3 ms·

Defamy wouldn't apply as it's a private relationship. They're not broadcasting to the world that they think you're a con, they're just telling you... Which is

Defamy wouldn't apply as it's a private relationship. They're not broadcasting to the world that they think you're a con, they're just telling you... Which is fine.

chris_wot 14y ago
Where are you getting that definition from? I have used Wikipedia for the definition of how one proves libel: There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. Of course, there is no citation. I just added the {{fact}} tag. But does anyone know if this is true or not?
- unreal37 14y ago
  Telling her privately that her account is associated with a fraudulent account has not caused her any harm, thus its not libeled her. Only if they published it to the world, she could claim her reputation has been harmed.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Actually, it did because she lost all her books and she isn't able to get them back.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      The loss of books has nothing to do with the speech act of libel.
      - chris_wot 14y ago
        "Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm."
        dangrossman 14y ago
        1:00 PM -- fraud system links her account to another banned account 1:00 PM -- her account is closed 2:00 PM -- she asks Amazon why her account is closed 3:00 PM -- Amazon makes the statement you claim is libelous The loss occurred before the statement, so you cannot claim the statement caused that loss. The alleged libel did not result in the damages you're claiming. Libel would be if Amazon falsely accused her of fraud in public, then her employer terminating her employment as a result of that statement. That is a harm resulting from the statement.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  The last one seems a little odd "the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement". What is to stop somebody extensively researching something but then just deciding to lie anyway?
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Pretty sure the actual law clarifies that the speaker must have a reason to believe the claim even after engaging in some research. And that reason to disbelieve the claim is not a defense.
- oliwarner 14y ago
  On the same page, "it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed". If I tell you I think you're lazy, that's rude but it isn't defamy. If I write you a letter and you publish it, it's still not defamy. If I talk to your boss and tell him I think you're lazy (without evidence) that may be defamy. If I publish a letter to you telling you you're lazy, that may be defamy. And no, this has nothing to do with the rest of the issue.
rmc 14y ago
Depends. In the EU, companies are legally required to store personal data accurately. It doesn't matter if they don't tell anyone (in fact often they cannot tell people, privacy and all that). If you tell them that personal data they have one you is incorrect, they are legally required to correct it. So yes, if the data is wrong, they might be breaking the law.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Not just in Europe - Australia has similar privacy legislation also. If a company is storing incorrect information about you, you can request to see your record and then have them correct that record. If they won't, the Privacy Commissioner can investigate and order them to do so.
- oliwarner 14y ago
  I don't know... Even in records, Amazon are allowed to inaccurately call you a filthy good-for-nothing and these would not be subject to EU Privacy requests. They're not FOIA requests. You don't get to request a copy of your whole file like you can with the FBI. Amazon is not a public body. Its privacy requirements are limited to giving you a copy of your personal information. Name. Address. Phone number. Anything else (including the marker labelling you as a pillaging hobo) is their proprietary business intelligence and good luck convincing them otherwise.

Defamy wouldn't apply as it's a private relationship. They're not broadcasting to the world that they think you're a con, they're just telling you... Which is fine.

chris_wot 14y ago

Where are you getting that definition from? I have used Wikipedia for the definition of how one proves libel: There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. Of course, there is no citation. I just added the {{fact}} tag. But does anyone know if this is true or not?

unreal37 14y ago
Telling her privately that her account is associated with a fraudulent account has not caused her any harm, thus its not libeled her. Only if they published it to the world, she could claim her reputation has been harmed.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Actually, it did because she lost all her books and she isn't able to get them back.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    The loss of books has nothing to do with the speech act of libel.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      "Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm."
      - dangrossman 14y ago
        1:00 PM -- fraud system links her account to another banned account 1:00 PM -- her account is closed 2:00 PM -- she asks Amazon why her account is closed 3:00 PM -- Amazon makes the statement you claim is libelous The loss occurred before the statement, so you cannot claim the statement caused that loss. The alleged libel did not result in the damages you're claiming. Libel would be if Amazon falsely accused her of fraud in public, then her employer terminating her employment as a result of that statement. That is a harm resulting from the statement.
jiggy2011 14y ago
The last one seems a little odd "the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement". What is to stop somebody extensively researching something but then just deciding to lie anyway?
- Evbn 14y ago
  Pretty sure the actual law clarifies that the speaker must have a reason to believe the claim even after engaging in some research. And that reason to disbelieve the claim is not a defense.
oliwarner 14y ago
On the same page, "it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed". If I tell you I think you're lazy, that's rude but it isn't defamy. If I write you a letter and you publish it, it's still not defamy. If I talk to your boss and tell him I think you're lazy (without evidence) that may be defamy. If I publish a letter to you telling you you're lazy, that may be defamy. And no, this has nothing to do with the rest of the issue.

rmc 14y ago

Depends. In the EU, companies are legally required to store personal data accurately. It doesn't matter if they don't tell anyone (in fact often they cannot tell people, privacy and all that). If you tell them that personal data they have one you is incorrect, they are legally required to correct it. So yes, if the data is wrong, they might be breaking the law.

chris_wot 14y ago
Not just in Europe - Australia has similar privacy legislation also. If a company is storing incorrect information about you, you can request to see your record and then have them correct that record. If they won't, the Privacy Commissioner can investigate and order them to do so.
oliwarner 14y ago
I don't know... Even in records, Amazon are allowed to inaccurately call you a filthy good-for-nothing and these would not be subject to EU Privacy requests. They're not FOIA requests. You don't get to request a copy of your whole file like you can with the FBI. Amazon is not a public body. Its privacy requirements are limited to giving you a copy of your personal information. Name. Address. Phone number. Anything else (including the marker labelling you as a pillaging hobo) is their proprietary business intelligence and good luck convincing them otherwise.