

2. What you told must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face.

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is.

Therefore 2 bad meals from the same establishment must be "must be in the public intrest and outweighing the resulting loss of face" or not ?

On Thaivisa we do not like posts making allegations as we cannot determine what the truth is - on a different note I find that comment strange as there are many mistruths posted on here

There is a big difference between a bad meal and a bad meal.

This issue is why Thais will never understand TripAdvisor and the fawning responses from management. They would just sue if someone made a horrendous review.

[tb86]

You will need to go to the hospital.... if you had serious food poisioning you would have spent a day or so there anyways, have a stool sample taken and analyzed, as well as having samples of food from the restaurant tested as well, will take a week or so for results, thats if you could actualy get someone to go and inspect , good luck it will never happen.. And you will lose if the sue you, food poisioning is very rarley proven, unless there is a large poisioning ie. fat duck and noma last year... You do wash your hands a few times a day? ice, all fresh fruit juices, tap water, drinking from a bottle, eating w unwashed hands, using taps in public bathrooms, door handles ect ect all of these are very common factors in bacteria & viruses being spread... Millions of ways to get sick,

[10Yen]

Well first off its your version of the truth and the company restaurant has not been given the right to respond and if your version of the truth turns out to be incorrect the restaurant concerned could experience financial losses due to what you have written or said

In the thai context it seems you can be sued for defamation even if you are telling the truth

ThaiVisa posters are in trouble then.

Edited March 17, 2014 by 10Yen

[Seastallion]

So, would the solution be to do it the Thai way and talk around the subject? For example; I went to "Mrs Chanawat's Cafe" last week, and I found the prices to be very reasonable. Also last week, I felt ill as I walked home. Yesterday I went to Mrs Chanawat's Cafe again and the service was acceptable. Yesterday was a day I will remember because I was violently sick on the street.

NB. I have no idea if there is a Mrs Chanawats Cafe and as far as i'm concerned, this is a fiction and I was never sick or felt ill.

[JLCrab]

From Thai Criminal Code:

Section 330 In case of defamation, if the person prosecuted for defamation can prove that the imputation made by him is true, he shall not be punished. But he shall not be allowed to prove if such imputation concerns personal matters, and such proof will not be benefit to the public.

In an ongoing libel case in Thailand, allegations of Human Rights violations have been made against a Thai manufacturer but all those allegations have been made anonymously by workers to a European HR group. The workers (at last report) will not make their allegations in open court fearing retribution.

Edited March 17, 2014 by JLCrab

[benalibina]

Truth cant be told publicly.....strange......