MNHQ deleting criticisms of Forever Living at their reqyest

[SpaceUnicorn]

What's going on here?:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2726507-what-is-Forever-Living?watched=1&msgid=63470371#63470371


You've deleted multiple comments that were critical of FL, apparently at their request, and the reason given in your comment on that thread is disingenuous.

[SpaceUnicorn]

And there's a typo in my thread title - boo!

[WellErrr]

Maybe Olivia's selling Clean 9s and aloe juice on the side?

[SpaceUnicorn]

That's a more reasonable explanation than the one we've been given so far!

[RebeccaMumsnet]

Hi all,

FL have been in touch numerous times this year and we have been asking them to initiate section 5 of the defamation act which deals with potentially defamatory information that has been posted on websites.

What we have found when going through that process is that many users would rather have their posts removed than risk having their personal information handed over for FL to then take personal legal action against them.

A section 5 process looks like this:

We receive a complaint.

We ask for a formal complaint that has to include a number of things including why they feel that post is defamatory.

We mail the poster and ask if they'd like the post to stand and they give us their info or if they'd like it removed. We also ask if they are happy or not for us to hand their info over to the complainant.

We then either keep the post or remove it.

If we have a poster's info and they wish to stand by their post but not hand over their details to the complainant, the complainant can then go to court and ask for a court order that would mean we have to hand the personal info over and a poster can then be taken to court as an individual.

If the poster refuses to give us their info, then we would have to take the post down under the Defamation act.

Apologies if that's confusing, there's more on this here: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269138/defamation-guidance.pdf

We are more than happy to reinstate the removed posts but users have to know that they can be held personally responsible for the words that they write and there is a chance that they can be taken to court.

We are all for freedom of speech, that is why we allow the threads to run as we do but we do need to hammer home that folks are personally responsible for their words.

Apologies for running ahead on this one and removing posts, we do try our best to get it right. Thanks for starting the thread.

Please do report your removed post if you would like it reinstated.

[Cherryskypie]

I have no opinion on Forever Living.

The Daily Mail has some thoughts though.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3598017/Can-really-earn-350-000-year-selling-aloe-vera-thousands-women-join-controversial-home-selling-empire-read-Candice-s-cautionary-tale.html

[WellErrr]

Cherry

Sorry it's giving you a headache HQ. It's like GF all over again....

FWIW I think FL is great. Really great. Granted, I haven't tried the products so cannot have an informed opinion on them, but it has been a fantastic way of weeding out my Facebook friends list

Cheers Forever Living!

[EmmaGellerGreen]

Yes, Forever Living is great. It helped me see what "friends" were really like quickly and to keep away from them. So thank you Forever Living, you've been a real help.

[SpaceUnicorn]

Thanks for the additional explanation, Rebecca.

I'm going to look further into this, in terms of the legal aspect. I'm 99.9% convinced that FL are employing scare tactics as I don't believe for one minute that they would voluntarily submit their business practices to the scrutiny of a court case, given how oblique much of it appears to be, but I need to get that final 0.1% in place

[Hmmnotkeen]

Appreciate the explanation Rebecca.

Hardly a suprise Forever Living don't like having their business model examined on the internet.

[fastdaytears]

Tricky to get a very long way with defamation when the people "defaming" you are right...

I can totally understand though why posters would rather be deleted than get involved.

[lougle]

That guidance makes it into a game of poker.

[MothersGrim]

Hang on, what information does MNHQ hold on us? Is it not just an email address?

[lougle]

If you read the link, once a challenge has been made, MNHQ have to say to you 'either we delete the comment or you give us your details to pass on to the complainant'. If you want the comment to stand, you agree to give your details. If you refuse, MNHQ can't get a response from you, or they have reason to believe the info you give them is obviously false (i.e. Mickey Mouse @ Disney Palace) then they have to delete the comment or they become the defendant.

Having said that, if someone gives them plausible but incorrect details, MNHQ have no obligation to check the veracity of them.

[BeyondASpecialSnowflake]

I'd certainly find it interesting to watch them attempt to prove defamation in court. Almost tempted enough to say something derogatory about them so they attempt to sue me!

Defamation has to be proven to be false information. I certainly haven't seen any false information on the threads I have read...

And I'd love to watch a counter claim about their advertising...

[HowardTJMoon]

Under UK law a libel doesn't have to be proven false in court. The person accused of the libel has to either demonstrate that what they wrote is true or that it's otherwise protected (eg, satire).

This burden of proof is why the UK is considered a great venue for people wanting to launch a libel case.