Many have asked about certain dealers or individuals who sell guns and their records of performance, trustworthyness, honesty, etc.

what is the risk that one would run if they were to post a series of emails bewteen a seller and a buyer and it shows promises made but not kept (lies) and disengenuosu pratcices. would there be any legal risks involved.

Not if they are factual and you can demonstrate that. It still doesn't keep someone from trying to make an allegation stick. I would guess most people who visit this forum would like to hear
about shady practices involving our passion.

Emails can be faked and/or altered, thus are not legal proof in court - unless they were taken from an impounded computer in some cases, or the server. If you repost alleged emails on the forum and someone thinks it damaged their character and/or business, then they may be able to execute a successful suit.
If you posted the generalities of the incident, and then sent detailed emails to those expressing a more detailed interest, I would think you would minimize the risk.

I do not believe posting honest historic emails without any comments which mischaracterize them can create a liable or slander case. Now the issue of a privacy invasion is a different matter. I simply don't know if there are any privacy rights to emails sent to an individual. Jake

Anyone can sue pretty much anybody for pretty much anything. That's the bad news. But in a case like that you describe, it would be interesting to see how the dealer reacted, as the bigger the deal he makes of it, the worse the PR could get for him, especially if lots of other guys have had similar experiences and start weighing-in. I'm curious to hear more thoughts and experiences on this. Many here may be in the same boat, but I've had similar questions and concerns, in the aftermath of my own dealings with a particularly unsavory (and well known) dealer I had the misfortune to do business with. TT

Nobody is going to sue anybody over what is said here. No ordinary mortal could bear the cost and the intricacies of proof would be unwieldy. Look at the trouble celebs have with the Enquirer. If someone's rotten, most of us want the blab on it, go for it.

You can always state "your opinion" and use the phrase, "I believe" when you say something. Can't get you for slander if you state your opinions or beliefs and/or show why you feel the way you do.

It's not that simple, Jimmy. The US is the most litigious country on earth. Canada and the UK are lenient by comparison concerning defamation, libel and slander--- and costs. Truth and what you believe matter naught. If you said out of pure malice I had a contagious venerial disease or was a wife-beater or pedophile, holding me to public ridicule, even if true you'd likely lose. I do not believe that a straight, accurate description of a transaction would land anyone in court. Let readers make up their minds. Just leave the liar fireworks out of it. A lie is something you say that you know not to be true. Don't imply motives or intent. A complaint framed in the public interest always trumps spite and spleen.

Defamation (libel or slander), by definition, must involve a factually false statement. If what you write is factually true, it cannot be libel. Also if what you say cannot be determined to be factually false (if for example it is an opinion) then it cannot be defamation.

I might invade your privacy by telling others that you have a disease, and be liable for invading privacy, but it will not be libel.

"Slander" and "Libel" redirect here. For other uses, see Slander (disambiguation) and Libel (disambiguation).
For "liable", see Liability.
In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.

Seems I can't even ask a question without an attack....

sO I just deleted my question on "defamation of character and slander".

Libel is a written falsehood, slander a verbal one. If it is against a business, it can be actionable as disparagement. Generally, public figures have less standing to bring these actions than the private citizen. Damages can be difficult to prove, but so long as any damage can be established ($1.00) then the door is open for punitive damages. Finding attorneys to take the typical cases between individuals can be difficult as their time is valuable and such actions rarely offer a big pay off, so the plaintiff would have to have the deep pockets to fund the costs of the litigation. As others have stated, truth of the statement is an absolute defense. If the statement was clearly in jest, in many instances that will make an action in libel difficult to maintain.

In my opinion, because members of this forum go by "pen names" it would be very difficult to prove any damages. In fact it is entirely possible that the feuds we see here between two people, could actually be one person pretending to be two people. When writing about a businessman or a person and there is a clear message directed against a "real" person or entity, it is always a good idea to be truthful.

This might also be an appropriate time to mention that many posts on this forum by some members which may be intended to be cute, funny or patriotic (and ring of religious intolerance) are not only in very bad taste but very much contrary to the underpinnings of our great nation, which was founded upon the noble foundation of religious tolerance. When I see such postings on a thread, I have decided not to call the poster what he is (un-American, shallow and stupid in both thought and temperament), but to no longer post on any thread that has been so contaminated with stupidity. This is an international community and as an American, I do not wish to lend my support to such statements by silence. Thus, you will no longer see me participating in the damascus discussions or any other discussion that has been so contaminated by foul, intolerant, or un-American thoughts of others.

Doug

HomelessjOe
Member


Registered: January, 15 2006
Posts: 1918
Loc: Memphis Tennessee

"That "bloom" looks like something my dog left on my Persian rug."


The above post (posted just yesterday) by joe is the perfect example of the illiterate nonsense that spews from this member on a daily basis...he has completely ruined the "Damascus Explained" thread and still he will not stop as Dave Weber has insisted...When he can't find an insult to level against someone, he simply jams their postings whith misspelled nonsense designed to impress Lowell Glenthorne...who makes replies like "oh no no no jo jo" ...

This system no longer needs their pillow talk...the members no longer need having their academic threads jammed with talk of Lowell's underwear and nonsense about shooting trespassers found on property that he has deluded himself into thinking he owns...This system has no means of dealing with their sexual double entendre either...

I hope Dave stands you two punks in the corner for a couple of weeks. You just don't get it.

As long as we're on the subject, do the members or the owner of this system inadvertently incur any liability when a member openly demonstrates (post) racial hatred toward black people as Homelessjoe has done? Supposing some kid reads his posts and becomes seriously offended in a lasting way? Also, at the time, I demanded that he remove the posts. Even after being made aware of how damaging these posts could be to a young reader, he and Lowell refused to take the offensive material down. After that doesn't the responsibility fall to the moderators or site administrators? How far can this member legally go? How far do the members and web administrator allow this person to go before it's the proper time to protest his hurtful posts?

Listen Hansli,
Homelessjoe has made many sideways insults towards me since Dave has insisted "cease fire"...and the ONLY time you open your mouth is when I DEFEND myself...We were talking legality when you showed up with "punk" in your mouth...

If Dave revokes my membership for defending myself and others, it won't be temporary...because I will never post here again...due to the fact that I am the default librarian to a large percentage of the surviving data that has become the currecny of choice here, it would mean that he would pay a far larger price than I...and for what, to defend a couple of pigeons who bring him liability and discuss their underwear?

Hansli, you are slick...like you didn't notice that I had no participtation in this thread 'til joe made some veiled attempt to threaten me with a law suit...like you don't SEE that it is JOE WHO WON"T STOP

Robert-

Might I suggest that by you repeating the foul and insensitive rhetoric of others you are doing nothing more than publishing it again and thus giving it more life than it deserves.

Perhaps you should consider my approach and simply refuse to post on any thread where offensive comments have been made? Let those with their dirty minds remain together in the gutter and those who condone nasty or intolerant discussions become associated with the ugliness of others.

Realize we are all guests here and because it is not our house we have no power to ask anyone to stop or to leave. But we do have the power of self-restraint.

If enough good people leave when a bad person enters the house, then perhaps the host will consider whether the bad person is worth having in his house. If the ugliness of others ends valuable discussion, so be it, it is the host of this forum who can control it, not the guests.

Doug

Robert Chambers,
Data notwithstanding, I think your self absorbed treatises re: this 'dispute' are nauseating. If you were able to view your discourses as the rest of us have, you would be mortified. Stay away from the subject and spare us all. Punks is plural, by the way. Wake up, buddy. And that's all I have to say about that.

Thanks Doug,
I'm am agreement with you, but it's a little more complicated than that. The offensive posts were based on a photo that I had posted, suggesting that it was evidence. How do you respond in a situation like that? Insisting that he remove it from the thread that I had just spent several hours working on, was the only answer I could come up with at the time. He chose not to.

Robert-

I do understand your frustration. However, the expectation of ownership or control over a thread that you started or to which you have contributed is simply non-extant in the context of this forum. The host/moderators of this forum are the ones who police it.

If they do not share your respect for the time, effort or sensibilities of others, you will simply have to contribute according to their rules, or you can chose not to participate. I will continue to participate so long as the discussion is civil. When the discussion becomes debased, I will no longer participate. I've nothing to contribute compared to you and many others, so it is no great loss to the community. Should the forum lose your knowledge and resources, it would indeed be a great loss.

Because you asked, I would recommend you exercise self-restraint. If you do not care for the direction of the discussion, you can do as I have decided to do, and that is to simply end participation in the discussion.

Doug

Thanks Doug,
The other questions need no answer...I'll bow out here, taking your advice with me...

I think we have some esteemed members with a chip on the shoulder, and some willing to knock off said chip.

If you would take the time to read you will see Revdocdrew poked a joke at me on the previous page...so I poked one back...

Get over it.

jOe: if you've figered out a way to get your pup to generate finished Stub Twist barrels please share your feeding regimen!

I'll see what I can do...

Brian - back to your thread. I was cheated by a Gunsmith a few years back, along with about 200 other folks. The Gunsmith used threats of Libel and Slander suits to attempt to keep others that had work with him from posting anything negative about him.

This technique, along with being cahoots with quite a few Board Moderators kept his scam going for years. This yahoo was in no way connected with double guns, or any board that they are the primary subject of. The thief went by the name Gary Gucciano, a websearch will turn up the information, if you are curous about it.

In your case, if it is truly not a misunderstanding, or personal grudge, I would post a summary of the events, and hold the emails in reserve, for use in court or with the State AG. Excerps would be OK, IMO.

The first questions I would ask are how were all communications made? If the emails are supplemented by telephone calls or the like, and do not present the whole story, I would hesitate to post them. In general, posting actual emails may present some issues in and of themselves depending upon the expectations of the parties; you publicize them at your own risk. Remember also, that once these items are on the internet, you are no longer in control of what is done with them. Legal charges are only one aspect of how this can come back to bite the poster.

Second, what remedies have been sought? If the dealer (or gunsmith or whomever) failed to reach an accomodation, did you try other methods? Sometimes that may be indicated before posting on the web. Threads over the years mostly show that there are two sides, usually irate, to every story.

The best advice given here has been to try to settle matters privately before the situation spins out of control.

If the matter is already beyond resolution, I'd go with Postoak's recommendations keeping in mind that there will be incoming after you present your side.

There's a need and time, even a responsibility, to publicize bad dealing; otherwise we are corrupted by the process. I find a lot of complaints tedious in the way they are presented here, more as cases of special pleading than information.

For purposes valued here, I think it's enough to describe a transaction concerning a gun or services: what you thought you bought and what you got and briefly your disappointment with the way the seller handled it.

I-said, he-said, he lied, I Sir Galahad are unnecessary. The reason for posting is to provide a heads-up for members. I opened a box of new Champion aircraft spark plugs without electrodes; the company apologized and replaced them. Enough.

If Champion or distributer sought a different remedy, I would have described it in briefest terms without imputing motives. It's plain-old consumer advocacy. A citizen's responsibility. Libel, slander, defamation should not enter into it.