[quote=“Vannyel”]I guess the sentence that got . . . Spontaneous in trouble was “Other language schools are advised . . . not to be deceived by them.”[/quote] (ellipsis and boldface added)
That’s my guess, too: I would guess that implying that the two teachers in question are dishonest would hit the defamation button.
I’m not really interested in anyone putting China Post et al. out of business, and I’m not interested in jail time for anyone. I just like meditating on the notion that some of the right folks might get the impression from all this that they can’t always do exactly what they please with perfect impunity.
Yes, that’s why I said…2. 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.
It was also on television.
Who were those guys anyhow?Not bad looking,hehehe!Maybe they will take me shopping.I think on the whole,all in all,it will be good for the foreign community.Let these fucking bushibang dudes no that we will speak up and not be taken advantage of.My boyfriend said they still owe him money from his taxis he had to take.
Well, gosh, that only includes about 1/3 of all foreigners and every English school owner on the island. I can’t imagine how a big loss of face there could ever hurt them.
Under Taiwan law a sentence of six months or less can be changed into a fine calculated on a daily rate. I believe it’s about NT$900 per day. So, someone sentenced to three months (90 days) would pay 90 x NT$900 = NT$81,000, approximately.
FTV’s English news briefly covered this story but the only new thing in it was a short interview with the Canadian guy. http://bobby.ftv.com.tw/ftvn/EnglishNews/index.asp Click on the computer icon bottom left of this page and then choose 2004/9/14 from the list of dates. You will need to be patient. The story comes up after 29 minutes. If you watch all the way through the stuff prior to the story you’ll also get to see some amusing technical glitches.
I agree instead of getting all jealous I think we should be proud of the dudes for stepping up and not taking the crap from the Taiwanese in charge.If anything it will help show that we can’t be pushed around,just because we are away from the comforts of our home home.About the “cutie chick” thing.I am not always nice.They “Spontaneous Language School” screwed my boyfriend pretty good and they also lied to him and told him that it was only the newspaper companies in trouble.
Right. The terms “felony” and “misdemeanor” mean nothing here.
Certain things here are treated as if they were criminal matters, negligent driving and libel are two that I know of. They are prosecuted by the state on behalf of the complainant, but they do also have civil counterparts. The difference is the criminal route is much cheaper for whoever is bringing the suit.
Those two adverts were a clear libel on the subjects if we use British or US standards. I am sure the plaintiffs were advise to sue whoever was most likely to pay. I am sure having got their judgment they will go on to sue Spontaneous, and any one else who repeated the libel. We are also in danger of repeating the libel here on Forumosa, but of course are not worth suing.
The damages - are they punitive or compensation for business lost as a result of the libel ? They don’t look punitive to me, and quite frankly if an English paper had run that ad it could be looking at many hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages.
Bravo to the guys. Those ads have always made me sick. Which law firm did they use ?
Nonsense. In the US, to establish a case for libel one must prove publication of a false statement of material facts, which resulted in actual damages. The statement cannot be too vague and ambiguous, but must be sufficiently specific that it can be proven to be objectively false. The statement cannot be a mere opinion, as statements of opinion are constitutionally protected. In this case, some newspaper quoted above said:
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.”
Is the above a statement of facts? of opinion? can it be proven to be false? It’s hard to say. I’m not saying one could not win a case for libel on these facts in the US, but it is far from certain and I believe in the UK the standard is very much the same. It is definitely not a clear case of libel.
Nonsense.
Is the above a statement of facts? of opinion? can it be proven to be false? It’s hard to say. I’m not saying one could not win a case for libel on these facts in the US, but it is far from certain and I believe in the UK the standard is very much the same. It is definitely not a clear case of libel.[/quote]
Oops. OK, I shouldn’t have mentioned the US.
In the UK the defences available to libel are justification, fair comment, or that the statement was not libellous. There is no need to consider whether or not something can be proved as false. The crux here is whether what was published would cause persons known to the plaintiff to shun him, or whether he would suffer economic loss. In the case of the former it is not necessary to show liquidated damages.
This advert was to the effect that the plaintiffs conducted themselves in such a way in the course of their employment that other employers should not hire them. This is a prima facie libel. It is likely that potential employers reading this will consider not employing these people, and thereby gives rise to an economic loss which a jury can be asked to quantify. Whether or not acquaintances of the pair will “shun” them depends largely on their current reputation amongst acquaintances. If they already have a reputation for dodgy dealing amongst acquantiances, then an action might fail to this extent. But I do think there is a tort and there are damages recoverable.
If an advert like this appeared in a British newspaper it would be straight down to the High Court for a big expensive libel trial. God how I wish someone would libel me like that !
I agree that it’s not a perfectly clear case, but it looks pretty clear to me.
The school said it was not responsible for anything the teachers did outside the school. In the context of a newspaper ad, the unmistakable implication by the school, and therefore by the newspaper, is that the teachers did things for which someone might attempt to hold the school liable or culpable, i.e., that the teachers did actionably bad things.
The school, and therefore the newspaper, also said that one should not be deceived by the teachers, unmistakably implying that the teachers were liars. This, again, appeared in a special advertisement, giving the impression that the school was gravely, urgently concerned about its reputation because of some action or actions on the parts of the teachers. It also gave the impression that the school was performing a public service in warning the other schools about the two teachers.
Despite a little coy indirection in the wording, the implications of the ad are not ambiguous: The school, through the newspaper, is accusing the two men of doing wrongs to the school and of being liars. I admit, though, it’s not specific enough to make a plaintiff’s lawyer really happy with the case upon getting it (although he or she is probably fairly happy with the results so far).
As for the opinion defense (admit I don’t really know if it should be called a defense), the standard is whether the statement is a “statement of opinion having no provably false factual connotation.” From Milkovich, quoted below:
[quote]Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, “In my opinion Jones is a liar,” can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, “Jones is a liar.” As Judge Friendly aptly stated: “[It] would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of [defamatory conduct] simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words ‘I think.’”. . . It is worthy of note that at common law, even the privilege of fair comment did not extend to “a false statement of fact, whether it was expressly stated or implied from an expression of opinion.” [/quote] Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (Note: I omitted internal citations). For the entire Milkovich case, see bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/f … ovich.html
If the teachers proved up their case, then it appears to me the school, and therefore the newspaper, made statements with a “provably false factual connotation.” Under Milkovich, this wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment.
In any case, it looks as if some judge thought it was a libel.
Good case. Right on point. Predictably, it is Rehnquist ( :fume: ) who wrote the majority opinion, whittling away at constitutionally protected rights of free speech and, naturally, it was Brennan ( ) who wrote the dissent, defending such rights. Here are some relevant comments from the dissent that I feel apply in this Taiwan case (or would if US law were relevant here):
Although statements of opinion may imply an assertion of a false and defamatory fact, they do not invariably do so . . .
. . . the tone and format of the piece notify readers to expect speculation and personal judgment. The tone is pointed, exaggerated and heavily laden with emotional rhetoric and moral outrage. . .
The format of the piece is a signed editorial column . . .reminds readers that they are reading one man’s commentary. While signed columns may certainly include statements of fact, they are also the “well recognized home of opinion and comment.” . . . Certain formats, editorials, reviews, political cartoons, letters to the editor signal the reader to anticipate a departure from what is actually known by the author as fact. See Ollman v. Evans, supra, at 986 (“The reasonable reader who peruses [a] column on the editorial or Op- Ed page is fully aware that the statements found there are not `hard’ news like those printed on the front page or elsewhere in the news sections of the newspaper”). . . Zimmerman, Curbing the High Price of Loose Talk, 18 U.C.D. L. Rev. 359, 442 (1985) (stressing the need to take into account “the cultural common sense of the ordinary listener or reader”).
I don’t specialise in Libel Law but it does however seem extremely straight forward.
Can you just call a newspaper company and pay them to publish someones picture,passport number,name and citizenship? I sure don’t think so,that is confidential information. This is probably why the Canadian and Finland government have also objected the way their citizens were exposed.
Also, from what I was told,the language school when asked what the plaintiffs did in order for them to include “Do not be deceived by them” replied to the judge, “we think they were using our business cards after the contract had expired” Why do you think that? "because we got a (1) phone call from one of their former clients.
First of all, my common sense tells me when you step down from a company, there would be no benefit to still using that companies business cards.
I have also been told that it is illegal (a criminal offense in Taiwan) to make fun of someone or speak about them out loud negatively in public.
If this isn’t clear Libel, I don’t know how much clearer it could be.
Hey, try calling an American newspaper and advertising someones picture, passport #, name and citizenship and the wording “She is the nicest and most beautiful lady in the world” That alone my friends, would draw an open and shut law suit. Though, the newspapers would never accept the ad in the first place.
Good for you.That is your right, believe whatever you wish, however you may want to look back at my posts and you will see that I in fact ran into one of the plaintiffs at a sports bar while watching the final game of the Canada/Finland hockey championships.God Bless You!
Uh oh, looks like another lawsuit from a foreigner is on the horizon. They are just coming out of the woodwork now. This one is more interesting in that it is from the bald guy in the Lemel jailbird ads. This Spontaneous thing is so, like, 5 minutes ago.
The article is about the bald thief and how he is miffed at having his face plastered everywhere and having this new found fame without the newly found jump in pay. He was paid 15,000nt and signed a contract with an agent. The contract stated that the ads were only going to be on TV. Lemel told the guy to deal with his agent as lemel only dealt with the agent. *
… forgot the rest.
Disclaimer - not responsible for any misinterpretation of my interpretation on the linked article.
) who wrote the dissent, defending such rights. Here are some relevant comments from the dissent that I feel apply in this Taiwan case (or would if US law were relevant here):