SAMAN FITNAH/DEFAMATION - PART v

Tweet asal. Memang x sebut nama kami. Tetapi..

Daripada tweet asal ni, mula menarik reaction yg menyebut nama brand kami  and comment yg dileparkan juga berbaur negative and memberi imej negative kepada brand Kami. 

Contoh tweet dan mereka yg re-tweet👇

......

LAGI SAMAN FITNAH

***********************

Manusia ni kalau x puas hati  memg wajib memviral untuk apa sebenarnya ya 🙄 barangkali kekurangan perhatian? Kasih sayang? Nk tarik followers? Dolu2 men viral kat  FB harini men viral kat twitter pulak. Sudahnya??? Kami ni plak nk kene belajo bab ber twitter😪

Nway..dengar sini ! Anda yg membuat posting sila hadam baik2. Ada 2 things i nak share :

ONE

*****

👉Prinsip xmention nama siapa yg awk tuju dalam postin awk dengan harapan awk nak "escape" sebab kononnya bukan awk yang mention nama atau brand produk seseorg ..da x lagi "terpakai" untuk awak nak menyelamatkan diri ya. 

👉Dalam keadaan ni mudah ja, Plaintif perlu membuktikan bahawa pernyataan fitnah tersebut diaggap mampu merujuk kepada Plaintif di mana ianya munasabah bagi pihak ketiga untuk membuat kesimpulan atau mengetahui bahawa pernyataan tersebut merujuk kepada Plaintif. Lagi2 kalau banyak komen dibawah postin awk tu mention nama "si polan" yg sebenarnya awak refer. Lagi mudah nak buktikan pernyataan fitnah awak buat tu adalah memg terhadap "si polan"

👉Oleh itu, boleh disimpul bhw nama Plaintif tidak perlu dinyatakan secara khusus dlm mana2 postin (bagi membolehkan awk disaman 4 defamation) di mana adalah mencukupi jika pihak ketiga yang membaca kenyataan fitnah tersebut secara wajar memahami kenyataan tersebut merujuk kepada Plaintif. 

🌸 Tambah sikit : sec 114A of Evidenc Act

A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub- editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved.'

TWO

******

Untuk bab menyiarkan semula (repost) atau me-retweet (retweet) semula suatu pernyataan yang diterbitkan di Facebook dan Twitter. Mahkamah dalam kes rayuan Raja Syahrir Abu Bakar (2019) memutuskan:

“Once the defamatory remarks of the 1st defendant were reproduced or republished, those responsible for such republication of the Defamation were equally liable in Defamation”

👉Maka, awak2 tadi yg suka nk meretweet.. watchout. Anda juga boleh dianggap menerbitkan satu pernyataan fitnah terhadap seseorang walaupun anda hanya menyiarkannya semula.

👉Kepada yg memulakan postin dan menyebabkan 2ndary statemnt. Baca yang ni :

Dalam kes GS REALTY SDN BHD v. LEE KONG SENG

[42] In this case however, it is clear beyond peradventure that the Defendant was well aware of the secondary statements posted by third parties on his Facebook Page and did not remove them. These third parties were people known to the Defendant. Suffice it to say that the Defendant knew of the secondary statements posted, did nothing to remove them, and was entirely recalcitrant about it. In fact the postings by the third parties were specifically in response to the Defendant's own postings and, in the circumstances of this case, it could also be maintained that the Defendant had caused the publications by the third parties.

[43] Having regard to the foregoing, I hold the Defendant liable for publishing the secondary statements that were posted on the Defendant's Facebook Page.

MORAL STORY

------------------------

kalau x puas hati. X payah buat luahan ferasaan acah2 hebat dalam alam maya. Pi la jumpa depan2. Baru la hebat. Penat tau !! Da mcm2 kes saman fitnah da kami hadap. Esp melibatkan produk. Dari utara sampai ke selatan. Manjang pi defam org.

Awk nk guna defenc justification tu pi blaja dlu maksud justification tu apa. If u kata HQ penipu, HQ perompak, Founder bodoh, Founder Hitam. Tu pi tgok kat cermin. Ada tak manusia2 yang awak kutuk tu berperangai macam awak?? Melalak2 tapi dlm FB. Melalak2 tp dalam twitter. Kutuk awk balik awk tu perompak ke awk, tu hodoh ke. Dalam banyak2 kes yg kami buat. Xde lagi yg menjadi Plaintif ni buat d same thing macam apa yg Defendan buat. Xde! 

N d most important thing! Ur defamtory statmnt like HQ penipu, HQ perompak, Founder bodoh, Founder Hitam tu bukan 1 "JUSTIFICATION" ya! Eh... stress lah

Nexxx defamation case

🤒🤒🤒

NA'21

0192635631