Foreigners win court case over slander - Defendants get jail

Would you believe the defendants (Language School owners) have been handed 3 months in prison? Apparently the plaintiffs are suing the Language school alone for 1 million US$. My wife knows their lawyer and apparently he is quite well known in Taipei. Should these unscrupulous Laobans be faced with prison sentences for slander? What would this bring in the west? Yesterday they awarded 300,000 each from the China Post but it seems they will be appealing for greater. The China Post will also have to settle out of court if they want to avoid apologizing by way of a front page ad for 2 consecutive days. Sure sounds like these 2 blokes made their stay in Taiwan a successful one. Wish I was looking at 1 million US$ court case in my favor, bastards!

I didn’t mean it, don’t sue me! :laughing:

  1. What the hell are you talking about? Link please.

  2. You’re not really a lawyer, are you?

Yes, I am a lawyer FYI back in the States and the information was from an extremely reliable source. I didn’t expect criticism, I simply hoped to hear feedback from the foreign community here in Taiwan, as I know that many complain at the general business practice and way foreigners are treated here in Taiwan (with the bushibans). No harm implied, have a great day! Lawyerdude

  1. Wow, a quarduple post spanning 7 minutes? How is that even possible?

  2. There’s already a thread about the result of that, and another thread about the whole thing. Use it.

  3. It would’ve been nice if you made it obvious what in the hell you were talking about to start with.

I mean is it fair, too much or not enough? You are a real winner, sounds like you need to get laid. Loser.

Well, as a lawyer you should understand that one can’t possibly issue a legal opinion without knowing the facts and you haven’t stated the most basic facts in this case.

Who said what about whom?
Was the statement written or oral?
Was the statement clearly false?
Did the complainants suffer damages as a result? What damages?
Apparently a criminal judgment was just rendered and a civil action is pending – is that correct?
What was basis for the judgment?

No offense meant, but I was interested in the subject of your discussion and disappointed that it was completely lacking in substance. Do you know any of the alleged facts in this case?

Strange only one local english language newspaper ran the story today…Taiwan news, page 3.

I was watching the hockey game with one this morning as a matter of fact. Apparently, the criminal case deemed the owners of the bushiban had violated two counts of the Taiwanese criminal law code. Something to do with slander and something to do with intentional damage to ones reputation. I understand the case for civil damages but was a little shocked to hear the defendants received jail time. I also think a large apology advertised on the front page of the China Post’s paper for 2 consecutive days, would be a huge obstacle for China post to overcome, considering their target market is foreigners and the fact that they have steadily been losing market share to the Taipei Times (a much larger publication) over the last 5 years. Sorry for the confusion. I wonder how much extra they will pay to avoid having to apologize so publicly. Any thoughts?

They have not been losing market share. All the papers lie about their circulation, so its really hard to tell what the real deal is. Most of their biggest subscribers–hotels and airlines–still buy an even amount of newspapers.

Actually you are wrong. The China Post has a capital value of approximately 22 million and the Taipei Times 87 million. But, if you believe that to be equal, I rest my case.

etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2004/ … 214386.htm


Taiwan

China Post ordered to pay libel damages

2004-09-15 / Taiwan News, Staff Writer /
Two foreign employees of a local language school yesterday won a libel suit against a Taipei-based English-language newspaper, the China Post, after the Taipei District Court ruled that an advertisement the paper ran had damaged their reputations.

In addition to printing a formal apology, the China Post is required to pay NT$300,000 in compensation to each of the two employees.

This is the first time two foreign nationals have won a libel suit against a local newspaper. The two plaintiffs decided to sue the China Post for libel after consulting with their lawyers.

The two plaintiffs, identified as Samppa Suoniemi from Finland and Graeme Laronge from Canada, worked at the Spontaneous Language School as sales representatives until last year.

They said they were greatly disturbed by the ad that appeared twice under the title “memorandum” on the front page of the China Post in November of last year. The ad was also printed by the Taipei Times and the Taiwan News and included not only photographs of the plaintiffs but also their full names, nationalities and passport numbers.

Without specifying details, the language school said in its ad, “Spontaneous is not responsible for anything they (Suoniemi and Laronge) have done outside the school,” and “other language schools are advised to remain cautious and not to be deceived by them.”

During the trial, the China Post argued that it had no right to alter the content of the ad run by the school. The paper said it had agreed to run the ad after deciding it was the result of some kind of financial dispute between the school and its two former employees.

However, the judge did not accept the paper’s argument, saying that the ad should not have appeared on its front page under the “memorandum” heading, which may have given readers the wrong impression that it was a news article.

Source for this info?

Is this US or NT dollars? What does capital value have to do with market share? Does the Taipei Times own their own office space?

You’re on the Taipei Times side, aren’t you? You are bad. You’re a bad, bad man and I don’t like you bad man.

[quote=“Flicka”]Source for this info?

Is this US or NT dollars? What does capital value have to do with market share? Does the Taipei Times own their own office space?

You’re on the Taipei Times side, aren’t you? You are bad. You’re a bad, bad man and I don’t like you bad man.[/quote]

Probably US$.

So it was libel, not slander. You might want to correct the erroneous title of this thread. (You do know the difference between libel and slander don’t you?).

Also, in your first post you spoke of US$ 1 million judgments. Your latest post states that they got judgments of less than US$ 10,000 each. Quite a difference. $10,000 may not even cover their attorney fees. (You understand, don’t you that one can sue for $10 billion if one wants and it doesn’t mean a damn thing? Only the amount of the judgement or settlement is meaningful.)

You also mentioned a 3 month jail sentence in your first post, but I see nothing about that in the article you later posted, so I don’t know whether to believe that either.

As Fred Smith would say, “color me unimpressed.”

So, if the ad was run in all three papers, why would they only sue the Post?

Good question.I was told they decided to start with the Post as they are the smallest one.Something about waiting on the criminal case as the language school has appealed.I think they want to use the criminal case to strengthen their case for civil.As far as market capital,it is in NT$ with the price of news print,these paper companies are struggling to make a buck.If you know law,you know that nothing is concrete until an appeal is dealt with,of course the China Post will say they will appeal,as they want to keep they’re clientele base believing they were wronged and in the right the whole time.In reality,they apparently are begging to settle out of court in order to avoid the front page apology for 2 days.My question was regarding the criminal case.Do you think 3 months is too low,fair or too much?

[quote=“lawyerdude”]

  1. As far as market capital,it is in NT$ with the price of news print,these paper companies are struggling to make a buck…
  2. …of course the China Post will say they will appeal,as they want to keep they’re clientele base believing they were wronged and in the right the whole time.
  3. …In reality,they apparently are begging to settle out of court in order to avoid the front page apology for 2 days.
  4. …My question was regarding the criminal case.Do you think 3 months is too low,fair or too much?[/quote]
    What do you base these assumptions on???
  5. Why do you think they are struggling? All the English language newspapers, I believe, are just smaller parts of larger companies that only exist because the owners want to have an English language newspaper (for whatever reasons, but I seriously doubt anyone is delusional enough to believe an English language newspaper (by its self) is going to make any money).
  6. What clientele base? The only publicity this has gotten has been on this forum, a short article in the Taiwan News, and coverage in the Chinese media.
  7. You think they would rather pay money than run a ‘free’ apology on the front page. Give me a break.
  8. Three months is fine by me (of course I believe they are allowed to pay a fine and avoid jail all together).

Thats interesting,maybe they can pay money to the courts and avoid jail all together,regardless they are stuck with a criminal record which means international travel is a headache.Regarding the market cap,it was mentioned to me that they are suing each individual newsprint co. based on their specific capital.Yes,the China Post has to reason to give in in midst of media presence,as it only makes them look bad,when instead they can claim they’re upset and will appeal,common sense right?
Yes,I disagree with you.If it was my newspaper company I sure would pay extra to avoid having an apology on the Front page.Think about it?Really you think 3 months is okay eh?

I hope those low class Bushibang owners get thrown the book.Tehy screwed my boyfriend a lot.Had him going out to Xindian in the mornings and Tamshui in the evening.There’s a guy named William there who is a cheater and lies to all the teachers.Fucking serves those assholes right.But I dont think the newspaper did anything wrong.From the sounds of it they just published the ad they were paid for.Question is why would some stupid idiot pay money to put the ad in the paper in the first place.Must be a real retard.

[quote=“lawyerdude”]
…criminal record which means international travel is a headache.Regarding the market cap,it was mentioned to me that they are suing each individual newsprint co. based on their specific capital…Yes,I disagree with you.If it was my newspaper company I sure would pay extra to avoid having an apology on the Front page.Think about it?Really you think 3 months is okay eh?[/quote]
I am not sure where your information is coming from but I don’t think slander is a felony (or the equivalent here in Taiwan) so it should make international travel no more of a headache than getting a shoplifting conviction.
As for suing based on capital? Are you sure? Doesn’t make much sense…suing someone on their ability to pay…it should be on circulation…which I doubt anyone really knows.
As for the front page, as a foreigner I would be no more upset about seeing a front page apology on an English language newspaper in Taiwan than about seeing a dog food advertisement. It wouldn’t affect my purchasing the newspaper in the future. For Taiwanese readers, I think they would feel the same. Actually, I would have ran a full page apology before the court case just to prove how repentant I was to the judge in the hopes of getting my hands slapped and a smaller fine. But then again I am not worried about losing face. :wink:
The three month sentence…well what was the actually impact of the memo? A three month sentence for running a slanderous ad…I think that’s enough. After reading the ad, I guess the sentence that got those geniuses at Spontaneous in trouble was “Other language schools are advised to remain cautious and not to be deceived by them” otherwise it was just a memo saying two guys got fired and no longer represented the school.

It’s spread a lot farther than that. It was in Apple today - my wife told me about it.