You are correct that people can be and have been held legally liable for defamatory statements made on Websites, but I don’t believe anything in this thread comes anywhere close to being a problem in that regard. Defamation requires an intentionally false statement of material facts (not opinion and not trivial facts), which is uttered for the purpose of causing harm to another and it actually does cause harm. The speaker of the statement has to come across as credible, believable and possessing knowledge of the facts, and the victim must prove actual monetary damages caused by people believing the intentional false statements.
This thread is obviously just a bunch of people, most of whom don’t know shit, shooting the bull, giving their opinions. The only potential for liability in my opinion would be if Michel’s factual account was completely false, he knew it was false, he made it for the purpose of causing harm to Ryan, and Ryan suffered actual quantifiable harm as result of that statement. Seems so remote as to be not a problem, in my opinion.
I don’t think so. People are entitled to express their opinions. The prosecutor won’t file charges against Ryan unless they’ve got lots of real evidence – not a bunch of chatroom gossip that isn’t even admissible in court. The only person who could conceivably have any motive to sue forumosans for intentionally false statements would be Ryan and he’s obviously in such deep shit that the last thing on his mind would be to waste his time, money and energy filing a meritless lawsuit against a bunch of kindergarten teachers from forumosa.[/quote]
Thanks MT. That cleared up a few things for a lot of us here I’m sure, and in a pleasntly readable style as well. Very nice.
TavernCaptain wrote [quote]When John cleaned up, he has even found the “GIO” job Ryan had made.[/quote]
That is correct; I was searching for evidence and amongst all the unpaid pills was a chop that exactly matched what Ryan had claimed to be a GIO (Government Information Office) chop on his paperwork. In other words, Ryan’s so-called FM license was something he forged!!! I can show the chop and papers to anyone who is interested.
Mythandore wrote [quote]Going back to the Taipei Times article. I found that it was amazingly nice about him. It painted him as being a victim, rather than a perp. He came out far better in that article than he deserved. [/quote]
I agree. The article gives the impression that his con was to keep the radio station going. Actually, he had already conned enough people and was flush with enough money to pay all his radio-related debts!!
However, I am a little puzzled as to their pertinence to the initial contentions: namely that a newspaper was indulging in hearsay.
This was how the hearsay issue was first broached, so why did it it suddenly become a ‘court’ issue (I am no legal expert but this argument in itself appears a red herring - the comments here would be the starting point, then those who uttered them would be compelled to reiterate (or not as the case may be) them in court, thereby divesting them of the cloak of ‘hearsay’). Swings and roundabouts as far as my legally unpracticed eyes can see.
However, the main point is that a newspaper can print the comments here and say they are allegations (unless they are making them up themselves for a fabricated story or are just indulging in arbitrary character assassination - the truth, as far as i remember, is no defense under libel laws) with impunity and quite rightly so. All this pompous moralizing about the press and their unsubstantiated conjecture is, as had already been pointed out, pretty hypocritical.
Basically MT, though I - and I promise not disingenuously - bow to your superior knowledge in this area, I think the original point concerned the media, not a courtroom.
That is correct; I was searching for evidence and amongst all the unpaid pills was a chop that exactly matched what Ryan had claimed to be a GIO (Government Information Office) chop on his paperwork. In other words, Ryan’s so-called FM license was something he forged!!! I can show the chop and papers to anyone who is interested.[/quote]
Forging the chop of a government agency is a serious offence by itself. If the chop and forged licence have been handed over to the police, together with sufficient evidence (such as TC’s or Almas’s testimony) linking them to Mr. Diedericks, that will suffice for the first of a wide array of charges to be filed.
I wonder how professional the forgery was? Was the licence a copy of a real one, and would the chop have looked authentic enough to fool someone who compared it with the real thing?
The police will certainly be interested in finding out who made the chop. Although such chops are probably easy for local criminals to obtain, I’m surprised that Diedericks was able to find someone willing to make one for him – it’s not something your average chopmaker would be willing to do if approached with such a request, especially from a foreigner!
I think I owe Tavern Captain an apology. Looking back at some of my recent posts there’s an insinuation that he didn’t do his homework or made bad decisions. It’s becoming very clear that this is not the case and I want to be clear about that.
My only beef with him was a purely procedural one about deleting posts at forumosa, which shouldn’t have been included in this conversation and has been handled seperately.
[quote=“ghostface”]MT’s elucidations were indeed helpful.
However, I am a little puzzled as to their pertinence to the initial contentions: namely that a newspaper was indulging in hearsay. . . why did it it suddenly become a ‘court’ issue . . . . . . . . . . I think the original point concerned the media, not a courtroom.[/quote]
Actually, I feel sheepish blathering on at such length about the law. The more one speaks the more likely one is to be boring. . . and wrong. But my statement is essentially correct.
Why all the discussion of courtrooms and law? Because I believe some were concerned that statements on forumosa could potentially be used against Ryan in court if the prosecutor files criminal charges against him, which seems likely according to the allegations discussed. And, in all fairness to zhujianlun, the word “hearsay” is commonly used in the way he described. In fact, the dictionary on my desk (Webster’s New World) refers to “hearsay evidence” as:
But as a statement of law, that definition is simply wrong. Do I know better than the Webster dictionary? On that point yes. In the common parlance, hearsay has come to mean a report of what someone else has said, but in the courtroom it does not mean that at all. In the US and most other jurisdictions (probably including Taiwan) it means what I described: “an out of court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
The end result is that if someone tries to submit statements off of forumosa as evidence in court to prove Ryan’s guilt, regardless of whether those making the statements have first-hand knowledge or not, the statements should promptly be disallowed as hearsay evidence and the attorneys would be forbidden from referring to them. Instead, witnesses must be called in to court to testify.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeh Truant! Hope Almas John is not going to read this before tomorrow, we plan to come over together for the HH (John is about 40cm taller than me but admit that this is easy).
OK, so after all this fuss we’re definitely back down to ICRT as the only viable FM station, and yet their format continues to keep moving further and further away from the international community that it is supposed to serve. Meanwhile, the WWRN situation also indicates that there is a strong desire/hope, etc. for there to be a station that does broadcast in English.
Is there some way we can turn this whole negative into a positive – i.e., to convert lemons into lemonade?
Or s… into gold! To my knowledge not possible unless broadcast from another country (in case of internet) or from a ship in international waters in case of FM.
But it is a laugh hearing of the people back home being stuck on the M25, isn’t it! We can discuss all about WWRN tomorrow, however tired of this bloody subject as it has been the topic every night for the last two weeks downstairs. :fume:
Has anyone tried to do what the expats in Malaysia and KL have done with Expat KL? I brought a copy back from my last trip.
I think that if you want to get to the radio, you would need at least a strong print magazine like that to really say if there’s a market or not. It’s the market positioning. Who are you trying to serve? Is there a need to serve that market?
Then there’s brianlk’s points…
The only way this will happen IMO, is you’re going to have a foreigner friendly government (and the DPP ain’t it) who’s going to champion it from the inside. And the foreigners will need to find a proper face and champion it from the outside. Then a lot of negotiating and packaging would need to happen to ultimately make it a reality. I don’t think it’ll happen by government fiat… but then who knows exactly what’s achievable unless one tries :eh:
The biggest problem out here is that the ship would go through hell during typhoon season. Still, you got me thinking of Wolfman Jack with his huge pirate radio rig down in Mexico at XERF.
We can discuss all about WWRN tomorrow, however tired of this bloody subject as it has been the topic every night for the last two weeks downstairs. :fume:
Still, you got me thinking of Wolfman Jack with his huge pirate radio rig down in Mexico at XERF.