为啥那个帖子走法院程序了?

为啥那个帖子走法院程序了?

不知道LLZ给了屎盖多少钱啊！！！！！很想知道啊啊。。

大家快来看啊。。又有人被禁言啦！！！

真相没有啦。有人被禁言了

游客

阿发的岳父 发表于 2014-9-18 22:38
楼上的你能不能不这么赤裸裸的剽窃我的发言？连个引号都不用？

你的发言已经不见了,天维小猪手已经向你伸出了小黑猪手

dino8ielts

哈哈哈

拜托屎盖 好歹整个pdf 然后放个假名 专业一点好不好

Heat

honeybabesc 发表于 2014-9-18 19:41
我太閒照著監督版律師信上的keyword去google......大概知道是誰

點兩下那封律師信好像"答案"就在最底下.......

阿发的岳父

楼上的你能不能不这么赤裸裸的剽窃我的发言？连个引号都不用？

巅峰科技

onlinemarket 发表于 2014-9-18 22:32
刚才去监督版看了一下律师信，尼玛我真是笑cry了。为什么呢？律师信上姓名遮了个严严实实，结果我点了一下， ...

哈哈哈~~你太机制了

只能说小助手也有智商捉急的时候啊~~

love_3_month

阿发的岳父 发表于 2014-9-18 22:13
刚才去监督版看了一下律师信，尼玛我真是笑cry了。为什么呢？律师信上姓名遮了个严严实实，结果我点了一下， ...

哈哈哈哈哈

匿名者 发表于 2014-9-18 22:22
+1。。。。

+1。。。。。

dino8ielts 发表于 2014-9-18 22:18
其实是屎盖收钱封嘴..............

+1。。。。

dino8ielts

其实是屎盖收钱封嘴..............

kiwibom

灰色夜宵 发表于 2014-9-18 21:13
看了这贴 我只想问删帖的小助手， 为什么非要求有证据才可以发那帖子？
下面写的很清楚 可以是honest opin ...

＋1 ，可能defamation 都构不成呢

1. lou zhu’s defamatory statement publications are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged 造成大家对中介的评价降低，成立 2. Identification. Plaintiff must be able to show that the defamatory words referred to him. not necessary named 能猜到是哪个中介吗？好像猜不到吧？不然大家不会问是谁了？就算能猜到，defences available as honest opinion or truth

zldw

luckycat 发表于 2014-9-18 21:40
哪个中介阿？请pm

请看70楼，

经济学人 发表于 2014-9-18 21:46
大家感觉明天屎盖会不会发个声明说昨天删帖是临时工干的

然后临时工再再使盖这里发个帖子

然后就是circle 了。

经济学人

大家感觉明天屎盖会不会发个声明说昨天删帖是临时工干的

luckycat

oplwy 发表于 2014-9-18 17:00
好吧 我最喜欢八卦了

就是那个著名北岸卖房中介z卖房给某楼主。房子200多写成300，买家质疑，该中介说 ...

哪个中介阿？请pm

灰色夜宵

请事主建议reaa 要求他们把这个case放在公众数据库里

skywindcn

4InLove 发表于 2014-9-18 21:18
reaa在 45楼

看到了，不过在reaa没查到，挺奇怪的

灰色夜宵 发表于 2014-9-18 21:13
看了这贴 我只想问删帖的小助手， 为什么非要求有证据才可以发那帖子？
下面写的很清楚 可以是honest opin ...

讲道理神码的都没用了

黑白大家都知道

删帖的目的是为了阻止更多的人看到。

晒太阳的猫啊

skywindcn 发表于 2014-9-18 21:14
在6park没有看到reea的信的图片，难道是需要登录？

缘聚新西兰里第一个

4InLove

skywindcn 发表于 2014-9-18 21:14
在6park没有看到reea的信的图片，难道是需要登录？

reaa在 45楼

skywindcn

在6park没有看到reea的信的图片，难道是需要登录？

灰色夜宵

发重了。。。 删除一个

灰色夜宵

看了这贴 我只想问删帖的小助手， 为什么非要求有证据才可以发那帖子？
下面写的很清楚 可以是honest opinion 而且既然有reaa的decision已经可以说是truth了
再来 11条 11 Defendant not required to prove truth of every statement of fact 写的也很清楚 不需要有十足的证据，那么你这里的根据是律师信 而律师信的根据是Defamation 那么自然要refer Defamation Act  既然act里说不需要证据 那么你要证据的根据是哪里来

Part 2
Defences

Truth


8 Truth


(1) In proceedings for defamation, the defence known before the commencement of this Act as the defence of justification shall, after the commencement of this Act, be known as the defence of truth.


(2) In proceedings for defamation based on only some of the matter contained in a publication, the defendant may allege and prove any facts contained in the whole of the publication.


(3) In proceedings for defamation, a defence of truth shall succeed if—

(a) the defendant proves that the imputations contained in the matter that is the subject of the proceedings were true, or not materially different from the truth; or


(b) where the proceedings are based on all or any of the matter contained in a publication, the defendant proves that the publication taken as a whole was in substance true, or was in substance not materially different from the truth.


Compare: 1954 No 46 s 7


Honest opinion


9 Honest opinion


In proceedings for defamation, the defence known before the commencement of this Act as the defence of fair comment shall, after the commencement of this Act, be known as the defence of honest opinion.



10 Opinion must be genuine


(1) In any proceedings for defamation in respect of matter that includes or consists of an expression of opinion, a defence of honest opinion by a defendant who is the author of the matter containing the opinion shall fail unless the defendant proves that the opinion expressed was the defendant's genuine opinion.


(2) In any proceedings for defamation in respect of matter that includes or consists of an expression of opinion, a defence of honest opinion by a defendant who is not the author of the matter containing the opinion shall fail unless,—

(a) where the author of the matter containing the opinion was, at the time of the publication of that matter, an employee or agent of the defendant, the defendant proves that—

(i) the opinion, in its context and in the circumstances of the publication of the matter that is the subject of the proceedings, did not purport to be the opinion of the defendant; and


(ii) the defendant believed that the opinion was the genuine opinion of the author of the matter containing the opinion:



(b) where the author of the matter containing the opinion was not an employee or agent of the defendant at the time of the publication of that matter, the defendant proves that—

(i) the opinion, in its context and in the circumstances of the publication of the matter that is the subject of the proceedings, did not purport to be the opinion of the defendant or of any employee or agent of the defendant; and


(ii) the defendant had no reasonable cause to believe that the opinion was not the genuine opinion of the author of the matter containing the opinion.




(3) A defence of honest opinion shall not fail because the defendant was motivated by malice.



11 Defendant not required to prove truth of every statement of fact


In proceedings for defamation in respect of matter that consists partly of statements of fact and partly of statements of opinion, a defence of honest opinion shall not fail merely because the defendant does not prove the truth of every statement of fact if the opinion is shown to be genuine opinion having regard to—

(a) those facts (being facts that are alleged or referred to in the publication containing the matter that is the subject of the proceedings) that are proved to be true, or not materially different from the truth; or


(b) any other facts that were generally known at the time of the publication and are proved to be true.


Compare: 1954 No 46 s 8



12 Honest opinion where corrupt motive attributed to plaintiff


In any proceedings for defamation in which the defendant relies on a defence of honest opinion, the fact that the matter that is the subject of the proceedings attributes a dishonourable, corrupt, or base motive to the plaintiff does not require the defendant to prove anything that the defendant would not be required to prove if the matter did not attribute any such motive.